|
Killy posted:But if he does that can't he be sued, too? Yes. Im not trying to get bogged down in specifics of your situation, but just wanted you to be aware you are on the hook for the full terms of the lease (the terms of the lease may say different, but I doubt it). I've had people say that "ive paid my half, so im in the clear", or they say "the other guy did all that damage, it wasn't me" and then I have to tell them that's not how it works.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
This may be the wrong place to ask this but I have a question about doing business with a stage name. I have two separate jobs. One is political in nature, the other is standup comedy. Because of the former, I use a stage name with the latter. I've been told I should apply for some sort of Doing-Business-As form so that I can do things such as open up bank account under my stage name, cash checks under my stage name, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, secure the proper twitter handle (twitter requires some form of legal proof I own the name if I want to get an account deactivated so I can use the name). I plan on using Legal Zoom but if anyone has any idea how DBA works that'd be great. However, my real question is this: If I do a DBA of whatever sort, does that mean people will be able to find out about the name if they do some sort of background search (Nexis, authorized employer search, etc)? As the main purpose is to hide my activities from political opponents and future employers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:
Yes. In most states, there's a publication requirement before you can begin using a d/b/a. Hiding one's identity is not a valid purpose for a d/b/a, or any sort of business entity. It takes hardly any sleuthing at all to figure out who is behind an LLC, or how to connect the dots for a d/b/a. [It's really loving tedious to repeat this, but this is not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer.]
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
I know this is not legal advice, and that you guys aren't lawyers (unless you say "I am a lawyer.") I'm in Nebraska. Okay, to be vague-but-not, I believe I am the victim of a scam. I initially told the scammers it wasn't going to work, to leave me alone, and that further contact would constitute harassment. They mostly shut up. They pestered a person I live with further, but he simply saved the info and hoped they'd disappear. They haven't. They made a bunch of legal threats, and yesterday two of them contacted my local sheriff's office. A lieutenant contacted me, I explained the situation. He contacted me again today and said that another eight people had contacted him, alleging illegal activity on my part. They're full of poo poo, to be succinct, but from research I can tell they've pulled this scam in the past (give us cash or we get you in trouble) successfully. I may be the first person who hasn't caved (and I've thought about it, simply to get my life back to normal) and that seems to have them really pissed off. They have a thread about me on a site I can't access. They're spreading my personal info on there. They're inviting people to join them and say "Fabulist did it to me too!" for gently caress's sake. My two questions: One, should I get a lawyer? I think I should, my partner thinks we can't. Can't afford it, can't afford the time, etc. I think I kind of need one at this point, and I'm trying to tell if I'm overreacting. I don't trust cops, not even ones that have been nice so far, like the lieutenant. Two. They've harassed me on Facebook, Twitter, my personal email, various personal blogs, RSS feed accounts, HelloCotton, Pinterest, Polyvore (not as terrible as it sounds, google it) basically anywhere I used my real name or a certain screen name. Should I file harassment charges? If the unanimous opinion is "Get a damned lawyer," please explain why, if anyone doesn't mind. As someone with shared finances, I need to get the other person on board. Oh, and are those "I don't get paid unless you do" attorneys any good? I kind of doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
You haven't provided any information on what the scam actually is. But just in general there are tons of non-legal measures you can take. If you write to their ISP they will have a duty to investigate and possibly take down the site. Facebook etc have harassment policies and you can seek to contact a company enforcement officer to explain your specific problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
Fabulist posted:I know this is not legal advice, and that you guys aren't lawyers (unless you say "I am a lawyer.") I'm in Nebraska. I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. I'm not admitted in Nebraska, and I'm not providing you legal advice here. quote:Okay, to be vague-but-not, I believe I am the victim of a scam. I initially told the scammers it wasn't going to work, to leave me alone, and that further contact would constitute harassment. They mostly shut up. They pestered a person I live with further, but he simply saved the info and hoped they'd disappear. I don't understand how you're the victim of a scam, if you haven't parted with any money or property. quote:They haven't. They made a bunch of legal threats, and yesterday two of them contacted my local sheriff's office. A lieutenant contacted me, I explained the situation. He contacted me again today and said that another eight people had contacted him, alleging illegal activity on my part. They're full of poo poo, to be succinct, but from research I can tell they've pulled this scam in the past (give us cash or we get you in trouble) successfully. I may be the first person who hasn't caved (and I've thought about it, simply to get my life back to normal) and that seems to have them really pissed off. They have a thread about me on a site I can't access. They're spreading my personal info on there. They're inviting people to join them and say "Fabulist did it to me too!" for gently caress's sake. You may have a civil cause of action for tortious invasion of privacy or defamation. Again, I'm not admitted in Nebraska, and don't know whether there are state statutes treating this kind of conduct. You'll likely have to retain a lawyer to find out whether any such statutes exist. Contact your local bar associations (if you're in Lincoln or Omaha, try the NE Bar Association; otherwise try the county courthouse) for a few referrals to personal injury attorneys. Some will do free consultations, to see whether there's anything in it for them. quote:Oh, and are those "I don't get paid unless you do" attorneys any good? I kind of doubt it. A lot of PI (personal injury) attorneys operate this way - it's called contingency. Some are very good attorneys; others are irresponsible hacks. PI attorneys, both good and bad, are the stereotypical "ambulance chasers". They typically finance the lawsuit (if they think there's a chance of recovering money damages), and will take 35-40% of any award. It's hard to say whether you have any actual damages, without knowing more about the situation. Sometimes, state statutes will grant damages for certain behavior. Barring that though, it's hard for me to see what you have actually lost in these circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Macunaima posted:[It's really loving tedious to repeat this, but this is not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer.] I dunno if you need this disclaimer. It depends on your state, but I know hell will freeze over before mine will recognize anonymous internet forums as creating an attorney-client relationship. Just go hog wild  Or maybe make one post with the disclaimer going forward, like a courthouse notice board. I'll do one for me:PUBLIC NOTICE Heretofore postings by "woozle wuzzle" (hereafter "woo"), and any postings or communications made by woo thereafter, are not legal advice and woo is not your attorney. In fact, woo is probably drunk right now and any advice woo gives is designed to ruin your life in comical fashion. Woo is treating your situation like a hypothetical that spawns E/N threads if carefully mismanaged. Therefore, heed woo's hypothetical non-advice at your own risk and seek the advice of counsel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I dunno if you need this disclaimer. It depends on your state, but I know hell will freeze over before mine will recognize anonymous internet forums as creating an attorney-client relationship. Just go hog wild 1) This is an international forum 2) The relevant code/regulations/liabilities are likely those of both posters. 3) A disclaimer won't ever help you if it's never communicated or reasonably available to the recipient. A single post 50 pages back in a thread won't save you should a problem actually arise. 4) Taking a risk on this kind of thing is just bad practice anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
comedy make it your signature except nobody uses signatures
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
1) That changes nothing, except decreasing the expectation that anything said here creates an attorney/client relationship. 2) I disagree, unless you're pretending like a malpractice suit could arise from an anonymous source. The only controlling jurisdiction is the one granting the license, because that's the only thing in play (in theory, not reality). 3) I disagree completely, but I think it's irrelevant as discussed below. 4) If it's a non-zero risk, then the attorney simply shouldn't post here. It's either risky or it's not. A disclaimer is irrelevant. If their local rules or firm make it the tiniest of risks, then posting here isn't worth it. I deem it zero risk to me personally. This is actual direct legal advice from me to you. I am literally your lawyer right now. I advise you to give me all yer money. Go to town. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
1. This poster may not cause harmful interference, and 2. This poster must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
It's a small nuisance to incur in order to cover my bases. It took me exactly one instance of being saddled with an unwanted, non-paying client for me to take steps to ensure that it never happens again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
It actually wouldn't hurt for the OP to give a general disclaimer that everything here is make believe. I pm'd them to see. In the meantime, we should hammer out the boilerplate 10-page contract style disclaimer for the OP to use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Macunaima posted:I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. I'm not admitted in Nebraska, and I'm not providing you legal advice here. I apologize for being too vague. The scam is: -Supposedly we(me and these 10+ different people who all magically know each other) agreed to trade some items on a site. -They're alleging they send their end and I didn't send mine. Two of the people involved I did agree to trade with, and did send my end. I know they received their packages because I used DC and one of them is stupid enough to have the exact same items up for sale elsewhere. With pictures that are hi-rez enough for me to be able to spot minor consistencies between the items I sent and what's posted. I've documented it. -The rest of them I either turned down for a trade or have never freaking heard of in my life. -All of these people use one thread (plus IM, I assume) to communicate. I know where the thread is, but I cannot access it. -Some of them made a token attempt to contact me and 'resolve' the issue - spam emails I didn't glance twice at at the time, because I didn't know they weren't run-of-the-mill spam. -One of the spokesmen for the group has generously offered to let me send her several hundred dollars to -I didn't pay, so ten of them contacted my county's sheriff's office in one day. Now I'm in an ongoing dialogue with an officer who's basically saying "Prove you didn't do this." I'm cooperating as best as I can. He's a temperamental son of a bitch who changes his opinion constantly, and I don't trust him. -These people are basically trying to gently caress my life up, I assume because I didn't fall for it and give them money. Or they're simply applying more pressure, hoping I decide to settle it privately rather than have the legal system in my life. I don't know. I don't know what the hell's going on. If I had the spare cash to get them to leave me alone, principles be damned, I'd be tempted to pay them off just to get my life back and not be on first-name basis with a police lieutenant. It's a clever business model. No one I know wants me to get a lawyer because "lawyers cost money." I'm getting fairly pissed about it but don't have the money to hire one on my own. I don't have a regular income, just a side business that makes the majority of our income one month and next to nothing another month. Everyone I know is also far more trusting of the police than I am. Thank you Alchenar, I hadn't thought to do anything on the individual websites. Thanks you Macunaima as well, I'm trying to use the legal system to my advantage in every way possible. If anyone has anything else to say now that I've outlined the scam (and if it's not a scam, what is it?) I would appreciate it. I'm going to start looking at cheap and pro-bono lawyers regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Fabulist, is there anything at all written between you and the other party/parties? I.e., contract, purchase order, framework agreement, anything like that? Have you been engaged in any sort of business with them in the past? Have they delivered any goods or products to you? When you say supposedly you agreed to trade, what does that mean? Law enforcement shouldn't be demanding proof that you didn't do something, unless the other side has compelling evidence of a) a contract; and b) your breach of that contract. Again, this isn't legal advice, but let them huff and puff and bluster. If they are going to jack you, the burden is on them to produce evidence of a contractual relationship, and your breach of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:PUBLIC NOTICE
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I want to see the bar disciplinary proceeding that must explain the contours of "E/N threads" before being able to delve into the issues of misconduct. Cooley Law School recently filed a lawsuit against a certain scamblogger, using threads from JDUnderground as evidence. Among the exhibits were threads by people using handles such as "fuckface", "shithead", "TTToileTTTeer", and "PhillyDoucheRocket".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Not a lawyer, but isn't what the people doing to Fabulist extortion? If so, how would he file a complaint?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:It actually wouldn't hurt for the OP to give a general disclaimer that everything here is make believe. I pm'd them to see. In the meantime, we should hammer out the boilerplate 10-page contract style disclaimer for the OP to use. I thought earlier about recommending that each attorney who
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
spregalia posted:Not a lawyer, but isn't what the people doing to Fabulist extortion? If so, how would he file a complaint? Not enough information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I thought earlier about recommending that each attorney who We should totally do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
How many lawyers are on this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Macunaima posted:How many lawyers are on this thread? All of us
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
PUBLIC NOTICE Look. I’m not your attorney. How do I know? Because all my clients are in prison. If you want me to be your attorney, you have to go to prison first. As not-your-attorney, I advise against this. When you look at your attorney he or she will have a face, and not a drawing of a guy in a tub. He or she will have a name that is not an improperly capitalized acronym. He or she will be talking with you in private and in confidence. If you’re not looking at someone face to face and don’t know their name and are spilling your guts to everyone in a public forum...not your attorney. Just because someone can use google to find a law or a case, and intimate that they've flushed a bunch of money down the toilet learning how to ‘think like a lawyer’ IN NO WAY means they're a lawyer, let alone your lawyer. Hell, I’m not even a ‘real’ lawyer. To reiterate: All my clients are in prison. DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING I SAY AS LEGAL ADVICE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
There are no lawyers in this thread. Just people writing words that you may or may not find meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:All of us Not me. Do you really think I'm dumb enough to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt? Sure I'm not making poo poo as a public servant paralegal, but at least I'm debt free. Plus, eventually I'll vest in my pension.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Macunaima posted:It took me exactly one instance of being saddled with an unwanted, non-paying client for me to take steps to ensure that it never happens again. Does giving somebody legal advice automatically make them your legal responsibility even though you have no contract with them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
You don't need a contract, but there has to be the start of an attorney/client relationship. After thinking about this topic and our discussion regarding a disclaimer, I pose the following question to "The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma" sea of attorneys: Suppose I setup a "free legal advice" gloryhole. Anyone can come for anonymous, casual legal advice. I sit on one side of a stall, and people file in and ask their legal questions. It's all anonymous, and the people never use their names or identifying information. I don't provide my name, and am extremely careful to avoid the tiny details that would identify me. But when giving my advice, I make no special disclaimers. I am directly giving legal advice, but that's it and there's zero discussion of future services. Is it possible for any of my patrons to claim an attorney/client relationship? Assume any jurisdiction you want. In Virginia, I believe the answer would be: No, it is not possible for any patron to claim an attorney/relationship. I also don't believe I'd have liability unless I lie, breach confidentiality, somehow fall into a conflict, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:somehow fall into a conflict, etc. I know you're just posing a hypothetical, but it sounds really easy to fall into conflict- you could easily give advice to two parties suing each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:You don't need a contract, but there has to be the start of an attorney/client relationship. After thinking about this topic and our discussion regarding a disclaimer, I pose the following question to "The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma" sea of attorneys: Why would you not have an attorney-client relationship? You start off representing that you're going to provide them a legal service (free legal advice). Then, you listen to information about their legal issues and dispense advice based on their specific situations in a setting that creates the expectation of confidentiality. The fact that you don't have enough information about them to perform a conflict check or a plan to provide future legal services is irrelevant. If you don't think they're your clients or potential clients, why would you get in trouble for breaching their confidentiality or for a conflict of interest? If they're not your clients, then what are they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
Forgive me if this has already been covered. I'm wondering if legalgoons could explain why, especially, appellate judges and justices serving on the Supreme Court are not required to put their money and that of their spouses into blind trusts like serving presidents. This is specifically brought to mind by Justice Thomas' wife's shenanigans with regard to the Kochs and the Citizens United decision. Has this issue been brought up before about ensuring judicial independence and limitations on any possible biases or financial influences before? I know they have to comply with certain things like disclosing funds they receive to help track influence and decide about recusals and stuff, but why not just move to blind trusts instead? It seems to work reasonably well with presidential administrations and given the judiciary is an independent branch it seems logical that the very high level decision-makers in positions like this would do this to ensure impartiality, at least in a limited sense. Is this already a thing that's done and I'm retarded or is this just something that's politically impossible to pass as a requirement or what? Just curious what the thinking is about this and what might be done in the future to change things so it appears less obvious that Thomas' part in Citizens United isn't seen as having been purchased by the Koch brothers for $600k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Comrade Milton posted:Forgive me if this has already been covered. I'm wondering if legalgoons could explain why, especially, appellate judges and justices serving on the Supreme Court are not required to put their money and that of their spouses into blind trusts like serving presidents. This is specifically brought to mind by Justice Thomas' wife's shenanigans with regard to the Kochs and the Citizens United decision. Because Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments, so having to give up financial independence for the rest of your life would mean that nobody in their right mind would ever agree to the job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:Why would you not have an attorney-client relationship? You start off representing that you're going to provide them a legal service (free legal advice). Then, you listen to information about their legal issues and dispense advice based on their specific situations in a setting that creates the expectation of confidentiality. The fact that you don't have enough information about them to perform a conflict check or a plan to provide future legal services is irrelevant. Virginia Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct posted:Rule 1.18 woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
I found out yesterday I'm getting laid off 2 weeks before I'm due to go on maternity leave. Everyone is pressuring me that its illegal and I should get a lawyer. I'm not sure if its even worth it. There are other layoffs in the company. I do have suspicions that they chose me out of my department because of my pregnancy, but I probably can't prove it. I'm pretty miserable at my job anyway. Is it even worth doing anything about? The company I think has less than 50 employees. I'm not entirely certain. We have a lot of contract employees. I'm one of the few full time people with benefits in my department. The company has had some crappy practices, but up to this point I don't think they've done anything illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Because Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments, so having to give up financial independence for the rest of your life would mean that nobody in their right mind would ever agree to the job. Granted, but it's not as if the blind trusts government officials put their funds into have poor returns or that they are terribly risky, to say nothing of the salary and benefits that you point out are for life accompanying their lifetime appointments. The very fact that they're lifetime appointments would seem to me all the more reason to ensure impartiality to as thorough degree as possible. I find it hard to believe people would be turning down appointments to the Supreme Court simply because they don't end up personally guiding their stock portfolios. Perhaps I'm being naive, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Alterian posted:I found out yesterday I'm getting laid off 2 weeks before I'm due to go on maternity leave. Everyone is pressuring me that its illegal and I should get a lawyer. I'm not sure if its even worth it. There are other layoffs in the company. I do have suspicions that they chose me out of my department because of my pregnancy, but I probably can't prove it. I'm pretty miserable at my job anyway. Is it even worth doing anything about? The company I think has less than 50 employees. I'm not entirely certain. We have a lot of contract employees. I'm one of the few full time people with benefits in my department. The company has had some crappy practices, but up to this point I don't think they've done anything illegal. IANAL, but as is usually the case, America provides nil coverage to its workers. And if there's other layoffs, it's usually difficult to prove the pregnancy has anything to do with the layoff. The NYT had a article about this 3 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Alterian posted:I found out yesterday I'm getting laid off 2 weeks before I'm due to go on maternity leave. Everyone is pressuring me that its illegal and I should get a lawyer. I'm not sure if its even worth it. There are other layoffs in the company. I do have suspicions that they chose me out of my department because of my pregnancy, but I probably can't prove it. I'm pretty miserable at my job anyway. Is it even worth doing anything about? The company I think has less than 50 employees. I'm not entirely certain. We have a lot of contract employees. I'm one of the few full time people with benefits in my department. The company has had some crappy practices, but up to this point I don't think they've done anything illegal. I picked out the important bits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
I'm not going to worry about it then and just work my 3 months left and try not to get stressed out over the stupid crap I'm dealing with now at work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Virginia Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.18: But see Virginia Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct "Scope" quote:Furthermore, for purposes of determining the lawyer's authority and responsibility, principles of substantive law external to these Rules determine whether a client-lawyer relationship exists. [e.g. if a non-lawyer believes he/she has formed an ACR, courts consider an ACR to exist (at least for confidentiality, and possibly more if the non-lawyer reasonably acts in reliance on the advice)] Most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal services [which the legal gloryhole patron does by asking the question] and the lawyer has agreed to do so [by giving an answer]. [more broadly, see also the preamble to the rules, esp. para. 2, 11] But there are some duties, such as that of confidentiality under Rule 1.6, that may attach when the lawyer agrees to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established. Whether a client-lawyer relationship exists for any specific purpose can depend on the circumstances and may be a question of fact. So it's probably not that simple, and you'll probably have an easier time showing no ACR/no expectation of confidentiality for discussions in an open, public forum than you would in your private (or at worst, semi-private) gloryhole of law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
joat mon posted:But see Virginia Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct "Scope" With even a small shade of gray, I'm going to err on the side of caution. [NB: this does not make me your attorney, as I have been disbarred from 37 jurisdictions for repeated ineffective assistance of counsel, and arms dealing.]
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:48
|
|