|
KicksYouInHalf posted:So this is already a done deal so I guess it doesn't matter but I had this happen today: A plea is an agreement between the state and the defendant. It's basically a contract. The judge has the power to accept or reject any plea at his discretion. He was telling the lawyers that they were going too lenient on you and would reject the plea. It sounds like you got the best you could have gotten in front of that judge. e: unless your lawyer plays golf or talks baseball with the judge, but that one would cost a lot more than the $100 difference. BgRdMchne fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Oct 13, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
Fair enough, it was mainly the changing of an already signed document that felt gross to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
KicksYouInHalf posted:Fair enough, it was mainly the changing of an already signed document that felt gross to me. Words on paper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:A plea is an agreement between the state and the defendant. It's basically a contract. The judge has the power to accept or reject any plea at his discretion. He was telling the lawyers that they were going too lenient on you and would reject the plea. Don't take this from me!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
KicksYouInHalf posted:Fair enough, it was mainly the changing of an already signed document that felt gross to me.  pre:606. PLEAS PERMITTED — (1) An accused who is called on to plead may plead guilty or not guilty,
or the special pleas authorized by this Part and no others.
(1.1) CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTING GUILTY PLEA — A court may accept a plea of guilty only if it is
satisfied that the accused
(a) is making the plea voluntarily; and
(b) understands
(i) that the plea is an admission of the essential elements of the offence,
(ii) the nature and consequences of the plea, and
(iii) that the court is not bound by any agreement made between the accused and the prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
KicksYouInHalf posted:Fair enough, it was mainly the changing of an already signed document that felt gross to me. The state doesn't get to be judge, jury, and executioner. Sometimes that has a downside as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Don't take this from me! Sorry, I'll let you handle the next one about trafffic laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Devor posted:Where do you send your rent check? I have no idea, this is my first rental and I expected a small amount of communication prior to take over. As long as I can get an email account to detail any issues going forward... Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Go to their office and talk to the realtor or landlord. I ended up calling the manager of the realty and giving him poo poo. They ended up straightening things out with the energy company. They didn't resolve things with the gas company for whatever reason, but the gas company agreed to move forward if I presented them with the rental agreement. Apparently they will provide me with the landlord information tonight when I snag the keys. Still no word on the water heater rental though. So weird. I'll contact her and she can pickup her cheques.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Do we have a lawyer goon in Denver, Co? Long story short - ex filed for divorce there, I live in Arizona. We have no assets to divide, no children, etc. I called a lawyer up there and they wanted $3k. Mostly looking to see if I should just let the case default. I'm not entirely sure how to file paperwork from out of state.
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
No one will answer those questions without you paying them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Well, I figured out how to file paperwork. Self representation it shall be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Well, I figured out how to file paperwork. Self representation it shall be. Do you fix your own plumbing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
You should hire a local attorney to represent you. If you don't, you run the risk that your spouse will obtain an order against you that obligates you to pay spousal/child support, takes assets you think are no assets, or otherwise some how prejudices you. If you cannot afford an attorney, you should find a way to afford an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Do you fix your own plumbing? Yes, but plumbing's easier to begin with and cheap and easy to fix if you mess it up. That being said, even as a lawyer, I'd get a lawyer for my divorce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Well, I figured out how to file paperwork. Self representation it shall be. Shop around, $3k sounds like a lot. I paid somewhere between $900 and $1200 for my uncontested divorce and scraps told me I got ripped off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Illinois FOIA question: What duty does an Illinois public employee or employer have to preserve emails that do not fall under a FOIA exception? My employer (an Illinois municipality) has set up our email accounts so that anything more than a year old is deleted, whereas my father's employer (an Illinois public university) never automatically deletes emails. Must anything that might be FOIA'd in the future be preserved? Can an employee delete emails in advance of when the employer automatically deletes them?
pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
3000 k sounds fair for a guy out of state. I would ask for 5k for an out of state client, 2k for in state. That's the retainer it may not cost that much. Family law is impossible to predict so lawyers have to make sure they don't get burned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Illinois FOIA question: What duty does an Illinois public employee or employer have to preserve emails that do not fall under a FOIA exception? My employer (an Illinois municipality) has set up our email accounts so that anything more than a year old is deleted, whereas my father's employer (an Illinois public university) never automatically deletes emails. Must anything that might be FOIA'd in the future be preserved? Contact your city attorney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Illinois FOIA question: What duty does an Illinois public employee or employer have to preserve emails that do not fall under a FOIA exception? My employer (an Illinois municipality) has set up our email accounts so that anything more than a year old is deleted, whereas my father's employer (an Illinois public university) never automatically deletes emails. Must anything that might be FOIA'd in the future be preserved? Can an employee delete emails in advance of when the employer automatically deletes them? http://www.iml.org/ These people will also have your answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Pennsylvania employment law question: I told my employers at the beginning of this month that I was planning on leaving at the end of the year, even though my contract only requires (well, really it suggests) giving 45 days of notice. I did this because I didn't want to be looking for work over the holidays, and because they needed a transistion time in order to train someone to do my job, because the next person under me has been here less than four months. I gave them a written letter of notice saying I intended my last ay to be January 1st, 2016. Last night at midnight, I got this e-mail: quote:Vargo, There's no way that's legal, right? This is a passive-aggressive way of terminating me without terminating me, correct? They don't get to tell me when I decide to quit, and I have every right to turn around and tell them they have to actually terminate me if they want me to leave in November, correct?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Vargo posted:
Either the HR department did a dumb or you just sacked yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
You are actually under contract? What does it say? If you were not under contract, it would depend. If PA is an at will state, then it is legal, but you would be entitled to unemployment from nov 16 to jan 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Vargo posted:There's no way that's legal, right? This is a passive-aggressive way of terminating me without terminating me, correct? They don't get to tell me when I decide to quit, and I have every right to turn around and tell them they have to actually terminate me if they want me to leave in November, correct? Totally legal, as far as I know. In fact, it would be policy for many companies to terminate you immediately and simply pay your salary for those 45 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
If you are at-will, they can kick your rear end out the door then and there and pay you nothing. If you are under contract, that preempts at will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Pa is at will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Even if you aren't under contract, you can still go to HR and say, "Really? Are you firing me because I gave you too much warning that I was leaving?" I mean, what are they going to do? Fire you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Goddamn labor laws in the US are hosed up
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
So I double-checked my contract (offer letter? Does an offer letter count as a contract, because if not, there is no contract), and yeah, I guess this is at-will. However, the employee handbook states:quote:Due to the demands of the business, resigning employees are encouraged to But that's not really a legal document. Really, what I'm asking for is, should I go ahead and file for unemployment? This is still a termination, correct? Basically, if they're firing me, I want them to admit that they're doing so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
You can always file for uc in pa. They won't stop you. Also maybe you should talk to a lawyer before you make important legal decisions next time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Sounds like you have fallen victim to the "nice guys finish last" legal principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like this is on me. I made a decision in haste, and this is what happens. Oh, well. Those six weeks aren't the worst thing in the world, and I had some other stuff lined up I can just start sooner. I'll file for unemployment and be done with it. The ironic thing is that part of my job is offering career advice and job hunting tips, but being not-a-lawyer, I've never dealt with the legal side of it, regarding employment/contract law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Is it possible that HR thinks they're doing you a favor by letting you go early?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
sleepy gary posted:Is it possible that HR thinks they're doing you a favor by letting you go early? No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
sullat posted:No. Maybe depends on how evil the company is. My last employer basically bent over to make quitting as easy as loving possible. But that is government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Good luck with Pa unemployment. Let us know if you get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Good luck with Pa unemployment. IANAL but it isn't that hard. My former boss made me go to unemployement hearings for our small business in PA. We sacked a guy because he was flat out incapable of doing the job, just didn't get it. Not able to. Went to UC hearing with multiple documented instances of warnings, showing how we attempted to work with him etc. and he just could not do the job we needed him to. UC sided in his favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL but it isn't that hard. My former boss made me go to unemployement hearings for our small business in PA. We sacked a guy because he was flat out incapable of doing the job, just didn't get it. Not able to. Went to UC hearing with multiple documented instances of warnings, showing how we attempted to work with him etc. and he just could not do the job we needed him to. UC sided in his favor. I don't get it, were you trying to deny him unemployment because he was bad at his job?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL but it isn't that hard. My former boss made me go to unemployement hearings for our small business in PA. We sacked a guy because he was flat out incapable of doing the job, just didn't get it. Not able to. Went to UC hearing with multiple documented instances of warnings, showing how we attempted to work with him etc. and he just could not do the job we needed him to. UC sided in his favor. Good. People who fight unemployment claims when the reason wasn't "he flashed the customers" are dicks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
nm posted:Good. People who fight unemployment claims when the reason wasn't "he flashed the customers" are dicks. This was surprising to me, but from the PA site: quote:Unsatisfactory work performance is not considered willful misconduct where the claimant is working to the best of his/her ability. However, it is willful misconduct where the employer shows that the claimant was capable of doing the work, but was not performing up to standards despite warnings and admonitions. This is conduct showing an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pamphlets/10339/ucp-41__unemployment_compensation_eligibility_issues/552113
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:I don't get it, were you trying to deny him unemployment because he was bad at his job? i was doing what my boss told me to. However I think from an employers perspective at some point if you've actually tried to work with someone to do the job you require of them, and they can't do it, you shouldn't be penalized for dismissing them. If you come to me and tell me you can do the job I describe and it turns out you can't, free money and a monetary penalty to the employer seems like the wrong outcome. The person in question basically did the equivalent of cramming the night before a test to say the right things in the interview, but turns out he didn't know the things he claimed to know, and also didn't/couldn't/wouldn't learn then when we tried to work with him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 18:52
|
|