|
Brennanite posted:There's a great joke about you being a crossroads demon here, but I'm too lazy to find it. In other news, the Lawyer in My Life (LML) just won their first very important case. They've had a rough year--apparently it's been "raining bodies"--so I thought something to mark the occasion might be nice. It seems like a nice bottle of scotch occasion, but they don't drink, so I need alternative ideas. How do you show a lawyer you love them? Pay their tuition at a local technical institution so they can find a job that doesn't crush their soul and prematurely lead them to the grave
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
thehoodie posted:Pay their tuition at a local technical institution so they can find a job that doesn't crush their soul and prematurely lead them to the grave This, or like take them out for a nice dinner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:There's a great joke about you being a crossroads demon here, but I'm too lazy to find it. In other news, the Lawyer in My Life (LML) just won their first very important case. They've had a rough year--apparently it's been "raining bodies"--so I thought something to mark the occasion might be nice. It seems like a nice bottle of scotch occasion, but they don't drink, so I need alternative ideas. How do you show a lawyer you love them? Lol I expected someone to answer you seriously after my joke and everyone else just made their own joke, so here is a serious answer: Take them somewhere or do something that takes their mind off the job for a day or two. Even if it's just dinner and a night in a hotel somewhere close by or something that feels like a mini vacation or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Pay your bill on time and refer additional clients to them. That’s it
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Pay your bill on time and refer additional clients to them. That’s it "Congrats honey, I gave the dog groomer one of your business cards"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Pay your bill on time and refer additional clients to them. That’s it Lol Euph just hold the button down longer
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
I’m watching a CLE and there is a third court judge on it and he literally cannot sit still when he’s not speaking and often just puts his bald liver spotted head directly in front of his camera. It’s amazing
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m watching a CLE and there is a third court judge on it and he literally cannot sit still when he’s not speaking and often just puts his bald liver spotted head directly in front of his camera. It’s amazing Is it pushing your buttons?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
The judge is actually watching Scrapp's "let's play: binding of Isaac speed run 100%"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Daaaaarn https://www.thedailybeast.com/brandon-fellows-decides-to-represent-himself-in-court-accidentally-admits-to-two-new-felonies
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
How's that work again when a named beneficiary of a will is dead? Their portion just goes to everybody else named? Totally unrelated, get y'all's cholesterol checked and eat less saturated fat and maybe slow down on the booze. Or don't, I'm not your mom I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:How's that work again when a named beneficiary of a will is dead? Their portion just goes to everybody else named? my vague recollection from the bar is it depends on the state sometimes they just don’t inherit but sometimes their heirs inherit
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
That's about all the specificity I was looking for, thanks. It's just a curiosity at this point, the lawyers will sort that poo poo out eventually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:How's that work again when a named beneficiary of a will is dead? Their portion just goes to everybody else named? If there's a will, 99% of the time the will says what to do with their portion. Various states either send their share to their own beneficiaries, either per stirpes where they get their relative portion of the deceased beneficiary's take or per some other latin thing where they get less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If there's a will, 99% of the time the will says what to do with their portion. Various states either send their share to their own beneficiaries, either per stirpes where they get their relative portion of the deceased beneficiary's take or per some other latin thing where they get less. Googling "some other Latin thing" If someone gets a traffic ticket then dies, do local governments tend to collect from the estate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Googling "some other Latin thing" No, the ticket gets dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Googling "some other Latin thing" It was "per Capita" "Per stirpes means that the beneficiary's inheritance will be passed on to their next-in-line heir, or heirs. Per capita means that the beneficiary's inheritance would be divided evenly amongst any surviving beneficiaries" The difference is if Paul dies with 3 kids, and two of those kids each had 2 kids, under Per Stirpes, then three, 1/3d shared get distributed. Under per Capita, the number of shares is evenly divided by how many survivors their are. If two of Paul's kids are alive, and one of his kids is dead leaving two grandchildren, then each of those four people get a 1/4 share.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No, the ticket gets dismissed. You're gram gram discovers this weird trick to getting out of speeding tickets. Cops hate this!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The pa legislature may give local cops radar soon tho and then we are all hosed . Might as well stop driving if that happens Most townships already have it. Your way out is make them prove that poo poo is nist. QA/QC as scheduled and calibrated properly. You're burning gently caress you money to do this so hire me as well. I'll get to sit and mumble science stuff until everyone looks confused enough to conclude for the day. Oh also don't hire the guy that tells the judge she wouldn't understand because she's a woman. That was a funny day but it ended very poorly for one party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
2 of my coworkers were talking about their DUIs today, one multiple but didn't specify and the other 12, with a bonus 2 in a single day. He's sober and in AA now. Anyway to blow or not to blow came up. Their consensus was don't blow. I did some googling and in Ohio refusing is an automatic 12 month license suspension for the first offense but is an administrative thing and will not effect the DUI charge. Dui lawyer websites here have a should I blow faq and none of them actually answer the question but seem to imply don't blow of you know you'll fail and blow if you know you'll pass. If you're unsure then would you rather have a DUI and your licence back in 90 days or no DUI and can't drive for a year. The 1 year suspension for refusal seems baked into basically a EULA that I didn't read giving permission. Privilege not a right and all that? IANAL. If they can do that why haven't they baked in a right to search (something I'm NOT for) or similar stuff? Also it seems to be an edge case where never talk to cops might break down. What say you law goons? Don't drink and drive obviously, and agreed. But why are the rules here weird. What happens with weed in legal states? Or other fail a drug test but not currently hosed up things? Prescriptions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
If you attempted to subpoena a large company would you, as the attorney, ever call that business directly to ask about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
I mean did you do this pro se
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I mean did you do this pro se In the rich tradition of posts for this thread I swear it wasn't me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Lmao who did you send it to Top line not the whole address.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Back when I did real lawyering the best way to serve a subpoena for documents on a third party was to literally drive to the place and demand to see someone and wave papers around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
Lawyers tho get secret official subpoenas that look impressive 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Lmao who did you send it to Someone managed to call our department at work about a subpoena and I sent them away. It was really weird and wanted to know if that was a normal thing for a lawyer to do
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
I work in banking in a department that should never be the recipient of such a request and we have a whole procedure and training for what to do in case it happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:If they can do that why haven't they baked in a right to search (something I'm NOT for) or similar stuff? 1. A compelled blood draw is not forcing someone to testify against themselves 2. It is a search and you normally need a warrant. 3. This particular set of facts satisfied exigent circumstances because the cop did not have time to get a warrant before BAC would be far down Missouri v McNeely In a normal traffic stop, there are no exigent circumstances and you need a warrant. In a well run/funded jurisdiction, if you refuse a breathalyzer, the cop arrests you and then sends something to the on-call judge to get a search warrant, then you get your blood drawn even if you object. That will take longer though, so if you were marginal, it increases your odds of passing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Schmerber v California That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Schmerber v California But see Alaska, where the crime of Refusal has the exact same penalties as a DUI, and by statue they don't run concurrently. Nor do they merge! If you get convicted of both DUI and Refusal for the same driving offense, though, that only counts as one prior for the felony DUI or felony Refusal. BigHead fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Oct 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
I don't want to ask because it'll just make me mad, but how on earth can that possibly be constitutional?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I don't want to ask because it'll just make me mad, but how on earth can that possibly be constitutional? Well you see we have a right to travel upon the land, and there is a gold fringe on the flag at the police station. But they can only do that to you if you consent to it by engaging with their vehicle licensing system. If you form your own sovereignty and make your own license plates, they are not allowed to impede your travel upon the land with their silly police cruisers and alcohol testing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I don't want to ask because it'll just make me mad, but how on earth can that possibly be constitutional? Breath tests (but not blood tests) are still searches, but are less intrusive so can be part of warrantless search when you are being arrested or have refusal criminalized. (Thomas would allow warrantless blood tests, Sotomayor and Ginsberg would not allow either without a warrant)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:If you attempted to subpoena a large company would you, as the attorney, ever call that business directly to ask about it? No, unless they didn't answer on.time, but they always do, but even then I'd call legal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
As for the refusal, in many states the revocation of your license is considered a civil penalty, not a criminal one, so you don’t have a fourth or fifth amendment right to protect you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Which SC rear end in a top hat was it who admitted dui checkpoints are unconstitutional but shrugged and said "but we're going to allow them anyway"? Was it Thomas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Which SC rear end in a top hat was it who admitted dui checkpoints are unconstitutional but shrugged and said "but we're going to allow them anyway"? Was it Thomas? I'm gonna put all my chips on Scalia on that one
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 07:06
|
|
|
The reason there are harsh penalties for refusing to blow is that without that evidence, proving impairment in court is difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The reason there are harsh penalties for refusing to blow is that without that evidence, proving impairment in court is difficult. Yeah. In my jurisdiction IF you refuse, and if you also refuse field sobriety, and there was no accident (an accident will often make the jury assume impairment) it is very very difficult for the state to overcome reasonable doubt and *prove* you were impaired *due to alcohol* and not something else (tiredness, medical condition, incompetence, etc.) Refusing means your license gets suspended for six months but you can get a provisional license for driving to work in the meanwhile. Not refusing, if you have had anything at all to drink, probably means a dui conviction -- or a duac conviction which is the same thing but all they need to prove is a bac level over the line. YMMV. My local dui statute was written by a dui defense lawyer. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Oct 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 13:42
|
|
