|
Turtlicious posted:Is donald Trump has lighting us when he says collusion isn't against the law? Yeah he's basically gaslighting but more precisely he's making a purely technical point not a substantive one. Technically the criminal trigger is the word "conspiracy," not "collusion," but those are synonyms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8c00_story.html
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:It's not technically going to be relevant to whether or not you get your security deposit back, therefore technically it wouldn't come into evidence. Oh, I dunno. "Your Honor, I could not possibly have damaged the value of this apartment, because it was a child rape dungeon that had no market value." (note: this is not intended as actual advice)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
UglyCrackBaby posted:I thought this was a serious thread, if I'm being an idiot let me know. From the responses it sounds like I should just move on and forget about it? Serious response: you sound like you're pretty on the ball already, you have photos of how you left the apartment, you have a plan, you know small claims court exists, you know about the double damages provisions, etc. Any more specific advice would need to come from an actual lawyer in Vegas and would probably cost money. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Ok actual legal question regarding current politics One thing I've noticed in these "one year old in immigration court" cases is that the judges appear, at least from press reports, to be actually attempting to put the babies through some kind of colloquy -- asking questions like "do you understand why you're here", " are you competent to represent yourself," etc. Now, *obviously*, the answer to those questions is "no, I am baby." How on earth can 1) The court believe it needs to ask those questions yet 2) apparently never accept or produce the answer of "No"? Is the entire procedure just a kangaroo court farce? Or is this the typical loop in such situations where anyone who is competent enough to raise the "I am not competent" defense, is clearly competent because they raised the defense, etc. ? I could understand if the judges weren't asking at all. if there was no colloquy.. But since they're asking . . . what the gently caress? How are none of these courts ever ruling that the one year old is clearly not competent to represent themselves? If courts ever do rule like that, what happens then to said baby? Can anyone point me to actual cases on this? I haven't seen a legal analysis of this that goes beyond the initial "gently caress this is absurd" level and I'd be really interested to see what knots prior courts have tangled themselves into on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Right, but even in administrative hearings, on paper at least, people have due process rights . I don't know if Goldberg v. Kelly rights apply in immigration hearings or not (I suspect not), but even so. They obviously feel the need to go through the farce of a colloquy, so there's probably some policy somewhere saying they have to. I guess what I'm asking is, I suspect somewhere there must be a piece of paper giving the official "rationale" for that bullshit, and I'm wondering if anyone can cite me to it, because it must be one of the all-time greatest legal absurdities. Edit: for example, with a bit of googling I found this: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=lawineq So there have been holdings that due process required the presence of an interpreter in deportation hearings. Such a requirement would then immediately create an argument that a non-verbal child cannot receive due process without representation. According to that link, appellate courts appear to have evaded this by ruling that the interpreters in deportation hearings are for the record, not for the immigrant, and thus due process isn't entailed. This is of course bullshit, but they appear to have at least jumped through the hoops of writing the bullshit down in rulings. I'm wondering what exactly the bullshit is that, on paper, justifies both giving the colloquy to one year olds and then ignoring the inevitable answers. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:You’re approaching this from the perspective that the agency in charge would want to ensure the person being brought up has their rights respected. No I'm not, and I don't think you understand my question. I'm approaching this from the perspective that administrative agencies and administrative law courts write their bullshit down. They frequently make bullshit rulings and act in bad faith, but they write it down. I was hoping someone could point me to where they had written the specific bullshit down that they used to on paper explain this bullshit. Unfortunately it looks like nobody here knows  Past that there are millions of Americans trying to fight this bullshit and all the other Trump bullshit in a lot of different ways at a lot of different levels and in a lot of different ways. If you've got a great way to instantly fix this poo poo please share it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I think "I quit, but it's [employer]'s fault!" I think that term is for situations where the employer technically refuses to fire someone but just makes it impossible for them to work. i.e., "No you're still on the roster, we just aren't assigning you any hours" or "we've reassigned you to the Nome, Alaska store. You'll have to cover your own relocation costs."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It’s very common for an employee to have an employment contract. You likely signed one when you started your current job, if any. That *really* depends on who you are and what your job is and where it is. Most US jobs are at-will with no contract and the employer can fire whenever. If you're in a high status job that may be different but a majority of people are not in high status jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Sometime's it's just an "employee handbook." etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I remember reading that over 90% of all cases filed in many jurisdictions are from prisoners who have nothing better to do than file litigation all day. I'm pretty sure that was a BS republican talking point. At least since the 90's and the "Prison Litigation Reform Act," it's actually very difficult for prisoners to file most civil litigation (they have to jump through a lot of hurdles first and the prison can and often does make those hurdles insurmountable). They do file a lot of criminal re-appeals and post conviction relief and the like. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jul 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Lowness 72 posted:Dewey Cheatem and Howe is always great the first time you hear it. There's a whole family of very successful lawyers in my hometown all named Howe, too. As a result I didn't even realize that line was a joke the first couple times I heard it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
A 50S RAYGUN posted:about how meaningful is this whole 'collusion is not a crime' thing The word "collusion" is not in the relevant criminal statutes. However the word "conspiracy" is all over the place in those statutes and "conspiracy" and "collusion" are synonyms
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 13:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah collusion kind of means “unlawful conspiracy” euphronius posted:gently caress it. I’m getting the dictionary out, big guy. My initial thought when this topic was broached a few posts up was "conspiracy is to murder as collusion is to homicide" but then I realized that would be an inexact rabbit hole since technically some homicides are legal
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Sorry to break up all this collusion chat. In Fond Du Lac county, WI, are wills filed with a court/the county prior to death? I evidently know a bunch of people who don't put these fuckers on the fridge, so just trying to cover the bases re: places to search besides toilet tank and personal attorney (lol as if). I'd suggest calling the local clerk of probate court and asking them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Look at this tho. It’s like distilled this thread South Carolina doesn't require the magistrate judges to have any qualifications beyond a high school diploma. https://www.sccourts.org/summaryCourtBenchBook/ https://www.scbar.org/media/filer_public/9c/29/9c290707-9ff2-4780-a78e-6928b9f57a22/magistrate_court_guide_2016.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
A 50S RAYGUN posted:i was responding to the guy who said 'common law' was called that because it was supposed to be understand by commoners Oh God Someone tell this guy about how he should try to plead benefit of clergy
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:I mean sure you can read the court cases and understand the words, but I highly doubt the average person understands enough about law theory and practice to actually comprehend how court rulings occur. Theoretically there's nothing stopping a random smart person from putting in the work on their own to get a legal edumacation. In practice though nobody who thinks they're qualified to do complex litigation pro se is ever the sort of person to have done that. What law school teaches, theoretically, is how to spot valid issues, distinguish them from invalid issues, and then fit arguments together in a coherent way. Then hopefully while practicing you learn which arguments will actually work and which won't persuade. Pro se litigants never do that kind of analytical seiving so they always kitchen sink it and have to hope that they get lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's true, but pro-se litigants who are lawyers tend to go off the rails as well. Yup. It's basically impossible for human beings to do that kind of evaluative sieving about their own life/circumstances/arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That was an accident because the skills (Greek rhetoric) taught to aristocrats at the time lined up with courtroom skills Theoretically, if our schools actually taught critical thinking and logical analysis, and a basic course or two in legal history, then . . . . In practice though I think our current legal system is much more "specialized" than the Roman legal system was; Roman judges also did not necessarily have legal training. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Rhetoric is what would need to be taught. Critical thinking and logical analysis are also important too. Rhetoric is the big one tho . Eh, these days if you're actually in a trial in a courtroom someone has hosed up very badly (either on one side or the other). I guess if you're talking about being a criminal prosecutor specifically I'll grant the point. For everyone else, all you really need most of the time is a quality liberal arts education (i.e., be able to write a clear, persuasive, and logically valid essay or letter) and the resources (financial, mental, emotional) to get through the hazing rituals of law school and the bar exam. Of course that all goes out the window if you're emotionally involved in the case (which pro se's always are). EDIT: euphronius posted:
it's like I was reading your mind
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
There's also a decent chance this guy won't just let it drop. If he's the kind of rear end in a top hat I suspect he is he could very well keep pushing matters just out of spite. Do you have any text messages or emails you sent anyone about these events?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Imagine that the notion of law is just a vague idea that seems to unfairly interact with the worst parts of your life. You're deeply suspicious of the government. You might listen to Alex Jones. Lawyers, which are mostly characters you see on TV, basically appear to be some sort of sorcerer wielding arcane, reality-altering magicks by invoking mysterious words of power--usually to take stuff from you! You decide that enough is enough. There has to be a way to fight back against these power-hungry madmen. But you aren't sophisticated enough to get a real handle on what's going on; legal codes, court cases, and governance appear to be an enormous, incoherent mishmash of arbitrary ideas (this much is basically true) that you cannot hope to navigate. Fortunately, someone has been here before. The sovereign citizen movement is here to help. They cut through the bullshit and provide simple answers to your complex questions. Unfortunately, those answers happen to be insane, but the simplicity is oh so appealing, and their rhetoric meshes well with your paranoid worldview. This is the core of the engine that drives it, but it started with a variety of "Learn the Legal Secrets to avoid paying income tax and have all your dreams come true! All explained in this convenient pamphlet for only $29.99!!" type scams that took off and got turbocharged / went self-perpetuating viral when the Internet hit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I've always found the complete lack of professional dignity in some american lawyers fascinating. We're a nation full of people stupid enough to elect Trump, and where 99% of people could face bankruptcy next week if they have a sudden medical emergency. Almost all of us in America are one bad day away from being poor and desperate. Dignity is a luxury and a lot of folks don't care about it. If you look at the firm profiles these wacko adverts come from, it's usually either solo practitioners or people who started that way, and to quote Mencken, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > The Legal Questions Thread: Talk To An Attorney in Your Local Area
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s in every lease I’ve seen that tenant pays fees for successful landlord suit. Lots of leases are filled with clauses that are outright invalid under local state law, though. I have no knowledge of PA specifically but of the five or so landlord/tenant contracts I can remember looking at in my state, every one of them had at least one provision that was outright invalid under local law (usually waiving rights that state law prevents tenants from waiving, etc.). Either they're something the landlord's kid cooked up with an app or they're put together by the legal team for the out-of-state conglomerate that owns the building, etc. This is a big part of why the answer to landlord/tenant questions is almost always "talk to an attorney in your area" EDIT: oh you are a PA attorney and this is in PA ! sorry my bad missed that part. I'd guess you're probably right then! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Aug 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I like reading the discipline reports in the bar journal. I've seen numerous disbarments and suspensions of lawyers I've run into over the years, always thinking they were idiots. It's always fun to see the name of a lawyer you had a problem with in the past, read the reasons for discipline, and say, "yeah that sounds about right." Yeeeeup See, e.g., https://www.fitsnews.com/2018/07/30/todd-kincannon-proclaims-himself-as-jesus-christ-slaughters-dog/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Anything you do that may reflect on the firm matters. Especially when your side job is related to what you do at the firm. It’s not just ethical concerns. Yeah, especially these days when poo poo can blow up on twitter overnight.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
eke out posted:no story about a HOA ever ends with "and then I pointed out their hypocrisy and it all worked out great" baquerd posted:You must join the HOA board and become an HOA nazi now. A few years ago I had to literally arrange a coup against myself so that I could quit the board of the HOA I was on The short version: I'd been on the board as nominal president for about 7 years while two other people handled all the real work; they needed me as the "face" because I was a new resident in the neighborhood and thus the only person who wasn't actively hated by the various factions on the HOA; I agreed to do it because by being on the HOA I could keep them out of my own hair, the idea being that the HOA wasn't going to fine the HOA president. That strategy worked fine . . . for about 7 years. Then. One of those two active board members had to step down for health reasons and the other person sold their house in the neighborhood and moved out of state; when the second person moved away, we sent them a notice that we were going to replace them on the board; they never responded so after several months we appointed a replacement for them also. A few months after that they found out and came screaming back and demanding that they remain on the board after all, despite no longer owning a home in the neighborhood or living in the state. Turns out the HOA documents actually allowed this, even though they didn't own a home in the neighborhood, for *reasons*. The person we had appointed to replace them then withdrew in order to avoid drama (smart move). Unfortunately, due to various personal conflicts dating from before the dawn of time, this then-remaining two board members apart from myself could not agree on anything -- anything one of them agreed to, the other would reflexively disagree with. That created an impasse where we could not get unanimous agreement on even basic things like "let us hire someone to mow the grass" and left the board paralyzed. (Theoretically, we could have made decisions with 2/3rds majority, but that would just have created even more drama -- as a practical matter we needed universal agreement among the Board to get anything done). The landscaping in the common areas turned into a mess and I ended up having to do a lot of it myself for about a month. I didn't want to get between the two other board members if I could avoid it, though, because they were both acting in really bizarre and angry ways and I didn't want to wake up one morning with my tires slashed or something because I had Betrayed the Board. This also all left me deadlocked onto the Board -- if I just resigned, which is exactly what I wanted to do, then the only people on the board would be incapable of speaking to each other, and the Board wouldn't be able to act to meet the minimal functions it has to do every year like filing the taxes etc.. Everyone in the neighborhood came up to me and wanted to expel the occupying foreign agents, but nobody except me knew how (in order to get the necessary vote totals a lot of absentee homeowners had to be contacted, etc. and there were notice requirements and suchlike that nobody understood). I spent about two weeks very patiently explaining the HOA documents to everyone in the neighborhood ("here are the requirements for gathering proxy votes," etc.) in advance of the annual HoA meeting. Then the meeting arrived and there was all sorts of drama; the out-of-state board member participated by phone; there was pounding on the tables and shouts of "Order! Order!" ; there were Motions of No Confidence; there were angry shouts of 'You can't fire us, we quit! And I hope you're happy when your regime fees all get raised!" (The vote to expel was unanimous with one abstention, myself). End of the meeting I was able to resign and be replaced by someone else. They gave me a tie. A few months later the new board sent me an email about how my bushes and yard were not Up To Standard and I replied by citing the HoA bylaws back at them -- all the stuff they were sniping about is stuff that isn't actually against our rules. They haven't bothered me since. Good Times. sleepy.eyes posted:Here's one. Just moved into a neighborhood with an HOA, have stuff like you can't park your mobile home in your driveway, no overnight parking for more than a few days in the event of guests, crap like that. Thing is, they don't seem to enforce the rules, at all. At least 2/3 of th people have a 3rd or 4th car on th street every night, a dude has his mobile home (bus-sized fucker) parked next to his house, ect. I don't plan on getting in a pissing match with a bunch of bored old people, but if I ever do, can I just point to all that stuff and tell them to pound sand? What happens when they just don't enforce the rules for a long period of time?* The answer to this varies a lot depending on state law and the specific bylaws of your HoA. The practical answer is that anyone deeply involved with the HoA is probably insane and you will never win against them without putting in way more effort than any sane person would ever consider doing over their neighbor's grass height. On the other hand, if you're willing to blow a shitload on legal fees, if they're a small HoA they probably don't have the budget to match you; if they're a large HoA they might; either way it's not worth it. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 24, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Alright, thanks for the answers. I haven't been contacted by them and I do take care of my place, so I don't foresee any issues, was just curious. The place my brother moved into they had a little package with "Here are the rules, we will eat you alive if you don't follow them". They gave me a "If you want to use the pool, get in touch and you'll have to pay a little extra. Welcome to the area, we guess." It was oddly low key. That's what you want. "Good" HoA's are the ones that barely ever enforce the rules unless there's some common issue that actually needs to be dealt with (i.e., one resident has a gigantic hundred foot dead tree in his yard that's about to fall on the neighbor's houses).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Honestly the whole existence of "The Goon Doctor" as a forum seems like a problematic concept for anyone giving advice there; definitionally you can't do an in person assessment. But, then again, for similar reasons, the concept of giving legal advice online has its own similar issues, unless that advice is "talk to a lawyer in your area who works in the relevant field."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
If you really want to throw down, "failure to return phone calls" is, as I understand it, the leading source of attorney bar complaints. If you go that route though you'll probably need to find a new lawyer, which might be a good thing to do first anyway if they're going month+ without returning calls. For general social security questions you can call the social security administration toll free CS number, 1 (800) 772-1213. You sound like you're running into the deemed income / in-kind support rule with SSI. You can find general info about that rule here, but it may be hard to process without an attorney helping out: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n4/v68n4p15.html EDIT: better link: https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-living-ussi.htm Every state has a "protection and advocacy organization" that can act as free legal aid / free legal assistance for people with disabilities who have disability-related legal issues. They don't always handle SSI issues (you need special training and certification to practice with social security administration issues, and the private bar is generally happy to take these cases anyway) but they may be able to help -- perhaps by referring you to a better, more responsible / responsive alternate local attorney. Since I don't know what state you're in I can't refer you to your local protection and advocacy org, but a quick google for that phrase and your state should find it. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I'm actually curious what you'd charge here. It doesn't seem to meet the level of rape or sexual misconduct, but Google seems to indicate that there isn't a criminal malpractice here since no one died? Assault, unwanted sexual contact, fraud, etc. Also child support not alimony. Unpaid child support.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
Try googling "[your state] + attorney referral service"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Pro tip: In the future, your friend should not punch people, or their things Everyone I've ever given this advice to has agreed with it but the people who need this advice never seem to listen to it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:But what about that guy, over there, who could really use a punch? Can I punch him? Yes, you can. But think how much less work there would be for attorneys all over the world if everyone who was about to throw a punch took a half second beforehand to think to themselves, "Is this a good idea?"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Counterpoint: Nazis technically, not people (laws may vary by jurisdiction!) BonerGhost posted:What if they almost run over my friend? It's not like you have a horn when you're on foot, you only have a fist! Have you tried this thing, just invented, we call it "yelling"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Then beat someone to death with a deck of cards and a live rabbit, how hard could it be? Does the rabbit have to remain alive throughout the proceedings
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:I mean, (as far as I can tell) paralegals do everything attorneys do except directly represent someone in court. In my experience they're the ones doing 99% of the 'work'. They seem to be writing most of the stuff that gets filed and where it gets filed. I get that people who ARE attorneys are probably intimidated by that, but I worked directly with both attorneys and paralegals and usually the paralegals understood far more of what was going on with anything at any given time than an attorney does. A lot of attorneys didn't even know what constitutes legal service it was madness sometimes working with them. In my experience the only significant difference between an attorney and a paralegal is how much money their respective parents had to pay for schooling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Paralegals can’t write substantial pleadings, motions or briefs or argue in court. I suppose the best of them can compose discovery documents. There's legally can't and there's mentally can't. I"ve known plenty of practicing attorneys who were barely capable of breathing without their paralegals pressing rhtymically on their chests.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
euphronius posted:I’m struggling to conceive of the circumstances where a paralegal is single handedly preparing a substantial appellate brief or substantial and non routine pleading or brief in support of a motion in a form which could be filed That's a pretty small fraction of the practice of law, is the thing (hence the "non routine"). There are many, many attorneys who go years at a time without actually appearing in a courtroom, or who might go decades without filing anything "non routine", especially if your practice area is something formulaic or solicitor-esque like real estate or elder law.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 19:22
|
|