|
Tell the life insurance company there could be fraud. Tell whoever manages the pension the same. Tell the banks about the checks, call it check fraud Tell anyone else managing money something fishy is going on That would/might make it a pain in the rear end to deal. Could also spiral out of control into who knows what. But it's pretty passive aggressive.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
echopapa posted:Yeah, the court is not a machine for validating you. Even if it went to court and I found out that actually everything she did was totally legal I would be satisfied with that. I'm not just deciding that she's a bad person because she stole my pencil so I need a judge to yell at her. Shouldn't there be some way to say "hi, this person committed fraud"??? That's primarily what I was asking this thread about, which I suppose was lost in my post. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Who is the administer of the estate? See if your police department investigate insurance fraud
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Additional reason: You don't think landlords do checks of prospective tenants to see if they've sued previous landlords (and then run like hell from those that did)? They do. Uh how would a landlord even check that? I guess there are probably companies that will search all the nearby small claims jurisdictions to see if someone with the prospective tenant's name has ever been a plaintiff, but I've certainly never heard of a landlord doing such a thing here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
It's easy to check court records and find out who has the red flags that might show they'll be a giant pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
Hell, sometimes you can just Google it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
I have a deposition this month, I am going to meet with my counsel tomorrow. Anything I should prepare for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I have a deposition this month, I am going to meet with my counsel tomorrow. Anything I should prepare for? Literally that is your counsel's job - to prepare you for the deposition. The overarching rules I teach my witnesses are to listen to a question carefully while it's being asked, and then ask yourself: Did I understand the question? (Was it unclear, was there more than one question in there, etc.) If not, ask for clarification. Do I remember the answer to the question? If not, say I don't remember. Do I know the answer to the question of my own personal knowledge? (If you're being offered as a 30b6 witness, do you know it as a representative of the corporation?). If not, then it would be speculation or hearsay to answer and you should be answering that you don't know, or saying you'd have to speculate. Only if you meet all three of those requirements should you answer. (Plus while you're thinking through the three questions I can get objections on record.) (This is definitely from the perspective of generally being defense counsel in civil suits - your counsel may have other plans in which case you should probably listen to your actual lawyer.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I have a deposition this month, I am going to meet with my counsel tomorrow. Anything I should prepare for? Bring snacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
In addition to that, I like to tell my witnesses there is a rhythm to questioning, like so: Question Pause Answer Stop Question is asked. Pause and think about the question, be sure you understand it, assess it like like Kalman says. If you don't understand it or it's not a fair question, ask them to rephrase. Answer the question that has been asked and no other questions. Stop. Once you have answered, stop talking. Do not suggest new questions. Don't fill the silence. Let the lawyer ask you another question. The deposition will be over a lot quicker if you don't give the lawyer more avenues to go down. A few other things: This is not your chance to tell your story. You will get to do that later. Your lawyer has a 10,000 foot view of the case and things that might seem wrong to you might fit his strategy to the case. I have never seen anyone win a case in a deposition. I have seen many, many people lose cases in depos, though. Keep that in mind. Less is more in a depo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Bring snacks. And coffee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Mucilaginous posted:No but you see, he knows more about how this works than lawyers, because he totally has some saved texts about drugs, and the lease totally backs him up. Just coming back to this thread after a few days to defend my honor against a lawyer with a penchant for being a pedant - I never really disagreed with you and didn't imply you weren't right, and I do appreciate your advice. Advice was really looking for, as well as answers to all those questions I had, because frankly I've never had to deal with anything like this before. I definitely don't know more about this than lawyers but I still think I had valid points and questions, and possible avenues of recourse, especially if she ends up finding me and filing a claim for multiple thousands of dollars. Sorry for any tone misinterpretations you may have made + thank you for the advice. I also realize in a lot of cases some people just will not have any experience with particulars, and with those particulars in particular states, and I may never be able to get an answer to my questions. But thanks for trying. And I mean, you also have no frame of reference for this particular landlord, whose neighbors called the police on her multiple times and nearly had her child taken away for being an "unfit mother", but who knows, maybe you're right. And one more point, aside from the house being foreclosed on meaning that she has no money, she also kept my security deposit entirely wrongfully because I don't think she has an obligation to clean a foreclosed house? Maybe I'm wrong? ULL NEVER RID ME fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Dunno whether or not you guys will have much information for me, but figured I'd ask. In Virginia. Earlier, my dad saw on the news that my step brother (whom I haven't seen in years) got arrested for accidentally shooting someone else in the foot. I looked up his information on the case records site, and he's charged with reckless handling of a firearm with permanent serious bodily injury, a Class 6 Felony in VA, and was released on his own recognizance. As far as I'm aware, this is his first offense as an adult, but then it is a serious one. Question is, anyone have a guess (based on other cases or whatever) what his sentence might be if he's found guilty? No idea what his plea is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
18.2-10(f) For Class 6 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
You're wrong, and you have no honor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You're wrong, and you have no honor. Most offensive. I demand satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Phil, I apologize. No need to duel. That was of course directed at Hawaii tenant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Hypothetical time. Say I'm following a semi that enters an intersection on a yellow, but by the time I hit it the light is red. If I couldn't see the light at all because of the truck, and I could prove it, would that potentially be grounds to have a ticket dismissed? Since I'm pondering traffic stuff, if a right turner hits someone making a legal u-turn, who would most likely be found at fault? I would assume the right turner because u-turn guy is already on the main road. Would it make a difference if u-turn was turning from a middle turn lane without a light?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
So your defense is that you were following the semi too closely to be able to safely observe traffic signals?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Hypothetical time. Say I'm following a semi that enters an intersection on a yellow, but by the time I hit it the light is red. If I couldn't see the light at all because of the truck, and I could prove it, would that potentially be grounds to have a ticket dismissed? sleepy.eyes posted:Since I'm pondering traffic stuff, if a right turner hits someone making a legal u-turn, who would most likely be found at fault? I would assume the right turner because u-turn guy is already on the main road. Would it make a difference if u-turn was turning from a middle turn lane without a light? Right on red has to yield to all traffic with the right of way. A car making a legal U-Turn probably has the right of way. A jury would most likely find that the car turning right on red was liable(at fault). Bad Munki posted:So your defense is that you were following the semi too closely to be able to safely observe traffic signals? (haha, lets ignore that for now)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Since we're on traffic chat. If a trucker, who is a registered employee of Trucking Corp., runs over a pedestrian while under the influence of illegal drugs (proven by a toxicology report), is Trucking Corp. liable for damages? Let's pretend that the truck is property of Trucking Corp., the accident happens during a work related travel (ie: the trucker wasn't joyriding or taking the truck to a strip club after hours or whatever), and that Trucking Corp. has strict procedures to check drug usage, the trucker had just shot up whatever a few hours ago for the first time. Any U.S. jurisdiction is fine, I'm just curious on whether U.S. civil liability is less strict than in my country (where there is basically no recourse for the employer short of the truck having been stolen, and even then it's iffy).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:18.2-10(f) For Class 6 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was asking whether or not folks thought it likely that a judge would go for a max sentence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Texas IF the person I have a judgement against is getting married at the end of the year AND they are sharing a bank account with their future spouse Should I pay an attorney to garnish their bank account right before the wedding when it may be full of cash to pay wedding stuff OR should I try after the wedding when it may be full of cash wedding gifts? edit: or neither and let it go because that's pretty much what I've done at this point (it's only $1000)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
After is probably the less dickish move?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So your defense is that you were following the semi too closely to be able to safely observe traffic signals? Nah, if this had actually happened I would have been bitching on These Are The People You Share The Road With. I've never actually gotten a ticket before, though God knows I've deserved a couple in the past. Also, just thought of another question: if you get in a minor fender bender and the other guy threatens to call the cops, would you have any reason to let him know you have a dashcam other than scaring them into loving off and leaving you alone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was asking whether or not folks thought it likely that a judge would go for a max sentence. Too many factors to give an answer on that really. If you know the judges name, you could look him up online and see if he has a reputation for harsh or lenient sentences, but even then it's gonna be a toss up depending on a million little factors
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Since we're on traffic chat. Trucking co will be liable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Since we're on traffic chat. The way respondent superior works is that for most any offense committed in the line of duty the owner is liable. There will be some variations depending on jurisdiction. Federal law covers testing drug/alcohol testing requirements for a lot of transit employees, so this driver would be immediately removed from the road following the incident. Many states have mirrored or harsher laws than the federal ones regarding CDLs, this guy's license will probably be revoked and he will likely lose his job and not be employable as a trucker for some time. As far as a complete liability shift away from the company when the only fault of the driver is the substance use is a dicier proposition. If the drug use was his only violation, they may not be able to escape liability at all. Dealing with driver liability is a huge cost for a lot of trucking companies. Many decide to set up a large system of wholly owned subsidiaries in order to limit liability as much as possible to the main corp. Take, for example, Affiliated Foods (restaurant/grocery food wholesale delivery place like Sysco or Ben E Kieth) based out of Amarillo, TX. My dad used to drive for them. One of their drivers 15 years ago or so had a similar incident and the main corp was on the hook for the full bill. Very shortly thereafter all of the trucking portion of the business was split off onto a new company called Panhandle Transportation Group. Any future liability from incidents, so long as PTG is ran properly, stops at PTG and no longer touches the parent company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So your defense is that you were following the semi too closely to be able to safely observe traffic signals? "I admit I broke the law your honor but I am a special snowflake and shouldn't be punished because ___________" is probably the number 1 defense for pro se people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:"I admit I broke the law your honor but I am a special snowflake and shouldn't be punished because ___________" is probably the number 1 defense for pro se people. My wife got so many justice court convictions this way when doing her criminal clinic in law school. "Your honor, the defendant admitted to the elements of the crime. The rest of the story does not provide a valid legal defense."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was asking whether or not folks thought it likely that a judge would go for a max sentence. VA uses sentencing guidelines, which your step brother's attorney will discuss with him. Use of the guidelines will result in a narrower likely range of potential punishment than the full max/min range Phil posted. No, we can't and won't do that calculation for you, but you could try wading in yourself: Here is an older version of VA's sentencing guidelines. http://sentencing.umn.edu/sites/sentencing.umn.edu/files/virginia_guidelines_2014.pdf Max sentence for no record is unlikely but may be possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The way respondent superior works is that for most any offense committed in the line of duty the owner is liable. There will be some variations depending on jurisdiction. Federal law covers testing drug/alcohol testing requirements for a lot of transit employees, so this driver would be immediately removed from the road following the incident. Many states have mirrored or harsher laws than the federal ones regarding CDLs, this guy's license will probably be revoked and he will likely lose his job and not be employable as a trucker for some time. Thanks, that's what I imagined. Over here you'd be hard pressed even to stop the liability buck at the subsidiary. If parent co. is the sole/major owner and there's direct control from parent co. on the subsidiary's decisions, you will most likely find a sympathetic judge that is willing to pierce the veil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Hypothetical time. Say I'm following a semi that enters an intersection on a yellow, but by the time I hit it the light is red. If I couldn't see the light at all because of the truck, and I could prove it, would that potentially be grounds to have a ticket dismissed? Why not just shut your eyes real tight while blowing through red lights? Same logic. sleepy.eyes posted:if you get in a minor fender bender and the other guy threatens to call the cops, would you have any reason to let him know you have a dashcam other than scaring them into loving off and leaving you alone? It depends on who is at fault, if you're drunk, or if you have a meth cooking kit sitting on the back seat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Thanks, that's what I imagined. That's what I meant by "so long as [subsidiary] is ran properly." To avoid piercing the veil, it needs to be ran as an independent venture with it's own officers, meetings, charter, etc. If the parent is exercising direct control, then they aren't truly operating as a separate company hence the veil piercing. Even if wholly owned, the subsidiary must be ran entirely as an independent entity. This is the part that a lot of people fail, but it isn't really difficult to do. It's tedious, but necessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Nah, if this had actually happened I would have been bitching on These Are The People You Share The Road With. I've never actually gotten a ticket before, though God knows I've deserved a couple in the past. If you are not the at fault party, you want the police called 100% of the time so you have a fault determination from the officer. This helps you immensely when it comes to claims/lawsuits following the incident. If you're on private property, the cops likely won't show up at all. If you're in a big metro area and there's no injury, it's also likely that the police will not show up for a minor bump. Your best bet, dash cam or no, is to pay attention, maintain a 2 second distance, and stop tailgating people because its dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Should I pay an attorney to garnish their bank account right before the wedding when it may be full of cash to pay wedding stuff OR should I try after the wedding when it may be full of cash wedding gifts? gently caress yes, haha. Be advised, first you have to find where the bank account is, which may involved a subpoena and/or post-judgment discovery, and then get a writ of garnishment, all of which takes some time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:"I admit I broke the law your honor but I am a special snowflake and shouldn't be punished because ___________" is probably the number 1 defense for pro se people. This never survives them seeing the dashcam video, wherein they realize their carefully constructed recollection of events is completely false.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Thanks, that's what I imagined. Mr. Nice! posted:That's what I meant by "so long as [subsidiary] is ran properly." To avoid piercing the veil, it needs to be ran as an independent venture with it's own officers, meetings, charter, etc. If the parent is exercising direct control, then they aren't truly operating as a separate company hence the veil piercing. Even if wholly owned, the subsidiary must be ran entirely as an independent entity. This is the part that a lot of people fail, but it isn't really difficult to do. It's tedious, but necessary. And quite frankly, you have to be in pretty hosed-up, and in-the-extreme-minority, of a legal situation to even get to this point, because insurance should have made you as whole as the law allows before you have to ask and answer these questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And quite frankly, you have to be in pretty hosed-up, and in-the-extreme-minority, of a legal situation to even get to this point, because insurance should have made you as whole as the law allows before you have to ask and answer these questions. Sadly a non-trivial number of small business owners think things like insurance and taxes are just theft. These people often only pay "employees" under the table. When I started my own business, insurance was one of the first things on my list after setting up a proper liability limiting entity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Actually in this case insurance co. has refused coverage because the driver was under the influence of drugs. Would a US insurance co. be forced to pay even if the driver was full of drugs? That is surprising. (There's a growing amount of precedent here that the insurance co. is still liable to the victim, but can then recoup the money from whoever took the insurance. But it's a Civil Law country so precedent isn't binding). Edit: to be clear, the policy explicitly precludes coverage if the driver was under the influence. This is standard in the insurance market here. dpkg chopra fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:40
|
|