|
sullat posted:Well, as long as it is only used on sovereign citizens, it should be OK. How do you even taze a sovereign citizen since there is no joinder between them and their body 
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
xxEightxx posted:How do you even taze a sovereign citizen since there is no joinder between them and their body You're tazing their corporate self. By piercing the corporate veil they are electromagnetically joindered. This won't work on room temperature superincorporating sovereign citizens of course, but it works just fine on the older models.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
#WeAreP.Barnes
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
So the landlord stated in his letter that the place was not rented out until the First of February. I know he's full of poo poo and the new tenants had entered a change of address before the 21st as I saw it when I went to get my mail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Do you know if the tenants were physically in possession before February 1st? Did you drive by the apartment and knock on the door?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
There were new dog tracks and a light was on/new curtains. I did not knock though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
So what are my options if my employer leaks my SSN, Name, DOB, Address and Salary via a phishing e-mail? Do I have to experience damages? I don't give a poo poo about credit monitoring, that's a thin bandaid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
So, the Oregon militants? They have legal representation, and there are ethics questions being raised about their lawyer's interactions with the militants before, during and after the occupation. By that I mean jurisdiction conduct violations, not "ew, lawyers". Here's the article describing the situation. It sounds like some of the concerns were a) violating jurisdictional self-promotion rules and b) giving legal advice on how to perform the occupation, i.e. how to break the law. Thoughts? edit: for added fun, I can't tell if this is the same Michael Arnold: quote:C. MICHAEL ARNOLD
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is. The police report is way funnier too. AlternateAccount posted:So what are my options if my employer leaks my SSN, Name, DOB, Address and Salary via a phishing e-mail? Do I have to experience damages? I don't give a poo poo about credit monitoring, that's a thin bandaid. This may depend on the state. I know CA has some stricter rules than the feds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:40
|
|
nm posted:It is. The police report is way funnier too. Can you share?  I'm also genuinely curious about the legal ethics of their interactions with the occupiers.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So, the Oregon militants? They have legal representation, and there are ethics questions being raised about their lawyer's interactions with the militants before, during and after the occupation. By that I mean jurisdiction conduct violations, not "ew, lawyers".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I'm kind of fumbling through choosing a divorce lawyer because I've never had to do anything like this before. Is there a resource for figuring out a reasonable retainer for a given area? It seems like cost is all over the place with the ones I've spoken to. The hourly for all I've spoken with has been between $200-300, but the retainers are ranging like crazy. I really like one that has a high retainer but I'm nervous about fronting so much and getting burned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
It really depends on how nasty you're expecting the divorce to be. If is amicable, it can be relatively inexpensive, all told. If it's going to be a bitter fight, get ready to spread 'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
The unused portion of the retainer should be returned to you. I don't know how common that actually is though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:38
|
|
joat mon posted:Sounds like they're trying to chill the provision of legal counsel to unpopular groups and people. Really? Because it seems like the lawyer was actually advising them on which crimes to commit and how- and that they were promoting themselves in a manner that violates state bar rules.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
In Ohio, my dads attorney was 150/hr and my mom's was 200. It was ugly and my dad ended up spending around 4-5k all told. My mom probably spent more like 10-12k because she is insane and made that lawyer attempt all manner of shenanigans. Whatever you do, get an attorney that is responsive, realistic, and above all instills a sense of confidence regarding his/her ability to represent you. My dads attorney has done a poor job of all of the above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:In Ohio, my dads attorney was 150/hr and my mom's was 200. It was ugly and my dad ended up spending around 4-5k all told. My mom probably spent more like 10-12k because she is insane and made that lawyer attempt all manner of shenanigans. Thanks, that's seriously helpful. The guy with the large retainer comes across as very reasonable and strategic. He knows I'm not after money, I just want out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
You don't have children, or a house, and you're only pretty sure your husband won't sign off on an agreed divorce, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Sounds like they're trying to chill the provision of legal counsel to unpopular groups and people. Yeah, if you replaced the militant group with any other group receiving the exact same behavior and I don't see how it's violating anything. But since people hate these militiamen then clearly anyone helping them must be violating any/all laws and regulations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Explaining what laws people may or may not be breaking/have broken and telling them how to do what they want without breaking the law is pretty much the definition of being a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Really? Because it seems like the lawyer was actually advising them on which crimes to commit and how- and that they were promoting themselves in a manner that violates state bar rules. My crappy computer logged me out of SA and ate my effort post. Short version: Please list what crimes the attorneys advised Bundy to commit and how. Please list how their solicitation violates the bar rules. Read Oregon PRCs 1.16 and 1.6 Note that busting confidentiality to report your client's intent to commit a crime is discretionary and terminating representation for your clients intent to commit or completion of a crime or fraud is also discretionary. Advising a person what laws they're breaking isn't improper. Having that person stop committing those crimes does not make giving the advice improper. Bundy having others commit those crimes may be lovely on Bundy's part, but that's not on the lawyers. Direct solicitation where pecuniary interest is a significant motive for the contact is improper. (OPRC 7.3) Indirect solicitation (i.e, not in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact) is OK. What evidence is there that the very first contact any attorneys had with Bundy was direct? Even if direct, what evidence is there that providing free legal services establishes that pecuniary interest is a significant motive for providing free legal services?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Lawyers provide pro bono services in the hope to get more paid work all the time. If I offer to set up someone's LLC for them free of charge, then they pay me to represent them in a lawsuit, I'm being unethical? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
I moved out of an apartment a few months ago and now the landlord is claiming I didn't give notice. I sent the notice via fax, which I kept a copy of. I also have records of calling their office more than once to try and make sure they got the notice. They never called back. I moved out as planned and now they want rent through January. They're threatening to take me to court. Is this something I can fight or am I boned because I didn't send the notice via certified mail?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Deuce posted:I moved out of an apartment a few months ago and now the landlord is claiming I didn't give notice. Does your lease define what type of notice is required?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Does your lease define what type of notice is required? It just says written notice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:37
|
|
joat mon posted:My crappy computer logged me out of SA and ate my effort post. Short version: quote:Another question hanging over the case is whether attorneys advised militant leaders to pin certain crimes on younger militants and new recruits. joat mon posted:Direct solicitation where pecuniary interest is a significant motive for the contact is improper. (OPRC 7.3) quote:Lissa Casey and Mike Arnold, the head of the Arnold Law Firm, confirmed that Ammon Bundy did not contact the firm, but rather attorneys for the firm went to meet the militants face-to-face. Phil Moscowitz posted:Lawyers provide pro bono services in the hope to get more paid work all the time. If you do provide free services with that motivation by making first contact in person in OR, that's an ethics violation. They're also apparently arguing both sides of relationship formation: quote:One of the key questions is when Ammon Bundy became a client of the Arnold Law Firm, and whether the firm approached him to solicit his business. Casey said she and Boender drove to the refuge to advise the armed militants as they occupied the refuge.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Deuce posted:I moved out of an apartment a few months ago and now the landlord is claiming I didn't give notice. What state
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:What state Minnesota.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:He was apparently advising them on what offenses could do what in advance of their doing them. 2 and 3: Are you seriously saying that it is unethical for attorneys to make a list of laws to steer clear of breaking, and unethical to give a potential or actual client a list of laws the attorney believed had been broken? I don't want to sound like a dick, but this is really fundamental. Does the explanation of "how is leggal avize formed?" need more detail? (OK, I was being a dick there) Even if the advised person goes on to break those listed laws, there's still no ethical violation on the attorney's part. Even if the advised person then directs others to break the listed laws, there's still no ethical violation on the attorney's part. Even if the attorney advised the person that as a leader of the group, the feds will be trying to crawl up their rear end with a magnifying glass to find crimes to pin on him, but that the followers might not get the same scrutiny, there's still no ethical violation on the attorney's part. In any event, there isn't a speck of evidence of this having occurred. Discendo Vox posted:
Discendo Vox posted:
What record is there of the initial, direct contact with Bundy? The reporter wasn't there. Maybe somebody stopped the lawyers at the entrance to Y'all Qaeda's HQ and asked them what they were doing? Did Bundy have a chance to say, no, they don't come in? If so, the solicitation was arguably converted to indirect. See generally, the ABA comments on 7.3 Again, you're copthreading here; in the absence of necessary facts, creating the facts that your narrative requires. Discendo Vox posted:They're also apparently arguing both sides of relationship formation:  I'll give the reporter a pass because he/she's probably not a lawyer. The attorney client privilege is created the moment a potential client opens their mouth and says something that the client would reasonably expect to be held privileged. (Otherwise, how could an attorney hear enough to decide whether to take a case and how much to charge?) (See rule 1.18) The attorney client relationship is a distinctly separate, more formal arrangement that occurs when an attorney is retained. E: If you want your head to explode, watch Anatomy of a Murder with Jimmy Stewart. joat mon fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
~Calm down, buddy~ I'm arguing the article as presented so I can get lawgoon opinions back to the DnD thread. joat mon posted:2 and 3: Are you seriously saying that it is unethical for attorneys to make a list of laws to steer clear of breaking, and unethical to give a potential or actual client a list of laws the attorney believed had been broken? I don't want to sound like a dick, but this is really fundamental. Does the explanation of "how is leggal avize formed?" need more detail? (OK, I was being a dick there) joat mon posted:Give me a citation to that OR ethics opinion. The ABA model rules use the same language, my state does, and I'm sure most other state bars do, too. A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. If we're assuming a motive of future paying work by the client, as in Phil Moscowitz's example, and if the lawyer's own office is accurate in saying that their initial contact was intentional and in person, then it seems like a straightforward violation. joat mon posted:Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that pecuniary interest was a significant factor in their providing free legal advice, Which comment on 7.3 are you referring to? I don't see anything relevant-7 maybe, but it's a real stretch. And please give me a little more credit than to say I'm copthreading, you fascist racist. How many child murderers have you freed so far today? *insert unnecessarily detailed threat of physical harm here* joat mon posted:I'll give the reporter a pass because he/she's probably not a lawyer. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You don't have children, or a house, and you're only pretty sure your husband won't sign off on an agreed divorce, right? No kids, no property, no idea how my husband is going to react.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
The willingness and hope for future work may be a motivation but the number one and most significant motivation is to provide legal advice to individuals who likely can't get access to quality legal advice. Pro bono publico if you will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
finch in a pinch posted:No kids, no property, no idea how my husband is going to react. So your husband doesn't know you want a divorce? I'm going to give you the same advice my divorce lawyer gave me. You can just have him served with papers, but if you want it to be as amicable as possible, maybe talk it over with him before you rush out and get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
finch in a pinch posted:No kids, no property, no idea how my husband is going to react. Main Issues that can be contested during a divorce: - Custody and Visitation - Spousal Maintenance/Alimony (in certain states) - Division of Marital Estate (house, cars, retirement, savings, furniture, etc.) - Assumption of liabilities (who's going to pay for joint credit cards, other secured and unsecured debts) - Other stuff *Note: because you are cheating on your husband, its possible that the Court could grant an unequal division of the estate, if there is an estate to divide.* Things that cannot be contested during a divorce: - Whether or not to grant the divorce. Final Note: If you aren't grounded enough in reality to understand or appraise your own mental health/relationship maybe your number 1 priority doesn't need to be finding a place to shack up with the new guy. But I'm not a mental health professional. Also, are you sure you have to be let out of your old lease to get a new place? Did the new leasing office tell you that? How confident are you that your soon-to-be ex is going to just bail on paying rent and leave you both eating a couple months worth of unpaid rent?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm arguing the article as presented so I can get lawgoon opinions back to the DnD thread. So you are asking "how is leggal avize formed?" But you're asking for a friend! It's hard to get people switched from thinking tribally (sociologically speaking) to thinking humanistically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
For anyone confused as hell right now (like I was until I checked the post history): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3763258&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I check the history of every person who posts a question in this thread that I'm considering responding to. I thought everyone did that? [Be advised, Bad Decision Goons]
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Main Issues that can be contested during a divorce: No actual estate to speak of and my state is no fault. I'm not looking for spousal support, we have separate accounts, our cars are each in our own names and paid off, and he makes a lot more money than I do so me supporting him would be laughable. The most expensive thing we have to bicker about is the vacuum and he can keep it. blarzgh posted:If you aren't grounded enough in reality to understand or appraise your own mental health/relationship maybe your number 1 priority doesn't need to be finding a place to shack up with the new guy. But I'm not a mental health professional. My number 1 priority is finding a place to shack up with my dog, not the new guy. I trust my therapist to help me get a better handle on my mental health and relationships, it is a work in progress. This isn't EN and I'm not going to derail into that any further. blarzgh posted:Also, are you sure you have to be let out of your old lease to get a new place? Did the new leasing office tell you that? How confident are you that your soon-to-be ex is going to just bail on paying rent and leave you both eating a couple months worth of unpaid rent? I'm sure, because both the old and new complexes are managed by the same company. It's not a matter of him bailing on rent, just my ability to be free of obligation to it so they approve me for the new lease. I have a backup unrelated complex I may have to go with instead, if things get too messy trying to stay with this company. I'm signing with my lawyer today so I'm going to be getting the rest of my advice from someone with all the details. Thank you to everyone for the help!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
finch in a pinch posted:I'm sure, because both the old and new complexes are managed by the same company. The big companies are always the biggest pains in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Whatever you do, don't interview literally every divorce attorney in town in an attempt to create so much privilege that your partner will be unable to find an attorney. That didn't work out well for a guy on reddit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:42
|
|
