|
I am in Texas, USA. Simply put, I made some bad business decisions while I was younger, and am currently facing the consequences of them. About 4 years ago, I opened a small business with a former business partner. A couple of lines of credit were opened in my name that ended up getting a pretty large tab on them. Back in February, I decided I didn't want to be in the industry anymore, and my business partner bought me out of my stake. This was done very informally, with almost no paperwork on either side. There is plenty of correspondence via Facebook Messenger where in which he said he would continue paying the credit cards and running the business in good faith. With that in mind, fast forward eight months and both credit cards have gone delinquent. My credit is devastated, having gone from an 810 to a 540. The business is still open and operating, and as far as I know is actually doing great despite COVID. Is there anything I can do to get these dings off my credit even though they are in my name, if another person had agreed to be paying them off, and clearly has the financials to be able to do so? I'm assuming the answer is just that I'm screwed, but I figure it's worth asking. Thank you for your time.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
The answer is talk to a Texas lawyer who handles small businesses. Also if you have any messages on Facebook or wherever print them out or otherwise archive them off facebook. When I was a lawyer I lost count of the number of times the opposing party blocked my client on facebook which removed their half of the shared message history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
That's a very good point regarding downloading our messages -- I'll do that now. Yeah I figured the actual answer was ask a lawyer, I'll do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:The answer is talk to a Texas lawyer who handles small businesses. Also if you have any messages on Facebook or wherever print them out or otherwise archive them off facebook. When I was a lawyer I lost count of the number of times the opposing party blocked my client on facebook which removed their half of the shared message history. Can you subpoena that sort of thing? Does it work if you do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Maybe? Honestly never tried because back in '13-14 most of the firm's clients couldn't afford to take things to trial. Really we were just jockeying for leverage during the highly recommend court ordered voluntary mediation after the first round of summary judgment motions. Very few made it to discovery to even consider trying to subpoena third parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
I'm currently trying to figure out what my options are for fixing my credit -- I don't even have the account info to these accounts anymore, so even if I wanted to I can't pay them off. This is happening at pretty much the worst possible time as well, since I'm in the middle of moving half way across the country, and the damage to my credit is bad enough that I'm legitimately concerned I won't be able to find a place better than an extended stay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Subpoenaing Facebook in my experience is like yelling at a well-funded wall that has no interest listening to you and will pay its lawyers infinite money to not have to produce a loving thing. All big data companies actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Lead By Example posted:I'm currently trying to figure out what my options are for fixing my credit -- I don't even have the account info to these accounts anymore, so even if I wanted to I can't pay them off. Lyon can try just disputing the trade lines repeatedly to see if they get tired of dealing with you Or talk to a fdcpa attorney in your city/state they’ll probably file lawsuits for you regardless of how valid they are
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
In this newsclip from a police interrogation, the narrator says at 1:25 "The sound cuts out at this point. The state attorney's office edited out parts of the video. They say 'so it won't jeopardize the confession'." What can you infer from that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNU3N3RhFXw
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:In this newsclip from a police interrogation, the narrator says at 1:25 "The sound cuts out at this point. The state attorney's office edited out parts of the video. They say 'so it won't jeopardize the confession'." What can you infer from that? First thing I thought of was a Bruton edit and the news channel grabbed the video from a trial exhibit. Kid confesses but implicates a second suspect. "I didn't shoot him, Timmy did! I was just the get away driver!" At their joint trial, the rules get tricky on how confessions get played, particularly when those confessions are testimonial and implicate co-defendants. The case name, again, is Bruton but there are Melendez-Diaz concerns too. In that scenario, the prosecution moves to introduce the unsanatized version, defense objects to any of it coming in, judge listens and orders the prosecution to edit out inadmissible parts. Totally standard. I have also seen those interviews go on for hours. Heck I saw the entire recording of a three day standoff get introduced at trial. In that scenario, if the prosecutor edits it down to the relevant bits, the defense can (and should) argue to the jury that the prosecutor is hiding evidence from them. The solution is to admit the entire three day recording, but play an edited version for the jury, and then tell them they can spend three days in deliberations listening if they want to spot check the edits. You also do this with huge cumbersome document exhibits, like accountant excel spreadsheets that are 400,000 lines long. Third option is the kid confessed to another crime for which he isn't on trial. Cop driving around busts him for simple possession and brings him in to interview for the murder. The prosecutor doesn't charge the possession. Kid in the recording says "I only had herion, I didn't kill him!" Any judge would order that edited out. Fourth option is news anchors describing criminal proceedings are like your layman self trying to describe a knee replacement surgery. You would sound like a layman to any doctor. That news anchor sounds like every other news anchor trying to describe a Bruton objection to a testimonial statement when the co-defendants are joined for trial. He's a layman fumbling for the right words; "jeopardize the confession" isn't a thing. Edit: it's an early evening broadcast so this is more compounded by him probably having picked the hours of audio up at 3 with a 4:30 filing deadline. BigHead fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Oct 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I took it to mean that there might have been something in the edited part that could prove his innocence (based on what the journalist said), but everything you said makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Hope this is an okay thread to ask this...I just have a speculative enquiry. A short while back, bored with being cooped up during a pandemic and curious about getting a car, I went to a dealership for a test drive. While I was there, I entered a contest to win an SUV. I later read the contest rules and noted the line you see often on these things along the lines that the price is "not transferable." Sometimes I see the line slightly changed to say it's transferable only within a household if the winner is a minor. It just got me to thinking that I entered the contest on a whim, but if I actually won a luxury SUV that I would not like driving and be responsible for insurance and maintenance, my instinct would be to sell it. Is that not transferable line actually legally binding? Obviously if it's a voucher or cruise ticket in your name there's nothing you can do, but could they actually legally take an item away if you tried to sell it or give it away? Tried googling but only found a 15 year old Google thread where sweepstakes winners mentioned that their prizes were kicked off of eBay by the company that gave it to them. I'm in Canada but just curious so telling me the law in America is fine and is likely similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
kuddles posted:Hope this is an okay thread to ask this...I just have a speculative enquiry. It means you can't say to the company 'no actually can you deliver to this person and address?'. They commit to dripping it on your doorstep and then its yours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It means you can't say to the company 'no actually can you deliver to this person and address?'. They commit to dripping it on your doorstep and then its yours. And once it is yours it is free to do whatever you want with it, including selling it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
If Rudy Giuliani had believed Maria Bakalova to be 15 (even though she was 24), and still actually had sexual contact with her, would he have committed a crime? It's obviously sleazy AF, and I'm fairly sure it would be statutory rape if the ages were reversed, but it seems like it possibly wouldn't be illegal if they both consented, since they were both legal age (even if he didn't think she was).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Bodrick posted:If Rudy Giuliani had believed Maria Bakalova to be 15 (even though she was 24), and still actually had sexual contact with her, would he have committed a crime? It's obviously sleazy AF, and I'm fairly sure it would be statutory rape if the ages were reversed, but it seems like it possibly wouldn't be illegal if they both consented, since they were both legal age (even if he didn't think she was). I'm pretty sure that creeps get stung by honeypot scams all the time where the cops have someone posing as a minor. NAL, but if the dude believed she was underage and was proceeding anyways, he's still hosed even if she wasn't actually underage. The mens rea matters more than the rest of it for this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Bodrick posted:If Rudy Giuliani had believed Maria Bakalova to be 15 (even though she was 24), and still actually had sexual contact with her, would he have committed a crime? It's obviously sleazy AF, and I'm fairly sure it would be statutory rape if the ages were reversed, but it seems like it possibly wouldn't be illegal if they both consented, since they were both legal age (even if he didn't think she was). I loving love living in the Hell Timeline where this question even needs to exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
So if someone truly believes a stuffed animal is real and shoots it, they could get arrested on animal cruelty charges?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Probably not animal cruelty but I’m pretty sure that’s a tactic for stinging poachers, so in essence, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Outrail posted:So if someone truly believes a stuffed animal is real and shoots it, they could get arrested on animal cruelty charges? Game's Enforcers have realistic robot deer they use to sting illegal hunters, so yes, this does kind of happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
A person can be convicted of murder for shooting someone who’s already dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
They can be convicted of attempted murder, which is a key word in there. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Oct 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
I accidentally an entire word. Anyway, point is that Giuliani can come on to a minor without, well, you know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I accidentally an entire word. Yeah, if it’s impossible for you to commit the crime for a reason unknown to you generally you didn’t, but you might be guilty of attempt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
Criminal law in Canada says it is a crime to communicate for a sexual purpose with "a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 16 years." So explicitly it would be a crime. But the question is always proving what was in the accused's mind at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Xposted to insurance threadBonerGhost posted:Tl;dr: Insurance and/or agent hosed up and got our car registrations and a license suspended. I can legally drive but I need a car in the interim, am I just eating the cost of the rental? E: got an answer re license reinstatement Should I be concerned about a record of the suspension? BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Oct 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
That letter’s cool and all, but they missed an opportunity to just write “lol, see you in discovery.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Doesn’t every lawyer dream of writing a Browns Letter or the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:That letter’s cool and all, but they missed an opportunity to just write “lol, see you in discovery.” Is there an accepted font size, can you reply with an illegally large LOL
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
You know things got real when the citations are almost as long as the letter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Outrail posted:So if someone truly believes a stuffed animal is real and shoots it, they could get arrested on animal cruelty charges?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
The smartest people. https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1320727998077804547
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
More like amateur se
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:More like amateur se Speaking of amateur hour: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh please don't doxx me
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Speaking of amateur hour: Sign here to be sexually assaulted. Reads like a waiver a sketchy porno director makes his actors sign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Speaking of amateur hour: Holy poo poo that took a left turn. could a lawyer actually write that and not be immediately disbarred y/n
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Holy poo poo that took a left turn. No but not because of the seediness but because "I will consent to contact when it is consensual" is a redundant term that would get you a fail on Drafting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:No but not because of the seediness but because "I will consent to contact when it is consensual" is a redundant term that would get you a fail on Drafting. I fail when I include the "when it's consensual" clause, and I fail when I don't include the consensual clause How the hell am I supposed to write a rape contract
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 17:36
|
|