|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The vast majority, yes. There's a small fraction just trying to skate by and avoid consequences but most of my clients usually know there's a problem and they want to do better but they can't afford to. Honestly a UBI would probably help most of my clients more than anything; most misdemeanor charges (driving under suspension, driving without a license, etc) are crimes of poverty and/or crimes of desperation (alcoholism). That's really interesting. I don't have enough contact with people to know, so it is a good perspective to have, thanks. Feels like in general, we complain about the cost of things like the penal system, when we're unwilling to pay the lesser cost to be humane and provide people with the tools to treat themselves in the first place to avoid ending up in the penal system. It's like we've lost sight of the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure saying.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
SlyFrog posted:From the people you see, do you believe the people who are having problems with these things would voluntarily take the classes/counseling/etc. if it was available, without it being in some way mandated? I'm sure there are some, but do you think it would be a meaningful percentage? Honestly? Probably. It's next to impossible to get services for a halfway decent price point that actually do the drat job. If I could I would frankly send all of my clients into services to help address issues leading them to my office as well I have had OPs who sign up and realize that while they aren't getting back together doing this will help with the kids. Some OPs do need a carrot/stick situation to get rolling but that's the breaks. Part of why I want these services is so that the kids can also get into the services. Then you can work on stopping the whole generational cycle of abuse. Unfortunately as previously said, services worth and are too expensive for most. Edit: but seriously the cost plus working time lost is generally what I see as the biggest barrier
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
nm posted:I loved DUIs specifically because of the science. In CA, the state has to put up an expert, who is often actually pretty honest and employed by the state (so he doesn't care what the DA thinks), so you don't tend to need an expert. Nothing more fun than getting the state's expert to admit the DA's case's weaknesses. i had a case once where the other side was 100% trying to scam for millions hoping that the terminology would confuse the judge - i dont want to go into details but basically he had a claim that seemed plausible on its face but utterly fell apart once anyone who understood the system looked at it he apparently had not completely read in his expert on his claims. we deposed the expert and just started with a ton of basic questions about how the system worked, eventually working towards the stuff relevant to the guy's claims. the expert, figuring we were just testing his knowledge, aced them all. just absolutely dead-on correct. good for him; bad for the claimant. and it made it hard to walk back at trial. needless to say it was so much fun at closing going "all experts agree! our expert says x; their expert says x! only their client says not-x!" and lo and behold the court had the easiest time its ever had picking between the expert opinions it was offered
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm going to suggest something Americans hate to admit. Getting a single DUI doesn't mean you have a drinking problem. With many crimes, but particularly DUIs, we love to talk about how they're alcoholics and they just need treatment. First time DUIs are caused by people going out drinking, not having a good plan to get home (urban planning issues are a big factor here), and not knowing what 0.08 feels like. Also selfishness. While it is a good idea to at least have first time DUIers look as to whether they have a problem with alcohol, because this can be a sign, but I'm sick of people talking about DUIs like you have a drinking problem. You have a bad choices problem. So blow or don't blow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:That's really interesting. I don't have enough contact with people to know, so it is a good perspective to have, thanks. I mean, my perspective is biased, but yeah, that's my take generally speaking. I should also clarify that I'm only talking about my current client base, which is all misdemeanor offenders. Every so often I get a client who I'm like "yeah, this guy is a stone cold sociopath" but those cases always involve aggravating factors (prior history of offenses, weapons, serious injuries, etc.) that get them enhanced and then they aren't my problem any more. But then again I live in a state where the legal system was literally developed to repress black people so  . I just found out recently that my state literally and expressly as a matter of public legislative record enacted bar exam requirements back in the 1950's specifically to make it harder for black people to become attorneys. Like, the legislators said so at the time. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:South Carolina attorneys frequently refer to "I walked into the house afterwards and poured myself a drink to calm my nerves" as the "Jean Toal Defense" in honor of the former Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, who used it to great effect after sideswiping several parked cars on her street, and retired from her post when she hit the age cap, several years later. She would have been hosed in Norway, the road traffic act § 22 (DUI statute) second section specifically prohibits alcohol consumption within 6 hours of an incident if you understand or should understand if there will be a police inquiry into your driving (such as with a motor vehicle accident).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
^^^^^^^ What bullshit, I need to calm my nerves. therobit posted:So blow or don't blow? Depends on the state and the facts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:10
|
|
|
nm posted:^^^^^^^ Then don't be norwegian. Congrats! The law is so weird and special foreigners (including swedes) can't reasonably be expected to know about it. Therefore it cannot (according to the supreme court, but who are they like the wizards of law or something? Gimme a break) be applied to a foreign national. Maybe if they read norwegian and are a lawyer. Maybe then. Also anyone reading this thread. You are now subject to this rule. I did it to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
Wait, is ignorance of the law a defense in norway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:05
|
|
|
nm posted:Wait, is ignorance of the law a defense in norway? Only for weird Norway-specific law and only for non-citizens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:10
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Only for weird Norway-specific law and only for non-citizens. I wonder what's the threshold for "weird"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:11
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:I wonder what's the threshold for "weird" Doesn't have an equivalent abroad. Let's say a russian comes to Norway and beats his wife once. Legal in Russia? Legal in Norway (not actually, no loving way this would fly but it might have to be subsumed as a violent offence and not the domestic abuse statute because of this). Would be an interesting case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:24
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Doesn't have an equivalent abroad. This raises so many questions that it makes me think that this one basic rule is capable of creating an entire drat practice area for lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:35
|
|
|
Also, can I get an invite to the discord?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:This raises so many questions that it makes me think that this one basic rule is capable of creating an entire drat practice area for lawyers. It really only comes up as an issue in like Misdemeanor class offences because anything more serious would probably get ordre public'd to hell. It's really only an issue in criminal law as well, because of the requirement of I wanna call it a principle of legality where you have to be very faithful to the textual application of a statute, which isn't the case for civil law. But yeah, intersections between national and international law gets hella interesting with Norway, we're a special snowflake. Immediately cross-border insurance law and EEA law intersecting with benefits law comes to mind. I'll send you a link right away, it's a wild place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:Also, can I get an invite to the discord? there's a discord?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
A huge judgment was just issued against the operator of a skydiving facility in my state. Skydiving is one of those sports that's heavy on personal responsibility and lawsuits from fun jumpers are just really not brought, because most skydiving mistakes are user error, and if you do something stupid and hurt yourself, it's a good way to make sure you'll never skydive again because no one will want to jump with you. Like, you can sue, but you'll probably lose because it was probably your fault, and you'll probably be banned from the DZ and any other DZ worth its salt because you're too big a risk. But in this case, there was actual fraud and extreme gross negligence and a tandem passenger was killed along with his instructor. There can be no personal responsibility of a kid on his 18th birthday who has no idea there was massive fraud in issuing the tandem ratings. If the FAA didn't know about it, how could he? The skydiving pages I'm on are full of wannabe lawyers claiming that the judgment should be thrown out because the kid signed a waiver, not realizing that the waivers are so pathetically flimsy and you can't sign away your rights in the case of fraud and gross negligence. The real issue is the owner is a real slippery guy who's been sued a million times and he just closes down and reopens under another d/b/a. But in this case they PCV'd him and made him personally liable. It will be interesting to see what happens and what payments, if any, are actually paid out. It will be interesting to see what happens with his dropzone and who will get his planes if he does have to shut down. It's fascinating to watch the discussions among skydivers, who don't understand the law, and lawyers, who don't understand skydiving, and the media, who doesn't understand either. I'm not a trial lawyer and I don't deal with personal injury or wrongful death, so I've been keeping quiet and watching the discussion with interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:there's a discord? Why do you think this thread is mostly dead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:A huge judgment was just issued against the operator of a skydiving facility in my state. Skydiving is one of those sports that's heavy on personal responsibility and lawsuits from fun jumpers are just really not brought, because most skydiving mistakes are user error, and if you do something stupid and hurt yourself, it's a good way to make sure you'll never skydive again because no one will want to jump with you. Like, you can sue, but you'll probably lose because it was probably your fault, and you'll probably be banned from the DZ and any other DZ worth its salt because you're too big a risk. But in this case, there was actual fraud and extreme gross negligence and a tandem passenger was killed along with his instructor. There can be no personal responsibility of a kid on his 18th birthday who has no idea there was massive fraud in issuing the tandem ratings. If the FAA didn't know about it, how could he? The skydiving pages I'm on are full of wannabe lawyers claiming that the judgment should be thrown out because the kid signed a waiver, not realizing that the waivers are so pathetically flimsy and you can't sign away your rights in the case of fraud and gross negligence. That does sound like an interesting case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
i mean, you can waive fraud, but yea its probably not something you can waive in a skydiving waiver
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:She would have been hosed in Norway, the road traffic act § 22 (DUI statute) second section specifically prohibits alcohol consumption within 6 hours of an incident if you understand or should understand if there will be a police inquiry into your driving (such as with a motor vehicle accident). Canada recently enacted a similar rule. You can be convicted of impaired operation of a conveyance if within two hours of operating the conveyance you blow over 80 and you had a reasonable basis to believe you might be required to provide a sample, such as the fact that you were in a car accident. The accused can lead evidence to prove a pattern of drinking that would prove that they were not over the limit at the time of driving. I know why Parliament enacted it, everybody hates the “calm my nerves” defence, but I would be very surprised if it survived constitutional challenge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:i mean, you can waive fraud, but yea its probably not something you can waive in a skydiving waiver Is this the kind of scenario where we're deciding what a "reasonable person" would know or understand in a particular scenario? Like I said, I am not involved in personal injury suits at all, but the facts here are pretty egregious. The decedent had just turned 18, so was legally permitted to waive certain rights. However, the FAA and USPA (as well as the manufacturers of the only two tandem skydiving setups in the US*) have extremely strict rules about who can perform a tandem jump. The DZ where this happened had a long history of inflating jump numbers and freefall time and basically rubber stamped a bunch of tandem instructor ratings. The TI who died and killed his passenger was one of these TIs who'd had inflated numbers and was improperly trained. There is no expectation on the passenger to know any of this; when you walk into a dropzone and sign up for a tandem you expect your instructors to be trained and have all of the certifications they say they have. This is why you don't really see lawsuits from experienced fun jumpers, because they have the knowledge to truly understand and mitigate the risk, whereas a tandem passenger expects a reasonably safe but thrilling roller coaster ride. At any rate, my understanding is that you can't waive away statutorily enforceable rights, and there was no way this passenger could have knowledgeably assumed the risk. *while the requirements of a tandem skydiving rig manufacturer may not be legally binding, they command the ultimate respect of the industry. The manufacturers know where their rigs go, and if you're pencil-rating your instructors they will pull every single rig out of your facility and blacklist you, and without tandems, your DZ will not survive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:. The DZ where this happened had a long history of inflating jump numbers and freefall time and basically rubber stamped a bunch of tandem instructor ratings. The TI who died and killed his passenger was one of these TIs who'd had inflated numbers and was improperly trained. From a 10,000 foot view (pun intended) I see the primary issue of the enforceability of the waivers in those contracts being that said waivers were procured on the basis of fraud - I can't lie to you about the service I'm offering, then have you waive a claim for the fact that I lied to you. 1) "Fraud vitiates everything." is a fancy way that old timey Courts would say, "everything that comes after a fraud is *POOF*, so gently caress off." You can't procure a waiver of fraud, for example, through fraud. You can't procure a contract through fraud, and thus any waiver of fraud in that contract is also *POOF. 2) If I contracted for a skydive with an instructor who had X,XXX hours, and you lied and instead provided an instructor with only 100 hours, we never created a contract, because we didn't have a common idea of the things exchanged. We both agreed my money was in the amount of the check, but I believed I was purchasing 1,000 hours worth of an instructor, and you believed you were selling 100 hours worth. If that waiver that was riding on the back of the contract was ever enforceable, it vanished when the underlying contract was declared unenforceable. Yes, there is an exception to this, but don't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Ya if you disclosed fraud enough for you to be able to contact into it, it by definition isn't fraud
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Thanks all! This is very interesting to me--obviously, since I'm involved in the sport--and I'd like to be educated enough to have conversations about it without misleading people. Technically I guess the deceased did not know the specifics of what is required to be a TI nor that there's a chance those credentials were forged, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if you are going to skydive, your TI is qualified. Here, that was not the case. Also, the judgment was a default judgment but the defendant showed up and was deposed. I'm not totally sure what happened there as I'm not privy to the facts of the trial, just what happened during the incident. What are some possibilities of a default judgment where a defendant is actively participating, to some degree at least, in the trial?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:Also, the judgment was a default judgment but the defendant showed up and was deposed. I'm not totally sure what happened there as I'm not privy to the facts of the trial, just what happened during the incident. What are some possibilities of a default judgment where a defendant is actively participating, to some degree at least, in the trial? The specific rules of civil procedure involved in a default judgment are going to be State specific; but generally if there is a trial, you don't have a traditional "default judgment." I'd have to see the case to have a better understanding of what happened. Do you mean a judgment on the pleadings, or a summary judgment? Does it have a different name?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:A huge judgment was just issued against the operator of a skydiving facility in my state. Skydiving is one of those sports that's heavy on personal responsibility and lawsuits from fun jumpers are just really not brought, because most skydiving mistakes are user error, and if you do something stupid and hurt yourself, it's a good way to make sure you'll never skydive again because no one will want to jump with you. Like, you can sue, but you'll probably lose because it was probably your fault, and you'll probably be banned from the DZ and any other DZ worth its salt because you're too big a risk. But in this case, there was actual fraud and extreme gross negligence and a tandem passenger was killed along with his instructor. There can be no personal responsibility of a kid on his 18th birthday who has no idea there was massive fraud in issuing the tandem ratings. If the FAA didn't know about it, how could he? The skydiving pages I'm on are full of wannabe lawyers claiming that the judgment should be thrown out because the kid signed a waiver, not realizing that the waivers are so pathetically flimsy and you can't sign away your rights in the case of fraud and gross negligence. If at first you don't succeed, skydiving's not the sport for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The specific rules of civil procedure involved in a default judgment are going to be State specific; but generally if there is a trial, you don't have a traditional "default judgment." I'd have to see the case to have a better understanding of what happened. Do you mean a judgment on the pleadings, or a summary judgment? Does it have a different name? We're in California. Unfortunately I can't find the actual ruling and only have a screenshot from Facebook, and I'm not sure how to post a photo  but it does say default judgment. I am hearing through the grapevine that he refused to answer interrogatories and was pro per, and apparently a dick to the judge, if that means anything. I don't know the guy well, and he can be a nice guy, but his demeanor is very gruff and would not go over well in a place where you're expected to act deferential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Is this from a certain facility near Lodi?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
Someone please send help I am bringing in too many giant cases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
nm posted:Is this from a certain facility near Lodi? Maybe. Or maybe it's a different massive judgement issued in respect of skydiving fraud that resulted in the death of an 18 year-old in California.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
ding ding ding Don't put too much weight on the news articles you read, they always refer to "tha shoot didn't open!" and it's always--always--more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:ding ding ding Lawyers are pretty used to taking any reporting about the courts with a grain of salt. They did have a ton of incidents IIRC though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:12
|
|
|
nm posted:Lawyers are pretty used to taking any reporting about the courts with a grain of salt. They did and will continue to. They're considered the "wild west" of fun jumping, and the owner has gone on record multiple times that he doesn't check licenses, reserve repack cards, etc. You go in as a fun jumper knowing your safety is pretty much all on you and all you can count on is that the plane is working. (In his defense, his planes are always in working order and his pilots are quite good.) Almost all of the incidents in recent years were user error, people doing stupid poo poo that was beyond their skill set. This one was different though. With tandems--the only thing keeping planes and parachutes in the air, financially--you have to assume they know nothing about the industry, FARs, ratings, and safety concerns. They trust the business and their instructors to get them to the ground safely, and generally the risk is very low. But the risk is only low when you follow the safety rules, and this DZ and the TI examiner blatantly flouted them and gave out ratings to unqualified instructors like herpes, and I'm pretty sure the courts were sick of seeing his grumpy face and flying (so to speak) under the radar by moving his money around and creating LLCs and shell corps to stay judgment proof. My guess is that between the egregious misconduct in this case and the practice of closing and reopening under a different name to keep his operation going, that may be why they PCVd him and found him personally liable. I don't think the family will see much, if any, of that money but she stated repeatedly that the figure (which was not her or her lawyer's calculation) was intended to shut him down and sell the facility to an owner and culture that is more safety conscious. There are three other DZs in the area that do not have the culture and attitude of this DZ. Some people like the wild-west culture it has, which is fine for them, but you can't put that on tandems. They're there for a fun ride, not a devil-may-care attitude on safety. On a personal note, many of the skydivers I know are in favor of this judgment because the bad press threatens a lot of people's livelihoods. It's not just a fun hobby or bucket list item for some people; it's their career. So I'm trying not to harp too hard on this, but I'm really interested to see how this will play out and if there will be any effect on this DZ, because even with all the other incidents this DZ has had, this is the one people will remember. The legal discussion in here is helping me with the discussion with other skydivers, so I appreciate the conversation--thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Back in 2016 I got a lawyer to help handle some family law nonsense and this lawyer has been amazing. I'd like to thank them for handling this, whats the best way to do that? I've already sent a card and several clients their way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:I've already sent a card and several clients their way. Thanks and more work are amazing and more than enough. If you want to do anything else, send them a bottle of booze.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Back in 2016 I got a lawyer to help handle some family law nonsense and this lawyer has been amazing. I'd like to thank them for handling this, whats the best way to do that? I've already sent a card and several clients their way. Pay your bill, send a gift card or booze if you really want to be nice, repeat business is always a plus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Yeah as everyone has said new client referrals is the best thing you can ever give them and your lawyer is probably very happy with what you've done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Another law school success story. https://www.inquirer.com/news/gregg-shore-demoted-bucks-county-district-attorney-20210318.html A ranking prosecutor in the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office who earned nearly $130,000 a year has been demoted after his superiors learned he had for months been working a side job — including while on the clock for the county — delivering takeout for the food delivery service DoorDash. Gregg Shore, who as first assistant district attorney under District Attorney Matthew Weintraub handled some of the office’s premier assignments, including the prosecution of killer Cosmo DiNardo, will now serve as a deputy in the office, Weintraub announced Thursday. His salary will also be cut by $22,000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
More proof that the double G Greg is a terrible person
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:58
|
|