|
fork bomb posted:You can also just say "I don't know" so that you're not admitting anything but also not being "suspicious" by pleading the fifth. Admitting you were speeding is not the same as admitting you stabbed a dude - be polite and friendly to traffic cops and they will frequently be nice to you.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Seriously, the lawyers in this thread are suggesting people admit their violations to police officers? IANAL, but one of my friends is a police officer and they are most definitely not asking you questions like that in an attempt to "be nice." If you try to contest the ticket in court, the first thing he will do is tell the judge "Mr. Wuzzle admitted to me he was driving approximately 75 miles per hour..." (He will have written this in his notes after the traffic stop, or will have recorded the stop on his voice recorder.) There's no reason you can't be polite and friendly (which obviously you should do) while simultaneously not admitting to anything. A few months back, another friend of mine got cited for talking on a cell phone while driving (FWIW I'm not a huge fan of this habit of his). The officer tried four or five different tricks to get him to admit he'd been talking on the phone over the course of their conversation ("So, who were you talking to, anyway?" ... a minute later ... "I know business calls can sometimes be important, but you really should pull over even if you think it is urgent. Was it a business call?" ... etc.). My friend was very aware of these tactics and deflected each attempt with a joke or by redirecting the conversation a bit. Obviously, the officer sees through these tactics as easily as we see through his, but it allows everyone to be polite and friendly to each other without admitting to anything. My friend later beat the ticket (it's illegal to talk on your cellphone without a handsfree device here in California, but merely holding it - or even dialing - is not illegal. Without an admission from my friend the officer had no evidence he was actually talking on the phone). If you want to argue you're more likely to be let go with a warning when you admit to things, I'd just say I'm skeptical. You can easily have a humble and apologetic attitude without any admissions whatsoever, and admitting to anything pretty much trashes your chances of contesting the ticket if you do get it. I've gotten off with warnings more than once despite not admitting anything - officers care more about your attitude than anything else in my experience. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Mar 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Maybe NM can answer this one - are cops in Minnesota trained differently? I've never had them fish for guilt or a search. I don't get pulled over very often, but every time I have, it has been, "I'm [Name] from [Department] and the reason I pulled you over is [Violation]. May I please see your driver's license and proof of insurance? Thank you, I'll be back in a minute." When they come back, I either get a ticket or a warning and am on my way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Seriously, the lawyers in this thread are suggesting people admit their violations to police officers? In some cases, yes. quote:IANAL, but one of my friends is a police officer and they are most definitely not asking you questions like that in an attempt to "be nice." If you try to contest the ticket in court, the first thing he will do is tell the judge "Mr. Wuzzle admitted to me he was driving approximately 75 miles per hour..." (He will have written this in his notes after the traffic stop, or will have recorded the stop on his voice recorder.) There's no reason you can't be polite and friendly (which obviously you should do) while simultaneously not admitting to anything. I love Police, especially goon cops, but they're usually not the best sources of information about the law. quote:If you want to argue you're more likely to be let go with a warning when you admit to things, I'd just say I'm skeptical. You can easily have a humble and apologetic attitude without any admissions whatsoever, and admitting to anything pretty much trashes your chances of contesting the ticket if you do get it. I've gotten off with warnings more than once despite not admitting anything - officers care more about your attitude than anything else in my experience. The point is that there is nuance that is not immediately apparent to non-lawyers. Case in point: the OP's question was in reference to the cop asking, as is common, "do you know why I pulled you over?" That is different than asking "how fast were you going?" Even if the OP answers "speeding," that is answering the question of why he thinks that the officer's motivations (not to mention one of questionable admissibility), not making a statement about what he was in fact doing. And as pointed out, the officer already has everything that he needs when he pulls you over for speeding. He will have a radar/Lidar reading of your speed. He will probably have paced you at some point before effecting the stop. He has everything he needs to write you a ticket, before he even gets out of his patrol car. For a minor violation like that, with the possibility of making the cop happy and not getting points on your license, yes, it may be a good idea for you to admit it and move on. Why? Because you're already going to get hit with that ticket anyway if you are evasive or defensive. In this particular situation, you at least have a way out of it. More importantly, the hypothetical does not specify any circumstances where the driver would absolutely want to keep the officer out of his car -- there's no drugs in the back, plates aren't expired, windows aren't illegally tinted, etc. The officer isn't looking for a pretext, he made a legitimate stop, you don't have anything else that he can get you on, and you are legitimately busted, so why wouldn't you want to take the opportunity to beat the ticket? It's not something that I'd suggest every time, but it's a hypothetical and this is common sense, and that goes a long way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Seriously, the lawyers in this thread are suggesting people admit their violations to police officers? Uhhh... "OK". Emphasis mine. That's not the first thing he tells the judge in court. I'm actually in traffic court. See when the officer pulls you over, you are already guilty and convicted. He doesn't need your testimony on speeding. Unless you're going to argue some poo poo like "my spedometer was broken", then admitting speeding doesn't matter. I was literally in traffic court last Thursday. The judge's first question to the officer in every case: "Were they polite and cooperative?". If yes, non-moving violations, traffic school, or reduced fines were common. In one case the lady was not. The officer said: "She said she was not going the radar speed, she accused me of not calibrating my radar, and said she was going a lower speed." The judge suspended her license. Reread that. She had a very normal driving record, and her speed was not terrible. She got a suspended license (with ability to drive to and from work only). The only difference between her and the twnety cases before her was that she didn't admit her speed. I see this with my own eyes on a regular basis, rather than made it up based on a friend of a friend and a guess. Understand the limitations here: decent record, speeding only, no funny business like drugs, no other angles (like black in Mississippi). Traffic court is just a different animal. You are guilty walking in regardless of what you say, and it really amounts to a humility test. It doesn't always work, and I'm not saying fall to your knees and plead guilty when the officer walks up to your car. But playing coy WILL make your punishment worse, on average. Period. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Mar 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:it's illegal to talk on your cellphone without a handsfree device here in California, but merely holding it - or even dialing - is not illegal. Your friend was lucky; cops cite people for holding a cellphone all the time, they argue it is a "use" of the cellphone pursuant to statute. I defended a friend who this happened to, signed affidavit with attached call log didn't do much to help, since their position wasn't so much that they needed to prove she was talking to someone, just that holding it was enough. Got it dismissed for other reasons, but still had to pay the court fee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Driving a lovely old car I refused to maintain some years ago, I got good at getting pulled over. The only time I ended up with any ticket, including once when I actually committed a moving violation then dropped my registration and insurance card on the floor in the dark and couldn't find it, was when I gave some attitude to a trooper. I work with the public too, and they're mostly scumbags. The times I deal with people who are simply polite and don't treat me like an idiot, I tend to be nicer to them. Since police are people too, I imagine using some social skills and not doing 20 over while blasting NWA probably goes a long way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Maybe NM can answer this one - are cops in Minnesota trained differently? I've never had them fish for guilt or a search. I don't get pulled over very often, but every time I have, it has been, "I'm [Name] from [Department] and the reason I pulled you over is [Violation]. May I please see your driver's license and proof of insurance? Thank you, I'll be back in a minute." When they come back, I either get a ticket or a warning and am on my way. I've certainly seen them fish for admission to moving violations though, especially suburban depts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
nm posted:Consent searches are unconstitutional per the Minnesota Supreme Court, so they won't fish for searches. I should clarify that admitting politely is a good tactic if you were a little bit over the limit and would plan to just pay the ticket if you get it. If you want to spend time in traffic court, feel free not to admit anything, but do it politely. Taking the 5th would ensure the cop writes you up for every single thing they can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Taking the 5th would ensure the cop writes you up for every single thing they can. You don't say "Yes officer, I was going exactly 87 miles per hour." But it's more like "Yeah I wasn't thinking, I apologize and I'll slow down". There's no guarantees. If you're caught in a speed trap, you're getting a ticket no matter what because they're running the trap for money. A hardass officer will ticket you no matter what. But playing the odds over the long-term: if you're below your state's definition of reckless/felony speeding (and no other factors like drugs, etc), then you should just admit it and apologize. Excuses rarely work. If you're on the way to aunt Sue's funeral, you better be dressed up with flowers in the back. If grandma just died, then "I'm just real upset officer with a death in the family, I'm sorry I know that's no excuse, I need to pull myself together" is way better than laying out the excuse like you're entitled to speed. Nurses/Doctors responding to an emergency better be in scrubs or something, otherwise it sounds like a lame excuse that a doctor could use anytime they're pulled over. "The sign is blocked by bushes/I didn't see a sign" translates into "please give me a ticket and let me prove it to the judge who won't give a poo poo". There's no magic bullet, but in general you don't argue or excuse your behavior. Just admit it and apologize. Aside from minor traffic, never talk to the police ever. But for minor traffic: fess up and play dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:That's the main takeaway. Only time I had an excuse work it was "I'm sorry officer, I was just trying to get to the exit because this fella is acting like he really needs to go." I then pointed to the absolutely pathetic looking puppy in the backseat who clearly was about to pee all over my car. Good thing Texas Highway Patrol generally likes dogs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Your friend was lucky; cops cite people for holding a cellphone all the time, they argue it is a "use" of the cellphone pursuant to statute. I defended a friend who this happened to, signed affidavit with attached call log didn't do much to help, since their position wasn't so much that they needed to prove she was talking to someone, just that holding it was enough. Got it dismissed for other reasons, but still had to pay the court fee. The excludes phones "specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking ... used in that manner while driving" (a speakerphone mode qualifies; doesn't have to be a headset). The law doesn't say explicitly, but the California DMV says this means that if you're using a device in a hands-free manner, you're still allowed to hold/look at the phone in order to dial it ("This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call"). What this means is that as long as you have a speakerphone-capable phone (who doesn't?) simply being caught holding it isn't necessarily enough (I'm not saying the officer won't write the ticket, but it's probably beatable in court). Even if the officer witnesses you holding it to your ear and talking into it, if they didn't witness it for an extended period of time you could have been using the voice recognition function (ie. Siri) to dial your speakerphone. My friend has gotten out of two phone tickets this way. I haven't had to try it since I avoid using the phone in the car. woozle wuzzle posted:See when the officer pulls you over, you are already guilty and convicted. He doesn't need your testimony on speeding. Unless you're going to argue some poo poo like "my spedometer was broken", then admitting speeding doesn't matter. It does if you want to contest the radar calibration, whether the officer had a clear view of you, or whatever. Ay argument is useless if you've already admitted to the violation. Last time I was in traffic court the guy in front of me beat the ticket by bringing in a diagram of the intersection, asking the officer to point out how far he was hiding down the side street, and proving that due to the officer's limited visibility he could only have been visible for less than a second, not enough to make an accurate speed estimate (radar is useless at right angles). Another guy beat a rolling stop ticket the exact same way. woozle wuzzle posted:I was literally in traffic court last Thursday. The judge's first question to the officer in every case: "Were they polite and cooperative?". If yes, non-moving violations, traffic school, or reduced fines were common. Fortunately I haven't gone to traffic court often, but I've never hear the judge ask that here. However, there's nothing stopping you from being polite and cooperative without admitting your violation. I don't see why you keep equating polite/humble/cooperative with "admitting what you were doing." Last time I got off with a warning, I was going 93 in a 70 in the New Mexico desert. I played dumb but polite: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No, did I do something wrong?" [It's true, I can't read his mind!] "I clocked you going 90 miles per hour." "You did? Wow... I'm so used to just driving with the flow of traffic in the city, it's very different driving out here on an empty freeway. If you say I was going 90 I'll definitely watch my speedometer more closely from here on out!" "That would be a good idea. [Insert banter here about being on a road trip]. I'll just give you a warning this time. Watch that speedometer." The one time I ever admitted I was speeding, I went to court to request a reduction in the fine. I'd been on a 2-lane highway when an officer zoomed up behind me. Me and the guy in the next lane both became very careful about going 65, but as a result we ended up forming a road block since we'd happened to be side-by-side when this started. The officer started tailgating me (4 feet off my bumper) and after about 20 seconds I decided to pull over to the next lane, which either meant hitting my brakes (bad idea with zero buffer behind me) or speeding up and pulling in front of the guy next to me. I did the latter, and subsequently got a speeding ticket for it. I explained politely to the officer I was just trying to get out of his way and meant no harm. I explained the same thing to the judge and requested a reduction in the fine. She was drat near laughing when she said to everyone waiting, "If anyone else in this courtroom plans to come up here argue that they were actually speeding, just save us all the time and plead guilty!" I did not get the fine reduced. woozle wuzzle posted:made it up based on a friend of a friend and a guess. Feel free to argue you have more/better experience than me, but nowhere did I say anything about "a friend of a friend", make poo poo up, or guess. gently caress you. Edit: Diplomaticus posted:The point is that there is nuance that is not immediately apparent to non-lawyers. Case in point: the OP's question was in reference to the cop asking, as is common, "do you know why I pulled you over?" That is different than asking "how fast were you going?" Even if the OP answers "speeding," that is answering the question of why he thinks that the officer's motivations (not to mention one of questionable admissibility), not making a statement about what he was in fact doing. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Is the first in a series of questions. Once you say "speeding," question #2 will be "Do you know how fast you were going?" Diplomaticus posted:The officer isn't looking for a pretext, he made a legitimate stop, you don't have anything else that he can get you on, and you are legitimately busted, so why wouldn't you want to take the opportunity to beat the ticket? Because there's no reason you can't be polite, humble, and apologetic without saying "Yes officer, I know I was going exactly 78 miles per hour..." It's unnecessary. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
I got pulled over immediately after running a red light. Turns out there was a cop in front of some cars in the left turn lane. Oops. When he walked up, after asking for my license and registration, he asked "Anything you wanna say about that?" "No thank you", I replied. He didn't show up in court and I got it reduced to a parking violation. You don't have to plead the fifth, just don't come up with some sad sack excuse or rage out and the cop will probably cut you a break on little things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Feel free to argue you have more/better experience than me, but nowhere did I say anything about "a friend of a friend", make poo poo up, or guess. gently caress you. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and you're a danger to anyone seeking legal advice. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Your story about protesting your innocence literally demonstrates why I'm giving this advice, but you're too stupid to understand what happened. A judge told you to your face that you're wrong, yet you're repeating it here. What the gently caress? I admitted I was speeding, which is what you expressly suggested people do, and that's what the judge said was a stupid loving idea. Hell, I apologized for it, explained that I thought it was the safest course of action to get out of the officer's way at the time but that I'd realized that if I ever find myself in that situation in the future, I should just let off the gas and gradually slow until I can pull back instead. I wasn't asking to have the ticket tossed, just have the fine reduced. Being explicitly honest didn't get me poo poo (except for mildly ridiculed, heh).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
You plead not guilty and used your story as an excuse. That's sort of the exact opposite of admitting fault. So uhh... you're kind of a dummy. The judge was laughing because your story cost you a few hundred bucks. They were telling the crowd to just plead guilty and say they did it. See what I mean? You think I'm a jerk, but I'm a correct jerk. No joke, you 100% most certainly would have gotten the fine reduced had you plead guilty and just said you were speeding. That's my advice, my advice is correct. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Did I stumble into stdh or gbs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:You plead not guilty and used your story as an excuse. That's sort of the exact opposite of admitting fault. So uhh... you're kind of a dummy. I specifically said I was speeding and asked for a reduction of the fine. I never plead not guilty. In any case, this has become a total derail of the thread (not to mention this subtopic is a derail of the original derail!). If people want to explicitly admit to the police they've committed a traffic violation, more power to them I guess. I see no reason to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I specifically said I was speeding and asked for a reduction of the fine. I never plead not guilty. In any case, this has become a total derail of the thread (not to mention this subtopic is a derail of the original derail!). If people want to explicitly admit to the police they've committed a traffic violation, more power to them I guess. I see no reason to do that. By all means, go to traffic court! Some of us would prefer to avoid that bullshit for minor offenses. Also, you keep ignoring the fact that admitting the violation is irrelevant - if the cop shows up in court, you are going to lose 99% of the time. This is true whether or not you admitted anything. If the cop doesn't show up, your admission won't matter. So the only point at which it matters is when you're talking to the cop. At which point playing cute will just irritate them. Admitting your minor offense, apologizing, and being friendly won't get you out of every ticket, but they'll get you out of more tickets than being a dick or playing cute will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:The excludes phones "specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking ... used in that manner while driving" (a speakerphone mode qualifies; doesn't have to be a headset). The law doesn't say explicitly, but the California DMV says this means that if you're using a device in a hands-free manner, you're still allowed to hold/look at the phone in order to dial it ("This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call"). What this means is that as long as you have a speakerphone-capable phone (who doesn't?) simply being caught holding it isn't necessarily enough (I'm not saying the officer won't write the ticket, but it's probably beatable in court). Even if the officer witnesses you holding it to your ear and talking into it, if they didn't witness it for an extended period of time you could have been using the voice recognition function (ie. Siri) to dial your speakerphone. My friend has gotten out of two phone tickets this way. I haven't had to try it since I avoid using the phone in the car. Note that it says "This law..."; any other applicable distracted driving laws that could cover, oh, not looking at the road, may still apply. Driving while talking/texting is a whole different situation than speeding, especially since with speeding the officer has all the evidence he needs externally. quote:"Do you know why I pulled you over?" Is the first in a series of questions. Once you say "speeding," question #2 will be "Do you know how fast you were going?" But now you're arguing something different. The point is that you're likely to get the ticket anyway unless you give the officer a reason to let you off the hook. Why would you go part way and stop? The only risk there is getting written for a ticket you were already probably going to be written for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Yeah it's weird, that tactic is fine too. It's not "honesty is the best policy". Instead you lie down and play dead, and give the cop breathing room to be lenient. You basically threw up your hands and said "I thought I was going slower", which is a light-year away from "I was going slower". He didn't need a confession, he was just sizing you up to see if he felt like ticketing you. For example: let's say a nurse is called in to work due to a staff shortage, there's medical emergencies involved, and she's caught speeding. The honest truth might annoy the cop because it sounds like an excuse, and the cop may ticket and let them prove the emergency to the judge. The nurse will fare better simply admitting they were speeding, saying something like "I wasn't thinking, I was just called in to work and they're stressed out, I'm sorry officer". Every situation, county, and officer will be different. Just in general, if the officer says "I clocked you going 82", do not dispute them. Saying "I didn't realize I was going that fast" could work out, but don't tell the officer they were mistaken. With most any other crime, the clear advice is not to say a word to the police. But this topic came up because for minor speeding you do NOT want to plead the 5th or deny the speed (with the exceptions previously stated). woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Just in general, if the officer says "I clocked you going 82", do not dispute them. Saying "I didn't realize I was going that fast" could work out, but don't tell the officer they were mistaken. Oddly, I did actually manage to dispute a speed with an officer successfully. "I clocked you doing 83." "No, sir!" [look of complete disbelief] "I had the cruise control on 75" [10 miles over the speed limit] The fact that this was Wednesday before Thanksgiving and my wife was in the car with our dog in her lap helped a lot, I'm sure, and I wouldn't have given great odds on it working, but hey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Question to see if I have any recourse here: Loaned a "friend" a fairly decent sized chunk of change (~2500), and he skipped out on me. Normally this would be easy enough - go file a small claim against him, I have proof of the transactions, made him sign a promissory note, easy enough. (dunno how well "DUDE agrees to pay back AA IS FOR QUITTERS $2500 by 3/1/13" would hold up anyway, but it at least establishes that he can't claim it was a gift or that I never loaned him the money). The problem is I loaned him the money in NJ. Since then I took off to SD and he took off to (I assume) AL. (He was planning on moving there in march anyway, and he just sorta took off in the middle of the night near the end of February.) Since its all small claims stuff, honestly, if it involved having to go back to NJ it's far cheaper to just write it off as a loss. I fully expect to never see that money back, but it would be a nice present if I did, so do I have any sort of recourse here that doesn't involve travelling? Especially if he can't be tracked down at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Not really. You could sue him in NJ or AL, but it wouldn't be worth it if you don't live in one of those states, especially if you don't have an address to serve him at. Take it as a very expensive reminder not to loan large amounts of money to people without collateral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
I doubt it would be worth it for only $2,500 especially since you don't know where he lives and I doubt - from reading the context - he owns any land. Next time get collateral! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
If you actually do have documentation, maybe try and shop it around to collection agencies. Even if you got pennies on the dollar, that's still more than you have now, and they'll even be a pain in his rear end for you. A quick googling: http://www.ehow.com/how_8036774_sell-debt-collection-agencies.html http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060816091356AANPllu http://www.commercial-collectionagency.com/ - random "free estimate" type site I can't speak for or against Not really legal advice, but maybe you can get something out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
From my experience with collection agencies, 2,500 is below the level they usually take. Who knows though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
I'm in Massachusetts, and my friend had their car mistakenly repo'd today, or at least that's what we think has happened so far. Friend couldn't find the car in the company parking lot, called the local police, and discovered the mistaken repo. They are still at the station sorting out the situation, but my understanding is that the car is fully paid for and that this was a genuine mistake on the repo agency/police's part. It sounds like there's a good bit to sort out and that my friend won't be able to get the car back today. Is there anything they can do to either speed up the process, or any items they should get together to alleviate future delays in said process?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
I don't have any experience or knowledge about it, but as a layperson my first act would be to call the police and report it stolen, and be a pain in the rear end until I get a police report. Assuming it was paid for, the critical item will be the title. If they've got it, then that should clear it up without anything further. If they lost it, they can get a new one from DMV pretty quick. If the title was never transferred, then they want to get that straight with the finance company ASAP. With title in hand, they can't hold that car. The "good bit to sort out" makes me wonder if it wasn't a mistake and that it wasn't 100% paid for. Maybe they had a small lingering small balance, moved, and two years later it's $1000 and sent to collections. Now that they've resurfaced, the financing company might be willing to agree to terms and release the car, but it could take a few days. So it's possible that the "mistake" was some type of balance due.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Is "don't tell anyone about this" from a higher-up at work anywhere near close to an NDA. Does it have any legal weight?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
thylacine posted:Is "don't tell anyone about this" from a higher-up at work anywhere near close to an NDA. Does it have any legal weight? Probably gross misconduct if you do tell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I don't have any experience or knowledge about it, but as a layperson my first act would be to call the police and report it stolen, and be a pain in the rear end until I get a police report. In my city the repo agencies provide the police with a list of cars they're taking. If the police are called about a "stolen" car, the first thing they do is check the repo list. Once they see the car has been reclaimed, it's a civil matter and the police won't--can't, actually--get further involved. In addition to the title, I've never paid off a car without getting a "Congratulations, you've satisfied your loan" type of letter from the lender. It would help if he still has that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Usually you get a letter when you get the title back with the lien satisfied? I don't know it probably varies from state to state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Sublease Issues in NYC. My fiancee and I signed a 3 month sublet lease earlier this month for an apartment. The sublease was standard issue, and had a provision that the lessors would occasionally stay in the second bedroom there at a $25 rent deduction per day for the month. It sounded great and would help us out so we agreed to move in April 1st and signed everything. Today, we get an e-mail from the lessors stating that one member of the couple is going to be living there full-time now due to getting a major job offer in NYC. In turn, they presented us two options - either take a reduced rent amount since it was going to be a full-time share now, or destroy the original agreement. Additionally, they would only want to make the new agreement month-to-month. While I'm willing to negotiate and consider the cheaper rent share, we can't do a month to month - the moving costs alone would kill us. At the end of the day, we feel screwed into keeping it and trying to keep the original three month agreement since there's no way in hell we can find a new place by Friday. What recourse do we have in this situation since we already have a signed agreement with the lessors that we can leverage?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
T-Shaped posted:What recourse do we have in this situation since we already have a signed agreement with the lessors that we can leverage? I don't get it, there are several inconsistencies going on here. Your choices are actually "new agreement" vs. "keep old agreement", not "new agreement" vs. "destroy old agreement". I don't understand how the second options make sense in any way? They are just as bound to the contract as you are, and if they stay full time, it would appear you're getting roughly $750 off your monthly payment. Your lease was for 3 months. If you make a new agreement and go month to month, your actual stay time is 2 months minimum? How is that drastically different such that the "moving costs would kill us"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
MO restraining order/family law advice if anyone can give any: I wrote a much longer detailed post, then managed to distill it to this: If my wife and I want to try and get sole custody from her ex who: * has barely been in the picture for the last 2 years (until February this year) * is consistently aggressive, violent, and abusive (whether the kids are present or not) * owes $15k+ in back child support * has never voluntarily paid one cent of CS (anything we've received has been through wage garnishment) Would it be looked on better or worse if I were to report him for threatening me with violence? The most recent time happened last afternoon/evening. I have a recording of him flipping me off when he picked the kids up, and then later that evening him threatening me, unprovoked, ending with him grabbing my arm then hitting our van as we gave up and drove away. He's threatened to kill me in the past, and he's also shown up and sat in a parking lot outside of the place we were living with a gun. I have video of him assaulting me while claiming to be a "punching motherfucker," as our children wept in the car. I am not 100% that he would try and kill me or my wife, but he is unpredictable enough for it to not be a non-possibility. The worst thing, listening back to the recording from last night, was the effect he had on the children - like the previous time, the kids were terrified, and I don't want them to have to go through that again. I know we can arrange to meet at the police station, and I think that might be the best option, but he's agreed to this before and then come up with excuses not to. If we refuse, then he's likely to show up at our house, causing the kind of scene we want to avoid. I don't want his threats to go without consequence, but I also don't want to damage my wife's chances of getting sole custody, or provoke him further. Any advice on the various legal options we have would be awesome - we're planning to speak to a lawyer soon, and I want to make sure that if I should act on this I do it while it still seems relevant, while also not wanting to screw things up. Thanks in advance. PS (I know that letting him get away with this kind of behavior in the past is not helpful, but my excuse is that I was going through the USCIS green card procedure until March last year - it's only since then that we've known that we could make solid plans for the future)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
IrvingWashington posted:He's threatened to kill me in the past, and he's also shown up and sat in a parking lot outside of the place we were living with a gun. I have video of him assaulting me while claiming to be a "punching motherfucker," as our children wept in the car. Why didn't you call the police on each of these occasions, particularly the one where he's sitting outside with a gun? What the gently caress, were you just hoping he didn't mean to use it? "Hello 911, my wife's ex is outside with a gun and he's threatened to kill me before."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Why didn't you call the police on each of these occasions, particularly the one where he's sitting outside with a gun? What the gently caress, were you just hoping he didn't mean to use it? How do you know they weren't called? (You don't. They were.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Calling the police doesn't mean they show up or care. You'd be surprised what kind of things they'd triage on a busy night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 15:40
|
|