|
In my jurisdiction, there's a basic speed law. Under it, you must operate your vehicle at a "careful and prudent speed" which is neither more nor less than is reasonable under the conditions of the road at that moment. You also may not operate your vehicle at a speed greater than would permit you to stop within the "assured, clear distance" ahead. MCL 257.627(1). In accordance with this rule, you must always drive your car in such a manner so as not to endanger other people or their property "and if to accomplish this it is necessary to drive at a lesser speed than the maximum provided by statute, [you] must do so.” Bade v Nies, 239 Mich 37, 39 (1927). Under this analysis, I think if you'd had this accident in Michigan, the officer's thinking would run "you were traveling too fast to allow you to stop within the assured, clear distance ahead, therefore you were in violation of the basic speed law." I consider that a reasonable interpretation of the statute, even if he weren't present. Obviously, none of this applies to Orange County, but if the traffic laws there are substantially similar, I wouldn't find this ticket outrageous.
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
I have to assume you folks mean "make a warrantless arrest" of a misdemeanor defendant when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the officer. A full-on "cannot arrest" seems absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:One thing I find a bit confusing is there isn't a MAC Address listed. In the mean time you could request discovery, which requires them to give all the evidence against you. No, no, no. If you want to protect your interests and obtain competent legal advice for your jurisdiction, you need to consult with an attorney. Read between the lines and notice the pattern here from the lawgoons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Really, when I got charged with passing a school bus, I called up, gave them my fax and got everything with-in two minutes. So your argument is that a traffic offense in state court is the same as civil litigation in federal court? quote:Someone, please tell me how to gently caress up the discovery process. Waiving potential defenses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I asked for an example, no one gave me one other than "well, these guys said it's a bad idea, just because". I then gave my own, from my real life only to be told it's a civil case, i'm stupid, blah, blah, blah. Because it's more important to say "Hey, OP, go into the doctor's office and get a cast put on your broken arm" than to explain to YOU why we're not treating this as an ingrown toenail.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
Cousin is 18, and a legal adult. Needs to consult his own lawyer if he wants competent legal advice pertinent to his case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
a handful of dust posted:This is an 18 year old full time student with no job/money. I'm just trying to help him get as much info as possible. And what I'm saying is if HE needs info, HE needs to consult with an attorney. By way of free consultation if necessary, but YOU meeting with the attorney accomplishes very little. For one thing, there are professional duties and privileges that attach even in a free consultation, whether or not the attorney is hired. For another... think of it this way. Your cousin has a clogged toilet which is currently leaking all sorts of unpleasantness on the floor. You COULD invite the plumber over to your house while you describe your cousin's toilet, and he COULD render a professional opinion based on that alone. Or the plumber can go over to your cousin's house and look at the toilet that's actually clogged. Which one do you think will be more effective? You could try to track down a consult, if you're hell-bent on doing so. You could drive him there and sit in the lobby while he meets with the attorney. But (potential) client meeting attorney is what's important.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
a handful of dust posted:You're telling me if you knew a lawyer... If only I knew a lawyer! I have to wonder what my life would be like in such fantastic and hypothetical circumstances. What you received was not a valid legal opinion, any more than it would have been a valid medical diagnosis had you spoken to a doctor about your cousin's illness, when that cousin has never consulted with the doctor in question. An opinion rendered to the client while subject to the professional duties of (for instance) competence and confidentiality is superior to an ad hoc response offered with no duty owed to third persons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
The Valuum posted:The lawyer is an excellent drug lawyer and the best in Mid-Michigan. The best in Mid-Michigan? I can certainly name a few people who'd be likely to consider themselves "the best," though it's a decidedly subjective field. Great big internet, small small world.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I'm trying to figure out who this is too. I'm not taking a stance as to where they fall on the "best" criteria, but my brain immediately went to a couple of attorneys I know who are really working the medical marijuana field -- I think both are a little more down the Wayne County-ish way to qualify. They've both appeared in front of my judge, though, so they've at least been in the area.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
The Saddest Rhino posted:I don't know if this is the correct place to ask but I assume this doesn't warrant a whole new thread. We only spent like a week or two on drafting, and I'm sure I've scrapped my notes on the topic. Nevertheless, my recollection (mixed with personal preferences): "Shall" gets used to impose an obligation on a party. And only for that purpose. "Landlord shall keep the property in good repair." "Tenant shall shovel the sidewalk." "Shall" does not get used in any other sense. In this scheme, "Rent shall be due on..." is wrong; "Rent is due on..." is correct. In other words, my suggestion is to use "shall" only to mean "must" or "is required to" (and to consider favoring those when possible).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
LLJKSiLk posted:Cool. Regarding passwords, what is the legality if a user gives you their password? For instance, during my divorce my lawyer said it was okay to use information gained from my ex-wife's account because she gave me the password during our marriage, so what I accessed she had already consented to. He said it would have been inadmissible had I gained it through subterfuge. We actually have a case in my state now. These are the facts as I understand them: Husband suspects wife of cheating on him. Wife keeps her passwords in a little notepad next to the computer.* Husband uses that to access her email account and prints off emails proving the infidelity. Uses that in the divorce (maybe there's a custody issue?). County prosecutor charges the guy under Michigan's hacking statute, which prohibits "unauthorized access of a computer." *Prosecution contends that he actually IS a hacker and used the matrix or whatever to obtain her passwords. Defense contends the notepad version.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
LLJKSiLk posted:I remember reading about this on Slashdot. One would think the judge would err on the side of the notepad being a key left next to a lock on a box that he technically owns even if his wife kept things in there. Well, what the judge winds up doing is up in the air right now. I don't know where the case is procedurally, but my hunch (based on typical timelines for felony cases in Michigan) is that it's probably ONLY had a preliminary examination, and that's nothing more than a probable cause hearing. (And there almost always is probable cause, because it's a low, low hurdle.) It might get thrown out when it actually goes into circuit court, but that remains to be seen. It also might be that the notepad story isn't true, and that's just Defendant's contention. My recurring question in the case is why, if the prosecutor is so interested in digging up crimes for this family, the wife hasn't been charged with adultery -- it's still a felony in Michigan. Your "testimonial" question is a little confusing. It leads me down the path of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination analysis (which is a right asserted when you're on the stand, not during an investigation). I think it's more properly a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue. If the police can get a warrant, you either provide them the password or they just seize your computer and have that guy from Law & Order press whatever button he presses to search your hard drive. It is analogous to a locked container in that way -- either unlock it or we break the lock. However, if (for whatever reason) you wound up telling police officers what your password is, the state would argue (1) that you consented to any search by volunteering the password and; (2) that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything protected by a password you make known to third parties, so any search of those effects is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, I think if you tell the police your password, it's going to be admissible evidence (unless it stems from some other defect -- like they coerced it out of you, etc). This is all applicable to a criminal case where it's Defendant's computer and Defendant's password. I don't know that any of it applies to the man infiltrating his wife's email.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:If a person were standing in one state and shoots another person standing on the other side of the border with another state, where would the crime be prosecuted? Jurisdiction is proper in the state where the criminal act took place (state 1), the state where the victim was injured (state 2), and the federal system, because it's an interstate crime. So instead of "I can't be prosecuted for it anywhere," the reality of the situation is "I can be prosecuted for it three times."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Uggh. That's a pretty lovely decision. (imo) Yeah, double jeopardy doesn't bar trial by separate sovereigns. As I said, jurisdiction is proper in three places simultaneously. Any combination of those three (from "all" to "none") are within their discretion to bring that offender to trial. That's why it's a goofy, eye-rolling plotline whenever TV shows try to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
All the usual caveats apply, and, I have done no research on the issue beyond looking at the page you linked, but it APPEARS that the enumerated "potentially expatriating acts" only impact your citizenship if they are performed with the intent of giving up US citizenship. From the same page: quote:The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they . . . serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States. . . . (Emphasis added) I'll grant that I know basically nothing about this area of the law, but this page, at least, strikes me as one of those "it means what it says" things. I've tried to edit it so it reads like actual human-speak, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
waitaminute posted:Sorry I know I'm not really doubleposting but it kind of feels like it.. If this were the case, then nothing could come of it, right? Maybe just a hearing without me there, with a judge pretty much saying "eh, screw it" or am I way way off, and they would be making the decisions way over in NV without me being present to defend myself? Broad generalizations, of course, but I would never, EVER bank on the court dealing with a jurisdictional issue on its own initiative. Protecting YOUR interests is YOUR responsibility, and the average judge has too many things going on to do it for you. Say you believe jurisdiction in Nevada is inappropriate and you just chuck the summons & complaint in the mail and trust things will work themselves out to your favor. The most likely result is that you'd get a default judgment entered against you, because no one as there to raise the jurisdictional issue on your behalf.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
Before you buy a plane ticket, there are a number of things that have to happen first. Namely, that a lawsuit be filed in Nevada, that you receive proper service of process, etc. So you're really raising issues that are several steps down the line. The only reason I'm even comfortable discussing this is because we're dealing SO hypothetically at this point that it's not really setting off my "legal advice" radar in a big way. Incredulous said, "Nevada might not have jurisdiction over you." To which you replied: quote:If this were the case, then nothing could come of it, right? I replied that I wouldn't advise relying on that. Even if jurisdiction is inappropriate, it is entirely YOUR JOB (or the job of someone on your behalf) to assert that as a defense. Asking what the court COULD do in this scenario is meaningless -- even if it's technically within the power of the court, you'd be better off wishing on a star or playing the lottery. It's like if you're having a heart attack and you just go sit in your front yard and hope a doctor wanders near -- technically possible, but I'd call 911. Now, when you ask about sending bare-bones information like "I never agreed in writing" is where the legal advice radar starts to ping. IF you get sued and IF you get served THEN consult with a lawyer before sending ANY kind of response to the court. Even if you think "I never agreed in writing" is harmless, you could be waiving defenses without realizing it. I think your worries are largely premature, however. Wait until you're holding a summons before you start worrying about the answer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Thanks. I looked into it and sure enough, we have such a thing. They also do mediation and stuff. We'll be stopping in there on Monday afternoon (really, they can only bother to be open on weekdays during standard work/school hours? *&#@ convenient). This is another jurisdiction-specific topic, but my state (for instance) provides for the appointment of a lawyer guardian ad litem. That attorney's duty is to the minor, not to the court, and it entails determining what is in the minor's best interests and acting as an advocate to that end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:On a significantly less-pressing note: Are people in the pool generally allowed to have a phone with games on it while waiting, or should I take an actual, bona fide book? Courthouse-by-courthouse or even judge-by-judge basis. The general rule at my courthouse is that potential jurors must leave cell phones in their cars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
I'm always under the impression that proper service is a jurisdiction-specific issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
"Assuming the worst" is what we are trained, taught, and (in better economic climates than this) occasionally paid to do. Your failure to present relevant facts is your failure, not ours. Pretty much anyone on this side of law school has a stock speech for "this is based on what you told me and if you shared more facts with me, my analysis might change." No client ever asks for the best-case scenario. Because in the best-case scenario they don't need legal advice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
I did suggest to my judge that his Fridays would be more efficient if he did away with summary disposition hearings and instituted cage matches. So maybe our little reprobate is on to something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
I don't know anything about CA law, but 20 seconds on Google told me that there's case law limiting that statute to commercial or financial transactions, so from the sound of your question, it likely doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
Yeah, my brain is on the relation back doctrine. I'm not terribly well-versed on equities, but it would seem that the hypo under discussion is a fine place for an equitable remedy. "Plaintiff sat on his rights in an effort to block our counterclaim. Because we believed P was content to let the issue lapse, my client did as well. Then P, acting in bad faith, filed suit on the day the SOL tolled."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:The bottom line is that these are both hugely complicated issues, with serious legal consequences. Family law is always tricky, complicated, emotional, and high stakes. You should absolutely talk with a lawyer in your area. This is absolutely the correct answer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:If there's another party present at a attorney/client meeting, are they covered under privilege? Not an employee of the attorney, maybe a spouse or relative of the client. Depends on how the person is present. Eavesdroppers are different from people who are sitting in on the meeting. But I'm assuming that's not the gist of your question. Generally speaking, the presence of a third party (specifically one who's not assisting the lawyer in their duties) may defeat privilege. One of the elements of attorney-client privilege is that the communication in question must be confidential. Statements made in the presence of a third party are not confidential. Say it's a cousin who just wants to sit in on the meeting to know what's going on -- cousin is not a party to the case, just a well-meaning relative. Presented with that fact pattern, I would say privilege almost certainly does not apply, and I would warn the client up front in the most direct terms possible. The "spouse" thing is a little more convoluted because there are the limited spousal privileges -- those are also defeated by the presence of third parties. It's remotely conceivable that you could find a judge who would say both privileges (attorney-client and spousal) apply simultaneously, but I would never stake a client's well-being on it. Javid posted:I'm pretty sure that if they're involved with the case with you, they're a client, even if they specifically aren't the one paying the lawyer. "Involved in the case" is too vague. There are any number of things someone can do to be "involved" in a case. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Apr 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 10:32
|
|
|
Don't worry. Sometime between now and trial, he'll write a letter to the prosecutor explaining everything that went down. No way that can backfire.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
nm posted:Don't forget the judge too. We didn't get as many letters to the judge before the trial phase. Most of our letters to the judge came just before sentencing. Copy for the court file, copy for the prosecutors, copy for the defense attorney, original to Parole/Probation. Hardly clerkin'.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
nm posted:Counsel appears for pre-trial conference Someone gets a gold star for trial-speak!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
nm posted:Are you SURE? This. Don't concede the issue until you've talked to someone who does this all day every day and has been given specific insight into your factual situation. Put another way, consult with us and we'll be happy to tell you "Yeah, sounds like your pipes are busted, you need to get them repaired." That isn't the same thing as having a plumber come out and look at your pipes and put in new ones.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Gorgolflox posted:A quick search on lawyers.com, couldn't really find much else. They are also close by and from browsing around their website they seem pretty good. I don't know much about lawyers or labor and employment law though and they seem to cover a wide range of things. Didn't know if I should look for someone who specializes in the field or not. Check the bar association webpage for the county in which you live, for one thing. Many of them have links to lawyers, frequently with areas of practice listed. I don't know that particular firm, nor do I know the general custom in that area of law. However I'm of the opinion that you should find free consults whenever possible and take as many of them as you see fit before deciding if you want to hand anyone your money.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
With the caveat that I know next to nothing about NDAs and not much more about anything in CA, it reads to me like something written by a tax protester. The signature thing you mentioned is absurd, I can't envision a scenario in which that actually means anything. Also I would like to know how the Company envisions enforcing a secret contract if it's not willing to disclose the contents to a court.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
zachol posted:What's the deal with the "I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice" or "I am a lawyer but not yours, this is not legal advice" stuff? If an attorney gives legal advice, the ethical duties of the profession attach. That means, say, the duties of diligence and competence (both of which would require more of me than the sort of top-of-my-head responses I'm inclined to give by the fact that I'm not being paid). Moreover, the applicable test is based on the perceptions of the "client." It's not enough that the attorney knows he isn't your lawyer and not giving you legal advice, it's whether YOU knew (or should have known) that. As already noted, if the advice is wrong, this can expose the attorney to a malpractice suit. If the advice is for a jurisdiction in which he doesn't practice, that's unauthorized practice of law (a crime), both of which can also carry professional sanctions. We're a notoriously risk-averse group, but it's not entirely an idle fear, either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Speaking in broad generalities, yes, it's probably legal and above-board. Wife's Lawyer represents Wife. His ethical responsibilities include zealous advocacy for his client. If Husband is proceeding without representation, he does so at his own peril. Same thing with signing documents. You're generally presumed to have read anything you've signed. It is, I suppose, technically possible that something he's signed could be later thrown out, but from a practical standpoint, it's incredibly unlikely to happen.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Charmmi posted:Hey guys I've got a pretty quick question. A friend of my sister's is going through a divorce in Virginia. They've been married five years and she quit her job to be a full-time mom two years ago. She wants alimony on top of child support. If she and her husband can't reach an agreement, she's going for a fault-based divorce. He did cheat on her and she has evidence in the form of sms messages, facebook conversations, IM logs and his own admission. What does she have to do to make those computer-based conversations admissible? My own research turned up some "forensics" programs that will make a copy of a computer's hard drive but they say you should buy a fresh drive and a write blocker to put the copy on. Is that overkill? I don't imagine that simple print outs would work. How can she prove that she didn't mess with the data? That strikes me as very much an "ask her lawyer" question.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
The Downfall posted:Ok so, long story short me and my friend have reasonable doubt that his wife is cheating on him, however he needs some closure and some proof for divorce purposes. "Reasonable doubt" is wholly inapplicable to this situation. It is a standard of proof for a criminal conviction. If reasonable doubts exist as to a Defendant's guilt, the jury cannot convict.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Michigan had an attorney who got grieved for telling (if I remember the story right) two different female clients it was okay they couldn't pay, because they could work it out on "the couch of restitution." (180 day suspension.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
reyalsnogard posted:Lawyers do that, too; only they call them "technicalities."egit I've never heard an actual lawyer use that term. Characters on TV, yes; laypeople, yes. Maybe like your Nancy Graces or the like would use it, but I don't have enough exposure to them to know. Overwhelmingly, I hear it used by laypeople for whom "The cops broke the law and illegally obtained evidence so there's nothing admissible against the defendant" is a "technicality." In other words "the need to follow the law is interfering with what I perceive as the desired result in this case." It's not a term with any meaning in the field. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
The three that spring immediately to mind are abandonment, adultery, and cruelty. There could be others, but that's what 15 seconds of thinking about it produced.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 00:09
|
|