|
Landlady said that the estate agents manage this sort of thing (maintenance etc), and said that unless it's rats, they don't take care of it. So it's not rats, it's mice. My landlady was kind enough to split the cost with me. I've also got no issue letting an exterminator in, it's just that I don't want the neighbours in as well. I don't like the idea of them inside my apartment without me present. The situation resolved itself. I called my landlady and just totally levelled with her. I told her that the exterminator said the mice can originate from anywhere along the entire block of houses since the wall cavities are all shared. Landlady was kind enough to offer to speak with the downstairs neighbours if I was getting tired of them getting on at me. Landlady said it's unfair of them to continually put the responsibility on my head, since the mice aren't even in my apartment. It's just a case of it being easier to drill through my floor, than it would be to drill through their ceiling.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Brief question. My company is going out of business and employs over 200 people. We were given 17 days notice. I think that under the WARN act if given less than 60 days notice we need to be given severance. The details of the severance came out today and only people who have worked there for over a year are getting severance. I've worked there eight months. Under the WARN act am I entitled to severance pay personally, or is something like this permitted where some employees can be excluded? We're in Denver, Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
1. Talk to a lawyer 2. There are a lot of exceptions to the WARN act that your fact pattern does not address. Have you looked at the code or, more simply, the Wikipedia article about the WARN act? 3. A lawyer could give you great advice
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Macaroni Surprise posted:Brief question. My company is going out of business and employs over 200 people. We were given 17 days notice. I think that under the WARN act if given less than 60 days notice we need to be given severance. The details of the severance came out today and only people who have worked there for over a year are getting severance. I've worked there eight months. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/offices?filter=offices&state=CO|US
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:So I'm in Michigan and one thing that's been in the news relatively frequently is the Larry Nassar pedophile case (Larry Nassar was a doctor for Michigan State gymnastics as well as USA Gymnastics for those not aware of this case). One of the turns that emerged today is McKayla Maroney was, in her view, pressured into signing an NDA with USA Gymnastics about all this. That got me thinking about NDAs. If you are a typical minor (that is, non-emancipated), your parents/guardian have power of attorney for you, correct? If they sign an NDA on your behalf, are you legally bound to follow it? I get there may be lots of reasons you want to follow it, or should follow it, but do you face penalty if you don't? Or if once you are no longer a minor and don't want to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
I seriously question the enforceability of those kinds of NDAs - first of all, it's kind of a misnomer. A non-disclosure agreement is actually a "if you disclose this you have to pay me money" agreement. But to get that money you have to go to court, sue the person, and convince the jury that the person you sexually assaulted has to now pay you money. First of all, good luck with that. Second I'm sure whatever state of jurisdiction you're in i's going to have some illegality defense, i e a contract whereby you agree not to disclose a criminal act or participated in conspiracy to cover up a criminal act, is generally not enforceable. Just as a practical matter, I think if you give a jury any possible tickets to let you out of the contract, they're going to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
The real disincentive is having to pay a lawyer for all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Aunt refuses to distribute ashes of dead mother to children. I live in Florida. My mother died of cancer earlier this year and was cremated. My aunt, B, was given power of attorney towards the end when she went into hospice. B explained to my sister, H, and myself (19 and 31 respectively) that upon her cremation and after the funeral, she would be distributing the ashes to both of us in small containers. After the day of the funeral, B turned into a ghost. We heard nothing from her, she did not return phone calls or answer online messages. We have seen her post things on social media so we know she is active. My sister and I have both gone to her residence, but B has not answered her door. I am not sure of the laws regarding this, but do I have any recourse here? Nothing was put on paper regarding the ashes, and my mother passed without drafting a will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
You might have to get an attorney to go after it all, but when someone dies intestate in Florida, in the absence of a spouse, children would inherit the full estate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The only issue are the ashes? Call the funeral home and ask whats up. Maybe there's something they can do to help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The only issue are the ashes? Call the funeral home and ask whats up. Maybe there's something they can do to help. We have, they told us that B picked them up and paid for the service. She has them, or at least did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:We have, they told us that B picked them up and paid for the service. She has them, or at least did. What would happen if you talked to all of your extended family, asking, "Have you heard from [aunt]? She's holding on to Mom's ashes for me and sibling, and we hadn't been able to get in touch with her." Like, talked to everyone to the point where the whole family started reaching out to aunt? Maybe pressuring her a bit? What does that look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What would happen if you talked to all of your extended family, asking, "Have you heard from [aunt]? She's holding on to Mom's ashes for me and sibling, and we hadn't been able to get in touch with her." The family consists of my father who divorced my mother when she was diagnosed and maintains no contact with us, a 96 year old grandmother who lives in Virginia, my sister, and another aunt who is in rehab for opiate addiction. There are others, like cousins removed or great uncles or whatever, but I don't know any of them or where they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:The family consists of my father who divorced my mother when she was diagnosed and maintains no contact with us, a 96 year old grandmother who lives in Virginia, my sister, and another aunt who is in rehab for opiate addiction. There are others, like cousins removed or great uncles or whatever, but I don't know any of them or where they are. Jesus goons have depressing lives
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:The family consists of my father who divorced my mother when she was diagnosed and maintains no contact with us, a 96 year old grandmother who lives in Virginia, my sister, and another aunt who is in rehab for opiate addiction. There are others, like cousins removed or great uncles or whatever, but I don't know any of them or where they are. Ok. This week, Tuesday or Wednesday, Google "Probate Lawyer [town you live in] and look for a kindly old lawyer who has his own firm, or a small 2-3 attorney office. PM me with your location if you need help searching. Call them up and tell them your story. Tell them you don't have any money and you just need some help. Tell them some greasy goon lawyer friend of yours (from out of state) said, "A lawyer in your town might help you with a letter, or make a phone call for you, or at least help you find a pro Bono legal aid service or law school legal aid clinic, or another lawyer who might do the same." See what they say, and report back to us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Jesus goons have depressing lives Not really. I moved on from all of that years ago, have a wonderful wife, baby on the way, successful in my career, active social life. blarzgh posted:Ok. So I have a leg to stand on and should call a lawyer, cool. No need to be patronizing about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:So I have a leg to stand on and should call a lawyer, cool. No need to be patronizing about it. I don’t think he meant to be patronizing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:So I have a leg to stand on and should call a lawyer, cool. No need to be patronizing about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:I believe that post is code for "you have no leg to stand on, but if you put on a good enough puppy face, a sympathetic lawyer might spend an hour writing a scary letter for you". Heard. Yeah, my aunt is a broke rear end redneck, if I slap her with anything serious looking she will probly cave. Thanks goons, I'll report back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:I believe that post is code for "you have no leg to stand on, but if you put on a good enough puppy face, a sympathetic lawyer might spend an hour writing a scary letter for you". He likely has as many legs to stand on as thousands of dollars he's willing to spend, but a nice lawyer might be able to help for much less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
nm posted:He likely has as many legs to stand on as thousands of dollars he's willing to spend, but a nice lawyer might be able to help for much less. edit: Please tell me there is a court case titled United States v A Sandwich Baggie of Human Ashes
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Now I'm curious, even assuming they win every legal dispute that could be had, what's the remedy? Court ordered production of a baggie of ashes? Show some loving respect, tia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Lol blarzgh was being sincere. The ashes are gone bro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Lol blarzgh was being sincere. The ashes are gone bro. I doubt it. Knowing her like I do, she has them and is hoarding them. She was doing the whole "you aren't doing enough, you're bad children" etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
They're ashes. They aren't worth spending all your money on legal fees on. e: also stop being disrespectful to people giving you free advice. On Christmas. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Dec 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
I don't know if it's worth spending good money on maybe, one day, getting your moms ashes back. Know that this may cost you thousands to find out your aunt dumped them down the drain (or lies about them). Law isn't good at providing remedies for the problem of "some people are assholes." That's just the way the system works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They're ashes. They aren't worth spending all your money on legal fees on. The only person I'm "disrespecting" is the person making a poo poo taste joke at my dead mother's expense. On Christmas. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I don't know if it's worth spending good money on maybe, one day, getting your moms ashes back. Know that this may cost you thousands to find out your aunt dumped them down the drain (or lies about them). I was simply asking if this was something I could even realistically pursue. Thanks for steering me in the right direction goons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Law isn't good at providing remedies for the problem of "some people are assholes." That's just the way the system works. Christ, I'm going to have this engraved over the entrance to my law firm, because no matter how many times I tell people this they keep coming to my office and insisting their rear end in a top hat problem is a legal problem. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Lol blarzgh was being sincere. The ashes are gone bro. Also, this. If this was in my country, I'd be able to recommend free arbitration (because we have a pre-court pseudo-court for using regular old folks as amateur judges where pro se complaints can be heard, which this would be perfect for), because that's free and you don't need a lawyer at all. But in the US, I'd see this costing money for no guaranteed return. Blarzgh gave you the same advice I'd give in your situation. I suggest listening to him. Or if you want, I can show you what some actually patronizing lawyer talk looks like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:The only person I'm "disrespecting" is the person making a poo poo taste joke at my dead mother's expense. On Christmas. https://www.flprobatelitigation.com...vorced-parents/ IANAL and this is from 2014 about Florida, but it seems like if you do take this to court and your aunt doesn't cave, it'll just result in some court-appointed stranger deciding on some random place to bury your mother's ashes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Mr grandfather, who passed away earlier in the year, had a housekeeper who brought a complaint to the provincial Labour Board for unpaid overtime hours. How do these types of proceedings work? If this person has any proof, which I doubt, then it's almost certainly fabricated. Are these types of things dealt with quickly? Does it involve judges?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
During the Alabama election, Roy Moore tried to discredit one of his accusers by calling in a handwriting analyst to disprove the authenticity of his alleged signature. During that time a bunch of articles came out debating the merits of handwriting analysis, with most of them concluding that its usefulness is very limited. That was surprising since it seems to me that in the US notarizing signatures is not as common as in other countries. I'm just wondering if any of the US lawyers here have had experience with presenting handwriting analysis as evidence in court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:During the Alabama election, Roy Moore tried to discredit one of his accusers by calling in a handwriting analyst to disprove the authenticity of his alleged signature. For those browsing, a Notary takes the signatories' driver's license and confirms that this person on the ID is the person who signed the document. They are agreeing to be a witness in a future legal proceeding, basically. I've done two jury trials with handwriting "analysis" questions, one where the Notary was friends with the person who likely forged the signature that she said she 'notarized.' Basically you're throwing up slides to the Jury, showing the similarities and differences, and the expert witnesses who are analyzing the signature are giving all these reasons and explanations of why the signatures are genuine/forged. The jury does their best to decide whats real and whats fake, just like any other fact issue. Most people are fairly confident that if they looked at 50 genuine signatures, and 1 questionable one, they can decide whether its real or fake, and expert analysis will generally help them confirm their suspicions if its credible enough. As a practical matter, it's an issue of the burden of proof - it matters whats the default, whether the signature is presumed legitimate or presumed forged. Do I need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature is legitimate? Or do I need to keep the other side from proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature is forged? Prove it isn't legit, or prove it isn't forged, etc. At the end of the day, the jury is going to get a jury charge that says something like, "Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant?" You'll tell the jury during your case, "If you aren't convinced that he signed that contract, then he didn't enter into that contract!" Its easier to get the jury to answer the question the way you need them to if they already want to because your witnesses seems generally more credible than the other side's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
I see what you are saying. I'm not sure I like that any better than our system where the court appoints a handwriting expert and basically his conclusions will be valid as long as either party can't prove errors in their methodology. There's no jury here, so you have a single (though allegedly highly qualified) point of failure. Thanks for the writeup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
See who says blarzgh is an rear end in a top hat? That's a good post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Also note that under the federal rules of evidence (and most states probably) a non-expert can testify that handwriting belongs to a person if they are familiar with that handwriting outside of the litigation. In other words, I can authenticate my wife's holographic will because I know what her handwriting looks like from seeing it all the time. A paralegal from my firm cannot authenticate handwriting based on looking through hundreds of pages of my wife's writing to compare it. But a jury can look at handwriting sample A, then look at another sample of the same handwriting that has been properly authenticated, and draw its own conclusion that sample A is authentic. Also, an expert can do the same and give opinion testimony to the jury in order to get their attention. This is all in the context of admissibility, not proof. The threshold to admissibility in court is authentication--is this handwriting what it purports to be? So If there were a trial with the pedojudge, the lady would try to introduce the yearbook writing as evidence. She wants to tell the jury "this is the Chilly Mo's handwriting in my yearbook." In this case, because she will testify that she saw him write it, authentication is not at issue. Roy Moore can claim she is lying but that goes to proof, not admissibility. If nobody could testify that they saw Moore write the words in the book, then Moore would object and argue, "the yearbook writing is not admissible because she cannot authenticate that handwriting because she does not have any knowledge of Roy Moore's handwriting to compare it with." The lady would then have a few options to authenticate it in order to introduce it into evidence. She could show the jury other samples of Roy Moore's handwriting that he admitted were his. She could have an expert testify that he compared it with other confirmed samples and in his opinion, it is Moore's. The threshold having been met, the evidence is admissible* and then the jury weighs it as proof. Moore's expert will say "it can't be his signature because I suck my own peepee" and then the lady's expert will say "so do I but I don't use teeth, so my opinion is more better" and then the jury decides who they believe. * Assuming a bunch of other procedural hurdles are satisfied
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:I see what you are saying. Basically our system is full of arcane, seemingly bizarre procedural hurdles because we don't trust juries to be dispassionate arbiters of fact capable of focusing on the important questions. We believe that people have a fundamental right to have juries decide these questions,* but at the same time, juries cannot be allowed to simply hear everything and draw their own conclusions. There is some truth to this because cases can get insanely complicated and difficult to parse, and having seen enough juries I can tell you even with all these rules in place and having a judge instruct them for six hours they often run down a rabbit hole of their own making so that all the lawyers and the judge look at each other and say "how the gently caress did they get there?" We also don't trust lawyers not to mislead juries, obscure the truth, and waste everyone's time forever, so a bunch of procedural rules also exist to at least try and keep things on track and focused. Inquisitorial systems are much cleaner and simpler but America much prefers making complicated messes and letting other people sort them out (all at $500 an hour), also we hate stupid government functionary bureaucrats like professional judges, and we love having WINNERS and LOSERS and THE THRILL OF COMBAT and MAKING A GAME OF EVERYTHING so we have an adversarial system. *Assuming a bunch of procedural and substantive hurdles are satisfied
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Don't worry, we have a mess of our making here. We don't actually have an inquisitorial system, parties are supposed to offer the evidence to be considered during trial and judges cannot seek out evidence on their own. At the same time expert witnesses are appointed by the court and not by the parties (although parties can offer their own expert witnesses, but that's mainly so that they have direct access to court files and evidence). Also no new evidence can be offered after the initial brief has been filed (unless you can prove you could not have know about it before filing) so if the expert witness goes "there might be something here, but I'd need more documentary support to give a solid conclusion" then gently caress you, you just lost that witness. In the end it just feels like everyone is doing their jobs with one hand tied behind their backs for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Its almost like there's no good way to moderate humans because we are all garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its almost like there's no good way to moderate humans because we are all garbage. Holidays are always rough, huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Hi, I've a stupid question and after looking up the answer on Google and reading through relevant (I hope) legal acts I don't really know the answer. Basically, in case of a fatal accidents in England, Fatal Accidents Act of 1976 says who's entitled to a claim and what the claims can be. However, it is my understanding that the claim (as it is written in the Act) goes to the person who caused the accident, be it a motorist or an employer who didn't observe proper regulations or whoever else. In case of the having insurance, the insurance covers it. However, someone says that the claim is paid by "the government", without citing the relevant acts or regulations, as is often the case. And since I don't really know, I can't argue all that well. Knowing that there are a few "governments" in the British Isles themselves also doesn't help matters. The accident itself is far beyond the statute of limitations anyway, but I'm a bit curious and my Googling doesn't turn up much more - can someone help? I can read legal English reasonably well, so even a link would be helpful. I've also posted in the Small questions megathread, since it seems more active, and that may fall under "common knowledge". Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 11:25
|
|