|
Back when I used to transcribe cases I typed one where a guy got pulled over for suspected drink driving, but before they could breathalyse him he drank half a bottle he had with him so as to obscure how much he had drunk before. So they got him on obstruction of justice instead!
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Back when I used to transcribe cases I typed one where a guy got pulled over for suspected drink driving, but before they could breathalyse him he drank half a bottle he had with him so as to obscure how much he had drunk before. I had a guy try this back in the day. It ended up being his 7th or 8th DUI arrest, his third conviction. He hopped out as soon as he was stopped, faced the police car, pulled out a pint of whiskey, and slammed it. Where he hosed up was getting back in his driver's seat to wait for the officer to come talk to him, which meant he technically resumed control of the car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
Would this be insurance fraud? The Titan hits an iceberg while the sailor on lookout was drunk, which voids the Titan's insurance policy. The only person alive to testify to this fact is the sailor himself, and he freely tells the insurance company's lawyers. When he learns that the child he rescued from the wreck will get a large inheritance if the insurance is paid out, he refuses to testify. Jurisdiction is 19th-century England, although I don't know if this thread has any historian lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 07:14
|
|
|
Question not condoning criminal activity but, are there other countries where you can outrun a criminal warrant within the same country? I ask because in Canada for some criminal offences, yes you can outrun criminal charges because (from my limited legal understanding). Accused's have to be brought before a judge in the province the offense was committed. There is also a time limit on how long someone can be detained for, which results in expensive measures being required to transport people from the province they might have been detained in, to the province they need to be in to face charges. Which results in minor charges not being worth the cost to transport someone back, and why it is a thing for people to be wanted on a Canada-wide warrant Which is the issuing province saying "we will pay and do anything to transport the accused back home, do not catch and release" Is the US similar in that regard or is there some sort of legal process that makes it different?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
We can't let them Hazard boys git to tha counteh line! The boss hog defense
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Back when I used to transcribe cases I typed one where a guy got pulled over for suspected drink driving, but before they could breathalyse him he drank half a bottle he had with him so as to obscure how much he had drunk before. In South Carolina they call that "the Jean Toal defense" after a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who sideswiped three cars then went inside and had a drink to calm her nerves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Is the US similar in that regard or is there some sort of legal process that makes it different? Yeah, usually along state lines. Though having a warrant out for an unpaid speeding ticket or whatever in another state is likely going to upgrade another speeding ticket to a jail stint to sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Are the instructions neutral, or are they biased towards a conviction? why would they be biased towards a conviction? jury instructions are supposed to be entirely neutral, and complaining that instructions were improper is the basis for a lot of appeals you can read the pattern instructions for federal courts online - https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/. state jury instructions are hit or miss finding them online - https://www.trialdex.com/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:We can't let them Hazard boys git to tha counteh line! It’s the DUKE boys now, get it raht Enus!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
All of this takes place in Galveston County in Texas I'm hoping to get some help as I am supremely stressed. Long story short, 2 years ago my grandfather called me and asked me to take over as executor of his estate. My aunt was the previous executor but she had developed a severe drinking problem and had sold a very large piece of land he gifted her for $350k that he had wanted to stay in the family. She had also convinced him to buy a property for an investment and moved herself into the house without permission, talking him into a "quit claim" to sign it over to her (these are the words of his retired financial advisor, I do not know what it means). He had felt that he could no longer trust her and that she had gotten more than her share already. He passed away recently and my aunt has been an absolute nightmare the entire time he was in the hospital ever since she found out that he had signed over POA and trustee to me 2 years before. All of his sizable investments and property are in the name of the trusts, the probateable assets are pretty much just the contents of his house and his truck and local bank accounts with small balances. It got so bad that she showed up drunk to the hospital, insulted my wife, accused my mom of murdering my dad again (another long story), and got security called on her for trying to chase down another family member that did not want to engage with her at all and was trying to leave. I paid to probate the will and she found a lawyer to file a contest the evening before it was to be on the docket. My probate lawyer that drafted the will told me to find a litigation lawyer to fight it. Her claim is that because he was taking medication for dementia that he lacked testamentary capacity at the time he changed the will and created the family trusts. She is also accusing a cousin who calls him from prison of manipulating him and bending him to his will which I find absolutely ridiculous. Yes my grandfather's mental state was declining, but he was living independently and driving until he went into the hospital at the beginning of the year. My understanding of the criteria to show testamentary capacity seems to be easy to meet and he definitely met the requirements in 2021 when he signed the will. My grandfather knew exactly what he was doing when he changed it. He had good reason to be upset at her and he signed a self proving affidavit that he knew what he was doing. I've talked to his then financial advisor who had worked with him for years who is willing to sign an affidavit that he was of sound mind. Literally everyone I spoke to in the family agreed that he knew what he was doing except my aunt. I also strongly suspect that she was behind a series of extremely large withdrawals from his bank accounts that she was a joint owner on. My grandfather had shown me the statements either shortly before or shortly after the changing of the will to ask me how to stop the withdrawals without getting her in trouble. Here's the problem. She has money to be a pain, I do not. Because she is not contesting the trust (yet) I can only use funds from the estate to defend the will, but I can't get those (limited, maybe 10k total) funds until the will is probated. Even if I could, none of the trusts pay out anything until a year after his death. Every lawyer I have talked to either has a conflict because they already had a meeting with my aunt, or they are asking for retainers I can not afford ($15k to 20k). I do not make enough money to afford this. Hopefully one of the 2 lawyers I will speak to next week can go lower. I have extreme concern that not defending the will and letting her win gives her ammo to go after the trusts next for lack of capacity since they were created at the same time. My specific questions are as follows. 1) What is a more effective way to find lawyer to work with? Everyone the probate lawyer recommends is too expensive, and calling lawyers from Google map searches near Houston has had poor results so far. (I live in the greater Dallas area) 2) What are the chances I can defend this myself if I can't afford a lawyer? I have the support of almost everyone in the family to support my claims but I have literally spent a grand total of 15 minutes in a courtroom before. 3) Can she really come for the trusts next? The probateable assets are so small in comparison that if she can't then I'll just let her settle the estate since it's more of a pain then it's worth. 4) I found odd credit card statements in my granddad's mail. If my aunt is shown to be responsible for the cards or the withdrawals in 2021,is it still possible to report her for elder abuse? Obviously I need to talk to a lawyer but that's been difficult so far. Xinlum fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jun 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
2) What are the chances I can defend this myself if I can't afford a lawyer? - DO NOT DO THIS
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
1) Call your state bar attorney referral service and ask for a fiduciary litigator 2) Do not try to defend this yourself, this is the best way for her to win 3) Her end game may very well be to get the estate so she can establish standing as the personal representative to then pursue the trust 4) too specific to ethically respond to If you were to explain the situation to all the trust beneficiaries, would they sign something authorizing you/waiving your liability for using trust assets for this? That's at least a question of trust administration you could have a lawyer answer at the trust's expense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:1) Call your state bar attorney referral service and ask for a fiduciary litigator Much appreciated, this is very helpful. In regards to beneficiaries, she is already a beneficiary on everything. She used to have a much higher percentage, but she was still set for a large payday after all was finished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Ah, well if you will still be a beneficiary even if she wins, just with a lesser share, you could offer the fiduciary litigator an assignment of your right to receive distributions equal to their fee, with the understanding it might be higher than if you were paying normally to compensate them for having to wait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
Xinlum posted:Here's the problem. She has money to be a pain, I do not. Because she is not contesting the trust (yet) I can only use funds from the estate to defend the will, but I can't get those (limited, maybe 10k total) funds until the will is probated. Even if I could, none of the trusts pay out anything until a year after his death. Every lawyer I have talked to either has a conflict because they already had a meeting with my aunt, or they are asking for retainers I can not afford ($15k to 20k). I do not make enough money to afford this. Hopefully one of the 2 lawyers I will speak to next week can go lower. I have extreme concern that not defending the will and letting her win gives her ammo to go after the trusts next for lack of capacity since they were created at the same time. I thought this was one of those "one weird trick the court hates" that the court actually does get mad about? Anyway, with regards to 4, I am not a lawyer, so I can answer without any ethical constraints. Blackmail is illegal, but would provide this thread with the best entertainment since Wooden Spoon Guy. Only you can solve this dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:why would they be biased towards a conviction? Here is an example from the jury instructions: "You will then have to apply to those facts the law as the court will give it to you. You must follow that law whether you agree with it or not." Hypothetical scenario - Some farmer has 30lbs of ditchweed growing in his cow pastures and gets arrested for possession with intent to distribute. There is no way in hell that I would find him guilty even though the facts of law would say he is guilty. "This means that during the trial you must not conduct any independent research about this case, the matters in this case, and the individuals or corporations involved in the case. In other words, you should not consult dictionaries" I get that they don't want jurors doing independent research, but what is the reason they forbid dictionaries? How would a dictionary sway the bias of a juror? EwokEntourage posted:you can read the pattern instructions for federal courts online - https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/. state jury instructions are hit or miss finding them online - https://www.trialdex.com/index.html There are 494 pages of instructions in that PDF. Do they actually expect jurors to read, understand, and retain all of it, or do they trim out the sections that aren't relevant to the trial?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
Legal definitions are often different from plain english and it would be easy for an idiot to badger the rest of the jury into some sort of misunderstanding by using a dictionary defintion for 'battery' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Legal definitions are often different from plain english and it would be easy for an idiot to badger the rest of the jury into some sort of misunderstanding by using a dictionary defintion for 'battery' or whatever. Fair enough. If a juror didn't understand the legal definition of a word, would they be able to have someone explain the legal definition during deliberation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Here is an example from the jury instructions: "You will then have to apply to those facts the law as the court will give it to you. You must follow that law whether you agree with it or not." Those instructions are not biased in the favor of conviction. Edit: there's also a bunch of places reasonable doubt and burden of proof are mentioned in the instructions, those are pretty explicitly (and intentionally) meant to bias in favor of acquittal, aren't they? Trapick fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
Can you kill someone to save yourself? Like, say you’re extreme rock climbing with somebody you’re tethered to, and something happens, and this person falls. If you do nothing, your strength will fail and you’ll both fall to your deaths. If you cut the tether, the person will fall to their death but you could survive. Would that be considered murder?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
Is the tether in this hypothetical an umbilical cord?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Can you kill someone to save yourself? Like, say you’re extreme rock climbing with somebody you’re tethered to, and something happens, and this person falls. If you do nothing, your strength will fail and you’ll both fall to your deaths. If you cut the tether, the person will fall to their death but you could survive. Would that be considered murder? Are you referencing the famous Cliffhanger V Colorado case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 04:50
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Here is an example from the jury instructions: "You will then have to apply to those facts the law as the court will give it to you. You must follow that law whether you agree with it or not." Saying you have to follow the law isn’t a bias. You’re there to determine whether someone broke that law. You are not supposed to find someone not guilty because you don’t agree with the law. They’d ask you this in voir dire to weed you out. But yes jury nullification is a thing. Dictionaries in the law is a whole thing about when you use them, when you don’t, etc. it’s a good example tho, because it tells them to not even consult simply things They trim the instructions. It looks like a lot more then there actually is
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Would this be insurance fraud? The Titan hits an iceberg while the sailor on lookout was drunk, which voids the Titan's insurance policy. The only person alive to testify to this fact is the sailor himself, and he freely tells the insurance company's lawyers. When he learns that the child he rescued from the wreck will get a large inheritance if the insurance is paid out, he refuses to testify. Jurisdiction is 19th-century England, although I don't know if this thread has any historian lawyers. So uh that sub didn't implode, it time travelled?  (You mean the Titanic)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:So uh that sub didn't implode, it time travelled? Actually, this is the plot of the 1898 novel Futility, or The Wreck of the Titan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 11:00
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Actually, this is the plot of the 1898 novel Futility, or The Wreck of the Titan. Huh TIL, consider me corrected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 13:38
|
|
|
I'm curious about a topic that comes up frequently in the GBS r/relationships thread: If you purchase your "own" home and sometime later your SO moves in, but you're unmarried (to the extent this may matter) and you maintain separate finances, but you and your SO split property taxes on the home without a formal rental agreement, does your SO have any claim to equity vested during the period in which you split property taxes? Furthermore, would it make any difference if you have an outstanding mortgage but you only split an amount equal to property tax paid out of escrow, vs. if you own the home outright and splitting a property tax bill assessed by the county? Basically there's a continuing argument in the r/relationships thread that if you "own" your home and your SO moves in, you shouldn't be a lovely landlord and charge them rent. But at the same time, splitting property tax makes sense to me since your SO would be paying that if they lived anywhere else via rent, but I'm curious if that triggers any claim to equity. I also realize this may be dependent on jurisdiction, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Fair enough. If a juror didn't understand the legal definition of a word, would they be able to have someone explain the legal definition during deliberation? When I was on a jury, we sent a message to the judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:I'm curious about a topic that comes up frequently in the GBS r/relationships thread: This is highly fact specific and depends on a billion factors. If two cohabiting adults can't sort it out in an adult manner then a judge will have a trial to sort it out. I mean, the very fact that the question is framed as a husband/wife charging "rent" via "rental agreement" to their husband/wife means lawyers are just going to roll their eyes at the absurdity of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I mean, the very fact that the question is framed as a husband/wife charging "rent" via "rental agreement" to their husband/wife means lawyers are just going to roll their eyes at the absurdity of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
e: I'll just assume posting this was a bad idea.
DreadLlama fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Back when I used to transcribe cases I typed one where a guy got pulled over for suspected drink driving, but before they could breathalyse him he drank half a bottle he had with him so as to obscure how much he had drunk before. Here's the norwegian solution 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Are you referencing the famous Cliffhanger V Colorado case? No? I’ve never heard of it. I was trying to think of reasons why you might have to kill another person to survive. I originally thought of ‘you have to hit the switch to change trolley tracks from you to them’ but I figured the law would find the person who tied you two to the tracks in the first place culpable for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:Typically in comes up when an unmarried couple has been together for a few months and one of them moves in. They're not necessarily ready to marry, comingle finances, and the homeowner doesn't want to deal with potential equity stake yet, but they do agree to split the immediate costs of living together. Many of these cases also get handled by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:2) What are the chances I can defend this myself if I can't afford a lawyer? - DO NOT DO THIS Legal Questions: DO NOT DO THIS
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:You are not supposed to find someone not guilty because you don’t agree with the law. Isn't jury nullification the whole point of having a jury? If it was just a matter of determining if somebody broke a law, you could just have a "jury" of three lawyers that understand the law far better than a panel of jurors and go with a simple majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Isn't jury nullification the whole point of having a jury? If it was just a matter of determining if somebody broke a law, you could just have a "jury" of three lawyers that understand the law far better than a panel of jurors and go with a simple majority vote. The jury is meant to be a safety check against show trials or star chambers. It's harder to get a constantly rotating pool of randos to go along with your schemes than a few specific lawyers who may be in on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
I'm drunk with friends and we need some law thread arbitration. The question is "are you owed lost wages if some idiot rear-ends your car and totals it?" A group of us think that the court would say you aren't cause missing work due to a lost vehicle wouldn't be considered damages. The other group thinks lost wages counts as damages and would be owed. How wrong are we all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
Yes you can get lost wages depending on the facts
BigHead fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Not a lawyer but a rental car is usually covered by insurance and is way cheaper than lost wages. If you lost wages due to being in the hospital or being disabled and not being able to do your job then that's a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 04:49
|
|
