|
SlayVus posted:So I'm watching season 2 of Broadchurch, is it normal for the prosecution to pick their Barrister? Broadchurch is about the murder of a boy season 2 is the trial of the murderer. The victim's family apparently got to decide which barrister took the case as the prosecution. Does this mean the family has to pay them for taking their case or is it paid for by the government? In Rumpole, I think he mentions his co-workers sucking up to Old Bailey to get the prosecution cases. So I think there's not such a clear-cut line between prosecution and defense as there is in the US.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Landlord-tenant question, state is KS. Mary's lease is ending and she is moving out. Her sister Sally is living with her but does not pay rent and is not on the lease. Mary moves out, takes her stuff, and tells Sally she will need to find other living arrangements by the date the lease ends. If Sally overstays, will she need to be formally evicted or could she be kicked out/arrested for trespassing? Is Mary legally responsible for the costs incurred by the landlord in getting Sally to leave?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Landlord-tenant question, state is KS. Mary's lease is ending and she is moving out. Her sister Sally is living with her but does not pay rent and is not on the lease. Mary moves out, takes her stuff, and tells Sally she will need to find other living arrangements by the date the lease ends. If Sally overstays, will she need to be formally evicted or could she be kicked out/arrested for trespassing? Is Mary legally responsible for the costs incurred by the landlord in getting Sally to leave? Sally needs to gtfo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Whatever you imagine is the worst case scenario for Sally and Peppermint Patty is what you can expect. Evictions are special, summary resolution procedures for a special kind of breach of contract, namely the contract for tenancy, I.e. your lease. No relationship b/w squatter and landlord = no tenancy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
I know we have at least one California lawgoon, I'm hoping this can get some traction. I have a friend in LA County who needs to talk to an attorney. Family law and bankruptcy are the two main issues at hand. I'm on the other side of the country, so can't really do any referrals, but I'd love it if I can give her a few names. PM me as needed. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Privity of contract. The best legal concept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:So I'm watching season 2 of Broadchurch, is it normal for the prosecution to pick their Barrister? Broadchurch is about the murder of a boy season 2 is the trial of the murderer. The victim's family apparently got to decide which barrister took the case as the prosecution. Does this mean the family has to pay them for taking their case or is it paid for by the government? They were already assigned a Barrister, they got the other Barrister as additional help because she's local, retired, and is a big name apparently. She might well be doing it pro bono, I don't think its ever mentioned who is paying her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I know we have at least one California lawgoon, I'm hoping this can get some traction. Lemme see. I assume not high end?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
nm posted:Lemme see. I assume not high end? That's my read on it. I think it's going to be more about debt than assets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Whatever you imagine is the worst case scenario for Sally and Peppermint Patty is what you can expect. note that this is not actually a correct statement of law generally, given the existence of subleases (even if unauthorized)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:note that this is not actually a correct statement of law generally, given the existence of subleases (even if unauthorized) Lease contracts provide for sub-lessors, and guests - rights that the lessor has permission to pass to a third party. If you are not one of those people, you don't have a contractual tie to the landlord; you are an off-the-street trespasser, and you don't get an opportunity to defend your right to remain in the premises under the lease (eviction suit), you get thrown out by the cops (in theory).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Lease contracts provide for sub-lessors, and guests - rights that the lessor has permission to pass to a third party. If you are not one of those people, you don't have a contractual tie to the landlord; you are an off-the-street trespasser, and you don't get an opportunity to defend your right to remain in the premises under the lease (eviction suit), you get thrown out by the cops (in theory). Then why is it so hard to throw out squatters?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Lease contracts provide for sub-lessors, and guests - rights that the lessor has permission to pass to a third party. If you are not one of those people, you don't have a contractual tie to the landlord; you are an off-the-street trespasser, and you don't get an opportunity to defend your right to remain in the premises under the lease (eviction suit), you get thrown out by the cops (in theory). State law really varies though. In California one can become a tenant who needs formal eviction without a written contact or rent payments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
I'm currently involved in something that will most likely go to small claims court (I would be a witness, and my father is the plaintiff), and a dog is involved in this. Said dog has been aggressive in the past, and the owner (the defendant) has been told to keep the dog restrained at all times. However, this dog still gets loose from time to time, and I have been told to photograph the dog every time I see it loose. Having proof of the dog being loose will significantly help in the case against the owner. The thing is, there is another dog in our neighborhood that looks similar to this dog (the dog involved in this mess is a pitbull, the other dog is a pitbull mix, and they're both similar shades of light brown. So they're similar, but not identical-looking). Having lived here for years I can tell the difference between the two dogs, but I am sure that the owner of the aggressive dog is going to try and claim that the dog I photographed is the other dog from the neighborhood. And since the dog is aggressive, I can't get close to it to take up-close pictures of the collar, which would be definitive proof. In small claims court, would the burden of proof be on me/my dad to prove that this is the owner's dog? And if so, what would be some ways I could do that without risking getting bit to get close enough to take a picture of the collar? Like, would a picture of the other dog (so they can be compared, and we can say 'see, they're different dogs') be enough?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Yeah, take lots of pictures of the other dog. That's pretty good proof, especially if there are minor but recognizable differences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
of bees posted:I'm currently involved in something that will most likely go to small claims court (I would be a witness, and my father is the plaintiff), and a dog is involved in this. Said dog has been aggressive in the past, and the owner (the defendant) has been told to keep the dog restrained at all times. However, this dog still gets loose from time to time, and I have been told to photograph the dog every time I see it loose. Having proof of the dog being loose will significantly help in the case against the owner. why are you going to small claims court? has the dog bitten your dad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
nm posted:State law really varies though. In California one can become a tenant who needs formal eviction without a written contact or rent payments. Your state gives me hives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
What sort of relief do you hope to obtain in Small Claims Court?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:why are you going to small claims court? Long story short: the owner used to own two dogs, they both got out and attacked a third dog in our neighborhood. I called the police, who in turn called out animal control, and one of the dogs got taken away. The other didn't only because the owner lied and said only one got out. Owner found out it was me who called the police, and he came across the street yelling at me. My dad was there at the time, got in-between me and the dog's owner to protect me, and the dog's owner ended up grabbing a rock and throwing it through my dad's truck window. He won't answer his phone, he hasn't responded to a letter that was mailed to him, and due to him still having one of the dogs and the fact that said dog still gets out sometimes dad hasn't gone over to demand payment for the truck window. we both know the judge will ask why, so dad asked me to snap pictures of the dog any time it gets free as proof that it's not safe to go over there and talk about the truck window. So maybe, would a better question be this: would the reason why we haven't approached him in-person matter at all in a case like this? EDIT: forgot to say, but dad is suing him for the cost of fixing the truck window.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
of bees posted:Long story short: the owner used to own two dogs, they both got out and attacked a third dog in our neighborhood. I called the police, who in turn called out animal control, and one of the dogs got taken away. The other didn't only because the owner lied and said only one got out. Owner found out it was me who called the police, and he came across the street yelling at me. My dad was there at the time, got in-between me and the dog's owner to protect me, and the dog's owner ended up grabbing a rock and throwing it through my dad's truck window. Sir, I see here that you are suing your neighbor. Why aren't you also getting up in his face in person? Are you scared of taking the law into your own hands, you pussy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Devor posted:Sir, I see here that you are suing your neighbor. Why aren't you also getting up in his face in person? Are you scared of taking the law into your own hands, you pussy? I am a five-foot-nothing young lady, and he is nearly seven feet tall. (And my dad is only five-foot-nine, so he wouldn't win either.) Plus, you know, violent dogs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
of bees posted:Long story short: the owner used to own two dogs, they both got out and attacked a third dog in our neighborhood. I called the police, who in turn called out animal control, and one of the dogs got taken away. The other didn't only because the owner lied and said only one got out. Owner found out it was me who called the police, and he came across the street yelling at me. My dad was there at the time, got in-between me and the dog's owner to protect me, and the dog's owner ended up grabbing a rock and throwing it through my dad's truck window. The dog doesn't matter. What matters is if you can prove he broke the window. The judge doesn't care that you didn't ask for payment before you sued. Also, why the hell didn't you call the police? Criminal charges are the best way to get people to pay up, plus you could have gotten a protective order out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
of bees posted:I am a five-foot-nothing young lady, and he is nearly seven feet tall. (And my dad is only five-foot-nine, so he wouldn't win either.) Plus, you know, violent dogs. :that was the joke:
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
nm posted:The dog doesn't matter. What matters is if you can prove he broke the window. The judge doesn't care that you didn't ask for payment before you sued. we did, and the officer took a report and said that damages would have to be claimed through small claims court. The guy was gone from his house by the time the officer turned up, and I've only seen him once or twice since then (this all happened a couple weeks ago)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
I don't think you need months of dog surveillance when you have that police report. File the claim for damages + court costs. I'm betting the guy won't even show up and you will win a default judgement which you then have to figure out how to collect on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Two witnesses vs. one guy saying he didn't do it should be pretty clear-cut, especially if you gave his name to the police officer who showed up when you called.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah. You don't need dog surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
I disagree. The case should be entirely about the dogs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Dog not in the pics, then the jury acquits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
My courtroom has to handle civil restraining order requests during criminal calendar. They are hilarious and even the incustodies facing decades who get to watch for they jury box (where we keep non disruptive inmates) thing "well, poo poo my life could be more hosed up." To the point these are all pro pers and my judge is way too nice and won't tell people to cut to the ducking point. So they will ramble on for 30minutes about some slight the other person made 10 years ago. They will forget to mention the threat of harm required for the RO. My judge is nice enough to ask, other jusdges will just deny and move on. OP, these dogs matter as much as the above persons slight. Get to the broken window in a clear and concise manner . You can mention motives for why he broke the window, but no one cares why you didn't self-help it. Have the most concise case of the day and judge will love you because I promise you he hates rambily pro pers almost as much as the presiding judge who made him do small claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
One of my work colleagues is setting up a new business as an interior designer in the UK. She's already rented the shop, had a website made, and put adverts in the local newspapers. She is calling her company "(house name) Interiors". The problem is that a quick google search reveals that there is already a company about 150 miles away which trades under this exact name, and offers an identical service. I've mentioned this to her, and she seems completely unworried by this. Is she setting herself up for any future trouble?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Soylent Yellow posted:One of my work colleagues is setting up a new business as an interior designer in the UK. She's already rented the shop, had a website made, and put adverts in the local newspapers. She is calling her company "(house name) Interiors". The problem is that a quick google search reveals that there is already a company about 150 miles away which trades under this exact name, and offers an identical service. I've mentioned this to her, and she seems completely unworried by this. Is she setting herself up for any future trouble? 150 miles away is in another part of the country entirely. Assuming companies house were fine with her company name she's fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Is there an actual law keeping me from having a "whites only" policy and sign on my buisness so long as it isnt near an interstate highway and the policy only applies to service rather than hiring?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Is there an actual law keeping me from having a "whites only" policy and sign on my buisness so long as it isnt near an interstate highway and the policy only applies to service rather than hiring? Probably. Browse Title 42 long enough and you'll find something. Also, your state probably has a concurrent prohibition of some sort. Edit: Before Googlerella turns back into a pumpkin: 42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) (b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station; blarzgh fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
So here is a situation. A person owns a property, which is rented out to a number of businesses. The property is on the corner of a major road and a minor road, and the business owners have complained of a large number of cars using the car park as a shortcut during rush hour, sometimes at high speed, even though they have speed bumps. One of the renters is a doctors clinic and they have elderly customers and parents with young children who use the car park, so this is becoming a safety concern. What sort of legal recourse is available to the property owner/businesses? Can they get the people cutting through the car park for trespassing on private property? Can they stick a gate at the car park exit and charge a toll?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:So here is a situation. A person owns a property, which is rented out to a number of businesses. The property is on the corner of a major road and a minor road, and the business owners have complained of a large number of cars using the car park as a shortcut during rush hour, sometimes at high speed, even though they have speed bumps. One of the renters is a doctors clinic and they have elderly customers and parents with young children who use the car park, so this is becoming a safety concern. That person should contact his local constabulary who will likely be more than happy to park a traffic unit in his lot and write bushels of tickets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:So here is a situation. A person owns a property, which is rented out to a number of businesses. The property is on the corner of a major road and a minor road, and the business owners have complained of a large number of cars using the car park as a shortcut during rush hour, sometimes at high speed, even though they have speed bumps. One of the renters is a doctors clinic and they have elderly customers and parents with young children who use the car park, so this is becoming a safety concern. Tickets for entering private property and "Avoiding a sign or device." I mean, they could make it a toll parking lot and validate, but that's a lot of effort compared to just getting the local cops to sit there and ticket the hell out of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
of bees posted:Long story short: the owner used to own two dogs, they both got out and attacked a third dog in our neighborhood. I called the police, who in turn called out animal control, and one of the dogs got taken away. The other didn't only because the owner lied and said only one got out. Owner found out it was me who called the police, and he came across the street yelling at me. My dad was there at the time, got in-between me and the dog's owner to protect me, and the dog's owner ended up grabbing a rock and throwing it through my dad's truck window. What does the dog have to do with the man throwing a rock through the truck window? I mean it is only relevant in so far as it was why the altercation began. You can probably get a police report etc. that shows they were called because of the dogs and probably even get something from the officer that your dad called? That would be much more useful than showing the judge pictures of dogs and then saying "what we actually want is for him to pay for a new window." IANAL but if the dog wasn't the cause of any damages its really not that important to prove that your neighbor is the owner of a specific dog is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:So here is a situation. A person owns a property, which is rented out to a number of businesses. The property is on the corner of a major road and a minor road, and the business owners have complained of a large number of cars using the car park as a shortcut during rush hour, sometimes at high speed, even though they have speed bumps. One of the renters is a doctors clinic and they have elderly customers and parents with young children who use the car park, so this is becoming a safety concern. He could block off one entrance or call the cops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
One of my favourite legal blogs is popehat, here's a nice article about how you can commit treason and basically get a slap on the wrist if you have enough money: https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/03/a-few-comments-on-the-david-petraeus-plea-deal-what-money-and-connections-buy-you/
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:48
|
|
