|
1. If someone checks the online court records for Palm Beach County (Florida), where I live now, the fact that I got slammed with an Involuntary Assessment for Substance Abuse and was court mandated to rehab comes up. It wasn't an arrest or anything. 2. My arrest from last summer was given an ACD which means the case will be dismissed if I stay out of trouble until the next court date at the end of March. If the case gets dismissed, will the arrest still show up on a background check? It was a misdemeanor, and this took place in New York City. I do want to eventually go into a teaching career, will these things be held against me?
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
nm posted:You have a criminal lawyer. Yeah, but if I can should I go ahead and hire an actual lawyer? My court date's not for more than a month from now, and I'm scared as all hell. I feel like they're just giving me somebody who's going to do gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Iakona posted:Yeah, but if I can should I go ahead and hire an actual lawyer? My court date's not for more than a month from now, and I'm scared as all hell. I feel like they're just giving me somebody who's going to do gently caress all. You could of course call your attorney and see if you can get the appointment moved up. Your next court appearance is almost certainly not a trial anyhow (hey, but you could call your attorney), but a pre-trial, which is why they're not talking to you more than 5 days before the hearing. Don't believe me, believe Justice Huffman of the California Appeals Court quote:" For the benefit of the uninitiated, 'dump truck' is a term commonly used by criminal defendants when complaining about the public defender. The origins of the phrase are somewhat obscure. However, it probably means that in the eyes of the defendant the public defender is simply trying to dump him rather than afford him a vigorous defense. It is an odd phenomenon familiar to all trial judges who handle arraignment calendars that some criminal defendants have a deep distrust for the public defender. This erupts from time to time in savage abuse to these long-suffering but dedicated lawyers. It is almost a truism that a criminal defendant would rather have the most inept private counsel than the most skilled and capable public defender. Often the arraigning judge appoints the public defender only to watch in silent horror as the defendant's family, having hocked the family jewels, hire a lawyer for him, sometimes a marginal misfit who is allowed to represent him only because of some ghastly mistake on the part of the Bar Examiners and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Smith v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.2d 547 [68 Cal.Rptr. 1, 440 P.2d 65]." If you want to waste a few bucks on some lovely cheap private criminal defense attorney, it is no skin off my back and I'm sure the PD would enjoy getting you off his/her caseload, but I'll bet you come off the same or worse than with a PD. Lets start. How much money do you have for an attorney? Is it at least $5,000? Because that MIGHT get you to trial. And believe me, the prosecutor knows you're not going to pay $5-10k. (Why yes, I'm a public defender. And my fellow attorneys are better than 95-99% of the hacks who call themselves private criminal defense attorneys. And you can't afford the good ones because they want $300/hr.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
I wanna forgo a free lawyer who deals with literally a dozen cases like mine every single day and who knows every court clerk, prosecutor, and JP by name. Instead, I'd like to pay a shitload of money for the guy who advertises on the side of buses, and defends DUIs when he's not suing for slip and falls. -- A person who gets arrested for no insurance
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
You guys are coming down pretty hard on a guy whose literally only contact with the courts in his entire life began a week ago. I sure as poo poo would have assumed that a public defender would be overworked and more likely to encourage a lame plea that would have moved me off his caseload, and I am willing to bet that incidents like that happen even if they are the exception. Should a layperson be expected to know that PDs>private counsel as a matter of course?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
Dude asked a question, was answered, asked the same question again. What do you want? Yeah a PD will probably have a heavy caseload and may not have the time to treat him like a special princess, but will be experienced and competent, which is not guaranteed if he goes out and spends his own money, unless he's got a lot of money to spend
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
I think everyone is giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he didn't have insurance because he can't afford it. If that's the case, he has already been told that the kind of lawyer he can afford won't be worth it. If he can plunk down thousands of dollars now, it's pretty inexcusable that he didn't have insurance in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
Iakona posted:I'm in Arkansas, and before you tell me I already know I'm an idiot. What sort of defenses do you expect an attorney to raise for you, public defender or otherwise? I don't know Arkansas law that well, but as I recall it's similar to Tennessee law (law school in Memphis so it covered some Arkansas and Mississippi law). If you were in an accident the officer can check both parties insurance regardless of fault. You are required to have insurance and did not. You're unlikely to have some neat legal legerdemain that gets you a not guilty, and a public defender is just as capable of making a good plea deal as a private attorney. Save hiring a private criminal defense lawyer for when you have a better case. This is not legal advice as I do not practice in Arkansas, I do not know the details of your case, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Texas people: Does anyone know if in a divorce community property is calculated from the date the divorce complaint is filed or the date of the divorce decree?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Texas people: Not TX person, but date is date of divorce decree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Not TX person, but date is date of divorce decree. What he said. There's a presumption of community property for property acquired during or on dissolution of marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:What he said. There's a presumption of community property for property acquired during or on dissolution of marriage. I have a stupid hypothetical, if you're willing to indulge me: say I begin the dissolution of my marriage. I happen to buy a lottery ticket during the process, and discover I won $100 million three days after all the proceedings have finished. Is the money from the ticket considered community property because I purchased the ticket during the dissolution, or is the money not community property because I claimed it after the case was closed, so to speak? Or is this just a stupid question?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:I have a stupid hypothetical, if you're willing to indulge me: say I begin the dissolution of my marriage. I happen to buy a lottery ticket during the process, and discover I won $100 million three days after all the proceedings have finished. Is the money from the ticket considered community property because I purchased the ticket during the dissolution, or is the money not community property because I claimed it after the case was closed, so to speak? Or is this just a stupid question? Not a lawyer in a community-property state, but I think the answer depends on whether the money you used to buy the ticket was considered separate property within the community property rules. It probably doesn't matter that you would claim the winnings after case closes - if you win prior to the dissolution, that's when your property right to the winnings is created, so it could still be community property. No court would respect your decision to arbitrarily wait until after the dissolution to claim the winnings. yes, it's a stupid question because winning the lottery is incredibly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
entris posted:Not a lawyer in a community-property state, but I think the answer depends on whether the money you used to buy the ticket was considered separate property within the community property rules. Nailed it. Unless in an even-more-unlikely scenario where you have a source of separate property (say an inheritance), write a check from the bank account where you keep the principal (because income from separate property is community property) and then use that to buy a lottery ticket. And even then, ennnhhhh because I'm not going to look up to see how they classify lottery winnings unless you'd like to pay me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
A quick update on my friend who was rearended, she is going through her insurance for her car and medical since she does have coverage for uninsured drivers. Apparently when you cause over $400 of damage while driving without insurance, the other person can fill out a form and have your license suspended! She is going to take care of herself first, then worry about that. Her back developed some deep bruising, so getting the medical side of things taken care of is the top priority right now. Should she bother getting pictures of that just in case she goes after the guy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Would you rather have evidence in case you need it or would you rather not have evidence and then later find out it would have helped?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:I have a stupid hypothetical, if you're willing to indulge me: say I begin the dissolution of my marriage. I happen to buy a lottery ticket during the process, and discover I won $100 million three days after all the proceedings have finished. Is the money from the ticket considered community property because I purchased the ticket during the dissolution, or is the money not community property because I claimed it after the case was closed, so to speak? Or is this just a stupid question? As i recall from that horrible family law class that I repressed to the deep dark corners of my black little soul, there is actually case law on an issue almost identical to this
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
I have a legal question, though I am uncertain if this is the proper place to ask this question. Many stores have a return policy that cites a "Federal Law" which prohibits the return of opened DVDs or other Digital Media. I have been doing some looking online, and while I can find numerous references to such a law, but no information on what law these policies reference. Is there an actual Law which prohibits the return of opened digital media (media that is not defective in any way)? If so, what law is it? I apologize if this question has already been asked, or if there is a copyright law thread somewhere, I did not see either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Galahad posted:I have a legal question, though I am uncertain if this is the proper place to ask this question. Give an example
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:As i recall from that horrible family law class that I repressed to the deep dark corners of my black little soul, there is actually case law on an issue almost identical to this This is true... and happened in my area (California)... California Family Code § 1101(h) provides that remedies for the breach of the fiduciary duty by a spouse who is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice shall include an award to the other spouse of 100 percent of any asset undisclosed or transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty. In the case of Marriage of Rossi (a 2001 case), a woman bought a winning lottery ticket that got her $1,336,000.00. It was community property, and ideally would be divided 50/50. She failed to disclose it on the typical statements you have to file when a divorce occurred, which has a very drastic effect. The Court gave the husband the entire winnings for her fraud.  Life's a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
While rude... thank you. I honestly have no experience with the court system, and it just scared me that I wouldn't even talk to the person representing me until four days before my court date that's in over a month from now. I warned you guys that I was in idiot, and have no idea what's going. Hell, I was expecting to just be hit with a no insurance ticket, and my jaw dropped when the judge told me what I was charged with. I understand the reasoning behind the charges, but compared to a no insurance ticket it's ridiculous. I could understand if I was the person responsible for the accident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
All right, this is a pretty dumb question but I'm gonna go ahead and ask it anyway: My brother in law filed a patent with a friend, so they are both named inventors on the patent. Brother in law hasn't talked to this guy in a while, said patent was forgotten. Friend runs into brother in law and tells him how he has started a business around the patented idea, has investors and the business is actually starting to come to fruition. Is there any possible loophole the friend can exploit to cut my brother in law out of any profits from the business built around this patented invention?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
psychicattack posted:All right, this is a pretty dumb question but I'm gonna go ahead and ask it anyway: Brief google search reveals: http://inventors.about.com/od/licensingmarketing/a/patent_licensin.htm posted:Joint Ownership - Patent Licensing Your brother in law doesn't get to benefit from the hard work that his co-inventor put into turning the patent into a buisness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Iakona posted:While rude... thank you. I honestly have no experience with the court system, and it just scared me that I wouldn't even talk to the person representing me until four days before my court date that's in over a month from now. What's rude is telling a lawyer who has taken a significant cut in pay in order to represent people who could not otherwise afford a competent lawyer that he is not a real lawyer, and then after being gently corrected, telling him again that he's not a real lawyer. But never fear, since I think AR has a contract public defender system rather than a dedicated public defender system, you'll get your 'actual' lawyer. Get insurance now. Had there not been a wreck, showing that you've made the effort to correct your error could help enough for a dismissal - if the police report shows that it truly was not your fault, that might still happen. In any event, unless there were drugs/alcohol involved, or you left the scene, or have done this (wrecks or no insurance) a lot, jail time is extremely unlikely, and getting the full fine amount is also unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Your brother in law doesn't get to benefit from the hard work that his co-inventor put into turning the patent into a buisness. However, said co-inventor can't prevent your brother from going to anyone who's licensed the patent from his co-inventer and offering to license his part-interest for a lower price. Effectively, the two of them both own a patent and either one can use it - they don't owe each other anything. Potential buyers only need a patent license from one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Kalman posted:However, said co-inventor can't prevent your brother from going to anyone who's licensed the patent from his co-inventer and offering to license his part-interest for a lower price. Thank you and Alchenar for answering. I must have gone stupid because I'm still a bit confused. A lawyer told him something different, but what you guys are saying makes sense too. This has absolutely nothing to do with me, I just got curious after I heard the story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
This is happening in North Carolina. For some reason the DMV thinks my father in law lives at our house. He doesn't and never has. I think this might have to do with my husband's car. It use to be under both him and his father's name. Its now solely in my husband's name and we have the title and all that stuff. My FIL is not being the most responsible person. Especially when its coming to his cars and driving. We keep getting letters from the DMV for taxes on his car, which he never pays. We keep sending him the mail and we keep telling him to tell the DMV that he doesn't live at our address. Then we started getting letters from the DMV about lapse in coverage with his insurance and how he is going to get fined / have his license taken, etc. I don't think he ever really handled this either. Now we're getting letters about him getting a DUI and having to surrender his license / stuff about his car. He still hasn't taken care of the DMV knowing he doesn't and has never lived at our address. I'm worried that all of this is going to end up affecting us. Can they put a lien on our house or do anything to our cars because of his lack of tax paying, insurance issues? I don't really want the cops to show up at our door looking for him or his car. He lives on the other side of the state from us and we talk to him very infrequently and see him about once a year. Edit: my in-laws recently abandoned their home to let it be foreclosed on and are renting a house in a new town. I have an inkling they didn't tell people where they moved, but this problem has been around since before they moved. It just makes me paranoid that they'll come looking for them at our house. Alterian fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Pretty sure there's a procedure for returning mail as 'not at this address'. I'd start with the post office on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Alterian posted:I'm worried that all of this is going to end up affecting us. Can they put a lien on our house or do anything to our cars because of his lack of tax paying, insurance issues? No. quote:
Probably won't ever happen, but even if it does, so what? Just tell the cops he doesn't live there, give them the story, they'll sympathize with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
So I was being a dumbass and when I came to an intersection with speed cameras today, I checked the usual sign to see how long before the green light went to yellow. There was no countdown in the crosswalk box. Awesome. I get to the intersection, the light turns yellow, and I can't stop without ending up in the middle of the drat thing. So, still at the speed limit I go through, and the light turns red after I'm halfway through the intersection. I didn't see any lights go off on the cameras but you usually don't in the day. This was in El Mirage, Arizona, and their city police web page only mentions Redflex, nothing about yellow lights or the fees I might have to pay. The only reason this has me so worried is that I don't want any points on my license.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:I get to the intersection, the light turns yellow, and I can't stop without ending up in the middle of the drat thing. ... This was in El Mirage, Arizona, My limited search brought me to http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00645.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS, which seems to indicate that your state treats yellow as the warning, and that it is not illegal to enter an intersection under a yellow light. The only thing that seems to matter is if you enter an intersection under a red light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
I just want to ask before I type up a wall of text, would this be the correct place to ask a question about unemployment benefits and trying to reopen a previous case that was denied?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Thanks. Here's what happened: Originally my wife took a leave of absence from her job because her endometriosis was really flaring up and she needed surgery to fix it. She worked at a call center job and it was really hard for her to sit down. Her leave got approved and then after recovering from her surgery she went back to work. She cancelled the rest of her leave because she felt fine and didn't need it anymore. About a month after that, she nearly fainted while at work and went to the emergency room, I went to go see her, and that's when we found out she was pregnant. This was in May. She tried to work, but the doctor ordered her on bed rest and she asked for another leave and received it. They couldn't approve the leave for her entire pregnancy, so when she filled out the paperwork, she somehow put that it was an intermittent leave and for whatever reason they said she had to return to work in September. She was still pregnant and on bed rest at this point. She called the local HR rep about it and they talked about doing another one for an extension. They went through with doing that and we thought everything was fine. During this time she found work somewhere else for something else that she can do with no problem. She called her original employer and made sure that everything was okay with the extension and they just made the decision to let her go. He said to apply for unemployment and they wouldn't try to fight it. We didn't have a problem with this, because she was going to be out for a while, and this way she's at least bringing some money in while her leave was active. He calls her back like 5 minutes later because he finds out she had this other job and was basically trying to guilt her for "working for a competitor." We just figured he was just being a douche because the company has a pretty notorious reputation for the management acting childish. We didn't think much of it, but when she applied for unemployment benefits, we dealt with the case worker for about 2 months because it turns out that her trying to bring in money offended him that greatly he felt he needed to fight the case and say that she didn't get fired because she quit by not coming back to work after the leave expired and that they had absolutely no contact after she started her leave. (At this point she was let go from her other job because she missed too many days of training due to getting her appendix taken out, which is why she applied for unemployment.) It ended up with the decision being in the company's favor saying that she did quit because she didn't return to work on September 15th. Her case worker didn't really seem too interested in what she had to say when she was trying to explain her side of the situation. We never received anything in the mail saying that the extension that she applied for was approved or not, despite the HR rep saying it was. We ultimately had no proof saying that she was still on a leave of absence and didn't go to court to fight the decision. Today we come home from running some errands and pick up the mail. She gets something from the company's HR department and we figure it's just W2 forms. We open the letter up and it's a letter from HR saying that her leave of absence was approved from May 15th 2011 to January 29th 2012 and she is scheduled to return to work on January 30th 2012. Should she just try to call a case worker and see if she can reopen the case, or talk to an unemployment lawyer to see what he has to say on the situation? Edit: I live in Wisconsin, if that makes any difference. ButterChugger fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:So I was being a dumbass and when I came to an intersection with speed cameras today, I checked the usual sign to see how long before the green light went to yellow. There was no countdown in the crosswalk box. Awesome. I get to the intersection, the light turns yellow, and I can't stop without ending up in the middle of the drat thing. So, still at the speed limit I go through, and the light turns red after I'm halfway through the intersection. You should be in the clear and if not, you should fight it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
nm posted:In every state I've ever seen, you run a red light only when you enter the intersection on red. It is not a violation of law to be in the intersection on a red as long as you entered on green or yellow. Virginia seems to be different: quote:Steady amber indicates that a change is about to be made in the direction of the moving of traffic. When the amber signal is shown, traffic which has not already entered the intersection, including the crosswalks, shall stop if it is not reasonably safe to continue, but traffic which has already entered the intersection shall continue to move until the intersection has been cleared. The amber signal is a warning that the steady red signal is imminent. Not that I practice traffic law in Virginia We have left on red though which is nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Aqua Hamster posted:I'd get an attorney. You could maybe get one on contingency if you cant afford billable hours. There are many issues in here. I am going to post a link to a law. I am not your attorney and I am not saying this law is applicable to your case at all. This law may be totally spurious and not related to your issues. You should hire an attorney. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm I posted that for educational purposes only and do not represent that it applies to your case. Also what county of Wisconsin do you live in? euphronius fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Virginia seems to be different: That doesn't really change things. You can't enter on a yellow if safe to stop. You can't always stop safely and with simply a red light camera, you can't really prove it was safe to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I'd get an attorney. You could maybe get one on contingency if you cant afford billable hours. I wasn't looking for actual legal advice, just a direction in which we should start. I live in Calumet county, the building she was working in is in Outigamie county.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Aqua Hamster posted:I wasn't looking for actual legal advice, just a direction in which we should start. http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=LRIS&Template=/CustomSource/LRIS/index.cfm&area=3 $20 to talk to a Wisconsin lawyer for 30 mins. Can't beat that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:47
|
|