|
Richard M Nixon posted:I'm interested to know how a court would handle a case that is really technical in nature. For example, if someone were caught producing malicious code and preforming exploits on a company, how would the judge handle hearing about proof that connections were made between IP x and Y, or a deep packet inspection proved that this bit string was being sent there? How would the jury (if there was one) be taught WTF a packet was and why people were taking a server in the back door? Would a civil suit (e.g. punitive damages from piracy) be different than a criminal suit (felony hacking)? Expert witnesses.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2010 21:28
|
|
:iamafag:
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
carlcarlson posted:Isn't it misleading if it says I can take care of it on 3/6/10 and they're not open and I really can't? I'd like to think that something that possibly involves issuing a warrant would be a little better thought out than this. I'm certainly not going to try and test it to see where that gets me. But I wouldn't be surprised if other people have been tripped up by the error. Either on or before. If "on" is not an option, guess which one you're expected to do? Those of us in the legal profession routinely deal with "on or before," and "the filing deadline was misleading because it's a Saturday" is a superb way to land yourself in front of the grievance committee. Here's the secret, though. They don't teach us how to interpret "on or before" in law school. That's because it's really straightforward. If "on or before" deadlines were genuinely misleading and technical, everyone would need an attorney to help them pay their tickets. This is not the case, because an iota of common sense resolves the apparent confusion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
excellentcoffee posted:I was witness to a felonious crime. Dunno what kind of jury it was, I just spoke before a Grand Jury. If it was in federal court, it was a federal grand jury. If state, state.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Have you done anything at all that could be construed as a crime? Based on my time with the Innocence Project, let me say that you should NEVER rely on this as the deciding factor in your interactions with law enforcement. You may feel that you haven't done anything wrong and so have nothing to hide, but that isn't always the case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
uG posted:Whats the procedure when you plead to a misdemeanor in circuit court in Michigan? Will the circuit court judge end up sentencing me (at the sentencing date of coarse)? Will my sentencing be in front of a district court judge? Will I have to also plead to the district court judge and then get sentenced by said judge? Start your research at People v Pierce, 158 Mich App 113. I cannot speak to your circuit -- I do not know if procedures are uniform in this regard. However, I recently read a pair of Pre-Sentence Investigations for defendants with multiple felonies who'd plead down to misdemeanors. My judge (circuit) handled the plea and the sentencing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
excellentcoffee posted:So far, he seems good. The firm does have some good ratings online, but I don't know if that pertains to all lawyers or just a few. I realize that right now, you are staring down the barrel of one of the worst times in your life. And this is sort of a delicate point to broach, but I think it needs to be said. It might not be what you want to hear, but I want to speak in the name of realism. Your attorney is coming into the situation on a less-than-ideal footing. As far as securing your interests, you have done a Good Thing. However, retaining the attorney before the grand jury would have been a Very Good Thing. However, you've definitely taken a step in the right direction, and the recent posts you've made confirmed it. You need an attorney, and waiting until you were arrested would be a Very Bad Thing. Your attorney -- no matter how good -- will be unable to work miracles. You are likely to hear "your attorney should do X, Y, and Z," when the simple fact of the matter is that, like almost everything else in the law, what your attorney SHOULD do is enormously reliant on the facts of your case and the laws involved. Now, with that said, the questions you have asked here are sound and valid questions for your attorney, who will be infinitely more familiar than any of us here. How badly did I screw up by testifying before I hired you? What would you have told me to do if I'd hired you before I testified? In a worst-case scenario, how bad could this be? How does my case compare with that worst-case scenario? All of those are fair game and would probably help shape your thinking on your own situation. When these sorts of questions occur to you, write them down on a list and take that list with you the next time you see your attorney. Your attorney is your best source of advice in this case (unless you know another attorney who's more familiar with your facts or law). Anything you get from friends, family members, or internet posters will be based on incomplete information and therefore less reliable. Also, do NOT lie to your attorney, either by omission or commission. I'm not saying you will or have -- but people get scared or embarrassed and start lying without any malicious intent, because they think they can keep it to themselves. If there are any certainties in attorney-client relations, these are they: 1. Whenever a client attempts to conceal something from his attorney, it will not stay concealed. 2. When a concealed fact comes to light, it will invariably do so in the most destructive way possible. 3. When your attorney talks to you after this happens, he will tell you that he could have prevented the damage if only you'd told him in advance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
I'm not sure about your citation. As I have it, MCL 750.250 is forgery of notes issued for debt of state or political subdivisions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
That explains it -- in both posts you said it was under 750.250m, which is what I looked up (and which doesn't exist). What you just supplied is 520m. You had the numbers transposed, and that's what I was following. It happens to the best of us -- today I had to try four times to look up a case, because it was late in the day and I kept mistyping the citation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
uG posted:Which is exactly what it says on my order for DNA sample. I wonder if thats a typo, since it has MCL 750.520m everywhere else on the form... Almost certainly -- like I said, 750.250 is a forgery statute, and SCAO forms (though useful) are rarely perfect. I'm a little at a loss for why you'd be subject to testing. There's probably something obvious my work-addled brain is missing, but at present, you've got me stumped.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
uG posted:For the record, the court clerk told me if you were originally charged with a felony then you still have to give a DNA sample. Thank you for reporting back with this answer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
uG posted:Maybe you can answer this Alaemon... I am looking at MCL 333.7408a: quote:(1) As part of the sentence or juvenile disposition for an attempt to violate, a conspiracy to violate, or a violation of this part or section 17766a or of a local ordinance that prohibits conduct prohibited under this part or section 17766a, the court shall consider all prior convictions currently entered upon the criminal history record and Michigan driving record of the person, except those convictions which, upon motion of the defendant, are determined by the court to be constitutionally invalid, and, subject to subsection (11), shall impose the following licensing sanctions in addition to any other penalty or sanction imposed for the violation: So my immediate read on it is that it is not up to the judge's discretion whether or not to order the suspension. "Shall" makes it mandatory. I don't know what it means that the judge didn't articulate it at sentencing. It is entirely possible that he forgot to mention it to you, but the abstract of your conviction went to the Secretary of State.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
uG posted:What exactly should I do? On the one hand if I did somehow manage to slip through the cracks and keep my license due to a mistake I don't want to bring it up. On the other hand I don't want to be driving around thinking everything is fine and then get pulled over for driving on a suspended. The statutory language is phrased in mandatory terms. I'm not sure if this is true in CS cases, but in OUIL cases, licensing sanctions are generally actions of the Secretary of State, not the presiding judge. Typically, the SoS contacts people a few weeks later to inform them of the sanction. Given the mandatory terms of the statute, however, I do not see that there is a "crack" through which to slip. Failure to order that would seem to be a purely procedural error, as judges simply don't have the discretion to say "This defendant can keep his license."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
cory ad portas posted:So this girl's crazy boyfriend threatened to shoot me, apparently he's Sur13 which I doubt. Still, he kinda kept going on about how he had "a .40 for my rear end," blah blah blah. PPO/TRO/whatever your jurisdiction calls it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No it's a relevant one. Some might say THE relevant one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Was I having a dream, or isn't it completely illegal for cops to set up checkpoints and just pull over X number of cars that are not seen to be performing any violations and request licenses and registrations? I'm not talking about times they set up with five cars in busy areas on summer holidays and they wait for drunks and speeders and whatnot to pull over, I mean pulling over drivers who aren't visibly breaking any laws. As a matter of federal law, police checkpoints are generally constitutional. Individual states are free to outlaw them, though -- Michigan has (which is interesting, because it was a Michigan case that established their constitutionality).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
uG posted:Why would I trust a lawyer? I honestly trust your guy's advice way more, which is why I retained a lawyer in the first place. So your position is perhaps summed up this: quote:I don't trust a lawyer I can see and have paid, I trust a bunch of lawyers I've never met and who owe me no ethical duty. It is a fair position to be skeptical of the professionals you hire. However I think any issues of trust should be worked out with that professional, rather than inviting a group of outsiders with limited knowledge to second guess their judgment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Sorry, which one of you is the parent, you or your son? Tell that to Laius.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
dMastri posted:Oh, I understand the potential disaster waiting to happen. I told her not to go, but she's fairly confident she won't get caught. But that's based on the assumption she needs to be arrested to get caught. I was hoping I could present her with more insight. If she were good at not getting caught, she wouldn't be on probation. And she wouldn't have one PV to her name already. (As an aside, even if it doesn't say "no drugs" specifically, every parolee I've ever seen has been instructed not to violate the law of any unit of government, so I don't see that she's in the clear on that front.) As to the other part, the answer is that classic legal response: "it depends." Without knowing everything going into that sentence, it's impossible to say. She's lucky her PO didn't do anything with the failed drug test (PO should have -- that's the "swift and certain" part of sentencing). Now she wants to push that luck again, and over the cost of a plane ticket. But, hey, her efforts to dodge the law have worked out so splendidly in the past, surely this time she'll get away clean.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 01:03
|
|
|
sterster posted:So I have recently been watching some video on the 'know your rights stuff' and came across a question that isn't touched on. This is generally a lawful request. Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977), for passengers Maryland v Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997).
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Offrampmotel posted:If you are pulled over by police, you are being detained and are not free to go. The point of asking "am I free to go" is not to discover if you are free to go. It's to force the officer to commit one way or the other.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Offrampmotel posted:I think that once those flashing lights come on and you're pulled over you're not going to trick the officer into saying, "Oh...never mind." I didn't say it would, or that it was any kind of a trick. I'm a little baffled as to why you'd think that. A Terry stop is a presumptively brief investigative encounter premised on reasonable suspicion. Because the police officers are held to a lower standard, the degree to which they're allowed to search or seize you or your property is limited. Reviews of police actions during Terry stops are analyzed using a totality of the circumstances test -- that is, there are very few bright line rules, and you have to examine everything as a whole. If an officer says "let me run your plates and if you come up clean, you'll be free to go," it looks like your detention will be brief and within the contemplated scope of the stop-and-frisk. If an officer says "you aren't free to go until I say," then the detention looks more formal. Any reviewing court will be forced to question why, if you weren't free to leave, the officer didn't feel the need to request a warrant prior to a search, why the officer didn't feel the need to issue Miranda warnings prior to asking you a bunch of questions, etc. Making an officer commit to the formality of "you aren't free to leave," heightens the scrutiny associated with a stop. Making an officer commit to the informality of a Terry stop limits the scope of their intrusion on the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. There's no "trick" involved, only the most rudimentary knowledge of criminal procedure.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
Do you know that there will be a prayer, or is it just that they haven't updated the rules since prayer was offered?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 03:25
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Why is he horrible, because he said $80k isn't that great for an attorney? Because "Go to law school and get a job with the ACLU" would be the legal equivalent of saying something like, "get a theater degree and win an Oscar," or "get a public policy degree and become President." It is a wildly unrealistic career path for 99.99% of anyone striving for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
What The Fucktrain posted:I apologize if this is too specific for this thread, but what sort of laws or legal precedents and such are there for the validity of wills if the person writing them are under the influence of anti-psychotics (Zyprexa, which is from what I can gather rather controversial and strong, especially since in this case the person did not exhibit signs of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.) Obviously I'm not a lawyer myself but I know in a will you must be of sound mind and body and I don't think of someone on fairly strong anti-psychotics as of sound mind. As a general matter (i.e., not state-specific), the threshold for "of sound mind" is very, very low. The usual inquiries look to things like: Is the Testator (T) capable of understanding the business in which he is engaged? (Is T capable of understanding he's making a will, or does he believe he's purchasing real estate on the moon?) Is T capable of forming a plan of distribution? (W to X, Y to Z) And so forth. It's worth mentioning that insane delusions are not a bar to testamentary capacity, so long as the delusion does not directly impact the will. T can believe he's Czar of All the Russias and receiving messages from Jupiter, but so long as he's capable of saying "I want my kid to get all my property," it's not a bar to a valid will.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
Oops, I didn't realize insane delusions were a state-specific issue. I started off talking about Uniform Probate Code stuff and wandered off-track. Thanks for the catch.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
I think some states offer treble damages. So, yeah, check your local laws.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 07:08
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:goatse and tubgirl don't count as being served with a complaint, YET. I think it's time we form a new committee to revise the FRCP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Start playing mind games with him. Start hinting that you're gay when you're both there drinking and that his tough guy attitude is actually starting to attract you. I'm guessing he wouldn't want to fight you as much after that if he's the way you describe. Please ignore this. Get a PPO. Case closed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
I have done no research into the statute at issue, nor am I offering advice specific to the facts of any individual defendant's case. However, my read on it is "anyone convicted under this statute cannot posses/own/use a firearm during the deferred sentence period and if they do and get convicted of a felony or DV misdemeanor, we'll tack on Possession of a Weapon By a Previous Offender to whatever the underlying charge is." This reading, I believe, squares with my recollection of my own jurisdiction's deferred sentencing statute, at least as of the date I did that research.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I appreciate your help and I'm sorry but I'm still having a hard time understanding even what your read on it is. Since it's a deferred sentence, there is no conviction. So what do you mean when you say anyone convicted under this statute? I think I got a little sloppy with my language. "Anyone serving a deferred sentence." quote:I'm assuming you're just saying that while this defendant is on his deferred sentence and he becomes convicted of another crime, he or she cannot posses a weapon, correct? Read: "if you a serving a deferred sentence, you may not own/possess/use a firearm. If you do any of those things during your deferred sentence, you will be committing the crime of Possession of a Weapon by a Previous Offender. If you commit a felony or a DV misdemeanor while on your deferred sentence, you may be charged with that crime AND Possession of a Weapon by a Previous Offender."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Well, in who's opinion is the extent of the damage measured? The jury's.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:23
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Do you actually have a jury in civil cases? This seems like something for small claims. In civil cases? Yes, if the parties want one. In small claims? Probably not, but I have no information on the value of the fence (meaning "I don't know if it's small claims or not"). If it's small claims, then the implication of the answer is the same: the finder of fact. In that case, the judge.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 08:40
|
|
|
Applying the facts of your specific case to the law of your jurisdiction to reach a legal conclusion is the very definition of legal advice. If you want opinions on a contract or release or whatever, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 09:03
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:Lawyers, please. We have enough non-lawyers giving nonsensical advice on this thread. Let's not turn on one another! So this is what gave that crazy guy the idea for the Motion for Restoration of Sanity!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS snipe My judge recently received an attachment to a judgment of divorce -- in theory, pretty standard "A gets B, X gets Y" stuff. Except the person drafting it was pro per so it started off with "I, [Plaintiff,] being of sound mind and body, do hereby declare..."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
I think they need to gussy up that contract a little. Without any "party of the first part" action, it just seems subpar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 09:29
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Granted, I don't know positively that I've lost anything to due to them saying I was fired but how would I even know? 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.) If you haven't proven damages, you haven't proven the elements of your claim.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted: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. I think your definition is overbroad, but that's not the point. Yes, one of the defamation per se categories is "injurious to the plaintiff's trade, business, or profession." I don't know that "Plaintiff got fired" rises to that level. A person can "get fired" for any number of reasons, including wrongful discharge, standard downsizing, etc. Now we're crossing into "defamatory meaning" territory, but I've explained my thinking. Having done no research on the issue, I don't think the statement we're given falls within defamation per se.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Um, bad service is no service- by making this argument he's saying you didn't do it properly. Yup. "Handing it to someone" is not the same as proper service of process.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
entris posted:Please stop posting advice for other people. I dunno, I'm sort of enjoying the process. I'm hoping that there's eventually a post along the lines of "Getting sued for unauthorized practice of law and representing myself" segueing into "You people don't know what you're talking about; I'll be GREAT!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 01:38
|
|