|
I got a parking ticket in DC on a road where all the signs on the block had been removed for construction. I was there when the ticket was being written and pointed this out and she said, "You can appeal," and handed me the ticket.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:so again, you're way, way, way overthinking things for a traffic ticket, Yup, I agree absolutely. I know my original question was specifically about that, but my curiosity grew in to a little more about the generalities of video evidence. It seems to be more and more important these days with everyone having a cell phone, dash cams becoming more popular, and police body cams. quote:but there's not a presumption that all evidence outside a police chain of custody has been tampered with. Gotcha, that's kind of the heart of what I was getting at. I mean from a technology standpoint, it's becoming easier to mess with videos, so I didn't know which side the law generally erred, which would inform me as to how careful I need to be if I ever need to rely on a dash cam video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:He didn't use gold fringe. He's fine. Maybe you're not using the proper browser plugin. All lawyer posts in this thread should show up thusly: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Yup that's fair. And I understand it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would contend dash cam footage in 2019 for a simple ticket, but I didn't know if there's a common technicality that makes video evidence easily dismissible. Thank you for telling me my professional experience is “hyperbole”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Thank you for telling me my professional experience is “hyperbole”. Someone is awfully touchy today
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
This is why I don’t have clients anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Hypothetical question: Under what circumstances can a lawyer dump a client? If they've paid you for legal representation, do you have to give them some degree of notice? Is it different for a civil or criminal matter? Related, What if you, the lawyer, end up in the hospital or otherwise unavailable on a day that important documents must be filed or a court date?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Hypothetical question: Under what circumstances can a lawyer dump a client? If they've paid you for legal representation, do you have to give them some degree of notice? Is it different for a civil or criminal matter? If there is no current litigation and dumping the client would not prejudice the client, then a lawyer can quit representation at any time. Notice is required obviously and you can’t prejudice any of your clients rights by quitting. Usually you stay on until they find a new lawyer. If there is pending litigation and you are attorney of record, you must get the judges permission to quit and leave the case. The most common reason is a clients failure to pay bills. Judges will usually let you leave if you show them you aren’t getting paid. Another reason is your client won’t cooperate or there are genuine disagreements over the conduct of litigation. See here https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...representation/ With respect to filing dates the and hospital visits the lawyer should and do have arrangements made with other lawyers should the lawyer become incapacitated. See note 5. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...nt_on_rule_1_3/ euphronius fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:With respect to filing dates the and hospital visits the lawyer should and do have arrangements made with other lawyers should the lawyer become incapacitated. Is that so? I don't think you'd be found guilty for malpractice here if you were ran over by a car and didn't have a replacement your client could call, force majeure and all that. The rules on ethical conduct are fairly loose compared to the US so maybe the degree of foresight required is greater for you guys. If it was a planned procedure and you didn't make arrangements, then yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Is that so? I linked it above in an edit buttt quote:5] To prevent neglect of client matters in the event of a sole practitioner’s death or disability, the duty of diligence may require that each sole practitioner prepare a plan, in conformity with applicable rules, that designates another competent lawyer to review client files, notify each client of the lawyer’s death or disability, and determine whether there is a need for immediate protective action. Cf. Rule 28 of the American Bar Association Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (providing for court appointment of a lawyer to inventory files and take other protective action in absence of a plan providing for another lawyer to protect the interests of the clients of a deceased or disabled lawyer). As to “malpractice” that’s a can of worms. And you can’t really exactly conflate ethical standards with duties of care as they are conceptually separate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
If your pleading is due January 1, and your solo lawyer gets drunk and dies late 12/31, a common pleas judge would probably let your next lawyer file the pleading nunc pro tunc on January 5. Maybe. No guarantee and the judge could just award summary judgment against you as well for failure to file a pleading. They are arbitrary like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Example: I got pulled over once and didn't find my current insurance card until the cop came back to my car, still had to pay court fees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:I got a parking ticket in DC on a road where all the signs on the block had been removed for construction. I was there when the ticket was being written and pointed this out and she said, "You can appeal," and handed me the ticket. Did you? Did it get dismissed? Meter maids are graded on how many tickets they write. I doubt they have any discretion on writing tickets either. One time I walked up to a meter maid writing me a ticket because I didn't have a paid receipt in my window. That was because I paid with an app, which is clearly permitted. For some reason her little machine wasn't showing that I had used the app, but I showed her my phone with the time still counting down in that spot. She just laughed (like nicely, not mockingly) and said to appeal it and it would get taken off. I did and it did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
I once had a parking ticket show up in the mail for a street address that I had never parked on. I knew I had never parked on it because that street address did not physically exist - the road stopped a few blocks west of where that address would be, and continued on a few blocks east. It took almost 45 minutes to convince the parking official that the street didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Did you? Did it get dismissed? Yes, and I did win the appeal. There's an electronic process and I just sent in a picture of the bare pole with all the parking signs removed, including the lady who wrote the ticket in the background writing the next one. It just struck me as absurd to write a ticket that you know can't be upheld. Might as well write a whole block of legally parked cars and tell them to appeal it. DC is insane
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
The people that just pay it and forget it are enough revenue to be worth them shotgunning them. I got a ticket for rolling a stop sign that was, legitimately, behind a loving tree. Considered efforting looking up the MUTCD or whatever's rules for sign visibility and dying on that hill in front of the judge, but a local lawyer said flat out the muni judge never tosses traffic tickets regardless of evidence, and it would HAVE to be appealed to get anywhere. His fee to fight it was triple the ticket cost so it wasn't worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Javid posted:The people that just pay it and forget it are enough revenue to be worth them shotgunning them. Devil's advocate/highway engineer, but if you slowed down enough to just roll the stop instead of blowing it, you probably slowed down enough to spot the stop sign even if it wasn't adequately visible to someone doing the speed limit If you write a complaint to the local transportation department they'll probably fix it, though. They hate leaving dangerous situations that have a paper trail that proves they knew about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
Can I sue the NC election cheater for the money i lost on predictit for 435+ dems in the house?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Yes, and I did win the appeal. There's an electronic process and I just sent in a picture of the bare pole with all the parking signs removed, including the lady who wrote the ticket in the background writing the next one. So honestly form a citizen's perspective, I'm going to give that a pass. I've had parking tickets before due to busted meters, and it's a dead simple process to click a few buttons on a website and dispute it. But previous posters have mentioned pretty petty issues where they couldn't produce proof of insurance in a timely manner (i.e. a couple minutes) and had to pay non-refundable fees and take time off work (presumably) to appeal it. That's pretty bullshit if you ask me. Javid posted:The people that just pay it and forget it are enough revenue to be worth them shotgunning them. See this is loving lovely and in my opinion borders on corruption. Say what you will about ticket quotas and whatnot, but turning a blind eye to evidence in order to force people to choose between paying the ticket or paying the appeal fees should land you in jail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:So honestly form a citizen's perspective, I'm going to give that a pass. I've had parking tickets before due to busted meters, and it's a dead simple process to click a few buttons on a website and dispute it. I understand the sentiment, and maybe I’m just jaded from being a member of this stupid profession. But tickets aren’t criminal offenses. It’s bullshit and I view bullshit civil/administrative procedure through the same filter as any other civil litigation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
If the state wants to accuse a citizen of breaking the law they can effort actually hearing out people's defenses. Pretending like it's less of a big deal because it's "only" money is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Has this been posted? Thought you guys would get a kick out of it How Sovereign Citizens Helped Swindle $1 Billion From the Government They Disavow https://nyti.ms/2CJ6ptL
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
it feels like the best use of this thread is figuring out how to find the right attorney to help you, not to try and sneak free legal advice from people who could and will lose their entire livelihoods for trying to help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I understand the sentiment, and maybe I’m just jaded from being a member of this stupid profession. But tickets aren’t criminal offenses. It’s bullshit and I view bullshit civil/administrative procedure through the same filter as any other civil litigation. Depends on where you live. In Minnesota, they had enough legal protections the state had to have an attorney and practically had to certify the cop as an expert to introduce lider/radar evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:it feels like the best use of this thread is figuring out how to find the right attorney to help you, not to try and sneak free legal advice from people who could and will lose their entire livelihoods for trying to help. That, and laughing at Sovereign Citizens
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Occasionally we'll get someone who liveblogs their pro se experiences and that's a fun time too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
Hypothetically, how much legal trouble would an off-duty cop from out-of-state have if they, acting on reasonable belief of being in the middle of a active terrorist situation, go around and systematically hunt down and kill the terrorists? What about if they, hypothetically speaking, are in a situation in which two persons (one of which said cop is married to, and the other an exceptional thief) are in immediate danger of dying, and they have the ability to save one or both of them, but deliberately choose to save the life of their spouse at the direct expense of the exceptional thief, directly causing the latter's death? Would there be any difference if the thief does or doesn't have a gun at the time? Also, let's say I own this company trying to create a sort of theme park around a product I have created. It's located outside of the US because I don't want to be subject to stuff like OSHA, and I want minimal staff so I've got a lot of automation and computers doing most of the legwork. If I invite some people and my grandkids to visit and see how cool this thing I'm making is, how liable would I be for damages incurred by my product if I expressly inform them the thing isn't finished, including safety/security measures? If something does go wrong would I get in trouble for assuring them I spared no expense? Or if some of my associates were already trying to convince me to abandon this totally great idea I have to make a lot of money? What about if there was a veritable act-of-god tropical storm, and/or an employee acting under conspiracy to commit what would be grand larceny in the U.S., that directly cause what safety measures I do already have in place to fail, resulting in physical and emotional damages to my visitors (and death of some of my employees)? What jurisdiction(s) would I be subject to? Assuming I am alive after the ordeal and do not Fall and Can't Get up, resulting in me to get eaten by tiny dinosaurs. Asking for a friend. and would it be fraud if to present what is clearly supposed to be a deinonychus as a velociraptor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 12:20
|
|
|
Just enjoy the movies for what they are dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Just enjoy the movies for what they are dude It's like you're not even a lawyer what the hell man. We're not supposed to enjoy things, I'm told. From the top. E-flat posted:Hypothetically, how much legal trouble would an off-duty cop from out-of-state have if they, acting on reasonable belief of being in the middle of a active terrorist situation, go around and systematically hunt down and kill the terrorists? None. E-flat posted:What about if they, hypothetically speaking, are in a situation in which two persons (one of which said cop is married to, and the other an exceptional thief) are in immediate danger of dying, and they have the ability to save one or both of them, but deliberately choose to save the life of their spouse at the direct expense of the exceptional thief, directly causing the latter's death? Same. E-flat posted:Would there be any difference if the thief does or doesn't have a gun at the time? Yeah the cop would also shoot the thief, if they had time to do so before the thief dies from some sort of, let's say, terminal velocity. E-flat posted:Also, let's say I own this company trying to create a sort of theme park around a product I have created. It's located outside of the US because I don't want to be subject to stuff like OSHA, and I want minimal staff so I've got a lot of automation and computers doing most of the legwork. If I invite some people and my grandkids to visit and see how cool this thing I'm making is, how liable would I be for damages incurred by my product if I expressly inform them the thing isn't finished, including safety/security measures? If something does go wrong would I get in trouble for assuring them I spared no expense? Or if some of my associates were already trying to convince me to abandon this totally great idea I have to make a lot of money? What about if there was a veritable act-of-god tropical storm, and/or an employee acting under conspiracy to commit what would be grand larceny in the U.S., that directly cause what safety measures I do already have in place to fail, resulting in physical and emotional damages to my visitors (and death of some of my employees)? What jurisdiction(s) would I be subject to? Assuming I am alive after the ordeal and do not Fall and Can't Get up, resulting in me to get eaten by tiny dinosaurs. Asking for a friend. In this hypothetical you are a rich person and therefore immune to consequences. E-flat posted:and would it be fraud if to present what is clearly supposed to be a deinonychus as a velociraptor. It would not be, although you would be crucified in the court of public opinion for such an egregious mistake, by inconsequential autist nerds in extremely unknown internet forums for nerds that nobody gives a poo poo about. Hth
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Hypothetically, how much legal trouble would an off-duty cop from out-of-state have if they, acting on reasonable belief of being in the middle of a active terrorist situation, go around and systematically hunt down and kill the terrorists? What about if they, hypothetically speaking, are in a situation in which two persons (one of which said cop is married to, and the other an exceptional thief) are in immediate danger of dying, and they have the ability to save one or both of them, but deliberately choose to save the life of their spouse at the direct expense of the exceptional thief, directly causing the latter's death? Would there be any difference if the thief does or doesn't have a gun at the time? Is this a specific movie or an amalgamation of hero cop fantasy in American film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Is this a specific movie or an amalgamation of hero cop fantasy in American film? Both
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Who is the exceptional thief? Or is it the thief who is also a murdering terrorist and trying to kill the wife and the cop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
If you like long explanations about hypothetical laws broken in movies, the LegalEagle dude is cool as hell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyHn8y6rchk
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Who is the exceptional thief? Or is it the thief who is also a murdering terrorist and trying to kill the wife and the cop? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqasAIyGeBU
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:it feels like the best use of this thread is figuring out how to find the right attorney to help you, not to try and sneak free legal advice from people who could and will lose their entire livelihoods for trying to help. I think the threat of malpractice liability from anonymous comments on an internet forum is exaggerated. "Your honor, I had a reasonable good-faith belief that I was owed competent and skillful representation by this person whose name, age, and qualifications I did not know." Jokes on you, I'm logging in as a PLLC, and not in my individual capacity!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
It’s not a malpractice concern it’s an ethical concern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s not a malpractice concern it’s an ethical concern. Exactly. If nothing else, one doesn't want to risk creating the implication of an attorney-client relationship with some rando on the internet. There's an entry blank for that in your conflicts-check database, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Ethical concerns will sometimes raise malpractice issues, but the two are not necessarily connected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Yeah, we're all diligently trying to conform over here, ffs
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Exactly. If nothing else, one doesn't want to risk creating the implication of an attorney-client relationship with some rando on the internet. There's an entry blank for that in your conflicts-check database, right? Lmao conflict check database. Mine was my memory of people I represented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 19:51
|
|