|
Bitchkrieg posted:I posted about the same issues in March, and they've gotten worse. Shockingly. Labour and employment law. There is probably someone in Pittsburgh who specializes in sexual harassment claims, they would likely be who you would want to deal with for best, albeit expensive results. Also, probably delete these posts because a lovely company attorney might bring into fact through a investigator that you go by bitchkreig to show you have bad character.
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Newfie posted:Labour and employment law. There is probably someone in Pittsburgh who specializes in sexual harassment claims, they would likely be who you would want to deal with for best, albeit expensive results. Well... Idk about that. The only thing worse than posting about a potential legal issue online is deleting an online post. Spoliation can have inferences against you presumed, but posts can at least be explained. Ymmv depending on jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:33
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Well... Idk about that. The only thing worse than posting about a potential legal issue online is deleting an online post. Spoliation can have inferences against you presumed, but posts can at least be explained. Ymmv depending on jurisdiction. $10 and two minutes invested, and we're talking to "InnocentChristanForPeace."
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
quick question - "unindicted co-conspiractors" - how is this now a legalized way to smear someone without a hint of due process? Also is this a new concept (I've really only seen it in terms of people making GBS threads on CAIR), or has it been around forever?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:quick question - "unindicted co-conspiractors" - how is this now a legalized way to smear someone without a hint of due process? Also is this a new concept (I've really only seen it in terms of people making GBS threads on CAIR), or has it been around forever? It's not really a legal term, so prosecutors don't use it, so due process really isn't in play. There will also be a balancing First Amendment speech/press interest on the libel/slander side of things. It was used to refer to Nixon in the Watergate era, so not new either. e: Apparently DoJ is using that language. Perhaps it's become a term of art? But I'm with you now, that's messed up. How is this now legalized? 9/11, frightened cowards and politicians who feed off them. Terrorism works, kids! ee: The issue's already been litigated and lost. joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:07 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
The press doesn't owe anyone due process.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
I found this funny quote when looking up thisquote:The medieval practice of subjecting a person suspected of crime to the rack and other forms of torture is universally condemned; and we see little difference in subjecting a person to the torture of public condemnation, loss of reputation, and blacklisting in their chosen profession, in the manner here attempted by the grand jury. The person so condemned is just as defenseless as the medieval prisoner and the victim of the lynch mob . . . http://m.openjurist.org/514/f2d/794/united-states-v-k-briggs-c
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The press doesn't owe anyone due process. Obviously not, but it seems like prosecutors shouldn't be releasing information that basically says "this guy was in on it but I have no proof, go eat him alive general public!"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Obviously not, but it seems like prosecutors shouldn't be releasing information that basically says "this guy was in on it but I have no proof, go eat him alive general public!" Yes, but 75% of high level prosecutors are poo poo bags, so. . . .
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I found this funny quote when looking up this Here's one out a 10th Circuit district court from '99: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/55/1163/2376402/ Prosecutor's pretrial naming of unindicted coconspirators was a violation of due process meriting expungement, but use of their names and testimony at trial to get around hearsay rules was not a violation of due process.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Obviously not, but it seems like prosecutors shouldn't be releasing information that basically says "this guy was in on it but I have no proof, go eat him alive general public!" A world where prosecutors have to release everything they do is much better than a world where prosecutors don't have to release anything they do, trust me. Also, trying to dick with the constitution to manage the general public's stupidity (i.e. they don't understand how basic criminal justice works, so they incorrectly assume things about suspects and unindicted persons, etc.) is also a bad idea. Also, news ignores whats "important" in favor of what gets ratings, and drumming up sensational stories and highlighting percieved injustices gets ratings, so give the people what they want. Basically the problem is people, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Obviously not, but it seems like prosecutors shouldn't be releasing information that basically says "this guy was in on it but I have no proof, go eat him alive general public!" Guilty till proven innocent in the court of public opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Hypothetical: say a person is selling a home, and the seller uses a remote baby monitor to perform a little clandestine eavesdropping on the prospective buyer while they look at the house. Does that run afoul of privacy or wiretapping laws or whatever? Since it's a private home, but is sorta(?) open to the public? I can't imagine what the expectation of privacy would be in that sort of situation. For venue, let's pick PA, since I know there are at least one or two traffic lawyers in here from that area.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
I think you are on it in that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy inside another person's home. I think it's pretty understood that private citizens can monitor their own property with video surveillance. I also think PA's law has an exception that applies where there isn't any reasonable expectation. A seller of a house is also pretty within their rights to protect themselves against liability by monitoring prospective buyers. Unless the sellers specifically provide for privacy, like a conference room or something, I don't see there being any expectation. It also gets murky where, say, the buyers tell the owner or his agent, "can you give us a moment in private to talk things over?"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Generally, a seller would vacate the premises while showing the home, and the buyers and their agent would access the property by using the lockbox with a key inside, so they'd (ideally) never even meet the sellers until later. At least, every time I've done it, that's how it's been. But yeah, at first glance, I'd also say a buyer shouldn't have any expectation of privacy inside a seller's home without it being expressly stated, as you said, but I also feel like privacy laws and wiretapping laws and all that can be applied pretty differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction soooo v  v
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
PST posted:https://popehat.com/2016/05/25/fbi-actively-investigating-prenda-law-team-for-fraud/ Where should a law firm go when they need representation?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Generally, to better lawyers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Generally, to better lawyers. I don't think laywers are capable of admitting there are better lawyers than them. At best there are lawyers who know more about a specific area of the law than me but really if you think about it isn't my strategy better?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
There are lawyers that specialize in legal malpractice, so that's who they'd go. Or defense lawyers, depending on what they're being hit with.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
If a law firm is suing their malpractice lawyer for malpractice, who do they turn to?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Harvey Birdman
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Ok thread, I never thought I'd be posting here but it appears we need (a new) lawyer and I'm not sure how to begin (we are in NC by the way) - My grandfather passed away 4 years ago and in his will left his house first to his wife, then to his 3 daughters. His wife died years before he did and he never updated the will. One of his daughters moved into the home when he died, and the plan was just to not worry about the house while she was living there. In the following year, my mom passed, and then the sister living in the house passed - and now the house is empty and needs to be sold. At the time of my grandfather's passing we paid a lawyer (a friend of the family) a discounted sum to take care of filing the will, etc, and presumably all this was done. Forward to now and my aunt finally has a buyer for the home and she went by the courthouse and they told her that the deed was still in my grandfather's name and that "we should talk with our lawyer" before we could sell it, that apparently whatever else was supposed to take place at the time the will was filed was never done. My aunt panics at this and another clerk tells her that "sometimes they can use the will as a deed" - whatever that means. Anyway, how screwed is my aunt and did the lawyer not do his job or what? The 3 living direct relatives left (my aunt, my cousin (the son of the middle daughter), and myself (the daughter of the oldest daughter) are all fine with the house going to my aunt, and would sign papers to that effect. It occurs to me as I type this that that might not even be an issue - that the house might just go to her anyway and my cousin and myself have nothing to do with it. Anyway, any help? This is really frustrating - and before you say "talk to the original lawyer" - trust me, we are trying, he is never reachable by phone and she went by his office today and spoke to his secretary and is supposedly waiting for him to contact her.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
I could be misunderstanding it and I am not in a common law jurisdiction, but it sounds like the will was not probated properly. It could just mean that paperwork needs to be taken care of, i.e. there needs to be an additional filing with the court officially transferring ownership of the estate property to the beneficiaries of the will. Unfortunately it's probably something you will need a lawyer to finish up, though maybe a NC lawyer on here can give you more information. Were there other assets that your grandfather owned that were properly transferred? Did he own any other real estate?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
That story just needs a few extra elements (sister one dying with unsecured creditors, sister two leaving an unspecific will) to be a really solid exam question.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I could be misunderstanding it and I am not in a common law jurisdiction, but it sounds like the will was not probated properly. It could just mean that paperwork needs to be taken care of, i.e. there needs to be an additional filing with the court officially transferring ownership of the estate property to the beneficiaries of the will. Unfortunately it's probably something you will need a lawyer to finish up, though maybe a NC lawyer on here can give you more information. No, he didn't own anything else - just the house and the land it's on (it's a tiny house, not a huge estate or anything). And yes I have the name of another lawyer we can contact if things weren't done properly. Thank you
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Its probably not a big deal. In Texas, the title company/lawyer will track down who the property correctly belongs to by descension, and have them sign an affidavit, and you're good to go. It doesn't sound like the will was properly taken care of back then.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That story just needs a few extra elements (sister one dying with unsecured creditors, sister two leaving an unspecific will) to be a really solid exam question. Everyone with that experience thought that I think!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
electricHyena posted:
This is what i was told when i did the intestate probate for my mother. I have a distribution of assets signed by a judge (at the closing of the estate) that the house goes to me. I talked to a real estate agent in Michigan, and they said that the judge signed document would serve as a title if/when i wanted to sell the house. I have the title that my mother signed originally for the house back in the mid-70s. I suppose that original title in combination with an official (raised seal) death certificate and distribution of assets/closing of estate would serve just as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
My extended family just resolved the distribution of property (real estate, in this case) from my great-grandfather's will. My great-grandfather died in 1912.  (We weren't fighting about it---it was just sitting there being unused land since the 1920s---but one of the cousins wanted to build a summer place there or something, I guess.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Should've lawyered up and contested the will until you got some money out of that imo. Sure your family doesn't hate each other now but you were denied monetary compensation from a piece of land you had no interest in so we all know who the real loser is here, don't we?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
It sounds like the executor never deeded the property out of the estate. You'll probably just have to do an affidavit of heirship. Easy peasy
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Should've lawyered up and contested the will until you got some money out of that imo. No, I got money (  money, but still). The cousins who wanted the land did the Canadian equivalent of what Captain Scraps suggested, and then those of us who didn't want the land got a check. It involved a crapton of notaries and what not, but it turned out fine. It was just amusing to me that it took more than 100 years to sort out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
q: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Should've lawyered up and contested the will until you got some money out of that imo. You joke, but as I alluded to above you can get into trouble if you get into debt and the lender discovers that you technically own 1/3 of a house but for your failure to complete probate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
thanks for the replies. I feel a lot better, hopefully we'll get this sorted out soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Quick question- I am meeting with an attorney on Friday morning to discuss a civil litigation issue regarding damages to my property by a contractor my neighbor hired. Question is, how much information should I supply before retaining them- as in, should I go all out and bring everything (emails, contacts, pictures, etc.)? Thanks to the OP, I used the lawyer referral link. I just don't want to go into the meeting with too much, or not enough as I have never been in this situation before. Thanks LawGoons!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Tingles posted:Quick question- Bring everything you've got, knowing what is and isn't useful is literally part of what you hire a lawyer for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Javid posted:Bring everything you've got, knowing what is and isn't useful is literally part of what you hire a lawyer for. Thanks Javid, really. I just didn't want to bombard anyone in a 30 minute consultation appointment with too much information. I do have tons of documentation of the events. I just don't know how this process works. Hopefully I'll be able to share this ridiculous story with you all at some point! Tingles fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
If all goes well, we'll get to hear about a budding sovcit getting tazed for not mowing his lawn! https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/4ltbod/im_requested_in_municipal_court_on_thursday_for/
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Bad Munki posted:If all goes well, we'll get to hear about a budding sovcit getting tazed for not mowing his lawn! Really hope he posts a picture of his lawn and it's like the loving savannah. dpkg chopra fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:29
|
|