|
Missouri here. I have a question regarding police searches and warrants. I currently live in a mother-in-law style (aka secondary suite) apartment (connected via a locked door between the main house's living room and my kitchen). I have entirely separate facilities (bathroom, kitchen, etc.) for my apartment. My landlord warned me today that she believes the police are following her and may possibly raid her because a friend of hers was caught with a substantial amount and has since fled the state as a federal fugitive. My question is: if the police do actually raid her house and search it with a warrant, can my apartment be searched as well (under the same warrant)? I really don't feel like having my property ransacked and destroyed and want to know my rights in the event my landlord's suspicions are correct.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
I don't know if this is the right place, but my question has to do with Trademarks. Here's the basics - my friends and I started a company, and are using a name for our product. We searched and couldn't find anyone with the same name in active commerce. We did find an active Trademark for the name, but it was from 1994, and as mentioned, we couldn't find it actually in use. Both our product, and the product in question, are supplements. There was a challenge to this company's Trademark at their 10 year mark in 2004, I'm assuming because it wasn't actually in use. The company holding the mark got out of the challenge claiming that while it was true the product was not in active use, the product was "in re-development, and would be back on the market next quarter". Well, here we are, 10 years later, and it is clearly not in use. There is no trace of the product on the Internet, we contacted distributors of that company's supplements and they'd never heard of the product, and I contacted the company posing as a customer and they stated it was discontinued. We decided the Trademark was weak, and not in commerce, and have been selling under that name anyway. We submit our Trademark request and contacted the company about a Consent Agreement, and while the owner was initially open to it, he later changed his mind, and refused to sign anything. Their Trademark was set to expire this month, but they submit a Section 8 and 9, requesting renewal. This only requires a picture of the product, and a signed statement that the product is in commerce. That's it! No actual proof of commerce. So they submit this, but I feel that it is clearly fraudulent. I actually expected there to be some sort of review process, but after calling and speaking to lots of people at the USPTO, it appears that is not the case. Renewals simply require a picture and a signed statement. That's crazy, because it's really easy to make a fake product, and as far as the USPTO explained, the worst that can happen is that if you lie on the sworn statement, you lose your Trademark. They don't press civil or criminal charges for what I'd all perjury. What's the next step for pursuing this? I'm inclined to contact their filing attorney and tell him that I believe his client has made fraudulent claims, and that unless they sign a Consent Agreement, or unless they provide some kind of evidence of actual commerce, we're going to request a Petition of Cancellation. I can only assume that he'll go to his client and tell him that it's either $500 for him to write up a Consent of Agreement, or $5k to defend his Trademark, and if he defends it, and he was lying, he's hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
You need a lawyer. Like years ago. If you are doing business, and you are fighting with another business about legal poo poo, GET A GODDAMN LAWYER. My words cannot possibly communicate how terrible an idea it is for you to contact their lawyer and try to talk to him without FIRST GETTING YOURSELF A LAWYER.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
particle409 posted:. Same reason the Bank wants to know if someone is married when they finance a house: need a list of people who have rights/ownership/opportunity to gently caress up the bank's lien in the property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:You need a lawyer. Like years ago. If you are doing business, and you are fighting with another business about legal poo poo, GET A GODDAMN LAWYER. yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyep!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Here's a related question/curiosity: is it possible (and if so, does it happen often) that a person can cause so much damage to their own case through ill-advised actions that the majority of lawyers just won't touch it with a 10-foot pole? Or is there always that guy who will take any case, no matter how hopeless? On an unrelated note, when I typed that last part I pictured Saul Goodman in my head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Here's a related question/curiosity: is it possible (and if so, does it happen often) that a person can cause so much damage to their own case through ill-advised actions that the majority of lawyers just won't touch it with a 10-foot pole? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Here's a related question/curiosity: is it possible (and if so, does it happen often) that a person can cause so much damage to their own case through ill-advised actions that the majority of lawyers just won't touch it with a 10-foot pole? Or is there always that guy who will take any case, no matter how hopeless? I think most/many lawyers would take a case hosed up up beyond saving by a stupid client. The caveat I'd place on it is unrealistic expectations. When a client brings a poo poo case to me, and I explain to them that they're totally hosed, and they get a gleam in their eye and say "So yer sayin' I've got a chance!"... that's when I want to bail. I can totally take on a losing case. But I won't take on a losing case when I know the bat-poo poo crazy client will blame me when their case inevitably craters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
spregalia posted:Missouri here. I have a question regarding police searches and warrants. I currently live in a mother-in-law style (aka secondary suite) apartment (connected via a locked door between the main house's living room and my kitchen). I have entirely separate facilities (bathroom, kitchen, etc.) for my apartment. My landlord warned me today that she believes the police are following her and may possibly raid her because a friend of hers was caught with a substantial amount and has since fled the state as a federal fugitive. My question is: if the police do actually raid her house and search it with a warrant, can my apartment be searched as well (under the same warrant)? I really don't feel like having my property ransacked and destroyed and want to know my rights in the event my landlord's suspicions are correct. Is the address the same? The warrant will almost certainly cover your rooms. Even if the address is different, a judge will most likely find that police had a good faith basis (depending on your state) to search your rooms anyway. Sonic Dude posted:Here's a related question/curiosity: is it possible (and if so, does it happen often) that a person can cause so much damage to their own case through ill-advised actions that the majority of lawyers just won't touch it with a 10-foot pole? Or is there always that guy who will take any case, no matter how hopeless? Most of my cases are like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Here's a related question/curiosity: is it possible (and if so, does it happen often) that a person can cause so much damage to their own case through ill-advised actions that the majority of lawyers just won't touch it with a 10-foot pole? Or is there always that guy who will take any case, no matter how hopeless? You mean every client, ever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Yikes, I didn't realize the average person was that bad. I can't imagine trying to fix legal things myself and then dumping it all on a lawyer once I got in over my head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Have you not been reading this thread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Sentences never uttered: "My business was failing, so I made sure to pay all the taxes and employees, plus I kept great records!" "I'm cheating on my wife, and I'd like to hear from a professional how to divide our assets before either of us go loving bananas" "The police started asking me questions, and I refused to answer!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:"The police started asking me questions, and I refused to answer!" This has happened like 4 times in my career. Once was the only time I've looked at a case and thought, dude, you should have talked to the cops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Sentences never uttered: If I had a dollar for every client who'd said that, I'd be getting coffee at McDonalds, not Starbucks. The mother of one of my new clients had a lawyer friend send a 'do not speak with client' letter to law enforcement. (After client had sent a series of texts to the victim's father confessing and apologizing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Have you not been reading this thread? Yes, but some part of my brain
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
I'm in missouri and had a dwi. I don't plan on needing a drivers license for several years, would it be possible to just wait out the revocation period? Will I still need to file non owners insurance for the sr 22?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Yes, but some part of my brain Holy lord, this thread is a brains trust compared to the clowns who post on IsItLegal.com.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
nm posted:This has happened like 4 times in my career. Once was the only time I've looked at a case and thought, dude, you should have talked to the cops. After seeing that video by the coked up law professor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc followed by lecture by a real cop showing some tricks of how they gently caress you in the rear end, I have no idea how talking to the cops would ever ever, ever help you. I know you can't reveal details but I am incredibly curious about that one case. I mean it's a speeding ticket for going 15 over or something yeah you can talk your way out of it sometimes if you are polite pand respectful, and the worst you will get is the ticket and defensive driving or something. But anything where you end up in handcuffs you get a drat lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
seacat posted:I mean it's a speeding ticket for going 15 over or something yeah you can talk your way out of it sometimes Haha, what? Let me tell you about the last time a cop let anyone out of a speeding ticket. The year was 1938, and a rising German politician named Adolf Hitler had just been named Time magazine's Man of the Year, following a bloodless defeat of Czechoslovakia. I had just finished my milk route in my International Harvester Metro Van, when I topped a hill and began to pick up speed on the downslope...
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I think most/many lawyers would take a case hosed up up beyond saving by a stupid client. Working in immigration, most of our complicated cases occur when someone has tried to do stuff on their own and end sup in a trainwreck, and only then looks for help. If people come to you in advance with what they want to do, it's almost always painless to figure out what needs to happen (or sometimes, tell them it's not possible at all). But lots of people think they can fly solo, and then end up in a huge mess. Sometimes we can figure out how to solve it, sometimes its just a matter of damage mitigation and holding their hands while it burns down (and possibly trying to stop it affecting too much of their family). We'll still take those cases though, even if there isn't any way left for us to fix the situation. The ones we don't take are the ones where you realize the client is not only incompetent, but is going to keep on doing stupid poo poo without talking to you even when they hire you. As in 'Oh, I know at the consultation you said to not do anything until I had given you all our documents and you could review it all, but while I was drinking last night, I went ahead and submitted a handwritten reply to the government. That's cool right? Oh and I didn't make a copy of it, but I'm pretty sure I can just tell you what it said once I've had a couple beers to jog the memory!' Those people, gently caress no, because they'll continue to sabotage the case around you, blame you when it goes horribly wrong, and then refuse to pay any bills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Case in point: "We started a company and sell product with the same name as a competing product without talking to an attorney. Now we're hosed, what do we do?"District Selectman posted:I don't know if this is the right place, but my question has to do with Trademarks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
seacat posted:After seeing that video by the coked up law professor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc followed by lecture by a real cop showing some tricks of how they gently caress you in the rear end, I have no idea how talking to the cops would ever ever, ever help you. I know you can't reveal details but I am incredibly curious about that one case. Never talk to cops -- this case stands out because it was the one in a million case. This was a really weird case which makes it too specific to give too much detail, but it was a defense of others case where the complaining witness had a previous violent felony conviction involving the protected person. Also, my client was white, had a perfect record, and as close to middle class as a PD client gets. Guy and vic invoked, so record wasn't revealed until later and in fact the entire self-defense issue wasn't brought up as other party strait out lied. Case was dismissed, but took way to long and guy did a night in jail. If my client had talked other guy would have been arrested and charged, I am sure. Again, this case is the one in a million case where it would help. Shut up around cops. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
I have talked my way out of a traffic ticket, but then I'm white, middle-class as gently caress, in the UK, and the officer had me bang to rights and we both knew it so I was the friendliest guy he had met all month and got myself down to a simple caution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I think there are a lot of false positives when it comes to talking your way out of a citation. Every interaction with a police officer is not destined to generate a citation/arrest, but the cop has usually made up his mind before you open your mouth. Sometimes, you talk to the cop after the cop has decided it's just a warning already, and it seems like you "talked your way out of it," when in reality all you did is successfully avoid talking your way into one you weren't getting anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I think there are a lot of false positives when it comes to talking your way out of a citation. It's a lot like most oral arguments, including the ones lawyers do - you're not going to talk the judge into doing something helpful, but you can definitely talk them out of it if you gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
If the cop is undecided, not being a dick can only help you. If he isn't gonna cite you, being a dick can change his mind. Conversely, if he's got a quota to meet, you're screwed, but not being a dick still doesn't cost you anything, since you'll pretty much never know which one it's gonna be until he tells you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
We are forgetting the single most important factor in traffic ticket avoidance: cleavage
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:We are forgetting the single most important factor in traffic ticket avoidance: cleavage + tears. My wife does the "omg my husband will kill me!" thing. Hasn't failed yet. Note, I would not actually kill her. :P
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:We are forgetting the single most important factor in traffic ticket avoidance: cleavage Another plan that will be thwarted by the homosexual agenda
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Another plan that will be thwarted by the homosexual agenda  License and registration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:You need a lawyer. Like years ago. If you are doing business, and you are fighting with another business about legal poo poo, GET A GODDAMN LAWYER. Oh jeez, District Selectman really needs to either get a lawyer. The many ways that this can turn bad is mind boggling. So sad when a lawyer would have it already solved. Hint to District Selectman - when you go to your lawyer you should have a solid idea of what your are willing to spend to fight or make a deal to use the TM. Is it serendipitous that this was followed so quickly by: Sonic Dude posted:Here's a related question/curiosity: is it possible (and if so, does it happen often) that a person can cause so much damage to their own case through ill-advised actions that the majority of lawyers just won't touch it with a 10-foot pole? Or is there always that guy who will take any case, no matter how hopeless? Sure, that's what retainers are for. The bigger the mess, the higher the retainer. Then there are the times when someone shows up and says they did all the work and just need a lawyer to sign off on it. It only takes a few minutes to sign of, right? Luckily there's a chance to catch them before they make a mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Never mind I guess
JacksLibido fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
The lawyer he talked to is a better source of information than this thread, unless you think the lawyer sucks in which case get a new lawyer and ask THEM
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Javid posted:The lawyer he talked to is a better source of information than this thread, unless you think the lawyer sucks in which case get a new lawyer and ask THEM The lawyers retained and all, I was just looking for a second opinion for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
If your friend wants a second opinion, he should go to a second lawyer, not to his friend with a forum account who will go ask random people who may or may not be lawyers on a forum mostly devoted to goatse and the worship of goku's pants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If your friend wants a second opinion, he should go to a second lawyer, not to his friend with a forum account who will go ask random people who may or may not be lawyers on a forum mostly devoted to goatse and the worship of goku's pants. Hey gently caress you I don't give a poo poo about goku
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Man, why do you guys gotta scare off the goofy ones before we can read it. Slow play it a little
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Man, why do you guys gotta scare off the goofy ones before we can read it. Slow play it a little Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Clearly you hyper efficient lawyers have made it a contest to be the first to make fun of someone who comes with a bad question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 12:50
|
|