|
euphronius posted:You won’t There was that one guy who was doing the pro se thing who posted a lot. That was fun.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
euphronius posted:You won’t The guy whose wife was blithely going to go to the meeting with HR and a company attorney about how her boss sexually harassed her updated. She didn’t go to the meeting, and iirc the boss had sexually harassed other people and it turned into a much bigger deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
I think my lawyer is gonna file the taxes for my dad's estate soon, I might even get back what I paid to cremate him from the estate when all is said and done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:I think my lawyer is gonna file the taxes for my dad's estate soon, I might even get back what I paid to cremate him from the estate when all is said and done. Legal success story !
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You won’t Hey, some of us settled for fat sacks of cash and a gag order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
I think I might need to set up a small business to legitimize my side work/hobby income, and have some sort of liability plan. We have an attorney who did our wills last year and they can assist/advise me. Before I talk to the attorney I was looking for some commentary on what kind of small business would be best suited for my situation. I design and fabricate things (trellis, planting beds, food trailer, freezer bicycle, acoustic treatments, etc), do handyman type stuff, play music in bands, and record music in my basement studio. I also put on the block party every year, so would like to work that into the plan too. I played ~12 gigs last year. At the most I’ve grossed ~$2000 a year, so planning for big (or really any) income is not really a priority, just want to make sure we are not ruined if something goes wrong. My spouse is an attorney (not in this practice area). I am in fact, asking so I can go to her with a plan/ideas. Her initial reaction to any of these outside activities was “no, don’t do it, not worth it from liability standpoint”. Obviously I can’t put a great deal of resources into this, is there an economical plan for liability when doing very small business?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
You probably want a LLC and an accountant that can keep the books separate to avoid piercing the corporate veil, but that doesn't mean you're not going to get sued personally as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
some_admin posted:I think I might need to set up a small business to legitimize my side work/hobby income, and have some sort of liability plan. There's a variety of entity forms you could choose to protect yourself from tort and/or contract liability; what you really need is an accountant to tell you which one of those entity forms will reduce your tax liability the most. Also, how much paperwork are you willing to do every april? You might feel like filing separate tax returns for yourself and your business isn't worth the tax savings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
99 times out of 100, the answer is an LLC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Will these ever increasingly broad ToS get successfully challenged/restricted/put aside never to be spoken of again or is this just more  ?The newest one i've seen is the new NYC Pine-cone calming rights to *any* media related to the pine-cone. Pictures, videos, podcasts, etc. "MY NAME AND LIKENESS. If I appear in, create, upload, post, or send any photographs, audio recordings, or video footage depicting or relating to the Vessel, I grant to Company the unrestricted, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual right and license (with the right to transfer or sublicense) to use my name, likeness, voice, and all other aspects of my persona for the purpose of operating, developing, providing, promoting, advertising, and improving the Vessel or any other products or services provided by Company or its sublicensees (in either case, now known or later developed).... MY CONTENT. If I create, upload, post or send any photographs, audio recordings, or video footage depicting or relating to the Vessel, I grant to Company and its affiliates the irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, display, reproduce, perform, modify, transmit, publish, and distribute such photographs, audio recordings, or video footage for any purpose whatsoever in any and all media..." And by entering the pinecone you accept. Professional lawsplainer hot take: https://twitter.com/grimmelm/status/1107667652795863041
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Will these ever increasingly broad ToS get successfully challenged/restricted/put aside never to be spoken of again or is this just more These hilariously overbroad clauses tend to get put in to avoid lawsuits because copyright damages can be very high. Someone had the idea they want to be able to advertise using the Vessel, and wanted to avoid having any issues with lawsuits from people who would appear in the pictures, and then a lawyer who was assigned to implement that made sure that his client was never going to get sued because he'd hosed up and didn't much care about any PR issues (which is effectively what this is). They're being grabby about being able to use anyone else's instagram photos to advertise - but that's probably making sure that their social media people don't accidentally get them sued. They're not ever planning on suing anyone over this stuff, they want to use it as a defense if someone tries to sue them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:These hilariously overbroad clauses tend to get put in to avoid lawsuits because copyright damages can be very high. Someone had the idea they want to be able to advertise using the Vessel, and wanted to avoid having any issues with lawsuits from people who would appear in the pictures, and then a lawyer who was assigned to implement that made sure that his client was never going to get sued because he'd hosed up and didn't much care about any PR issues (which is effectively what this is). They're being grabby about being able to use anyone else's instagram photos to advertise - but that's probably making sure that their social media people don't accidentally get them sued. Is that the same reason why you can't sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Is that the same reason why you can't sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night? european copyright law (and artistic IP in general) differs quite a lot from american and that sounds like a quirk of french law to me; in the US i don't think you'd get away with asserting such a claim
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
I recently signed up for LimePod. After doing so, I got an email about a background check they did; it sure as hell looks like a hard pull on my credit. They never disclosed that they would be doing this. I'm... perturbed. Is there anything to be done about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I recently signed up for LimePod. After doing so, I got an email about a background check they did; it sure as hell looks like a hard pull on my credit. They never disclosed that they would be doing this. I'm... perturbed. Is there anything to be done about it? someone didn't read every single legal agreement and notice on the website, including the sixth place i looked trying to find this exact thing indicating just how easy it would be to find it if you didn't know to look for it: quote:Personal Information We Collect from Other Sources https://www.li.me/privacy#privacy_5
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
It was my understanding you have to consent to a hard pull and hiding it in a ToS which says they "may" collect credit info isn't sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Is that the same reason why you can't sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night? The lights on the tower have IP protection Not the tower itself
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I recently signed up for LimePod. After doing so, I got an email about a background check they did; it sure as hell looks like a hard pull on my credit. They never disclosed that they would be doing this. I'm... perturbed. Is there anything to be done about it? did they actually hard pull it? you can check pretty easily if you have one of the 1000 free credit report services now if you google it, there's no one else complaining about hard pulls from limepod so (from what I can see)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:someone didn't read every single legal agreement and notice on the website, including the sixth place i looked trying to find this exact thing indicating just how easy it would be to find it if you didn't know to look for it: At no point was that presented to me during the sign up process. They also refunded a $15 sign up fee that want mentioned during the process, too. And that was unprompted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:At no point was that presented to me during the sign up process. Well you definitely agreed to binding arbitration, so best of luck convincing LimeArb to agree with your side When I signed up for a Lime account just now, I definitely had to click past an agreement to the "User Agreement" and "Privacy Note" The "Privacy Note" says: quote:"... We may also collect Personal Information about You from credit reporting agencies to, for example, determine your creditworthiness, credit score, and credit usage."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Here's a fun question. Are there any limits or laws around spraying pesticides at the work place? Exterminator just came by and started spraying or squirting something more or less randomly around, including sometimes towards us. fake edit: I turned up some EPA regs applying to agricultural settings but this is at a cubicle farm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
If you are asking about something happening in the US, yes.....pesticide applicators are licensed by the individual states and what they can use, where and how much are pretty tightly regulated. Without knowing what was being sprayed it could be something that was mishandled to no issue at all. The invoice should say what was applied.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:At no point was that presented to me during the sign up process. the perhaps overly subtle part of my post was "lol if you think that a court will have a reasonable view of what was presented to you as opposed to ruling 'you chose not to read this hundred and fifty pages of legalese, that's on you' because the relevant information was disclosed in four-point type on what appeared to be a border on page 143 but if you brought out a magnifying glass you'd have seen it you would be absolutely shocked at what is "disclosed" to you and what you "agree" to on a daily basis. every so often it appears that legislatures try to force a disclosure to be conspicuous: but i think nobody's really figured out a good way to ban the practice of burying you in meaningless disclosure so you skim by the "conspicuous" disclosure as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
I've been under the impression that hard queries do require a very specific disclosure. But you can dispute it apparently, I found this: https://blog.credit.com/2018/10/someone-pulled-my-credit-without-my-approval-can-i-dispute-it-157288/ you may have an easier time making the case to the reporting agencies. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
There can be negative consequences to disputing items on your credit report. Creditors might think you are untrustworthy, either because you might be disputing valid debts or valid credit pulls (and they’re not going to see anything beyond that you disputed it) or you might be a victim of identity theft, or something else Not saying you shouldn’t dispute things, but consider how disputing a hard credit pull (which might have no effect on your score at all, depending on the number of hard credit pulls you have) might look to future creditors (such as you got denied for the service you were requesting so you disputed the pull)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:There can be negative consequences to disputing items on your credit report. Creditors might think you are untrustworthy, either because you might be disputing valid debts or valid credit pulls (and they’re not going to see anything beyond that you disputed it) or you might be a victim of identity theft, or something else Have you experienced disputes themselves causing someone to be denied credit? My anecdotal experience is that American Express at least doesn't give a drat and had no problem handing me a platinum card despite having disputed many an incorrect/zombie item. Lenders have to do so little to verify debts to the bureaus that I'd really be surprised to learn it's even a factor; anyone who's disputed something and had it verified without receiving a shred of documentation can attest to that. Even if they do need to provide documentation, they're the original creditor so they're going to have the paperwork available. Christ knows I've dealt with enough OCs to know they never lose their paperwork. It's not like dispute status just hangs out on your report. They have 30-45 days to verify or remove the item, there isn't some red letter D stamped on that item forever even if disputes do hurt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
I’m not a lender/creditor, it’s more just general advice since a lot of people on the internet will tell you to disputed everything constantly as if that’s some panacea for bad credit scores. I have seen the “you just disputed everything” used against plaintiffs in consumer lawsuits before The last part isn’t accurate. Under the FCRA they have 30 days to conduct a investigation (if they receive notice of the dispute thru a CRA) and then to verify, modify, or delete. But under other state or federal statutes that might apply to certain furnishers, like the fdcpa, a furnisher has to mark a trade line as disputed even if they verify that the debt is accurate. Even after an investigation they might report it as xb/disputed or xc/investigation complete, debt verified, consumer disagrees (I think those are the codes). And they might leave that there for up to 7 1/2 years
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
ive stopped signing papers for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I’m not a lender/creditor, it’s more just general advice since a lot of people on the internet will tell you to disputed everything constantly as if that’s some panacea for bad credit scores. I have seen the “you just disputed everything” used against plaintiffs in consumer lawsuits before Ok, but that's quite a bit different than creditors shying away from you because they think you'll be a problem. When you mention creditors worried about your trustworthiness, what practical effect does this have? EwokEntourage posted:The last part isn’t accurate. Under the FCRA they have 30 days to conduct a investigation (if they receive notice of the dispute thru a CRA) and then to verify, modify, or delete. But under other state or federal statutes that might apply to certain furnishers, like the fdcpa, a furnisher has to mark a trade line as disputed even if they verify that the debt is accurate. Even after an investigation they might report it as xb/disputed or xc/investigation complete, debt verified, consumer disagrees (I think those are the codes). And they might leave that there for up to 7 1/2 years Fair enough, but now you're talking about 3rd party collectors, not OCs/1st parties, and/or state-specific statutes that may or may not apply. And as far as investigated/verified/consumer disagrees goes, you as a consumer add the disagree part after the verification on an optional basis, that at least doesn't just get applied automatically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Ok, but that's quite a bit different than creditors shying away from you because they think you'll be a problem. When you mention creditors worried about your trustworthiness, what practical effect does this have? It has the practical effect of them being less likely to lend to you on the basis you might be a problem in the future? If a creditor thinks you are untrustworthy, they might lend money to you. Like, thats the whole point of a credit report, to see how trustworthy you are re paying back credit. Its not like disputes having potential downsides is some original thought I came up with: quote:Why Do Dispute Notations On a Credit Report Matter? http://www.hope4usa.com/credit-repair-news-charlotte-north-carolina/the-411-on-dispute-notations (though I think FICO changed the scoring model since this article) As for the second part, I guess I did not see that you were only referring to original creditors. the point remains that a dispute on your tradeline can stick around for a long time EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It has the practical effect of them being less likely to lend to you on the basis you might be a problem in the future? If a creditor thinks you are untrustworthy, they might lend money to you. Like, thats the whole point of a credit report, to see how trustworthy you are re paying back credit. Yeah, I understand you're saying lenders might not extend credit to someone with a lot of disputes. I was asking you to back that up with something because it smelled fishy, and you came back with 'if you blanket dispute and sue a creditor it can hurt your case' which is a pretty different situation. EwokEntourage posted:
I took it for granted that an active dispute might scare away underwriters so we may be talking past each other to some extent, but the five year old article you linked details the process to remove old dispute information so underwriters don't (erroneously) read that notation as an active dispute. I think if you're going to instruct that disputes can hurt creditworthiness, that statement should be qualified, especially since disputes are the only way for consumers to have their reports corrected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:I think if you're going to instruct that disputes can hurt creditworthiness, that statement should be qualified, especially since disputes are the only way for consumers to have their reports corrected. Yeah, you really owe a higher standard of care when providing legal advice on the internet
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Yeah, I understand you're saying lenders might not extend credit to someone with a lot of disputes. I was asking you to back that up with something because it smelled fishy, and you came back with 'if you blanket dispute and sue a creditor it can hurt your case' which is a pretty different situation. I said they could hurt, not that the automatically do, never said you shouldn't dispute, and offered the (apparently terrible advice) that you should consider all potential consequences an action before taking it. So my statement was qualified but I don't think you are reading very closely because you are weirdly obsessed with proving me wrong. anyways, google https://budgeting.thenest.com/can-disputed-accounts-affect-credit-score-20802.html https://www.creditkarma.com/question/credit-score-went-down-76-points-after-i-dispute-a-collection/ https://blog.credit.com/2018/07/what-happens-when-you-dispute-something-on-your-credit-report-112460/ https://moneyning.com/credit/should-you-dispute-negative-items-on-your-credit-report/ https://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/mortgage/open-credit-report-disputes-can-sabotage-chance-mortgage/ There's plenty out there that a dispute could have a negative consequence, like i said Devor posted:Yeah, you really owe a higher standard of care when providing legal advice on the internet
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I said they could hurt, not that the automatically do, never said you shouldn't dispute, and offered the (apparently terrible advice) that you should consider all potential consequences an action before taking it. So my statement was qualified but I don't think you are reading very closely because you are weirdly obsessed with proving me wrong. anyways, google Yep, because asking for more info about what you said was the case is an obsession with proving you wrong  e Devor posted:Yeah, you really owe a higher standard of care when providing legal advice on the internet lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
If you're going to "ask for more info" you should read what the person said first thats my legal advice buddy EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If you're going to "ask for more info" you should read what the person said first e: I take it back, I'm done with this slapfight. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I have some will/estate planning related questions. Thought this was going to be simple, but it ended up sprawling a bit so bear with me. Since my wife and I now have a kid and are probably going to have a second, we decided it was time to get a will. We're in NC. The main intent is to cover the unlikely event where we both die at the same time, since it's kind of a no-brainer if only one of us goes. We had a quick free consult with an attorney and it seems pretty straight forward, but this is the only one we've talked to so far. The only thing I didn't like is that he seemed to lack confidence on pricing... seemed a little nervous when he threw out a figure of $525 for two wills (one for each of us, basically going to be copy/paste). With no other info I'm comfortable with that number, but it kind of set off alarm bells the way he acted. So first, is $525 on par for a basic will for 2 people? I think there will be verbiage to set up a trust(s) for our kid(s) in the event that both of us kick it at the same time, but outside of that I'm not sure there's anything special about our situation. No special property at the moment, just cash accounts, cars, some minor valuables, house (mortgage), retirement accounts, life insurance (through work), etc. Second, anything in particular to ask for/watch out for? The attorney made sure to advise against giving specific amounts to people since it could take away from the "remainder" portion of things. So if I wanted to leave $5k to my brother and leave the rest to my kid(s), there's a risk that my kids get nothing if my estate has less than $5k. So I'm wondering if there are other tricky things like that where you make assumptions that don't really pan out like you intend. Third, we have no family members in NC that we would necessarily want to take care of things, the executor will almost certainly be out of state. Anything alarming about this? The attorney mentioned that we need someone NC based to shuttle documents/etc. to from the courthouse around after we go, but he made it sound like that could easily be assigned to a local 3rd party by the executor. And finally, what is the portability of a will? Say we make this in NC, but in 5 years we move to another state and forget to make a new one. Will this document at least be used as a guideline for another state to work towards? I'm sure some of this depends on the state we go to, but I'm looking for a general sense of how important it is to get a new will if we move. Oh yeah, one last question: we have two 529 savings accounts set up, one with our first-born as the beneficiary, and one with myself as the beneficiary (since we haven't even conceived our 2nd kid yet). They're both solely in my name as the account owner, with my wife named as the successor for ownership (in the 529 plan documents). Do we need to do anything special for these in the will, or is the intent clear enough that they're supposed to be for college? I mainly want to make sure they don't automatically get liquidated and paid as cash to our kids' trust, since I assume that would trigger taxes and penalties. I'd prefer that they (or a trustee) decide what to do with that money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I have some will/estate planning related questions. Thought this was going to be simple, but it ended up sprawling a bit so bear with me. I stopped reading a few paragraphs in but 525 for two wills is cheap as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
I read rest of your post and you are asking for specific legal advice so If people would ask hypotheticals maybe I would respond but no. People barf their personal details out and ... I can’t touch that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Lets say I hypothetically tried to extort Nike for ~$25 million and was recorded by the feds. Of course, I'm also doing this while draining clients trust accounts and filing fraudulent tax returns. Will my sentence be better or worse than Paul Manafort's?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 21:04
|
|
