|
Scurvy posted:My boss has been letting employees go to cut costs, but has been taking on an increasing number of unpaid interns. Does one have to be licensed to do your work? Is the company holding out out any particular level of experience that a customer could reasonably rely on? ("Our employees all have at least 5 year's experience at ______") Otherwise, the market will solve the problem. "They do crappy work, I'll take my business elsewhere." (Sucks to be you, though. Sorry)
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:Quick question about car searches. I was pulled over, got out of car with driver side window down and unlocked. The officer had asked me out of the car then a minute later he opened the driver side door and searched. Is this a legitimate search? If the facts are strictly limited to the facts you've given, it's a bad search. However, For what reason were you pulled over? (I'm assuming you were the driver) What happened during "then a minute later"? How was your behavior? nervous, belligerent, calm, goony? Where were you in relation to the car at the time of the search? Were you free to leave / arrested /cuffed at the time of the search? Did you give the officer permission to search? Had you done anything that could be construed as a furtive movement(s) as you were being pulled over? Was there anything illegal in plain view in your car? How extensive was the search? Did the cop find anything during the search? If so, what was it and where was it? The answers to these questions aren't determinative either way, but will help to get you closer to an answerable question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:I was the driver. I was pulled over for a broken headlight. I was calm and was at the passanger side door getting my insurance and registration out of the glovebox. The passenger side door was open while I stood there, at the same time he opened the driver side door. I never gave permission, he never asked anything about a search. I don't think I did anything furtive. After he opened the door he leaned into the car and went over everything with his flashlight. Nothing was found. Let's look at this from the cop's perspective: It's dark, and there's an unknown person with freedom of movement on the other side of the car and they're reaching around in the glovebox/passenger side seat/footwell. He didn't go into any containers or seize anything. Forgetting the 4th Amendment for a moment, I think the cop acted appropriately to protect his safety, given the circumstances. Why he gave you your freedom of movement to get out, go to the other side of your car and rummage around over there is a question his corporal needs to ask him. * Was there a 4th Amendment violation? Given "he opened the door he leaned into the car and went over everything with his flashlight," probably. Was any evidence found to be suppressed as a result? No. Is there enough to make a 1983 (civil) action? I doubt it, but that's not my area of expertise. My cynical side thinks that if any contraband was found, the police report would contain nervousness and furtive movement on your part, and your "opened the door he leaned into the car" would read "observed 'X' in plain view through the open driver's window" followed by (legitimately) opening the door and leaning in. If you get stopped, pull over, roll down your window and wait, with your hands on the top of the steering wheel, until the cop asks you for license and registration. Tell them where you're going to go to get this stuff, and do so slowly and carefully. You're not doing this because some power-mad rear end in a top hat will beat your rear end if you don't. You're doing it because that father wants to go back home to his kids at the end of his shift. If you help make his interaction with 'unknown stranger who could have a gun and kill me #27' as stress-free as possible, he'll do the same. (usually) *an unintended side effect of the Supreme Court's recent Gant decision may be that officers will put themselves in harm's way more often in order to manufacture justification to turn illegal searches into legal ones.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 15:57
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:I should add that after he stopped me, he told me to get out of the car. Talked to me for a minute about my headlight and where I was coming from. While I was standing next to him I gave him my license and then he told me to get my insurance and registration. That's when I went to the passenger door to get into the glovebox. LLCoolJD posted:All of this over a busted headlight, and you were never asked for your consent to the search? The prosecutors in your area need to fax their local law enforcement a copy of Arizona v. Gant. Gant doesn't apply here: 1. Driver's not removed from the passenger compartment, and/or 2. Driver's not secured. Belton would still apply in this case. The only difference from Belton is the presence of other officers, which isn't enough to overcome the bit about an unsecured driver reaching into the passenger compartment. For Gant to apply, first and fore most the driver must be: 1) secured and 2) away from the vehicle. Only then can you go to the next step in the analysis: Whether the police might find evidence of the crime the driver was arrested for, in the car. A broken taillight won't justify searching the vehicle - finding drugs on the driver will. (At least that's what the Gant court thinks) Of course, if the police can justify towing the car and comply with their department tow policy in towing it, they can "inventory" the car incident to the tow, and anything they find is admissible. (Or they can just bring a drug dog over and have it hit on the car.) Fake edit: Actually, neither Gant nor Belton apply yet, because the driver hasn't been arrested. We're still in 'particularized suspicion' that the driver is armed and dangerous, or probable cause territory.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
Assuming the cop's version of events would be the same as your own, still a bad search. Possible innocent explanation: Maybe he thought he saw a weapon/contraband and went in to allay his concerns. Possible non-innocent explanation: who is a judge/jury going to believe? Him or you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
tremendous dicks posted:You are hereby notified that your license and/or privelege to drive to operate any motor vehicle in the State of Georgia is suspended as shown herein. You're probably going to have to do the 1-5 stuff. You should get in touch with a DUI attorney. The DDS (Dept. of Driver Safety) rules are arcane and you'll need a specialist to get you through them. Make sure he/she has experience with the DDS administrative rules, not just the regular criminal law statutes regarding DUI prosecutions. There may be a 'work, church, and school' exception, so ask about that, too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
tremendous dicks posted:I talked to my lawyer today and he basically told me ... that he didn't really deal with that stuff. Find one who does. Do you want your license back? Ever?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:When picking up a vehicle (towed) from the Police Dolphin posted:It's not my car. Fake Edit: So what you're really asking is, "how can I pick up a car from impound and not have to answer questions about the crime that happened involving the car?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
Wide Area Network posted:Hector offered Veronica $10,000 in exchange for marrying him to allow him to return to the US after he visits his dad. They would then annul the wedding once he returns to the US. Wide Area Network posted:Would my girlfriend be liable if this was investigated? If she lied to investigators about it, yes. Hector needs to see a good immigration lawyer - There's a good chance that a sham marriage is either unnecessary or won't help (unless his dad is going to be able to hold on for 3-6 months)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:Anyone know what the laws/regulations are regarding sending produce in the mail across state lines? I live in California and would like to send some oranges in the mail back to my family in Indiana but have no idea what the rules are on that. There are companies that send fruit from CA everywhere in the US. I doubt there are any prohibitions, but you might call: (800)ASK-USPS before you go to the post office.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
excellentcoffee posted:Location: Ohio. Elaborating on what Solomon Grundy correctly noted: 1. What you said in the grand jury can be used against you. If you don't go the the meeting or you go and invoke your right to remain silent, your absence or silence at the meeting cannot be used against you. 2. That they suspect you of a crime. They may actually suspect you of a crime, or they may want to put some pressure on you. The DA may well be more interested in you as a witness than as a defendant, and that's why he's bothering to speak with you. GET AN ATTORNEY If you absolutely can't hire one, ask the DA if he'll get one appointed for you before you talk to him. If he's interested in you as a witness, he'll figure out a way get you counsel. The DA is not your friend. (even if his interests may align with yours) You have a right to remain silent. USE IT. After you talk to an attorney, he/she may advise you that this is one of those 5% or less situations where it may be to your benefit to talk. Until them, politely tell the DA that your sorry you can talk to him, that you're concerned about your legal position and that you really need to talk to an attorney first.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
excellentcoffee posted:So just to clarify, I do have the right to an attorney before I meet with her, correct? excellentcoffee posted:Regardless of me already testifying at the Grand Jury? excellentcoffee posted:I just need to ask the prosecutor when I go in for the meeting? Would she have to read me my miranda rights again? excellentcoffee posted:EDIT: Uh, dumb question, but what would the attorney do at the meeting? Just talk to me and tell me what to say? The attorney will then negotiate your giving of information to the prosecutor in a way that keeps you out of trouble (if that can be done - If it can't, he/she will tell you that too, and also tell you to keep your mouth shut.) excellentcoffee posted:EDIT 2: I've contacted several different lawyers, and right now I'm looking at the cheapest one I can get (300 to go with me to meet the prosecutor). Could I be making a mistake here and rushing into things, or should I just go for it. Having an attorney who will just tag along is worthless. The attorney has to hear your story first, so he/she knows what to expect to hear. The attorney should ask you the questions the prosecutor will ask you, so you'll both already know the answers to those inevitable questions. The attorney should talk to the prosecutor before hand to find out what she wants out of you. THEN, and ONLY THEN, should he/she go with you to the meeting. It sucks, but if you pay little, you'll get little. Or, put another way, it is possible to buy a car for $300, but it will probably suck and will probably leave you stranded somewhere you don't want to be stranded. Incredulous Red posted:Have you done anything at all that could be construed as a crime? As titillating as your story might be, you shouldn't be telling us.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
excellentcoffee posted:I just don't have enough time to find the money, then find another lawyer. What are my options at this point? And I mean that seriously, no goon sarcasm here. The only thing I can think of is using my college loans. :/ Unless you've been disowned, your folks love you and don't want bad things to happen to you. Better for you to feel ashamed for a year than to be in prison for ten. [/melodrama] But seriously, call your folks. excellentcoffee posted:Also, is there any website I could use to find out if this lawyer I have already is any good? http://www.martindale.com/ is a search /ranking service for attorneys where rankings are based on subscribing to the service and meeting certain guidelines for being ranked. Not all attorneys subscribe, so not all of them are on there. excellentcoffee posted:EDIT 2: Would it be a bad idea to request a rescheduling with the prosecutor? Coupled with your telling her that your scared and out of your league and comfort zone, saying you want to talk with an attorney is reasonable. Asking what the meeting will be about is a fair question, so long as you have the presence of mind to keep your mouth shut and not try to explain when she tells you what she wants to know.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
excellentcoffee posted:I spoke with my father, and he just told me that I don't need a lawyer until I'm arrested. excellentcoffee posted:He told me the court should provide me one for free if I ask anyways. excellentcoffee posted:He then told me the Miranda rights that were read to me were only for court and not for any other meeting. He's wrong, isn't he? The prosecutor is not required to read you a Miranda warning at the meeting. (unless you're not free to leave) In that respect, your dad's right. The inalienable constitutional rights mentioned in the Miranda case are inalienable constitutional rights. You have those rights all the time. You can invoke those rights at any time. The Miranda case did not establish or create those rights, it just said that law enforcement has to remind (warn) people that they already have those rights. In the sense that you don't have those rights at this meeting, your dad's wrong. In the sense of "If I go to the meeting and they don't read me my Miranda rights and I confess all over myself, can they use what I said against me?" Yes. excellentcoffee posted:What I plan to do; excellentcoffee posted:Also, if any of these questions could get me in trouble, just let me know and I'll stop. I'm trying to stray from giving names and details of the case, and I'm just hoping I can find some good advice. Yes, we're curious, and yes, you're doing the right thing in not telling us. joat mon fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:If I were to set up a system in which people donate small sums of money for a chance at being able to 'win' a donation in their name to a registered npo of their choice, while simultaneously keeping [50%] of that money for myself, Massachusetts General Statutes, Chapter 271: Section 7 - Lotteries Section 7A - Raffles Section 8 - Lotteries in buildings Section 9 - Selling Lottery tickets Section 7A has the 'charity' exceptions. But when the house takes 50%, it's not charity - it's gambling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
EVG posted:We have an apartment lease in Chicago, IL through 04/01/10. It is written into the lease that tenants need to give 60 days notice if they are not planning to renew. What did you speak to him about? The 60 days notice clause? Edit/Addit: Illinois' Automatic Contract Renewal Act: (815 ILCS [Illinois Combined Statutes] 601/10) Sec. 10. Automatic renewal; requirements. (b) Any person ... that sells or offers to sell any products or services to a consumer pursuant to a contract, where such contract term is a specified term of 12 months or more, and where such contract automatically renews for a specified term of more than one month unless the consumer cancels the contract, shall notify the consumer in writing of the automatic renewal. Written notice shall be provided to the consumer no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days before the cancellation deadline pursuant to the automatic renewal clause. Check with a Chicago real estate/landlord-tenant lawyer. You'll want to make sure that "sells or offers to sell any products or services to a consumer" applies to leases of real property. FYI, Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code of Chicago, Section 5-12-080: http://www.illinois-attorney.com/ordinance.htm Though it doesn't seem very helpful for your situation. joat mon fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Mar 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:you only get the interest/penalties when you cash out by moving out. http://www.illinois-attorney.com/080.htm Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, is your landlord a jerk, or is he OK? You said he self-managed this one property of his. He's probably going off the State law that says he doesn't have to give you interest on your security deposit. As for you and him missing the notice of non-renewal, that law has only been around since 2000. If he's been renting the place out since before 2000, he may not have known about the change. So, he may not be trying to screw you over. Especially if you haven't got a new place lined up, it may not be necessary or wise to burn your bridges. If he's capable of discussing this rationally, you might just want to have a sit-down with him, get these issues out in the open, and talk out a way to make it work. He'll keep his renters and have a better idea of what the law is, so he doesn't get screwed by bad renters in the future. Or, he'll lose you guys as renters, but amicably - he won't get his 60 day penalty, but he'll have a beter idea of what the law is for next time, so he can legally enforce it. It seems like you've got the law on your side, but the law doesn't work smoothly, quickly or cheaply. Which way is more of a hassle? HINT: This is a trick question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
jase1 posted:What do I do about a LEO targeting me on the same highway the same time frame and day every week for about 2 months now? If you're really paranoid about this, you could record your interacations with the cop. It appears that Ohio allows you to record conversations that you are having with somebody else without telling the other person. http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ohio/ohio-recording-law but, Incredulous Red posted:Dude. You're getting warnings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
invision posted:Table I of the FMVSS...says... invision posted:What I'm getting from that is that a backup lamp is only required for OEM or replacement lamps, correct? invision posted:If so, what constitutes a replacement lamp? invision posted:In order to fall under the FMVSS for a backup lamp, wouldn't I be required to have a replacement backup lamp to begin with? invision posted:I think the question really is, what constitutes a "replacement lamp"? http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dautomotive&field-keywords=backup+lamp Pick one and put it on your vehicle. Or, Just get a white light. Put it on the back of your truck. Point it backwards. Hook it back up to the switch on the transmission. That martinet that somehow has even more spare time than you is not going to pull out a tape measure, photometer and the CFR to make sure you did it exactly right. invision posted:I DID take your advice with a grain of salt considering you are still in law school, although it does make you more qualified than anyone else. 2. Former Judge Advocate 3. Among other things, did Base regulations, including traffic regs Fix the bloody light. Somebody's unit needs some mortar pits dug. edit: invision, It took a couple minutes, but your avatar finally clicked. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3256209&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post371274583 If you're doing more stuff like this in your spare time, carry on. joat mon fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Apr 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
xaoult posted:I'm just wondering if this cease and desist sent by her parents attorney is a bullshit scare tactic or not. Does it look something like this? It has no legal effect, though it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove you 'knew or should have known'* that any further contact you'd want to make was unwanted. xaoult posted:which I do not *Utah Criminal Code §76-5-106.5(2): (2) A person is guilty of stalking who intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and knows or should know that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person: (a) to fear for the person's own safety or the safety of a third person; or (b) to suffer other emotional distress. e: Solomon Grundy posted:What you got is a letter from a girl's parents telling you to keep your grubby goon paws off of their precious princess....stalking. joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Apr 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2010 13:13
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:yeah there's on-point case law that says what I'm sayin [that] it's not fraud unless the false information is actually relied upon citation, please? e.g., U.S. v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) (Materiality of falsehood is not an element of the crime of knowingly making a false statement to a federally insured bank under [18 U.S.C.] §1014) (I know this is a cite to US law. I'd like yours to Canadian law, since the Canadian view seems to be the better one)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
uG posted:I have missed my chance to argue for a restricted license. Even if I can still make my case before the judge I do not have the public defender at my side anymore to help me out. Ughhh... You should contact a DUI attorney - he/she'll know the ins and outs of getting you a restricted license.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
uG posted:[the court may order the secretary of state to issue to the person a restricted license] Call your PD. Tell him you just found out that you can get a restricted license, and you really need one. At least around here, that's something that we'd be able to go back and fix, both from a "is this doable?" standpoint and from a "can my PD still do this?" standpoint.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
Caveat: Total Biscuit, I'd like to see your video and the other guy's, or at least a more detailed description of both. What I'm writing here is based upon what you've said so far. I may have totally misconstrued what little you've said about the operative facts. e: please tell me it's not about this. TotalBiscuit posted:Ok, need a little bit of assistance on this one. I've got a bit of background in UK law but this involves someone in the US. TotalBiscuit posted:Now to the best of my knowledge, he does not qualify for protection under parody law or fair use. He did not alter the footage, he did not credit the footage, he did not ask permission to use the footage and I own the footage in full. There was no 'parody' going on, it was just a 20 or so second chunk of my footage, including my unaltered voice, cut into a piece of his work. TotalBiscuit posted:I filed a copyright claim, on the basis that this guy actively went out of his way to taunt and harrass me about the video, so hey, why not? Why not? The overburdened Federal courts are not the proper place to assuage hurt feelings. TotalBiscuit posted:Protecting my IP is entirely reasonable right? I informed him before doing so that I could in fact 'do poo poo to him' contrary to what he claimed and that his video did not qualify under US parody law. Is it your hurt pride that you're protecting? No, not reasonable. TotalBiscuit posted:This dumbass has filed a counterclaim with Youtube, which means I'm now obliged to go after him and file a court action under the DMCA. TotalBiscuit posted:In counterclaiming, he perjured himself and provided his full name and address for the purposes of filing. TotalBiscuit posted:I don't see any reason to let this guy get away with his behaviour, particularly when he went so far out of his way to try and rub it in my face. TotalBiscuit posted:So the question is two-fold. 1. What little info you've provided about the other guy's work doesn't sound like "parody" but it does sound like "commentary," both of which are protected by the fair use doctrine. 2. Hire a lawyer to file the papers in the proper Alabama federal district. I believe the filing fee is $350. TotalBiscuit posted:I'd imagine he will back off when that happens so I won't need to go any further. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/legal-threats/ It's been 2 years, Leonard! We miss you! e: grammar joat mon fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Apr 21, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:Let's say someone was arrested for X and it is currently being prosecuted for a C-felony in Indiana (A lawyer is on this case). There was also an ordinance violation based upon the same facts and d. was found guilty for that and fined $2500. Lawyer advised not to pay on that while the felony is still in progress Any screwing up of the criminal issue happened with pleading guilty/ being found guilty on the ordinance violation; paying the fine is immaterial. If someone's already been found guilty (and been ordered by the court to pay a fine), paying the fine can't make someone any more guilty. Was someone represented by counsel when she pled/ was found guilty on the ordinance violation? Did someone plead guilty or was she found guilty? My cynical side wonders if the attorney is telling someone not to pay the fine so that he gets his fee first. If the ordinance violation was for the exact same facts, there might be a double jeopardy issue in your favor, but resolving that potential issue is highly fact dependent and Indiana law dependent. e: I'm not saying that someone should go pay her fine against her attorney's advice based upon what some anonymous guy from the internet said; but someone might want to ask her attorney some more pointed questions about the matter. VVVVV: Yep, she did. I was honoring her original effort at pseudo-anonymity in case she wanted to edit. joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Apr 21, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Would someone mind explaining to me the difference between the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" standards? I'm trying to better understand the new immigration law in Arizona, and I want to know exactly how abusive it is. If there's a link outside of Wiki that explains it, I'll take that as well. Burdens of proof are like pornography; a cop/judge knows them when he/she sees them. Probable cause is the amount of evidence required to justify an arrest or a search warrant; 'some reason to believe' that a person committed a crime or that certain contraband will be found in a certain place. Reasonable suspicion is something less than probable cause and something more than 'mere suspicion.' Reasonable suspicion is best known as the basis for a Terry stop [opinion] [wiki] which is a brief investigatory stop and /or a pat-down search for weapons, based on an officer's reasonable suspicion, plus articulable facts that a specific person is armed if he wants to do a pat-down. So basically, under the passed AZ law if a cop thinks he has enough reason to stop or frisk you, he can also ask you about your immigration status. If you can't provide any proof, that additional information would be enough to amount to probable cause to arrest you. So, that means the courts get involved, and a judge gets to hear the cop's BS justification (he seemed nervous; he didn't seem to want to talk to me; he was in a day labor line; he wouldn't make eye contact; you fill in the blank) Surely the judge will find the stop unreasonable and throw the case out... Unfortunately, no. EVEN IF hell freezes over and an immigration judge rules against the cops and for an illegal, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply in deportation proceedings. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (opinion) [The exclusionary rule is what gives teeth to a court's ruling that an action is unconstitutional. Because the Constitution does not give a remedy for unconstitutional police actions, the Supreme Court created one in the 19 teens; if the police get evidence illegally (like from an illegal stop, arrest, search, etc.) that evidence is excluded from the case against you; the State can't use it.] However, in Lopez-Mendoza the US Supreme Court said (basically) 1: deportation is a civil matter so the exclusionary rule doesn't apply, and 2: if you're here illegally, you're still illegal no matter how you got picked up - GTFO. The only way this law will fail legally is if a U.S. citizen gets picked up, suffers damages of some sort as a result, and successfully sues the State. e: graphics! 
joat mon fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Apr 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
uG posted:In Michigan if you received an arrest warrant for violation of probation will your hearing not be scheduled until after you're arrested? I would be surprised if any jurisdiction scheduled a hearing before there was any reason to believe the parties would appear. If you think you've got such a warrant, get an attorney. Have him/her get in touch with the judge/DA/probation officer so your attorney can surrender you. Maybe your attorney can work out the violation issue, or at least have a chance of getting you a personal recognizance bond since you turned yourself in. (demonstrating that you're a good risk to show up for the parole violation hearing)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
uG posted:Should I get an attorney from the city im on probation from (its not the city I live in), or the attorney from my city that handled my previous case which is how I violated? I'm guessing jurisdiction "A" with the older case has the probation violation warrant for you, based upon your picking up the newer case in jurisdiction "B"? Get an attorney in jurisdiction "A" unless the attorney for your new case in "B" also knows the people and the system in jurisdiction "A". You should have told your attorney for the new case about your old case. Your attorney should have taken care of both cases, or at least greased the skids where you had the old case. (Unless there was a tactical decision by the attorney to keep that information close to the vest in order to improve your chances of probation in the new case) I hope that made sense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:Say, if I wanted to post a rant on the internet about my state senator, without leveling any accusations or threats, but using fairly abusive language (saying "go fist yourself" seven or eight times reaching a grotesque crescendo), that's protected speech, right? gvibes posted:Really, really doubt that would be illegal. Though, of course, you can be sued for whatever they want to sue you for. So long as you're not in the military. ^^^^^^^ yeah, you can do better than fisting (unless it's Nancy Elliot, but that's old news)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
uG posted:Next thing I know I have the arrest notification from jurisdiction B. This doesn't make sense. Is it a typo? uG posted:The reason my attorney didn't take care of both cases is because he was a public defender for the new case. Were you able to get your PD to go back and try to get you a restricted license? uG posted:I figured i'd get a notification for a hearing like I mentioned before. I'm hoping the whole arrest thing is an automatic thing and that ultimately when my hearing takes place they don't give me any time... but I kinda assume that if that was the case I wouldn't have an arrest warrant notice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:state senators can also go fist themselves...[over]...repealing a law that allowed convenience stores and gas stations to sell wine Oy veh. Have a glass and chill. If that's the worst law or worst rhetoric your legislators are pushing, pour yourself another glass from me, because you live in a well governed paradise.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:See, that bothers me (the rhetoric, not so much the law) and that's why I want them to fist themselves. Plus it's sort of a comedy thing. I agree that the rhetoric is the more troublesome part of it - maybe you could express your displeasure in a more constructive but still satisfying way. Start with who's really pulling her strings - it's not the children, they don't vote and more importantly, they don't give campaign contributions. The list of her contributors and their names and addresses are publicly available, and almost certainly online. Find out who they are; google their names and find out what they do. Are any of them on ABC boards or liquor wholesaler/ liquor store trade associations? Hmm... liquor stores... they might have an interest in preventing convenience stores from selling wine... IF you can develop that information, you've got ammo for something more interesting than a vulgar and self-centered cathartic: "AAAGH MY WINE FUUU CHILDREN MY LEFT NUT FUUUU FISTING FUUU!!!!!" If you could make that connection, you can legitimately call her a whore; a whore for the liquor stores, and a pimp; pimping out the people's children to fill her campaign coffers with the liquor business' baksheesh. That's useful to the political process; fisting isn't. [/derail] (civics is law-like, isn't it?)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 04:54
|
|
|
uG posted:Do you think I could hire an attorney 'just' to get the warrant dropped and a hearing scheduled? uG posted:To me, it seems like an attorney won't be much help in a probation violation hearing where the violation was a new crime... there isn't much in the way of defending my action. But I could very well be wrong. Around here, having an attorney in your situation would be the difference between prison and not prison. But then again, we're in the top 5 for percentage of population in prison (and #1 for percentage of women incarcerated. Yay us!) (Ideally) your attorney will know what things your judge wants to hear. He/she will know which facts matter and which ones don't. He/she will know how to get the DA on your side or how to blunt the DA's attack. He/she will know how to best use your probation officers to help you. get an attorney If you go to jail, you'll probably get a PD. You'll be in custody, which will suck. If your boss will hold your job, your attorney will still be able to argue that you can work and stay out of trouble and pay taxes and fines and PO fees and not cost the state $50+ a day to keep you in prison. And your attorney can argue that the state's already taken enough of that pound of flesh by keeping you in jail until your hearing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Eli Cash posted:I was charged with possession of marijuana paraphernalia when I was 16. I'm almost 24 now and am going to undergo a background check. Who do I contact to get a copy of my criminal record? I am getting mixed suggestions on whether or not this will show up. I live in Ohio. It was probably sealed when you turned 18 and expunged when you were 23. Call the court clerk for the county where you picked up the charge to find out for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 13:13
|
|
|
uG posted:So I hired the best lawyer I could for my probation violation. As you might remember they sent me a notice that they have an arrest warrant in the mail. My lawyer has given me some papers to take to the court tomorrow to get me in front of the judge to plead not guilty on my violation and get a hearing set. He said he talked to them and that they will release the arrest warrant once I do this. Does that sound right? It sounds to me like they just want me to show up to the court building so they can arrest me... The procedures and rules for how stuff like this works are extremely localized. You're 1000+ miles and several states from me, and I couldn't even tell you how they do it 25 miles from me in the next county. Sorry. But thanks for the (backhanded) PD love...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
Alterian posted:about work laws or where to find info. § 95-25.7. Payment to separated employees. Employees whose employment is discontinued for any reason shall be paid all wages due on or before the next regular payday either through the regular pay channels or by mail if requested by the employee. upon separation you should get all wages due to you by the next payday § 95-25.2. Definitions. In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires: (16) "Wage" paid to an employee means compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee whether determined on a time, task, piece, job, day, commission, or other basis of calculation, and the reasonable cost as determined by the Commissioner of furnishing employees with board, lodging, or other facilities. For the purposes of G.S. 95-25.6 through G.S. 95-25.13 "wage" includes sick pay,vacation pay, severance pay, commissions, bonuses, and other amounts promised when the employer has a policy or a practice of making such payments. "wages" includes vacation pay § 95-25.12. Vacation pay. No employer is required to provide vacation pay plans for employees. However, if an employer provides these promised benefits for employees, the employer shall give all vacation time off or payment in lieu of time off in accordance with the company policy or practice. Employees shall be notified in accordance with G.S. 95-25.13 of any policy or practice which requires or results in loss or forfeiture of vacation time or pay. Employees not so notified are not subject to such loss or forfeiture. if a company gives vacation pay, they are required to give it to you or pay you for it, unless there is a company policy that allows for forfeiting vacation pay. From: http://www.nclabor.com/wh/Wage_Hour_Act_Packet.pdf NC Dept. of Labor: http://www.nclabor.com/index.htm For NC wage complaints: http://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/wagecomplaint.htm
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
dMastri posted:Yeah she did. Love makes you do stupid poo poo, I guess. A protective order is The State saying "You shall not have any contact with this certain person" The person requesting the protective order is effectively out of the equation; the requestor's consent/wish/acquiescence to further contact is immaterial. It's similar to the misunderstanding that a victim can "drop a case." Once the complaint is made, the process is in the State's hands; the State decides whether to file charges and charges are filed in the State's name, not the victim's. If the State wants to 'drop' the case, it can, but a victim has no ability to dismiss a case - the case is the State's. In her case, there was a hearing (to which she may or may not have shown up) where the State (through the Judge) heard evidence and decided whether or not to grant the protective order. Once the order was granted, a violation is between her and the State, not between her and her ex. He can ask the court to dismiss the protective order, but why should he? If she pisses him off, he can call the police and let the State take care of it. That being said, if she wanted to take the case to trial (assuming she couldn't get it tossed on a technical issue - there can be lots in a violation of protective order case) her best shot would probably be jury nullification. The jury may decide that "yeah, she violated the law, but the guy asked her to come over and he's a dick anyway" and refuse to find her guilty. That strategy, however, requires her to not be volatile, argumentative or confrontational. That may also be her problem with her P.O.; she may not have given him much chance to give her a break (especially if she argued with him that peeing hot was OK because she wasn't specifically told not to smoke MJ (but which is illegal, which she was specifically told not to do)) What she might try is: - explaining to her P.O. that she misunderstood the intern and booked the flight - and it's going to cost her 'x' dollars to to cancel - and all these other people will also have to cancel as result - and she'll take a pee test right now and pass it - and one the day before she leaves - and here's the contact information for the urinalysis center in Maui where she's going to take a pee test during her vacation (internet is great) - and she'll come in and take one the day after she gets back but can she please go? But if the P.O. says no again, she can't go, because the P.O. will check on her during the time she wanted to be in Hawaii. (If she brought her itinerary back with her when he said 'no' the first time, he's already going to do that.)
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Nautatrol Rx posted:Thanks for the helpful replies. To make it a little more clear, the potential client claims to have statistical data regarding sexual discrimination in rulings by a judge. It's female on female, though, which makes it interesting. What tightens my sphincter is that it's a judge who has the means (and potentially the motive) to mess with me for selling my services to this individual that the judge would like to keep quiet. What you and your client are seeking to do is totally, completely, protected under the First Amendment. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the Judge is going to just roll over and take it. She can strike back, but she'll lose. (eventually) Your harder question is, if the Judge is going to SLAPP us, am I willing and (financially) able to see it through? Unless your local or regional press is utterly worthless, I wouldn't expect the judge to pull anything seriously stupid.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
a forbidden love posted:Hey guys, I'm a navy goon and I would like some guidance from a JAG if anyone is out there. I had a bit of a situation today and I would like to know what I'm entitled to. So far I've been treated very nicely and I don't want to extort anything, I just don't want wool being pulled over my eyes. The ENCS website is a good source for information, including POCs for "I'm not satisfied, where do I go next?" ENCS offers roadside assistance that includes towing - do you have it? (If you go with USAA for insurance, they also have roadside assistance super cheap) The rental/loaner car is probably provided under the car's warranty. Absent roadside assistance or a specific warranty provision, they're probably not responsible for your tow - but ask for reimbursement anyway. I can't see how they'd be responsible for the semi running over your warning triangle, but it can't hurt to ask nicely. Comedy option: You could try filing a claim with your insurance company, but I doubt you'll meet the deductible. Particularly if they start jerking you around, get in touch with your local legal assistance office. You'll get a free JAG who'll be more familiar with ENCS than any of us are.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2010 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Wagonburner posted:I just saw on the news a guy I sort of know was arrested after being on the run for a few days or a week for a dui hit and run that killed a lady. Is his name [redacted]? ^^^ because my office might be representing him. joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 17:55
|
|