|
Alchenar posted:You forgot to say where you are from. Could he actually use rule 11 here?
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Tropicana posted:I live in Canada so I don't know how much this thread can help me This is probably a bad idea (conversion.) Give him 20 days to pick up his poo poo and give him the choice of you throwing it out or putting it in longterm storage on his dime.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 05:12
|
|
|
I had my heart set on Goatse Pleading to replace Iqbal/Twombley
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2010 13:17
|
|
|
Ne Cede Malis posted:I've got a question about quitting my job to leave for another company. Right now I work in California in a salaried position under the following clause in my contract: If you breach a contract, you can be sued for breach of contract. Your employer just has to prove a loss in court (probably the cost of emergency hiring and training someone to fill your position, if your company ends up screwing up a contract because you left or can reasonably claim that your leaving was the cause, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:1. They used to much more than they do now, but it still happens all the time. Don't forget people writing them sometimes have other motives and can also be prone to general mistakes as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the term "reasonable and prudent" is inherently vague. I'm just saying when applying it to something like following distance, I don't think it should hold up(not to say it hasn't) because it's clear 90% of drivers follow too close every day and that basically gives police sole discretion on who to pull over. It looks like the more accurate term I'm looking for is "unconstitutionally overbroad" which is closely related. You will get destroyed. On the plus side you will probably give an ADA and your traffic cop a minor headache so go for it, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
If you really want to take this circus to town Pookie, check your local rules to see if they allow 'lay expert witnesses.' If they do, enter a bunch of your friends that have been driving for 10+ years as 'reasonably prudent expert drivers' and have them all testify as to your driving being 'reasonably prudent.' Bonus points if the judge gets a migraine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:The problem with simply being pulled over by the police and given a ticket seems to be that most goons(and other people that don't know me) presume guilt instead of innocence. And I thought since this was a smaller issue than I posted before, I would get some interesting opinions other than "GUILTY!!" and "Lawyer up". Plus you can say it's biased all you want, but I am honest when it comes to the facts and if I was guilty of something, I would admit it. I don't think I have even come within 10ft of a car when stopping in emergency situations because I always avoid emergency situations by being aware of my surroundings. Here's the thing, I honestly believe that you weren't tailgaiting the dude. The problem is that people generally trust cops more than the guy who got the ticket. You've identified this in your post and it's an important stumbling block to your case. The only thing that matters is what you can prove, and honestly, if you're the only witness on your side it's gonna go poorly for you. Right now you're presenting a he said she said where one of the parties (you) has an incentive to lie. It isn't fair and it isn't right, but it's what's going to happen. PoOkie posted:Most goons laughed at me when I was trying to figure out how I could be accused of drunk driving while just sitting in a car in freezing weather with the heater on too. I eventually was convinced to take a deal that apparently involved a "supervision" that could never be expunged from my record and other things like not being able to go to Canada for 5yrs. When I found out that information 5 months after entering a plea, every lawyer I contacted said it was nearly impossible to do anything after 30 days and even an ex police chief said he has only heard of someone being successful 1 time in his career....despite that, I submitted my motion, went to court, and won the option to reopen my case. PoOkie posted:PS- If the courts here actually followed procedure and had audio recordings or verbatim accounts of pretrial actions, I would post the audio if that happened. I really wish I had audio of the bizarre statements the DA was trying to use to stop me from requesting a new trial. I think he angrily ended with, "Well if you want to go ahead and screw yourself..." You should read up on 42 USC 1983. It's what you're going to be suing pro se under for the unproveable (but probably real) slights that you encounter in jail.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I'm almost certain it can't go a different way other than my arrest being quashed since there are already IL supreme court decisions backing up how I was arrested. Since she stated that I was sleeping in a legally parked car and that when she woke me up and asked that I opened the door, I responded affirmatively with a clear "No". According to existing standards for legal arrests, the "consensual encounter" stops there unless she had reasonable suspicion that I was doing anything other than relaxing, waiting for a friend, listening to the radio, or simply taking a short nap because I was travelling somewhere and was too sleepy to drive. The possible conclusions based on the facts she had at the time are virtually limitless. People v. Luedemann, 857 NE 2d 187 - Ill: Supreme Court 2006 While you have correctly stated the case law relating to a seizure/consensual encounter, napping in a car the engine on is pretty suspicious. Also, all the cop has to do is lie and say she thought you were slurring your voice when you said no. Reasonable suspicion is an incredibly LOW bar for the cop to hurdle. I believe it is defined by 'abuse of discretion' and as long there is some SOME reason from which the officer can determine that she thinks you are about to commit a crime (drive drunk), she can search you. 4th Amendment quashing is pretty hard to do and listening to your facts I'm pretty sure that the officer had adequate facts to arrest. The reason why your lawyers are being uncooperative is that you have a pretty bad set of facts. I believe that you weren't going to do anything, but I don't think you have adequate facts to convince a judge or jury. As much as America talks a good game about 'innocent until proven guilty' it's largely a farce. I'm sorry you have to take the brunt of it, but I think you should be really really cautious before trying to challenge this conviction.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2010 04:13
|
|
|
I could help you more if you were in federal court (I do mainly federal stuff in the same circuit you're in), but some of the witness testimony may have limited admissibility and often witnesses who are willing to tell you things privately are a lot less willing when they have to stand up and say the same things in open court. The impression I'm getting from this is that your lawyer didn't negotiate quite hard enough for you (he under assessed your case), but I don't think you have a very good chance at this and I want you to be aware that jail time is a very VERY real possibility if this goes south. Also, if you are going this route (impeachment and the like) you probably are going to need depositions and a lawyer. Good luck to you, but again I'm pretty sure this is a very bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:You can say a lot of things, I'm sure. He's actually right here though. There needs to be a reason other than 'crime control' for random stops and making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs to be based upon something other than 'just doesn't fit in' (at least I think, my professor didn't really give us a case cite when he said it). He's also right about the part where the judge would uphold it anyway. 'driving erratically' followed by 'acting nervous' is all you need.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs probable cause, but making a terry stop, however, doesn't (no matter what neighborhood - in fact, easier in a bad neighborhood to get mere suspicion). And if there's a valid pretext from a minor traffic violation, that's OK too. If the cop had reasonable suspicion stemming from something other than 'you don't belong here' he obviously could make a terry stop. I used the checkpoint legal rationale because the case in question seemed to be a 100% random stop from what the cop said (this is a bad area so we're stopping everyone). As a cop flashing lights is inherently a seizure, the cop needed some permissible reason for his suspicion. Of course, my professor may have just been wrong in saying that a nice car in a bad neighborhood is an impermissible reason, he kinda sucked a lot and taught us really poorly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Ripped from the headlines! Pay the fine. Stop living in rural areas with rural judges.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Get the dealer to swap in/ fab up some 'Maryland legal' taillights. Can't state regulations usually be more restrictive?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
I Am Not Clever posted:I need some advice. Several years ago, I (quite stupidly) attempted to shoplift a small item and was caught. It was charged not as a misdemeanor, but as an infraction, under California state penal code 490.1. I pled guilty and paid a small fine. Theft is a crime of moral turpitude. This is actually a big deal. Also, unless the school you're applying to is UCLA, Irvine, Hastings, Davis, USC, or Boalt you should not apply. Please go to the lawthread. Read it. Have us ridicule you for your terrible ideas. You will still go to lawschool, they all still go to lawschool, but at least then we will have had a chance to convince you not to make our mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:As to what, agency, or causation? If he acts with apparent authority he can bind his employer, even if he does not have the authority in fact. That said, any injuries would be intervening torts by the kids punching each other (I agree with your causation analysis).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 06:35
|
|
|
In my state we specifically disallow liability for injuries incurred playing recreational sports so you should probably check your state/province/whatever moon jurisdiction you live in's statutes/codes/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:But the tackling wasn't part of the sport. That doesn't stop politicians from writing terrible laws.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:We've kinda been going back and forth about this in D&D so I might as well ask about it here. I personally think she does. The key of a defamation tort is the intent to harm the reputation of the victim. In America we have a First Amendment defense that overlays the common law tort and there you get actual malice. Actual malice is very hard to prove, it involves having to knowingly distort the truth in such a way as to harm someone. To prove actual malice Sherrod will have to be able to prove that Breitbart knowingly doctored those tapes and issued them as the genuine article solely for malicious purposes. Considering that this is what appeared to happen, I think she has a case. Of course, if she's smart she will tie her Libel claim in with an Invasion of Privacy: False Light claim (which I think applies in most places). The essence of that claim would be the humiliation she felt for being portrayed in a false light. Both torts recover for related by slightly similar things (False Light = emotional damage/humiliation, Libel = damage to her reputation/economic damage), so you can sue for both concurrently. Of course there are statutory differences from state to state, but in general that's how it should play out (also: she would probably win both).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I have a general question which should be applicable in most of the US. (I live in Illinois though) This is judge/jurisdiction specific. That said, 'ineffective counsel' is generally really hard to prove. The courts have found that you do not have a right to good counsel or motivated counsel, but simply 'reasonable counsel.' Refusal to review possibly exculpatory evidence could be ineffective counsel. It really depends what was in the possibly exculpatory evidence and whether the video would have dramatically altered the original charge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:This could be a pretty interesting case because Breitbart did not doctor the footage, by which I mean he did not cut and splice the footage to make it appear she said something she did not. What he did was show her exact words, but without the full context. So I don't think she has a strong defamation case. She has a stronger false light claim, though even that is not a slam dunk. Ah, I thought there was actual doctoring. In that case you're right, there's a good false light case but very little for libel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
If you're too poor for an attorney you might be able to half rear end it by sending letters to your state attorney general asking for help on open records stuff. I know in Wisconsin we have to answer citizen letters. That said, you might have a long turn around time on that so considering the time specific nature of your need I really don't know of a cheap option to recommend.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 08:31
|
|
|
The first time someone shows me a church organizing underage prize fights I am going to join in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
TheBestDeception posted:Also, lol at his TTT "credentials." Cum Laude Harvard? pfff that isn't even Yale!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 00:14
|
|
|
Jeephand posted:So you seem to be saying that you have to talk to the police and go to jail unless you have a family lawyer on speed dial and a couple thousand laying around for bail and lawyer fees? You also seem to be implying that if the crime you are being charged with bears a fine that is less than the price of calling in a lawyer, you should just plead guilty and pay it? I'd really like some straight info on how to handle the whole situation of dealing with cops without sacrificing my rights. Can anyone add more without the "Hey I'm on SA you're hosed now buddy. Har har." routine? No we can't because the cop might conclude that you were doing something more than speeding and suddenly you're on trial for a hit and run 2 nights ago and you're going to jail and we gave you the legal advice that put you there. I think your analysis is pretty good but you really have to play every situation by ear. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Doesn't conversion require voluntary action? Does an accident count? Get a quote from someone else on repairing that sort of fence. Offer to pay that much.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:49
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Are you black, a woman, old, young, disabled or gay? If so, is there any reason to believe that you were fired for those reasons? Does that reason involve similarly situated people being fired or retained based upon their status? If you answered no to any of these you are probably hosed (if you worked in the US). Most of America is at-will employment. File an unemployment claim and join the breadlines like the rest of us. e. wait, is this a slander claim? In that case you're even more hosed. If they disparage your professional capacity you may have a cause of action against them. That said, you're going to have to prove that they knew that they were lying. Considering that you got laid off, I doubt this would be even remotely possible. Calm down JudicialRestraints fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:As a general rule, in order to win an action for defamation, you have to prove damages. (There is a very narrow exception to this rule, but so far, you haven't triggered it in my mind.) Generally, critiquing someone in their professional capacity or otherwise disparaging their work is one of the defamation exceptions. That said, he's going to be unable to prove malice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
Wisconsin Lawgoon checking in. If you want me to I could figure out the specifics of an affidavit in Wisconsin (main sticking points I remember is that you have to make sure that the notary uses their seal on it) I could, but I think you should be more concerned with the specifics of TN affidavits. E: you can use affidavits on other shiz like summary judgment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Part of Everything posted:I'm in Ontario, Canada. It would be libel and it would be a tough call. Usually implying negative things about someone's career/capabilities does not require you to prove damages (i.e. you lost your job/didn't get another job/missed a raise), but it sounds like the problem is not work related, just in a work environment. Additionally you'd have to prove that she factually knew that you did not send out the e-mail. Depending upon your state you may have an invasion of privacy-false light cause of action or maybe even the libel cause of action, but it will be tough and expensive to prove. E: oh wait CANADA. I'm not sure how canadian law enshrines pesky concepts like freedom of speech but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot easier than in America. Talk to one of your own lawyers aboot it. JudicialRestraints fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Aug 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Definitely get an attorney. I know nothing about this area of the law, but if you legitimately feared for your life, I don't think you can be held guilty for the violations (though I think you still need to pay for the damage). This is certainly true for civil law but I have no loving clue if it will apply in your state for criminal law (although I would lean toward 'yes')
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:This is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction. In some states, it is entirely legal to use deadly force to prevent a property crime. From what I've seen, in most of these jurisdictions it isn't (Garner and all), they just loosely define what constitutes a threat to you and your family. The Texas Castle law for example just flat out says, if someone is in your house after they area automatically assumed to be a threat to your family. Most of the property laws are similarly worded (you can assume that someone messing with your stuff after dark is probably a threat to you). I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the back as they run away with your bike or whatever is universally illegal, but there are classic defenses such as "I thought I saw him turn around" or "he swerved towards me" that will get you off the hook in these states. e: Pretty sure that wiki article is terrible. From what I remember Wisconsin allows you to stand your ground in your home. Pretty sure it's called a 'siege' law or something silly like that. JudicialRestraints fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Aug 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
mboger posted:None taken. First off, I don't own a gun, let alone multiple guns and a concealed carry permit (although I will admit I've been considering purchasing a gun and taking safety classes). Secondly, if I could choose between "never having my house broken into" or "mowing down meth heads left and right in my living room with impunity," I would choose the former (and hope everyone would). Speaking as someone with a nightstand gun, I would much rather let someone escape with my TV or Xbox than pull a trigger in anger. I've been stolen from before, and I get the sense of violation and anger that it engenders. That said you're talking about ending another human being's life over a couple hundred dollars worth of STUFF. Stuff that your homeowner's/renter's insurance should cover. The way the law is written in most states seems pretty accurate to me. If you are on the street and there is a confrontation you have a duty to retreat if you can safely do so. If you instigate the fight (looking at your Dirty Harry attitude mboger), your duty to retreat becomes borderline absolute (you can't pick a fight and then draw on a guy). If there's someone in your home after dark, you probably have a reasonable belief that you are in serious danger in which case you can point a loaded weapon at someone. At this point I would suggest telling the person to 'get the gently caress out of there.' Any threatening motions at that point would probably mean you should pull the trigger (if he lunges towards you, he has a chance at getting your gun. if he draws his own he obviously has a gun). NOTE: in most states you have to be at risk of deadly force yourself to use deadly force. This means you can't shoot an unarmed person unless they appear to be attempting to arm themselves. I mean, obviously if you're going to point a gun at someone you should be ready/able to pull the trigger, but that doesn't mean you should.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
mboger posted:I should have known this was going to derail and I should have kept my mouth shut, so this is the last I'm going to say on the topic. In just about every one of my posts, I specifically said "in my home" and I completely agree that the rules should and do change once you're out of your house. This has spiraled from me saying "I would legally be entitled to shoot someone in my house in the state of Colorado" to you guys thinking "mboger is going to go all Dirty Harry and start shooting jaywalkers downtown." Yes, I completely realize that if I punch a guy on the street and he punches back and I shoot him, then I'm going to jail for a long time. I don't know why you even bothered to mentioned that, since, like a broken record, I keep saying "if someone invades my home." You suck at this legal advice thing. "Stuff a friend told you" is not legally binding and is often wrong if your friends are idiots. Also, Wikipedia is not legally binding. Case in point: Colorado Criminal Code 18.1.706 posted:A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704 Colorado Criminal Code 18.1.705 posted:A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson. Colorado Criminal Code 18.1.704.5 posted:(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. Parsed the Colorado castle law has three parts: 1. Someone must enter your dwelling uninvited (note this probably has to be the place you generally sleep but I'm not gonna hunt down the Colorado definition of dwelling). 2. You must have a reasonable belief that the person has committed or intends to commit a crime separate from trespassing. (a) This element also has two parts. Namely, a reasonable person would have to share your belief AND you had to actually believe it. 3. You must also reasonably believe that the other person may use physical force against an occupant of the house. (a) Again two parts - a reasonable person would share your belief AND that you actually have to believe it. In short, the Colorado Criminal Code does NOT allow you to use a gun to defend property unless the other person is a physical threat to you. In fact, what I said in my previous post is actually pretty much spot on accurate for Colorado. So, PLEASE read your own statutes before you try to interpret them in here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
mboger posted:First, I swear on my imaginary stack of guns and militia propaganda that I will never dispense anything even remotely considered legal advice in this thread ever again, because holy poo poo can of worms. The remainder of this post is to clear up any misconceptions I have about the Colorado Castle Doctrine and should not be viewed by anyone as advice. Good enough? You advised someone to shoot a home invader who is fleeing with your property. I mean your later posts were right, and common law largely operates the same way (regardless of what many gun owners think). If you have a gun out and someone moves towards you in any way shape or form that you consider a threat, he could disarm you and shoot you with your own gun. Pull the trigger. If he's running away with your poo poo, don't pull the trigger.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
MalConstant posted:I'm thinking of a public defender since I'm just a college student with a part time job. You still make too much for free representation (at least in my state) America is a cesspool. Try contacting a recent law school grad, you can probably pay in pop tarts or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:A friend of mine recently got pulled over in Iowa while driving cross country from Maryland to California, here is his story: This speaks to a violation of 42 USC 1983 for 1st and 4th Amendment reasons. I.e. you can sue for retaliation and unreasonable search and seizure. Winning against a police department is almost impossible for serious crimes, you will not win this case unless a neutral third party videotaped it and the video tape is incriminating. Murica.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Any way of preventing this from happening other than being richer and whiter? I would try being richer and whiter first, but failing that APPEARING richer and whiter will probably help. I.e. don't drive a beater, don't have tinted windows, be very polite to the police, wear nice clothes, don't speed, and most relevantly here get rid of your temp plates (anecdotally cops like to bust out of towners because it's harder to challenge the ticket). Small town cops can make your life hell, don't go to small towns if you can help it, and if you have to go, try to look respectable/responsible in hopes that the cops will target someone darker/poorer than you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
Porky_Oboe posted:It does say 1 month should be given if possible when resigning. It doesn't say anything about witholding pay though. In America they couldn't withhold pay. England has better labor laws than America. Find a limeylawyer to confirm his.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
Porky_Oboe posted:Thanks for the help chaps, but I've spoken to her today and its getting sorted. A significant portion of the law, including almost every waiver you sign (and some limitations on warranties) exist only to confuse people who don't know the law into not suing. A good portion of that poo poo will not stand up in Court (disclaimers are notoriously hard to find valid), but they're just there so someone in risk management can push you around.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
mboger posted:DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND HAVE NO REASON TO BE POSTING IN THIS THREAD I'm not sure if the laws are written to allow drunk driving on private land, but you're right about traffic laws being substantially loosened on private land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 18:00
|
|