|
It’s my money and I need it now.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Devor posted:If your complaint is "This is 1100 Maple Ave, not 1200 Maple Ave, John Smith doesn't live here" can you suppress the weed they found in plain view The root issue is that judges don't generally *want* to grant motions to suppress. They want to find a reason to let it in, because they're mostly former prosecutors and unless its just pot by itself with no other crime at all, they probably want to put the person in jail as much as the prosecutor does. I once watched a trial where a motion to suppress was granted. Cops had rolled up with multiple cars on a dude just sitting parked in a car at night (while black, but I didn't need to say that.) The cop lied on the stand and the defense attorney (a coworker of mine!) Caught him in it, and root issue was there was no reason for thr stop at all that the cop was willing to articulate. (They said it was a "high crime area" but then admitted there had been no arrests there for four months). Cops had shouted "don't get out of the car" as they rolled up, before they even spoke to the guy, before his car doors were open or anything, and the car wasnt moving, so he was detained from that point wihtout Miranda and there was nothing to establish probable cause for the stop at all. All they had found was a couple of ounces of pot. Judge threw it out. Old judge, in his late sixties. Afterwards I heard him say "that's the only motion to suppress I've ever granted." Normally they're a lot smarter and will start by rolling up with one car, asking to search, and if they say they see something when they ask or if you agree, that's it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
How does extreme bankruptcy fuckery most commonly get turned into a criminal issue? Trustee or trustee's counsel reporting it? Creditor reporting it? All of the above?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Lol it doesn’t.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
https://www.orb.uscourts.gov/information-creditorsquote:Reporting Debtor Fraud
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
Let’s say as part of a divorce, one party agrees to provide some manner of assistance to the other party and/or their dependent. What could be qualifying reasons that the first party would be able to successfully sue the second party to be able to go “Here’s $2,000, I don’t have to provide any more assistance ever”? To pre-empt a “it depends on the state,” let’s say the divorce took place in like, Texas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Let’s say as part of a divorce, one party agrees to provide some manner of assistance to the other party and/or their dependent. Verbally, or in the divorce agreement that a judge sees and signs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Less specific. Thank you for the feedback. 
Viginti Septem fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
No lawyer in this thread is going to touch your highly specific and personal legal questions. Seek free legal aid in your area, specifically tenant rights, and ask them these things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
I’m not a lawyer, but: when they hand you eviction papers telling you to show up at court on X date and then to get out by X date, you should follow them. Ideally you should get out before being forced because things are going to get much more unpleasant. I agree you can try to contact legal aid or a tenants’ group (if they have them there?), but even then it’s probably not going the way you want. The tl;dr is you missed rent, they offered to put you on a payment plan, and you missed rent again. It seems like the owner and the leaseholder are agreed it’s time to go. One thing I can think of is looking at your agreement for the payment plan. I would be very surprised if it had a clause like “if any more payments are missed during the course of this payment plan, actually that’s okay and we’ll work it out,” but you never know e: for what it’s worth, I bet the leaseholder has been looking up the law. I don’t think Tuesday to Friday is arbitrary, I bet it’s Kansas’s mandatory 3-day notice, which is also why they did it by text instead of in person. Anne Whateley fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:57
|
|
i like nice words
|
Viginti Septem posted:Hello everyone. Thank you for the service you provide with this forum and this thread in particular. As Zebra said, no lawyer in this thread is going to touch this with a ten foot pole. However, I'm not a lawyer but I do watch a lot of Youtube Landlord cases - basically the same thing as 8 years of school probably. Your rights are super finite here and my guess is that if they file an eviction notice and show up with any kind of paperwork suggesting that you previously paid them, but aren't any more, a judge will probably sign that order. To my knowledge, this puts you on a 10 day clock once signed. Some states require you to mediate at least once before they sign the order, so maybe closer to 20 days at best. The times where tenants get a break on stuff like this is either where there is a real dispute about lease terms (and even then, you have to be paying into an Escrow account), or when the landlord is incredibly incompetent and fails to execute on even the basics of the process. At the very best, you can probably delay the inevitable, but as you say it, this would be trivial to prove that you are owe these people money. A lack of a lease is highly unlikely to matter for such a defense. My recommendation is to move mountains to not get an eviction on your record - right now it sounds like you have a pathway to get a clean break without loving up your credit / record even if it means there will be friction today. That at keeps the door open for you to have a decent application at future rental properties. I'd probably pursue that, because I very much doubt you are avoiding an eviction order if you drag this out. --- All, Some, or None of this might be accurate. I also know enough to know that Landlord / Eviction cases are extremely reliant on the laws of their jurisdiction. The advice of 'seek legal aid' is probably the real best advice here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:59
|
|
|
Viginti Septem posted:-snip- No lawyer is going to address the questions beyond: contact your local legal aid and/or landlord/tenant legal clinic. Also maybe less specific details on a dying internet forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
Thank you all for your assistance. I understand the hesitation here and am appreciative of the feedback you offered. Have a good day!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Verbally, or in the divorce agreement that a judge sees and signs? Oh, good question. How does the answer change for either way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
Devor posted:If your complaint is "This is 1100 Maple Ave, not 1200 Maple Ave, John Smith doesn't live here" can you suppress the weed they found in plain view Technically, the answer to this question is that the police need to have a right to be in the place where they saw the weed in plain view. So in your example, they don't have a right to be in 1100 Maple Ave. so plain view doctrine wouldn't apply and the evidence should be suppressed. eta: though there are times when they don't need a warrant to enter your house, so if they can show a valid exception it doesn't matter that they went to the wrong house which is where Heironymous Alloy's post comes in Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Oh, good question. How does the answer change for either way? The answer doesn't change, so much as the number of possible answers goes down as more facts are introduced. To this point you have not given enough facts to get an actual answer but here are the general differences A 'Divorce' is a legal proceeding that results in a decree(judgment ) signed by a judge. That decree may, in addition to dissolving the marriage, order a specific division of property, custody of children, assumption of debts, and, relevant to this question, spousal maintenance or support for a period of time. Someone who violates that order by not paying the thing they were supposed to pay under that order can get tattled on, to the judge, and get in trouble. The judge can award enforcing party, in addition to the unpaid maintenance, the costs an attorney's fees for having to go to the court and tattle. An oral agreement to pay someone money on a regular basis Is an agreement to make a gift. Contracts for gifts are generally unenforceable. However, in the context of a divorce or an otherwise dissolved relationship, there may be other consideration that renders that agreement enforceable somehow. (Super unlikely I would imagine, but whatever, anything is possible) It could be in the context of a common law marriage where one party gave up the house and the other party agreed to support or something, there could be an estoppel argument. At any rate, If this agreement is outside the context of the divorce decree then you have to go to court on a breach of contract action. If there was a divorce with this agreement was ancillary to the divorce decree and not specifically listed in it, then you're going to have trouble getting it enforced. I'm confident that whoever this is happening to doesn't know enough about their situation to appraise the validity of their claim and they should go visit an attorney about it. Probably specifically a family law attorney of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
Oh, sure, of course. It’s little more than idle curiosity. I heard of the scenario—or at least, my understanding of it: an ex-husband ‘suing’ the mom to stop having to provide financial assistance to her/his child; ‘here take a small amount of cash and never bother me again.’ Assuming the assistance was part of the divorce, it seems unlikely the father would win a ‘I want to get rid of my legal obligation’ suit, so I came here to ask about situations in which that would be successful, and not just a griefing attempt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Oh, sure, of course. Varies by state, but generally the right to child support belongs to the child and can't be waived by the child's guardian, in divorce or otherwise. Consider a divorce where the wife later leaves the child with a new guardian - it's in society's interest that the child can obtain support from the dad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
How do y'all feel about the changes in Oregon allowing bar-less attorney licensing? https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/no-bar-exam-required-practice-law-oregon-starting-next-year-2023-11-07/ Instead of sitting for the bar, folx will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and create a portfolio of legal work for review. Is this an overall good? Is the bar exam an artificial barrier to entry for law grads? Is this a chance to make better lawyers by having mentorship instead of a standardized test right after graduation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EvidenceProf/status/1277015529899864066?t=UyhV9H3-qUvPHG5m3s8VzA&s=19 Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Here in Oregon we have a lack of defense lawyers and each are overburdened with far too many cases, which means people aren't provided their constitutional right to an attorney. It's been an issue for a while and it looks like their solution is similar to what other states/counties are doing for the lack of teachers: Just let random people take some training and call it a day. I'm sure it'll be fine and not at all a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:How do y'all feel about the changes in Oregon allowing bar-less attorney licensing? This is actually a great idea so long as it is preceded by a 5 year minimum law degree at a university level and no less than 3 390 hours practice under supervision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:This is actually a great idea so long as it is preceded by a 5 year minimum law degree at a university level and no less than 3 390 hours practice under supervision. Aren’t JDs typically 3 years full time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
Because my license to be an attorney took me seven loving years PLUS a bar exam and I don't think anyone should get away with an iota less than that and wait what do you mean I make less than a business major YOU MOTHERFUCKERS
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Aren’t JDs typically 3 years full time? What's a JD lol? Junior Doctor or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Honestly mentorship makes more sense and does a better job teaching the law than the American law school model -- unless you don't have a dad's friend who is a lawyer to hire you for a summer so you get your mentee hours. I know a lot of lovely lawyers who passed the bar exam and a fair number of great paralegals who would be great lawyers if they had passed. The main thing the legal profession needs is a working rear end in a top hat test. If we could cattle bolt everyone who just wanted to be a lawyer so they could legally bully people, we'd all be much better off. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Aren’t JDs typically 3 years full time? In America. In Europe they don't have that hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Apprenticeships have significant disadvantages along with the many advantages. I'm not familiar with lawyer apprenticeships, of course, but in the trades it means you are kind of rolling the dice whether you get a good teacher and mentor or a bad one, and apprentices who have lovely mentors tend to wash out. "My teacher sucks can I have a different one" doesn't have a good enough process supporting it, often. A good apprenticeship program has you working for many different journeymen/masters over the course of a few years so you get that breadth of instruction and only have to deal with that one lovely guy for hopefully a few months. I hope a lawyer apprenticeship program would do something similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:How do y'all feel about the changes in Oregon allowing bar-less attorney licensing? Sitting there asking the panel “is a closing set a legal writing sample” like Patrick asking whether mayonnaise is an instrument
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
In reality it would be a sweatshop for grown up babies
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:In reality it would be a sweatshop for grown up babies Nah, there would be two versions. "Dad, can you sign off on my hours at your firm" vs "sorry the tracking software says you're six minutes short, so we can't count this pay period in your numbers"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
Devor posted:Varies by state, but generally the right to child support belongs to the child and can't be waived by the child's guardian, in divorce or otherwise. In this situation would the mother and father be required to provide child support?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nah, there would be two versions. Our state has a law reader program and in my experience 100% of them are option 1. They are uniformly terribly lawyers and really, really fun to eviscerate in litigation because they give the whole affluenza mental breakdown at facing consequences bit. Usually that's just from old dinosaur Lionel Hutzes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
The only way it really works is with a two tier system. You get a law degree, you can work as a law expert. You apprentice with the courts, prosecution or attorney's office as a trainee attorney where you have requirements such as "complete at least three big boy court cases robes and all" and train for two years and do a bar exam and do uni level attorney training, then you can be a big boy lawyer and do real law poo poo for real money where people finally take you seriously. This is a great system and has no problems at all, nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Yeah it’s gonna take a while im sure there will be an appeal attempt. Appeal filed, unsurprisingly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
We have a postgrad diploma you have to do which involves a period of 1-3 months on internship (sometimes paid sometimes not) before you can be a lawyer, but once you become one you have to do two years of supervised practice before you're allowed to strike out on your own. It's not a perfect system for ensuring competence but what is? I think it strikes a good balance of making sure that lawyers at least have a chance to learn good lawyer skills before they're allowed to gently caress up with no oversight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
The article also says that the state's three law schools will have the last two years be 'practice based course work' and that will also be a path to licensing. So the local yokels will have a fast track to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
Oregon just finally got rid of the mandatory gas station pumper jobs, the job market's gotta make room for that fresh batch of unemployed people somewhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
Javid posted:Oregon just finally got rid of the mandatory gas station pumper jobs, the job market's gotta make room for that fresh batch of unemployed people somewhere Only half of them last I heard but another year or two they’ll all be gone. Going to Costco right after was great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Javid posted:Oregon just finally got rid of the mandatory gas station pumper jobs, the job market's gotta make room for that fresh batch of unemployed people somewhere There are still two cities in Metro Vancouver that ban self-serve gas pumps! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 08:07
|
|
