|
euphronius posted:Maybe if she continues to be cheap and ignore the problem it will go away?? it's a testable hypothesis. She IS a people-pleaser and tends to think she is more helpless than she is in many situations, which is why I'm asking here to try and help her out, but I'm not sure how your comment is supposed to help?
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
life is killing me posted:She IS a people-pleaser and tends to think she is more helpless than she is in many situations, which is why I'm asking here to try and help her out, but I'm not sure how your comment is supposed to help? You've already received helpful answers. The first post responding to you told you all you need to know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
For jurisdictional purposes a marriage is treated as an in rem proceeding. She doesn't need to do it in Florida. Even if Texas does not have personal jurisdiction over him, it does over his marriage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:For jurisdictional purposes a marriage is treated as an in rem proceeding. She doesn't need to do it in Florida. Even if Texas does not have personal jurisdiction over him, it does over his marriage. This was what I was thinking. It's what we call a status divorce. They're divorced, but anything concerning his property (and there probably isn't any to divide in this case) is subject to attack on the judgment. Not that it happens, but that's why I was thinking you should hire an attorney versus sending her to the pro se forms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
A question about non-competes in Minnesota. From what I understand there must be place/time restrictions which I have in my non-compete. I was talking to a recruiter and they advised I look into handling it myself which makes sense because they don't give a poo poo about my problems. So where do I go to get someone to give me legal advice on this? An employment attorney? Is there such a thing? Also any ideas on what this would cost me, the getting advice part versus having to fight the non-compete if it came down to it? I don't even have an offer yet but since I'd be looking at a significant pay increase with a move to my current employer's direct competitor I'd like to start investigating this now. Aside from the above does anyone have any experience with these? The little bit I've read so far seems to indicate enforcability is almost up to the particular judge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
MonkeyBot posted:A question about non-competes in Minnesota. Not sure about MN, but here in TX, the simplest I can break it down is that enforceability is the first issue, and scope is the second issue, and finally likelihood of enforcement. 1) Was there sufficient consideration/is it written correctly to be enforceable? You cannot answer this question yourself. 2) Are the place/time/activity restrictions too broad? If so, a judge will decide how broad they should be. 3) Will my new job even put me at risk of being sued by my former employer for competing? How likely are they to give a poo poo? The type of attorney you want to talk to is one that does Business Litigation in the area where your new job is going to be, and who has some experience with Non-competes; i.e. he has litigated cases that concerned non-competes. Best way to find one is to look for 5-50 attorney firms in the area, who have a Business/Commercial Litigation Practice Area on their website, and call a few of those attorneys to find one who has litigated Non-Competes. It really shouldn't cost all that much to do a consultation with an attorney about it, and you'll definitely want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
MonkeyBot posted:A question about non-competes in Minnesota. From what I understand there must be place/time restrictions which I have in my non-compete. I was talking to a recruiter and they advised I look into handling it myself which makes sense because they don't give a poo poo about my problems. So where do I go to get someone to give me legal advice on this? An employment attorney? Is there such a thing? Also any ideas on what this would cost me, the getting advice part versus having to fight the non-compete if it came down to it? I don't even have an offer yet but since I'd be looking at a significant pay increase with a move to my current employer's direct competitor I'd like to start investigating this now. Yeah the answer is 'region, possibly judge specific and you need a legal consultation'. In the UK the general rule I was given when asking about this was 'enforcability tends to hinge on actual compensation tied to the clause - ie. if they want to bind you to it then they have to pay your salary for the duration', but you live in freedomland so you might be an indentured servant forever as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
You need consideration for a contract even in Freedomland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
MonkeyBot posted:enforcability is almost up to the particular judge.  Welcome to Law enjoy your stay!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, that helps. I'm talking to a couple former employees here to see how aggressively my employer is about enforcing the non-compete. The position I'm looking at is basically the same as my current one just with my current employer's largest competitor. I'm thinking that might make them more apt to attempt enforcement. Regardless I'm gonna call some lawyers and see what my chances look like.euphronius posted:
I need to move somewhere that elects judges and get elected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
If your new employer likes you enough they may offer to pay any court costs arising out of you joining them. I have seen this before. A non-compete suit is on the cheaper side of lawsuits so like 5-10K.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
The one thing you pay for with a lawyer, and I really cant stress this enough, is thier knowledge and familiarity with the local judges. You can never have this and it is worth your  to buy it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If your new employer likes you enough they may offer to pay any court costs arising out of you joining them. I have seen this before. What sort of outcomes result from lawsuits like this? Is it a settlement or something barring you from employment or what? I've never really thought about the consequences of taking something like this to trial. euphronius posted:The one thing you pay for with a lawyer, and I really cant stress this enough, is thier knowledge and familiarity with the local judges. You can never have this and it is worth your As cheesy as this sounds, this is actually something I've learned from the god damned local radio morning show. They used to have a lawyer on there every once in a while and this was one of the things he stressed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
The outcome is that employee or new employer has to pay old employer allow employee to work at new place. Employee will owe old employer damages basically. In some strange cases you could also get injunctions I suppose, but that would be in the realm of very specific knowledge employees. Obv. if employee wins then they just move on. euphronius fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The outcome is that employee or new employer has to pay old employer allow employee to work at new place. That's basically what I was thinking. Maybe the new company will really like me. The fun part about all of this is that the new job would be about a 1/4 mile from my current employer. Keep your friends close, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I just got done with a case where we spent 150,000 to get 800,000. Good luck. So I am totally naive to think that there will not be massive amounts of money required upfront from me or my family? I understand that the process is retarded expensive, but I thought that the firm would shoulder these cost, and even take they case on initially, because they believe they can win the case and a big chunk of the settlement. i.e pay for all of the aforementioned bullshit. Hence why I was seeking out the, "there are no expenses if we don't win" kind of firm. If we personally need $50k to get this off the ground it's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Some firms do. But only for clear winners. And if they cover expenses they are doing it for like 50%+ contingency. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Some firms do. But only for clear winners. And if they cover expenses they are doing it for like 50%+ contingency. Most of the places I saw were stating 30-40%. As a non-legal person, ins what sense are you using contingency? Do you mean they will charge 50% of the potential settlement PLUS their costs that they incurred in the process? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You've already received helpful answers. The first post responding to you told you all you need to know. I realize that, and was responding to another helpful answer. Just got two somewhat sarcastic responses, and I wondered what the purpose of those was, is all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I realize that, and was responding to another helpful answer. Just got two somewhat sarcastic responses, and I wondered what the purpose of those was, is all. It's one of our few pleasures, next to whiskey and fantasizing about faking our own deaths and hiding out from Sallie Mae/Navient
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
ThirstyBuck posted:Most of the places I saw were stating 30-40%. As a non-legal person, ins what sense are you using contingency? Do you mean they will charge 50% of the potential settlement PLUS their costs that they incurred in the process? If they cover costs, yes, that sounds about right. 30-40% is more typical for firms which expect the plaintiff to cover their own costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If they cover costs, yes, that sounds about right. 30-40% is more typical for firms which expect the plaintiff to cover their own costs. Exactly
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I realize that, and was responding to another helpful answer. Just got two somewhat sarcastic responses, and I wondered what the purpose of those was, is all. It's my therapy
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
SubCrid TC posted:People do all kinds of dumb poo poo, but a ridiculously recognizable van would be a pretty awful instrument to commit crimes in. From what I've seen the face tattoo industry is still doing well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I realize that, and was responding to another helpful answer. Just got two somewhat sarcastic responses, and I wondered what the purpose of those was, is all. It's a legal advice thread on a comedy forum populated by pseudo lawyers who may be sociopaths. You got the best answer you'll ever get: find an attorney and pay them money. Everything after that is us making fun of you, each other, or arguing law on the internet. Also euphro why do you never post in the lawyer thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
It depresses me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Ok, the advice I got earlier was good. I've spoken with a lawyer about the immigration and he's agreed to take the case. He's also admitted to not being much of an immigration lawyer, but his law firm is interested in getting into this. That being said, he's offered to take my case at a substantially lower rate (his words) if I'll be his test case. He's asking for a flat fee of 2,800 dollars for the Asylum/Refugee case. Does this seem fair? I want to say it seems very fair, but for all I know these cases usually cost like 500 bucks. Thanks again legal goons!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
I got a ticket tonight where a Highway officer got me going 70 in a 55. The only reason I sped up was so that I could switch lanes safely. There was a mass of cars to my left and I was in a merge lane that was going to end in about half mile. A big opening was ahead of the mass so I accelerated to 70, merged, and immediately let off the accelerator to match the speed of traffic. Essentially, I had the option of cutting people off, braking on the interstate like an idiot and causing a dangerous situation, or speeding up a bit for a few seconds to merge safely. Is this a situation where I could go into court and plead my case for a lesser/no fine and removal of points or should I just eat it? I have no problems with taking responsibility for my actions but I genuinely feel that I made the best choice as a conscientious driver.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:I got a ticket tonight where a Highway officer got me going 70 in a 55. The only reason I sped up was so that I could switch lanes safely. There was a mass of cars to my left and I was in a merge lane that was going to end in about half mile. A big opening was ahead of the mass so I accelerated to 70, merged, and immediately let off the accelerator to match the speed of traffic. You're going to get a lot of sarcastic responses to this, so heads up. If you've got the time and the patience, request a hearing and see what happens. You better make sure on the day of the hearing you have the money to pay the fine. All that said, "I broke the law to be courteous" is probably a poor defense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:I got a ticket tonight where a Highway officer got me going 70 in a 55. The only reason I sped up was so that I could switch lanes safely. There was a mass of cars to my left and I was in a merge lane that was going to end in about half mile. A big opening was ahead of the mass so I accelerated to 70, merged, and immediately let off the accelerator to match the speed of traffic. You need Sanford on your side. http://www.hulu.com/watch/206043 Skip to 18:00
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:Essentially, I had the option of cutting people off, braking on the interstate like an idiot and causing a dangerous situation, or speeding up a bit for a few seconds to merge safely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:I got a ticket tonight where a Highway officer got me going 70 in a 55. The only reason I sped up was so that I could switch lanes safely. There was a mass of cars to my left and I was in a merge lane that was going to end in about half mile. A big opening was ahead of the mass so I accelerated to 70, merged, and immediately let off the accelerator to match the speed of traffic. The answer the law expects in the situation is you to stop and yield to the traffic on your left. You are unlikely to convince any judge speeding was the correct choice based on your story you've laid out here. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
The lane I was in is a combination on ramp where I had just gotten onto the interstate which turns into another on ramp for another interstate. Stopping or slowing down there is pretty much a death sentence. That being said, it really is a bit of a silly post now that I've slept on it. I was just so annoyed at the time of the incident. It's frustrating that I got nabbed during the 5 second period in which I did speed during a 25 minute drive where I was at the speed limit the rest of the way. Going in and saying "yeah I'm guilty but THINGS happened" is really for principle more than anything else and would probably just be a waste of time. I don't get many tickets so I'll just pay it, afk some traffic school, and forget about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:The lane I was in is a combination on ramp where I had just gotten onto the interstate which turns into another on ramp for another interstate. Stopping or slowing down there is pretty much a death sentence. Things that are a good idea to say to a judge: 1) "Yeah I'm guilty but I'm totally unrepentant and think it's really unfair that I'm here"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Things that are a good idea to say to a judge: Well I'd be a lot nicer about it than that! Maybe bake him/her some cookies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:The lane I was in is a combination on ramp where I had just gotten onto the interstate which turns into another on ramp for another interstate. Stopping or slowing down there is pretty much a death sentence. There are many places in the US that driving according to traffic laws will probably get you killed. The speed limit on portions of I-95 come to mind, if you did 65mph you'd die. Normal traffic moves along at about 90mph. That being said, even when keeping up with the flow of traffic you are breaking the law. Also ironically if you did 65mph a cop could probably write you a ticket for something like impeding the flow of traffic etc. This is no an excuse that can be used in a court of law. If a cop feels like citing you he can, and he's right legally even if you want to argue it is wrong morally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
TotallyUnoriginal posted:Maybe bake him/her some cookies. What's attempting to bribe a judge carry in the states these days?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:What's attempting to bribe a judge carry in the states these days? "Oh, I wasn't trying to bribe him, the cookies were actually poisoned." Dang, I should be a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:"Oh, I wasn't trying to bribe him, the cookies were actually poisoned." Well I can use diamonds instead of chocolate chips. I'd giggle all the way to prison at the thought of the judge needing to schedule a dentist appointment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
It's a dick move to not let you over but no one technically HAS to let you over. I personally hate it when people go on the shoulder and try to merge in to the left, but that's mostly because when I see people do that here it's because they couldn't plan ahead and move left earlier, and then they got to the exit-only ramp and went OH poo poo and decided why not inconvenience everyone to their left. It's similar to those people that can't do the zipper merge properly. IANAL but doesn't seem like it'd work in your favor
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 16:58
|
|