|
Don't loving admit anything in a release you doofus KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS snipe
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Anyone know if a public university in Illinois has to dedicate streets and sidewalks for public use as a condition of developing property? I know that they generally do in states like California and Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
If that was the paraphrasing, I cringe to imagine how awesome the real document is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You have two options. (1) Do nothing and hope that you slipped through the cracks. (2) Bring them your ticket and pay it and keep your inspection current from now on. Yep, it's current now. I was only recently able to afford to fix the problems that were preventing the vehicle from passing inspection, hence it being expired for awhile. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS snipe My judge recently received an attachment to a judgment of divorce -- in theory, pretty standard "A gets B, X gets Y" stuff. Except the person drafting it was pro per so it started off with "I, [Plaintiff,] being of sound mind and body, do hereby declare..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ, COMES NOW [PLAINTIFF] HAVING BUSINESS BEFORE THIS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF SMALL CLAIMS, DULY SWEARETH AND AFFIRMETH IT TO BE TRUE THAT....
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ, COMES NOW [PLAINTIFF] HAVING BUSINESS BEFORE THIS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF SMALL CLAIMS, DULY SWEARETH AND AFFIRMETH IT TO BE TRUE THAT.... ...I ran into a fence and I don't want to PAY for it. How can I, my heirs, and anyone I've ever met, not be responsible for it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
I think they need to gussy up that contract a little. Without any "party of the first part" action, it just seems subpar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 09:29
|
|
|
Question re: Florida: My dad passed away in December, and apparently he had a "Health Savings Account" with a bank in Kansas. There is no estate, and we are trying to recover the funds. The Kansas bank has already received a copy of the death certificate, but they won't transfer the funds to us until we can prove that there is no estate and that it is legal for them to do so. Specifically, they said they require a "no estate affidavit." I've tried calling the local probate court in Florida, but they've been very unhelpful. 9 out of 10 times that I have called (over the span of a week) there is no answer; if I leave a message, they never call me back. The one time I did speak to somebody, she didn't know how to help me (had never heard of a "no estate affidavit") so she transferred me to their supervisor, only for the call to be disconnected. I would just go there in person, but I'm currently working in Atlanta so that's not an option. Is there anyone who is familiar with estate/probate law in Florida that can give me some general information about how bank funds/etc. are recovered by the family when there is no estate? Does anyone know of a form that establishes that there is no estate and that it is legal for the Kansas bank to relinquish the funds? I've been trying to find this information online to no avail. Sorry if this is vague; I have been mostly detached from the legal process involving his death up to this point, as it was being handled by a relative. I apologize if I left out any important details in this post. Excal fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Aug 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
Excal posted:Question re: Florida: Could you be looking for a Kansas "small estate affidavit"? (link) Florida has a "no estate tax owed affidavit" (link) but it's unlikely a Kansas bank would be aware of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Facts: Truck is going down the road normally and abruptly stops after passing an open spot on the side of the road. Truck decides it wants to parallel park. Car behind truck stops safely and fully with 3 to 4 feet distance between the truck. Truck puts gear into reverse and ends up at an angle ramming the left corner of his truck into the right front side of the car still stationary behind him. I was the car behind the car that got hit. Minor collision no injuries. I was just curious as to who is probably to be at fault. My extent of vehicle law is that the car in the back is usually considered at fault? Jurisdiction would be California.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 03:18
|
|
|
Excal posted:Question re: Florida: Basically, banks are leery of distributing cash to family members who claim there is no estate, because then some other family member pops up and says "Wait a minute, I'm the executor and you should only have released those funds to me!" So banks basically want to make absolutely certain they are releasing the funds to the right person. If the Florida probate clerk's office won't issue you some sort of certified document stating that there is no probate estate to be opened, then you may just have to open a small estate, get yourself appointed executor, and then get the funds from the bank. Sucks, but hey that's what happens when people don't do appropriate estate planning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
BusinessWallet posted:I recently found a judgment for a credit card for $850 on my credit report. I was never served and it took me a really long time to actually find out where to contact to find out when and where I was served. After doing a bit of research I finally found the right people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
Chiken n' Waffles posted:Facts: Truck is going down the road normally and abruptly stops after passing an open spot on the side of the road. Truck decides it wants to parallel park. Car behind truck stops safely and fully with 3 to 4 feet distance between the truck. Truck puts gear into reverse and ends up at an angle ramming the left corner of his truck into the right front side of the car still stationary behind him. Unless California has a specific statute on this then 'the car behind is at fault' is just a rule of thumb that applies to the ordinary course of driving (the assumption being that any accident is usually because you didn't leave enough space). It doesn't apply when the car in front starts reversing without notice. I'd need a bit more detail about what exactly happened but seems like you should be in the clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 08:39
|
|
|
BusinessWallet posted:Does anyone have any idea on this? There are lots of words in your post. Generally speaking, a judgment rendered without service is void. But the problem is, you typically have to file a motion, supported by evidence, to get the court to void the judgment. It is not the sort of thing that can usually get resolved by calling the clerk, who cannot act as your advocate or give you legal advice. So you can hire a lawyer to collect and present the facts that you have outlined above. But consider this instead - the reason they haven't garnished you is because they can't find you. You may want to call the lawyer for Capital One (from a pay phone) and offer them half of the balance due to agree to void the judgment and release you from any further liability. Have them send the paperwork to a throw-away email account for you to print out, sign and send back with a check. Not legal advice, just a thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
So, I was laid off from my job about a year ago due to a lack of work according to my exit interview and my supervisor. If some individuals are stating that I was fired that still work for the company but off company time, would I sue them or the company? How much would I even sue for? Yes, I know it sounds like I should probably consult a real lawyer, which I may but in the mean-time i'll throw it on here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Are you black, a woman, old, young, disabled or gay? If so, is there any reason to believe that you were fired for those reasons? Does that reason involve similarly situated people being fired or retained based upon their status? If you answered no to any of these you are probably hosed (if you worked in the US). Most of America is at-will employment. File an unemployment claim and join the breadlines like the rest of us. e. wait, is this a slander claim? In that case you're even more hosed. If they disparage your professional capacity you may have a cause of action against them. That said, you're going to have to prove that they knew that they were lying. Considering that you got laid off, I doubt this would be even remotely possible. Calm down JudicialRestraints fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Are you black, a woman, old, young, disabled or gay? I think this is a defamation question. I find it hard to beleive that there might be vicarious liability for defamation in the USA so he probably needs to go after the individuals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Trying to parse this... so you're saying that (1) you were laid off, and (2) some people who work where you used to work, (3) at some time other than while at work, (4) tell people you were fired? Who cares? Unless they're somehow sabotaging your attempts to find gainful employment, why even get worked up about it? Regardless, what you're looking at is a defamation suit, slander to be precise. As for how much you'd sue for, the fact that you don't have an identifiable amount in mind suggests you haven't really been harmed by their comments. I gather that this upsets you for some reason, but you aren't going to get very far simply claiming "emotional harm." If you could prove that you suffered economic losses (see above comment about loss of work opportunity) then you might have something to work with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:Trying to parse this... so you're saying that (1) you were laid off, and (2) some people who work where you used to work, (3) at some time other than while at work, (4) tell people you were fired? I live in a town less than 100k, word of mouth, connections is what gets you a job and with the economy the way it is they're aren't many of them. And being out of work for a year, unable to find employment - I think I've got a reason to be upset at least, though - as you said - I'm not sure if I've got a legal case. Though, it strikes me as strange as if someone can talk about something as this and get a away with it? Granted, I don't know positively that I've lost anything to due to them saying I was fired but how would I even know? Isn't it quite unlikely I'd found out? Would any company care to begin with since they've already hired someone for that position? Do they have even a legal obligation to respond to my requests? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Aug 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
I sang karaoke on my college campus (a public state university) and someone videotaped my performance and put it up on youtube a few years later with my full name so it comes up when you google me. I want it taken down, but he won't take it down. Is it appropriate for me to contact YouTube and request it taken down for copyright infringement since it was my performance? Or does he own the copyright since he videotaped it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Granted, I don't know positively that I've lost anything to due to them saying I was fired but how would I even know? As a general rule, in order to win an action for defamation, you have to prove damages. (There is a very narrow exception to this rule, but so far, you haven't triggered it in my mind.) If you haven't proven damages, you haven't proven the elements of your claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I live in a town less than 100k, word of mouth, connections is what gets you a job and with the economy the way it is they're aren't many of them. And being out of work for a year, unable to find employment - I think I've got a reason to be upset at least, though - as you said - I'm not sure if I've got a legal case. Though, it strikes me as strange as if someone can talk about something as this and get a away with it? If you're not even sure they harmed you, why sue in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:As a general rule, in order to win an action for defamation, you have to prove damages. (There is a very narrow exception to this rule, but so far, you haven't triggered it in my mind.) Generally, critiquing someone in their professional capacity or otherwise disparaging their work is one of the defamation exceptions. That said, he's going to be unable to prove malice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I live in a town less than 100k, word of mouth, connections is what gets you a job and with the economy the way it is they're aren't many of them. And being out of work for a year, unable to find employment - I think I've got a reason to be upset at least, though - as you said - I'm not sure if I've got a legal case. Though, it strikes me as strange as if someone can talk about something as this and get a away with it? Are you saying that these former co-workers told your prospective employers that you were fired? Or that they were just telling people that, and you're concerned it would have through other people reached prospective employers? Here's some questions for you: 1. Do you have money to hire a lawyer to pursue this against them? Slander cases are hard to win, so I would expect a lawyer to want full payment up front. 2. Are these individuals actually collectible if you did win a civil case against them? 3. If it's such a small town where everyone hears about everything that goes on, are you fine with this action negatively affecting people's (including prospective employers) opinions of you? If your answers to all of those aren't yes, then I think you should just move on. If you answers are yes though, then: 1. Did you hear these former co-workers make these statements yourself, or through other people? 2. If through other people, will these people be willing to go on record for you as saying that these former co-workers were telling people you were fired? 3. Your lawyer would be able to tell you if in your case damages would be assumed, or if you would have to provide evidence of damages. Can you provide evidence if needed? I think the best thing you can do is just let it go. If you really feel like you must do something, then politely contact these former co-workers and let them know that you don't appreciate them spreading around that you were fired when you weren't, and you would like them to stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:I sang karaoke on my college campus (a public state university) and someone videotaped my performance and put it up on youtube a few years later with my full name so it comes up when you google me. I want it taken down, but he won't take it down. Have you tried contacting YouTube and just asking them to take it down without threatening them? Because they might just do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:If you're not even sure they harmed you, why sue in the first place? Because, it very well could? dvgrhl posted:Are you saying that these former co-workers told your prospective employers that you were fired? Or that they were just telling people that, and you're concerned it would have through other people reached prospective employers? Well, no I don't but from what I know it's been stated so casually and considering the character of the individuals - it wouldn't surprise me if I found it were true. I'll admit I am a bit naive about this but it certainly feels that you believe I should just get over this? Which, I mean, I would it's just that being unemployed for a quite, this makes me quite angry and quite surprised that individuals can quite simply "trash talk" ones past employment easily, even if it's a total lie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Well, no I don't but from what I know it's been stated so casually and considering the character of the individuals - it wouldn't surprise me if I found it were true. It really sounds like you're frustrated about your employment situation, and that's causing you to be more upset about this than you normally would be. You don't even sound like you know for sure that they have been saying this. That's even more reason to just forget the situation and move on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:It really sounds like you're frustrated about your employment situation, and that's causing you to be more upset about this than you normally would be. You don't even sound like you know for sure that they have been saying this. That's even more reason to just forget the situation and move on. I know they said it, but you're right former. Though, I'll probably let it go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Generally, critiquing someone in their professional capacity or otherwise disparaging their work is one of the defamation exceptions. That said, he's going to be unable to prove malice. I think your definition is overbroad, but that's not the point. Yes, one of the defamation per se categories is "injurious to the plaintiff's trade, business, or profession." I don't know that "Plaintiff got fired" rises to that level. A person can "get fired" for any number of reasons, including wrongful discharge, standard downsizing, etc. Now we're crossing into "defamatory meaning" territory, but I've explained my thinking. Having done no research on the issue, I don't think the statement we're given falls within defamation per se.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Because, it very well could? Sounds like you're satisfied with other people's answer, but just so you know the law doesn't acknowledge things that "could" or "might be" happening. As frustrating as that is, sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
Defamation is so hard to establish anyway and so expensive you are probably better off letting it go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Have you tried contacting YouTube and just asking them to take it down without threatening them? Because they might just do it. I'll try that, but I'm also just curious about the copyright issue. Who owns the copyright for that performance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Colorblind Pilot posted:I'll try that, but I'm also just curious about the copyright issue. Who owns the copyright for that performance? Usually the right lies in the person making the recording. That's why theatres/cinemas etc reserve the right beforehand to remove anyone making a recording and as part of your entry to agree not to make one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Usually the right lies in the person making the recording. That's why theatres/cinemas etc reserve the right beforehand to remove anyone making a recording and as part of your entry to agree not to make one. I wonder if there's an underlying copyright issue for recording the song he was singing along with the karaoke track. Presumably he wasn't the original composer, and YouTube acts pretty quickly on copyright infringement when it involves major labels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I wonder if there's an underlying copyright issue for recording the song he was singing along with the karaoke track. Presumably he wasn't the original composer, and YouTube acts pretty quickly on copyright infringement when it involves major labels. Probably depends if it was an 'official' karaoke track, in which case you'd have presumed concent from the composer and the performance of course is his own. Then you've got issues over whether or not it was a public or private performance (moot given he didn't attempt to assert at the time but legally interesting).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
I'm in a bit of a pickle.. are there any lawyer goons in here in eastern washington state? the jurisdiction is adams county outside ritzville south of spokane. I've talked to a few attorneys.. about 8.. can't afford any of them, was wondering if there was anyone that reads this practicing in this area that could I could talk to. Can provide more information as needed but the first post said not to talk about your case if you're a criminal defendant. It's a traffic matter, wreckless driving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
Ingen posted:It's a traffic matter, wreckless driving. If it's wreck-less, there shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 08:49
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:If it's wreck-less, there shouldn't be a problem. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
So I've had a 50$ mastercard Vanilla gift card I got for Christmas 2008, the card is now empty because they've been charging me dormancy fees since 7 months of dormancy after date of purchase. I live in Toronto, and the Ontario Consumer Protection act states dormancy fees can be charged no earlier than 15 months of dormancy on an 'open loop gift card'. Also that a notice must appear on the front of the card stating there is fee information on the back. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_050017_e.htm#s25p4s2p1 Wikipedia says an 'open loop gift card' is essentially what I have- namely a kind of debit card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored-value_card), and even if that werent the case, the legislation says cards that arent 'open loop'cannot charge a dormancy fee. I wanted to ask Ontario legal goons if I'm actually eligible to get my 50$ back or if I'm missing something. (The reluctance of any corporation to admit wrong-doing notwithstanding) Lamb-Blaster 4000 fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 15:31
|
|
