|
Justinen posted:Greetings goons, I would like advice on a matter concerning possible business law. My company did work for a architect who was moving himself and his business into the area. He was constructing what would be a "model" home for his architect idea but he was also planning on living in it for a while or something. The guy also owns a few what I would consider mansions in Colorado; I was told one was like 1.5 million. We drove to this job site which was almost halfway across Colorado and stayed in a hotel for a few days while we completed the work for him. In all we spent about 20 thousand dollars in just material costs alone to spray polyureas around his house like a moat and also spray foam insulation then cover it with elastomeric coatings on three small roofs of his house. The day we finished the job he was talking about going through a divorce and his wife not allowing him to pay any more money into the house project. Well he refuses to pay us and keeps telling us to "give him time with his divorce" but it has been about a month and a half and we are just a small business who cant suffer this kind of loss easily. Talk to a lawyer in your area. Either he is lying to you, or his assets genuinely are locked up by a divorce court. In the first instance you need to start a claim against him (at which point he's 99% likely to just cave in) and in the second instance you'd need your lawyer to apply to the court managing the divorce proceedings to release the funds. This should be pretty straightforward. You talk to a lawyer. They send a threatening letter. For the cost of that letter you are morel likely than not to get your money.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Did the two if you sign a contract? Do you otherwise have documentation of what you agreed on? All of that aside, your company will need to hire a lawyer. Alchenar posted:This should be pretty straightforward. You talk to a lawyer. They send a threatening letter. For the cost of that letter you are morel likely than not to get your money. I doubt this very seriously, but I do agree his company needs a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Justinen posted:Greetings goons, I would like advice on a matter concerning possible business law. My company did work for a architect who was moving himself and his business into the area. He was constructing what would be a "model" home for his architect idea but he was also planning on living in it for a while or something. The guy also owns a few what I would consider mansions in Colorado; I was told one was like 1.5 million. We drove to this job site which was almost halfway across Colorado and stayed in a hotel for a few days while we completed the work for him. In all we spent about 20 thousand dollars in just material costs alone to spray polyureas around his house like a moat and also spray foam insulation then cover it with elastomeric coatings on three small roofs of his house. The day we finished the job he was talking about going through a divorce and his wife not allowing him to pay any more money into the house project. Well he refuses to pay us and keeps telling us to "give him time with his divorce" but it has been about a month and a half and we are just a small business who cant suffer this kind of loss easily. Get a lawyer, sue for breach of contract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Get a lawyer, sue for breach of contract. and to register a lien against the property.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:and to register a lien against the property. specifically, a mechanic's lien
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
General law question, I'm assuming it's going to vary by jurisdiction: At what points in a trial would a defendant be required to speak? I know that it's not unusual for a lawyer to enter a plea in-absentia, but I'm assuming that it might not be allowed always. Also, during the George Zimmerman trial I saw a part where the Judge asked Zimmerman if he wanted to testify and Zimmerman of course said no. Are there any other times where you absolutely have to get up and say something in a court or can you just let the lawyer do 100% of the talking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:General law question, I'm assuming it's going to vary by jurisdiction: In my State that one singular inquiry - whether or not the defendant wants to testify - is the only time the defendant is ever required to utter one peep, and even then it is a simple yes or no. There are a few times when people are required to talk to the police, such as identifying that they have a driver's license if pulled over, but in terms of during an actual trial the defendant himself does not have to speak. There are a few times where the defendant's lawyer could be required to bring things up outside the presence of the jury, but in front of the jury the lawyer doesn't technically need to say anything either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:General law question, I'm assuming it's going to vary by jurisdiction: The problem with waiving your right to silence in order to testify is that doing so means the prosecution get the right to cross-examine you. That's a problem for most defendants because they are guilty and cross-examination would reveal that in a devestating way, so they don't and play the burden of proof card with the jury instead. Zimmerman's case is actually a good example where exercising your right to silence means that legally you get to walk free, but socially you've effectively made a confession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with waiving your right to silence in order to testify is that doing so means the prosecution get the right to cross-examine you. That's a problem for most defendants because they are guilty and cross-examination would reveal that in a devestating way, so they don't and play the burden of proof card with the jury instead. On the other hand, a skilled prosecutor can probably make someone who isn't a good public speaker or good at thinking on their feet look guilty (or, at least flustered/confused/angry/etc., which could look guilty to a jury) on cross-examination even when the person isn't. In any case, exercising one's right to silence is in no way effectively making a confession, whatever you may think of the Zimmerman verdict specifically. \/\/\/ Maybe, but he also said "That's a problem for most defendants because they are guilty and cross-examination would reveal that in a devestating way," which is far from the only reason someone might exercise their right to silence. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
He said socially that it's giving off the perception of making a confession, which it absolutely does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
Also, in civil trials you can be compelled by the other side to testify, whether you're a plaintiff or a defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Given that the whole premise of the common law jury trial is that we assume that ordinary people are quite good at listening to testimony and working out if someone is lying or not, it's actually more of an anomaly than you might at first think that defendants can offer a defence but don't have to back it up with their own words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
I have to get something notarized in order to close an account that is still in my maiden name. I am married and my drivers' license reflects my married name now, but my passport is still in my maiden name. I also have a marriage certificate. If I show the passport and the marriage certificate to the notary, is that sufficient proof of identity? I need to sign the document with my maiden name in front of the notary, because that is what is printed on the document. I don't think the agency will accept it if I sign under my married name. Anyone know if this can be done?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Call the agency and ask them if you can sign in your married name, but if you bring all that stuff to a notary they should be fine with it. To find a notary, start with your bank - most branches have a notary on staff, or can tell you which branch nearby does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Call the agency and ask them if you can sign in your married name, but if you bring all that stuff to a notary they should be fine with it. To find a notary, start with your bank - most branches have a notary on staff, or can tell you which branch nearby does. No, I have to sign in my maiden name...sorry if I was confusing. I usually get my stuff notarized at my local credit union, where I am a member, but all my accounts there are under my married name now, and I'm hoping if I bring the extra documentation, they'll let me sign as a maiden name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:No, I have to sign in my maiden name...sorry if I was confusing. We're talking past each other. Sorry. I get that the form claims you have to sign in the name on the account, but you can always ask them if you can sign in your married name instead. (if you already asked, my bad) Alternatively, if you have trouble with the notary, ask about a name change form, then you can change the name on the account then fill out the account closing form under your married name. It'd be a two-step hassle, but it'd get it done (probably). Regarding the notary, notaries don't look you up or anything, so the notary at the credit union won't know what the name on your accounts with them is. I'd be willing to bet that if you just showed up with your passport, they'd let you sign under your maiden name with no questions asked. I wouldn't do that - it'd be better to bring all the docs, but see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Do you have the certificate from when you changed your name? Because you'll need that. -e- not your marriage certificate, but when you filed to have your name changed, there should be some sort of documentation from that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
I received a notice from my apartment complex notice of entry to perform preventative maintenance, along with everyone else in this section. However, the date and time of entry is listed 7/30-8/8, between 9am and 5pm. The most specific wording I can find in regard to California renters rights is "The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry." Does this mean they must give me a specific date? I'm going to go talk to them but I want to know if I'm within my rights to ask for a specific day. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
nm
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:We're talking past each other. Sorry. Yeah...at my credit union they ask for our member ID card, which now has my married name on it. Sigh. I could always try going somewhere else though, where there wouldn't be any confusion? I definitely will bring all the documents with me, and I'll call the place where the account I need to close is tomorrow, and ask if I can sign it under my married name as backup. It was weird because I did the whole process online and it asked if I am married, and I checked "yes" and it asked for my spouses' birthday, but not for his name. If they would have asked for the name, too, then it would be much easier to just sign it under my married name. If none of the above works, I'll change my name on the account that needs closing and then re-do the closing form...no big deal...I just really want to get my money out and be done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
When I go to the car wash, I always see signs about removing valuables from the car, because the business won't be responsible if anything goes missing. Was there some big case about this, or some hidden camera that once caught someone stealing from a car? Does the same ruling apply to using a valet service or keeping your car in a resort parking lot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Sipher posted:I received a notice from my apartment complex notice of entry to perform preventative maintenance, along with everyone else in this section. However, the date and time of entry is listed 7/30-8/8, between 9am and 5pm. It's likely the answer will be "We have a work-crew moving from apartment to apartment, because we can't know how long work on each apartment will take we can't really be more specific".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Given that the whole premise of the common law jury trial is that we assume that ordinary people are quite good at listening to testimony and working out if someone is lying or not, it's actually more of an anomaly than you might at first think that defendants can offer a defence but don't have to back it up with their own words. Maybe in Europe, but here in the U.S. juries can be... less than sophisticated... The joke is that they were too dumb to get out of jury duty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with waiving your right to silence in order to testify is that doing so means the prosecution get the right to cross-examine you. That's a problem for most defendants because they are guilty and cross-examination would reveal that in a devestating way, so they don't and play the burden of proof card with the jury instead. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe in Europe, but here in the U.S. juries can be... less than sophisticated... Actually intelligence isn't what we're looking for. What matters is that twelve people get together and agree whether someone was trying to bullshit them or not. You don't have to be particularly smart for that (though it helps to understand your instructions), what we want is that basic emotive ability everyone picks up in their day to day life to work out if someone is lying or not. That's the other half of 'jury of your peers' that doesn't get so much love - it's not just a protection from the state/bigotry, it's also that people from your background are going to have a keener sense of when you are saying something that doesn't add up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
So I have a question, and my jurisdiction is Ohio. I have been driving a vehicle that is titled to only my mother since June 2010 and I am currently still driving it. The car has a KBB value of 3250 (approx.), and over this time I have made over $1,000 in repairs and preventative maintenance to it. Very recently, I performed a complete brake job and replaced all fluids with OE fluids. At the same time, her and my father's relationship has been increasingly getting worse. In the past month, her behavior has grown increasingly unstable. This past week, she called the police to try and file false domestic violence charges against my father. I was there for the entire event and described what happened in a statement for the police (which was in contradiction to her statement), and my father declined to press charges against her. Two days later, my mother notified me via text message that she would be selling the vehicle, with the caveat that I could purchase it for $1,000. This was well worth the price in my opinion and I was willing to do this. Then she said that I would have to sign statements saying that my father would have no financial interest in it. I then refused the purchase, because quite honestly, if I'm buying the thing I'm sure as hell not going to agree to stipulations for someone else to control my property. The next day, I spoke with my father regarding the issue and he told me that he didn't care and that it was worth doing. So, I sent my mother a text message confirming my interest in purchasing the car according to her demands. Today, we discussed it in person and she acted as if the $1,000 purchase price was acceptable. Then, she began searching the residence for her "missing" property (she removed a ton of marital assets after my father and I left for work on the day the cops came) and got increasingly angry, eventually saying that she had an "offer" for $2,500 on the vehicle. I believe that all of this is likely an attempt to punish me for not helping her get my father arrested. My question is, is it possible for me to recoup the cost of the repairs I still have receipts for by taking her to small claims court? Wickerman fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Probably not. And even under the circumstances where you can (under an unjust enrichment/quantum meruit theory), she'd be able to offset the rental value of the car over the past three years, which I'm almost certainly would exceed $1000.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:So I have a question, and my jurisdiction is Ohio. There's an outside chance that you can force her to sell you the vehicle for $1000.00 in small claims court under a breach of contract claim. The issue would be how the court would treat your back and forth over the stipulations associated with the sale, and whether you made an offer and she accepted it, or she made a counter offer, and so on. You would also likely have to show tender of the $1000.00, as your performance. That said, in the end it sounds like its not worth the trouble. It might be easier to wrangle the car for yourself out of the divorce process. I'm sorry you have to go through all this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:So I have a question, and my jurisdiction is Ohio. It is unlikely that court is your best outcome. Send her a copy of the receipts, tell her that if she sells it for $2500 she owes you $1000 or she can sell it to you for $1000. My magic 8 ball says the outcome of this scenario is better than anyone which you force her to a courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:It is unlikely that court is your best outcome. Send her a copy of the receipts, tell her that if she sells it for $2500 she owes you $1000 or she can sell it to you for $1000. My magic 8 ball says the outcome of this scenario is better than anyone which you force her to a courtroom. God yes. Avoid courtrooms at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:And even under the circumstances where you can (under an unjust enrichment/quantum meruit theory), she'd be able to offset the rental value of the car over the past three years, which I'm almost certainly would exceed $1000. Arcturas posted:God yes. Avoid courtrooms at all costs. Correct for a million points. Think of it as buying the ability to disentangle yourself (even partially) from this situation and you'll realize the thousand dollars you've paid to fix that bucket is a fuckin bargain. Find the shortest path that leads you directly away from further contact or antagonism here and run along it. Now I will click the submit button instead of making value judgments on the behaviour you have described.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: Avoid courtrooms at all costs. would not be an inaccurate title.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Given that the whole premise of the common law jury trial is that we assume that ordinary people are quite good at listening to testimony and working out if someone is lying or not, it's actually more of an anomaly than you might at first think that defendants can offer a defence but don't have to back it up with their own words. Do you have support for this? Because less than half of felony defendants that go to trial choose to testify, at least according to these articles (of course, ~90% of felony cases are plea bargains): http://faculty.lls.edu/workshops/documents/natapoff.pdf http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Eisenberg-Hans-final.pdf Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
One reason why a lot of defendants don't take the stand is because they have prior offenses. This typically isn't relevant to the case, so the prosecution can't mention it to the jury. However, in many jurisdictions, the prosecution is allowed to ask the defendant about this during cross-examination. Obviously, the defense doesn't want this, so they avoid putting the defendant on the stand at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Do you have support for this? Because less than half of felony defendants that go to trial choose to testify, at least according to these articles (of course, ~90% of felony cases are plea bargains): I didn't say it actually worked that way. It's just one of the reasons that juries exist as a concept.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
I appreciate all of the responses, I was caught off guard by the situation last week and I'm simply trying to figure out what my next steps will be.flakeloaf posted:Find the shortest path that leads you directly away from further contact or antagonism here and run along it. Well, my plans as of last year were to remain at the marital household until either August 2014 or 2015, depending on the costs for my applications to professional or graduate school. I have moved most of my possessions out of the martial residence for safe keeping and will move all but my essentials out today. My two biggest concerns are: 1) My mother harms herself and accuses him of domestic violence, possibly resulting in conviction. 2) My mother files a restraining order against him. Both result in my father being barred from the martial household, even just temporarily. If he is barred from the property, I will leave immediately. I have cash assets (3.5 grand) and two ($0 balance) lines of revolving credit, so I could move out and rent a small 1BR apartment near the university campus. I would have to hold year-round employment and would probably not be able to afford very much other than rent and tuition according to my excel budget projections. I couldn't afford car insurance, a car payment, or a purchase, little heat for the apartment, or any furnishings, but I would be able to work hard in a no-stress environment to have continued success in college and (eventually) improve my living conditions. So I have already came up with a viable worst-case scenario plan for myself, I'm mostly just concerned with my father losing his ability to stay in the marital home which would make this situation a reality. (This got very E/N-like, and I apologize for that.) blarzgh posted:It might be easier to wrangle the car for yourself out of the divorce process. I'm sorry you have to go through all this. Could you elaborate a little further? Wickerman fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
It's a lovely situation, can't really be made to apologize for that. Having been an adult-but-not-ready-to-leave-child of divorced parents myself (I'm PMable and my username's a gmail address), I know what it's like to be used as an emotional and legal football, and the planets have to align just so for you to be able to credibly tell them to keep their poo poo to themselves. Try to remember that it is the responsibility of the parents to raise and protect the child, not the other way around, and that once you take a side you will pretty much never be able to un-take it before someone's near death and knows better than to care about petty mortal affairs. In what I imagine your position to be, I'd say keep your head down and stay focused on your plan to become independent without wading any deeper into someone else's fight than you absolutely have to, even if it means passing up what would otherwise be a great opportunity to drag someone into court and get what's rightfully yours. That doesn't mean you can't throw a stick in the wheels of obvious dickery, you just aren't allowed to take credit for it  e: quote:Could you elaborate a little further? Your father could contest her right to sell the car specifically to put a screw into her plans to squeeze you for more money until either: she either gives up and lets you have the drat thing (amidst bilateral cries of "don't drag Wickerman into our fight"); she spends an immoderate amount of money protecting a $2500 car for the express purpose of keeping it away from her own child; or her lawyer tells her the car will probably be declared community property and her $1250 stake in it isn't worth the fight win or lose. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
This situation is taking place in Chemung County, New York specifically the city of Elmira. This is going to be a bit of a long back story. My sister in law was involved with a really bad guy before she met and married my brother. She was legally married to him and has three children by him. This guy was into drugs, was abusive and she claims has been diagnosed as clinically schizoprhenic. He has a criminal history as well as a history of being involuntarily placed in psychiatric care. After she left him and had been with my brother she got him to grant a termination of their marriage but he did not rescind custody of the children. I know that when she left him and started seeing my brother he broke into her apartment on numerous occasions and threatened to kill her, the children and my brother. They contacted the police each time but the police refused to do much more than escort him from the property and tell him to leave her alone. She did however get an order of protection from a judge during this time period. This lasted until their first custody hearing at which point the judge rescinded the order of protection and granted him unsupervised visits with the children, once a week for three hours. At no point did my sister in law come at him for child support because he had told he'd kill her if she ever tried to do that. So, a year or so passes. At this point this guy up and disappears. My sister in law tried to contact his family and find out where he is. She's told at that time by the guy's mother that she kicked him out because she caught him looking at child porn and that he went to Virginia to live with his sister. He finally makes contact and claims to be living in a homeless shelter in Virginia. Then he makes contact nearly a month later and claims he's in a mental institution in Virginia. During this time my sister in law tries to have his visitation and custody terminated but her lawyer at the time advises her against doing this as it could somehow back fire in her face so she lets it drop. After about another six months he finally returns and acts as though nothing has happened out of the ordinary and demands the resumption of his visitation. He even threatens my sister in law with filing contempt of court charges against her if she refuses. So, she agrees and visitation resumes. We become suspicious of the way her little girl is acting after visiting their father. Her little girl specifically has begun constantly touching herself and making comments about her vagina hurting. She's three years old. She's also very quiet and withdrawn when she returns from her father's house but she says she's fine when questioned. This combined with reports of him being interested in child pornography help us convince my sister in law to have child services investigate him for molesting the little girl. The results of their investigation is inconclusive and they tell us there's nothing they can do legally against him at this time without further evidence as the only thing they have is his mother's word against his and no physical evidence of abuse on any of the kids. Therefore we have no choice but to drop this at this point however, her little girl does stop acting as weird after the visits so we hope that we've scared him out of doing whatever he's doing. My sister in law did take her to a doctor and he said there was no physical evidence of child molestation that he could detect. So, more time passes and we hear on the news that this guy has been arrested in connection with molesting a different child. He's brought up on charges and sentenced to five years in prison for his crime. He could be out on parole in about a year and a half. Soon after this my brother and her get married and they breathe a sigh of relief for the first time in a long time. A family court hearing takes place after his sentencing to revise the visitation agreements etc. They're told at this time that he now only has supervised visits with them at a time and place determined by my sister in law once he's released from jail. The judge however, also orders that my sister in law must send him monthly letters telling him how the children are doing and that she must give the children any letters he sends as well as allow them to send letters if they wish. My sister in law complies with this initially but she's so upset by their history and the pscyhological damage he's done to her and the kids that she just can't bring herself emotionally to do this. She stops writing not out of willful neglect for a court order but out of fear of being in contact with this guy in any way. Fast forward a bit, he's been in jail now for one year. My sister in law gets a new job and sets up something with social services to reimburse her the cost of health insurance for the children. Social services agrees but says she must sue their father for child support or they won't reimburse her. My sister in law commences that process. Today two state troopers show up and serve her with papers ordering her to come to court to defend herself against contempt of court charges for failure to send these loving letters to her shithead child molesting ex-husband. So obviously this is his retaliation for her filing the child support order against him. Now, here's the issue. My brother and her have been struggling financially for a long time. She just recently got into a decent job and my brother is finally after months of being out of work on the cusp of getting a decent job himself. They are not in a situation to hire a lawyer at this point to deal with this bullshit. As the letter indicates my sister in law could face up to six months in jail if she's found in contempt of the court order. My question is what recourse does she have for free or cheap legal defense? I thought that a domestic abuse group might take her on seeing as she has this history of mental, emotional and physical abuse by him. My worry is that they might not considering there is almost no police record of any of this. The bottom line is this guy is an insane evil child molester who is trying his damndest to gently caress over my sister in law who although she made a bad choice by getting involved with him has turned her life around and is simply trying to get past all the horrible poo poo that has happened here. Obviously she can't afford six months in jail. She'd lose her job, and she'd lose the children as my brother is not their legal guardian I don't think unless stepfathers automatically are considered legal guardians. Basically we need some legal help. The hearing is September 4th. Any advice here? Worse comes to worse I'll see about getting a loan to help them as I don't think their credit is good enough for one. I don't have the financial means to retain a lawyer for them without a loan though and neither does anyone else in my family. Reformed Pessimist fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Most counties have groups that provide pro bono domestic abuse services.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
We're looking into that but I'm also looking for other resources we might not be aware of. National or state organizations etc. Even attorneys who do pro bono work in this field that might operate in NY that we're unaware of for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:08
|
|