|
Selane posted:
No, no you don't.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:00
|
|
Do I even want to know the kind of "dangerous goods" you were carrying
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
To student eviction guy: you need a friend in the administration. Is there a faculty member with some pull that's been helping you get things back on track, or someone in the Dean of Students' office, or something like that? They may be able to help you negotiate with the housing office in some fashion. If you don't have someone, see if you can talk to your Dean of Students (or someone in their office) to get some help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Currently in the process of trying to apply (and likely be denied again) for American SSI disability. Been doing it myself with my parents help, but how much better off would I be if I got a contingency fee disability attny?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Currently in the process of trying to apply (and likely be denied again) for American SSI disability. Been doing it myself with my parents help, but how much better off would I be if I got a contingency fee disability attny? Much, much better off. The lawyer, at the very least, has done the thing you're doing dozens of not hundreds of times, and he will know the judges and what they like to see. Their cut of your back payment is also peanuts relative to the long-term security it gets you. The fact that they denied you once doesn't mean poo poo, don't get discouraged. Multiple appeals is the norm for disability. If you don't have one in mind already, and even if you do, local doctors who deal with disabilities can probably refer good ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
I haven't done any myself, but I also think the success rates are much higher for represented SSI applicants than pro ae folks. It's well worth it to get an attorney for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
I do disability appeals. You are dumb going pro se.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Lawyer lawyer lawyer. Also, if your appeal is granted, you may get retroactive benefits, so paying a good lawyer has a high return to risk ratio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I do disability appeals. You are dumb going pro se. Euphronius, do you think people need attorneys for both the initial application and appeal, or just the appeal? In general, is it worth waiting for the appeal to get an attorney, in case you get lucky, or are there enough pitfalls early on that you should just start off with a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
FWIW the lawyers I contacted said not to even bother getting one until the first denial. If one will take you before that for the same contingency cut (which is federally capped iirc) why the hell not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Euphronius, do you think people need attorneys for both the initial application and appeal, or just the appeal? In general, is it worth waiting for the appeal to get an attorney, in case you get lucky, or are there enough pitfalls early on that you should just start off with a lawyer? Not necessary really for the initial application. 100% for appeal. Get an attorney as soon as you get denied, but the real work doesn't happen until like 60 days before the hearing. The appeal is de novo so you really can't completely gently caress it up and you can bring up all types of new claims and evidence on appeal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Midnight Science posted:Hey law goons, do you happen to know if there's any legal recourse (in OR) for someone whose home address was posted publicly against their express wishes? The person was particularly vulnerable as she was fleeing from an abuser and this has resulted in some serious scariness. Not sure she's interested in pursuing a case -- if there even is one -- but I thought I'd see if y'all knew anything about that. In general, something like that would fall under the tort of "invasion of privacy" by publication of a private fact. The first problem, I would think, is that your home address isn't really a private fact. True, you don't want it known to the public, but its a matter of public record. Your desires concerning a public fact probably don't magically convert it to a private one. Further, typically your remedy for keeping an unwanted party away from you is a Restraining Order. If this person is fleeing from an abuser, she needs to get the police involved; not sue people who post her address on facebook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
How effective are restraining orders from a legal perspective? From what I've read restraining orders usually tend to escalate the situation. The idea of restraining orders seems predicated on the aggressor being completely rational.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
They are excellent in custody cases to get custody of kids without having to prove that the other side is actually a bad parent. PFA's and the like are super effective weapons in family law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Already assumed from cursory reading that mothers have an astronomically higher chance of winning custody battles than fathers. Even if the mother is a horrible she-devil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Men are more likely than women to get custody when they actually ask for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Why? Because of the assumption they are more financially stable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Why? Because of the assumption they are more financially stable? What I didn't say sole custody. Men often do not ask for custody at all. When they do, they are very likely to get joint custody, because having two parents is generally better than having just one, and evil wimmins haven't taken over the legal system quite yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Ah, I've just been going off of what I learn'ed from the media and offhand comments from people close to the legal system. Not being disparraging to the opposite sex. Some of my favorite people of the opposite sex are 'wimmin'.  quote:In the past, most states provided that custody of children of "tender years" (about five and under) had to be awarded to the mother when parents divorced. In most states, this rule has either been rejected entirely or relegated to the role of tie-breaker if two otherwise fit parents request custody of their preschool children. I've just had the assumption that the legal system operates on a system of cultural stereotypes since it is based on old English law. ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:since it is based on Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:
I mean, I guess law would be way more interesting if this was true
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Fixed that for you. How is it based on Admiralty law? Looking up Admiralty law seems like it's primarily based around maritime events and issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:How is it based on Admiralty law? Looking up Admiralty law seems like it's primarily based around maritime events and issues. It's a thread in-joke, expanding upon the beliefs of the sovereign citizen movement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:How is it based on Admiralty law? Looking up Admiralty law seems like it's primarily based around maritime events and issues. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman-on-the-land#Admiralty_law_and_court_appearance_techniques
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Has sovereign citizen ever produced anything other than comedy, pissed off judges, and prison terms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Has sovereign citizen ever produced anything other than comedy, pissed off judges, and prison terms? If you're asking whether it's ever been successful in court, I've never heard of such a thing happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
It produced that pretty sweet and in-depth analysis by that one judge. I guess that falls into a couple of those categories at the same time, though. But beyond those things? Naw, it's just good for fantastic tazing videos on youtube. e: "tazing" initially got autocorrected to "taxing," which is probably also accurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Has an actual lawyer ever attempted that form of argument or are all these idiots trying to go pro se.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
When I was clerking for the City of Knoxville Law Department back in the day, some lady won in traffic court over a city attorney using sovereign citizen arguments. It was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Has an actual lawyer ever attempted that form of argument or are all these idiots trying to go pro se. JesustheDarkLord posted:When I was clerking for the City of Knoxville Law Department back in the day, some lady won in traffic court over a city attorney using sovereign citizen arguments. It was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Watching that guy get tazed for trying to film in the courtroom is just stupid as gently caress. 'Your not god!' *taze* 'OH GOD PLEASE STOP! I'm not doing anything wrong!' Freeman arguments seem to boil down to a kid throwing a tantrum saying 'Your not the boss of me!'
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Dollars to donuts it wasn't actually due to sovereign citizen arguments. Maybe the judge had gas that day and just wanted to gtfo without spending 12 hours dealing with heaping bullshit. So it's on the same strategy level as a Chewbacca defense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:When I was clerking for the City of Knoxville Law Department back in the day, some lady won in traffic court over a city attorney using sovereign citizen arguments. It was hilarious. Fine, we're waiving the $45 fine, don't speed again. Looks like there's something to this sovereign citizen thing after all 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:How is it based on Admiralty law? Looking up Admiralty law seems like it's primarily based around maritime events and issues. It's just someone calling BS on your "Old English" law reference. It brought out the giggles because Maritime law descends more directly from the Etruscan basis via Norman law. Old English law would be very similar if not for the Teutonic diversion discussed at length by the noted jurist Learned Hand. ShadowMoo posted:Has sovereign citizen ever produced anything other than comedy, pissed off judges, and prison terms? Tim McVeigh? Javid posted:So it's on the same strategy level as a Chewbacca defense? No, the Chewbaca defense is about something else not making sense. Contrast to the argument itself not making sense. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
What is the origins or US law then? Common Law seems to be the de facto standard in English law since the medival period, or does the US use the name 'Common Law' without actually being similar to it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:What is the origins or US law then? Common Law seems to be the de facto standard in English law since the medival period, or does the US use the name 'Common Law' without actually being similar to it? This should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
US States use English common law and equity law till the date of adoption by the state and even after it. I believe there are examples of state courts citing English law in the 19th century. English law and US state law has separated a lot since about 1900 and in most states common law and equity have been combined in the same court. And in most states common law has been replaced by statutes and equity remains only as uncommon remedies. For example criminal law used to be almost all common law but is now in most states is now governed by code. In Pennsylvania I don't believe any English common law is still controlling. The rule against perpetuities was probably the last. euphronius fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
ShadowMoo posted:Already assumed from cursory reading that mothers have an astronomically higher chance of winning custody battles than fathers. Even if the mother is a horrible she-devil. EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Men are more likely than women to get custody when they actually ask for it. The historical tilt has pretty well faded. Instead think of it like "the parent that provides primary care for children tends to end up with custody of said children". If that's dad or mom, it doesn't matter. Statistically that still probably leans towards the mother, but not because of unequal treatment. If dad is better, statistically he will fight for custody, and statistically he will win more often. There is no state where mom is the default option. Of course actual treatment will vary from state to state, and county to county. Statutorily there is no bias, and there's been a sea change in the way custody is applied (in my experience and knowledge). At least where I live, I can truly say that fathers and mothers have an equal shake. If one was significantly more involved in childrearing, that parent has an extreme likelihood of winning physical custody, gender be damned. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:... and equity remains only as uncommon remedies. Aren't injunctions equitable? Wow, that means something entirely different re: non-lawyers v. lawyers
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Injunctions are one of the uncommon remedies I was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Injunctions are one of the uncommon remedies I was referring to. Fairly common in the patent world, well, the threat of injunction is very popular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:43
|
|