|
Hey San Antonio, you could have saved yourselves some trouble by saying “we can’t have a vendor at an international airport closed on the busiest day of the week. Denied.” I lie because SCOTUS would decide that this violated Chik-fil-A’s First Amendment rights to honor the Lᴏʀᴅ’s day.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
Got a family relation who is getting divorced from husband and he's been going completely bonkers on FB posting rants about her cheating on him for years, being a whore, etc, etc. It's all very funny to me because I know the dude is apoplectic that his wife went and got a college degree and a job. She has no FB account so I kindly screencapped everything and gave it to her, she gave it all to her lawyer. Out of pure curiosity does that kind of thing have any bearing on a nasty divorce? Isn't it some kind of defamation? How's it work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Got a family relation who is getting divorced from husband and he's been going completely bonkers on FB posting rants about her cheating on him for years, being a whore, etc, etc. It's all very funny to me because I know the dude is apoplectic that his wife went and got a college degree and a job. It can, possibly. To what extent, its hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is not even close to an accurate description of what the PA court ruling was We'll agree to disagree. BigHead fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A party statement against their interest is admissible as a hearsay exception (unfortunately from a defense perspective). So the incident report isn't admissible -- the cop should just testify and say what they saw themselves -- but a defendant saying "All I did was [fill in the blank confession]" is. So how do you actually get that in front of a jury since the police report isn't admissible? Or do parts of it become admissible because of that? Do you have to put the cop on the stand and ask them what they were told by the defendant? Do cops have to show up for civil trials? Can you just question the defendant with "You told the cops this after the accident but then in your deposition you lied your nuts off, what up with that?" What if they decide not to take the stand?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
BigHead posted:We'll agree to disagree. this isn't a matter of interpretation. your claim about what the PA court held is simply wrong. among the most significant errors: 1) you are unaware of how many prosecutors there are involved (two, not one) 2) there was no holding his constitutional rights were violated 3) because there was no holding that cosby's constitutional rights were violated, there was no prosecutor being told what he was doing violated constitutional rights 4) the prosecutor (the old one) who was telling the new one not to prosecute cosby was specifically found to be not credible and therefore his testimony was not relied on at all the PA supreme court's decision was: "where a prosecutor, who has no legal power to do so, asserts that someone will never be prosecuted and in reliance on that promise someone waives their 5th amendment right not to testify in a civil lawsuit, does that promise - which he prosecutor had no power to make - bind future prosecutors, and if so what is the remedy" and there answer was, basically, yes it does on promissory estoppel grounds that's not getting into the flaws in the PA court decision, that's you just not understanding what the decision was or was not about. foxfire's description of the case was far more accurate than yours
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this isn't a matter of interpretation. your claim about what the PA court held is simply wrong. among the most significant errors: As in everything with the law, there is room for interpretation and friendly disagreement. I do wonder, though, if perhaps you read the trial court's ruling? Or the dissent? Here's the opinion I read, which very much supports my points: https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210630/163038-june302021opinionwecht.pdf I like that the career prosecutor of the forums is arguing that granting the reversal was correct, and one of the career non-prosecutors on the forums is arguing that reversal was incorrect! quote:By removing the threat of a criminal prosecution, D.A. Castor reasoned, Cosby would no longer be able in a civil lawsuit to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for fear that his statements could later be used against him by the Commonwealth. Mr. Castor would later testify that this was his intent. Here's the inconsistencies you describe, from the former prosecutor's testimony: quote:As such, the evidence suggests that D.A. Castor was motivated by conflicting aims when he decided not to prosecute Cosby. On one hand, the record demonstrates that D.A. Castor endeavored to forever preclude the Commonwealth from prosecuting Cosby if Cosby testified in the civil case. On the other hand, the record indicates that he sought to foreclose only the use in a subsequent criminal case of any testimony that Cosby gave in a civil suit. Here's the holding on Cosby's state of mind: quote:We are left with no doubt that Cosby relied to his detriment upon the district attorney’s decision not to prosecute him. Cosby did not invoke the Fifth Amendment before he incriminated himself because he was operating under the reasonable belief that D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute him meant that “the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist[ed].” Both of those alternative states of the mind of the prosecutor preclude the use of compelled speech in a subsequent prosecution. It doesn't matter whether immunity was granted or whether the use was simply foreclosed. Either way, everyone involved acknowledged that Cosby's damning speech was compelled by, ab initio, the prosecutor. Whatever the statement actually communicated (immunity, or transactional use, or a contract), the second prosecutor using the compelled speech to prosecute Cosby in violation of the statement was not just a violation of the statement, it was also a violation of Cosby's 5th. SCOPA did not reverse because someone violated promissory estoppel, they reversed because Cosby's 5th was violated whatever way you slice the pie. I maintain my agreement with the SCOPA that Cosby's constitutional rights were violated. I should note, though, that any prosecutor worth his salt would simply have not used the compelled speech in the trial. Identifying and then taking away appellate points for defense-minded appellate courts to reverse cases on is a sound strategy. I always appreciate a spirited discussion. You're right I miscounted the number of prosecutors involved. I counted the first prosecutor and one of his ADAs plus the new prosecutor, not remembering that the ADA became the new elected. BigHead fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Aug 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:So how do you actually get that in front of a jury since the police report isn't admissible? Or do parts of it become admissible because of that? Do you have to put the cop on the stand and ask them what they were told by the defendant? Do cops have to show up for civil trials? Can you just question the defendant with "You told the cops this after the accident but then in your deposition you lied your nuts off, what up with that?" What if they decide not to take the stand? You subpoena the cop to testify and ask him “what did they tell you” and if he doesn’t remember you refresh his recollection with the police report. You just can’t introduce the police report into evidence, unless your jurisdiction permits it as a hearsay exception (public record). You can cross examine the guy and say “you admitted to police at the scene xyz, didn’t you?” Not hearsay because it’s an admission. If he denies it, you can impeach him with the police officer’s testimony. You usually can’t just use the police report itself during cross-exam. Now if the witness contradicts his own prior testimony, say from a deposition, that’s different. You can use the transcript to impeach him on the stand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
BigHead posted:As in everything with the law, there is room for interpretation and friendly disagreement. I do wonder, though, if perhaps you read the trial court's ruling? Or the dissent? Here's the opinion I read, which very much supports my points: https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210630/163038-june302021opinionwecht.pdf i don't know what you read, but it was not that. i read that opinion, which is how I know you're wrong. as a reminder, here is the basic facts of the case per the court rulings: a) prosecutor 1, castor, has the first chance to prosecute cosby. he declines to do so and announces - without any legal authority to do so - cosby will never be prosecuted for this crime. prosecutor 1 claims this to be an effort to require cosby to testify in a civil trial, but the trial court specifically finds prosecutor 1 not credible, and all appeals courts uphold that determination. all of his testimony about why he did that is, therefore, not relevant because it is not credible. (The Superior Court concluded that it was bound by the trial court’s factual findings and by its credibility determinations. The trial court had “determined that Mr. Castor’s testimony and, by implication, Attorney Schmitt’s testimony (which was premised upon information he indirectly received from Mr. Castor) were not credible.” Id. at 417. The panel added that the trial court had “found that the weight of the evidence supported its finding that no agreement or grant of immunity was made, and that [Cosby] did not reasonably rely on any overtures by Mr. Castor to that effect when he sat for his civil deposition.” Id. Thus, the Superior Court discerned no error in the trial court’s decision to allow the use of Cosby’s deposition testimony against him at trial.") it is worth noting that the PA supreme court then goes on to act like his testimony is credible a lot, so that's kind of a weird quirk of this decision as they admit they can't overturn the factual finding prosecutor 1 is a lying sack of poo poo, then act like what he said is the truth b) in apparent reliance on the promise cosby would never be prosecuted, cosby does not invoke the 5th at his civil trial (where, it should be noted, he has no 5th amendment rights as to that civil trial - he can only invoke the 5th to avoid compelled testimony that would be used against him at a criminal trial). note his testimony was never compelled: he didn't invoke the 5th and get ordered to testify c) he pays a big settlement d) prosecutor 2 prosecutes cosby, correctly reasoning prosecutor 1 had absolutely no authority to confer immunity. remember: this point is repeatedly stressed by the various courts. e) prosecutor 2 uses the deposition testimony against cosby it is relevant there are two prosecutors because prosecutor 2 and prosecutor 1 actions are not part of a single conspiracy. now, you claim that the problem was using his testimony against him. it's not, or the remedy would be new trial, testimony suppressed. instead, what the PA supreme court ruled was that because cosby didn't invoke the 5th in his civil case and then paid a big settlement, that was detrimental reliance on never being prosecuted, therefore he could never be prosecuted. quote:Through his deliberate efforts, D.A. Castor effectively forced Cosby to participate against himself in a civil case in a way that Cosby would not have been required to do had he retained his constitutional privilege against self incrimination. To say the least, this development significantly weakened Cosby’s legal position. Cosby was compelled to give inculpatory evidence that led ultimately to a multimillion dollar settlement. The end result was exactly what D.A. Castor intended: Cosby gave up his rights, and Constand received significant financial relief. the key thing again is that you have no 5th amendment right not to testify against yourself in a civil trial, and if you do, the jury can hold that against you. if i'm sued for negligence, i can be deposed and forced to answer questions about that provided i don't have an argument my answer exposes me to criminal liability. the PA supreme court held that his failure to use the existence of potential criminal charges to avoid answering questions he would otherwise be required to answer was the "due process" violation. your read of the case was wrong. why the PA supreme court's decision is wrong is a whole different ball of wax,* and that question is debatable. what the PA supreme court actually ruled is not, and you are wrong about what they actually ruled. * in short, because a wealthy defendant with multiple lawyers who have months to notice "wait a minute, the prosecutor has no power whatsoever to do that" has no valid grounds for claiming that he justifiably relied on the statement. he should have asserted the 5th and if he was compelled to testify, then that would be that - but presumably, he didn't do that because he wanted to keep the illegal grant of immunity. and a poor person who gets tricked into testifying against themselves usually is hosed and, at best, has only that statement supressed evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Aug 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Nm
FuzzySlippers fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Aug 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You subpoena the cop to testify and ask him “what did they tell you” and if he doesn’t remember you refresh his recollection with the police report. You just can’t introduce the police report into evidence, unless your jurisdiction permits it as a hearsay exception (public record). Thanks. This lawsuit is starting to get kind of crazy. It almost seems like this dudes lawyer told him "This poo poo you said at the scene is kinda negligent maybe it'd be better if you forgot about all of it." Some if it I know they'll probably argue that he was concussed so he gave inaccurate answers but one of the things is more like "I cancelled the appointment with my hair dresser because I felt sick and tired" vs his deposition of "I cancelled my appointment with my hair dresser because she was on her lunch break and couldn't see me." I wasn't real fond of this guy to begin with but now that he lied his rear end off at his deposition I am significantly less so. It seems likely this is going to end up going to trial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
That was some crazy poo poo dude you don't just need a lawyer I think you also need to contact the police, a therapist, and maybe a priest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:That was some crazy poo poo dude you don't just need a lawyer I think you also need to contact the police, a therapist, and maybe a priest. New thread title
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:It seems likely this is going to end up going to trial. "No it won't" -The Insurer
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
The guy doesn't have enough insurance but does have a shitload of assets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
I’m in Lake County, IL and my partner (not actually married, but our finances impact each-other greatly) is being sued by a debt collector for an unpaid Citibank. He missed his court appointment saying “I was going to just lose anyway, so it doesn’t matter. I actually just saved having to pay the appearance fee.” How much more worried should I be? What are the consequences of this? (Note: I am in a wheelchair and he works as my caregiver. If he is not here, I can’t get out of bed and starve.)
Valicious fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Aug 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Valicious posted:I’m in Lake County, IL and my partner (not actually married, but our finances impact each-other greatly) is being sued by a debt collector for an unpaid Citibank. He missed his court appointment saying “I was going to just lose anyway, so it doesn’t matter. I actually just saved having to pay the appearance fee.” How much more worried should I be? What are the consequences of this? (Note: I am in a wheelchair and he works as my caregiver. If he is not here, I can’t get out of bed and starve.) IANAL, but I assume he now has a judgement against him that is probably going to be whatever Citibank has requested, which is going to be hard to remove short of just cutting them the check. More to the point though of, 'How worried should I be?' Based strictly on this anecdote, this seems like a person I wouldn't trust with five dollars, let alone my life. Unless I'm completely blind to something, there is no such thing as an 'Appearance Fee' unless you are the one to open the case, which I assume he is not. This does not seem like you are dealing with a responsible adult here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Valicious posted:I’m in Lake County, IL and my partner (not actually married, but our finances impact each-other greatly) is being sued by a debt collector for an unpaid Citibank. He missed his court appointment saying “I was going to just lose anyway, so it doesn’t matter. I actually just saved having to pay the appearance fee.” How much more worried should I be? What are the consequences of this? (Note: I am in a wheelchair and he works as my caregiver. If he is not here, I can’t get out of bed and starve.) There's a thread in BFC about being sued by debt collectors. Long story short from what I remember, more often than not, the collection lawyers might just drop the case if you show up in court. A lot of times, especially if they're several collectors down the line, they dont actually have the proper documentation - your debt is essentially a line on a spreadsheet that was purchased for fractions of a penny on the dollar, without the supporting documentation that actually proves it's yours. He hosed up by not going.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:There's a thread in BFC about being sued by debt collectors. Long story short from what I remember, more often than not, the collection lawyers might just drop the case if you show up in court. A lot of times, especially if they're several collectors down the line, they dont actually have the proper documentation - your debt is essentially a line on a spreadsheet that was purchased for fractions of a penny on the dollar, without the supporting documentation that actually proves it's yours. It seems like it was the first collector, and they got the paperwork directly from Citibank. The paperwork he received directly states there is an appearance fee. I know he hosed up by not going. He’s incredible in a lot of areas, but some…. The debt was $1700, so not ruining. It’s not a tiny amount either. What can we do now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
To answer the next question, though, and recognizing that the situation varies drastically person by person and by state, and that I don’t know Illinois or your specific situation: generally once a plaintiff (the debt collector) gets a judgment (this is probably what happened after the hearing but it depends on what the hearing was actually for) against a defendant (your partner), the plaintiff now just has a piece of paper from a court saying that the defendant owes the plaintiff money. The next step is collections, and a judgment gives a plaintiff more options and powers to collect. Obviously it’ll hit a credit report, and will be worse on the credit score than just the debt, but a credit report/score only matters if you want to take out a new loan or are looking to have a lower interest rate on a line of credit (eg credit card, mortgage), so one possible consequence is the interest rate on credit cards goes up. The next and more likely consequence is the plaintiff tries to enforce the judgment by garnishment or some sort of sheriffs sale seizure. That usually involves finding out your partners employer, doing some court filings and taking the judgment to the employer, and making the employer pay part of the paycheck to the plaintiff every two weeks until the debt is paid. Plaintiffs can also garnish bank accounts, if they know where a defendant had a bank account (retirement account, brokerage account, etc). Plaintiffs can also get judgment liens against property, preventing defendants from selling homes or cars unless the lien is satisfied, and giving the plaintiff the right to have the home/car seized and sold at a foreclosure auction, with proceeds first used to pay off the debt. This process (and whether there are any exceptions for certain types of property) is super state-specific. Now, a canny defendant might think that they can get around all of this if the plaintiff just doesn’t know about their assets. But courts also allow judgment holders to engage in limited discovery and will require defendants to show up to court to answer questions about what they own. Refusing to appear at these hearings can lead to the court issuing orders to show cause or warrants requiring the defendant to show up, so it gets more complicated and usually it’s even worse to just keep ignoring things. But again, state-dependent and complicated. However, getting anxious and scared and hiding usually ends worse than dealing with the problem and trying to settle the debt (in writing, for full satisfaction of the obligation) with the debt collector.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
The question was how do you go about actually getting proper paid legal advice. Like this doesn't come near to any kind of legal action I just want to be absolutely sure of the relevant local laws. I've been emailing firms that seem vaguely relevant and asking about it but haven't had any replies so far. I had a rambly post about it but figured I should just keep emailing unless someone has a better suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:The question was how do you go about actually getting proper paid legal advice. Like this doesn't come near to any kind of legal action I just want to be absolutely sure of the relevant local laws. I've been emailing firms that seem vaguely relevant and asking about it but haven't had any replies so far. I had a rambly post about it but figured I should just keep emailing unless someone has a better suggestion. what's the subject and how much money is at stake
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:The question was how do you go about actually getting proper paid legal advice. Like this doesn't come near to any kind of legal action I just want to be absolutely sure of the relevant local laws. I've been emailing firms that seem vaguely relevant and asking about it but haven't had any replies so far. I had a rambly post about it but figured I should just keep emailing unless someone has a better suggestion. Look up your local bar association. They should have a referral service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
At a minimum your state bar association might be able to connect you with a member who does the thing you need
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what's the subject and how much money is at stake 0$ I just want to know about my liability which is why I want to pay for their time. It's about my exposure on cutting down a tree not on my property that has been declared dangerous by a certified risk assessment arborist (this is a 100ft+ tree 35 ft ft from my back door in an wild growth alley so not someone's prize apple tree in their backyard). The city gov has said  you are probably fine just cutting it down if you've tried to contact the owners and they never responded but I'd like proper legal advice.I'd be happy to chill on this for months to sort it out but I am either going to be murdered by my in-laws for not doing it or I'm going to murder them because they won't stfu about it. So I'm trying to move this along
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
I would have charged you 400-500$ for that opinion Who knows what people charge you today
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
Therapy is probably cheaper than treelaw. It's definitely more useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
An aborist may not cut it down without the land owners permission anyway. Call you insurance company and see if they will cover damages to your house if it falls on you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:An aborist may not cut it down without the land owners permission anyway. As a practical matter, having the whole neighborhood send the tree owners a "hey, putting you on notice, if your tree falls on our house and we die, we will hold you liable, fair warning" letter is often a good way to persuade people to take care of their own dead tree, especially if all the neighbors do it at once together. Talk to a lawyer in your area first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
My partner is having some difficulty with her employer right now. We're in the Bay Area, on the peninsula specifically, is there a decent way to find an attorney, or would someone have an employment attorney referral? My approach so far has just been googling and I don't know any active lawyers personally in the area to get a reference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Ask the richest person you know for their lawyer’s name and then ask that lawyer for a referral. Alternatively, find a big national law firm with a Bay Area presence that does employment law (there are dozens) and call one of those lawyers and ask for a referral to a plaintiffs side employment lawyer. Because those firms will almost all do defense side work, but they’ll know who out there is decent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:There's a thread in BFC about being sued by debt collectors. Long story short from what I remember, more often than not, the collection lawyers might just drop the case if you show up in court. A lot of times, especially if they're several collectors down the line, they dont actually have the proper documentation - your debt is essentially a line on a spreadsheet that was purchased for fractions of a penny on the dollar, without the supporting documentation that actually proves it's yours. The CFPB has cleaned a lot of this up and if you get sued over a debt, there’s a good chance they’re gonna show up with something to prove the debt. Especially first party credit card debt. It’s very standardized in what you’ll probably see - affidavit of debt, affidavit of sale (if it’s not first party), service agreement, at least a couple of months of billing statements. Turns out agency regulation works, who knew Valicious posted:It seems like it was the first collector, and they got the paperwork directly from Citibank. The paperwork he received directly states there is an appearance fee. Google fdcpa attorney + Illinois. There’s a ton in Chicago. Most will not expect you to pay them anything, but may not take the case if they don’t think they can get paid on it. Just keep calling til you find one that’ll take it Illinois small claims courts charge fees for defendants appearing. You can ask the court to waive them, if you qualify (probably too late now) https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/why-do-i-have-pay-court-fees-when-im-sued You can also contact the firm representing the creditor and try to work out a deal, or try to convince them you’re too poor to pay it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Hypothetical: an independent contractor gets injured on the job, doesn't report it because it's not due to employer negligence. Goes and gets treated under their spouse's insurance. Insurance sends a letter asking if the injury was work related. What's the answer? From what I understand, because an independent contractor can't really file for workman's compensation unless it's due to some negligence or extraordinary circumstance, would an individual be ethically in the right to tell the insurance company, no it wasn't work related?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Hypothetically, can I lie to an insurance company?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
The independent contractor should use their own insurance
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The independent contractor should use their own insurance So, in this scenario, by being covered as a dependent on insurance that is not their own, they are beholden to the rules of the subscribers insurance. Is that correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:So, in this scenario, by being covered as a dependent on insurance that is not their own, they are beholden to the rules of the subscribers insurance. Is that correct? Whose rules would they be beholden to to otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Admirality law, of course. Fake edit: now, in retrospect, it's a dumb hypothetical. I just thought there might have been some sort of extenuating circumstances given how nebulous everything is with independent contractors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
I just did a CLE and literally no one knows In America what an independent contractor is Good luck
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 16:55
|
|