|
Mulloy posted:Hopefully this is an easy/simple question: I literally have no idea who to talk to, lawyer wise, in Utah. I can find plenty of names in the yellow pages but I'm not specifically sure what to look for. Long story short my wife co-signed for a car a few years back, the owner defaulted, and since the collections folks can't reach the original owner and I answer my phone, they want me to pay. Obviously it was a bad move to co-sign for the car, but what I'm trying to find is someone in Utah/Salt Lake that can answer some questions on the subject, but I'm not sure who to start with. Ask friends and family for the names of any good lawyers that they have worked with. Then call those lawyers and ask for the names of consumer rights attorneys, or whatever the practice area is called in Utah. That is usually the best way to find a good referral. Other than that, you can go on martindale.com and look up attorneys in your area. You should select an attorney / firm that has a long pedigree of practice in your practice area.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
I know that this isn't the main purpose of the thread, but I'm kind of freaking out here. I just got an email that some policies changed at work, and I don't think that the new ones mesh with California labor laws. I works as a therapist with autistic kids at their homes. Policy has been that we get paid for a session if a client cancels or ends ends early. So if I go up to a session and a kid falls asleep, is sick, or his parents decide they want to end early I still get paid. Yesterday I got an email saying that next week the policy changes and we will no longer get paid when a client cancels. To give an example of a scenario that might happen, earlier this week I arrived to a kid sleeping and couldn't wake him up. I was there for about 15 minutes trying to get him up before I left(can't provide services to a child that's asleep). They're saying that I won't get paid at all for this, because those 15 minutes aren't billable hours. There are a few questions that I have. First, is it legal for them to not pay me anything even though I had to drive to the client's house? Even though they can't bill because the kid's asleep I'm still there for 15-20 minutes working and I feel like I should get paid for that time. The second question relates to minimum clock in times. I'm pretty sure that the lowest amount of time someone can clock in for in California is 2 hours. If I work with a kid for 45 minutes and then he throws up so I have to cancel, shouldn't they have to pay me for a full 2 hours? Lastly, if they are breaking the law, anyone know somewhere I can get free legal aid in Orange County? TheBeardedCrazy fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Mulloy posted:Hopefully this is an easy/simple question: I literally have no idea who to talk to, lawyer wise, in Utah. I can find plenty of names in the yellow pages but I'm not specifically sure what to look for. Long story short my wife co-signed for a car a few years back, the owner defaulted, and since the collections folks can't reach the original owner and I answer my phone, they want me to pay. Obviously it was a bad move to co-sign for the car, but what I'm trying to find is someone in Utah/Salt Lake that can answer some questions on the subject, but I'm not sure who to start with. entris had good suggestions. If those don't work out, you might also consider contacting the Utah bar assocation - the state bar referral services are typically pretty good. http://www.utahbar.org/public/lawyer_referral_service_main.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
I have a question about marrying a non-US citizen. She's Australian. Just in case your wondering, it will be a genuine one. But you hear these horror stories about getting put through a lot of scrutiny and questioning... Not to be insensitive, but it would seem that it shouldn't be as difficult marrying someone from Australia as it would be marrying someone from most other countries right? I mean, should I look at the experience of an American marrying someone from [insert your third world country here] for disingenuous purposes as something I can expect too? I guess I'm just asking about what to expect, like a vague description or timeline or something like that. She's here now visiting on a tourist visa, but I think she'd have to come back on a fiancee visa. There are restrictions on her working right? We've talked about getting married, not sure where exactly, but it's looking like it would be cheaper to do in the US than in Australia. We probably wouldn't get married for another year at least, but if it's not too painful of an experience we could consider doing it sooner. It's funny, when my parents got married, only one of them was an American citizen. I've asked them general questions but most of the time they either don't remember or the information they give me is not valid anymore. Also, should I be planning to accumulate little bits of evidence for when we do get married? We're not big picture takers, but should we force ourselves to? I thankfully keep all the emails I ever sent or receive and am a bit of a packrat, but it never really occurred to me to keep things for anything other than sentimental reasons until recently. Anyway, thanks for any advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Shnicker posted:I have a question about marrying a non-US citizen. You're right that you'll get an easier time marrying an Australian. Start here: http://www.visajourney.com/faq/k1faq.htm Basic process for a fiancee visa is for her to go home, you apply here on her behalf, she is contacted by the US embassy in Australia, she sends in a bunch of paperwork, she's called in for an interview and medical screening, and if all goes well she leaves with the visa in her passport. Then she flies to the US, and you have 3 months to get hitched. There's a bunch of stuff after that that has to do with green cards and adjustment of status and so on, but that'll get you off the ground. She can get work authorized pretty much as soon as she steps off the plane, IIRC, along with driver's license and SSN and so forth. Total time for us was six months or so, but we got pretty lucky. Where do you live? Your experience will vary greatly according to the service center that processes your application. Rural areas with few immigrants have shorter processing times than, say, places near Miami, or NYC. Evidence, eh, yeah, it'll save hassle if you start throwing stuff in a file. Photos of you and her with family members is good, copies of letters, phone records, plane tickets, sure. We didn't need much of that stuff, but it can't hurt to tuck a few things away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
I have to go to court soon for a ticket I was given for "following too closely" when the unmarked police car was 2 cars behind me in medium traffic. I agree I had been closer than some elderly person or people with slow reactions may have gotten, but it was only because the car in front had been varying speed for no reason from 35mph-45mph over the course of a couple miles in a 50mph separated highway with 2 lanes in that direction of travel. I have always driven manual cars so I don't just hit the brakes for unreasonable situations like that when I could clearly see ahead of the car in front of me and it was completely open. Letting the car engine brake while covering the brake pedal is a much more efficient way to drive smoothly and safely without causing more congestion and stress for drivers behind you. (The cop car was also peeking around the left of the car behind me while following, by his own standard, "too closely") My main question is: If I have photographic proof of the officer in question following other cars literally a few feet from their bumper, do you think it will be a pretty obvious dismissal since he obviously would not be a good person to have an opinion of what a reasonable distance is? I have been through the area quite a bit lately and out of all the police, he is pretty much always driving right on someone's bumper. In fact, as I was leaving the town one night fairly recently I was turning right and almost pulled out until I looked left again to validate the car I saw a ways back was still far enough away and it was too close for me to pull out. Turns out it was his car and I would estimate he was doing around 70mph in the 50mph zone and he zoomed right up behind another car at about a car-length or less since it seems to be his favorite position when there's a car ih his lane. I only managed to get a shaky video of it, but the still pictures I took show beyond a doubt that he's nearly attached to the guys' bumper...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 12:17
|
|
|
edit: nevermind.
SplinteredMind fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Jul 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:My main question is: No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
Reposting here, from my thread in AI: About two weeks ago, I bought a used car. Using my bank as financing for half the transaction, I paid the rest in straight up cash. The whole thing was done, the title transfer was signed, and the paperwork was checked over twice. At that point, the dealership received the two bank checks: one for what I paid in, and one for the financing. This morning, the dealership calls me up at home and asks how my car is doing. "Pretty good," I respond. "Well, there's a slight snag in the paperwork..." "Eh?" He went on to describe a situation wherein the paperwork the bank had provided did not provide that there be a lien on the car (??? there was no existing lien on the car, no paperwork related to one, and neither AutoCheck nor Carfax revealed one), that they couldn't file the paperwork yet, and that it would take another two weeks for the memorandum of title to be sent out. Given that that falls 2 days before the expiration, at best, that makes this a fun situation. He came back to the sale, citing "This is why we wanted to do the financing at the dealership, so everything would have gone smoothly. As it stands, we can get the plates for you, and you can buy them from us." I told him that I'd get back to him. So today, on my lunch break, I'm going to have to haul down to the bank and put the issue past them. Has anyone ever heard of something like this happening? It feels like a scam, or a hard sale, or both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No. lol, thanks. Watch out next time if you find yourself accelerating away from a stoplight then. As soon as you're going over 30mph you should be 90ft+ behind the car in front of you, otherwise keep an ear open for the woop woop... But seriously, if an officer can just use it as an excuse to pull anyone over when they feel like it because no reasonable person follows the general 2-second rule, it leads to abuse of power. Different cars have different limits and the reasonable following distances vary based on what car you are driving versus the car you are following. If a person doesn't know specifically what he is charged with until a jury decides what they think is "reasonable and prudent" as far as following distance goes, that proves the law is unconstitutionally vague. People in identical situations would get completely opposite outcomes just because the jury was a different mix of people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:If I have photographic proof of the officer in question following other cars literally a few feet from their bumper, do you think it will be a pretty obvious dismissal since he obviously would not be a good person to have an opinion of what a reasonable distance is? Hahaha, no. But:  PoOKiE! posted:If a person doesn't know specifically what he is charged with until a jury decides what they think is "reasonable and prudent" as far as following distance goes, that proves the law is unconstitutionally vague. People in identical situations would get completely opposite outcomes just because the jury was a different mix of people. 1. No judge anywhere is going to strike down a common sense traffic law as "unconstitutionally vague." 2. Setting aside the insanity of a hypothetical in which you actually had a jury trial for this, you know what the offense was. You wouldn't be waiting on a jury for that. What you would be hoping is to convince a jury of your peers--other drivers--that you were not riding someone's rear end. No one likes a tailgater, so good luck with that. 3. I actually kind of want you to go to court and argue that "no reasonable person follows the general 2-second rule." Please report back with results. Wyatt fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:[I]f an officer can just use it as an excuse to pull anyone over when they feel like it because no reasonable person follows the general 2-second rule, it leads to abuse of power. Newsflash: If the cops want to pull you over, they do. Then the cop says that you were swerving, or didn't use a turn signal, or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
AI doesn't have a speeding ticket thread anymore, so I'm ask my question here. I got a ticket for going 85 mph in a 75 zone. Do I have any options beside paying? I can't go to court (9 hrs. away). The money to pay the ticket isn't the issue, I just don't want my insurance to go up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:AI doesn't have a speeding ticket thread anymore, so I'm ask my question here. Depending on where you live and what your driving history is, you might be able to pay a higher fine and have it on a deferment. Then if you don't get another ticket in X many months, it won't go on your record. Call the court clerk and ask what your options are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:Depending on where you live and what your driving history is, you might be able to pay a higher fine and have it on a deferment. Then if you don't get another ticket in X many months, it won't go on your record. Call the court clerk and ask what your options are. That sounds like a good deal. Guess I'll be making a long-distance phone call now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:But seriously, if an officer can just use it as an excuse to pull anyone over when they feel like it because no reasonable person follows the general 2-second rule, it leads to abuse of power. You are adorable!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Is there anyone in here who's familiar with the distinctions between Scottish law and the law in England? I have a question related to it, but it's one of those difficult-to-discuss ones that sounds really dodgy unless you know the particulars, and I don't want to write a whole bunch of background text only to find out that nobody here can answer it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Matlock posted:Reposting here, from my thread in AI: IANAL: This sounds similar (but not identical) to a scam I've heard of. They'd sign everything, give you the car and the title, then wait a couple days and say "the financing fell through", get you back to the dealer to do more paperwork, then take the car while you're inside and demand more money. Your case sounds like they're just holding your plates hostage. The same principle may apply, and it does sound like they're fishing for more money. If you do go down there, don't take that car. Other than that, hope a real lawyer chimes in here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
My brother told me today he got fired from work. He hurt his leg about two weeks ago where he can't walk temporarily. He's had doctors notes and everything saying he is unable to go to work. Today his boss told him that he's going to have to fire him since he needs someone "able to work". Now to me this doesn't seem right. I told him to call a lawyer to get advice already but I was just curious, can you be fired even if you have doctors notes? Shouldn't you at least be able to go on disability or at the very least take a medical leave? It just doesn't seem like they can fire you over that. I'm not asking you guys for him, just for my own information. Seems pretty messed up they can do that, even with a doctor's letter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Dracon Wolf posted:My brother told me today he got fired from work. He hurt his leg about two weeks ago where he can't walk temporarily. He's had doctors notes and everything saying he is unable to go to work. Today his boss told him that he's going to have to fire him since he needs someone "able to work". Now to me this doesn't seem right. Not a lawyer, but the massive question here is: Was he hurt at work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
I've got a question about quitting my job to leave for another company. Right now I work in California in a salaried position under the following clause in my contract: Your employment with COMPANY is "at will". While we are confident that we will have a mutually satisfactory relationship for an extended period of time, each of us shall be free to terminate our employment relationship without reason or explanation. Provided you have worked with us for at least sixty (60) days, we will provide you with thirty (30) days’ notice, except in circumstances when your conduct causes us to immediately relieve you of your duties. You agree to provide us with at least thirty (30) days’ notice. Is there any legal recourse against me if I decide to leave and only give him two weeks notice? How about none? My employer is not a particularly ethical, forgiving, or nice person so I'm a little worried about being sued for some kind of damage I would cause to the company for leaving or something else I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Ne Cede Malis posted:I've got a question about quitting my job to leave for another company. Right now I work in California in a salaried position under the following clause in my contract: If you breach a contract, you can be sued for breach of contract. Your employer just has to prove a loss in court (probably the cost of emergency hiring and training someone to fill your position, if your company ends up screwing up a contract because you left or can reasonably claim that your leaving was the cause, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:Hahaha, no. But: 1. They used to much more than they do now, but it still happens all the time. Don't forget people writing them sometimes have other motives and can also be prone to general mistakes as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the term "reasonable and prudent" is inherently vague. I'm just saying when applying it to something like following distance, I don't think it should hold up(not to say it hasn't) because it's clear 90% of drivers follow too close every day and that basically gives police sole discretion on who to pull over. It looks like the more accurate term I'm looking for is "unconstitutionally overbroad" which is closely related. case law posted:In other words, a facially vague statute fails to give anyone notice of its limits, even though everyone might understand its core, and even though it may not be unconstitutional as applied to this core. A vague statute grants the police "too much discretion in every case," regardless of whether that discretion is applied "wisely or poorly in a particular case * * *. And if every application of the ordinance represents an exercise of unlimited discretion, then the ordinance is invalid in all its applications" (Morales, 527 US at 71 [Breyer, J., concurring] [emphasis in original]). Indeed, the Supreme Court has declared that "the more important aspect of vagueness doctrine `is * * * the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement'" (Kolender, 461 US at 358 [citation omitted]). 2. I know what I was charged with in HIS view, but he couldn't even see from where he was, that's the reason he was driving over the left line of the lane to peek around the car in front of him. Unlike me, he was tailgating the person behind me for a constant distance and speed which is more in line with what "following" means. I had factored in every risk and danger around me like the law asks and maintained a distance the whole time until the last few times he would slow down, and even then I was slowing down while covering the brake in case he changed his behavior from before. And need I remind you I was only going 30-35mph? My car pulls little over 1g while breaking in normal conditions so it would take me about a second to come to a full stop if needed. The van would have needed double that, they also had no obstructions as far as the eye could see, and there were no upcoming streets to turn on, etc. 3. Well if they feel like believing his word against mine after I show them his constant breaking of that law, I may submit like 10minutes of video footage from different locations marking all the distance people drive at to prove he should have pulled me over much earlier because according to him I was breaking the law since the second he saw me. And from what I read, if he was pursuing me while ignoring the need for "due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway" himself, then he is guilty of negligence. (I couldn't find the high court ruling on the issue, but it's very similar to that iirc)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:1. They used to much more than they do now, but it still happens all the time. Don't forget people writing them sometimes have other motives and can also be prone to general mistakes as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the term "reasonable and prudent" is inherently vague. I'm just saying when applying it to something like following distance, I don't think it should hold up(not to say it hasn't) because it's clear 90% of drivers follow too close every day and that basically gives police sole discretion on who to pull over. It looks like the more accurate term I'm looking for is "unconstitutionally overbroad" which is closely related. You will get destroyed. On the plus side you will probably give an ADA and your traffic cop a minor headache so go for it, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:You will get destroyed. On the plus side you will probably give an ADA and your traffic cop a minor headache so go for it, I guess. The thing is we won't get a trip report for how badly he was laughed at at 'no reasonable person obeys the two second rule' so there's no payoff. PoOKiE! it should be a big red siren that even soley from your own biased account everyone here is convinced you deserved that ticket. If you are serious about wanting to fight it, lawyer up. The only thing this thread can do is laugh at you more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
edited to the short version for brevity, tiredness and for just not being nearly as smart as Pookie in the ways of the law:PoOKiE! posted:I got a ticket for "following too close" when the idiot in the passing lane varying from 10-15 under pretty quickly was the reason I was closer than I wanted to be for a few seconds. Pookie, it's time to man up and begin accepting some responsibility for your actions. CAVEAT: If, when you took nm's advice and consulted an attorney about whether this could get your DUI/APC probation revoked, the attorney said it would, shut up now, hire a PI to get some non-crappy video for cross-examination of the cop, and pray you get a dumb, inexperienced DA who won't effectively cross-examine you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
In Florida. My husband has a son from a previous marriage, and his ex was the custodial parent, having him weekdays while his dad had him on the weekends. About six months ago, she got a new job, and was unable to watch him, so she told his dad it would be better if the situation were reversed, so we kept him during the week and her on weekends. During this time the two of them made a mutual agreement that he would not pay child support, being as the kid was with us almost full time. Fast forward to this weekend- his mom decided to quit her job, and told my husband she's taking the kid back full time, and because he didn't think she'd renege on their oral custody agreement, he never got the switch in writing and approved by the courts. (Yes, I know this was a bad idea.) So, as far as custody goes, I'm pretty sure we can't do much of anything. My questions are: 1. I know there's a paper the parents can sign to say child support has been paid, just not through the state, because they've done it before (He pays her directly and keeps a record of it because it's less time than waiting for it to process through the DoR, apparently) Does he need to get something like this signed for the months we had main custody, so she doesn't try to come after us for unpaid support? 2. She claims that she now does not want any child support from him. He seems willing to take her word on that, me, not so much, because in at least 2 E/N threads, I've seen people say it doesn't matter what she wants, you have to pay (in different states). Is this true for FL? 3. Last- the mom has a history of not being able to take care of the kid (why we had him in the first place), and when she was the custodial parent, she very often (like once a week) called us to take care of him, at least for a day or so. Even when she had him only on the weekends, half the time she couldn't take him. Is there any way to point this out to a judge and get at least joint custody? Or would it be a waste of time/get nasty and be even harder on the kid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:You will get destroyed. On the plus side you will probably give an ADA and your traffic cop a minor headache so go for it, I guess. Alchenar posted:The thing is we won't get a trip report for how badly he was laughed at at 'no reasonable person obeys the two second rule' so there's no payoff. Most goons laughed at me when I was trying to figure out how I could be accused of drunk driving while just sitting in a car in freezing weather with the heater on too. I eventually was convinced to take a deal that apparently involved a "supervision" that could never be expunged from my record and other things like not being able to go to Canada for 5yrs. When I found out that information 5 months after entering a plea, every lawyer I contacted said it was nearly impossible to do anything after 30 days and even an ex police chief said he has only heard of someone being successful 1 time in his career....despite that, I submitted my motion, went to court, and won the option to reopen my case. PS- If the courts here actually followed procedure and had audio recordings or verbatim accounts of pretrial actions, I would post the audio if that happened. I really wish I had audio of the bizarre statements the DA was trying to use to stop me from requesting a new trial. I think he angrily ended with, "Well if you want to go ahead and screw yourself..." joat mon posted:edited to the short version for brevity, tiredness and for just not being nearly as smart as Pookie in the ways of the law: I never said that...? I wasn't "focused" on the cop either. A reasonable person would be doing as I was doing and glancing in rearview as well as the left and right mirrors to check that conditions are still good in case the erratic driver decided to do some sort of new behavior other than speeding up and slowing down. And where did these other facts come from? He wasn't a lane over and two cars behind...He was in an unmarked maroon Mercury behind the car that was behind me. I didn't even know he was a cop because he just looked like someone that was riding the car behind me and veering over the left yellow line often, riding on the gravel a bit. In my normal checking of mirror and blind spots I saw him and since he seemed to be either really impatient or looking to pass or turn somehow, I made a note of it but nothing more. **And yes I took nm's advice and my attorney said it likely wouldn't, but he recommends a lawyer of course. Since I previously paid him $3500 for a deal that was bogus and numerous other attorneys have tried to lie to me about what I can and can't do, I'd rather go it alone since I did all the work last time and he still missed what should have been obvious issues in my prior case. So far I've won everything I've ever went to court by myself for, and with lawyers it seems to be I just give them money and they bring up a deal where I pay a little bit more money instead of going to trial or actually trying to bring up proper pretrial motions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
If you really want to take this circus to town Pookie, check your local rules to see if they allow 'lay expert witnesses.' If they do, enter a bunch of your friends that have been driving for 10+ years as 'reasonably prudent expert drivers' and have them all testify as to your driving being 'reasonably prudent.' Bonus points if the judge gets a migraine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
So I got a couple tickets last night. I got one for running a red light (completely bogus, but ignore this for now). When I was stopped I didn't have my proof of insurance (I am insured) -- so I also got a ticket for that. The officer said that at court if I could produce valid proof of insurance this would "probably" be dropped. They took my license and told me to show up at the police station later that night to post bond to get it back. Small problem though. The officer screwed up the ticket. Instead of citing me for no insurance, they cited me for no license. I go to post bond. They tell me they can't post bond to get my license back because I was cited for no license. I ask them if my license (physically attached to the ticket stub he is holding) is valid. They say it is. This goes in circles for a bit, they can't quite grasp the logical problem here. In the end, they tell me to come in tomorrow with the ticketing officer to "sort this out". I do have my proof of insurance on me now. Getting one of the two tickets expunged is a big deal -- because in Illinois with only one ticket I can go to traffic school and get it removed from my record. With two I cannnot. 1. What are they probably going to do when they try to "fix this"? 2. Can they retroactively ticket me for no insurance, if I physically have proof of insurance at the time they are going to be writing the ticket? 3. Do they have legal power to revoke the original ticket?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:If you breach a contract, you can be sued for breach of contract. Your employer just has to prove a loss in court (probably the cost of emergency hiring and training someone to fill your position, if your company ends up screwing up a contract because you left or can reasonably claim that your leaving was the cause, etc). Is this true in an "At-Will" arrangement and in an At will state? It seems like there's no way he can hold me responsible for not providing 30 days notice while simultaneously being "at-will". Am I missing something? It seems like this agreement is contradictory; how can It be at will but still require me to give notice?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:If you really want to take this circus to town Pookie, check your local rules to see if they allow 'lay expert witnesses.' If they do, enter a bunch of your friends that have been driving for 10+ years as 'reasonably prudent expert drivers' and have them all testify as to your driving being 'reasonably prudent.' Chuu posted:In the end, they tell me to come in tomorrow with the ticketing officer to "sort this out". I do have my proof of insurance on me now. Getting one of the two tickets expunged is a big deal -- because in Illinois with only one ticket I can go to traffic school and get it removed from my record. With two I cannnot. Yeah I was coerced to believe that lie about traffic school too... The shocker is that unless the ticket is dismissed and tossed, it will stay on your record. They trick people by saying it won't go on your public record or affect insurance, but the police will still see all the tickets you've accumulated over the years. In Illinois at least, traffic tickets for normal things like speeding are civil issues, not criminal. Civil infractions always go on the internal abstract when they are decided and unlike a lot of criminal tickets, they don't have an expungement act so they are there for good. 1) They MAY just dismiss the no insurance ticket since they would see you have it in your hand because they know that the judge will once you go to court, especially considering the weird mix-up on the cops part. 2) They can change the nature of the charge entirely before going to court if they really wanted. They shouldn't charge you with anything that they know would just get dismissed though, so I think you're fine and should focus on why the red light ticket may or may not be bogus because then you won't have any tickets permanently attached to you if you actually beat it. 3) Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
Ne Cede Malis posted:Is this true in an "At-Will" arrangement and in an At will state? It seems like there's no way he can hold me responsible for not providing 30 days notice while simultaneously being "at-will". Am I missing something? It seems like this agreement is contradictory; how can It be at will but still require me to give notice? In your contract, "at will" seems to just mean that either party can end the employment arrangement for any reason or for no reason. It does not seem that this contradicts the 30 day notice requirement. It is not likely that a judge will ignore the agreement to provide 30 days notice just because the contract says "at will" earlier, especially since this 30 day obligation is mutual. It would be advisable to give the 30 days notice if possible, or otherwise to give as much notice as you can. If you provide less, you could be held liable for damages. But realistically, unless your departure without notice somehow causes a lot of damages, they probably won't bother to sue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Please don't give advice to people in this thread when you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Thanks.PoOKiE! posted:If it's the same judge from the arraignment then I'm sure something comical will happen regardless but I'm tempted to do that since most of my friends are serious drivers as well and participate in autocross events, etc. My best friend actually works on race cars and associates with a few fairly famous drivers in his free time. Since he's a designer/engineer, he would be able to attest to how well I maintain and upgrade my cars and the caution I constantly have towards driving.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Talibananas posted:In your contract, "at will" seems to just mean that either party can end the employment arrangement for any reason or for no reason. It does not seem that this contradicts the 30 day notice requirement. It is not likely that a judge will ignore the agreement to provide 30 days notice just because the contract says "at will" earlier, especially since this 30 day obligation is mutual. Thanks for your reply. I just gave him notice that I will only be available for two more weeks and that I was leaving. He kept repeating that he "could not describe how disappointed he is in my decision not to honor our agreement". I also found out he had been reading my work email, which is legal but still very disconcerting to me ( I never said anything bad or improper at all but still kind of a dirty feeling). Really hope he doesn't decide to sue since hes definitely a scum bag! He employs a whole bunch of illegal immigrants, has committed insurance fraud multiple times, illegally exported electronics in violation of ITAR, failed to give radiation safety training to people who are exposed to radiation almost daily among other unscrupulous activities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Please don't give advice to people in this thread when you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Thanks. I have real world experience in Illinois doing the exact same thing Chuu posted, but my initial charge was too fast for conditions in a blizzard when my rear wheel hopped a curb and had to be towed out. Showed proof of insurance, ticket dismissed. Had no other supervisions prior, so took traffic school and got supervision for 6months. What experience do you have on the matter? ....and I would imagine you're calling BS on my point that traffic offenses don't qualify for expungement in Illinois, so here: (20 ILCS 2630/5.2) Sec. 5.2. Expungement and sealing. (3) Exclusions. Except as otherwise provided in subsections (b)(5), (b)(6), and (e) of this Section, the court shall not order: (B) the sealing or expungement of records of minor traffic offenses (as defined in subsection (a)(1)(G)), unless the petitioner was arrested and released without charging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I have real world experience in Illinois doing the exact same thing Chuu posted, This isn't the "how to be a criminal" thread. This isn't also the "Police are evil people thread" like you seem to want it to be. This is the "legal questions" thread where people seek legal advice from people with some basis for having legal expertise, i.e. lawyers. You however, came into this thread and immediately rejected everything you were told, insisting that no matter what you were right and the police were idiots, despite the chorus of people who know a lot more about these sorts of things than you saying otherwise. So no, you really have no basis to be advising anyone about anything here. quote:What experience do you have on the matter? I haven't actually claimed any expertise in Illinois criminal law. I did, however graduate from law school, which makes me generally qualified to point out how much of an idiot you've been in this thread. Then again, unlike you I haven't had to make posts like this: quote:Recently I've been wondering what the basic rules of thumb are for a civil case in most places. or quote:I realize people might see this as whiny or not taking blame, but I assure you I have heard all the criticisms and doubt from family, friends, coworkers, etc, when I was deep into my first court case in Dec09. Please try to assume I am not a poo poo-head please. That took 2 posts into your post history; I didn't even have to go post by post and point out where you've given people lovely legal advice. Get the gently caress out, leave it to people with a semblance of what they're talking about. -e- And lol at you talking about how that offense can't qualify for expungement, when the section of statute you quoted specifically outlines several exceptions to the rule for how it CAN qualify for expungement. Leif. fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
Ne Cede Malis posted:Thanks for your reply. I just gave him notice that I will only be available for two more weeks and that I was leaving. He kept repeating that he "could not describe how disappointed he is in my decision not to honor our agreement". I also found out he had been reading my work email, which is legal but still very disconcerting to me ( I never said anything bad or improper at all but still kind of a dirty feeling). Just so you know, California has very clear laws on the time frame he has to pay you your due wages. So if he tries to withhold or do anything shady in regards to that, you should not have a hard time getting him to do what is right - unless he is really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
So, umm, hate to step into the middle of this, but have some more info that I'm hoping helps with what I'm trying to do.PoOKiE! posted:Yeah I was coerced to believe that lie about traffic school too... The shocker is that unless the ticket is dismissed and tossed, it will stay on your record. They trick people by saying it won't go on your public record or affect insurance, but the police will still see all the tickets you've accumulated over the years. I really don't care about what the Police see, I haven't had a ticket in eight years and hopefully won't have another one for another eight. What I really care about is what my insurance company sees. If my public record is clean and my rates don't go up, I'm happy to go to traffic school. So I go to the police station, I explain the situation to the officer who gave me the ticket. She was fully aware that I brought proof of insurance from me, I even made her validate that it was correct. What she did was x-out the incorrect violation, x'd the "no insurance" violation, and said see you in 4 weeks  I did make a copy of the original ticket. If this comes up in court it's going to be blatantly obvious what she did. According to the front desk, without the "insurance violation" I could have gotten the green slip which would let me just take traffic school and get this expunged without even going to court. Now it looks like I'm at the mercy of the Judge. One last question, I guess this one is directed poOkie since he seems to have some, umm, expirence in traffic court. Is it true that there are a bunch of lawyers on site willing to argue your case for $50-$100 who basically camp out at the Daley Center traffic court? Is it a good idea to use these people? $50-$100 really is nothing compared to how much extra insurance my car is going to cost me if something goes truly wrong. Chuu fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
^^^My adventures have been in Lake County and the courts up here are surrounded by vacant buildings and run down cities, but I'm sure in the city that probably happens. I probably wouldn't go along with any of them though, lol.^^^SWATJester posted:This isn't the "how to be a criminal" thread. This isn't also the "Police are evil people thread" like you seem to want it to be. SWATJester posted:You however, came into this thread and immediately rejected everything you were told, insisting that no matter what you were right and the police were idiots, despite the chorus of people who know a lot more about these sorts of things than you saying otherwise. SWATJester posted:I haven't actually claimed any expertise in Illinois criminal law. I did, however graduate from law school, which makes me generally qualified to point out how much of an idiot you've been in this thread. SWATJester posted:Then again, unlike you I haven't had to make posts like this: The few times I tried to come to the smart people for some actual fact-based advice(ie. SA), I would eventually get a few good responses but would get about 20 responses just trying to make fun of me or something... SWATJester posted:Get the gently caress out, leave it to people with a semblance of what they're talking about. I don't want any goons in Illinois taking your false assumption as fact, so here is a quote out of the 2010 Instruction Guide for Expungement from the Office of the State Appellate Defender: Cases which do not fall under the Criminal Identification Act: The Criminal Identification Act was designed to expunge and seal criminal records. It does not apply to minor traffic offenses, di- vorces, orders of protection or other civil matters. For example, if somebody had an order of protection entered against you, that cannot be expunged or sealed. Also, simple traffic tickets do not qualify to be ei- ther expunged or sealed. If you have other questions, contact an attorney. Expungement is not available for ordinary traffic tickets, Orders of Protection, or civil orders or judgments. - http://www.niu.edu/legal/topics/expungement/index.shtml **I will avoid posting as much as I can in the future to people asking for help, but I have studied this area very thoroughly so I wanted to set the record straight.** PoOKiE! fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 05:58
|
|