|
blarzgh posted:What the proper Form of Notice of a claim is depends on what the notice is for. Telling someone that you have a Deceptive trade practices act claim in my state can be presented via email, for example. Notice of suit must always be by personal service, by certified mail, or by publication in special circumstances. A threatening email is usually legally meaningless, but copyright claims may have special rules concerning the recovery of attorneys fees or exemplary damages dependent on presentation of the claim. I don't know. Notice of suit can be by other methods, it's very much a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction issue. There's no specific issue with email service as long as the jurisdiction allows it.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Notice of suit can be by other methods, it's very much a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction issue. There's no specific issue with email service as long as the jurisdiction allows it. Calling bullshit on that. Service of process is one of the oldest tenants of Due Process on the planet. I challenge you to find a jurisdiction in the US that permits service of process by email on a resident defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Service of process is one of the oldest tenants of Due Process on the planet. For good service, tenants only have to be 15 years old. Many tenets of law are considerably older. (The root is the same, but with tenant being filtered through Old French  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Calling bullshit on that. Service of process is one of the oldest tenants of Due Process on the planet. I challenge you to find a jurisdiction in the US that permits service of process by email on a resident defendant. Tenets, not tenants, and it's far more flexible than you seem to believe. South Carolina allows electronic service of process on corporate defendants. Check South Carolina Code 26-6-190 (c)(3). In other jurisdictions: SDNY has authorized service of process via email, Facebook, and Telex in the past. These were mostly against foreign defendants, but the reasoning wasn't necessarily based on foreign status. SD Fla has authorized service by email as well. Again, foreign defendants. So far federal courts have limited it to foreign defendants because of rule 4, but an amendment to rule 4 would be pretty trivial - there's no constitutional concern with email service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What the proper Form of Notice of a claim is depends on what the notice is for. Telling someone that you have a Deceptive trade practices act claim in my state can be presented via email, for example. Notice of suit must always be by personal service, by certified mail, or by publication in special circumstances. A threatening email is usually legally meaningless, but copyright claims may have special rules concerning the recovery of attorneys fees or exemplary damages dependent on presentation of the claim. I don't know. Recovery of fees and statutory damages are based more on proper registration than on notice. See page seven of http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf Also, copyright notice is that little circle-c thing with a name and a date such as the one at the bottom of these forum pages. There aren't enough facts to even guess what OP's emailed "notice" might be about. It could be a web site displaying a copyrighted image/video. In that case, notice would include a C&D and/or a DMCA takedown notice. It could alternatively be that someone is being blamed for downloading music/porn/the hurt locker. Based on the OP being a goon, I'll assume busted for allegedly downloading porn. Recent case law has made these suits fairly hard to prove and painful to prosecute. They can be pretty lucrative though. If such was the case then the emailed notice was an offer to negotiate settlement before the bad stuff happens. If bad stuff does happen then it goes the normal service of process route. Service of process won't happen until the copyright holder gets a name and address. For a downloader, all they currently should have is just an IP address. To get more requires subpoenaing the ISP at which time OP should be given a few weeks to quash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
FYI: blarzgh isn't a lawyer and has given some pretty horrific legal advise in other threads. It'd be awesome to see an E/N thread where someone took the advice and then lost horribly, followed by getting them in trouble for giving legal advice without being a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Calling bullshit on that. Service of process is one of the oldest tenants of Due Process on the planet. I challenge you to find a jurisdiction in the US that permits service of process by email on a resident defendant. In addition to all the other reasons people have told you that you're full of poo poo, service of process is all about whether the defendant actually gets notice of the lawsuit. As long as there's an effective means to do that, the Constitution is satisfied. Sure, there are statutory/rule-based preferences for personal service or service on registered agents, those are only preferences. You can get around them if need be. I had a resident defendant who was evading service about a month ago, and we got the court to authorize service by publication and e-mail on him and someone we suspect was one of his attorneys. The court would probably have been fine with just e-mail, but we figured it was worth the cost to do everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:In addition to all the other reasons people have told you that you're full of poo poo, service of process is all about whether the defendant actually gets notice of the lawsuit. As long as there's an effective means to do that, the Constitution is satisfied. Sure, there are statutory/rule-based preferences for personal service or service on registered agents, those are only preferences. You can get around them if need be. I had a resident defendant who was evading service about a month ago, and we got the court to authorize service by publication and e-mail on him and someone we suspect was one of his attorneys. The court would probably have been fine with just e-mail, but we figured it was worth the cost to do everything. I wish I could remember the name of that one case where the defendant was hiding out in his house which was behind a gate and fence (obviously had to read it in civ pro). From what I remember they tried a variety of ways of serving him, but he never accepted anything or left the compound, so they tossed the papers over the wall, and the court said 'yeah he's clearly evading service so we'll give you that one.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
AreYouIn posted:It’s a disincentive for law goons to participate in this thread when people argue with us as though they understand the law better than we do. I stand corrected as South Carolina is allowing for service of process by email on corporate defendants who's registered agent submits their email to the Secretary of State for service. I'm aware that every state has rules of civil procedure which allow for alternative forms of service when a defendant cannot be located or served. In the context of the question above, I wasn't referring to alternative forms of service, which you must petition the court for, and present evidence to support your claim, and I should have been more clear regarding the limited scope of my position. If anybody still has a problem with that, just let me know. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Sure, there are statutory/rule-based preferences for personal service or service on registered agents, those are only preferences. Federal Rules of Civil Preferences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Virginia has a statute that says process is sufficient so long as the party to be served actually gets service within the specified time, so even if you ignore every rule of procedure everything's gravy if the defendant gets the summons and complaint one way or another. I don't know for sure, but I imagine other jurisdictions have something similar (yes, surprisingly, Virginia is not at the forefront of legal innovation). Of course, following the rules makes it much easier to prove the defendant actually received everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Virginia has a statute that says process is sufficient so long as the party to be served actually gets service within the specified time, so even if you ignore every rule of procedure everything's gravy if the defendant gets the summons and complaint one way or another. I don't know for sure, but I imagine other jurisdictions have something similar (yes, surprisingly, Virginia is not at the forefront of legal innovation). The UK cares a bit because the method of service determines the precise point at which the pre-litigation timetable starts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Federal Rules of Civil Preferences. Basically summarizes this thread; mostly accurate legal advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The UK cares a bit because the method of service determines the precise point at which the pre-litigation timetable starts. Yeah, alternative service messes with the time for answers and motions to dismiss, but it's not a huge deal otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Basically summarizes this thread; mostly accurate legal advice. you get what you pay for, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:you get what you pay for, I guess. DUUDE.  Actually, I think the multiple inputs in the thread generally results in good advice, so long as you can winnow out the defensive dick waving, non-pertinent exceptional-case-where-the-rule-doesn't-apply sperging, and etymological digressions. (Though I wonder how it looks to the non-lawyers who are trying to use the thread and whether they can separate the useful from the not.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Federal Rules of Civil Preferences. This is the most annoying post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^ I had to learn those fuckers. I've been a lawyer almost 4 years, never used them once. gently caress you civ pro! joat mon posted:DUUDE. We should get badges for being real live internet lawyers. (On second thought, no)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
My car was legally parked in front of my house a few days ago in California before I went on vacation. I was told today by a roommate that my car was towed for construction on the road. There were no signs or notice posted when I parked there. What are my options? It doesn't seem right that they are able to do that. How much notice is required to be given and am I responsible for all towing and storage fees?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:My car was legally parked in front of my house a few days ago in California before I went on vacation. I was told today by a roommate that my car was towed for construction on the road. There were no signs or notice posted when I parked there. What are my options? It doesn't seem right that they are able to do that. How much notice is required to be given and am I responsible for all towing and storage fees? - Assuming residential street? - Which city? City ordinances generally control provisions for improvement projects(like residential road construction), and parking restrictions (like in the street). - What entity towed your car? (police, code enforcement, construction crew)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:My car was legally parked in front of my house a few days ago in California before I went on vacation. I was told today by a roommate that my car was towed for construction on the road. There were no signs or notice posted when I parked there. What are my options? It doesn't seem right that they are able to do that. How much notice is required to be given and am I responsible for all towing and storage fees? If I'm reading all these words correctly: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22651.htm you can only park your car on the road 72 hours before it's abandoned and can be towed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:My car was legally parked in front of my house a few days ago in California before I went on vacation. I was told today by a roommate that my car was towed for construction on the road. There were no signs or notice posted when I parked there. What are my options? It doesn't seem right that they are able to do that. How much notice is required to be given and am I responsible for all towing and storage fees? Realistically you're screwed. I had the same thing happen to me once, but the ticket listed the wrong side of the street where there was no construction. I brought in pictures and the admin judge said since I didn't have pictures the day off the tow I couldn't prove there was no construction zone. Just pay the tow costs and fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:- Assuming residential street? It was towed by the police department from a residential street. I was told it was done under this code http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22651.htm Subsection i (i) (1) When a vehicle, other than a rented vehicle, is found upon a highway or public land, or is removed pursuant to this code, and it is known that the vehicle has been issued five or more notices of parking violations to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded within 21 calendar days of notice of citation issuance or citation issuance or 14 calendar days of the mailing of a notice of delinquent parking violation to the agency responsible for processing notices of parking violations, or the registered owner of the vehicle is known to have been issued five or more notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for traffic violations for which a certificate has not been issued by the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case showing that the case has been adjudicated or concerning which the registered owner’s record has not been cleared pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 41500) of Division 17, the vehicle may be impounded until that person furnishes to the impounding law enforcement agency all of the following: Which really doesn't apply in this situation. It was parked only for 2-3 days and no parking violations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:It was towed by the police department from a residential street. I was told it was done under this code http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22651.htm Perhaps it said l instead of i quote:(l) When a vehicle vehicle is illegally parked on a highway in violation of a local ordinance forbidding standing or parking and the use of a highway, or a portion thereof, is necessary for the cleaning, repair, or construction of the highway, or for the installation of underground utilities, and signs giving notice that the vehicle may be removed are erected or placed at least 24 hours prior to the removal by a local authority pursuant to the ordinance. e: pretty sure it said l instead if i FlyWhiteBoy posted:I was told today by a roommate that my car was towed for construction on the road. joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Perhaps it said l instead of i Yes, that's probably it. The lady on the phone probably misread the report. I'm going to get a full copy of the report when I return home. It says a vehicle parked illegally under city ordinance. Hopefully the report has the information about which city ordinance it is so I can look it up. Any chance I can get out of Is if they did in fact write subsection i instead of L?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:Yes, that's probably it. The lady on the phone probably misread the report. I'm going to get a full copy of the report when I return home. It says a vehicle parked illegally under city ordinance. Hopefully the report has the information about which city ordinance it is so I can look it up. Any chance I can get out of Is if they did in fact write subsection i instead of L? Probably not. It's pretty common to amend these things at trial time for minor typos, especially when they're ambiguous and the officer's notes obviously match one subsection even if the letter on the ticket appears to be the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Location: DC Situation: My coworker is a South Korean national working in the US. He's on a student visa with an Employment Authorization Document, however it expires this Saturday. He's working on getting a new visa (an O-1 if that matters at all [he is a badass]), but it's been held up due to his lawyer sucking and being really slow. So our company is basically going to have to fire him (temporarily, hopefully) tomorrow until things get sorted out. However his lawyer told him that some people in a similar situation will work for free while their visa is being processed and then get reimbursed after their visa goes through. I don't know He really wants to keep working and we all feel like poo poo for having to fire him. We're getting in touch with our own lawyers to see if this is kosher, but I'm hoping some helpful lawgoon can clue me in as to whether or not his lawyer is giving him terrible advice?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
It's unlikely that a non-immigration lawyer, goon or otherwise, can give you any idea as to whether that is good advice. Immigration law is highly specialized. I volunteered for a pro bono immigration law service for two months while studying for the bar, and all I know how to do is fill out an A2 change of status request. There are, however, lots of free immigration services that may be able to give you some guidance. Check the DC bar association website, and look for pro bono immigration. Best of luck to your friend. Edit: try these guys http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/pro_bono/about_the_program/serving_the_community/immigration.cfm blarzgh fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It's unlikely that a non-immigration lawyer, goon or otherwise, can give you any idea as to whether that is good advice. Immigration law is highly specialized. If he's going for an O visa, they guy probably makes way too much money for pro bono. It is seriously an element to the visa to be highly paid (though you don't technically have to be).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Hello thread. I've got a question in regards to CA and medical marijuana. I was not aware of this but apparently it is a crime for MMJ patient A to sell to MMJ patient B. I was informed that the seller had to be a licensed supplier, so my question is what sort of a crime is this? Infraction, Misdemeanor? I can't imagine it's a felony. What is the range of punishment one might expect, my guess would be a fine of some sort? Lets say hypothetically over the course of the dealings of these two patients the supplier opts to take the money and run, and in the process runs over the foot of the buyer with his car. Would it be worth filing a report given the fact that one would have to incriminate oneself in order to file the report? More or less what is the cost/benefit in this scenario that didn't at all actually happen because it would be really stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
HUGE SPACEKABLOOIE posted:Hello thread. I've got a question in regards to CA and medical marijuana. I was not aware of this but apparently it is a crime for MMJ patient A to sell to MMJ patient B. I was informed that the seller had to be a licensed supplier, so my question is what sort of a crime is this? Infraction, Misdemeanor? I can't imagine it's a felony. What is the range of punishment one might expect, my guess would be a fine of some sort? My basic reading of SB420 (yes, really the passed that), would indicate that 11360 would probably still apply even if not for profit. (Edit: I'm actually less sure than before. I'm on vacation, so no westlaw.) If this were to happen, I'd tell you to talk to a criminal lawyer, preferably one who specialized in medical MJ cases. quote:Lets say hypothetically over the course of the dealings of these two patients the supplier opts to take the money and run, and in the process runs over the foot of the buyer with his car. Would it be worth filing a report given the fact that one would have to incriminate oneself in order to file the report? More or less what is the cost/benefit in this scenario that didn't at all actually happen because it would be really stupid? nm fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
HUGE SPACEKABLOOIE posted:Hello thread. I've got a question in regards to CA and medical marijuana. I was not aware of this but apparently it is a crime for MMJ patient A to sell to MMJ patient B. I was informed that the seller had to be a licensed supplier, so my question is what sort of a crime is this? Infraction, Misdemeanor? I can't imagine it's a felony. What is the range of punishment one might expect, my guess would be a fine of some sort? This is a drug deal gone bad. Whether either or both people involved coincidentally happened to have MMJ cards is immaterial. I (not a CA attorney) have never seen a case where the victim of a drug deal gone bad was prosecuted for attempted possession or attempted distribution. On the other hand, the victims in those cases had been robbed at gunpoint or were badly beaten or were shot. That said, nm posted:It would be absolutely stupid to file a report in this case before talking to a attorney. Hypothetically, take this as an easy lesson in "You have a therapeutically, medically, legally and physically safe way to get your marijuana. What the hell are you doing getting marijuana from a source that is none of those things, dumbass?" (that didn't at all actually happen because it would be really stupid?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
HUGE SPACEKABLOOIE posted:Hello thread. I've got a question in regards to CA and medical marijuana. I was not aware of this but apparently it is a crime for MMJ patient A to sell to MMJ patient B. I was informed that the seller had to be a licensed supplier, so my question is what sort of a crime is this? Infraction, Misdemeanor? I can't imagine it's a felony. What is the range of punishment one might expect, my guess would be a fine of some sort? You should not just be talking to an attorney about this, but to a local attorney about it, because the practices for this sort of thing vary widely from county to county. What would happen to you for reporting this in Orange County is going to be entirely different from what would happen to you for reporting it in Mendocino County.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:This is a drug deal gone bad. Whether either or both people involved coincidentally happened to have MMJ cards is immaterial. I (not a CA attorney) have never seen a case where the victim of a drug deal gone bad was prosecuted for attempted possession or attempted distribution. On the other hand, the victims in those cases had been robbed at gunpoint or were badly beaten or were shot. Nothing you have said is wrong. Thanatosian posted:You should not just be talking to an attorney about this, but to a local attorney about it, because the practices for this sort of thing vary widely from county to county. It's not going any further. To clarify the thought of a report was solely due to the foot, not any thought that the cops would somehow be involved in said deal. HUGE SPACEKABLOOIE fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
 Brb trade-marking "distinctive fart sound".
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Edit: try these guys Thanks much!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
I have a payroll question (Kansas). Not sure if this is a "legal" question or what. I get a bi-weekly paycheck through the State of Kansas and was supposed to be paid on July 5th. I look at my bank account and my paycheck was only 10% of what it was supposed to be. I get an email saying they would send the supplemental paycheck on July 11th. Well that was yesterday and I never got paid, and I found out that someone in payroll "couldn't get to everybody in time" because this screw-up happened to I'm guessing hundreds of people. And now I won't get paid until the 19th (so, the next scheduled pay period, and I'll get my normal pay plus the rest of what I was supposed to be paid on the 5th). Now I know the state of Kansas has literally THE WORST employee protection laws in the USA. I just looked up Kansas Labor Laws and apparently it's legal for your employer to make you work 24 hours in a 24 hour period and employers aren't legally required to give you any breaks at all in this state (yes we would like to move soon obviously). Anyway, I'm just wondering if there is a time limit for getting paid. I can't find it anywhere for the state of Kansas labor law website. I'm sure it's something absurd like 60 days since Kansas has zero worker protection but I thought someone here might know. Basically I'm just pretty mad, no one seems to care, and getting a $70 paycheck instead of a $700 paycheck has kind of put me in a tight spot. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
kedo posted:Location: DC I am not an immigration lawyer, but I do work in an immigration firm and have for several years. Your company should probably be consulting not just with an immigration lawyer, but also with an employment lawyer - just because a lawyer handles work visas it does not mean they completely understand labor laws. What the attorney is telling you is very shady and absolutely not something we would ever suggest to a client. If your colleague continues to come to your office and do the same thing that he was doing last week, then he is working for you - the fact that you aren't paying him doesn't change that, it just means your company would probably be breaking even more laws (because you are usually required to pay people who work for you on a specific timetable). An O-1 is almost always a petition filed by a US employer for someone else - is your company actually sponsoring this petition? Are they providing letters/signatures/etc. for this? If so, then this lawyer is not just 'his' lawyer, he is also representing your company in this matter. Your HR should be able to contact him and ask him to verify what exactly your colleague can do and how they are allowed to compensate him. If he isn't being shady there is no reason he wouldn't provide that answer to them in writing. What is the actual status of the O-1? Is it submitted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/soundmarks/76280750.mp3
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:03
|
|