|
InternetRulesLawyer posted:Well the damages are presumed, but are they nominal? Is it worth hiring an attorney and going through a suit, obtaining a judgment, and then trying to collect it out of state? Does the defendant have any assets at all, or it just some dickhead who doesn't like you who lives in an apartment and drives a 1989 Volkswagon? He can probably get punitive (especially for them impugning him in a professional capacity). In that case all I can suggest is that he make a good impression on the Judge/Jury because they're the ones who decide if he gets more than $1.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:He can probably get punitive (especially for them impugning him in a professional capacity). In that case all I can suggest is that he make a good impression on the Judge/Jury because they're the ones who decide if he gets more than $1. An award of punitive damages doesn't help if the defendant is uncollectable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 12:08
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:If "on" is not an option, guess which one you're expected to do?  Some of these questions... honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:If someone is dealing with some cases in the US, with sentencing in a few months, could that person travel out of the country? My friends grandma is extremely sick and he needs to go to Japan to go see her. Would it be just as simple as his lawyer talking to the courts or would it be more complicated then that? Your friend should talk to his attorney.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:They can however fire him for an imagined or nonexistent slight. I'm not as worried about being fired as paying them money they dont deserve. I'm not gonna let them have me just make up an amount and pay it. If they have proof, which would require video proof also, then ok
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
dorkimoe posted:I'm not as worried about being fired as paying them money they dont deserve. I'm not gonna let them have me just make up an amount and pay it. If they have proof, which would require video proof also, then ok Even if they have proof you can force them to sue you. You don't owe them a dime until a court says so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Why are you people debating whether or not suit could be brought in PA? All of the parties live in LA. Why on earth would the plaintiff choose to travel hundreds of miles to prosecute a lawsuit? Some sort of choice-of-law issue relating to damages available for slander, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
My mom lives in New Zealand (I'm in the UK), and has been trying to get a protection order on her husband due to his abusive behaviour (shouting, threatening, generating load arguments, one time grabbed her by the throat, etc.). It went to court today and she didn't get the order; I think that this was essentially because the vast majority of the submitted evidence was that of his word against hers. I think that as there was no solid evidence submitted, and because a protection order would essentially evict him from the house it was thrown out. But one thing that I know is that my mom made recordings of this man's rantings during a heated argument, where he was obviously spoiling for a shouting match, and she was talking quietly and calmly, and I was rather surprised to find that this was never submitted to the court. So my question is this: What is the stance of the NZ courts on evidence admissibility regarding conversations recorded with the knowledge of only one of the parties is aware that they are being recorded? I know that in the US, it varies depending on the state, but there seems to be little information lying around regarding New Zealand evidence law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 05:51
|
|
|
Rohaq posted:My mom lives in New Zealand (I'm in the UK), and has been trying to get a protection order on her husband due to his abusive behaviour (shouting, threatening, generating load arguments, one time grabbed her by the throat, etc.). It went to court today and she didn't get the order; I think that this was essentially because the vast majority of the submitted evidence was that of his word against hers. I think that as there was no solid evidence submitted, and because a protection order would essentially evict him from the house it was thrown out. under section 84 Domestic Violence Act 1995 (which appears to cover protection orders in this sort of case..), "In any proceedings under this Act (other than criminal proceedings), and whether by way of hearing in the first instance or by way of appeal, or otherwise, the Court may receive any evidence that it thinks fit, whether or not it is otherwise admissible in a court of law." This means that it would come down to whether or not the judge hearing the case wanted it in or not. I have found a couple of family court/high court cases where judges have said about similar one party consent recordings: "well, this evidence might be legal, but it isn't really relevant and it is too easily manipulable and isn't a particularly good look, so we aren't going to admit it". Of course, this is going to depend on the specific facts and context involved in the case, but the judges still weren't rejecting them automatically. It is hard to provide you with a more specific answer given the extremely broad scope of s 84 to allow in any evidence the judge thinks relevant. It appears that there isn't an automatic exclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 09:47
|
|
|
MissConduct posted:I was libeled in print. The party in question sent a hard copy letter to my employer who then forwarded it to me. Well it's good that you're talking to an attorney, because a brief look at LA case law suggests that defamation per se in that state only carries a presumption of falsity and malice; not a presumption of damages. I hope you're not filing on your own. -e- Also, not that it is anything more than persuasive, but the Restatement (Second) of Torts (§571 if anyone is bored) strongly suggests that there are limitations based on the kinds of crimes accused - i.e. was it a crime of moral turpitude, was it a crime in that jurisdiction or others, was it an indictable offense, was it a felony, is the crime punishable by imprisonment in the first instance, etc. These are factors in many states (not necessarily LA) as to whether an accusation of a crime can constitute defamation per se. I'm not saying either way. I'm saying you should let your attorney handle it. Leif. fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 10:38
|
|
|
Too Fresh posted:Hi,
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
Scurvy fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Scurvy posted:My boss has been letting employees go to cut costs, but has been taking on an increasing number of unpaid interns. Does one have to be licensed to do your work? Is the company holding out out any particular level of experience that a customer could reasonably rely on? ("Our employees all have at least 5 year's experience at ______") Otherwise, the market will solve the problem. "They do crappy work, I'll take my business elsewhere." (Sucks to be you, though. Sorry)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Rohaq posted:My mom lives in New Zealand (I'm in the UK), and has been trying to get a protection order on her husband due to his abusive behaviour (shouting, threatening, generating load arguments, one time grabbed her by the throat, etc.). It went to court today and she didn't get the order; I think that this was essentially because the vast majority of the submitted evidence was that of his word against hers. I think that as there was no solid evidence submitted, and because a protection order would essentially evict him from the house it was thrown out. There may be domestic violence/battered woman charities in NZ that could give you mother more practical advice, and perhaps even provide her with McKenzie friend-style representation in court. I know in the UK there is the National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV); it may even be worthwhile ringing them or sending them an email to ask if they know of any similar charities in NZ. edit: MissConduct posted:I learned that the state of Louisiana recognizes something called "Defamation Per Se" which means: Interestingly, these are the same four types of slander that are actionable without proof of damages under English common law. Although, according to my old Tort textbook, no-one has been sued under (i), (ii) or (iv) for over 100 years, and the last case under (iii) appears to have been in the 1940s. But maybe the courts will be happier to let you sue for slander per se in Louisiana. That would at least cut down on all those glove slaps and pistol duels. dogbox fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
I live in Virginia and received a ticket for "Fail to stop for a red light" with the law section listed as this. I was making a right hand turn at the intersection and didn't come to a full stop before doing so. I'm not so concerned about the fine as I am about how my insurance rates might go up with this on my record. Is it worth showing up to court or should I just suck it up and pay it? What would I even do if I went? Is there any other way I might resolve this without going to court? Are there additional court costs if I were to show up? Basically trying to decide what my best course of action is here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
Bandwidth Wagon posted:I live in Virginia and received a ticket for "Fail to stop for a red light" with the law section listed as this. I was making a right hand turn at the intersection and didn't come to a full stop before doing so. I'm not so concerned about the fine as I am about how my insurance rates might go up with this on my record. Is it worth showing up to court or should I just suck it up and pay it? What would I even do if I went? Is there any other way I might resolve this without going to court? Are there additional court costs if I were to show up? Basically trying to decide what my best course of action is here. Call your Clerk of Court in the county/city where you were issued the ticket. Most places have some sort of defensive driving course available to avoid points on your license. The Clerk will know this, and will also know whether you have to be present in court to request this class or whether you can request it and pay the fee for it by mail. The Clerk will also know deadlines and structure of fees and fines. Your first call for traffic related matters should be the Clerk of Court because they're very knowledgeable and laws differ so much even from city to city. They can't give you legal advice but they can tell you how the process of dealing with tickets goes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 09:25
|
|
|
Quick question about car searches. I was pulled over, got out of car with driver side window down and unlocked. The officer had asked me out of the car then a minute later he opened the driver side door and searched. Is this a legitimate search?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 14:09
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Call your Clerk of Court in the county/city where you were issued the ticket. Most places have some sort of defensive driving course available to avoid points on your license. The Clerk will know this, and will also know whether you have to be present in court to request this class or whether you can request it and pay the fee for it by mail. The Clerk will also know deadlines and structure of fees and fines. That's definitely great advice. What i'm concerned about is that points on the license are different from how the insurance company evaluates your DMV record. I might be able to avoid points, but the infraction would still show up and i'd still get hit on my insurance. In any case, I can talk to the clerk of the court and find out what they have to say about things, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:Quick question about car searches. I was pulled over, got out of car with driver side window down and unlocked. The officer had asked me out of the car then a minute later he opened the driver side door and searched. Is this a legitimate search? If the facts are strictly limited to the facts you've given, it's a bad search. However, For what reason were you pulled over? (I'm assuming you were the driver) What happened during "then a minute later"? How was your behavior? nervous, belligerent, calm, goony? Where were you in relation to the car at the time of the search? Were you free to leave / arrested /cuffed at the time of the search? Did you give the officer permission to search? Had you done anything that could be construed as a furtive movement(s) as you were being pulled over? Was there anything illegal in plain view in your car? How extensive was the search? Did the cop find anything during the search? If so, what was it and where was it? The answers to these questions aren't determinative either way, but will help to get you closer to an answerable question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:There is no such thing as a "quick question about car searches." I was the driver. I was pulled over for a broken headlight. I was calm and was at the passanger side door getting my insurance and registration out of the glovebox. The passenger side door was open while I stood there, at the same time he opened the driver side door. I never gave permission, he never asked anything about a search. I don't think I did anything furtive. After he opened the door he leaned into the car and went over everything with his flashlight. Nothing was found.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
Ugh. Double post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 14:55
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:I was the driver. I was pulled over for a broken headlight. I was calm and was at the passanger side door getting my insurance and registration out of the glovebox. The passenger side door was open while I stood there, at the same time he opened the driver side door. I never gave permission, he never asked anything about a search. I don't think I did anything furtive. After he opened the door he leaned into the car and went over everything with his flashlight. Nothing was found. Let's look at this from the cop's perspective: It's dark, and there's an unknown person with freedom of movement on the other side of the car and they're reaching around in the glovebox/passenger side seat/footwell. He didn't go into any containers or seize anything. Forgetting the 4th Amendment for a moment, I think the cop acted appropriately to protect his safety, given the circumstances. Why he gave you your freedom of movement to get out, go to the other side of your car and rummage around over there is a question his corporal needs to ask him. * Was there a 4th Amendment violation? Given "he opened the door he leaned into the car and went over everything with his flashlight," probably. Was any evidence found to be suppressed as a result? No. Is there enough to make a 1983 (civil) action? I doubt it, but that's not my area of expertise. My cynical side thinks that if any contraband was found, the police report would contain nervousness and furtive movement on your part, and your "opened the door he leaned into the car" would read "observed 'X' in plain view through the open driver's window" followed by (legitimately) opening the door and leaning in. If you get stopped, pull over, roll down your window and wait, with your hands on the top of the steering wheel, until the cop asks you for license and registration. Tell them where you're going to go to get this stuff, and do so slowly and carefully. You're not doing this because some power-mad rear end in a top hat will beat your rear end if you don't. You're doing it because that father wants to go back home to his kids at the end of his shift. If you help make his interaction with 'unknown stranger who could have a gun and kill me #27' as stress-free as possible, he'll do the same. (usually) *an unintended side effect of the Supreme Court's recent Gant decision may be that officers will put themselves in harm's way more often in order to manufacture justification to turn illegal searches into legal ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 15:57
|
|
|
I get what you're saying. I should add that after he stopped me, he told me to get out of the car. Talked to me for a minute about my headlight and where I was coming from. While I was standing next to him I gave him my license and then he told me to get my insurance and registration. That's when I went to the passenger door to get into the glovebox. A few seconds later he appears at the driver side door and opens it. It just made me raise my eyebrows since I've never had a cop casually open my door and search the car (especially since the state I'm in sees your car as an extension of your home). I was going to ask him to stop, but I wasn't sure if leaving my window open allowed him to do that. It sounds like I would have been in my rights to do that from your post. I should note that he wasn't completely alone. There were at least four other police cars pulling people over around that intersection. Granted it wasn't exaxtly a roadblock either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
Bandwidth Wagon posted:That's definitely great advice. What i'm concerned about is that points on the license are different from how the insurance company evaluates your DMV record. I might be able to avoid points, but the infraction would still show up and i'd still get hit on my insurance. In any case, I can talk to the clerk of the court and find out what they have to say about things, thanks! If you take the class to keep the points off your license, I don't believe there's anything there for the insurance to ding you with. Sometimes the class costs a little more than the ticket but it's usually worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Hey, I'm a recording engineer that does a lot of work with rappers. After some drama about a producer stealing beats (see: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3272432) I've decided that I need some kind of paperwork drawn up that let's a producer/rapper sign off on the fact the he is legally allowed to use beats for a commercial recording. Where would I go about getting this written up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
Craigslist ad. Offer to pay in diet coke and / or basic food items.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:I get what you're saying. I should add that after he stopped me, he told me to get out of the car. Talked to me for a minute about my headlight and where I was coming from. While I was standing next to him I gave him my license and then he told me to get my insurance and registration. That's when I went to the passenger door to get into the glovebox. A few seconds later he appears at the driver side door and opens it. It just made me raise my eyebrows since I've never had a cop casually open my door and search the car (especially since the state I'm in sees your car as an extension of your home). I was going to ask him to stop, but I wasn't sure if leaving my window open allowed him to do that. It sounds like I would have been in my rights to do that from your post. All of this over a busted headlight, and you were never asked for your consent to the search? The prosecutors in your area need to fax their local law enforcement a copy of Arizona v. Gant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 02:21
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:I should add that after he stopped me, he told me to get out of the car. Talked to me for a minute about my headlight and where I was coming from. While I was standing next to him I gave him my license and then he told me to get my insurance and registration. That's when I went to the passenger door to get into the glovebox. LLCoolJD posted:All of this over a busted headlight, and you were never asked for your consent to the search? The prosecutors in your area need to fax their local law enforcement a copy of Arizona v. Gant. Gant doesn't apply here: 1. Driver's not removed from the passenger compartment, and/or 2. Driver's not secured. Belton would still apply in this case. The only difference from Belton is the presence of other officers, which isn't enough to overcome the bit about an unsecured driver reaching into the passenger compartment. For Gant to apply, first and fore most the driver must be: 1) secured and 2) away from the vehicle. Only then can you go to the next step in the analysis: Whether the police might find evidence of the crime the driver was arrested for, in the car. A broken taillight won't justify searching the vehicle - finding drugs on the driver will. (At least that's what the Gant court thinks) Of course, if the police can justify towing the car and comply with their department tow policy in towing it, they can "inventory" the car incident to the tow, and anything they find is admissible. (Or they can just bring a drug dog over and have it hit on the car.) Fake edit: Actually, neither Gant nor Belton apply yet, because the driver hasn't been arrested. We're still in 'particularized suspicion' that the driver is armed and dangerous, or probable cause territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
Quick traffic question. I live in Colorado and got pulled over for running a stop sign. I got a warning for the stop sign but I didn't have my up to date insurance on me. I was insured at the time and I can prove this with my insurance card. Does anyone have any experience with this and know what I'm looking at punishment-wise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 06:11
|
|
|
Mr. Banana Grabber posted:Quick traffic question. What happens to you really is dependent on which courthouse you have to appear at (and whether the judge is pissed off or not). If you can provide proof that you had valid insurance at the time of the accident, just didn't have proof at the time of the citation, you might be able to get the citation dismissed. Otherwise, they can level a kind of hefty fine on you. Just go in there with recent statements from your company and your card, and explain yourself to the clerk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 06:35
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:What happens to you really is dependent on which courthouse you have to appear at (and whether the judge is pissed off or not). Wow, thank you very much for the speedy and helpful reply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:An award of punitive damages doesn't help if the defendant is uncollectable. Mr. Banana Grabber posted:Quick traffic question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
nm posted:recommend calling the court. They may let you just fax in some info or come whenever you want. Saves you going to court, which is 2-3 hours of sitting on your rear end followed by 2 minutes of looking at your insurance card. This is good advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 07:49
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
So is this a good or bad search? Would I have been ok telling him I don't consent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 14:09
|
|
|
Assuming the cop's version of events would be the same as your own, still a bad search. Possible innocent explanation: Maybe he thought he saw a weapon/contraband and went in to allay his concerns. Possible non-innocent explanation: who is a judge/jury going to believe? Him or you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:Quick question about car searches. I was pulled over, got out of car with driver side window down and unlocked. The officer had asked me out of the car then a minute later he opened the driver side door and searched. Is this a legitimate search? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV0g5B1blqk&feature=fvw You may want to watch some of their videos, very interesting perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
Scurvy fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
I got a DUI in 2004 but I guess the paperwork got messsed up and they never officially revoked my license. Now, SIX YEARS LATER, I get a letter from the DMV saying my license is suspended. Its going to gently caress me out a new job. Is there anything I can do? Is there any sort of statute of limitation (maybe not the right term but gently caress)? State is GA if it matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
tremendous dicks posted:I got a DUI in 2004 but I guess the paperwork got messsed up and they never officially revoked my license. Now, SIX YEARS LATER, I get a letter from the DMV saying my license is suspended. Its going to gently caress me out a new job. Is there anything I can do? Is there any sort of statute of limitation (maybe not the right term but gently caress)? State is GA if it matters. What does your sentencing paperwork say?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:What does your sentencing paperwork say? I think its the same form I would've gotten if they'd sent it when they were supposed to. The gist of it is this: quote:You are hereby notified that your license and/or privelege to drive to operate any motor vehicle in the State of Georgia is suspended as shown herein. tremendous dicks fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Mar 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 20:13
|
|