Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›7 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Toshimo posted:

It was, in fact, a good post, about literal good posts.

I'm directed to this thread and this is the first thing I read- I'm already regretting my decision. Posts, eggs, posts, and posts.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 18, 2015

# ¿ Sep 18, 2015 17:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 08:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's like, look, lady, I promise you, they all taste exactly alike.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2015 04:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Show them your avatar.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 07:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

You default them?

Hot Dog Day, I love that you are your own stereotype :allears:

# ¿ Oct 20, 2015 20:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

I don't understand the message.

Avatar post combo, basically- it made you sound eager to see someone bankrupted and harmed, even via small claims.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 01:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Slightly more recent article on same issue.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2015 22:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gobbeldygook posted:

Judge Judy pays the defendant, plaintiff, and any necessary witnesses to travel to LA plus an appearance fee. If Judge Judy finds in favor of the plaintiff, the producers directly pay the defendant within 30 days. So the plaintiff gets paid even if the defendant is judgement proof and the defendant might be able to get the plaintiff off their back without paying a dime.

Would it be possible to stipulate Judge Judy or an equivalent in a forum selection clause?

# ¿ Oct 24, 2015 06:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

joat mon posted:

What consumer products should I be investing in to maximize my chances of winning the lawsuit lottery?

A. Class action or one on one?
B. What sort of harm are you willing to suffer?
C. (related to B) Is your next of kin sympathetic?

# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 04:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

joat mon posted:

A. Doesn't matter.
B. Notional to mild inconvenience.
C. Probably moot.

Maybe I need to try a different tack:
Is there some venture capitalist out there willing to buy me a couple diesel VWs? I'll split the lawsuit proceeds 50/50.

You want one on one, and it sounds like asbestos exposure(which frequently only pays when you get cancer) or a slip and fall. Try publicly owned offices in historically conservative states that are also undergoing construction for the former, and midlevel grocery chains, especially failing or subpar ones, for the latter. You don't want dietary supplements- the companies are either a) too poor or incompetent to pay or b) surprisingly vicious litigators, if they're big enough.

Also, for the record, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and this is a post on the Something Awful Comedy Forums.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 06:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Azuth0667 posted:

I applied for insurance through the health insurance market place and am now being bombarded by shifty insurance companies. One of which is really annoying and persistent, calling me 10+ times a day, back to back and at odd hours. I've asked these people to stop calling me and I've been on the DNC list for years. They hang up whenever I ask for a physical address for their company. I suspect these guys are spoofing their caller ID because whenever I add one of their numbers to my ignore list they call from a different number. A cursory search shows that they've been pissing people off with idiotic marketing for years. What can I legally do to make these fuckwits go away and not contact me ever again?

E: This is all in the US.

Yeah, ignore pathetic little tramp. Go here and file a complaint. I can't check too much of their form, but all identifying information you can provide that will let them identify the source entity (accent of speaker, as many of the numbers called from as you have written down, company name, basics of scheme) will let them narrow down the list of possibilities and eventually make arrests.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2015 17:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Azuth0667 posted:

Okay thanks to both of you. I reported every number they called me from. I've tried tricking them into giving me a physical address and haven't got farther than a state from one of them before they spazz out and hang up. The BBB has them listed however I question how accurate that address is going to be with these guys being a shifty insurance broker and all.

Is there a license required for operating a business that sells insurance I can use to track them by?

IANAL:
Technically, maybe, and it may or not be possible for you to find it based on the jurisdiction- it's by state, so documentation varies. If the outfit has a license at all, they will almost certainly be in a state that makes accessing license records as hard as possible. These sort of scum are very much a tragedy of the commons sort of issue- FTC has (understandably) higher priorities, and no one individual or entity has the resources or information to track them down and nail them to the wall.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2015 23:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Azuth0667 posted:

This method worked I've found the head rear end in a top hat. Would sending a C&D letter to the CEO count as notifying an "agent" of the company?

Why are you trying to "notify an agent" of the company? If you've actually identified the entity and bypassed the systems they use to hide themselves, report it to the FTC and they will be shut down.

vvvvv The FTC doesn't act because they can't devote resources to identifying the company and don't have a way to get around spoofing tech. If you have managed to obtain that information and can document it, that is what you should do. A strongly worded letter, absent one written in consultation with a lawyer, is not going to do anything. You will not be able to generate civil liability beyond the laws the company is already breaking by contacting you as they already do.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 12, 2015

# ¿ Nov 12, 2015 02:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BgRdMchne posted:

Don't worry about the IRS. There are millions of people who make income mostly on tips and don't report the full amount.

Please don't encourage tax fraud in the legal questions thread.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 07:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sweet Custom Van posted:

Nice tie

What can we as citizens (and me, as someone interested in policy work) do to help fix the IRS's completely hosed financial situation?

I could like stick a fiver in with my 1040 EZ with "a little something to keep the lights on" written on it.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Nov 20, 2015

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 08:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sweet Custom Van posted:

Talk to your Congressman. Yes, it felt dumb as I was saying it.

That said, all American citizens can make voluntary payments directly against the national debt.

I'll see what I can do- I am familiar with how meaningless voluntary payments agains the debt are.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 22:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Transformers joke goes here

# ¿ Nov 21, 2015 23:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Geniasis posted:

Dear lawyers,

What is a cheap way to gain a basic grasp of law? I don't want to practice it or anything. I just want to laugh at people in this thread

tia

If we knew this we wouldn't have gone to law school.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 22:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

You should consult your lawyer or union rep if you believe you've committed a felony, urban labyrinth.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2015 08:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hank committed spousal abuse in Brooklyn. Hank now wants to enter Latveria using their friend Reed's passport. Once there, their plan is to commit suicide by not eating or drinking any Soylent. If arrested in either country, Hank will still try and follow through with their suicide plan, but only if it's not against the Code of Doom, specifically sections all of them. And that, children, is why you don't do Pym Particles.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 10, 2015

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 17:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Montgomery County, MD is perhaps best known for having some of the highest and most resilient real estate areas in the country. It's where princes build homes for when they need to host parties for folks from DC. A lot of folks and centers in HHS out there.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Dec 13, 2015

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 00:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

blarzgh posted:

Look, I'm not a goddamn geologist.

As you can see by this map, Montgomery County is defined by a large swathe of schist formations in its central region, but there are more interesting features toward the southeast, particularly a variety of pluonic systems that still need to be fully defined and explored.

The resources and services of the Maryland Geological Survey come recommended to neophyte geologists interested in Montgomery County's rich geological history.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Dec 13, 2015

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 02:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Trachyte- it's found in his jurisdiction, apparently (IANAG)

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 04:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

I'm a lawyer in Montgomery County, MD. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Did you represent the chemist at NIST?

More seriously chat with PopeCruch. Internet ~~relationship~~representation matching! What could go wrong?!

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 07:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Plastic surgery

no, wait

erectile dysfunction

yes they were selling erectile dysfunction

# ¿ Dec 18, 2015 23:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

sullat posted:

Yeah, in the US, some states have adopted what they call "anti-SLAPP" suits, where if the judge determines that it is a "SLAPP" suit, the defendant gets to claim attorney fees and, like, treble damages from the plaintiff. Unfortunately, it is a state-by-state thing, one of our neighbors has been taken over by a billionaire snake-oil salesman who uses SLAPP suits to hammer anyone who criticizes his unregulated nutritional supplements, and they don't have one of those statutes to protect defendants. Obviously, Israeli law is going to be a lot different from the US, so contact those digital rights peoples and see what they say about it.

Could you give me the name of the salesman or the supplement company?

# ¿ Dec 26, 2015 22:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thank you. MLM, huh? Very interesting.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2015 23:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

blarzgh posted:

LQMoW being particularly helpful this time of year. Is it Christmas Spirit?

Bah-not likely. Probably avoiding the copthread.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 01:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

joat mon posted:

In this thread one doesn't get outed as a fascist stooge for saying what the law is and for failing to demand that title to real property be transferred to those who are unable to care for it.

To be fair, you never did say where those orphans should live other than "the street will provide"

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 02:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Domus posted:

IP/Copyright question:

I work in pinball machines. There is a special old kind of machine called an EM, short for electro-mechanical. You cannot work on these machines without a schematic. A German Company, "Gottlieb" used to make models back in the 60's. The company stopped making pinball machines in '96, but still will not allow schematics or manuals to be posted on the internet. There's a guy who's officially their distributor in the US, and he sells these schematics with their permission. I would assume he has the US rights.

My question concerns the information in these schematics. Can I post a drawing of, say, how a generic one from a certain era is wired? Can I publish my own drawing of part of the schematics? Can I publish a drawing of how to set a machine to free play, or can I only describe it? What about my own drawings of mechanical parts? Can I write a paragraph that contains the information that a tech can tell from looking at a schematic? At what point am I infringing on their IP?

Ask the pinball thread. There are no joke experts on this sort of thing in that arena that will be able to answer your question.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 10:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

How hard would it be to apply RICO to the Oregon militants?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 10:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'm just saying, if Mandy came to me and wanted permission to begin setting up RICO, and FBI is separately suggesting the idea, and Barry won't stop texting me being all "Loretta, we need to take decisive action", what do?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 7, 2016

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 20:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Wickerman posted:

What would be the point of a RICO charge when you pretty much have every single person occupying that building on several serious charges with which they have 0 hope of mounting a defense against

To be serious for a second, it sets precedent for using it against this kind of group, and lets us reach people running support for them. Some of the crimes we can apply, like the GTA, would otherwise be limited in who they could be applied to. I really don't know the elements and functions of RICO well enough to know if its application would be valid, though.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 21:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

OK, so activity looks like the hard part. Ah well. Having that population in the prison system woulda produced so many habeas claims, anyways...

# ¿ Jan 7, 2016 22:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Reading the DoJ guidance doc says that damage to federal property in excess of 1k$ also applies as a valid charge.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2016 01:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

*in a Gil voice, the tattered ocean-born Angelfish from Finding Nemo*

Nobody touch him! Nobody touch him.

Moorish Idol, and his name is Gill. :colbert:

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 05:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sure thing, Xanatos. Was retpocileh a sockpuppet, or did you just manipulate him into committing tax fraud?

edit: I feel no shame for being accurate with my citations

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Jan 21, 2016

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 07:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

bigpolar posted:

It's really prone to abuse. There was s case a few years ago in a small town near me where a police officer in his squad car ran a stop light (the kind with yellows flashing one direction, reds the other, he ran the reds without his lights and siren) and T boned another car. Not only did the city refuse to pay, they refused to allow a claim on their insurance, and even got the police officer ruled to be not personally responsible because he was acting in his official capacity.

That has nothing to do with sov immunity.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 22:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

So, the Oregon militants? They have legal representation, and there are ethics questions being raised about their lawyer's interactions with the militants before, during and after the occupation. By that I mean jurisdiction conduct violations, not "ew, lawyers".

Here's the article describing the situation. It sounds like some of the concerns were a) violating jurisdictional self-promotion rules and b) giving legal advice on how to perform the occupation, i.e. how to break the law.

Thoughts?

edit: for added fun, I can't tell if this is the same Michael Arnold:

quote:

C. MICHAEL ARNOLD
OSB #011873
Eugene
Reprimand

On Jan. 17, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline reprimanding Eugene lawyer C. Michael Arnold for violating RPC 8.4(a)(2) (commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer�s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).

Arnold was the prosecutor for the City of Florence at a hearing in which a minor pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants and entered into a diversion agreement. Arnold subsequently contacted the minor, ostensibly for the purpose of checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. Arnold drove the minor to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her in violation of ORS 471.410(2), which prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from selling, giving or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2016 00:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm posted:

It is. The police report is way funnier too.

Can you share? :allears:

I'm also genuinely curious about the legal ethics of their interactions with the occupiers.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2016 01:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 08:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

joat mon posted:

Sounds like they're trying to chill the provision of legal counsel to unpopular groups and people.

Really? Because it seems like the lawyer was actually advising them on which crimes to commit and how- and that they were promoting themselves in a manner that violates state bar rules.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2016 21:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›7 »