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

«‹›1194 »

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

kalonji posted:

A lot of goons really aren't reading, she is threatening to dissolve the company, making it impossible for the company to sue me for anything, only the creditors can ( and I didn't guarantee any loans) or even sign off on them as a director.

I will go see a lawyer, but only if and when i'm sued.

Section 134(1)(b) also imposes a duty of care between directors and creditors. So in theory, yes, a creditor could sue the directors. Or, she's going to go talk to a lawyer about dissolving the company and the lawyer is going to point out that the corporation can sue you directly.

But hey, you have a degree from a recognized University, just stick your head in the sand a little further and maybe this will all go away.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 18, 2024 09:01

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

kalonji posted:

I already know I could get sued, hence why its a legal problem and I have a legal question.
A vague answer that tells me what I already know is absolutely useless. Thats poo poo posting.

No, we are all telling you that your situation is serious enough that you need to visit a specialist. That's what we do here when someone has legitimate legal trouble and doesn't just need to be told "no, that's not what the law says" or "you are not in any kind of trouble".

Even if someone in the thread were a specialist they would not give you a specific answer because:
a) they would be negligent in doing so as it would require more detailed information than you have provided, information which you should not put out on a public forum; and
b) it would open themselves up to liability for having purported to give you sound legal advice.

If you see a train coming your way, don't wait until it hits you before you decide to jump out of the way. You've been forewarned that poo poo is potentially about to fly your way, you need to find out exactly how much poo poo and how you can cover yourself from it.

That means open up your local legal directory and Talk. To. A. Lawyer.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:06

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

kalonji posted:

I already know I could get sued, hence why its a legal problem and I have a legal question.
A vague answer that tells me what I already know is absolutely useless. Thats poo poo posting.

Actually, they're telling you that you will be sued. And one guy is telling you that creditors can sue you as a member of a board of directors of a debtor corporation

quote:

I hold a degree in Commerce from a recognized University and have a good general understanding of what a directors role is in a company, just not how it applies to the legal system.

Bully for you. These people are telling you how the role you assumed relates to the legal system.

quote:

I'm satisfied that I fulfilled my responsibilities as a director.

And the other side thinks you have not. You know what these disagreements result in? A lawsuit.

quote:

A lot of goons really aren't reading, she is threatening to dissolve the company, making it impossible for the company to sue me for anything, only the creditors can ( and I didn't guarantee any loans) or even sign off on them as a director.

I will go see a lawyer, but only if and when i'm sued.

You should go see a lawyer to try heading off being sued. Being sued or dealing with creditors is far too costly and time consuming to deal with if you don't have to.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:13

i saw dasein: Apr 7, 2004; Written postery is worth reading once, and then should be destroyed. Let the dead posters make way for others... ~

kalonji call the Ontario Lawyer Referral Service and set up a consultation. Normally a half-hour consultation booked through this service will be free, so you don't have much to lose.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:15

kalonji: Feb 28, 2010; Have! It's `could have' not `could of', dipshit

Alright makes sense, should I find a lawyer in the city the company is based in or where I currently live.

What am I looking at paying for a consultation? How much is too much, any recommendations/references in Toronto/Ottawa?

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:16

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Incredulous Red posted:

You should go see a lawyer to try heading off being sued. Being sued or dealing with creditors is far too costly and time consuming to deal with if you don't have to.

This. For all you know, the lawyer is going to tell you to just give her the shares and walk away.

I'm not entirely sure of why you're so attached to shares in a company with negative value anyways, but hey.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:17

kalonji: Feb 28, 2010; Have! It's `could have' not `could of', dipshit

i saw dasein posted:

kalonji call the Ontario Lawyer Referral Service and set up a consultation. Normally a half-hour consultation booked through this service will be free, so you don't have much to lose.

I saw these guys on a PDF for the rights of minority shareholders. I will give them a call, if for no other reason just to be educated before I actually retain the services of a lawyer i'm paying for.

Thanks goons.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:17

kalonji: Feb 28, 2010; Have! It's `could have' not `could of', dipshit

Schitzo posted:

This. For all you know, the lawyer is going to tell you to just give her the shares and walk away.

I'm not entirely sure of why you're so attached to shares in a company with negative value anyways, but hey.

Well i'm not even sure about the company having any debts, i'm fairly confident its a bluff to regain total control of the company. I invested a considerable amount of time, but yes i'm perfectly willing to walk away if it protects my assets.

It was more of an ego/spite thing.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 21:19

Heisanevilgenius: Sep 2, 2007

This is a really minor legal issue (I hope), but I'm hoping someone could give me a sense of whether this is illegal and/or how illegal it is.

I signed up for a points card for a movie theatre. For the fun of it, I put a fake name: "Lance Von Superman"
For a points card I figured this wasn't a serious issue. But now a bank that's affiliated with the program is calling me, asking if I want to sign up for a free checking account.

Would doing so be considered fraud? I wasn't even planning on using the account. I just wanted to sign up to get the free points on my movie card and then never show up to collect my debit card.

Note that I live in Canada, but Canada's laws should be very similar to that of the United States and something like fraud should be pretty universal.

Any tips would be helpful. I don't want to take any kind of stupid chances over a dumb fake name.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 22:19

i saw dasein: Apr 7, 2004; Written postery is worth reading once, and then should be destroyed. Let the dead posters make way for others... ~

it's arguably not criminal fraud but its pretty close. probably not a good idea though I doubt either the bank or the government would go after you for it.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 22:31

Too Fresh: Jan 20, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_to_the_Max

I'd be more worried that you'll start using the name Lance von Superman. People will be impressed by such an amazing name. They'll want to be your friend, you'll get promotions at work, women will flock to you. Unfortunately, it is all built on a lie. Eventually, you'll realise that even if you change your name you can't change yourself and give up.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 22:41

kalonji: Feb 28, 2010; Have! It's `could have' not `could of', dipshit

Heisanevilgenius posted:

This is a really minor legal issue (I hope), but I'm hoping someone could give me a sense of whether this is illegal and/or how illegal it is.

I signed up for a points card for a movie theatre. For the fun of it, I put a fake name: "Lance Von Superman"
For a points card I figured this wasn't a serious issue. But now a bank that's affiliated with the program is calling me, asking if I want to sign up for a free checking account.

Would doing so be considered fraud? I wasn't even planning on using the account. I just wanted to sign up to get the free points on my movie card and then never show up to collect my debit card.

Note that I live in Canada, but Canada's laws should be very similar to that of the United States and something like fraud should be pretty universal.

Any tips would be helpful. I don't want to take any kind of stupid chances over a dumb fake name.

I'm assuming you are talking about Scene card and Scotiabank

Have you never signed up for a bank account? Scotiabank isn't just going to mail you a bank card without first getting your SIN number during the application process. That SIN won't match your name and you will probably end up getting your sin flagged for fraud.

Don't do it.

E:

i saw dasein posted:

it's arguably not criminal fraud but its pretty close. probably not a good idea though I doubt either the bank or the government would go after you for it.

Are you serious, signing up for a bank account using a fake name is fraud. Even if you never use the card or pick it up.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 22:42

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

Heisanevilgenius posted:

This is a really minor legal issue (I hope), but I'm hoping someone could give me a sense of whether this is illegal and/or how illegal it is.

I signed up for a points card for a movie theatre. For the fun of it, I put a fake name: "Lance Von Superman"
For a points card I figured this wasn't a serious issue. But now a bank that's affiliated with the program is calling me, asking if I want to sign up for a free checking account.

Would doing so be considered fraud? I wasn't even planning on using the account. I just wanted to sign up to get the free points on my movie card and then never show up to collect my debit card.

Note that I live in Canada, but Canada's laws should be very similar to that of the United States and something like fraud should be pretty universal.

Any tips would be helpful. I don't want to take any kind of stupid chances over a dumb fake name.

Dude, just tell the bank when they call that nobody named "Lance Von Superman" lives at that phone number, and that you want them to remove your number from their books.

Then move on with your life.

# ? Apr 16, 2010 22:45

i saw dasein: Apr 7, 2004; Written postery is worth reading once, and then should be destroyed. Let the dead posters make way for others... ~

kalonji posted:

Are you serious, signing up for a bank account using a fake name is fraud. Even if you never use the card or pick it up.

in this case crown would potentially have enough problems showing mens rea (knowledge/wilful blindness of a risk of harm) that it's highly unlikely they'd proceed. more likely to be fraud in the civil sense but no way the bank would sue you over a bank card. It's still a bad idea though

# ? Apr 16, 2010 22:51

uG: Apr 23, 2003; by Ralp

Maybe you can answer this Alaemon...

In Michigan i've always believed and read that if you are convicted of any drug crime that your license gets suspended for 6 months. During my sentencing I watched the judge sentence other people with (albeit felony) drug crimes and mentioning the license suspension. However when I got sentenced for a misdemeanor drug crime he did not mention any suspension. I asked my probation officer about this and he said there was nothing in my paper work saying my license was suspended.

What am I missing here? Did the judge just 'forget' to inform me? Did he 'forget' to apply the suspension? Is it up to the judges discretion? Does it only apply to felonies?

# ? Apr 17, 2010 03:17

terrorist ambulance: Nov 5, 2009

kalonji posted:

Are you serious, signing up for a bank account using a fake name is fraud. Even if you never use the card or pick it up.

nope, unless they rely on the false information and use it to forward you credit, it;s not fraud, and they can't prove it. you have no idea what you're talking about.

# ? Apr 17, 2010 06:17

jonus: Jun 7, 2008; by mons all madden

Whats the point of patenting something if its primary use is in international waters?

Also its my understanding that recent rulings say that an entire process has to occur within the territory of the USA to be infringing. If one part of the process occurs in Japan then its considered legal. Does this also apply to means plus function patents, or purely process patents?

# ? Apr 17, 2010 06:30

kalonji: Feb 28, 2010; Have! It's `could have' not `could of', dipshit

terrorist ambulance posted:

nope, unless they rely on the false information and use it to forward you credit, it;s not fraud, and they can't prove it. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Here is an excerpt from the RCMP website

RCMP posted:

What is Identity Fraud

Identity fraud is the unauthorized possession, trafficking or use of personal information to:

create a fictitious identity
conceal criminal activity, such as money laundering
assume or takeover an existing identity resulting in financial gain or the gain of goods or services

# ? Apr 17, 2010 07:17

kalonji: Feb 28, 2010; Have! It's `could have' not `could of', dipshit

terrorist ambulance posted:

nope, unless they rely on the false information and use it to forward you credit, it;s not fraud, and they can't prove it. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Not to mention if the bank account comes with an overdraft, that is extending you credit.

E: OP you should follow the sound legal advice on Something Awful forums, creating a fictitious identity to apply for a bank account to get free movie tickets is a great idea. They will never be able to prove it, you will not be charged or have to spend thousands of dollars defending yourself against serious criminal allegations.

This really is a comedy forum

kalonji fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Apr 17, 2010

# ? Apr 17, 2010 07:28

beejay: Apr 7, 2002

Nobody said it was a great idea or to do it, they just said it's not fraud. Why are you so stupid?

# ? Apr 17, 2010 07:55

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

e: oops dumb

# ? Apr 17, 2010 09:18

terrorist ambulance: Nov 5, 2009

kalonji posted:

E: OP you should follow the sound legal advice on Something Awful forums, creating a fictitious identity to apply for a bank account to get free movie tickets is a great idea. They will never be able to prove it, you will not be charged or have to spend thousands of dollars defending yourself against serious criminal allegations.

This really is a comedy forum

yeah there's on-point case law that says what I'm sayin so unless you can point me to a better authority than "the rcmp website" keep on stampin your feet I'll keep on keepin' on

signing up for stuff under a false name is not a super great idea, but it's not fraud unless the false information is actually relied upon

# ? Apr 17, 2010 17:30

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

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

terrorist ambulance: Nov 5, 2009

keep in mind, he didn't get a bank account with this information, he got a scene card or points card, which anyone can get and where the only relevant material is a phone number and/or address. if he doesn't go sign up for a chequing account with the bank and just tells them to go away he's fine

anyways case is r v. winning, [1973] O.J. No. 461. it's 1973 from OCA and is still good law unless there's some kind of statute i'm not sure about which is entirely possible

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Apr 17, 2010 19:21

BonerGhost: Mar 9, 2007

terrorist ambulance posted:

keep in mind, he didn't get a bank account with this information, he got a scene card or points card, which anyone can get and where the only relevant material is a phone number and/or address. if he doesn't go sign up for a chequing account with the bank and just tells them to go away he's fine

anyways case is r v. winning, [1973] O.J. No. 461. it's 1973 from OCA and is still good law unless there's some kind of statute i'm not sure about which is entirely possible

He would be fine if he told the bank to just move on, but he's asking about what would happen to him if he took the bank up on their offer to get a checking account in the name of Santos L. Halper.

# ? Apr 17, 2010 21:41

terrorist ambulance: Nov 5, 2009

NancyPants posted:

a checking account in the name of Santos L. Halper.

yeah don't do that

# ? Apr 18, 2010 00:19

TidePods4Lunch: Apr 24, 2005; You can't kill me, I'm made out of invincible!

Well Legal Goons, I missed Jury Duty.

Location: Volusia County, Florida

Letter Postmarked: March 15, 2010
Report Date: April 5, 2010
Day I noticed the Letter: April 17, 2010

How could this happen, you may ask? I am a college student who only uses his school mailbox for sending and receiving mail. My roommate and I have a PO Box for our apartment complex and he is the only one with the key. Due to us not using the PO Box as our main mailing center, he never checks the PO Box. I have no problems serving jury duty, I just honestly never got the letter because my roommate didn't bother to open the mail box... lesson learned I guess.

So, what are the likely consequences?

# ? Apr 18, 2010 03:25

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

LessThanWilly posted:

Well Legal Goons, I missed Jury Duty.

Location: Volusia County, Florida

Letter Postmarked: March 15, 2010
Report Date: April 5, 2010
Day I noticed the Letter: April 17, 2010

How could this happen, you may ask? I am a college student who only uses his school mailbox for sending and receiving mail. My roommate and I have a PO Box for our apartment complex and he is the only one with the key. Due to us not using the PO Box as our main mailing center, he never checks the PO Box. I have no problems serving jury duty, I just honestly never got the letter because my roommate didn't bother to open the mail box... lesson learned I guess.

So, what are the likely consequences?

Call them, tell them that you didn't get the letter until when you did, they'll reassign you to another date.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 03:29

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

LessThanWilly posted:

Well Legal Goons, I missed Jury Duty.

Location: Volusia County, Florida

Letter Postmarked: March 15, 2010
Report Date: April 5, 2010
Day I noticed the Letter: April 17, 2010

How could this happen, you may ask? I am a college student who only uses his school mailbox for sending and receiving mail. My roommate and I have a PO Box for our apartment complex and he is the only one with the key. Due to us not using the PO Box as our main mailing center, he never checks the PO Box. I have no problems serving jury duty, I just honestly never got the letter because my roommate didn't bother to open the mail box... lesson learned I guess.

So, what are the likely consequences?

No certified letter, they can't prove you didn't get it today or ever.
And you didn't get it until today.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 04:45

Thingamabobby: Feb 6, 2008

Royal Oak, Michigan (Oakland County) tenant/landlord stuff

My rental agreement expired on February 30, 2010. There is nothing on the 2 page document about renewing the agreement or going month-to-month after it expires. In early February I expressed interest (over the phone) in staying for another year. She said that she would send me a new rental agreement in the mail. Now it's mid April and I still haven't signed anything. I've called her 3 times about it so far and she doesn't seem very concerned about it. I've just been sending the rent check like usual.

I'm concerned that she's going to try to sell/rent the house out from under me and I'm thinking about moving, but I don't want to get sued for 10 months of rent or anything like that.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 06:18

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

Thingamabobby posted:

Royal Oak, Michigan (Oakland County) tenant/landlord stuff

My rental agreement expired on February 30, 2010. There is nothing on the 2 page document about renewing the agreement or going month-to-month after it expires. In early February I expressed interest (over the phone) in staying for another year. She said that she would send me a new rental agreement in the mail. Now it's mid April and I still haven't signed anything. I've called her 3 times about it so far and she doesn't seem very concerned about it. I've just been sending the rent check like usual.

I'm concerned that she's going to try to sell/rent the house out from under me and I'm thinking about moving, but I don't want to get sued for 10 months of rent or anything like that.

Yeah you're in a month to month tenancy. You should get her to commit to a lease.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 06:54

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

jonus posted:

Whats the point of patenting something if its primary use is in international waters?

Also its my understanding that recent rulings say that an entire process has to occur within the territory of the USA to be infringing. If one part of the process occurs in Japan then its considered legal. Does this also apply to means plus function patents, or purely process patents?

35 USC 271(f).

# ? Apr 18, 2010 16:23

Alaemon: Jan 4, 2009; Proctors are guardians of the sanctity and integrity of legal education, therefore they are responsible for the nourishment of the soul.

uG posted:

Maybe you can answer this Alaemon...

In Michigan i've always believed and read that if you are convicted of any drug crime that your license gets suspended for 6 months. During my sentencing I watched the judge sentence other people with (albeit felony) drug crimes and mentioning the license suspension. However when I got sentenced for a misdemeanor drug crime he did not mention any suspension. I asked my probation officer about this and he said there was nothing in my paper work saying my license was suspended.

What am I missing here? Did the judge just 'forget' to inform me? Did he 'forget' to apply the suspension? Is it up to the judges discretion? Does it only apply to felonies?

I am looking at MCL 333.7408a:

quote:

(1) As part of the sentence or juvenile disposition for an attempt to violate, a conspiracy to violate, or a violation of this part or section 17766a or of a local ordinance that prohibits conduct prohibited under this part or section 17766a, the court shall consider all prior convictions currently entered upon the criminal history record and Michigan driving record of the person, except those convictions which, upon motion of the defendant, are determined by the court to be constitutionally invalid, and, subject to subsection (11), shall impose the following licensing sanctions in addition to any other penalty or sanction imposed for the violation:

(a)If the court finds that the person does not have a prior conviction within 7 years of the violation, the court shall order the secretary of state to suspend the operator's or chauffeur's license of the person for 6 months. If the court finds compelling circumstances under subsection (8) sufficient to warrant the issuance of a restricted license, the court may order the secretary of state to issue to the person a restricted license during all or a specified portion of the period of suspension, except that a restricted license shall not be issued during the first 30 days of the period of suspension.

So my immediate read on it is that it is not up to the judge's discretion whether or not to order the suspension. "Shall" makes it mandatory.

I don't know what it means that the judge didn't articulate it at sentencing. It is entirely possible that he forgot to mention it to you, but the abstract of your conviction went to the Secretary of State.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 17:10

uG: Apr 23, 2003; by Ralp

Alaemon posted:

I am looking at MCL 333.7408a:

So my immediate read on it is that it is not up to the judge's discretion whether or not to order the suspension. "Shall" makes it mandatory.

I don't know what it means that the judge didn't articulate it at sentencing. It is entirely possible that he forgot to mention it to you, but the abstract of your conviction went to the Secretary of State.

Thats what I figured, but section two reads:

quote:

(2) The person whose operator's or chauffeur's license is ordered suspended under this section shall immediately surrender his or her operator's or chauffeur's license to the court. The court shall immediately destroy the license and forward an abstract of conviction with court-ordered license sanctions to the secretary of state. Upon receipt of, and pursuant to, the abstract of conviction with court-ordered license sanctions, the secretary of state shall suspend the person's license and, if ordered by the court and if the person is otherwise eligible for a license, issue to the person a restricted license stating the limited driving privileges indicated on the abstract. If the judgment is appealed to circuit court, the court may, ex parte, order the secretary of state to stay the suspension or license restriction issued under this section pending the outcome of the appeal.

Which says the court shall immediately destroy my license which clearly never happened either. It also says 'is ordered suspended', which I guess can be interpreted many different ways by someone who isn't versed in this.

What exactly should I do? On the one hand if I did somehow manage to slip through the cracks and keep my license due to a mistake I don't want to bring it up. On the other hand I don't want to be driving around thinking everything is fine and then get pulled over for driving on a suspended.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 19:03

dvgrhl: Sep 30, 2004; Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?; Soiled Meat

uG posted:

Thats what I figured, but section two reads:

Which says the court shall immediately destroy my license which clearly never happened either. It also says 'is ordered suspended', which I guess can be interpreted many different ways by someone who isn't versed in this.

What exactly should I do? On the one hand if I did somehow manage to slip through the cracks and keep my license due to a mistake I don't want to bring it up. On the other hand I don't want to be driving around thinking everything is fine and then get pulled over for driving on a suspended.

Just bring it up and get everything cleared up now. I am pretty sure I remember someone in this thread having something similar happening, and they still made him serve his suspended license period after they caught their mistake. Which I think was quite a bit of time after he was supposed to have the suspension period. So I think it would be best to just deal with this all now and move on.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 19:18

BonerGhost: Mar 9, 2007

Better to get it cleared up now and know where you stand rather than going to jail for having a suspended license you didn't know about.

Plus any associated fines WILL accrue even if they don't let you know about them. Don't ask me how I know.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 20:30

Alaemon: Jan 4, 2009; Proctors are guardians of the sanctity and integrity of legal education, therefore they are responsible for the nourishment of the soul.

uG posted:

What exactly should I do? On the one hand if I did somehow manage to slip through the cracks and keep my license due to a mistake I don't want to bring it up. On the other hand I don't want to be driving around thinking everything is fine and then get pulled over for driving on a suspended.

The statutory language is phrased in mandatory terms. I'm not sure if this is true in CS cases, but in OUIL cases, licensing sanctions are generally actions of the Secretary of State, not the presiding judge. Typically, the SoS contacts people a few weeks later to inform them of the sanction.

Given the mandatory terms of the statute, however, I do not see that there is a "crack" through which to slip. Failure to order that would seem to be a purely procedural error, as judges simply don't have the discretion to say "This defendant can keep his license."

# ? Apr 18, 2010 21:00

uG: Apr 23, 2003; by Ralp

Alaemon posted:

The statutory language is phrased in mandatory terms. I'm not sure if this is true in CS cases, but in OUIL cases, licensing sanctions are generally actions of the Secretary of State, not the presiding judge. Typically, the SoS contacts people a few weeks later to inform them of the sanction.

Given the mandatory terms of the statute, however, I do not see that there is a "crack" through which to slip. Failure to order that would seem to be a purely procedural error, as judges simply don't have the discretion to say "This defendant can keep his license."

lovely. I'm afraid that due to not being informed of this that 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...

# ? Apr 18, 2010 21:26

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

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...

Like Alaemon said, I don't think the Judge has the discretion do anything about it even if he wanted to. As for the PD, he may not be allowed to work those issues because they're not directly part of a criminal case.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 18, 2024 09:01

uG: Apr 23, 2003; by Ralp

joat mon posted:

Like Alaemon said, I don't think the Judge has the discretion do anything about it even if he wanted to. As for the PD, he may not be allowed to work those issues because they're not directly part of a criminal case.

You should contact a DUI attorney - he/she'll know the ins and outs of getting you a restricted license.

quote:

(a) If the court finds that the person does not have a prior conviction within 7 years of the violation, the court shall order the secretary of state to suspend the operator's or chauffeur's license of the person for 6 months. If the court finds compelling circumstances under subsection (8) sufficient to warrant the issuance of a restricted license, the court may order the secretary of state to issue to the person a restricted license during all or a specified portion of the period of suspension, except that a restricted license shall not be issued during the first 30 days of the period of suspension.

(8) The court shall not order the secretary of state under this section to issue a restricted license unless the person states under oath, and the court finds by testimony taken in open court or by statements contained in a sworn affidavit on a form prescribed by the state court administrator, that both of the following apply:

(a) The person needs vehicular transportation to and from his or her work location, place of alcohol or drug education treatment, court probation department, court-ordered community service program, or educational institution, or in the course of the person's employment or occupation.

(b) The person is unable to take public transportation and does not have any family members or other individual able to provide transportation to a destination or for a purpose described in subdivision (a).

I also witnessed other people being sentenced before me for drug crimes told that their license would be suspended, but that they would be allowed a restricted license after 30 days. This all happened during sentencing and leads me to believe that while the judge may not have the power to 'not' suspend my license, he does have the power to order it be restricted instead of suspended.

But now that my sentencing is over with I do not have a public defender. If he had brought up the license issues during sentencing my lawyer could have brought up the reasons why I need a restricted license.

# ? Apr 18, 2010 22:02

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

«‹›1194 »