I really meant to do this a while ago:
Doos makes a appointment with the magistrate in the future regarding Wells Fargo wanting the money back and wishes to contest it, he has a presentation
That I have worked to long on. And also ask his compatriot to assist if he wishes
I rolled a separate law for each argument, it felt right
Law [1d20]=13 [1d20]=5 [1d20]=7 [1d20]=2 [1d20]=19 [1d20]=15
1. Lack of Evidence Linking the Loot to Wells Fargo’s Claim
Primary Argument: Without clear evidence tying the goods to Wells Fargo or the passengers, ownership is ambiguous, favoring the finders.
While this is a practical argument, it depends on the inability to identify or trace the goods, which may not apply to all items.
Supporting Points:
Emphasize that many recovered goods are generic or lack distinguishing features and that we have allowed Wells Fargo ownership of personal items already.
Argue that ownership cannot be established without proper evidence.
2. Emphasize Contractual Ambiguities
Primary Argument: The lack of a clear contract specifying ownership of recovered goods creates a legal gray area that favors us.
In legal disputes, ambiguity in contracts is often resolved in favor of the non-drafting party. Without explicit terms, Wells Fargo’s claim to the recovered goods weakens significantly.
Supporting Points:
Highlight the absence of provisions transferring ownership of recovered property to Wells Fargo.
Emphasize that we acted in good faith during employment.
3. Finder’s Keepers Principle
Primary Argument: The goods were stolen by the robbers, and since the passengers were indemnified, our possession is legitimate.
This argument leverages common law principles of possession and the severing of ownership through reimbursement, making it a solid legal claim.
Supporting Points:
Stress that reimbursement extinguished any claim the original owners had.
Argue that we are the first legitimate possessors of the items after the robbers were captured and did not claim anything belonged to them and are present in prison.
4. Goods Found Outside the Scope of Employment
Primary Argument: We were hired to stop highway robbery, not recover stolen property.
This argument directly challenges the foundation of Wells Fargo’s claim by separating our actions from the scope of their employment. If recovery wasn’t explicitly part of their job, the goods can be argued as independent finds.
Supporting Points:
Stress the lack of a contractual obligation to recover property.
5. It happened due to our independent actions, not Wells Fargo’s planning or directives. Moral Argument—Justice for the People
Primary Argument: Returning the goods to Wells Fargo or the passengers, who have already been compensated, would be unfair.
While this argument appeals to fairness and equity, it lacks a firm legal basis. Judges are less likely to be swayed by purely moral reasoning.
Supporting Points:
Emphasize the double compensation issue for passengers.
6. Possession of Stolen Property—Lack of Clear Ownership
There is no definitive ownership of the items, making us the rightful possessors by default.
Why it’s Strong: This argument appeals to the principle that possession often trumps unclear or ambiguous claims of ownership.
Supporting Points:
Invoke the principle of abandonment: reimbursement dissolved original ownership.
Highlight that Wells Fargo cannot definitively prove they own the recovered goods or gave a list of anything particular to recover.
Doos
