|
Too late, you have already created joinder! No backsies!
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:I didn't give you any advice, only legal information. You created joinder with the legal fiction that is OP's forum name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Are there any downsides to adding my apartment complex as an interested party on my renters insurance? My lease just says to have it up to a certain amount of coverage, and I do. I've already given them proof of coverage, but they keep calling telling me that "per your lease [we] need to be listed as an interested party". That's not what the lease says I have to do and I don't mind ignoring them. Should I just cave in? Tell them to pound sand?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Are there any downsides to adding my apartment complex as an interested party on my renters insurance? My lease just says to have it up to a certain amount of coverage, and I do. I've already given them proof of coverage, but they keep calling telling me that "per your lease [we] need to be listed as an interested party". Your state specific laws not withstanding, all it does is gets notices sent to them if you renew or cancel etc. it doesn't confer any rights to them other than the notice element. The flip side is that you just give all that stuff manually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
So I've been getting repeated junk calls on my cell phone. All of my phone numbers that point to that cell phone are on multiple do not call lists(I've verified and reverified this fact). The legal question is: if I threaten to hunt someone down and kill their family who keeps spam calling my phone, can I get in trouble?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
My employer is launching a new product related to fraud analysis. I will receive reports of suspicious transactions and decide whether I think they are real companies sending legit transactions or fake companies sending scam transactions, so our customers can filter them out. I have some tools to compare their transaction trends but I'm also supposed to Google them and check out their website and overall make a judgment call based on everything I see. I'm kinda worried about getting sued, either because I make a mistake and flag a legit company as scammers and they lose a bunch of money, or by a shady company just to make my life difficult. My position is salaried and OT exempt, I don't work under close supervision, I live in Washington State. Should I be worried about getting sued personally, or is it all my employer's problem? Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Are you an employee or an independent contractor? What kind of tax document do they give you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I didn't give you any advice, only legal information. Hmmm, actually false. You applied your vast knowledge of the state of the law top his facts. Send him a bill for $1200.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Are you an employee or an independent contractor? What kind of tax document do they give you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
You weren't unclear, but I wanted to make sure. You could be receiving a "salary" but not understand that you're a contractor. Generally, your employer would be responsible for your acts that are within the scope of your employment. There are lots of exceptions to that. If you make a lot of money, consult a local employment attorney to give you advice on your personal liability. If you don't, then you'll have to rest with the knowledge that most employees never get sued for things they do with the scope of their employment. Also, since I doubt you're rich, even if you do get sued and are actually liable, (and I don't know if you would be), it's unlikely the plaintiff would be able to recover money from you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
If you're an employee, you'd likely have to commit an independent tort or act outside the scope of your employment to be personally liable. Any good plaintiff attorney is going to sue the money, i.e. The company, and not an employee. Bad plaintiff attorneys who knows
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If you're an employee, you'd likely have to commit an independent tort or act outside the scope of your employment to be personally liable. Any good plaintiff attorney is going to sue the money, i.e. The company, and not an employee. Bad plaintiff attorneys who knows This is a more succinct and eloquent version of my point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:This is a more succinct and eloquent version of my point. well who has a fan now!?!?!?!?! edit: thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
I'm a fan of anyone who endeavors to provide legal information on these dead gay forums. It's the closest I come to pro bono these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:So I've been getting repeated junk calls on my cell phone. All of my phone numbers that point to that cell phone are on multiple do not call lists(I've verified and reverified this fact). Lighten up Francis
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
I don't know if this is a valid question for this thread, but I figure it might be acceptable. Please tell me to remove if not. Someone I know (no, really. It's not me.) was recently informed (during a traffic stop in which they were a passenger in a car) that a large (5 figure) bail bench warrant had been issued for their arrest. She has been able to determine that this is due to issues surrounding resolution of a DUI: she finished the program as was required, the program told the court that she didn't, she apparently got no further info and she seems to have assumed it was resolved, where it (now) obviously wasn't. This is in California. So, officer declined to take her into custody, but issued a misdemeanor non-traffic notice to appear which contains: warrant number, amount of bail, and "4000A1X/VC & 146012A/VC", and a court date (on or before). Obviously: She's hiring a lawyer. My question is simply: The lawyer says $2500 flat fee for special appearance for bench warrant recall, with the specific clause "no expectation of litigation or general appearance." Is this normal? I expect that it wouldn't be cheap, but I have no expectation of what it should cost or if he's not discussing general appearance because he thinks it won't be necessary or for some other reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:I don't know if this is a valid question for this thread, but I figure it might be acceptable. Please tell me to remove if not. He's not discussing general appearance because his client assures him that it won't be necessary because it's just a simple misunderstanding or at worst a paperwork error.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
In my divorce decree, it says that I will stop paying alimony in the event my ex gets married or if she lives with someone for 3 months or longer. She's now in a different state and while I would like to believe she would tell me...hahaha, you know where this is going. What the heck are my options for catching her? We barely talk unless I'm telling her I sent her an alimony check. She is dating someone and was talking about moving in, but hasn't done so to my knowledge. I'm still friends on Facebook so I keep an eye on that, but anything else? All I can think of is hiring a PI to track her down at this point but maybe/maybe not that is jumping the gun. I'm in Massachusetts, she's in North Carolina. Divorce was done in mass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
She should ask him what that means, and what he'll do if it turns out to not be a simple misunderstanding. What will the additional retainer be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Did you ever hire a lawyer to handle that divorce?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Did you ever hire a lawyer to handle that divorce? Nope-I was an idiot and had military legal put eyes on it but that was it because "we were going to remain friends". Yes, that was stupid, but nothing to do about it now. This was 1.5 years ago and I've got another 2 years of alimony in front of me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
I don't know Massachusetts law, but in Texas you'd have to file a motion to modify the divorce decree and present evidence that she now lives with someone else. That evidence can take virtually any admissible form. What's admissible? Just about anything she says or writes online, but you'd have to know how to present that to the judge. But as the thread advised before, it's best to do such things through an attorney. Do the cost analysis on this. That's a few thousand for an attorney to save however many months of alimony you have left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I don't know Massachusetts law, but in Texas you'd have to file a motion to modify the divorce decree and present evidence that she now lives with someone else. That evidence can take virtually any admissible form. What's admissible? Just about anything she says or writes online, but you'd have to know how to present that to the judge. Yeah I was figuring I'd have to file a motion-my main question are what tools can I use to track this if she decides to withhold information from me. For example, she moves in with a guy and doesn't tell me. Marriage is one thing because I don't imagine she would withhold that, but living together is something else. I would assume a PI taking pictures with time date stamps would be admissible, but I'd need to weigh the costs of everything and go from there. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Is it suspicious if a lawyer doesn't have malpractice insurance? I mean, if I knew someone didn't have car insurance (I live in a state where it's not required) I would assume they're an extremely terrible driver and they've been in so many accidents that they couldn't afford the premiums anymore, but I don't know if the situations are really comparable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:Is it suspicious if a lawyer doesn't have malpractice insurance? I mean, if I knew someone didn't have car insurance (I live in a state where it's not required) I would assume they're an extremely terrible driver and they've been in so many accidents that they couldn't afford the premiums anymore, but I don't know if the situations are really comparable. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes. What if he's a really good lawyer? Does that change the calculation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:What if he's a really good lawyer? Does that change the calculation? If he was a really good lawyer, he'd be carrying malpractice insurance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Florida Betty posted:Is it suspicious if a lawyer doesn't have malpractice insurance? I mean, if I knew someone didn't have car insurance (I live in a state where it's not required) I would assume they're an extremely terrible driver and they've been in so many accidents that they couldn't afford the premiums anymore, but I don't know if the situations are really comparable. There are several reasons an attorney may not have malpractice insurance*. It's possible that an attorney may have so many bar complaints / malpractice suits that no insurer will touch them. It's possible that the attorney is so broke that he doesn't care about getting sued because he knows he'll never have to pay the judgment. However, from what I've seen most attorneys that don't have malpractice insurance don't have it because they either practice in an area of law that historically has a low chance of getting a malpractice suit, or think they do a good enough job papering the file that they aren't worried about it. If I were in private practice I'd probably have malpractice insurance. However, if I were in the market for an attorney I wouldn't reject an otherwise qualified attorney just because they didn't have malpractice insurance. *Assuming you live in a state that doesn't not require attorneys to carry malpractice insurance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:I don't know if this is a valid question for this thread, but I figure it might be acceptable. Please tell me to remove if not. The 14601.2 is driving on a suspended for DUI. It is a serious offense in California with manditory jail time (10 days) and like a $2000 fine. She'd know if she resolved that (because spending a week in jail) and it is not the dui (which has 2 days jail). I dunno what an appearance goes for, but she's gonna need a lawyer on the 14601.2. A 4000 is just a failure to appear. Also, she should know her license is almost certainly suspended right now and the next one comes with 30d jail, so she should stop loving driving. 14601.2s can be defensible in some cases as sometimes the suspension is for something on than the dui but the cop or da sees a da in the history and files that by mistake. There are some the exceptions. If she can qualify for a PD and is charged in a large, non-central valley county (or sacramento), I'd want a PD on it. If there are no defenses, reducing a 14601.2 comes down to knowing the DA to get it reduced. Its also probably a probation violation. If she is charged in the same county as the dui, she should tell her lawyer sooner rather than later. She should also prepare to post bail because some judges tend to take 14601.2s with DUI probations and an FTA into custody because if that person goes out and kills someone in a DUI the next day, that is how judges lose elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes. Also a mandatory disclosure item in at least California: quote:Rule 3-410 Disclosure of Professional Liability Insurance
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Also a mandatory disclosure item in at least California: Yep, that's how I found out about it. I have a friend in San Francisco who is considering hiring a lawyer for a personal injury case, and he asked me to read over the contract he was asked to sign (because I'm probably the only native English speaker he knows, not that I have any special legal knowledge), and it included this disclosure. It's not the only reason I have my suspicions about this particular lawyer, though. I sent the contract to my brother, who is an actual lawyer (though not in California) to see what he thinks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
nm posted:The 14601.2 is driving on a suspended for DUI. It is a serious offense in California with manditory jail time (10 days) and like a $2000 fine. She'd know if she resolved that (because spending a week in jail) and it is not the dui (which has 2 days jail). She's definitely not driving, so that's easily resolved. The PD thing is good to know, and I'll make sure she raises the question with the attorney. This is in the San Fernando Valley area (LA County), so it sounds like this applies. Thank you, I appreciate the info.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
I know more than one, highly successful firm in Texas that doesn't carry liability insurance because, and I quote, "It makes you a target for malpractice suits."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
I'm in Oregon and am getting a job at a credit union. Part of this job requires me to be bonded. I have a class a misdemeanor in Texas from 2008 for having a prohibited weapon (brass knuckles), would this be something that could keep me from being bonded ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
How difficult does it have to be to see into your window to get an indecent exposure charge (or a charge that isn't thrown out by a judge). Like, if I'm walking around naked, but you can only see into my window with binoculars or night vision goggles or something, how likely is a police (or a judge) to care? My guess is this varies greatly from cop to cop and judge to judge, but I'm wondering how that sort of thing is usually handled. Doing gross stuff w/ the blinds open isn't something I do or want advice for how to get away with, I'm just curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:How difficult does it have to be to see into your window to get an indecent exposure charge (or a charge that isn't thrown out by a judge). Thinking of this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Thinking of this? That article says nothing about night vision, binoculars, and I said nothing about wearing a hat. The whole point of my question was how difficult must it be before an instance of indecent exposure gets ignored. I'm not sure how you think parading around in front of a picture window and an open doorway for several hours, some of which (it sounds like) were during daylight hours, in a house visible from the street by the naked eye, fits the spirit of my question. Thank you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
In Texas, you have to be reckless whether someone else who is present will be offended or alarmed by your act. Someone using binoculars or night vision looking in your apartment likely would not be considered present, and if you didn't know they were there, probably not reckless. Consider being naked in your house versus standing in front of an uncovered window, and why you are in that spot naked. quote:For purposes of this statute, it is irrelevant whether the person to whom the defendant exposed his or her genitals was offended;3 the issue is whether the defendant was reckless about whether another was present who would be offended.4 This is an objective standard to be considered from the viewpoint of an ordinary person standing in the defendant's shoes.5 Thus, the State must show circumstances indicating that the defendant was aware of the risk that another person was present who would be offended by the exposure and that the defendant acted in conscious disregard of that risk.6 It is not an element of the offense of indecent exposure that the proscribed exposure be directed toward any specific person.7 Texas further requires the intent to arouse or gratify sexual arousal or any person. So you walking around naked eating a sandwich before getting dressed for work while someone spies on you likely wouldn't be indecent exposure EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Thinking of this? Did he really say "I feel like I'm living in a fishbowl"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
The most shocking thing to me is that in at least two places in America, one of them Texas, you have to actually be doing something lewd beyond being nude for indecent exposure to stick. That is far more reasonable than I would ever expect from any law involving nudity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:14
|
|