|
If you void a will you void a no contest clause in it too...
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Where I grew up (MN), there were appointed attorneys to inspect titles and advise judges on property disputes. Is that a thing everywhere? Nope. Most countries have a central government office (often called in English a land registry office or similar) that records plots and transactions in land, so if it's not in the Big Book you can gently caress right off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2020 13:11
|
|
|
Sure, let's just let the 8K+ per month on the two million dollar home pass us by...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Question regarding DEAD PEOPLE VOTING, jurisdiction whatever The general rule is that no, if you die before the election day your vote doesn't count. That said, I'm unaware of any jurisdiction that has their electoral board actively cross-reference the obituaries or call the local morgue as a step in verifying absentee ballots.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
There's literally no law or ethical guidelines that can be imposed on a SCOTUS justice for something like this. He'd have to choose to recuse himself from future cases he discussed and lolnah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
buglord posted:Extended family member kicked the bucket and they left 0 indication of what belongs to who and they also left no medical directives while they were in the hospital during those final weeks. Completely seconding Ewok here. This is so wholly within a lawyer's competency, and should not be done using plug and play forms online, as this is an area of law where the documents need to absolutely be correct. The two documents you're talking about are called a living will or advance care directive for healthcare instructions, and a will to dispose of property after death, and given that you asked the question at that level, I would strongly discourage you from trying to do them as a layperson. A lawyer will know all about how to write them so they're binding and what formalities to go through for execution, signing, etc, and will also talk your parents through storage, advising people, etc, so that if they do end up in hospital in some emergency their wishes are heeded.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I want the entirety of the law explained using shopping cart analogies. I'm looking forward to murder. You're pushing your shopping cart and I shoot you.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession? Because we're continuously openly notoriously hostile. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 21:31 on May 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Semi-seriously because RAP, adverse possession and recordation disputes are ALWAYS going to be tested in the property questions on our bar exams and so they're continuously pounded into our heads and we hate them for that.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Let's say my friend leaves a game server running and quits playing. I steal a password from his desk and start playing without telling him. Is there an amount of time after which I can enjoin him from shutting it down? Can I claim ownership if I pay the electric cost? Well you certainly shouldn't start by admitting to a federal crime... But no. You don't somehow gain control over an electronic resource you're accessing without authorization by virtue of that unauthorized access going on for long enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You’re in the right specialty. Maintenance and cure? No Taking a stab way out of my field here... if you're a cart wrangler hired by the grocery store and you get injured wrangling carts, the store has to pay for your groceries and injuries until you can get back to wrangling? I'm having real trouble with some of the esoteric corners of federal-state relations, like rooker-feldman or heightened interest federal common law, but I'd bet even that's doable at a sufficiently high level of abstraction. Shopping carts all the way down.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Would it be some kind of 'what would a reasonable do'? Would it be reasonable to accept that you should generally follow the directions of the POTUS? And therefore it's the POTUS who should be prosecuted? Yeah, entrapment isn't about what's reasonable, it's way more narrow than that. Entrapment requires a defendant to prove both that he or she was not "predisposed" to commit the crime, AND that the government "induced" the crime. A whole bunch of people who came to Washington DC on 01/06 with weapons and signs and reddit.com/r/mytreasons posts aren't going to win on predisposition, much less on inducement when all police did, at most, was get out of their way. Oh, and also the President actually has no authority to order a random US citizen to do anything (outside of very specific circumstances not applicable here), so no, it's not at all reasonable to say you should generally do what he or she says.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
nervana posted:Correct, it was from a a company vehicle during work hours. I was also running in jogging lane because there were people on the side walk and I wanted to social distance (this is pre vaccine days). Speak to the lawyer first and have the lawyer tell their lawyer you want more.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If jurisdiction lies where the harm is felt, thats just concurrent jurisdiction with Everyone. If its where the act occurs, then its where your laser is. Its the defendant's fault they've subjected themselves to 3.5 billion separate claims in every jurisdiciton in the western hemisphere, thats not a bar to suit It's actually not a geographic analysis when we're dealing with space. Jurisdictionally, the Outer Space Treaty vests responsibility for the actions in or affecting the Moon or other celestial bodies by a national of any State in that State, no matter what those actions are or where they're done. The thought being that, since the majority of these actions happen in space, which is legally either something like the high seas or terra nullis (an interesting theoretical debate but of no import here), you just follow the nationality of the actors. So, under the assumptions that you're a US national and that projecting a giant dong on the Moon violates Article IX, OST, the US would be liable under international law for whatever the damages are. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jun 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
Nope, you have to be a legal person to have standing, so it would have to be the Man in the Moon as plaintiff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
I am the black lawyer! I casts the spells that makes the tariffs fall down!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2021 11:53
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:If you ever take the stand you should post a redacted transcript, I can read stuff like this all day Yes but probably post that, and any further details, after a check clears.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
homullus posted:I think she was trying to create joinder with you. 3rd person Latin verbs end in -t, as do a few conjunctions and nouns, but no feminine endings do. I have been led to believe that certain feminine endings in fact do end in squirting through?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Depends. Not to get too specific, but in recent years they've started to refer specifically sovcit fillings to the USMS rather than just shredding the things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Lawyers in this thread: do you prefer JAMS or JELLIES. Serious answers only, we all know MARMALADES are a joke Bush league, the lot of them. Never settle for anything less than COMPOTES.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Pay their tuition at a local technical institution so they can find a job that doesn't crush their soul and prematurely lead them to the grave This, or like take them out for a nice dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:While we on the topic of crazy things sovereign citizens like to talk about, what's the deal with capitalization in legal documents? Example: the MIT License, an open source thing: The specifics depend on the jurisdiction, but a lot of states have laws that says for [X] to be valid in a consumer contract, it has to be "conspicuous" or such and so they capitalize it like that [X] of course generally being waiver of something meaningful, from any warranties in this case, to procedural rights that would prevent effective consumer redress, like to a jury trial, or class actions, or to a court at all in the case of arbitration. EDIT: also what he said vvvvv, where specifically required by statute/regulation. As another example, if you actually look at your credit card terms and conditions, there are going to be certain things in bold, in larger font, etc, and all of that is going to be dictated by Truth in Lending Act regulations. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Oct 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:IRL 99% of the time the bad guy in inappropriate guardianships is actually a family member trying to financially exploit grandma and not some predatory lawyer or 3rd party company For some reason the public keeps failing to perceive that the bar can subpoena the past X years of Dewey Cheatham's financial records, but can't do poo poo to suddenly involved Uncle Donnie...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:This didn't get enough love. Unlike the study partners.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:I know I am a bit late too this, but what if the government YouTube channel spoke about a controversial issue but did not allow comments? The government is allowed to, but does not have to speak, and the government is allowed to, but does not have to, create public forums for the speech of others*. Both of these things are true, and neither of these things has anything to do with the other. * With exceptions not pertinent here, thanks Devor. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Much like I am a doctor of law and will someday be a doctor of philosophy, I cannot hold myself out as a medical doctor. Yeah. They wear white coats, we wear white shoes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
And here I was looking for the comfortable bunker that normally is the law thread, and it's just you birdies chirping away about golf. Don't you realize it's such a wedge issue; I could club the lot of ya?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Thank you for the replies! I think my next lawyer should get a sampler basket containing Antabuse, Narcan, and methadone. He or she should, yes, but will still prefer a good bottle of something. Everything everyone said is true. I'm one of those weird lawyers that "won" the lottery, in that I practice in an interesting subfield, don't deal with human tragedy, and work reasonable hours, and I'll still echo them and say don't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
That's a unique factual situation, the best advice anyone here will give you (because as far as I know, none of us are conveyancing solicitors) is to talk to a conveyancing solicitor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Sir Sidney Poitier posted:Ironically, and incredibly frustratingly, I am asking here because my conveyancing solicitor is worse than useless. I thought it was worth a punt asking here because the alternatives were persist in getting nowhere with them, or start the whole process afresh with someone new including the associated delays and extra costs. Ah. I hear you there, but it doesn't change the fact that you're asking questions with specialist answers. Having a lovely lawyer sucks, but generally the only answer is indeed "get a better one." And it is a company law question, but in the same way that a family trust or real estate holding company is a company law question - dealing with corporate formalities but specialized in a particular area, rather than being within the wheelhouse of general m&a/corp advisory practice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:It seems like CM A had a lot more pretrial motions about suppressing evidence etc that still have not been dealt with. 1) what Mr. Nice said. 2) this is a bigger deal than you think it is. Each of these motions is its own little mini trial, with rounds of briefing, occasionally oral argument, and then affects that change the next round (e.g. evidence A is admissible, that now means that evidence B can be argued about because A is a necessary predicate for it, evidence C is barred so now we have to fight over what that means for evidence D, etc. etc. 3) a lot is still just chance - different judges move at different paces, as do different individual AUSAs and USAOs, were there implications in CM A's case leading to needing more coordination with Main Justice than B's, etc. etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
The Pirate Captain posted:Maybe look up cases in your state and see if they’ve been upheld generally? If you do this, and if the answer is anything but California's "Nope, they're always unenforceable" bright line rule, your next step then needs to be call a lawyer in your state. The fact that it's tied to an equity reward may, or may not, matter. There may, or may not, be different rules applicable to a restraint on employment during your term versus the 18-month period after. There may, or may not, be certain facts that you're not even aware of mattering that change the answer here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Let's also note that these sort of federal appeals are remarkably expensive, and so the only folks regularly pursuing them are 1) folks with money to afford lawyers for a federal appeal, who very likely therefore also had private counsel at trial (which, despite BigFish eliding over this, are typically massively better resourced and able to devote more time, energy, and money into a specific case than a public defender), and 2) those sentenced to death, who get federal appellate counsel provided. Folks in bucket (1) don't typically have defenders who sleep through their trial, fail to examine an alibi, or fail to note that their client is legally mentally retarded (I know we're not to use that word, but it's the term of art here) so as to be conditionally barred from the death penalty, to list three examples of behavior that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has found didn't justify overturning a death penalty for folks in bucket (2) which a federal court later overruled. So as a practical matter, this opinion largely only matters in death penalty cases. Also keep in mind that whatever is true in Washington, the states rushing to kill people in bucket (2) like Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc. have neither well-funded public defender systems nor state courts that give a drat about rights, because that's always been the Fed's job. This opinion basically says "well the same state that wants to execute you says they gave you a fair trial. That's good enough. Even if you are able to prove that was wrong, a federal court is now barred from considering that proof." So yes, it actually is as evil and callous as it seems.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
Yeah. Absolutely sympathies, that's horrible. Do what you can to keep your head right through it all. But as to the law, seconding that you need to find a good trusts and estates attorney, and hopefully one with some real estate knowledge too to talk you through whatever needs to be done on the mortgage. You're in a personally awful situation, but not a legally awful one - this is doable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The phrasing "my client does not agree" would be (likely correctly) interpreted as the lawyer tacitly admitting their client is being unreasonable against their advice. Well of course. The client only has one case. The lawyer has to do this again and again, and so cares more about their standing with the judge and the other lawyer. Phil Moscowitz posted:Unless you’re in federal court, when both sides might agree on a trial continuance and the judge tells you nope Maybe this is different from district to district. Can't imagine my old boss or his colleagues ever turning down "hey, would you like to do less this week"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
What office is your friend running for? The major parties have "campaign committees" for folks running for state and national offices (DLCC, NRCC, etc) and many state parties have them for local offices. They're largely fundraising institutions but also are full of people that know about stuff like this, they'd likely know the right lawyers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
Go to a Real Estate/Land Use lawyer, there are millions of them out there, and ideally you'd do it before any sale happens. There are likely pretty clear laws and rules about something like this, you just need to talk to someone who knows them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2022 12:39
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:E: Please tell me there's a law school that specializes in trial trolling or something ridiculous like that. It's not just trials. There's a law school called, no kidding, ASSLaw that exists to (depressingly successfully) troll the supreme court. More seriously, it's a legitimate tactic. One of my law school professors was a capital defender. The supreme court took his case after he'd won below, which was bad news. So he argued the case focusing on procedural issues to try to piss off Justice Ginsburg (who cared very deeply about procedure, and didn't love the death penalty) enough to ask to draft the opinion, which she then did - focused on the procedural issue, and so not actually foreclosing any future merits appeal for his client in a way a right-wing opinion could have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 13:13
|
|
|
meanolmrcloud posted:So the sandy hook lawyers, or his orginazation, just has a copy of jones’s cell phone free and clear? They can do whatever they want with it? Yup! And it's entirely Jones's lawyer's fault. He didn't respond to the email which a response to would have meant this didn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
DaveSauce posted:The analogy I've seen is if you TELL your attorney that you did a murder, then that's protected. However if you hand the murder weapon over to your attorney, and that murder weapon ends up in the hands of prosecutors, that is not protected. More if you text your attorney AND your friend that you did a murder, only the text to your attorney is protected by the privilege. Even if both texts are on the same phone, one is protected and the other isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2022 19:29
|
|