|
nm posted:When the heck was this? The PM was back in Jan 2011. I posted this in reply to one of your posts last October. SkunkDuster posted:I haven't been in any legal trouble in years. I don't need a criminal lawyer at the moment. However, if it comes to the point where I need one, I don't want to be flipping through the yellow pages in a jail cell. You used to work in Minnesota, and I am living in Minnesota. Can you send me an email (my name at gmail) or a PM if you can recommend a criminal defense attorney in MN? I just figured you probably didn't see the post, but when I saw SlayVus emphasize "THIS IS NOT A REFERRAL", it made me wonder if the reason you never replied might have had something to do with liability.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Trek Junkie posted:The reasons given for termination were incorrect. No, they weren't. You dipped out of work without authorization for several hours, and ingested alcoholic beverages. You could well have come back (I don't know where you're getting this concept that you're somehow responsible for your co-worker's idiotic decision to get shitfaced at work), but you chose to side with DrunkFace instead of being responsible and saying "Nah man, this isn't right" and going back to your job. I mean, what did you think was going to happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
IANAL but the way I understood at will employment was that the employer could fire you for something arbitrary like say wearing a green shirt, and its irrelevant if you were actually wearing a red shirt. Because the reason for firing is in most circumstances allowed to be arbitrary, mistake doesn't matter since a legitimate reason was never a requirement of firing you to begin with. insanityv2 fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Yes basically. I counsel employer clients to give no reason when they fire people. (At Will state.) Basically in an At Will state (assuming no employment contract) you can't fire someone who is a whitleblower, because they reported discrimination, or based on their race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, or pregnancy. There are lots of nuance to that thought so recognize I am speaking generally. As mentioned above though when you get into Unemployment Compensation the reason you were fired can be very important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Does a referral put you in some sort of legal position? I'm in MN and I know nm used to practice law in MN. He seems like a good knowledgeable guy, so I asked him in a PM and later made a post in this thread to see if he could recommend a criminal defense attorney in MN and got zero response. I'm not in any trouble now, and nothing is brewing, but I figure if I ever ended up in the situation where I needed a lawyer, I'd be a hell of a lot better off calling a defense attorney that is recommended to me by a respected poster in this thread than flipping through the yellow pages. Referals can come in two varieties. Your attorney friend send you to another attorney who works in an area you need. Or your attorney signs you up and then looks to sell your case to another law firm. The second may put you in some sort of legal position in terms of duty and acp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yes basically. I counsel employer clients to give no reason when they fire people. (At Will state.) Do you not contest unemployment claims? I've been to a few on behalf of my company, and basically you can only contest it if you had cause to fire them. If you give no reasons, how would that work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
It get's trickier if UC is a possible thing. A lot of times though you tell the employer to just let the ex employee have UC because that decreases the chance the employe will sue on other grounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Texas goon here, just a weird legal question I thought of, if someone is charged in Texas of a misdemeanor, can they be tried for it in a different county than the crime was committed in? Such as, if you committed a Class A Misdemeanor in Tarrant County, they wouldn't charge and try you for it in Harris County, would they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
They have trials in Texas? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
numerrik posted:Texas goon here, just a weird legal question I thought of, if someone is charged in Texas of a misdemeanor, can they be tried for it in a different county than the crime was committed in? Such as, if you committed a Class A Misdemeanor in Tarrant County, they wouldn't charge and try you for it in Harris County, would they? Generally, no. Talk to your lawyer about it BEFORE YOU GO TO COURT Did the misdemeanor begin in, end in, or travel to or through Harris Co, physically or electronically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
This isn't hugely important because I've already dealt with it, but last year I was taken to hospital on suicide watch by police without my consent. I was then handed a massive bill from the hospital. How can I be billed when I never consented to these services being performed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:This isn't hugely important because I've already dealt with it, but last year I was taken to hospital on suicide watch by police without my consent. I was then handed a massive bill from the hospital. How can I be billed when I never consented to these services being performed? My thought is being suicidal is enough evidence to rise to whatever level of belief the police needed in order to determine you lacked the capacity to consent, and thus they were justified in intervening to protect you from yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:My thought is being suicidal is enough evidence to rise to whatever level of belief the police needed in order to determine you lacked the capacity to consent, and thus they were justified in intervening to protect you from yourself. Be that as it may, I never consented to being sat in a small empty room for a night and as such I'm wondering how it works that I can be charged for it. That seems kind of bullshit to me. Unless it's a fine or a tax, I'm pretty sure both parties have to consent to a transaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:Be that as it may, I never consented to being sat in a small empty room for a night and as such I'm wondering how it works that I can be charged for it. That seems kind of bullshit to me. Unless it's a fine or a tax, I'm pretty sure both parties have to consent to a transaction. Your consent to not die is implied. It works the same way for people who are in a car wreck or who are shot but happen to be unconscious as a result of their injures. The broader public policy reason is that it's better for people to lose their money than for people to lose their lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:This isn't hugely important because I've already dealt with it, but last year I was taken to hospital on suicide watch by police without my consent. I was then handed a massive bill from the hospital. How can I be billed when I never consented to these services being performed? You've already heard the answer. If you are unable to give consent the hospital can still provide treatment and bill you for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:Be that as it may, I never consented to being sat in a small empty room for a night and as such I'm wondering how it works that I can be charged for it. That seems kind of bullshit to me. Unless it's a fine or a tax, I'm pretty sure both parties have to consent to a transaction. Look at it from another direction, you get shot, are bleeding and unconcious. The police find you, take you to the hospital where they perform surgery on you and save your life. Should you be able to avoid paying because you never consented to the surgery? Or do you think that as a society, we presume that when someone cannot consent because of whatever circumstances, and there is some evidentiary burden that they are in danger, other people have the right to step in and act to save you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Welcome to the world of inconsistencies that not having UHC but also not wanting people to die for no reason creates!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
I'm getting screwed by Copa airlines. Anyone know about airline/ticket stuff? Copa is refusing to refund a ticket stating that it had expired before I requested the refund, but i don't think this is the case. Can someone tell me how what they are doing isn't illegal? Here are the details: 1) I purchased a fully refundable ticket in Miami in October 2011 for a flight leaving Santa Cruz, Bolivia to Panama on 1st Jan 2012. 2)On the 29th Dec 2011 I changed the flight to leave 10th Nov 2012 and received email confirmation of the change. 3)On the 7th Nov 2012 I called customer service to cancel the flight and obtain a refund and after several hours, several service reps and going to the office in Quito, Ecuador (I am currently travelling) I was told I couldn't get a refund as my ticket had expired. After over a month of emailing (and waiting around a week for each reply) I am getting the same response 'Your ticket expired a year after purchase' which isn't true. The representative isn't addressing that my ticket should have been reissued on 29th December 2011 and should have been valid for refund. As states on their terms and conditions: "If a ticket for a published fare that has not been used is completely re-issued, the new ticket will be valid for a year from the date on which the ticket was re-issued." Simply put: If my ticket had expired a year from the original purchase then I would not have been able to take the flight. Thus the ticket must have been reissued and thus had not expired. The alternative is that he changed the flight date to a date after it would expire, which is impossible/fraud/illogical. Can anyone explain how they can just take my money like this? This is totaly bullshit. (I won't go too far into how bad their customer service was cos holy poo poo drat.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
What, if any, changes in the legal system have been wrought by the mounting evidence from cognitive psychology on the utter unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony? What kind of changes, if any, might we see/would you like to see going forward? Is it just a matter of every lawyer having to present to the jury all the studies about memory?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Yeah and then next the justice system will accept the fact that people will falsely confess for all kinds of reasons, after which we'll dispose of testminonial demeanour as a method of judging credibility because it turns out people can lie convincingly while others can tell the truth so that it sounds like a lie, after which a unicorn ridden by Mila Kunis and Scarlett Johanson pulling a wagon of sex toys and lube will ride out of the sunset and carry me to Valhalla
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I'm getting screwed by Copa airlines. Anyone know about airline/ticket stuff? I'm guessing the short answer is, revalidated /= reissued. Revalidation extends the period of validity of an existing ticket (and frequently means less fees for the change--no cancellation fee, for one), reissuance means cancelling the current ticket and issuing a new one. In other words, when the airline changed the date on your ticket, they merely revalidated the existing ticket, rather than issuing a new one. Therefore, the ticket was never "completely re-issued." Apparently, for refund purposes the issue date remains the date of purchase, and the end of the refund period remains one year from purchase, even though the date of travel changes. But if anyone is more knowledgeable about this, feel free to jump in (I'm no expert). Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Yeah and then next the justice system will accept the fact that people will falsely confess for all kinds of reasons, after which we'll dispose of testminonial demeanour as a method of judging credibility because it turns out people can lie convincingly while others can tell the truth so that it sounds like a lie, after which a unicorn ridden by Mila Kunis and Scarlett Johanson pulling a wagon of sex toys and lube will ride out of the sunset and carry me to Valhalla Shhh that might make people actually have a good reason to go to law school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:What, if any, changes in the legal system have been wrought by the mounting evidence from cognitive psychology on the utter unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony? I think the same line of thinking would also overhaul the system because of juries. In other words, the same unreliability of memory and attention applies to the jury who are listening to the eye witness evidence. 12 people who failed to avoid jury duty are expected to listen to 60 hours of testimony including eye witnesses and DNA evidence, and then reach nuanced decisions of law. On some level you've just got to pinch your nose and say gently caress it. There's not a good practical way to eliminate human foolishness from the process. Specifically on eye witness testimony, the current check is the defense attorney teeing off. I'm not defending the system as great, but I don't know of a good alternative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:What, if any, changes in the legal system have been wrought by the mounting evidence from cognitive psychology on the utter unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony? New Jersey had a pretty important case a few years ago where the NJ Supreme Court said "Yo, this eyewitness stuff is F'd up!" [paraphrased] Special Master's report Decision and mandated that identifications must be recorded or the identification isn't admissible and made new jury instructions for eyewitness ID Texas has taken a slightly different tack, suggesting a particular procedure for eyewitness IDs (FAQ) and stating that if the police don't use some as-yet-undefined best practices for eyewitness IDs, the defense is allowed to call an eyewitness ID expert at trial. (no new jury instructions, though) The Innocence Project has been doing a lot with this, they may have more info. The NJ decision, in particular, is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Is it just a matter of every lawyer having to present to the jury all the studies about memory? I see this a lot, but it rarely gets in front of a jury. The argument is that memory is inherently suspect, and moreso with the passage of time, people can and will fill in gaps (with false information, if presented by defendant) in an effort to create continuity, and then believe it to be true. Evidence of this kind is routinely excluded because it is not case specific, it doesn't meet the threshold for expert testimony, and is a roundabout way to attack the credibility of a witness without attacking the credibility of the witness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Sorry for double post but was preparring something interesting currently in CA about red light cameras. There are two competing cases, both out of the second district, decided like a week apart, that come to completely opposite conclusions. People v. Borzakian 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 and People v. Goldsmith 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 305. They were interesting reads, I'm inclined to side with Borzakian. Can red light cameras that are maintained and operated by third parties be used as evidence to convinct you of a crime when no one from that third parties testifies against you? (among other issues) I think there is an area ripe for a nice law review article about the use and (in)fallibility of technology in litigation. I see it a lot where parties make these huge databases of their files, then when I depose them, they hand me a computer printout. When I tear into them about the creation of the databse, who did it, how they did it, reviewing the underlying material etc, the witness in front of me just says 'I don't know. I am just showing you what the printout tells me, and it says we have no records.' My argument is that if I, as a person, were to pay another person to review certain files, and then summarize their contents for me, I could not (as a non-expert) walk into a depo with that summary and say "I looked for but didn't find any responsive information in my records." The second any foundational questions were asked, it would become apparant I have no foundation to make that comment. Why does that change when that person becomes a database?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
joat mon posted:New Jersey had a pretty important case a few years ago where the NJ Supreme Court said "Yo, this eyewitness stuff is F'd up!" [paraphrased] Hey, that's pretty interesting. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:I'm guessing the short answer is, revalidated /= reissued. Revalidation extends the period of validity of an existing ticket (and frequently means less fees for the change--no cancellation fee, for one), reissuance means cancelling the current ticket and issuing a new one. In other words, when the airline changed the date on your ticket, they merely revalidated the existing ticket, rather than issuing a new one. Therefore, the ticket was never "completely re-issued." Apparently, for refund purposes the issue date remains the date of purchase, and the end of the refund period remains one year from purchase, even though the date of travel changes. But if anyone is more knowledgeable about this, feel free to jump in (I'm no expert). Sure, the problem with that is their terms and conditions state you can't fly with an expired ticket. So they changed my flight to a time i couldn't use use it. My flight was expired before it left. Also, their terms and conditions make no reference to the term revalidated (word search). I'm out over $750, and I need to by a flight home (currently stuck in South America).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
This August I was called for jury duty in Massachusetts, but did not have to serve. Now I've been called again, but two summonses were sent to my old university dorm address. There are two problems here: the first is that I neither go to school there (now a grad student in the next county over) nor reside there (permanent address is a few counties east). The second is that I didn't receive either of these summonses until well after their response period, and can't call in until Wednesday at the earliest. Am I going to be fined/held in contempt, or can I make this work? Also, can I get out of this because I didn't reside in that county when the summons was first issued?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Sure, the problem with that is their terms and conditions state you can't fly with an expired ticket. So they changed my flight to a time i couldn't use use it. My flight was expired before it left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:I'm not sure why you're arguing with people here; some have offered their interpretation, and it seems to fit the airline's idea of what's going on. If you're not ok with that, I think you're best to contact the airline and try to get a supervisor or do the Consumerist-style email carpet. I'm not arguing I'm giving a clarification and information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Sure, the problem with that is their terms and conditions state you can't fly with an expired ticket. So they changed my flight to a time i couldn't use use it. My flight was expired before it left. 1) Once again, assuming my guess at what happened is right, since you extended the date of travel on the ticket, it had not expired for travel purposes. As I understand it, reissuing a ticket involves cancelling the previous ticket and issuing a new one. My guess is, the refund expired, not the ticket itself. 2) The words showing up in an FAQ on the airline's website (which is where Google is telling me you got that text) are typically not the terms you agree to when you purchase a ticket from the airline. (e: For example, this is one of the things you probably agreed to, among other things.) In any case, the language you quoted, "If a ticket for a published fare that has not been used is completely re-issued, the new ticket will be valid for a year from the date on which the ticket was re-issued," appears to refer to the period during which the ticket will be valid for travel, and makes no reference to any refund policy. Moreover, the term "revalidation" does not have to show up for that to be their policy--it just seems to be the term used in the industry for changing details on an existing ticket without issuing a new one. That said, that is just my guess at what your answer would be--an experienced attorney in the field, equipped with the relevant documents, would know more. 3) As is frequently the case, the fact that you're out money does not mean that the law has a solution. If you're really stuck, maybe try contacting the U.S. Embassy in whatever country you are having trouble leaving? Otherwise, it might be best to have family/friends wire you money. Even if you have a cause of action against the airline, getting a lawyer involved would likely prove more expensive and time-consuming than one of those methods. You could look into suing the airline after you get back, but I suspect that the explanation will be the one I gave you--the refund had expired. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Thanks for that. I'm expecting them to keep repeating something along those lines. The terms on the website were misleading and I've learnt an expensive lesson regarding airlines with all that. Next time I'm taking the bus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Not me, thank gently caress, just curious what happens when you get, on the same day, two subpoenas for two distant cities, for the same date.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Javid posted:Not me, thank gently caress, just curious what happens when you get, on the same day, two subpoenas for two distant cities, for the same date. You contact the attorney on the subpoena and let them know and see if you can work something out. Otherwise file some variant on a motion to quash or protective order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:Not me, thank gently caress, just curious what happens when you get, on the same day, two subpoenas for two distant cities, for the same date. Also note that if the distance is more than X miles, they need to do more than serve you in some states. I believe the distance is 150mi in CA. But yeah, call the attorneys and explain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
.
Liebfraumilch fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Children do not seek or are entitled to child support. Explain the situation a little more and maybe I can direct you in the right direction for help. (I am in PA.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Children do not seek or are entitled to child support. Explain the situation a little more and maybe I can direct you in the right direction for help. (I am in PA.) He means the woman he was sleeping with on the side, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Biological parents are responsible for child support. There are very complex determinations that have to be made to determine who owes what and it is frequently contested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 15:39
|
|