|
FordPRefectLL posted:I only give loans to friends/family members I never want to hear from again. I give small loans so that I can refuse big ones later.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Loaning money is a good easy to get rid of people without making a big fuss
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
If you call the Bar for a referral, do they just give you a list of lawyers that can do what you need, or do they actually refer the best ones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:If you call the Bar for a referral, do they just give you a list of lawyers that can do what you need, or do they actually refer the best ones? If you're the best, you don't need to be on the referral list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:If you call the Bar for a referral, do they just give you a list of lawyers that can do what you need, or do they actually refer the best ones? What's the difference. The difference is 400 dollars an hour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:If you call the Bar for a referral, do they just give you a list of lawyers that can do what you need, or do they actually refer the best ones? Just as long as they don't refer their crazy rear end back to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
The bar doesn't know who is the "best" - they will refer you to someone who specializes in that type of law who has signed up for their referral service. At least that how it works with the ones I have experience with. The best way to get referrals based on "how actually good is this person at this" is from other lawyers that you trust. BTW if we're giving out generalized advice, my best advice based on my elder law and probate practice is: Don't get old and don't rely on your kids to take care of you when you get old. Definitely don't HAVE kids because you want someone to take care of you when you get old. Also, get long-term care insurance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Crossposting from the house-buying thread. Someone posted this and I got curious.PDP-1 posted:A family friend who was a hardcore nature lover bought up nearly 500 contiguous acres of wetland over the course of his life and worked with the local DNR to maintain it as pristine waterfowl habitat. When he got too old to live there he sold it off with a restrictive clause like "this land can never be sub-divided, only one home is allowed on the property, and these restrictions must be passed along to the next buyer(s) forever". He basically built his own do-it-yourself wetlands protection area. Let's pretend that the family friend, instead of managing to sell it off, died one day while still in ownership of the property. And that his only heir was an rear end in a top hat son who just wanted to sell it off asap and collect on it. Could the family friend have added a clause to his will saying that the sale must be completed in such a manner? Would he be able to disregard the clause since it could be considered unreasonably difficult to find such a buyer? Would he have to make at least a token effort? If you need a state for this theoretical, let's say Louisiana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
the littlest prince posted:Crossposting from the house-buying thread. Someone posted this and I got curious. This sounds like stdh.txt - as nice as an idea it might be, the second owner of the property really has no legal obligation to follow the restrictions. Very generally, a restriction like the kind described needs a reciprocal obligation, or "executive right" vested in a third party to be enforceable. Think of it this way - if the rear end in a top hat son owns it, who's going to stop him from building ten houses on the lot? If the Audubon Society or whoever sues A-hole to enforce the restrictions, he will dismiss their case because they lack standing - no legal right of theirs is affected by his conduct. In order for clauses like that to be enforceable, someone else would have to get the property from A-hole if he violates the terms. Something like, "i give my land to my rear end in a top hat son, and for so long thereafter as my rear end in a top hat son follows the rules. And if he doesn't, the property then reverts to the Audubon Society." There's also an issue called the rule against perpetuities. You should generally ignore this concept as its caused a great many law students and lawyers to turn to the bottle. Suffice it to say, a single restriction like the kind you're talking about can't survive more than a couple generations. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Many states have something called a conservation easement, where an owner can require future buyers to preserve natural conditions on the property. The family friend ought to check with a Louisiana lawyer to see if this option is available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Are there any protections against suspension for a student at a public university (in Utah) if their actions were manifestations of their autism spectrum disorder? I did see IDEA, but it looks like that only applies to minors. edit for clarification: "actions" are repetitive code of conduct violations. Communication outbursts only, nothing threatening verbally or physically. Though they're treating it like they just prevented a Virginia Tech incident, probably to justify an otherwise questionable suspension. UserErr0r fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
UserErr0r posted:Are there any protections against suspension for a student at a public university (in Utah) if their actions were manifestations of their autism spectrum disorder? Possibly? The range of potential 'actions' is even broader than the popular definition of the autism spectrum. They could range from assaults to "I didn't do my assignment because I was playing WoW." Americans with Disabilities Act applies to public universities, so that would be a good start for a google search combined with your 'action.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Are there rules about forcing travel on subpoenaed witnesses in federal cases? If so, is it even worth it to try and contest being compelled to travel to testify? What if the location listed on the subpoena is not a courtroom?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Are there rules about forcing travel on subpoenaed witnesses in federal cases? If so, is it even worth it to try and contest being compelled to travel to testify? What if the location listed on the subpoena is not a courtroom? Yes, there are rules (Rule 45, specifically.). If it's more than 100 miles and not for a trial, the judge may (optionally) quash the subpoena. If it's less than 100 miles or for trial, you're probably SOL. Best bet is to find a lawyer, they can tell you what kind of options you have and work with you on avoiding things. (Also, if you're getting deposed, you may want your own lawyer anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Is it unusual for the subpoena to be unclear whether it's for a trial, deposition, or just for documents? The question about there not being a courtroom, court house, or a federal building listed as the Place of Appearance is really bugging me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Is it unusual for the subpoena to be unclear whether it's for a trial, deposition, or just for documents? The question about there not being a courtroom, court house, or a federal building listed as the Place of Appearance is really bugging me. Not that unusual, but if it's that unclear you really want to have a lawyer take a look at it. (If the place of appearance is a random address, it's probably either a hotel or a firm's offices and they're looking for deposition testimony. Depositions are essentially never at a courthouse.) Did I mention get a lawyer to look at it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Did I mention get a lawyer to look at it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, there are rules (Rule 45, specifically.). If it's more than 100 miles and not for a trial, the judge may (optionally) quash the subpoena. If it's less than 100 miles or for trial, you're probably SOL. Concurring with Kalman, a quick read of FRCP 45 will help you get your bearings: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 That said - you should at least talk to a lawyer and, in this case, it may help if it's a lawyer in the jurisdiction where the law suit is happening. Different courts have different local rules. Any lawyer can consult the local rules, but familiarity can help. The big things are that 100 mile bit FRCP 45(c) and the "fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law" in FRCP 45(b). Lots of lawyers screw up and forget the fees and mileage. If the subpoena is for an inconvenient day or something, your lawyer can probably work something out with the lawyer that subpoenaed you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah believe me the person that received the subpoena will be having a lawyer review it. I'm just really out of my depth trying to parse the document and am just anxious. Since the address and name listed is what appears to be the defense attorney I am assuming it's a deposition but there's language on it like, "testify at a hearing or trial" and that you must "remain at the court until a court officer or judge allows you to leave". I guess maybe there's just one form for this kind of thing? It's Form AO 89 (Rev 08/09) Subpoena to testify at a hearing or trial in a criminal case. As for the local lawyer part--it's a trial being brought by one state (A) but tried in another (B). Do you talk to a lawyer in A or B? FordCQC fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Yeah believe me the person that received the subpoena will be having a lawyer review it. Whoa! I answered for civil. It would probably be best to consult with a lawyer or two that's local to you and to do it really soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:At the very least, a lawyer will be able to tell you whether or not you need a lawyer. Thread title?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Yeah believe me the person that received the subpoena will be having a lawyer review it.  This? That's very strange. You may be being considered as a witness for the defense in a criminal case. Its just a basic form from the United States Courts Website. But quite frankly it's a little lazy, since most attorneys have their own form they use. Talk to that attorney friend of yours, and let us know what happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Just this past Sunday I got a bill from my doctor. It has dates of service dating back to 2007, with a bunch of charges from my insurance carrier back then. Some items are from 2008, 2009, and 2012, but the bulk of quantity and the bulk of total charges are all circa 2007. I live in NJ, this was all through my workplace's medical insurance - Aetna, BCBS, etc. No Medicare/Medicaid. Given the NJ statute of limitations - 6 years as per http://www.expert-credit-advice.com/statute_of_limitations.htm - can they even charge me for this stuff? I've been current with them, paid any co-pays or overages as they came to me. This came from their medical billing office, not through debt collectors or anything like that. It runs up around $608 that they want me to pay. I left a couple of voice mails asking to talk to someone - no response yet, but it's only been two days. NJ statute 2A:14-1 explicitly lists 6 years statute of limitations for transactions not covered under 12A:2-725, which deals with sales. So can I basically tell them "you waited too long" in certified letter niceness for the applicable debts, and pay what hasn't yet expired under statute?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
IANAL. That being said: it always boggles my mind the way that people are willing to treat doctor bills as some, like, inviolate word from on high. If your plumber came to you and said "hey, remember that leak I fixed for you in 2012? Yeah, well, you owe me $200 more for that," you would laugh in his face. Odds are good that at some point the person who does billing for your doctor hosed up, mostly because people who bill for doctors are generally loving idiots. Maybe they hosed up 2-7 years ago, but there's a very good chance that they're loving up now, in asking you to pay for it. You should, at the very least, ask them for detailed billing for all of the work done that they're alleging you owe for. gently caress the statute of limitations, legal or not, that's bullshit. EDIT: And if you do end up paying them, make sure that you get in writing that it's full and final payment for all sums owed through X date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
MJP posted:So can I basically tell them "you waited too long" in certified letter niceness for the applicable debts, and pay what hasn't yet expired under statute? Thats one option, but what if they say, "we don't care, pay it anyways?" I wouldn't be surprised if NJ has a special statute of limitations relating to medical bills. Not every statute of limitations is found in the same section of code, and your website there definitely didn't look for one. You're probably still outside the time period, but remember that the statute doesn't run from the time of the service, but generally from the date of your last payment or re-affirmation of the debt (sometimes plus 30 days or whatever the default period was). Then, there may be more facts that, under New Jersey law, "toll" the statute of limitations, like being out of State. New Jersey is hosed up. My point is that you are probably correct in your analysis of the applicable law, but that doesn't help you with the functional application of that law to your situation. The Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense to a lawsuit filed against you. It has no power outside of the Courtroom. You may also be mistaken about the facts of your situation, and you are not, in fact, protected by the applicable SoL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
This is more of a general/hypothetical question, but It seems like the lawyer types in this thread enjoy these... I'm in an IT Security program, and I'm in the final class. We have to write the IT/security policy, and one of the policies I put in mine was that, as part of the hiring orientation, new employees have to sign a document saying that they have read and understand the policies. As well as that, the first time they log into the network, they also have to digitally sign AND mark a check box that they have read and understand the same policies. Other people in the class just about poo poo themselves with how 'clever' I was to come up with this groundbreaking idea..... Isn't that common in industry? Isn't that common sense? I also mentioned that while most people are willing to at least give more than a passing glance at a physical contract, everybody skims in an electronic terms and conditions or electronic version of the same contract. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
IANAL, but it's not much of a legal question.FlashBewin posted:Isn't that common in industry? Yes. FlashBewin posted:Isn't that common sense? Sort of. Huge swaths of normal people might not think of it off the top of their head. Especially if they were half-assing an assignment and have never worked a desk job before. Like people in school. FlashBewin posted:most people are willing to at least give more than a passing glance at a physical contract, everybody skims in an electronic terms and conditions or electronic version of the same contract. While there is probably some truth to this (they probably skim or outright ignore electronic versions more frequently), people are often willing to skim both types. E.g. my past self did this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Our office is required to update employees every year on our data security policies, and I can guarantee that maybe one in five people actually read the policy before signing off the thing that says they have. The company knows this, so they also hold an annual meeting where someone goes through it on slides to try to make sure everyone has some idea what it says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
Spoke with an attorney this morning and they're looking into it. He said it didn't seem likely they could compel travel in this instance, so hopefully they can quash it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:Spoke with an attorney this morning and they're looking into it. He said it didn't seem likely they could compel travel in this instance, so hopefully they can quash it. Nice. **LEGAL QUESTIONS THREAD SUCCESS STORY**
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Nice. **LEGAL QUESTIONS THREAD SUCCESS STORY** Is this the thread's first success? Wow, what a bunch of poo poo lawyers. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
My best advice is behind a paywall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
FlashBewin posted:This is more of a general/hypothetical question, but It seems like the lawyer types in this thread enjoy these... In addition to educating new employees on what they can and can't do, the "Policies" are usually just a reason to fire people for loving up, and putting them on notice of what they can get fired for. Some states say, "you don't need cause to fire people, fire them for any reason" and other states say "you can't just fire them for any ol' reason, you have to have cause." In the "At-will" states, like the Great State of Texas, you generally don't need to list the reasons you can fire someone and have them acknowledge they know the reasons, because you can fire them for any reason or no reason at all. In "For Cause" type states, they are more helpful because if the former employee turns around and sues you for "wrongful termination" you can say, "look, they violated this provision right here, and here is their signature proving they read and understood that provision" as a defense to their accusation. It ultimately isn't much, because no wrongful termination suit is coming down the pipe without them claiming they were wrongfully terminated, so they'll be advancing another theory (they fired me because I was black/old/disabled/etc.) that you'll have to defend anyways, but it helps to be able to advance a countervailing theory. There may also be an Unemployment Insurance, or other governmental assistance program implications to the termination for cause situation, but I'm not familiar with that area of practice. Where I've really seen this fact pattern arise is in Non-competition/Trade Secret infringement cases; ones where the former employee goes elsewhere to ply his craft, and his former employer gets pissed. In those cases, the former Employer is arguing to the Court that the Employee misappropriated trade secrets, or had a covenant not to compete. The Employee always responds, "But, I never had an employment contract!" and the Employer says, "Ah ha, look right here on page 9 of your Employee Handbook/Employee Policies where it says you will get access to trade secrets, and you cannot compete with us!" Then the parties will proceed to argue, ad Ad nauseam about whether the agreement was a contract, an enforceable contract, whether there was consideration or damages, etc.' Realistically, I can't see a benefit to having them sign the paper, and then check the box on the same thing again, but every state is different, and multiple levels of redundancy can be good, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
It also depends on where the money is coming from. I work for a university facility that gets like 90% of its money from NASA via DoD contracts, and anything DoD requires some pretty strict security policies. Whether or not we the facility feel that stuff should be required, it is required, because the people paying the bills say it's required, and the people paying the bills are the gubmint, and they LOVE them some redundant policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:It also depends on where the money is coming from. I work for a university facility that gets like 90% of its money from NASA via DoD contracts, and anything DoD requires some pretty strict security policies. Whether or not we the facility feel that stuff should be required, it is required, because the people paying the bills say it's required, and the people paying the bills are the gubmint, and they LOVE them some redundant policies. And along these lines, federally funded agencies are all subject to federal wrongful termination laws, where as private entities only have to deal with their particular state's laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:federal wrongful termination laws, What
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What Look, I'm not saying they exist... Just that I don't know anything about the subject at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Dont get people's hopes up. They don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
MA resident here, and this story came up. The tl;dr version is that a convicted repeat sex offender has set up living out of a pastel-colored bus with all the windows covered in sunflower wallpaper that he will move from town to town along the south shore. For lack of a better question how is this sort of thing legal? Here's a guy who's been convicted several times, has the highest designation of sex offender the state has, and yet here he is living out of the proverbial 'rape van'. Do the police really need to wait for him to hang out a 'free candy' sign to move in or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
If he's no longer on probation he probably doesn't have any restrictions on travel, and I assume his goal is to move before the amount of time needed to establish residence. E: I don't know if it's a term of release or anything that someone stay x number of yards from places children congregate. I would be shocked if that could be enforced. In general the restrictions are that you can't live there. Perhaps if he's found to be loitering he could be charged for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:08
|
|
