|
pseudorandom posted:The list of members through out the years of Soft Machines is huge. Have you considered calling your band The Micro Soft Machines? I can't think of any legal baggage that might come from a name like that. e: No wait, call the band Mattelica and call your first album Bardbie Dolls. I have a pretty good feeling about this.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Some good points to consider. I suppose the name is, in reality, the same. That's why we get outside opinions!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If he's like 99% of the goons who ask that question, yes, yes he was, but the officer had his hat on crooked when he wrote the ticket. Look, it is a scientific fact that time slows down the faster you move, and thus there is no such thing as speeding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
I have a few hypothetical questions for Pineville/Mecklenburg, North Carolina. Victor lives in an apartment with two roommates, one of them his girlfriend. He drinks too much and is blackout drunk. He's with his girlfriend, Juliett, in her bedroom and a loud argument occurs. The third roommate, Sierra, hears loud shouting and banging and calls the police. Since Juliett has marks on her neck, the police arrest Victor for assault on a female even though Juliett told them he did not attack her. They also charge him with resisting arrest because although he was physically cooperative, he was verbally a smartass. Though Victor was arrested and processed, he was never read his Miranda rights. Question 1: Would Victor be better off using the public defender or getting his own lawyer? I think I know the answer to this one. Question 2: Is it a big deal that his miranda rights were never read to him? Could this be argued to get charges dismissed? Would a PD argue this? Question 3: Juliett received a phone call from the sheriff's office to inform her that she was being subpoenaed and the subpoena would come in the mail. Would it help Victor's case if she testifies that nothing violent happened? The sheriff's office said Sierra was a witness but it's unclear so far if they are subpoenaing her. Thanks to anyone that can answer these (and I hope the wording is acceptable).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Sweet Calamity posted:I have a few hypothetical questions for Pineville/Mecklenburg, North Carolina. Victor lives in an apartment with two roommates, one of them his girlfriend. He drinks too much and is blackout drunk. He's with his girlfriend, Juliett, in her bedroom and a loud argument occurs. The third roommate, Sierra, hears loud shouting and banging and calls the police. Since Juliett has marks on her neck, the police arrest Victor for assault on a female even though Juliett told them he did not attack her. They also charge him with resisting arrest because although he was physically cooperative, he was verbally a smartass. Though Victor was arrested and processed, he was never read his Miranda rights. The PD vs. lawyer question is the only important one here. PD quality is very location-dependent. In my state, the major cities have great PD offices, and the PDs in the boonies don't have the resources they need. I don't know North Carolina's PDs. That said, hiring an attorney is going to be expensive. Your other two questions are best discussed between Victor and his attorney (whether PD or privately-hired). But generally speaking, as to question 2: no, a failure to mirandize him doesn't really matter unless the prosecutor later tries to offer statements Victor made after arrest but before being mirandized. Question 3: Victor really shouldn't be telling Juliett what to say. Witness tampering can be a big problem. Instead, Victor should talk to his attorney about what to tell Juliett and/or Sierra, and the attorney will almost certainly want to talk to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:The PD vs. lawyer question is the only important one here. PD quality is very location-dependent. In my state, the major cities have great PD offices, and the PDs in the boonies don't have the resources they need. I don't know North Carolina's PDs. That said, hiring an attorney is going to be expensive. I'd always been under the impression that there wasn't a lot of choice in the matter- that they wouldn't give you a PD if you could afford to hire a lawyer, so you either didn't have money to pay a lawyer and got a PD or did and weren't allowed a PD. I take it there's some overlap, some people who could potentially afford a lawyer but still qualify for a PD? How is that determination made (in general or in your experience, the jurisdiction for this hypothetical doesn't really matter to me)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply Arcturas. I'm hoping there's someone here who knows anything about PDs in NC. Sefer, in this hypothetical Victor does qualify for a PD but is considering hiring a lawyer if it would improve the outcome of his case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Sefer posted:I'd always been under the impression that there wasn't a lot of choice in the matter- that they wouldn't give you a PD if you could afford to hire a lawyer, so you either didn't have money to pay a lawyer and got a PD or did and weren't allowed a PD. I take it there's some overlap, some people who could potentially afford a lawyer but still qualify for a PD? How is that determination made (in general or in your experience, the jurisdiction for this hypothetical doesn't really matter to me)? Generally whether you qualify for a PD depends on your income. Low enough income, you qualify.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Sweet Calamity posted:if it would improve the outcome of his case.  holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:
I read that as "Victor might qualify for a Public Defender based on income, but would be willing to spend some of his meager savings if it would improve his chances in court". Which is a non-trivial question about whether he would get $5000 (or whatever) of expected improved results out of hiring a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Devor posted:I read that as "Victor might qualify for a Public Defender based on income, but would be willing to spend some of his meager savings if it would improve his chances in court". Oh! Okay, I'm bad at reading, I skimmed over it and read it as "Victor does not qualify for a PD but is considering hiring a lawyer if it would improve the outcome of his case."
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Sefer posted:I'd always been under the impression that there wasn't a lot of choice in the matter- that they wouldn't give you a PD if you could afford to hire a lawyer, so you either didn't have money to pay a lawyer and got a PD or did and weren't allowed a PD. I take it there's some overlap, some people who could potentially afford a lawyer but still qualify for a PD? How is that determination made (in general or in your experience, the jurisdiction for this hypothetical doesn't really matter to me)? As Arcturas said, it's based on income and if they fall below a state-specific threshold then they qualify. It's very quick, often in-person at the initial hearing. But it doesn't take into account access to loans or a social safety net. Many qualifying people could use a credit card, or call up grandma, etc. The thresholds will vary, but generally are high enough so there's a pretty big overlap. I don't have any insight into the NC public defenders. Some state public defender systems are absolutely fantastic, others are poop on a stick. I don't know NC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Sweet Calamity posted:Question 1: Would Victor be better off using the public defender or getting his own lawyer? I think I know the answer to this one. It sounds like at least some of the Mecklenburg PDs have some fight in them. http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2013/04/01/resurrecting-gideon-the-public-defender-corps-gets-radical/ Sweet Calamity posted:Question 2: A Is it a big deal that his miranda rights were never read to him? B Could this be argued to get charges dismissed? C Would a PD argue this? Sweet Calamity posted:Question 3: Juliett received a phone call from the sheriff's office to inform her that she was being subpoenaed and the subpoena would come in the mail. Would it help Victor's case if she testifies that nothing violent happened? The sheriff's office said Sierra was a witness but it's unclear so far if they are subpoenaing her. Sweet Calamity posted:Thanks to anyone that can answer these (and I hope the wording is acceptable).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'd love to hear the answer you think you know. Thanks, your answers were just what I was looking for. I assumed a PD would be better from reading this thread. The legal megathreads have always been my favorite, but I never thought I'd have to post in them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
(NYC renter) Attack of the increasingly slummy landlady part II, cold-air boogaloo. While I was at work today my LL came to collect rent and one of my housemates decided to ask if she could have someone fix our fridge. The seal on the door is a little busted up and it doesn't seal completely. She had some dude come over, near as I can tell a certified by someone sales/repair(???) dude -- he didn't really speak english super well when I called to talk to him. My best guess at what happened was the dude came over, said the door was broken, made up a reason for why the door was broken (his exact phrasing to me was "too much stuff in door, something happen") and sold her a $400 fridge to be delivered tomorrow. Now I'm no fridge expert, but I'm reasonably sure that my small bottle of apple cider vinegar, some normal condiments (mustard, ketchup, relish, a few salad dressings) do not have enough weight to cause the door on the fridge to shift or bend or whatever his enigmatic claim is. It is at an absolute maximum 10 lbs total across three shelves (I did the math. If every single bottle was full, which they are not, it would cap at 25.34 lbs). None of the shelves are broken or bowing and they are made of pretty cheap plastic. The door is a normal fridge door, loads of metal super sturdy. That said, our lease absolutely does not have a special clause about us being responsible for wear/tear or anything, it is just a standard lease from Staples or something -- really run of the mill stuff. She has claimed in a text message that it is "not normal wear/tear" and told me that I now owe her for the new fridge. I told her I wasn't going to pay for upkeep and that I wasn't buying the whole "you did something extra-normal and broke the door" argument (because I didn't.) What the heck do I do about this? Our place is in foreclosure and she's getting fairly hostile. I know I should move out but I cannot afford to do that right this minute, so I'm open to ideas on h ow to handle the fridge poo poo. Additionally, been here going on 2 years never been late with rent etc. totally normal tenant and the apartment is in fine enough shape otherwise. e; I told her I wasn't going to argue fault and that I would like her to cancel the fridge coming in so I can have someone do a repair assessment. She made this call without telling me and then contacted me the day before the replacement shows up well after business hours. I think this is the most reasonable response possible? The March Hare fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
It's total horseshit, and under no theory of anything in the universe do you legally owe for the fridge. Even if you took an axe to the old one, she just bought herself a fridge. Ignore her. Let her buy the new fridge, don't stop her. She's in foreclosure. She can't sue you when it's she that will be violating the terms of the lease.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
IANAL, but I wouldn't give a landlord in foreclosure one red cent more than absolutely necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
She just told me to have the fridge empty by tomorrow so they can put the new one in and then lied to me telling me that my co-tenants all agreed to this (none of them have, I spoke to all of them.) I then sent her exactly the following: "Again, to be clear, I am not going to accept a new appliance and will refuse entry to the apartment in the event that one arrives. I appreciate your efforts, but would like to obtain a repair quote from a third party and was not given sufficient notice to do so. Please cancel or delay the delivery until I am able to obtain a quote." To which she replied, "You cannot tell me what to do. It's my building. I already paid for the stuff and that is that..." and then "You don't want to pay...that's fine too... That's what security is for...." This all comes after she sent: "I find you are so out of place and disrespectful. I am 45yrs old who owns other buildings in this great big city for the last 22yrs andq never once I had a tenant not understand the rules of living as a tenant in NY. Every upgrade is to be charge to you the tenants...why? Because you are using it." So at this point she has in writing told me that I am responsible for all "upgrades" to the apartment, that she will deduct the cost of a new fridge from my security deposit, and that she can enter the apartment whenever she wants to because it is her building. What the christ. I'm just going to call a tenant's rights place in the morning and skip work to guard my place from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/n...ve%2Bin%2F&_r=0 I'm not sure what is worse at this point. Just letting the dude come in with a new fridge and refusing to pay for it, or refusing entry. Either way I clearly need to look for a new place to live. ee; I think I've basically decided that I don't care what she does. I can't stop her from coming in if she wants to, so if she wants to install the thing it is on her. I've made it clear that I didn't agree to pay for it and if she wants to file she can feel free. The March Hare fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Dude, ignore the bitch. Don't speak to her unless it's in writing and only if you're obligated to. Pretend that people are watching or everything is being recorded for review later and just let her be crazy while you just keep quiet and be reasonable. Your don't need to respond to her retarded bullshit emails; let them speak for themselves. You don't need to refuse delivery of the fridge to not be responsible for it. She's going to try to take your deposit anyway because she's in foreclosure; it's up to you whether you're going to pursue her for it later down the road. Take dated pictures of your fridge tonight so you can document that you didn't destroy it, and then you're done. You don't need to do anything more than that. Leave the place clean when you go and take pictures to prove you didn't tear down the walls and poo poo all over the carpet. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Dude, ignore the bitch. Don't speak to her unless it's in writing and only if you're obligated to. Pretend that people are watching or everything is being recorded for review later and just let her be crazy while you just keep quiet and be reasonable. Your don't need to respond to her retarded bullshit emails; let them speak for themselves. Yeah, you're right and now that I've had a minute to collect myself I agree. I'm just going to let her do whatever and we're going to try to talk to her when she arrives bc I honestly just don't have time for all this bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
I don't think talking to her has any possibility of getting you a positive outcome. She's in the mindset of a cornered cat; the house of cards is collapsing if she's in foreclosure on a rent-paying property. Nothing you say will matter. Her world is caving in, and you just don't want to be in her way when it does. Your deposit is loooooooong gone, zero (0) chance of seeing any of it back. Discussing the fridge payment is meaningless. I say live it out as best you can and ignore her demands. She can't exactly sue when she breaches the lease through foreclosure. If you don't have time for the bullshit, then ignore it. Landlords in that type of desperate spot lose their minds, and you cannot argue with crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:I can't stop her from coming in if she wants to, Really? Most tenancy contracts here (in New Zealand) specifically say the landlord cannot enter the property without a) permission or b) written notice a certain period of time (I think 24 or 48 hours) before entering. This is, I think a clause to stop creepy landlords sneaking in and freaking out tenants, basically to afford some privacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
I mean yeah I can legally, I more meant practically and physically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Live in North-eastern NC I got collared for a crime and the DA was willing to get it down to a misdemeanor judge told me 6 mo probation. The DA then said to my PD that he would be willing to consider 'Appropriate Relief' after 6 mos to dismiss the charge if I behave. Trying to look up that term only mentions cases where there are flaws in the process. What exactly does it mean in my case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Live in North-eastern NC Ask your PD, that's his job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Ask your PD, that's his job. Standard PD, gave my case about 1 hours effort, had to press her into not giving in to the first offer. I know it sounds stupid but I don't want to bug her over such an asinine question. :socially awkward penguin:
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Standard PD, gave my case about 1 hours effort, had to press her into not giving in to the first offer. I know it sounds stupid but I don't want to bug her over such an asinine question. :socially awkward penguin: Ask the internet for advice instead, that's a wonderful idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Not looking for advice, looking for a cursory explanation of a term not quite understood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Not looking for advice, looking for a cursory explanation of a term not quite understood. Seriously, you should ask your PD. Since you're not very clear, I don't actually know what you're asking, whether you pled, whether there's a deal on the table, etc., etc. But I don't want to know. That's your PD's job. Call them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Standard PD, gave my case about 1 hours effort, had to press her into not giving in to the first offer. I know it sounds stupid but I don't want to bug her over such an asinine question. :socially awkward penguin: It's not an asinine question. 'Appropriate relief' is local jargon. Exactly what it means is not just state-specific, but county-specific. It may well even be DA specific. Ask your PD what it means. She's the one who knows. It's her job to tell you what it means. While you're at it, ask her what you need to do (and not do) in order to make sure you get it. I'm a PD. Make her do her job. Be the squeaky wheel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Standard PD, gave my case about 1 hours effort, had to press her into not giving in to the first offer. I know it sounds stupid but I don't want to bug her over such an asinine question. :socially awkward penguin: "Sounds stupid" is quite the understatement. This is something that can have a huge impact on your life and your future. If ensuring a good outcome requires sitting on her desk for days pestering her, then sit on her desk for days and pester her. The only time it would be somewhat forgivable to back off is if you were paying her by the hour. Then you might check the internet for an answer and even then you would confirm it with your lawyer because it could have a huge impact on your life and your future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
I have a real estate law question, located in Ontario, Canada if that helps. I recently put in an offer in to lease a condo in a new building. The prices in this building have been dropping fairly steadily as the landlords who are buying them to rent them out simply can't find enough tenants to fill them so tons of them are sitting empty. I just got a call from the real estate agent saying the building company has to finalize deals, and they've decided not to allow any at the price point the units have been listing at, and are demanding that the landlords charge 1450-1500 rather than the 1100-1200 they've been listed at. It doesn't make any sense to me that the building company is telling the people who own the units what they can lease them for, but I'm not a lawyer. Is this an actual thing that happens and is legal? Is the real estate agent bullshitting me? I tried googling around, but I can't seem to find anything (I'm probably not using the right search terms). Thanks goons!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:I have a real estate law question, located in Ontario, Canada if that helps. What building is this? Those are some good rental rates and I'm in the market!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Well uhh... most things are legal if contracted properly... so the real question is whether it's contract properly, to which we could only answer "who knows". It makes some kind of sense for the building to have kept some control over lease pricing. Buildings like that want to control the
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:I have a real estate law question, located in Ontario, Canada if that helps. Academic questions of the law aside, this is a sign you don't want to live there. Think about it: either you're going to be fed a constant stream of bullshit or you're going to live somewhere with an artificially inflated price. They aren't even waiting until they get your money to try and screw you. Keep looking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Rhobot Mk. II posted:What building is this? Those are some good rental rates and I'm in the market! It's in Markham. The rental rates are actually quite high, the units in question are only around 500-600 sq ft. NancyPants posted:Academic questions of the law aside, this is a sign you don't want to live there. Think about it: either you're going to be fed a constant stream of bullshit or you're going to live somewhere with an artificially inflated price. They aren't even waiting until they get your money to try and screw you. Keep looking. I suppose. The location is pretty much perfect though. It'll be a 15 minute walk to work, and it's five minutes walking distance to a train station and grocery store etc. Oh well. I'll find something else, it's just annoying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:I have a real estate law question, located in Ontario, Canada if that helps. You live in Ontario, the tenant-friendliest place ever. Call the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and ask them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:I have a real estate law question, located in Ontario, Canada if that helps. In Canada, I can't tell you for sure, but I would assume so. For example here in Texas, many if not most condominium complexes here have rent fixing clauses in their Deed Restrictions. When the developer of the property builds out all the empty units in a condo, or subdivision, and gets ready to sell them off to individual buyers, they first typically draft, sign, and record a document we call the "Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions", or something similar. They are a set of rules that subsequent purchasers of the property must follow to ensure that the "overall scheme and plan for the development is maintained." They can seem like a burden to many homeowners, particularly when one owner gets cross-ways with the people on the board, but in general they help protect property values over the long term. Also... woozle wuzzle posted:Buildings like that want to control the
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Imagine two people are committing a felony such as armed robbery in the United States. One of them gets cold feet and leaves. After he is long gone, the robber who stayed behind kills somebody. Would be person that left be culpable for the killing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Probably. Accomplice liability & felony murder would be the relevant doctrines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:43
|
|