|
dwarf milk wait which thread is this
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
It’s hog head cheese, that’s the answer. I am a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 06:58
|
|
|
Rogue River Blue I am definitely here for lawyer cheese chat
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
It's mimolette, you can really taste the cheese mites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Raclette
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:It's mimolette, you can really taste the cheese mites. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
American
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
Casu marzu
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
Weasel
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
How do NDAs work legally? It seems like the document you sign can’t be that specific about what you aren’t supposed to talk about, which might make it hard to enforce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
smackfu posted:How do NDAs work legally? It seems like the document you sign can’t be that specific about what you aren’t supposed to talk about, which might make it hard to enforce. Usually they define certain information as “confidential” using broad language that includes basically anything related to how the business operates or whatever else you want to keep secret. You don’t have to make it specific for it to be enforceable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
smackfu posted:How do NDAs work legally? It seems like the document you sign can’t be that specific about what you aren’t supposed to talk about, which might make it hard to enforce. The ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. It lets the company hire lawyers later to send threatening letters regard the risk they sue and cost the employee (or their new company, mostly) tons of money in legal fees fighting over the exact boundaries of what is confidential. The danger there means people tend to buckle and keep more confidential than they probably have to, which helps the employer. Or it’s Silicon Valley and everyone spends tons of money on lawyers and it’s a poo poo show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
It's not that hard to give a topic without the specifics being protected: "You agree not to disclose any of the financial information you learn doing an audit or due dilligence" "You agree not to disclose any of our customer lists, what they're buying, and what they're paying" "You agree not to disclose how the Thing-O-Matic works" "You agree not to disclose anything you learn about any unannounced upcoming products"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Driving through UConn, I remembered when we used to have spring weekend. Eventually, the administration got sick of cars getting overturned, and crowds needing to get dispersed with tear gas, and (before it was eventually cancelled altogether) would set up roadblocks. Cops would check IDs and turn out-of-towners who weren't students away. As in, "turn your car around and leave." Is that a lawful order? I know the practical answer is "all cops are bastards and can do whatever they want with near impunity" but could someone with no sense of self preservation challenge a cop, saying they had no right to deny someone access to a state university property?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
NDAs can be as vague or specific as you make them. I’ve seen Confidential Information defined as sweeping categories or just as specific pieces of information listed on a Schedule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Is that a lawful order? I know the practical answer is "all cops are bastards and can do whatever they want with near impunity" but could someone with no sense of self preservation challenge a cop, saying they had no right to deny someone access to a state university property? That's not really a question about the authority of the cops, it's a question about the authority of the state university. If the university says "X is allowed, Y is trespassing", that's pretty cut-and-dried in terms of the police being able to kick Y out. Can the university administration actually make that declaration? Beats me - probably depends on state law. But for sure there's no general right to be present on state property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Driving through UConn, I remembered when we used to have spring weekend. Eventually, the administration got sick of cars getting overturned, and crowds needing to get dispersed with tear gas, and (before it was eventually cancelled altogether) would set up roadblocks. Cops would check IDs and turn out-of-towners who weren't students away. As in, "turn your car around and leave." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
Are there any laws or rules against family members serving on the same jury? By that, I mean, a father/son or brother/sister both serving on the same jury.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
We're not doing your sitcom idea for the last time
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 02:24
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Are there any laws or rules against family members serving on the same jury? By that, I mean, a father/son or brother/sister both serving on the same jury. There aren’t any rules about juries at all honestly (except prohibiting felons and children). If nobody objects, anyone can be on a jury.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
They might ask if you personally know anyone in the room. Either side might decide to eliminate one or both on that basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:There aren’t any rules about juries at all honestly (except prohibiting felons and children). If nobody objects, anyone can be on a jury. To be clear, does that mean that someone had to use a strike to get that cat off of jury duty?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:To be clear, does that mean that someone had to use a strike to get that cat off of jury duty? Being related to another juror isn’t disqualifying in and of itself. So yes, though practically speaking a judge would probably just dismiss one or both of them to avoid any issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
In rural Alaska literally half the adult population of the village can be on the jury. Everyone's related to everyone, including the defendant. You have no choice but to just seat them. It's actually not so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 06:35
|
|
|
I also coincidentally had a husband and wife on the same jury once. Got a good laugh when I asked "sir do you ever disagree with your wife?" Sat them both, though she got drawn as the alternate. That was in a larger city too so it was quite coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
Dumb question, but how do you get chosen to even be considered for a jury? I was told as a teenager, it was from registration to vote. I'm 45 and have never, once been contacted. Friends have been called multiple times. Even had a friend in a major news (cop shooting) jury trial. Do I just not exist or something? I vote in every goddamn election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:03
|
|
|
Arkhamina posted:Dumb question, but how do you get chosen to even be considered for a jury? I was told as a teenager, it was from registration to vote. I'm 45 and have never, once been contacted. Friends have been called multiple times. Even had a friend in a major news (cop shooting) jury trial. Do I just not exist or something? I vote in every goddamn election. It is voter registration. I’ve also never been summoned. My wife has been summoned three times. Just how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:36
|
|
|
BigHead posted:In rural Alaska literally half the adult population of the village can be on the jury. Everyone's related to everyone, including the defendant. You have no choice but to just seat them. It's actually not so bad. I recently heard of the Zone of Death, with is an area in the US where a person could theoretically get away with murder due to the oddness of federal jurisdiction and the inability to form a jury due to the lack of people in the area. I would figure AK would be ripe for stuff like that, no? On the subject, are there any other oddities in US law like that? Not necessary "do a crime here" but just... weirdness. Arkhamina posted:Dumb question, but how do you get chosen to even be considered for a jury? I was told as a teenager, it was from registration to vote. I'm 45 and have never, once been contacted. Friends have been called multiple times. Even had a friend in a major news (cop shooting) jury trial. Do I just not exist or something? I vote in every goddamn election. I'm 38 and I've only been called once, and I've been registered to vote everywhere I've lived. And even then I got dismissed... I was juror 123, and I called the night before and they only needed up to number 120.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:It is voter registration. I’ve also never been summoned. My wife has been summoned three times. Just how it goes. It’s not just voter registration, which governments try to stress to not discourage people from voting (a jury pool based solely on registered voters would be demographically skewed, as one other problem). At a minimum it will also include drivers license lists. Also that’s kind of amazing; I’ve been called either four or five times in two different cities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:
Generally speaking, any time you think you have a One Weird Trick to get away with crimes, what happens is the judges make caselaw saying "no, that doesn't actually work, sorry." That seems to be how they're dealing with the Zone of Death issue, for example -- just saying "no" and ignoring it. There are some major issues with tribal jurisdiction but I think the Supreme Court may have "Resolved" the issue recently by just allowing states to prosecute anybody. I'd have to go re-read about the case though. Technically, trial by combat is arguably still part of the law in a few American states; it wasn't formally abolished in England until the 1830's and remained part of the common law there, and several American states are technically "common law" states because they adopted the English common law at the Revolution. Where those states have not formally abolished the common law, it's still technically on the books as of 1776. In practice this is a historical oddity not a serious legal argument though for a lot of reasons, but it does mean that in common law states you can sometimes cite the Magna Carta on constitutional or fundamental rights questions and give the judge a headache. My favorite "one weird trick" is only shoplift from stores that are going out of business. By the time the case is called to trial, nobody from the store will be around to show up to testify, so there's a pretty good chance the charges will get thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:It is voter registration. I’ve also never been summoned. My wife has been summoned three times. Just how it goes. Different places do it differently. Some places it's voter registration, other's it's driver's license, etc. A few times someone from our public defender's office has gotten summoned, which is always hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:13
|
|
|
It wouldn’t surprise me if the “density” of jury trials varies across the country. Some states or cities will just need more jurors per capita than others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
I had a trial in a small rural area. They subpoenaed 200 people and 180 showed up. I had a trial in the capital city, one of the more populous areas of the state. They subpoenaed 200 people FOR EVERY TRIAL HAPPENING THAT WEEK, criminal and civil. We had 8 people show up for our case and had to wait for the criminal cases to plead at the last minute so we could get some of their juror pools.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
Both places I have lived since my majority, have been state capitols. Lots of trials, including Fed. I had a past job in Corrections with the Sex Offender Registry, so I have read stupid amount of pretty extreme criminal complaints, I am curious if they wouldn't want me. But it feels like I will never know...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
It also depends on felons per capita since they're ineligible. Like I don't know the real stats, but the colloquial wisdom is that if you're not a felon and you live in Baltimore City you're very likely to be summoned both because of the volume of criminal trials and the diluted pool of potential jurors caused by a history of the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:It also depends on felons per capita since they're ineligible. I thought we were supposed to get a trial by our peers...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Arkhamina posted:Both places I have lived since my majority, have been state capitols. Lots of trials, including Fed. You probably will have the same problem I have. Your work experience will come up and they'll find a reason to exclude you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I thought we were supposed to get a trial by our peers... In much the same way that "all men were created equal," you do. It was really "all wealthy white men deserve these inalienable rights, everyone else can get hosed, lol"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Just got an engagement packet from the lawyer I asked to hire a month ago, sweet. I was certain he was ghosting, and that I should keep looking. Good thing I am a lazy millennial, in addition to being fickle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Helping my sister with her Disability case (she is in MN). I am fairly sure she is a solid medical qualification*, and we finally got the expected initial rejection for the Social Security administration. Any idea on the 'normal' appeals process time? I found her a lawyer a year ago and it took 7 months after SS received the application packet to reject. The lawyer is taking her full pro Bono, no cut, as she has had no income since March of 2020. Her accident was October of 2020. Completely supporting her rent, food, utilities now for over a year, and I would love to know when/if I can expect to see the light at the end of the tunnel. 1st appointment for appeals is in 2 weeks. *She broke her damned neck tripping up stairs, and has had two spinal fusion surgeries. I am supposed to be the clumsy one, SHE took ballet! Arkhamina fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jan 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 01:08
|
|