|
OMGLOLetcetc posted:for the past year, I have asked for pay stubs from my employer, but never got them. They said that they never gave out stubs before, and didnt feel the need to start now. But I need them for various State run programs I am a part of (Daycare, Welfare, etc) and its a bitch trying to provide proof that I work to these folks. Did you fill out a W-4 when you started working? Did you get a W-2 this last January? What kind of work do you do?
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Did you fill out a W-4 when you started working? Did you get a W-2 this last January? What kind of work do you do? Yeah, I got a W2 and filled out a W4. Im in IT Support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
Cross-posting this from a thread I stupidly opened without seeing this one. Closed the other one. Long story short, I loaned $1500 to someone I shouldn't have. I have a signed contract, proof that I sent them the money, proof that I followed the contract, etc. Trying to learn how to use the legal system. I'm a university student, but my university does not have a legal aid department. -- About two years ago now, I bought shares in a friend-of-a-friend's Alberta registered numbered corporation, as a sort of "favor". He had a decent business plan, but I wasn't really banking on it, I took it as a personal loan (maybe I got screwed on this... I guess we'll find out). Immediately, I identified the risk of the company simply declaring bankruptcy/being dissolved without settling its debt and asked for a guarantee; so in fact there's two contracts. The primary contract looks something like: I buy 1500 shares at $1 a share, the company pays $0.20 a share dividends every 365 days, if in the last 365 days the company hasn't issued dividends of $0.20 a share, I can demand that the shares be repurchased at $1.20 a share each (or the prime rate + 10%, whichever is higher). This works out to a repayment of $300 a year PLUS $1800 whenever I get bought out. I lost contact with this guy a few months ago. Sort of. By that, I mean, he intentionally cut off contact as soon as I mentioned to him that the second bout of 365 days was coming up. The first time around, I accepted that the company did $300 worth of programming work for me instead of cutting me a check. This time I wanted my money. 365 days came, went, I tried to contact him a few more times with no success, so I sent him and the company registered mail detailing my request for repayment at $1800 under the clause of the contract that indicated that. After I had sent the mail, he responded to my message on Facebook (I tried Facebook, E-mail, Phone and registered mail for good measure) with this: quote:You'll get your $1800 asap. The sooner the better, then I don't have to put up with you, etc., etc., etc. Save the stamp on sending registered mail or whatever, I'm quite clear on what your request is. =\ I guess its a good thing he acknowledged me finally? The registered mail was delivered and I have a delivery confirmation via Canada Post, but no signature (even though I paid extra to make sure he had to sign for it?). I think all this adds up to a pretty cut'n'dry proceeding, but I'd like to learn everything I can about the process. Discussion part: So here's the plan: lawyer up (over $1800?!? what do I do about this?), file in Alberta small claims, go to court, win, he pays all my legal fees (assuming I can collect). Right? What's the process look like? Anything interesting anyone can tell me? I'm in B.C., not Alberta, where should I contact a lawyer? I assume in Alberta is the best bet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
edit: nevermind.
Gorko The Duck fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Aug 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
Goon Account posted:So here's the plan: lawyer up (over $1800?!? what do I do about this?), file in Alberta small claims, go to court, win, he pays all my legal fees (assuming I can collect). Right? What's the process look like? Anything interesting anyone can tell me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
Goon Account posted:
I'm not your lawyer and this is legal information, not legal advice. Your biggest problem is that you don't have a contract for an $1800 loan, you own a bunch of shares. There's ways to exercise shareholder remedies in the Alberta Business Corporations Act, however they are only available in Queen's Bench. Do you have copies of the articles of the corporation or any share certificates? Edit: Wait, did you say the contract of purchase itself provides for dividends and redemption on demand? Schitzo fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
OMGLOLetcetc posted:Yeah, I got a W2 and filled out a W4. Im in IT Support. My first question was that they were paying you under the table, but they aren't. Now I'm wondering if they are treating you as an independent contractor and not an employee. I don't think the PA law would require pay stubs to an independent contractor. Are they withholding social security for you? I'm kind of befuddled as to why they wouldn't give you a paystub in any event. Is it the payroll folks who are telling you no? If not, ask them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:My first question was that they were paying you under the table, but they aren't. I dont want to say they are shady...but..I dont know why they wont just give me a loving stub. I know they take out for SS, Unemployment, State, Federal, etc. I was given a spread sheet at the end of the year with all taxes paid and out accountant said "Does this look about right?". Yeah, thanks douche, I dont loving know! Maybe if I had pay stubs to look back on...... Asking the accountant how to obtain stubs got me a "Hmm...might want to ask the boss". If I am a independent contractor, no one ever told me. This business is all over the place. How they have been in business for over 20 years is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
I need some advice. Several years ago, I (quite stupidly) attempted to shoplift a small item and was caught. It was charged not as a misdemeanor, but as an infraction, under California state penal code 490.1. I pled guilty and paid a small fine. I've looked this up and some people say that an infraction such as this will not appear on my criminal record or in a background check, but I suspect this is not true. Right now I am applying to law school. It would sure make things easier if I did not have to disclose this incident. Most law school applications ask if one has ever been convicted of a crime, not including minor traffic violations. It is somewhat unclear to me whether or not this infraction is considered a "crime," per se, as the California state penal code clearly states that "A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury." And elsewhere, the penal code states that "no person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury." But, yet another section of the penal code declares that "crimes" include not just felonies and misdemeanors, but infractions. So, do I have an obligation to disclose this incident, and more importantly, when I take the bar exam someday, will the bar association discover it? What kind of background check do they perform, anyway, and does this appear on my criminal record or not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:Edit: Wait, did you say the contract of purchase itself provides for dividends and redemption on demand? Yes. The contract for purchase of the shares includes both dividends and redemption clauses. I do not have articles of incorporation nor any share certificates. The corporation is a valid, registered-in-the-province-of-Alberta corporation. As for it making financial sense, if it was pretty much guaranteed that I'll win, I'd do it even if I don't come out ahead at all, cause I'm angry and it feels like justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 06:45
|
|
|
I Am Not Clever posted:I need some advice. Several years ago, I (quite stupidly) attempted to shoplift a small item and was caught. It was charged not as a misdemeanor, but as an infraction, under California state penal code 490.1. I pled guilty and paid a small fine. Disclose it now. Then disclose it on the bar exam. The reason law schools ask, is because they have an obligation not to accept you if you cannot pass the character and fitness portion of the exam. So in essence, if they have a problem with it, good, they've just saved you 150,000 dollars. Also, don't go to law school. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
I Am Not Clever posted:I need some advice. Several years ago, I (quite stupidly) attempted to shoplift a small item and was caught. It was charged not as a misdemeanor, but as an infraction, under California state penal code 490.1. I pled guilty and paid a small fine. Disclose it because otherwise, when you try to take the bar exam, it will show up on your background check, the bar association will check with your law school to see if you disclosed it, which you won't have done, and then you'll become ineligible for the bar because (1) you lied on forms you put your signature to and (2) your law school will void your diploma for lying on your admissions form. You can get into law school with a guilty plea to a shoplifting infraction. I know a dude who was is in law school with literally 4 DUIs. Write a little blurb about how your brush with the law caused a change in your life's direction. Also, don't go to law school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 08:43
|
|
|
^Thanks, both of you. And thanks for the tip on how to spin it. Sounds good. Not untrue, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 10:01
|
|
|
Perhaps you missed the part about don't go to law school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 10:10
|
|
|
To basically repeat both of those responses, the relevant C&F question for the bar exam here (not California, but probably similar) reads:quote:Have you either as an adult or a juvenile, ever been served with a criminal summons, questioned, arrested, taken into custody, indicted, charged with, tried for, pleaded guilty to or been convicted of, or ever been the subject of an investigation concerning the violation of any law, statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or canon? (In answering this question, include all incidents, no matter how trivial or minor the infraction or whether guilty or not, whether expunged or not, whether you believe or were advised that you need not disclose any such instance. At that point you'll have to disclose it, and they'll specifically look to see whether it was left off your law school application. Generally speaking, not disclosing is way worse than whatever it is you did. There's a fun case taught in most ethics classes about a guy who ran an international drug ring or thereabouts before applying to law school, and AFAIK he's still licensed to practice in NY.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 10:20
|
|
|
I have a question for anyone familiar with DWI laws. I've posted previously about my dumbass brother who keeps getting pulled over for DWI and somehow keeps getting off. For this last time (his 3rd in 3 years) he blew a .08 and I was really hoping they'd finally yank his license. Instead he got reckless driving. Is this common? His first infraction his lawyer got it plead down to reckless driving, but he hasn't even had consul these last two trips. The bastard still has insurance, I just don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
I Am Not Clever posted:I need some advice. Several years ago, I (quite stupidly) attempted to shoplift a small item and was caught. It was charged not as a misdemeanor, but as an infraction, under California state penal code 490.1. I pled guilty and paid a small fine. Theft is a crime of moral turpitude. This is actually a big deal. Also, unless the school you're applying to is UCLA, Irvine, Hastings, Davis, USC, or Boalt you should not apply. Please go to the lawthread. Read it. Have us ridicule you for your terrible ideas. You will still go to lawschool, they all still go to lawschool, but at least then we will have had a chance to convince you not to make our mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Also, don't go to law school. Seriously. Incredulous Red posted:Also, don't go to law school. SWATJester posted:Perhaps you missed the part about don't go to law school. JudicialRestraints posted:You will still go to lawschool, they all still go to lawschool, but at least then we will have had a chance to convince you not to make our mistake. eviljelly posted:DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL Jeez, did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Jeez, did I miss something? Have you not seen the lawyer/law student thread? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3301274
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan posted:Have you not seen the lawyer/law student thread? I've looked in every once in a while, but it always felt like a bunch of Type A personalities hypothesizing about how they might as well kill themselves if they didn't make it into a T6/ T12/ T14 school. Even twenty years ago when I hypothetically might have cared about that, I didn't care about it. So, not only do I not/ did I not care, my experiences are too old to be useful to anyone, anyway. The IP and 'is it possible to obey the entirety of the law' discussions are interesting, though. I'll stick my head in more. ^^^^^ Though perhaps I need to go represent for the "No, going to law doesn't automatically mean you'll hate your life and your job and pray every day for the sweet sweet release of death" position. (But for the vast majority of Type As who go to law school to go to Big Law, that may well be true...)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Goon Account posted:Yes. The contract for purchase of the shares includes both dividends and redemption clauses. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a way that that arrangement could actually be valid under corporate law principles - the articles of incorporation are what would set out dividend and redemption rights. I feel like I know the answer already, which is that it's a mess of bullshit. Do you mind PMing me the contents of the contract?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I've looked in every once in a while, but it always felt like a bunch of Type A personalities hypothesizing about how they might as well kill themselves if they didn't make it into a T6/ T12/ T14 school. Even twenty years ago when I hypothetically might have cared about that, I didn't care about it. So, not only do I not/ did I not care, my experiences are too old to be useful to anyone, anyway. You're missing it. 3 years ago it was "Woes is me, now I don't have a BigLaw job". Now it's "I graduated from a T1, T14, whatever school, and I don't have ANY job and I can't even work for Geek Squad".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
quote:Please go to the lawthread. Read it. Have us ridicule you for your terrible ideas. Done, and done. I'm still going, but if I do end up jobless and on the streets, you are more than welcome to say "I told you so."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
I Am Not Clever posted:I'm still going, but if I do end up jobless and on the streets, you are more than welcome to say "I told you so." JudicialRestraints posted:You will still go to lawschool, they all still go to lawschool
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I've looked in every once in a while, but it always felt like a bunch of Type A personalities hypothesizing about how they might as well kill themselves if they didn't make it into a T6/ T12/ T14 school. Even twenty years ago when I hypothetically might have cared about that, I didn't care about it. So, not only do I not/ did I not care, my experiences are too old to be useful to anyone, anyway. Oh, also my friend is taking the bar exam, talked to an uber-uppity Type A personality human being lawyer friend of his that went to Berkeley Law who had talked poo poo to him about my school when I was going to it. Anyways, my friend asking this human being what his chances of passing the Cali bar was without taking BarBri. He said zero. He then said "Well actually... I have this friend who did it... and he was that guy whose school you talked poo poo about when we were comparing law schools..." That made me smile. tl;dr you will succeed if you work hard, are smart, you watch your rear end, and aren't a human being
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:I went to law school to a school that takes people that do not even have a Bachelor's Degree. Its California Bar accredited, but not ABA accredited. I have a fine job making good money and I work the regular/less than 40 hours a week. Having the cool T6/T12/T14 law degree gets you in the big firms, but creativity, being smart and careful, finding a good niche, and some hard work and sweat for awhile will make you boom as an attorney even if you went to a shiatty school. Also, I passed the california bar easily without taking BarBri or any other course. Its about working smart, not hard. I met a guy who won the lottery once. Guess that means I can too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I met a guy who won the lottery once. Guess that means I can too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 00:14
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Yeah cause working hard and smart and not being an idiot has everything to do with chance. I've seen the people who fail at being an attorney; you rarely ever get anything handed to you. You have to work for it. They don't understand that. And yet, you couldn't get in to an ABA accredited school. Yeah, that's the guy I want to be giving advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a way that that arrangement could actually be valid under corporate law principles - the articles of incorporation are what would set out dividend and redemption rights. I feel like I know the answer already, which is that it's a mess of bullshit. Its likely mess of bullshit. If you give me an email address, I can send to you, but I don't have PMs. :-( Here's a small excerpt... quote:[... clip purchase price stuff ...] Edit: There's also a separate Guarantee contract with the individual, rather thn with the company, that guarantees if the Company fails to pay it, they will. Goon Account fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jul 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
Goon Account posted:Edit: There's also a separate Guarantee contract with the individual, rather thn with the company, that guarantees if the Company fails to pay it, they will. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Document your reasonable demands for payment, document the corporation's failure to pay, then small claim all of the guarantors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
"The defendant understands that during the deferred sentence period, if he is ever convicted of a felony offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony offense as a result of a violation of this deferred sentence, or if he is convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor offense as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 (a)(33)(A), including an attempt or conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor domestic violence offense, the provisions of the crime of Possession of a Weapon by a Previous Offender, C.R.S. 18-12-108, will apply. That statute prohibits the possession, use, or carrying of a firearm or other weapon covered within that statute by a person classified as a Previous Offender, and makes a violation of that statute a felony crime, punishable by a prison term, fine, or both." Does this mean that the defendant while on the deferred sentence cannot possess, use, or carry a firearm? Or if that defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor / felony while on the deferred sentence he or she cannot carry a firearm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
I have done no research into the statute at issue, nor am I offering advice specific to the facts of any individual defendant's case. However, my read on it is "anyone convicted under this statute cannot posses/own/use a firearm during the deferred sentence period and if they do and get convicted of a felony or DV misdemeanor, we'll tack on Possession of a Weapon By a Previous Offender to whatever the underlying charge is." This reading, I believe, squares with my recollection of my own jurisdiction's deferred sentencing statute, at least as of the date I did that research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I have a question for anyone familiar with DWI laws. I've posted previously about my dumbass brother who keeps getting pulled over for DWI and somehow keeps getting off. For this last time (his 3rd in 3 years) he blew a .08 and I was really hoping they'd finally yank his license. Instead he got reckless driving. Is this common? His first infraction his lawyer got it plead down to reckless driving, but he hasn't even had consul these last two trips. This situation (DWI/DUI) is very state-specific. Not only that, it is very district-specific. Not only THAT, it is very prosecutor/district attorney specific. For example, the district I used to live in had a non-negotiable first-time offender punishment - until the new head prosecutor was elected. When that occurred, the office policy changed and there was no standard first offense punishment. In MOST states (you didn't say where you are so I am generalizing) .08 is the limit, meaning you can blow a .08 without having the book thrown at you. Reckless driving was probably the most they could do to him. As far as having his first plead down: DUI/DWI cases are relatively easy to win, as sobriety tests are notoriously sketchy and often ill-administered by police officers. This makes them easy to challenge, particularly in front of juries who are pissed off that they have spend 8 hours of their lives deciding if Joe Tard blew a .08 or .09 - and they will acquit. In my experience, this leads prosecutors to make deals on DUIs. (By the way, I am stating this from a defense attorney point of view; I don't have a lot of insight into the prosecution side of things). Regarding insurance: he probably pays out the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:And yet, you couldn't get in to an ABA accredited school. Yeah, that's the guy I want to be giving advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 08:02
|
|
|
quote:I went to law school to a school that takes people that do not even have a Bachelor's Degree. Its California Bar accredited, but not ABA accredited. I have a fine job making good money and I work the regular/less than 40 hours a week. Having the cool T6/T12/T14 law degree gets you in the big firms, but creativity, being smart and careful, finding a good niche, and some hard work and sweat for awhile will make you boom as an attorney even if you went to a shiatty school. Also, I passed the california bar easily without taking BarBri or any other course. Its about working smart, not hard. This is more a Lawgoons Thread response, but seriously: how did you get your current "nice job"? Are you a practicing attorney, or do you have a nice non-attorney job? And while I accept that you may be a diamond in the rough, I don't think you should be giving out career advice to aspiring lawyers. Looking at the statistics for employment in law for graduates coming out of lower tier schools (not to mention non-accredited schools), you can see that the chance of success in law is very low at this time. Furthermore, these graduates are also typically coming out of their school with massive debt, which further depresses the value of their degree. Your tl;dr at the end is just ignorant in this economy and legal job market, because it misrepresents the tremendous risk that many law students face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 15:38
|
|
|
In the UK, can people be sued for money they don't have? Say I don't have a job and my parents pay for my upkeep and I have no assets. I drive my car into someone and they sue me for negligence or whatever - can they be awarded £100,000 despite the fact I don't have it and won't be getting it any time soon? If so, how would I be expected to pay it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Anjow posted:In the UK, can people be sued for money they don't have? Say I don't have a job and my parents pay for my upkeep and I have no assets. I drive my car into someone and they sue me for negligence or whatever - can they be awarded £100,000 despite the fact I don't have it and won't be getting it any time soon? If so, how would I be expected to pay it? I don't know about the UK, but in the US we call these folks "judgment-proof." Meaning, sure, you can get your $100,000 judgment but you are never going to collect. As an aside, here, most plaintiff attorneys won't get involved with a judgment-proof defendant claim (because generally the attorney works on a contingency fee basis: the attorney only gets paid if money is collected. If there is no money to collect, the attorney isn't going to take the case). The situation you describe is why attorneys often go for the "deep pockets" even if there is only a tenuous connection between the plaintiff and defendant. So, at least in the US, yes they can be "awarded" the money but actually getting it is a different issue. In your hypothetical, it's theoretically possible that the parents who support you (in the US) could be on the hook for the judgment, but that would be a very specific situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Disclose it now. That said, depending on how the law school application is phrased, your C&F application may require you to disclose things that your law school application does not. Like, if I remember correctly, the Illinois C&F application required you to disclose speeding tickets, where no law school application did. But, don't lie if you ever want to practice. And, reiterating what someone said, you could have a very real problem here. NoodleBaby posted:I don't know about the UK, but in the US we call these folks "judgment-proof." Meaning, sure, you can get your $100,000 judgment but you are never going to collect. As an aside, here, most plaintiff attorneys won't get involved with a judgment-proof defendant claim (because generally the attorney works on a contingency fee basis: the attorney only gets paid if money is collected. If there is no money to collect, the attorney isn't going to take the case). The situation you describe is why attorneys often go for the "deep pockets" even if there is only a tenuous connection between the plaintiff and defendant. gvibes fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jul 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Alaemon posted:I have done no research into the statute at issue, nor am I offering advice specific to the facts of any individual defendant's case. I appreciate your help and I'm sorry but I'm still having a hard time understanding even what your read on it is. Since it's a deferred sentence, there is no conviction. So what do you mean when you say anyone convicted under this statute? I'm assuming you're just saying that while this defendant is on his deferred sentence and he becomes convicted of another crime, he or she cannot posses a weapon, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 20:13
|
|