|
Hell yes
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
I'd love to hear more about these various suits
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
Syncopated posted:Have you considered inviting them to celebrate Festivus instead? Or offer to make up over a lovely tipple of rare Amontillado?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Filling a lawsuit against Jane and John Doe 1-500 Some of the torrent related copyright trolls did that in those kind of numbers. Their goal was mainly to get the ISPs to give up subscriber names at which point they could just offer to “settle” for a couple of grand to make it all go away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Did the spoon manifesto ever get posted?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Look, this dude is super loving litigious he doesn't deserve the 1.2m he's asking for"? Did someone burn down your nice house, your most personally loved Pop, or something in between?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Did someone burn down your nice house, your most personally loved Pop, or something in between? this is the “bbbbbbbut my view gonna sue the HOA” and “I’m a staff member who was ‘wrestling’ with a student and she got injured” guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:Did the spoon manifesto ever get posted? I don’t think so
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:this is the “bbbbbbbut my view gonna sue the HOA” and “I’m a staff member who was ‘wrestling’ with a student and she got injured” guy. The wrestling guy was A_account. But yeah Bird Dick has been trolling this thread for a while and I feel like his most recent posts give the game away a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
therobit posted:The wrestling guy was A_account. But yeah Bird Dick has been trolling this thread for a while and I feel like his most recent posts give the game away a little. Ah right, he just reposted a_account’s thing to the thread, he wasn’t actually Hulk Hogan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:this is the “bbbbbbbut my view gonna sue the HOA” and “I’m a staff member who was ‘wrestling’ with a student and she got injured” guy. False. Prepare to be litigized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Some of the torrent related copyright trolls did that in those kind of numbers. Their goal was mainly to get the ISPs to give up subscriber names at which point they could just offer to “settle” for a couple of grand to make it all go away. I went to law school with that dude. He's in federal prison till the 2030s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
nm posted:I went to law school with that dude. He's in federal prison till the 2030s. Hansmeier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Hansmeier? Yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
I've watched the "Don't talk to cops" video a few times and there is a part that I don't understand. If you are being "interviewed" by the police, they can use anything you say against you, but anything you say that helps you is considered heresay. Why the double standard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 06:48
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I've watched the "Don't talk to cops" video a few times and there is a part that I don't understand. If you are being "interviewed" by the police, they can use anything you say against you, but anything you say that helps you is considered heresay. Why the double standard? Logically do you think you would lie to make up incriminating statements? I mean yes, people do but it’s a fair assumption people will lie in their own self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I've watched the "Don't talk to cops" video a few times and there is a part that I don't understand. If you are being "interviewed" by the police, they can use anything you say against you, but anything you say that helps you is considered heresay. Why the double standard? That's not hearsay. Hearsay is a person reporting something second-hand ("James told me he went shopping yesterday") and it's not evidence because it's not their personal experience of seeing something, it's just something they heard from someone else, in which case the better evidence would be to ask the person who experienced or did the thing directly. Things a person says in an interview that help them are fine as evidence, it's just that you gotta also take into account that if someone's going to lie they're more likely to lie about something in their favour than something that doesn't help them. Mind you I don't know how it is in America, just over here where it's routine for large portions of recorded interviews to be played to juries as part of criminal trials, so they can make their own minds up about what the person is saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:15
|
|
|
My girlfriend's mother has fairly serious cancer. She's actually responding better than expected to treatment, but the time has still probably come to create a will. This is all in California if it makes a difference. Her parents are pretty poor immigrants with limited English proficiency, so they don't have any kind of formal will created already. But her mom does have some property and assets to pass on (a small house, some cars) that it's probably worth it to create some kind of formal legal document about what happens to them, especially considering that she has a bunch of children and a semi-estranged husband. Looking up how to make a will brings up a bunch of websites with titles like "rocketlawyer" that promise to make a legally binding will for nothing, but they seem shady as hell. Is this the kind of thing that can really be done satisfactorily from some online template, or is it worth it to hire an actual lawyer for this? Her mom doesn't have a ton of money (and we're both graduate students, so my gf's not exactly rolling in cash), but I figure this is the kind of thing that's worth spending money on if the alternative is post-funeral chaos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
If there are people who are gonna want to argue with the will then you're gonna want someone who knows what they're doing to advise on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
Seconding the above. Check with your local bar association or legal aid if money is a concern. Some areas have clinics that help with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:this is the “bbbbbbbut my view gonna sue the HOA” and “I’m a staff member who was ‘wrestling’ with a student and she got injured” guy. My view is indisputably worth five figures. If an HOA came along and destroyed your 2011 Hyundai Elantra would you not feel you were owed recompense?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 12:25
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I've watched the "Don't talk to cops" video a few times and there is a part that I don't understand. If you are being "interviewed" by the police, they can use anything you say against you, but anything you say that helps you is considered heresay. Why the double standard? Anything you admit against yourself is considered an "admission against interest" and that is one of many hearsay exceptions. It's not really about making sense, it's just "these are the rules." But the idea is that things you say that are against your own interest are more likely to be true, because otherwise why would you say it? And also you're less likely to say the same thing again at trial, because by then you've talked to a lawyer and wised up, presumably. pseudanonymous posted:Logically do you think you would lie to make up incriminating statements? I mean yes, people do but it’s a fair assumption people will lie in their own self-interest. The problem with this theory is that in practice nobody except an attorney knows what is actually in their best interest to say. I've had plenty of clients who stupidly spoke harmful lies because they erroneously thought it would help their case, when actually their best defense was the real truth. Hell, the major difference between people who think they're innocent and everyone else is that people who think they're innocent just do not shut up, because they think, "hey, I'm innocent, if someone will just listen, I can talk my way out of this!" (this never happens). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
edit nevermind I hate the federal rules.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 12:49
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:That's not hearsay. Hearsay is a person reporting something second-hand ("James told me he went shopping yesterday") and it's not evidence because it's not their personal experience of seeing something, it's just something they heard from someone else, in which case the better evidence would be to ask the person who experienced or did the thing directly. Respectfully That’s not very helpful definition of hearsay. That’s maybe the common or layperson understanding of it Hearsay is an out of court statement offered into evidence by a party at a trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement Hearsay statements can usually always be evidence as long if they are relevant. (But perhaps not admissible evidence) The bar on “personal experience” is not why it’s not allowed. There are many theories underlying hearsay but imho the big one is that it is not fair to the other party for you to introduce statements from people that are not at the trial because they have no opportunity to cross examine them Also the statement in your example could def be offered as evidence for many reasons and it’s not hearsay just because someone else said it. It would only be hearsay if it was being offered to prove that James did go shopping yesterday. But there could be reasons you are offering besides that euphronius fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:
Yep. This is the core of the issue as it's practiced where I live. It's the reason for the general ban on written statements and the reason for the informal rule of "witness said someone claimed something" is considered evidence (after all, if someone says they experienced someone else saying something this is something they themselves experienced) but is also given exactly zero weight unless there is corroboration and an opportunity for cross. Which is why when prosecutors introduce witnesses that make such statements the court usually goes "okay well then that witness can tell me that themselves, oh they aren't called? Noted" and then they lose the case on the facts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 13:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hearsay is an out of court statement offered into evidence by a party at a trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement And subject to so many exceptions that if you think a statement is inadmissible hearsay you usually just need to reread the rules and figure out what you missed. E: vvvvvvvvvvvvvv ulmont fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Anything you admit against yourself is considered an "admission against interest" and that is one of many hearsay exceptions. It’s not hearsay at all because it’s a statement by a party opponent. Which is why the other side can use it but you can’t (because if you try to introduce it it’s not a statement by an opponent). evilweasel fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It’s not hearsay at all because it’s a statement by a party opponent. Which is why the other side can use it but you can’t (because if you try to introduce it it’s not a statement by an opponent). Dude, I just managed to forget to put a cup in the Keurig puppy keeps waking me up in the middle of the night
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I've had plenty of clients who stupidly spoke harmful lies because they erroneously thought it would help their case, when actually their best defense was the real truth. Could you give some vague or hypothetical if necessary examples of this? It seems like a great intersection of interesting/informative/schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Could you give some vague or hypothetical if necessary examples of this? It seems like a great intersection of interesting/informative/schadenfreude. The one that springs to mind is, in a DUI situation, *don't* say "I just had a couple of beers" because you're admitting to drinking and nobody will believe you as to the amount. On the other hand, if you'd said something like "I just hit my head in the accident", and it was true, that could help explain why you arent' doing so hot on those walk-and-turn tests. Basically anything you can imagine following the phrase "I just" is probably something you shouldn't say. In fact, don't talk to cops. Tell them you want your lawyer and shut up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Could you give some vague or hypothetical if necessary examples of this? It seems like a great intersection of interesting/informative/schadenfreude. Civil case, opposing party, he was squatting on the deceased parents estate, and cutting himself big fat chicks out of the state of trust account. He got caught, and we asked him about the first check for $60,000, he called it his "executor fees." if he'd said it was for the boat he immediately bought thereafter, it would have just been a distribution, and his share of the estate would have been simply reduced by that amount. but instead, because he lied and called it an executor fee, he committed a fraud on the estate because executive fees were not permitted by statue without a court order. So that only does he have to pay the money back, he gets sanctioned, it has to pay our attorney's fees for making him give the money back. Oh, and he also cut a $20,000 check later to the IRS, and when we asked him about that he said, "it's for the taxes." "What taxes? The estate doesn't have any taxes." "No for the taxes that had to get paid on my executor fee." "so you paid yourself because you had taxes of the money you paid yourself?" "No, I just paid the taxes on my executor fee." "With another executor fee? That you didn't report as income? How is that not tax fraud? "Uhhh"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Civil case, opposing party, he was squatting on the deceased parents estate, and cutting himself big fat chicks out of the state of trust account. lol, that's the stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
I researched this a while ago but forgot the key terms so Im asking blind again. Short Version: NY State. My dad bought a house from my aunt (literal neo nazi), and the house has a lot her poo poo in it. Its been 5 years. I want it gone cause shes a nazi who curses at me every time she sees me. I know I have to give her 30 days notice to remove said items before I can just start throwing them out. Whats the legalese for this? What do I google? She refuses any contact. LONG Version: We have owned the house for 5 years. My aunt was a hoarder and has a bunch of poo poo in the house and she keeps receipts. She cannot drive, or afford movers. The house is 80~ miles away from where she lives. Shes also a Nazi, like shed be Sieging about if she could lift her arm and not fall with her walker. I want to throw out stuff like her mattress, lovely airport books, her 20 pairs of brand new Timberland boots (they are so old the soles are rotting off). She is also so hateful as to not contact use at any time, even when we found an envelope with her name on it and 10k inside. She has also sued the 3 colleges she went to, and most of her employers. I want to make recorded, legal, contact with her to notify her she has 30 days to claim her property or Imma start throwing it out. Gaj fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
Gaj posted:She has also sued the 3 colleges she went to, and most of her employers. I want to make recorded, legal, contact with her to notify her she has 30 days to claim her property or Imma start throwing it out. Have you considered actually talking to a lawyer
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Have you considered actually talking to a lawyer Lawyers keep stopping him when he starts talking about all the nazi stuff she does, saying stuff like "that's not relevant," and "please stop making the offensive arm gesture as a demonstration" They just don't understand how much of a nazi she is
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
I mean I thought I could simply just draw up the form and leave it at her door, and then wait 2 months and start throwing her poo poo out. But yeah I guess a lawyer is needed. The nazi derail is basically about her mental health: shes loving nuts. I dont know what will decide her response, her ill health or her batshit craziness. If she refused to contact us at the offer to repatriate 10k to her, would she sue cause we are throwing out things she will never be able to use or reposses? Gaj fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
Gaj posted:I dont know what will decide her response, her ill health or her batshit craziness. Probably the 20 pairs of timbs imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Probably the 20 pairs of timbs imo. How about someone say "You want to ask the lawyer for X letter?" I mean that would make everyone happy yeah?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Gaj posted:I researched this a while ago but forgot the key terms so Im asking blind again. Uh, everything you've posted in the Boomers thread makes it seem like literally anything is going to run afoul of your Dad screaming at you and preventing you from doing anything that makes sense or involving outside legal help. Just from personal experience when I moved out of a house that was in the process of being sold, and I was told anything left behind by me was assumed abandoned in a 30 day window after the sale concluded. No requirement to check with me, nothing. Once I no longer resided there after X days it was no longer my property to claim. But like posted above, literally nothing matters besides when the house was sold and how. It's not going to matter if she's a nazi or lives X distance away you just need a lawyer to tell you the correct paperwork. pentyne fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:53 |
|
blarzgh posted:Legal Questions: cutting himself big fat chicks
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 14:08
|
|
