|
therobit posted:I think you should probably contact your state’s department of labor, because it will be a lot cheaper than a lawyer and also you won’t be or are less likely to be branded as “that guy/gal that sued their former employer and thinks anyone will ever hire them again.” I think that is like a huge myth. How would an employer find out you sued someone? Ive hired 9 people in the last 2 years, well 8 I hired one of them twice. How would I even find out if they sued someone?
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:I think that is like a huge myth. How would an employer find out you sued someone? It would show up on most any background check because they look at court records.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
A lot of background checks do civil lawsuit searches as well. Also if the company os on your resume the is no telling if they will keep quiet about it or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 09:47
|
|
|
The Supreme Court will easily say that because senators and representatives are specifically listed and the president is not, expressio unius est exclusio alterius bing bong welcome president for life Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 12:38
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:I think that is like a huge myth. How would an employer find out you sued someone? Search court filings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
therobit posted:I think you should probably contact your state’s department of labor, because it will be a lot cheaper than a lawyer and also you won’t be or are less likely to be branded as “that guy/gal that sued their former employer and thinks anyone will ever hire them again.” It’s not like being “that guy/gal who convinced the state EEOC to sue their former employer and thinks anyone will ever hire them again” is much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The Supreme Court will easily say that because senators and representatives are specifically listed and the president is not, expressio unius est exclusio alterius bing bong welcome president for life Donald Trump This is my thought. They even call out electors for the position but not the position itself. That is going to be seen as deliberately done by the authors of the amendment. The following phrase “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” could be a catch-all for president, but it is also very arguable that the president is excluded from that as the president is the United States and this is just a catchall for subservient offices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 13:03
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is my thought. They even call out electors for the position but not the position itself. That is going to be seen as deliberately done by the authors of the amendment. The office of the president of the united states is not "any office"? Is it the phrasing of "under the United States"? Because from what I remember from constitutional law, all elements of the acting branch of government (the executive administration of government) under the very basic principles of separation of powers are subordinate to the whole (i.e the sovereign nation), which would include the office of the president (or any monarch in a constitutional monarchy etc.). Or is this a joke about the supreme court I'm too  to understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:The office of the president of the united states is not "any office"? Is it the phrasing of "under the United States"? Because from what I remember from constitutional law, all elements of the acting branch of government (the executive administration of government) under the very basic principles of separation of powers are subordinate to the whole (i.e the sovereign nation), which would include the office of the president (or any monarch in a constitutional monarchy etc.). There was actual concern with some of the drafters of the amendment about this ambiguity. The clause to the amendment was intended specifically to prevent former elected and appointed persons who joined the confederacy from returning to office. It was entirely targeted to keep confederates out of government power at both the federal and state level. quote:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. They specifically named as many categories of people who had actually joined the confederacy, but conspicuously left VP and President out of the list. State level electors for president are included, but not President and VP themselves. There is a very strong argument that president is excluded from the prohibition. My argument about the president being "the United States" in this particular instance is because they are the one who appoints both civilians and military to their office. The president also officially and exclusively has the power to represent the USA when dealing with other countries. And to even further hammer down traditionally how the president is treated as this position, when they are announced for a military function (coming aboard/departing, etc), the president is referred to as "United States." As in, if we're announcing dignitaries arriving at a military function, flag officers will get called by their rank, governors will be called by their state name, and the president will be called United States. "Vice Admiral, US Navy, arriving." "Texas, arriving." "United States, departing." etc. By excluding VP and President specifically and then saying "office under the United States" they are deliberately meaning subordinate offices to the President. All of this is to say that the 14th will not be used to prohibit Trump from being nominated by the GOP or assuming office if he wins. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
Of course it would be some sort of mickey mouse american nonsense. Alright then just don't elect that guy ffs
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Of course it would be some sort of mickey mouse american nonsense. Alright then just don't elect that guy ffs Yeah our constitution is fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
So I got a speeding ticket in Virginia. I'd planned just pay it due to the time/expense/etc. I'm now getting solicitations from Virginia lawyers about what a big deal this is, all the (potential) serious consequences, offering copies of their free books and newsletters etc. Is this actually that big a deal? Is this a scam? I don't want to reply to these dudes if it's a ripoff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
As long as it's not reckless driving by speed, it's not a huge deal (speaking as a long time Virginia resident, not a lawyer). If it's the reckless code section, get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Pershing posted:So I got a speeding ticket in Virginia. I'd planned just pay it due to the time/expense/etc. Were you going faster than 70, or 20 faster than the speed limit? If so, that's reckless by speed and a big deal. Not a lawyer, but also a resident chiming in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
There should be a code section number in the upper left corner of your summons where the offense is listed. Probably starts with 46.2. That's how you can figure out for sure if it's reckless or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Thanks all. Yes, it's reckless by speed. I'll go thru the state bar's referral service and get some help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
Just so you know what's at stake - VA treats reckless as a class 1 misdemeanor, it's a criminal offense with possible jail time. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Yeah it's a big revenue generator, Virginia cops camp the borders for out of state speeders. I have heard you will usually have a chance to shell out money for a defensive driving course in order to reduce the severity, which IIRC can be done online. A virginia lawyer will know details of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
Man that's wild that over 70 is considered automatically reckless. I've driven on highways with a speed limit of 85.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Man that's wild that over 70 is considered automatically reckless. I've driven on highways with a speed limit of 85. It isn’t, the reckless by speed limit is 85 or more than 20 over posted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
86 being per se reckless is still pretty lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:86 being per se reckless is still pretty lol. There's times where I'm forced to 86 to keep up with everyone else. Especially when the highway is downhill and there's perfect visibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:86 being per se reckless is still pretty lol. Tunicate posted:it's a big revenue generator e: Zero VGS posted:There's times where I'm forced to 86 to keep up with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
Virginia treats speeding worse than murder I live in Texas where there are road sections where the speed limit is 85. 85 being reckless sure is a take by Virginia. Nissin Cup Nudist fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
Yeah, gonna call a couple of firms. The ticket says I don't have to appear in person, thank God. Hopefully me politely declining to answer the cop's questions will help but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
My mother and sister who lost their houses in the Maui fires have both been approached by lawyers to get them to sign up for a class action suit. One of groups is the Becker Law Group, the other is Morgan & Morgan. From what I read online, M&M is kind of junk, but I dont know anything about this. How should they go about deciding who to choose to represent them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think it will take a Court to decide and even then I don't know what happens. An injunction against him going on a ballot? A cadaver synod
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 05:03
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:86 being per se reckless is still pretty lol. It used to be 80, despite there being roads with 70-75 mph speed limits. Only in the past like three years did they fix it so it's always safe to go <10 over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
If you're say a public defender and draw a sovereign citizen defendant, are you able to motion for competence to stand trial?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:If you're say a public defender and draw a sovereign citizen defendant, are you able to motion for competence to stand trial? I watch a lot of 'fun' court on youtube, and I seeing a competency exam requested for people asking for the Judge's bond and babbling about 'equity law' is not that uncommon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:If you're say a public defender and draw a sovereign citizen defendant, are you able to motion for competence to stand trial? Not unless they are incompetent in addition to being a sovereign citizen. Incompetence is being unable to appreciate the nature of the charges made against you or being unable to consult with a lawyer and rationally assist in the preparation of your defense. Sovereign citizens are able to do those things, they just choose not to. (Particularly the consult and assist part) If they won't take your advice and insist that you assert law or facts you know to be false, you advise them how to ask to represent themselves and then advise them again not to do that because it's a bad idea. If they do choose to represent themselves, the judge will probably make you stay as standby counsel anyway, so you have to stay and watch the train wreck but be unable to do anything to stop it. How different jurisdictions handle cases varies a lot. Your mileage/level of involvement may vary. \/ \/ \/ Pretty well. joat mon fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
how hosed is this guy? https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1696638386608496685?s=20 https://twitter.com/AllezLesBoulez/status/1696696493166481471?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
Babbling about that kind of thing wouldn't be particularly relevant to competency. It would be relevant to the defendant being able to represent himself. A judge might very well listen to that and decide... uh... the standard is "able to comport one's self to courtroom decorum" or something along those lines. So if dude is a disruptive rear end in a top hat, the judge can force a public defender to represent him because the judge can't have people cursing and yelling their way through a trial. Competency to stand trial deals generally with two things: first, with a defendant's cognitive ability to assist in their own defense. So if someone is late-stage Alzheimer's and they do not have a functional capability of remembering the incident that led to the charges, then a judge may very well say that that defendant cannot assist their lawyer in preparing a defense. Or a defendant gets hit by a bus and is comatose, that person would not be able to participate in trial, and therefore not competent. The second aspect of competency is whether they were competent at the time of the incident. Like, if someone were schizophrenic and sincerely believed that you were a tiger about to eat them, so they shot the tiger (you), that person may not be found guilty for the shooting. They may be found "guilty but mentally ill" in this second scenario. I think my examples are right, but it's been ages since I've dealt with competency. e:fb by Joat. How did we have three replies in this thread in under three minutes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I think my examples are right, but it's been ages since I've dealt with competency. Competency to stand trial is separate but related to whether a person is not guilty by reason of insanity/mental illness. A person who is incompetent cannot be tried. The tiger shooting guy is probably going to be incompetent to stand trial when arrested, but may, through medication and "competency restoration" (don't get me started) become competent to stand trial. Only then can the case go forward and the defense may try a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. To succeed, proving they were incompetent at the time of the offense doesn't turn on their competency to stand trial, but whether they were unable to understand the nature and consequences of their actions or were unable to differentiate right from wrong. This is a different and much harder fact to prove. Notwithstanding it's overuse as an entertainment plot device, NGRI cases are hard are rarely result in a finding if not guilty. Even if one 'wins' that means you're locked up in a state mental hospitaprison until a panel of hospitaprison doctors, and then a judge decides they aren't at all concerned that you will ever, ever do anything bad again that could possibly make them look bad. BigHead posted:e:fb by Joat. How did we have three replies in this thread in under three minutes? Slow night, quick fingers
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:If you're say a public defender and draw a sovereign citizen defendant, are you able to motion for competence to stand trial? A few things happen. This is just my jurisdiction at least. 1) The lawyer decides strategy, the client decides goals. Normally this means the client tells you "I didn't do this, I want these charges to go away" or "can we avoid prison" or whatever, and you come up with the best strategy for that ("you should apply to pre-trial intervention" etc.) 2) With sovereign citizens their goals are always nonsensical ("I want you to try my charges from a different state in this court here, and vice-versa") and they always insist on making strategic decisions that would get you disbarred for filing frivolous motions if you actually did what they're asking you to do. 3) None of that usually meets the standard for legal incompetence -- they understand what a court is, what a judge is, they're *capable* of communicating with you, etc. 4) so instead what you do is you tell them "yeah, I'm not going to file any of that crazy poo poo you're asking for. Do you want me to file a Motion to be Relieved on your behalf instead?" which is a motion asking the Court to relieve you as their public defender and either (depending on how you write it) asking for someone else to be appointed or asking that the person be allowed to proceeed pro se after all without a lawyer's assistance. 5) they get real mad at you because "what do you mean I can't just fire you, why do we have to go to a judge, that's bullshit" and you explain that since you were appointed as their public defender by court order, it takes another court order to change that. So you ask again if they want you to request a hearing to get them a different lawyer or let them go pro se. Then they say yes and if you are very lucky the judge grants it and they become someone else's problem. joat mon posted:If they do choose to represent themselves, the judge will probably make you stay as standby counsel anyway, so you have to stay and watch the train wreck but be unable to do anything to stop it. And then have to jump back in halfway through their trial when they realize how badly they've hosed it. And then get a disciplinary counsel complaint and a post-conviction relief complaint for your trouble, because why didn't you stop them? You're the lawyer! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Aug 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 14:01
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Slow night, quick fingers Thats why the ladies love him!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
I have a question that seemed a little more complex than maybe would have gone in the small questions megathread. I hope it fits here. I live in NC. Somehow, my name got connected to an address in New Hampshire several years ago, and this got discovered during a credit check for some loan or another. There was nothing weird on my credit history or any evidence of any other sort of ID theft, my loan got processed, and I didn't look into it any further. I will admit right here: this was probably a mistake, and I should have pursued it then. But I didn't, and it has always just remained a weird blip in my records. It has otherwise never affected anything in my life. When I run annual credit checks, nothing ever shows up out of the ordinary in my reports, I've never had calls about defaulted car payments in New Hampshire or anything of the sort. It's just an address that's there. The thing is, I have never set foot in the state of New Hampshire, much less lived there for any length of time. Never even driven through there on a road trip. Here's the problem: I need to submit to a background check, and that phantom New Hampshire address is going to come up. Technically, there shouldn't be anything in New Hampshire for me to worry about, but I think I need to try to pursue getting it out of whatever file in whatever database everybody pulls their information from. Does anyone have any idea how my name could have gotten connected to an address in a state 800 miles away if it's not a case of stolen ID? Would this be a Social Security Admin issue? Do I need to find a lawyer to help with this (and if so, what specialty would I need to look for)? Is this even a legal question? Zamboni Rodeo fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Aug 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
There is a golf course in my town that just went out of business and they’re accepting offers for any portions of it in units of one acre rather than selling it all at once (I think they tried and had to shut down when they couldn’t). There is a large hill there that the local kids all use for sledding in the winter but will probably go away when everything is broken up and sold. We’re not near any big cities or anything so the land is relatively cheap, and I could, in theory, buy up the 5 or 6 acres that comprise the hill for not all that much in order to preserve it for sledding. I’m probably not going to do it, but it’s fun to fantasize. But if some kid got hurt on the hill, I assume I would be liable, which would be a real buzz kill. Could I put up a sign that says “use at your own risk” or similar that would protect me? Alternatively, would it be realistic to buy the land and donate it to the town with the stipulation that it must be kept for sledding? Legally I mean, I don’t know if the town would accept it. New York state if it matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
asking a lawyer can't hurt, but that seems like the sort of thing you pitch to the city council, and the snow park ends up named after you, if you've got the finances to will such a thing into being
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Zamboni Rodeo posted:I have a question that seemed a little more complex than maybe would have gone in the small questions megathread. I hope it fits here. There are a lot of ways it could have happened. The consumer reporting agencies (legal term for the credit bureaus) report inaccurate information all the time, for a variety of reasons including purchasing bad data from other companies, mixing up accounts, processing half complete information, data furnishers submitting wrong or messed up info, etc. And if one CRA reports it wrong, it tends to end up that way in all of them bc they also purchase data from each other. If you have a common name, the chances just increase. There are a variety of ways to dispute information on your credit report and/or disclosure. Often the website of the agencies can tell you how. Resellers such as credit karma often have that option too. There is also usually a fax or email address to submit a written complaint. You can do this without an attorney. Be wary of credit report organizations, a lot of them are pretty shady (a large one just got a 2 billion dollar fine from the CFPB). If it becomes an issue during your background search and you get denied employment over it, there are plenty of FCRA attorneys willing to help you out (on commission). Unless you have proof of a lot of identity theft and fraud using your social security number, the soc sec admin isn’t gonna so poo poo but refer you to publicly available info on disputing your credit report Fun fact: the CRAs don’t actually “delete” any data, even if they say they or the furnisher will. They just stop showing it you and others. It remains in their files, just out of sight Not legal advice, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 05:08
|
|
