|
In Florida, is a juvenile probation officer prohibited from bailing someone out of jail? In particular, their spouse (who is not a juvenile!)?
dantae fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 19, 2012 |
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
The Downfall posted:Ok small and kind of silly question. Got a parking ticket in San Francisco in a rental car. What would happen if i dodged it and went back to Florida? Would they come after me Pay it yourself ASAP. If Hertz or whoever pays it, they'll bill your CC the cost of the ticket plus some huge processing fee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
dantae posted:In Florida, is a juvenile probation officer prohibited from bailing someone out of jail? In particular, their spouse (who is not a juvenile!)? As in, posting bail or paying a bondsman to do it? No, a PO would not be prohibited from doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
joat mon posted:As in, posting bail or paying a bondsman to do it? No, a PO would not be prohibited from doing that. Yeah that's what I meant. Thank you, I was having a lot of trouble googling it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
nm posted:Pay it yourself ASAP. Thanks for the repl (and the gent on the previous page). It was my dads fault so he is going to pay the meere 55 dollars out of his 200k salary
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:Thanks for the repl (and the gent on the previous page). It was my dads fault so he is going to pay the meere 55 dollars out of his 200k salary Then my legal advice is to tell him it cost $155. Postage and handling, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Then my legal advice is to tell him it cost $155. That's about how much it will cost if you don't pay it yourself and leave it for the rental car company to handle
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:That's about how much it will cost if you don't pay it yourself and leave it for the rental car company to handle So Downfall should charge 150, tell his father he's getting a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Absolver posted:I have a quick question to the law goons. I am based in Norway, but the hosting service I have beef with is in Quebec, Canada, so that is likely where I'd have to base any argument. The best option is to talk to them, explain the situation, and ask for a refund if they already charged your card. If they refuse to give you a refund, you should talk to whoever issued you the credit card. In US banking law there is something called a "chargeback" where the credit card company has to refund your money if the card was charged without your consent. I have no clue if Norway has a similar thing, and I doubt anyone else in this thread does either. Legal action across international borders is insanely expensive and not worth it, if you can't get the money back from them or your credit card company you'll probably have to eat the loss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
So what is best advice for a being victim in a car accident? My mom got in a major accident on Friday. A trucker tried to change lanes and hit her, she lost control and car rolled-over down a hill. The trucker ran off after the accident. She got banged up but luckily she is OK. The trucker did not stop, he sped up (hit and run). A witness followed him and called the police, and stuck with him til the police caught up. They caught the guy, and found paint damage consistent with the accident and everything. My mom's car (an old toyota, worth maybe $2-3k) was totaled, and she has a lot of cuts and bruises but no major injuries. There are many witnesses, all who saw what happened. The guy tried to change lanes while unsafe and my mom was not at fault at all (she was in the right lane, etc). The police took 68 images of the damage, his truck, the paint etc, have many witness statements and a diagram of the accident. In the police report the guy lied his rear end off. Said he thought he "hit a pothole" (no potholes in the area according to the police report). He also drove in the back of country rodes in "a manner attempting to get away". When asked why he was driving that way instead of on the Highway, he said to avoid a bunch of "Studebakers". He also claimed to be delivering the trailer on his truck, and did not have the paperwork and said he didn't know he needed it (police report says "it is not believable for a trucker of 16 years" Basically the police report is damning in every way to the other guy, and even in the police report it basically counters every single statement he made with the truth. Anyway today I found out my mom called the other insurance company. They tried to trick her up (which side of the road were you on? how many times did you roll over? ) then pretended to be nice to her, and "had the police report but did not look through it yet". They offered to pay for her car, her current medical, and to reimburse for a car rental. And honestly I think she deserves a lot better than that. The only reason they would offer that much, when literally their job is to pay out as little as possible, is because the police report is THAT damning. I know that it was a bad idea for her to talk with them, but what should my mom do from this point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Sounds like she's being offered all of her damages. What else could she want? e: she should also just be talking to her own insurance company, who will then deal with the other side Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:They offered to pay for her car, her current medical, and to reimburse for a car rental. And honestly I think she deserves a lot better than that. IANAL, etc., but besides future medical expenses there is really nothing else she can expect to get out of it, or deserve to get out of it. Having an accident is not a windfall. She deserves to be made whole and have any actual damages paid, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:I know that it was a bad idea for her to talk with them, but what should my mom do from this point? Go to a doctor. See if she needs any treatment. If she does, get treatment. Then go see a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:IANAL, etc., but besides future medical expenses there is really nothing else she can expect to get out of it, or deserve to get out of it. Having an accident is not a windfall. She deserves to be made whole and have any actual damages paid, nothing more. Except she needs to see a chiropractor and is still in pain. How is that being made whole? She should pay out of pocket to see a chiropractor? also IMO the fucker should be liable for punitive damages, it was a hit and run. If it were a genuine accident where they stop and try to help then yeah, but he could have easily killed someone then speeds up to drive off, and lies his rear end off when the police get him. i guess i think she deserves at the very least enough to cover ALL her medical bills sustained, her mental anguish (she has told me how traumatized she is by it) and punitive damages for the guy being a fucker. she isn't looking for a windfall so gently caress you for making a character judgment of someone you don't know too. She would be happy with just a new cheap car, I am the one who thinks she should be fully made whole. Alpha Mayo fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Except she needs to see a chiropractor and is still in pain. How is that being made whole? She should pay out of pocket to see a chiropractor? He said "future medical expenses". Which would include a chiropractor. (Except chiropracty is voodoo medicine and shouldn't ever be paid for, but that's really for the pseudoscience thread in ASL)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Which would include a chiropractor. (Except chiropracty is voodoo medicine and shouldn't ever be paid for, but that's really for the pseudoscience thread in ASL) So keep it there, thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:He said "future medical expenses". Which would include a chiropractor. (Except chiropracty is voodoo medicine and shouldn't ever be paid for, but that's really for the pseudoscience thread in ASL) It certainly won't include unnecessary medical expenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Except she needs to see a chiropractor and is still in pain. How is that being made whole? She should pay out of pocket to see a chiropractor? IANAL, but, she deserves her actual expenses. Which include all her sustained medical bills and whatever provable mental issues there are. If he provably broke the law he will be punished. Punitive damages are to discourage future behavior by the defendant and others. Plaintiff's don't "deserve" punitive damages, society does. If he broke the law, this is already being carried out by the punishments of the law. If there's no proof he's lying...if its his word versus hers she needs a lawyer. Basically, she needs a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
She has a claim at recouping her actual expenses. So there's generally not such a thing as "pain and suffering" in many states. But you still get compensated for that by actual monetary losses. So if she took any time off work, that counts. Her out-of-pocket for any medical, and I don't care if it's voodoo pirate rituals, she could have a claim against this guy. Basically, if she's got a receipt or a paystub, a jury would probably give it to her. For the mental health side, again it comes down to actual expenses. If she goes to see a therapist, that pins down a value. If she takes a reduction in hours at work, or whatever, that puts a dollar figure to it, that's what you need. But there's no payment for "holy crap that sucks and made my life worse" without a receipt (in her case with no apparent longterm physical damage?). So the guy who said it's not a windfall, that's kinda what they meant. You/her are not looking for a big payday, you just want something for the bullshit she's going through. But the system is looking for documented monetary losses. If she needs any pushback at all on the insurance settlements, she should contact a local personal injury attorney. Many will do free consultations and require little to no money to take it up (depending on her injuries), but they'd also expect a substantial cut of any award. Depending on her situation, it may or may not result in a net gain to have an attorney, but a free consultation can't hurt as long as she resists a hard sell. (as I reread this the grammar is crazy, but you get the idea) 
woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Based on a recent incident with a frequenter of this thread, I want to post this: We often talk about the dire consequences a criminal charge and will always recommend an attorney. We will mention prison, etc to get you to do that because it is the correct thing to do. However, if this is your first charge, a misdemeanor or a low-level felony is not the end of the world,especially if you are a white, middle-class or better student at a better than average college. If you have an attorney, there is a decent chance that you could come out of many serious seeming cases with little to no record and future life intact. While I do not endorse getting these charges, getting these charges should not force you to do anything rash. Speak with an attorney and seek other professional help if needed. This won't necessarily impact your life for more than a year or so -- don't do anything permanent. RIP 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Based on a recent incident with a frequenter of this thread, I want to post this: This is the saddest thing but from what someone else said who had been chatting with him prior it wasn't because of what happened at the party with the police. Still agreeing with all of this post because goddamn
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:This is the saddest thing but from what someone else said who had been chatting with him prior it wasn't because of what happened at the party with the police. That said, plenty of people go on suicide watch after getting a loving DUI, much less a lesser felony. Don't freak out. I know people who've gone to state prison who are now well respected professionals, a few days in jail won't ruin you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
I have a question re: trusts, if anybody is willing and able to provide a hand. Grandma and Grandpa Smith started the Smith Family Trust in the state of Oregon some 15 years ago. Three of their children were named on the trust. Bob, Jane, and Jill. I am Bob's son. Bob died a year ago, before both of his parents, pretty much penniless. My grandparents passed away recently. I was told by Aunt Jane that the trust is designed to pay to the first generation of children and as such the grandchildren aren't left with anything directly. Aunt Jane is contending that the 3 way split is now a two way split with her and her sister. I'm in the process of finding a lawyer in Oregon and trying to acquire a copy of the trust to take/fax to him, but darned if my google-fu isn't coming up short with any idea of what I'm dealing with in the meantime. Is this type of thing normal, possible, whatever? Is there any sort of right of succession to what my father would have inherited or would naming specifically "Bob Smith, Jane Marriagenamechange, and Jill Marriagenamechange" on a trust document mean that in the event of there being no more Bob Smith then it's all meant for Jane and Jill? Is there a special sort of trust where this would be the case or specific language that would need to be included? Not trying to disrepect my family's wishes if that's how they did have it set up, but this could be my son's college education so I feel like I'd be a bit of an idiot not to look into it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Prostheticfoot posted:I have a question re: trusts, if anybody is willing and able to provide a hand. But (I don't want to sound crass) but it seems like the amount you are contesting might be about 100k or less--to properly fight it out and win Bob's share of the money might actually eat up a significant amount of that money. Again, this is why you need a good and competent atty: one who can tell you "yeah, we are right, you deserve the %, but the court fees and atty costs will eat 40% of it away." It might not hurt to hire an attorney, threaten to contest, and settle for a lesser amount. Never forget that fighting for the full amount might amount to a Pyrrhic victory with legal fees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
FORUMS USER 1135 posted:and they regularly updated their will with a competent adviser, you probably have a fighting chance of gaining that money back. Thank you and that is an excellent point. How much the trust is worth I do not know. I have been told anecdotally that the majority of the value is in the stock market. So it stands to reason that comparatively speaking the trust is worth a lot less than it once was. I have no idea what percentage is in the market but I know that they bought a house with over 200k cash-in-hand last year while trying to sell a house in another city in Oregon, which ended up going for roughly the same amount a month or two after they moved. So if those two things were the extent of the trust, which seems to me unlikely, and they somehow cashed everything they had in the market out to buy that new house just so they could, iduno, enjoy carrying a briefcase full of a few hundred tho, and all of the proceeds from the old house's sale went into and tanked on the market...it still seems that my father would have stood to inherit over 50k from the sale of the new house. All assets the Grandparents had, from what I understand, went right into the family trust as per their will (which I haven't seen). Prostheticfoot fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Prostheticfoot posted:I have a question re: trusts, if anybody is willing and able to provide a hand. Oh yay a trusts question. I am a trusts and estates lawyer. How long ago did your grandparents pass away? Do you know the identity of the trustees for the trust? First thing to know: a trust operates outside of the probate process. Your father does have statutory rights as a child to inherit a share of your grandparents' probate estates, and this right would pass to you because he predeceased them, assuming that your grandparents had no wills and no trusts. However, trusts are not subject to the probate process, so your father's right to inherit does not come into play with the Family Trust. Your father's position as a beneficiary of the trust, and your position (if any), is entirely dependent on the terms of the trust agreement. You need a copy of the trust agreement. You are not automatically entitled to a copy of the agreement unless you are a beneficiary under it. I imagine that you should be able to get a copy, or at least get a letter from a lawyer saying that you are not a beneficiary - assuming there is a lawyer involved in the administration of the trust. quote:would naming specifically "Bob Smith, Jane Marriagenamechange, and Jill Marriagenamechange" on a trust document mean that in the event of there being no more Bob Smith then it's all meant for Jane and Jill? Yes, probably. This question depends on the terms of the trust agreement AND relevant state statutes. If the trust simply says "to Bob, Jane, and Jill" without specifying what happens if one of them predeceases your grandparents, then you have to look at state law to see what the default rule is. It is possible that your father's interest in the trust died with him, but it is also possible that it passed to you. quote:Is there a special sort of trust where this would be the case or specific language that would need to be included? Trusts are very flexible, and can be drafted to do almost anything that the trust creators want. So it's entirely possible that the Family Trust says "to Bob, Jane, and Jill" with the meaning that the surviving children take everything, and nothing passes to the descendants of a predeceased child. However, in my experience, that is a less common way of doing things. Most "family trusts" are designed to pass to descendants, not just children, - if Bob predeceases, his share goes to his kids. That way a branch of the family is not cut out by a child predeceasing. Of course, the name of a trust can be anything the trust creators want, so the "Smith Family Trust" may just be what they called their trust. When I use the terms "Family Trust" in the name of a trust, that usually means that all descendants are covered, not just children. First things first - get a copy of the trust agreement. Ask your aunts; better yet, if there was a lawyer who handled the estates of your grandparents, contact that person. If your aunts balk, tell them that you have a right to know whether or not you are a beneficiary, and you have a right to see the trust agreement to determine this - threaten to get a lawyer to force them to give you a copy (this is mostly bluster, by the way, but as a preliminary tactic it may work). Here's the thing - if the document says that the trust assets only go to the children, then your aunts should have ZERO problems giving you a copy of the trust agreement because it works in their favor. Point this out to them. If they refuse, it may be because the trust agreement allows your father's share to pass to you. I would be very surprised if the language of the trust agreement did not include descendants in some way - what would have happened if all three children predeceased your grandparents? I am willing to bet that you qualify as a "qualified beneficiary" within the meaning of Oregon Statute sections 130.010(14) and 130.710 - these are the statutes that require a trustee to provide notice of the trust's existence, including the trust's terms, to qualified beneficiaries. I am willing to bet that your grandparents made their children the trustees - that is the usual way to do things. If so, your aunts are required to provide notice of the trust terms to qualified beneficiaries, which could include you. So push on them, find out who the trustees are, get a copy of trust document.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Except she needs to see a chiropractor and is still in pain. How is that being made whole? She should pay out of pocket to see a chiropractor? If an individual is lobbying for punitive damages (which you will never ever get in this situation) and if that individual is a party in the lawsuit, then that lobbying party is pretty much asking for a windfall yeah. Look I understand you're upset because what happened was very unfair and very terrible. But if people got punitive damages for every unfair and terrible thing that happened our system would cease to be a tort system anymore and would become some sort of money thunderdome. Sorry about your mom. I hope she's back to full strength very soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:But if people got punitive damages for every unfair and terrible thing that happened our system would cease to be a tort system anymore and would become some sort of money thunderdome. Oh man good forums name. (Also this post and this overarching discussion have been very informative for me--the media sort of portrays things like personal injury litigation as the latter, and "think of it as relates to torts" is a really simple mantra to keep focused on the reality of the situation.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Question: I have a friend who has divorced her husband. To avoid paying child support, he's resorted to only working under-the-table jobs and then claiming he's unemployed every time they go to family court. It's creating an undue financial burden on the girl who is making a ton of sacrifices to support the kid while deadbeat dad just spends his money on bullshit (e.g. new motorcycles, video games, etc.). How does one go about reporting (or seeing that an investigation is launched for) income tax evasion and/or child support fraud in NJ (Mercer County to be precise)? What laws apply here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
spregalia posted:Question: I have a friend who has divorced her husband. To avoid paying child support, he's resorted to only working under-the-table jobs and then claiming he's unemployed every time they go to family court. It's creating an undue financial burden on the girl who is making a ton of sacrifices to support the kid while deadbeat dad just spends his money on bullshit (e.g. new motorcycles, video games, etc.). How does one go about reporting (or seeing that an investigation is launched for) income tax evasion and/or child support fraud in NJ (Mercer County to be precise)? What laws apply here? see http://www.njchildsupport.org/Article.asp?AID=127 quote:The Child Support Program has many enforcement tools to make sure the child support gets paid. These include, but are not limited to: It appears that in NJ, the Child Support Enforcement people can (among other things) gently caress his credit, take away his driver's license (bye bye driving your new motorcycle legally, deadbeat), take away his assets (bye bye new motorcycle!), issue a warrant for his arrest, and jail him. call: quote:Mercer County Child Support Maybe hire a private investigator to film the dad going to/from one of his under-the-table jobs. entris fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
I had some questions about a employment contract I was just asked to sign and before I return it I thought I would ask to see if all of this sounds legal. Firstly I am located in South Carolina. I was recently asked to step up to a salary position in my company that pays us every two weeks. I verbally agreed with my boss to a salary of 475 dollars per week knowing that salaried positions have to work 45 hours, but that they get Chinese overtime for every hour after 40. After a week or so of the position I got a wage payment notice that the company wants me to sign and return to them. The main points I was curious about are these. 1. Normal hours of work: 45 hours per week. 2. Fixed salary for fluctuating hours at the base rate of 475 per week. Employee is to work a minimum of 45 hours a week. Overtime will be paid on the basis of time over 40 hours actively worked in one week at a fluctuating hourly rate depending on total hours worked over 40. 3. Company may deduct from your wages the following items: taxes, your portions of insurance premiums, cash shortages, loss or damage to company or customer property, loans, advances, and/or any debt owed to the company. Assistant Managers may be held responsible for any cash shortages that occur during their shift. I know full well they are allowed to require me to work the 45 hours to receive my salaried amount of pay, but the overtime and being responsible for any shortages were things I was curious about. How is overtime actually supposed to be paid for a salaried employee. I have my first paycheck and calculating the overtime rate it amounted to 4.96 per hour over 40. I'm not looking to stay with this company forever, but at the same time I don't want to be signing anything that is wrong to start off with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll pass that along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
I'm curious to hear some comments on an ethics situation that recently happened in my family. Only a couple of people know about it and everyone agrees that the best thing happened in the end so there probably won't be any backlash. The client, Bob, is an alcoholic in his 30s. His adult life has been a continuous cycle of work for a few months, go on a bender and lose the job, drink a lot more, and end up in jail. He's verbally aggressive but never physical and he's typically arrested for things like disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Aside from legal troubles he recently fathered a daughter and he's the primary financial provider for her. Bob's parents are a supportive middle class family. They pay his mortgage when he's unemployed, help out with the daughter, and get the first call when Bob's in jail. Bob recently went on another bender, lost a job, and was arrested for assault after dumping a can of beer on someone. His parents hired a lawyer he's used in the past but nobody bailed him out. In a conversation with the parents the lawyer said Bob had been in jail long enough to easily plea out with time served. The parents hated the idea because he's been awesome on probation in the past: he works hard and stays sober. At their request the lawyer worked out a plea that resulted in Bob getting a year of probation. My curiosity stems from the lawyer seemingly not acting in Bob's best interest. He never told Bob he may be able to get off with time served. Was he actually breaking any rules?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Totally violates the idea of informed consent if the attorney didn't mention the possibility to Bob when asking Bob to agree to the plea (Bob is the client, not the parents) I'm not an ethics expert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Insanely unethical, the lawyer shouldn't even have been talking to the parents, let alone putting proposals to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:My curiosity stems from the lawyer seemingly not acting in Bob's best interest. He never told Bob he may be able to get off with time served. Was he actually breaking any rules? The state bar would love to hear about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Insanely unethical, the lawyer shouldn't even have been talking to the parents, let alone putting proposals to them. Seriously, even in juvie land that is insane. Lawyer needs a strong reprimand, bob needs to file an appeal ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
nm posted:Seriously, even in juvie land that is insane. Lawyer needs a strong reprimand, bob needs to file an appeal ASAP. Even in a world where there was no plea and he was just discussing the possibility of getting a plea, that is really, really unethical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Bob wouldn't know the first thing about filing a complaint or finding another lawyer and he probably wouldn't care enough to do it even if he knew how. He's the type of guy who really lives day by day. He also has no money and probably wouldn't show up to court if he weren't required. I knew it was wrong but I'm surprised to hear how harshly condemned it is. I don't see anything further happening because I'm presumably the only person other than the parents who knows and I'm on the other side of the country. They feel a lot of guilt but still think it was the right thing to do. It's weird to me that the lawyer would be so blatant. I guess he figures the parents aren't going to blab about something like this. I'm sure his clientele is entirely low income. Andy Dufresne fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:Even in a world where there was no plea and he was just discussing the possibility of getting a plea, that is really, really unethical. How so? Parents talk about what seems to do best for son, attorney observes that son is at time-served point for similarly situated defendants in that jurisdiction. Attorney hasn't gone anywhere near ACR stuff, parents are providing information about client.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:26
|
|