<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: &#8220;Untested Conspiracy Theory Seeks to Expand DUI Liability&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/08/untested-conspiracy-theory-seeks-to-expand-dui-liability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/08/untested-conspiracy-theory-seeks-to-expand-dui-liability/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:03:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: nevins		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/08/untested-conspiracy-theory-seeks-to-expand-dui-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-3803</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nevins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3832#comment-3803</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Perhaps this is not as outrageous as we might initially consider.  Obveously we lack many facts of the case, but on the premises presented in the post, it seems as if the charge of enabling might be true.  The defendant, suspecting potential future liability from illegal acts he fully intended to continue (drunk driving) transferred his wealth to his wife&#039;s name to protect his assets from future judgement.  Read that way and it certainly could constitute a conspiracy.  Why would the plaintiff need to go after the wife with the assets?  Because the defendant moved them in an asset protection plan.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps this is not as outrageous as we might initially consider.  Obveously we lack many facts of the case, but on the premises presented in the post, it seems as if the charge of enabling might be true.  The defendant, suspecting potential future liability from illegal acts he fully intended to continue (drunk driving) transferred his wealth to his wife&#8217;s name to protect his assets from future judgement.  Read that way and it certainly could constitute a conspiracy.  Why would the plaintiff need to go after the wife with the assets?  Because the defendant moved them in an asset protection plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
