|
Kalman posted:gently caress those people and their self-centered bullshit. Agreed. Cyclists are the worst.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Kalman posted:It's very hard to allow cars to park in a protected bike lane, which is what's being proposed. (Also basically the entirety of DC west of the river is within 5 miles of that spot so that'd cover everyone likely to use it.) Joat mon is a rural criminal defense lawyer, but I believe he was also a jag for a long time. I say that to point this out: I think jm is making the opposite argument in an attempt to dissuade us from group think/hive mind. The congregation may not be citizens of dc, they may be defensive over the loss of their parking spaces, but that doesn't mean they will quickly bend over for what (you believe) is the right solution. Consider how they must feel. Good god why ask i defending a stupid position (I disagree with the church).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
While my initial sympathies were with the bikers, your [e: kalman's] forceful arguments convinced me of the error of my ways. When I rode, it was only about 250 miles a week, so maybe I don't count, but who the gently caress are you people and why have you been turning a great hobby to poo poo with the way you behave? joat mon fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Joat mon is a rural criminal defense lawyer, but I believe he was also a jag for a long time. I say that to point this out: I think jm is making the opposite argument in an attempt to dissuade us from group think/hive mind. The congregation may not be citizens of dc, they may be defensive over the loss of their parking spaces, but that doesn't mean they will quickly bend over for what (you believe) is the right solution. Consider how they must feel. So could he be...playing...some sort of...advocate somehow?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:So could he be...playing...some sort of...advocate somehow? Church mans advocate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
I'm surprised they went for religious freedom and not the much more arguably legitimate ADA option where the vast majority of their attendees are old as gently caress and legitimately need close parking access. I doubt they can forcefully stop the bike lane project; I assume they're aiming to just make putting it on THEIR block more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
joat mon posted:While my initial sympathies were with the bikers, your [e: kalman's] forceful arguments convinced me of the error of my ways. Is not for riding as exercise, but riding as commuting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
 Judge Judy questionI see a trend of people on court TV shows talking like they are Perry Mason when they get in front of a judge and include a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with anything. For example, if Tom drove to the gas station down the block and got in a fistfight with Dick and that is what the court case is all about, Tom's testimony comes out like: "It was approximately 6:42 PM and I needed to get fuel for my vehicle, so I proceeded out my front door and proceeded down to my front steps and proceeded to my vehicle which I proceeded to enter from the driver's side door. I proceeded to reverse out of my driveway and checked my mirrors to make sure traffic was clear before proceeding to back onto the North Park Drive and then proceeded to continue in a forward manner southbound on North Park Drive in the direction of the gas station while obeying the speed limit and...." I was going to type more, but, gently caress it, you get the idea. Do pro se testimonies happen like this in real life and, if they do, do judges just tell them to cut the poo poo and talk like a normal person?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm surprised they went for religious freedom and not the much more arguably legitimate ADA option where the vast majority of their attendees are old as gently caress and legitimately need close parking access. I doubt they can forcefully stop the bike lane project; I assume they're aiming to just make putting it on THEIR block more trouble than it's worth. A good point to bring up if there was an actual good faith discussion going on. 3 1/2 years of my JA time was spent stationed in DC. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Is not for riding as exercise, but riding as commuting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Yes, no, no. That's absolutely how pro se talk. Most pro se litigants can't afford attorneys. Most people who can't afford attorneys are poor. Some poor people are uneducated. Also, some pro se are only pro se because they're really stupid. And a large percentage of the population does not have a job where they have to creatively, accurately, persuasively, and entertainingly present a story to the public. The result is pro se people using synonyms like automobile, fisticuffs, altercation, or neologisms like conversate when speaking in court under the belief that it makes them sounds more authoritative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Also, the intelligent, sensible people with the ability to cut the poo poo & make a coherent and clear point are far more likely to receive a favorable outcome and not want to air their bullshit on TV. Which is convenient, because that would be a boring show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:
Not just pro se. Instead of a your narrative, imagine a separate question and answer for each and every clause of your example. Welcome to almost every direct examination, ever. Also, every police report reads this way, but with spelling and grammar errors. While there is something to be said for setting a scene and providing detail, there is a point where the jury will just view it all as one gray smear of facts and fail to clue in on the important ones. Sometimes a judge will tell an attorney to "move it along" if things start dragging too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:A good point to bring up if there was an actual good faith discussion going on. If they make a lane that can be parked in, it can't be made a fully protected lane (i.e. separated by barriers from traffic.) In other places in DC where they don't separate the lane, people park in the lane throughout the week. It's also pretty common to have cars swerve into unprotected bike lanes to go around things in the road. There's a reason that the DDOT best practice for bike lanes is to separate them from the street with bollards or zebras wherever possible. Basically, in order to preserve angle parking you're looking at continuing a significant safety concern for the majority of the week for the sake of minor convenience on Sunday mornings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
DC was proposing something like this: With parallel parking outside the bike lane. (You lose a traffic lane but you lose that lane during angle parking as well.) The church wants this:  Where on Sundays they could angle-park across the bike lane and the parallel parking lane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Javid posted:Also, the intelligent, sensible people with the ability to cut the poo poo & make a coherent and clear point are far more likely to receive a favorable outcome and not want to air their bullshit on TV. Which is convenient, because that would be a boring show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 06:31
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Judge Judy pays the defendant, plaintiff, and any necessary witnesses to travel to LA plus an appearance fee. If Judge Judy finds in favor of the plaintiff, the producers directly pay the defendant within 30 days. So the plaintiff gets paid even if the defendant is judgement proof and the defendant might be able to get the plaintiff off their back without paying a dime. Would it be possible to stipulate Judge Judy or an equivalent in a forum selection clause?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Would it be possible to stipulate Judge Judy or an equivalent in a forum selection clause? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
nern posted:Here is my situation. I was hit by a teenager driving his father's car. The teenager is not listed as an insured driver on his policy. Now, in order for his insurance to cover the damages to my vehicle, the teenager must have had permission to use the vehicle. If he didn't have permission, it won't be covered by his insurance, but I would then be able to use my uninsured motorist coverage to pay for the damages. The problem is, he is not cooperating with his insurance's investigation into the claim. So his insurance company won't make a decision either way. Assuming the teenager was at fault (which is not controversial in this instance), what would happen if he never responded? It doesn't really matter to me which way it goes, I just need to get the repairs done (this happened right as I was preparing to put the car up for sale). Unless he is specifically excluded from the policy the child may be covered anyway if he lives with the parents, and even if specifically excluded his parents may be liable if he's a minor. But we can't know for sure without knowing where you are or what the policy says. And in some states it doesn't matter whether the kid cooperates--if you provide the insurer with proof of your loss (what this is varies from state to state), they are obligated to pay within a certain time or they are in bad faith, subjecting them to attorney's fees, penalties, and sometimes even double or treble damages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
It's a bike lane, with barriers and poo poo. It can't just disappear come Sunday
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's a bike lane, with barriers and poo poo. It can't just disappear come Sunday It's a cycle track, aka protected bike lane. Bike lanes are just paint 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
To add to the kid-not-on-the-insurance question, a similar thing happened to me about a year ago. Some 16-year-old kid was texting and not paying attention to the road, blew a stop sign, and t-boned my car (only going about 10 so not huge damage). I didn't even call the police; I took a ton of pictures (including the kid's license and instance card with mom's name on it) and I was recording a video when he got out of his car and started sobbing about how it was all his fault and he was in so much trouble because now he was going to be late to a school dance. I called my insurance and they paid for the repairs. I had to pay the deductible, because $kid told his parents it wasn't his fault and that's the story they gave their insurance. Once my insurance sent the pictures and video over, $kid's parents said he wasn't on the policy, then stopped responding altogether. So I was out $500 and I had a claim on my record. Then 9 months later my insurance sent me a letter that the claim had been resolved through subrogation, my premium would go back to what it was before, and I got a check for my deductible back. The moral is: call your insurance and let them fight the other company. It's what you pay them for. Edit: No wait, the moral is to call one of the lawyers in this thread to sue everyone within 5 miles for creating joinder with your non-corporate entity. Sonic Dude fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
When I was clerking, we had a case that had been going on for like, 5 years, involving a teenager borrowing his mom's car, filling it with teenagers, and crashing it into another car. I think there were two fatalities, damages in the millions, etc. Mom's insurance never paid, she's left the country, and the insurance companies are still fighting. Or were, dunno if its been resolved by now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Anyone in this thread an attorney in Washington State that knows Superior Court civil procedure? A family member is facing a civil lawsuit about a contract and has not been able to obtain an attorney in their part of Washington to represent them. The family member found a contract attorney to file a notice of appearance, but apparently did not tell them about the 20 day deadline to actually submit their answer to the court. This family member now faces a hearing for an order of default soon and may not be able to attend the hearing. If someone here is an attorney and available to talk for 30-60 minutes this weekend on how to help this family member submit a motion/answer to buy some time for them to get representation and go back to the original civil schedule for the case, I would happily pay your standard consultation rate. I never thought I would be unable to find an attorney the traditional way, so taking a stab in the dark here. PM for more details or leave contact here if interested. Also would take any advice about how to get a weekend consultation from another source. skeptic22 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:So I was out $500 and I had a claim on my record. Then 9 months later my insurance sent me a letter that the claim had been resolved through subrogation, my premium would go back to what it was before, and I got a check for my deductible back. This guy is right, as long as the other carrier is a member of inter company arbitration this is how it would go. If not then it's more complicated but if the damage is bad enough and you can swing the deductible, this is the path of less work for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Any lawyer who has passed a bar knows the deadline to answer a complaint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
skeptic22 posted:Anyone in this thread an attorney in Washington State that knows Superior Court civil procedure? Is the hearing on Monday or something? If so he needs to go in an explain himself to the judge. I've never seen a judge default anyone, much less an unrepresented party, if they showed up and asked for time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Is the hearing on Monday or something? If so he needs to go in an explain himself to the judge. I've never seen a judge default anyone, much less an unrepresented party, if they showed up and asked for time. That is the situation, a Monday hearing. The family member claims that they have an unavoidable work meeting at that time that could imperil their job if they miss it. Is there a way they can submit anything in writing earlier in the day, other than appearing in the afternoon during the hearing? I will argue for the importance of showing up, but I also think they are just afraid of appearing unrepresented as its anxiety inducing and scary for them, so trying to plan for that possibility if work or guts won't allow an appearance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
They need to make the determination of what's more important: their job or the judgment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I don't know how your court works, but possibly if he FAXES a letter to the judge's chambers, WITH A COPY TO THE LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE, explaining his situation, then CALLS THE JUDGE'S OFFICE and TALKS TO A PERSON to explain his issue, then CALLS THE LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE SO HE CAN RETSIN COUNSEL, then CONFIRMS THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH A FAXED LETTER TO THE JUDGE AND OTHER LAWYER, then MAYBE (no guarantees) they won't default him. Otherwise he needs to show up or send a lawyer for him. This type of self-made "emergency" is usually viewed more of a "your problem" than a "my problem" but the courts. Also I have never heard of a lawyer who won't defend a civil case of you are willing to pay for the representation. The only way this person "can't find a lawyer" is either he didn't look for one or he didn't want to pay one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I don't know how your court works, but possibly if he FAXES a letter to the judge's chambers, WITH A COPY TO THE LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE, explaining his situation, then CALLS THE JUDGE'S OFFICE and TALKS TO A PERSON to explain his issue, then CALLS THE LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE SO HE CAN RETSIN COUNSEL, then CONFIRMS THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH A FAXED LETTER TO THE JUDGE AND OTHER LAWYER, then MAYBE (no guarantees) they won't default him. Thanks for this, going to definitely advise they show up. I can vouch for the difficulty finding representation though. Spent two weeks with them calling up most of the firms (not too big of a town) that do civil litigation and a lot straight up refused citing their workload and a couple were currently representing the plaintiff in other matters. I'm sure they just need to find someone with an individual practice next, so I agree that person is out there, but it has been a lot more difficult than I expected, especially considering they can pay and understand the expense required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
skeptic22 posted:Thanks for this, going to definitely advise they show up. FYI, citing workload is sometimes a way to politely tell a would-be-client to gently caress off, eg because their case is dumb, or the client is nuttier than squirrel poo poo. IANAL Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:FYI, citing workload is sometimes a way to politely tell a would-be-client to gently caress off, eg because their case is dumb, out the client is nuttier than squirrel poo poo. Nutty respondents who have done dumb things still deserve representation. It's not like he's a would-be plaintiff with a cockamamie scheme.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Is the hearing on Monday or something? If so he needs to go in an explain himself to the judge. I've never seen a judge default anyone, much less an unrepresented party, if they showed up and asked for time. I have, it's actually pretty funny. "How come you didn't answer the complaint? It's been 4 months since service." "I was in the hospital." "For four months?" "Well, no." "Default entered." also there is of course a whole lot of stuff going on with that case not being told to the thread and it probably boils down to your family member refusing to pay their attorney because the whole appearance but no answer thing is really weird mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Which one of you is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZiqwRnwtM
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
I sent that and the new one to my attorney over the weekend. He said he wants to hire him. SOMEBODY JUST CALLED ME! And "DUE PROCESS? DO WHEELIES!" are my favorites from the new one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3MxAH-kDI
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
What kind of moron attorney would file an appearance, but not an answer?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What kind of moron attorney would file an appearance, but not an answer?! It can happen a lot as a delay tactic but only with attorneys that know what they're doing
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I have, it's actually pretty funny. Well, lying to the judge is different. I've seen pro se's get reamed when the judge thinks they are trying to pull a fast one, sometimes even thrown in jail. Tip to pro ses: you are not smarter than the judge, and even if you are, they are very good and smelling rats. But usually they bend over backward to help pro se parties (since they are protecting their constituents). "Your honor, I'm here on a motion to dismiss. There has been no opposition. The plaintiff has not responded to discovery in over a year. We've filed three motions to compel. The last one you told us you would entertain a motion to dismiss if they ignored your order, and here we are." "This is an unrepresented party, correct? Do you have service?" "Yes, the sheriff's return shows they were served three weeks ago. I also sent the notice of hearing by certified mail and the green card came back signed. I also sent the notice by US mail. They are not in the courtroom today." "Will you check outside?" *checks outside* "They are not outside, your honor." "Well, let's go through the docket and see if they show up." *waits three hours until the end of the docket.* "The plaintiff has not shown up, your honor." "Well did you call them?" *calls, no answer.* "They are not answering, your honor." "Well, I am hesitant to dismiss their case if they aren't answering. How can you be sure that they got the notice of hearing?" *kills self*
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:FYI, citing workload is sometimes a way to politely tell a would-be-client to gently caress off, eg because their case is dumb, or the client is nuttier than squirrel poo poo. Update: They chose the route of filing an answer this morning with the court (found someone to help over the weekend) and also got it over to the opposing attorney's office in the morning. The hearing was canceled as an answer was filed and hopefully they will settle and be done with it. I definitely think that people may be put off of working with them as they often have a long story that wanders far afield of the very reasonable answer to the suit. But, I've personally called a few firms and presented no drama (in fact, barely could say anything other than looking for representation for a civil dispute) and been turned away for lack of availability. Mentioned that I understood the cost of representation and would pay for the consultation. Hoping that it won't be necessary anymore, but glad to have a little more time to find representation if they can't settle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:What kind of moron attorney would file an appearance, but not an answer?! That was my miscommunication. The attorney helped my family member draft a notice of appearance so they could represent themselves and receive documents. My quarrel with the attorney is that it appears he didn't make clear to my family member that they had X deadline to file an answer to the court if they couldn't find a new attorney fast enough. I know the summons says a response is due, but I don't think my family member initially understood that a demand letter to the opposing attorney was distinct from the answer to the court in this instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 20:13
|
|