|
Shout out to that in court who leaps into the fray without hesitation.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Hey. In California, specifically san jose. we recieved a 60 day lease cancellation notice on november 7th. does that mean that we need to be out of here as of the 6th or as of the 7th 60 days from november 7th is January 6th i had been assuming we had until the 7th, IE: we could finish moving on the 6th. Nea fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 04:55
|
|
|
Nea posted:Hey. In California, specifically san jose. we recieved a 60 day lease cancellation notice on november 7th. does that mean that we need to be out of here as of the 6th or as of the 7th i think you have a month incorrect in your post, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
I meant January 6th the second time. 60 days from november 7th is january 6th.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
What day did your landlord say to be out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:12
|
|
|
They did not provide a specific day, it was just '60 days from service of notice', which is why I wasn't certain and am asking it here. If they gave me a specific day I wouldn't have to ask. Or, let me get the specific wording. 'Your month to month tenancy of the hereafter indicated premises is terminated 60 days following the date of service upon you of this notice'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:14
|
|
|
It might be worthwhile to call them in the morning and ask "is it ok to drop off the keys sunday?" I'm not trying to be flippant. I've got no idea what california law is. I just think they'll probably not care too much if they get the keys on either day they're not going to gently caress around with the place until Monday at the earliest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It might be worthwhile to call them in the morning and ask "is it ok to drop off the keys sunday?" I'll try. I asked him to give us more time in the first place and he basically flat out refused and went on little rants so i truly doubt he's going to be agreeable on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:18
|
|
|
I mean, if this is an individual and they're being a shithead, is it really worth the stress of a fight about it even if you're technically in the right? Sometimes it's good to just do whatever necessary to exercise stressful people from your life. If never having to deal with this person again is worthwhile, there is a path of least resistance if they insist you're out Saturday. e: i've found two different sites that say different things. you might technically have until monday. a california lawyer would know better I don't know poo poo. regardless, asking the dude is the fastest way to resolution. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I mean, if this is an individual and they're being a shithead, is it really worth the stress of a fight about it even if you're technically in the right? Sometimes it's good to just do whatever necessary to exercise stressful people from your life. If never having to deal with this person again is worthwhile, there is a path of least resistance if they insist you're out Saturday. yeah it's mostly just if i had an extra day we don't have to move as much poo poo today as we would otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
If it's ambiguous and your landlord is an rear end in a top hat he's going to interpret it against you regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
Unemployment question. This is in California. My wife had a full time W-2 job, and she started her own business on the side. The side business is something she is going to make a career of but she couldn’t keep it and her full time job going at the same time so she asked for a reduction in hours. Her employer said no but that they’d keep her around at a reduction of hours until they hired her replacement and she trained them. Now a couple months later the replacement is in place and she only has a couple more weeks with the company. Her new thing is ramping up but she isn’t making as much from it as she did her old work yet. It’ll get there but it could be several months. I was under the impression that, since she was still willing to work the reduced hours and her employer is letting her go anyway, that she would be able to claim partial unemployment for the difference between what she’s making with the new thing and what she made before. She doesn’t think she can, and I haven’t really been able to find this specific situation online. Does anyone know if an unemployment claim is worth filing in this situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
I was able to get in contact with the lawyer that I'm planning on suing my landlord with, thankfully, so I know now we do in fact have tomorrow to move as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
Nea posted:I was able to get in contact with the lawyer that I'm planning on suing my landlord with, thankfully, so I know now we do in fact have tomorrow to move as well. awesome. After you move all your poo poo out clean the place and take video so you don't get shafted when the landlord invents damages claims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Do any of the other states have any recompense against Abbott's migrant scheme other than hoping the Feds get off their rear end? If the New York AG or whoever determines Abbott is human trafficking migrants, what are some options? How does jurisdiction work? Is it where the migrants depart from or where they arrive? Theoretically for criminal charges, if an act that's one of the elements of a crime takes place in a state or the result of the crime takes place in a state that state has jurisdiction. So if you stand in South Carolina and shoot someone across the border in North Carolina, both states have jurisdiction over you. South Carolina because you committed an act (firing the gun) and North Carolina because of the result (getting shot). If New York decides that Abbot has committed human trafficking and the result is in New York then yeah they could charge him. I have no idea what New York's human trafficking statute says so I'm not sure if anything Abbot did could technically meet that definition anyway. The more likely thing someone would do would be to sue to enjoin from migrant dumping. If New York is suing Texas, then it's a controversy between two US States and the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over the case. If a private citizen were to do it, it gets complicated based on whether they want to sue in state or federal court, but suffice to say it's a lot harder. In any event, a major problem to get past is a basic political issue-- if you want to sue over this, you're going to have to argue that having these undocumented people in your state harms your state/citizens somehow. And that's really what Abbot wants; he's not doing this because he thinks it's good policy (or even the least bad option of handling undocumented people) he just wants to prove that everybody that isn't horsewhipping immigrants back across the border are hypocrites who are able to run their mouths because they're not the ones on the border dealing with it. If you're charging him with a crime, you run into a similar problem because now Abbot gets to say that you're trying to secure your border with cops, you just think flyover states are less than you and don't deserve to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
I mean, it seems like instead you could argue that having people dumped in your city by surprise at midnight harms those people
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 23:22
|
|
i like nice words
|
I got a letter/invoice in the mail from a private parking lot company with a photo of my car entering their lot and then exiting 20 minutes later, asking for $87 for not paying posted parking fees. A couple months later I received a letter from a law firm trying to collect on the debt, with instructions how to dispute the debt, else they will assume their information is correct and continue trying to collect. I’m 99% sure this is bogus as I personally did not enter into a contract with this company in any way (fun fact: I was not driving this car on this day!) and the car was never parked, just idling with someone inside who would have simply left if there was an attendant or tow truck coming. I’m 99% sure they legally must collect from a specified person, not just a car, and they are unaware of who was driving that day because they never spoke to that driver. They just mailed to the person on the title (me) and hoped to get lucky. Please tell me if I am in the clear here, I would also know the legal specifics of why, and maybe also what to ask for in the validation letter. Edit: Texas
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:I mean, it seems like instead you could argue that having people dumped in your city by surprise at midnight harms those people Can't sue on somebody else's behalf*, if the harm is to that particular person, that person has to be the one to sue. In that instance, you have the issues of a private party trying to overcome sovereign immunity and sue a state government + the fact that undocumented people are unlikely to want to go to court. Maybe for something outside the box, you could argue immigration policy is intended to be set by the federal government and by migrant dumping Abbot is essentially usurping federal policymaking powers for himself? Feels thin, though. * there are instances when you can, like if there's some sort of special relationship and that person isn't competent, but usually it has to be the one feeling the harm. Technically, a class action can be suing on behalf of others, but you still need a representative member of the class to step forward. Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jan 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
Good luck in your battle with Metropolis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
Also, typically speaking, your car is parked whether you’re sitting in it or not. The fact that the person you loaned the car to was just idling in the car doesn’t negate that they were parked in a paid parking lot. If that were true you could always just have someone in your car and never pay for parking again! One neat trick that doesn’t actually work, though. Also, in most states, TX included, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for parking tickets. This is the danger of letting someone else drive your car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Also, typically speaking, your car is parked whether you’re sitting in it or not. The fact that the person you loaned the car to was just idling in the car doesn’t negate that they were parked in a paid parking lot. If that were true you could always just have someone in your car and never pay for parking again! One neat trick that doesn’t actually work, though. How about the guy on i10 in arizona that got away with rampant speeding because he wore a monkey mask.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:is responsible for parking tickets. My understanding is that this is not actually a parking ticket but a “breach of contract”. Am I responsible for contracts via my car?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:How about the guy on i10 in arizona that got away with rampant speeding because he wore a monkey mask. 👑
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:My understanding is that this is not actually a parking ticket but a “breach of contract”. Am I responsible for contracts via my car? IDK about Texas, but at least in my state there's a legal presumption that the owner of the car is the driver and is responsible for what happens with the car. You would have to rebut that, probably by having your friend testify that he was the one driving and thus the one owing the money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:My understanding is that this is not actually a parking ticket but a “breach of contract”. Am I responsible for contracts via my car? That's a really specific question that we likely won't be able to help you with. You can hire a local lawyer to answer that for you. You can also ask in the debt collection thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3234974
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer. You are going to ruin your credit and/or pay much more in legal costs to fight the private parking lot scam business and lose anyway, rather than pay $87, and in the end even if you win you still lose. It sucks but your best interest is to just pay up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
I also am not a lawyer. Fight the man and give us updates, for our
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
I mean, did you follow the dispute procedure? You might be able to call them, explain what happened, and just pay the parking fee and not the penalty. If you don't, they may send you to collections. You will be hounded for the amount owed now plus fees. They might be spiteful enough to put it on your credit report. You might win a credit dispute, but it will still be poo poo you have to deal with. If you ever drive into one of their parking lots again, they will immediately dispatch someone to tow/boot you. Your current car and possible all cars registered to you will be forever barred from pay lots owned by this company. If you want to sue them, it's going to cost you filing fees that are more than the current amount owed. If you wait for them to sue you, you may lose and then have an actual judgment against you. You can argue that you never personally contracted with them. The court's probably going to rule, though, that you're responsible for things someone does in your car. This is no different than parking illegally and getting a ticket. It doesn't matter who was driving, and it doesn't matter if someone is sitting in the car. Leaving the car on doesn't change the fact that you're still parked. The car owner is responsible for the parking ticket - not the driver. Or, you might win and not have to pay $87 at the expense of spending a lot of money on a lawyer who will work hourly plus all the costs. I'm not a lawyer anymore and never practiced in Texas, and I'm definitely not giving any legal advice. This is just practical advice. Call the number on the ticket, try to haggle, and pay whatever amount is the final amount is. Following that, talk with whoever had your car about where they park. Even idling in a pay lot is still parking. The car was sitting in the parking lot the entire time. It doesn't matter if someone was in the car. If they can't find free parking, they have to pay to park. This sucks, but such is life living in big city in Texas. Private lots are allowed to charge for parking, and your car was parked in a private lot. They have video proof of this. You've got a major uphill battle against a company that does this all the time and are not likely to succeed. You don't have an issue with the parking lot company - you have an issue with the person who was driving your car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
Cage posted:I got bit by a dog and went to city court to file a dangerous dog report. The court then mailed a copy of the report and court summons to me very quickly, maybe 3-4 days tops. I had court 11/13 and the judge ordered the guy to pay for my medical bills (only $40 but f you, guy) and said we would each be getting something in the mail stating that and the judges other rulings. How long should I expect to wait to receive this? I assume things move very slow but the first summons came so quickly. BigHead posted:In my experience it'd be pretty quick. Judges like that - muni ticket guys - have eight billion cases so if things get delayed they snowball very quickly. That gives them incentive to move things out the door asap. Call the courthouse and see if you can swing by and pick up a copy. So uh, how do I actually collect my money? Again, its only $40 and I don't need it at all so collecting it will just be for spite. nycourts.gov posted:When you win a Judgment in City Court, the Court sends a Notice of Judgment to the parties. The losing party, the Debtor, has thirty (30) days to pay the Judgment. The winning party, the Creditor, should first contact the losing party, the Debtor, to attempt to collect the judgment. If the Debtor fails to pay, the winning party, the Creditor, may take steps to collect or execute the Judgment including:
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 01:48
|
|
|
Yup you can call him and ask him. Comedy spite option is file a lien against his house. Other than that I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
Cage posted:Yay, thanks! They didn't know why I didn't receive it yet but now I have it in my possession! I think the exact page you were looking at can help you (and if not, look here: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/AfterCourt/collectionBasics.shtml ) Basically, you probably want to look into either a stop withdrawal notice at their bank or a land lien if they own property. (The other options require you to pay fees to an enforcement officer which probably isn’t worth it, though if you’re just going for spite it’s hard to beat wage garnishment where you’re getting some of the money they work for AND letting their boss know they’re a deadbeat.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
I watched "The Sound of Freedom" last night. It is about DHS agent Tim Ballard going rogue and rescuing young children from sex trafficking in Central America. Wikipedia tells me that the movie is highly fictionalized and maybe Tim Ballard isn't quite the squeaky-clean hero the movie makes him out to be, but let's stay in the context of the movie. There is a part where he rescues a child by posing as a pedophile and renting a young boy (less than 10 years old, I'd guess) from the trafficker/"owner" of the boy. When the trafficker shows up at the border, he is arrested and the boy is saved. The boy has "lacerations that are consistent with sexual assault". We have the trafficker who has agreed to prostitute the child, with the boy in the car, getting arrested on the way to meet with the DHS agent. As a criminal defense attorney, what possible defense could you come up with? I get that everybody deserves a fair trial, no matter how guilty and despicable their crimes are. Do you not even try to fight the crimes that he is clearly guilty of and push for a lighter sentence? Are there situations where a crime, such as this, is so disgusting that no criminal defense attorney would be willing to represent the defendant?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Are there situations where a crime, such as this, is so disgusting that no criminal defense attorney would be willing to represent the defendant? Nope. There is always someone willing to fight for the rights of child sex traffickers. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz. Sometimes, yes, minimizing sentencing is your primary goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
Well, you could argue jurisdiction for one thing; why is America prosecuting alleged crimes in Mexico? That just gets your client remanded though. So you're better off arguing 4th amendment exclusion, this vigilante hero nutjob probably did something that violates due process. https://wondermark.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2006-04-25-178evidence-1024x395.png Basically defend the way Trump is defending all the allegations against him. Nobody is claiming he is innocent, he's just throwing up as much chaff as he can and hoping for a lucky break. That said most criminal defendants are guilty to at least some degree. Maybe overcharged sure but one big reason most defendants plead is that most defendants are at least somewhat guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Depending on how they messaged each other ahead of time, and whether / how the father confessed, you might be able to suggest issues with the chain of custody. Maybe he made it all up to pretend to be a hero, because actual police work is hard? Having not watched the movie, nor wanting to, where, how, by whom, and on what grounds was he initially confronted and then same for how he was affected. If this guy shows up at the border and this agent says "There he is, the pedophile I was talking to!" I would imagine you could get a different result than being randomly selected for a search and having this guy Kramer his way in. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I watched "The Sound of Freedom" last night. It is about DHS agent Tim Ballard going rogue and rescuing young children from sex trafficking in Central America. Wikipedia tells me that the movie is highly fictionalized and maybe Tim Ballard isn't quite the squeaky-clean hero the movie makes him out to be, but let's stay in the context of the movie. There is a part where he rescues a child by posing as a pedophile and renting a young boy (less than 10 years old, I'd guess) from the trafficker/"owner" of the boy. When the trafficker shows up at the border, he is arrested and the boy is saved. The boy has "lacerations that are consistent with sexual assault". We have the trafficker who has agreed to prostitute the child, with the boy in the car, getting arrested on the way to meet with the DHS agent. Anders Behring Breivik who infamously murdered 77 people including 69 children in a Labour party youth camp, received a vigorous defence from a very competent attorney of his choice (Geir Lippestad) paid for by the state. The crime is impossible to defend, but Lippestad did a lot to prevent the guy from getting a insanity verdict (which in Norway is worse and definitely against the defendant's wishes). The kicker? Lippestad defended the guy to the best of his ability, even though he himself was a Labour party member and politician and even served as a city council member for Labour 2015-2019. He had strong reservations against it, but had a job to do and he did it. When you are a lawyer it's not about you and you don't habe the luxury of letting your feelings get in the way. It's about the job and importance of due process, and a role that must be performed for the good of society as a whole. You don't have to accept an idea to be able to entertain it, and you don't have to like a guy to be able to defend him. E: Oh by the way, ABB is suing the norwegian state again for how his prison time is a violation of his human rights. Started yesterday. Apparently he's too isolated, can't make friends and even though he's allowed pets in his cells as well as visits, apparently it's all too cruel for him. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
I understand the importance of due process and making sure that everybody gets a fair trial. If were talking about an adult that kidnapped and literally butt hosed an 8 year old child many times, is there a point where defense attorneys will draw the line between "this is a good career move for me" and "I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
What about defending that person would be a bad career move?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I watched "The Sound of Freedom" last night. It is about DHS agent Tim Ballard going rogue and rescuing young children from sex trafficking in Central America. Wikipedia tells me that the movie is highly fictionalized and maybe Tim Ballard isn't quite the squeaky-clean hero the movie makes him out to be, but let's stay in the context of the movie. There is a part where he rescues a child by posing as a pedophile and renting a young boy (less than 10 years old, I'd guess) from the trafficker/"owner" of the boy. When the trafficker shows up at the border, he is arrested and the boy is saved. The boy has "lacerations that are consistent with sexual assault". We have the trafficker who has agreed to prostitute the child, with the boy in the car, getting arrested on the way to meet with the DHS agent. There are all sorts of ways to defend it. Jurisdiction, like Hieronymous Alloy pointed out. Rogue agents by definition break laws, tell lies and disobey orders to get what they want. What makes you think he's going to start following rules and being honest at trial? (Plus all the actual illegal and crooked poo poo that's come out about him) The trial is to figure out if the defendant is a child trafficker, so you don't get to start out with rogue agent's belief that the defendant is a trafficker. The prosecution is probably going to be stuck with no admissible evidence that defendant did anything except accompany a kid to the border. How do we know he's the one rogue agent talked with on the phone? If the government, not a rogue agent, thought there might be trafficking going on, there would have been an actual investigation - with actual evidence to connect defendant and his associates to sex trafficking. "Consistent with sexual assault" is also likely to be consistent with passing a hard stool, and most of the time the medical professionals testifying for the government in cases like this are government hacks whose offices and practices exist to try criminal cases, not help kids. How do we even know that defendant caused whatever is consistent with sexual assault? If the kid testifies, things get more difficult. (Unless kid gets deported or Abbot disappears him to Philadelphia) Still you can attack the manner of the kid's interrogation. Questioning a child without suggesting to them what you want to hear is hard. If the government didn't do it right, that's their problem. Cross examining an alleged sexual assault victim who is a child loving sucks If the kid talks and is consistent and moderately clear about the 5Ws, and the forensic interview doesn't suck, it's going to be really bad for the defendant. there's probably more, but gotta go to court (to defend those people) joat mon fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
There's probably some defense lawyers who don't believe in the right of every defendant to a vigorous defense, but I'd guess they're in the minority. Just to be a defense lawyer you pretty much have to accept that as a basic premise and once you accept that, you don't get to become the judge who draws lines and decides some people are just guilty enough pre-trial to not deserve a vigorous defense, an idea that invalidates the notion of trials being the appropriate place to determine degrees of guilt and punishments. "Success" as a defense attorney isn't solely measured by acquittals. If you successfully get your guilty client a better sentence than they might have gotten, that is a type of success. Even if you don't, if you successfully held the government and its agents to the highest standard of proof, that is still a success in that it contributes to a fairer, more just society to live in. Force the government to prove its case to a rigorous standard and you're doing your job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:59
|
|