|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Hire a lawyer you loving idiot. A+++ advice. I certainly never thought about that after reading bullet #2 or as I was writing my own post. Obviously I am seriously considering professional legal representation. I will note both my parents have law degrees, and prior to today I felt that they would provide sufficient guidance through the legal process. On form ch-120 (Response to Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders) item 11 there is a check box where I may ask the court to order payment of court costs and attorneys fees. If I do contract with an attorney, is it typical or common in these types of cases for the judges to award the payment of any attorney fees if the accusations are found to be false or unproven? Obviously collecting on a judgement is a difficult task in itself, but is it plausible or even probable a judgement to pay my feeds would be issued assuming that I were to be cleared of any wrong doing? Edit: update - having contacted the San Bernardino Bar association I'm awaiting an appointment with a "real lawyer". Consultation alone is 40$ which is quite disheartening. I can see this easily costing $500-1000 or more depending on how things go  Is this about par for what a case like this might cost? I suppose I will ask my "real lawyer" what typical outcomes are. As an aside jumping jeebus h christ on a pogostick I feel really put out over this. In a way I almost feel like it's not worth my time or effort to fight the claims as I have no need or desire to be in contact with this woman anyways, but I resent the idea of my liberties and rights being restricted without cause or justification and I hear that a restraining order can have long term implications, particularly if I do pursue action in court against my employer. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 20:57 on May 8, 2013 |
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
One thing most people don't realize is that "facts" and "evidence" can, and usually are, nothing more than someone's testimony. They don't need "hard" evidence (physical documents, recordings) because most things are proven with testimony.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Attorneys fees are rarely awarded, so don't expect that. At best you might get court costs.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Haha if you think $40 is a lot of money you are hosed. But yeah for a simple hearings I usually demand $500 up front. Also, dude, you have to get it out of your head that you are being attacked without facts or something. A women went to court and testified that you did these things which is a pretty huge deal and enough for 99% of the judges in the nation to enter a tro or equivalent against you. Angry Hippo posted:but I resent the idea of my liberties and rights being restricted without cause or justification This is a 100% inaccurate interpretation of what is happening to you and the sooner you drop your victimization boo-hoo story the better. euphronius fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
nm posted:http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/Housing/LT/LT1.asp#EnterAgreement Thank you for your help.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also, dude, you have to get it out of your head that you are being attacked without facts or something. A women went to court and testified that you did these things which is a pretty huge deal and enough for 99% of the judges in the nation to enter a tro or equivalent against you. Absolutely this. The "burden" might be on her to get the TRO, but that burden is easily satisfied by her sitting in court and testifying against you. All the judge has to do is make a credibility determination that she's believable, and voila, TRO. If you were there and "testified" by reading some crap about what the law itself says, or some random thing you found online about what judges occasionally put as findings/conclusions in their orders...well, that's not really going to matter. Explaining all the facts and what happened from your point of view would, actually, likely have been better for you than what you did. It wouldn't stop the TRO and might get you in more trouble if you admitted to other wrongdoing (hence, GET A LAWYER to explain how to do it right), but at least then the judge would have to make some credibility determination.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
I *am* a victim in this. In my eyes this woman is using the legal system to harass me. I feel this civil case was filed as a petty form of retaliation for claiming harassment and discrimination of myself and others (based on protected classes) to her supervisor. Her only claim of harassment by me is that she suffered a petty act of vandalism to her property. Her only "evidence" connecting myself, or anyone to this act was the hope that the police would find fingerprints (results pending as of the time of the ex parte hearing). But hey, it's way more cool to just troll out and rage on someone than to show a little sympathy. I sure hope that should you find yourself in a situation where you must fight off frivolous litigation as well as discrimination in the workplace you are treated just as kindly. I'd just like to add that aside from being enemies with almost every person she's ever worked under, with, or over she is also the leader of a halfway house (court ordered drug rehab, usually) so there is a time bomb for drama over at her place. Despite what many of you seem to have already assumed, I had nothing to do with any of her flimsy accusations. As an aside, $40 bucks isn't a lot by itself, no, but when its the first 40 of 500 or first 40 of 1500 it quickly gets frustrating, particularly when you have several ongoing legal matters. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 06:27 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Has your "gently caress these guys in the rear end" plan metastasized and backfired, or is this TRO stuff pertaining to a different job you had between March and now?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Has your "gently caress these guys in the rear end" plan metastasized and backfired, or is this TRO stuff pertaining to a different job you had between March and now? Sometimes I forget to click on post history 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Has your "gently caress these guys in the rear end" plan metastasized and backfired, or is this TRO stuff pertaining to a different job you had between March and now? Haha, funny you bring that up. I believe that aside from being discriminated on based on several protected classes that I've also been subjected to such treatment by my employer as retaliation for filing a wage claim. You can see that my employer has engaged in a history of dubious behavior. I will also note that I am not the only person with claims of discrimination against this manager. Several EEOO complaints and investigations have been conducted or are currently being conducted apart from my own claims.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Nobody cares. Getting the last word in on the internet won't help win your case.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
What is your alleged protected class.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What is your alleged protected class. I think I've mostly stuck to information publicly available or already known to my employer but may have already written too much and certainly don't want to go into further detail simply so you can attempt to troll me without knowing any of the specifics of my situation. Just so you know common examples of protected classes are race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. I'm sure you can guess which ones likely do and do not apply in a situation like this. With that said I bid this thread farewell for the moment. I appreciate your and several other posters efforts at showing me that my situation is much more serious than I initially thought. Consider your warnings heeded and know that an attorney will be handling the rest of these matters. Again, gently caress my employers illegal actions and all of you hating on me for having the guts to protest them. Wrap your heads on this. A new employee who would have worked for us after changing our pay periods would, in some cases, wait 31 days before they would receive their first check. (IE perform first day of work on the 16th of January, employee would not receive first check until Feb 15th). Now does that sound at all reasonable to you? I was the general manager of the business while it was handling payroll in this manner and hired folks into a situation like that. It was wrong and I knew it and I felt like a scum bag for telling people living paycheck to paycheck with kids they had to wait 30 days to get paid when they came to work for me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
So from my earlier post (last page) do you guys think I should see another lawyer?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
I know nothing about NC law, but local attorneys are usually clued into local practice which can vary from what "the book" says about things. Who knows though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:So from my earlier post (last page) do you guys think I should see another lawyer? Absolutely. If you weren't comfortable with the first lawyer, find someone you can trust/are comfortable with. It's a bit of money, and a pain in the rear end, but you shouldn't hire a lawyer you don't like.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Who was the goon lawyer in NH or Vermont who was disbarred or whatever. He did a lot of mortgage stuff like this. I think he played EvE of something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:I'd just like to add that aside from being enemies with almost every person she's ever worked under, with, or over she is also the leader of a halfway house (court ordered drug rehab, usually) so there is a time bomb for drama over at her place. Congratulations! You've just made a discriminatory statement based on disability towards a coworker. This will probably be really good for your case 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:
I've had all of one job in my life where I got paid on the actual first paycheck I was around for - a lot of places set up things at the beginning of the pay period and for some reason can't adjust them until the next pay period. That one job? A mom and pop joint where they got out a checkbook right in front of me, and hand wrote a check on pay day. At least in my state, that's standard operating procedure, not some huge evil plot.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Dramatika posted:I've had all of one job in my life where I got paid on the actual first paycheck I was around for - a lot of places set up things at the beginning of the pay period and for some reason can't adjust them until the next pay period. That one job? A mom and pop joint where they got out a checkbook right in front of me, and hand wrote a check on pay day. At least in my state, that's standard operating procedure, not some huge evil plot. Yeah seriously, every job I've ever had I didn't get a paycheck for the first partial pay period I worked there, then got a bigger than usual one after that. Payroll's a bitch and a half if you don't have someone dedicated to it - and if you do, your workforce is big enough that it won't help. Edit: Correction, I've had jobs where that wasn't an issue because I was getting paid cash, but I doubt that'd apply to anyone working legally in a first world country.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Who was the goon lawyer in NH or Vermont who was disbarred or whatever. He did a lot of mortgage stuff like this. I think he played EvE of something like that. Dan Dargon aka Remedial? http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/4537151-95/dandargon
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Yeah that's the guy. Apparently he is in the Army now, huh.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
echopapa posted:Congratulations! You've just made a discriminatory statement based on disability towards a coworker. This will probably be really good for your case Running a half-way house is a not a disability in any sense of the word, legal or otherwise and you'd have to be a retard to think differently. I don't think its too controversial to suggest a half-way house filled with "recovering" drug addicts is subject to a higher level of drama. But it's much easier to just be an rear end than use your head. In regards to the pay periods. Yes, it is standard that they hold your first check for 10 days after the pay period, and in some cases that may result in up to 25 days between first day of work and getting cut that check (vs 31). Tacking on an almost additional week is unjustified and illegal. Keep in mind this is the food industry we are talking about. Half the employees I hired to deliver pizzas didn't have enough money to buy a pair of work khakis and a small lock for their dropbox until a couple days of earning tips. Prior to the change in pay periods the longest time an employee would go without being paid was 15 days. I think some of you fail to see the issue, which is that the company is holding on to their staffs hard earned money for an extra 5 days, and likely accruing interest on it. The employees are suffering a real opportunity cost by the illegal action. Is 5 days a tragedy of unbelievable proportions? No. But it is illegal and when done willfully and I can see it is to the obvious detriment of the people working for me you need to say something. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Angry Hippo instead of just plugging your ears and la-la-laing everywhere you should find someone that you can discuss your opinions about law with. I would recommend a Law-ist.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Angry Hippo instead of just plugging your ears and la-la-laing everywhere you should find someone that you can discuss your opinions about law with. I would recommend a Law-ist. With respect to the wages claim, Angry Hippo apparently already contacted attorneys: Angry Hippo posted:I called 3 law offices and none of them agreed to take the case. I asked one office "if they thought it was even appropriate that I be seeking legal representation" and (probably a paralegal or receptionist) told me that I should just file a claim with the DLSE. Apparently, filing a DLSE claim would not "gently caress these guys in the rear end" enough, though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Angry Hippo, it seems as though the solution to your immediate problems that will give you the most satisfaction involves a ski mask and a baseball bat. Sometimes you just have to go full on vigilante. Other comedy option: commit perjury and file a restraining order against your female co-worker for death threats.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Angry Hippo, just a reality check. I am not a lawyer, I'm just a random geek on the internet who wandered into this thread. From the combination of unbearably smug and butthurt you are exhibiting, I would totally believe that you threw a rock through her car window. It doesn't matter what happened, it matters what people believe happened, and if I was on a jury I would vote guilty. Not because I am out to get you. Not because I don't like you or have some sort of preference for your accuser. It is just because you come across as irrational and lacking impulse control. But hey, this is the internet, and you are probably not like this in real life, amirite?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
SubjectVerbObject posted:Angry Hippo, just a reality check. I am not a lawyer, I'm just a random geek on the internet who wandered into this thread. From the combination of unbearably smug and butthurt you are exhibiting, I would totally believe that you threw a rock through her car window. It doesn't matter what happened, it matters what people believe happened, and if I was on a jury I would vote guilty. Not because I am out to get you. Not because I don't like you or have some sort of preference for your accuser. It is just because you come across as irrational and lacking impulse control. I'd bet there's quite a few people lurking this conversation thinking along those lines: He might not have done it but if he acts this way in real life it's understandable why someone would think he is the person who did it. It reeks of "there's no evidence I did it (even though I did) so I am ok, right". Which is the way people act all the time when confronted with consequences for their actions: "You don't *know* I lied mom, so gently caress you for accusing me."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Angry Hippo, it seems as though the solution to your immediate problems that will give you the most satisfaction involves a ski mask and a baseball bat. Sometimes you just have to go full on vigilante. Don't listen to that guy, Angry Hippo. Google Freeman on the Land instead - Turns out most courts in the US can't act against you, just the corporate person the government creates when you're born! (Please keep this thread updated as to your process to show all the lame lawyers here the error of their ways)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
The part I don't understand is why he was even at an ex parte hearing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:The part I don't understand is why he was even at an ex parte hearing. Someone with obvious anger issues shows up to an ex parte hearing when someone attempts to get a restaining order against them. I'm not sure what's difficult about that scenario to understand. (unless you are just using 'I don't understand' in the wonderful way that lawyers do to draw attention to something).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Someone with obvious anger issues shows up to an ex parte hearing when someone attempts to get a restaining order against them. I'm not sure what's difficult about that scenario to understand. (unless you are just using 'I don't understand' in the wonderful way that lawyers do to draw attention to something). Well, more the fact that he would know about the hearing taking place at all. The scenario you described is exactly why you don't have to give notice in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Someone with obvious anger issues shows up to an ex parte hearing when someone attempts to get a restaining order against them. I'm not sure what's difficult about that scenario to understand. (unless you are just using 'I don't understand' in the wonderful way that lawyers do to draw attention to something). Less that and more "why was he permitted to give a hilarious statement at an ex parte hearing"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:Well, more the fact that he would know about the hearing taking place at all. The scenario you described is exactly why you don't have to give notice in the first place. Gosh maybe he has boundary issues and doesn't respect privacy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
fordan posted:Dan Dargon aka Remedial? What happens when a lawyer is disbarred? Is this the sort of thing comes around after multiple sanctions? Can you apply to the bar in another state or is there some state reciprocity that prevents you from even attempting to do so? Edit: I'm wondering how dissimilar this is to losing a medical license. In Florida it seems to be a long road with many points at which the physician can turn things around and even seek reinstatement after a license has been suspended. But what I know comes from the state medical board's handling physicians with substance abuse problems and those who participate in pill mills. RICKON WALNUTSBANE fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:What happens when a lawyer is disbarred? Is this the sort of thing comes around after multiple sanctions? Can you apply to the bar in another state or is there some state reciprocity that prevents you from even attempting to do so? It varies by state and depends on the sanction. Here are some disciplinary proceedings from my state if you want to take a look: http://www.oscn.net/applications/os...&SUBMITTED=true euphronius posted:Who was the goon lawyer in NH or Vermont who was disbarred or whatever. He did a lot of mortgage stuff like this. I think he played EvE of something like that. fordan posted:Dan Dargon aka Remedial? http://www.nhattyreg.org/
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Angry Hippo instead of just plugging your ears and la-la-laing everywhere you should find someone that you can discuss your opinions about law with. I would recommend a Law-ist. My favourite part of this thread is when I read don't read it for a week or two, and someone with a probation tag next to their name shows up in the unread posts. 99% of the time, that probation seems to come from a slow and smug descent into incredulous fury, because the stupid lawyers in this thread aren't sympathizing with their condescending and totally-not-batshit reasoning.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
burf posted:My favourite part of this thread is when I read don't read it for a week or two, and someone with a probation tag next to their name shows up in the unread posts. 99% of the time, that probation seems to come from a slow and smug descent into incredulous fury, because the stupid lawyers in this thread aren't sympathizing with their condescending and totally-not-batshit reasoning. My god, me to. This thread is like the secret door from E/N to Ask/Tell.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
The best part is that if you look at his ban history he works at a pizza place and uses meth. Yes, lets critique the woman who runs a sober living house for recovering addicts! What a loser, why would you want to stop doing drugs? Also, this is a guy who couldn't find meth in the high desert. (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1581831&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post300051318)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
burf posted:My favourite part of this thread is when I read don't read it for a week or two, and someone with a probation tag next to their name shows up in the unread posts. 99% of the time, that probation seems to come from a slow and smug descent into incredulous fury, because the stupid lawyers in this thread aren't sympathizing with their condescending and totally-not-batshit reasoning.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 21:38
|
|
