|
Don’t hire anyone to do poo poo on your property without verifying insurance
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Don’t hire anyone to do poo poo on your property without verifying insurance What's the polite way to ask your lawyer who his insurance carrier is so you can verify
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 03:31
|
|
|
Devor posted:What's the polite way to ask your lawyer who his insurance carrier is so you can verify Rummage through his garbage and look at his bills
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Don’t hire anyone to do poo poo on your property without verifying insurance My landlord just sends his mate around to fix poo poo when it starts leaking. I'm sure this won't end badly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Devor posted:What's the polite way to ask your lawyer who his insurance carrier is so you can verify Ask. Anyone who is actually insured will literally be happy to show you because is separate him from the lowballers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Devor posted:What's the polite way to ask your lawyer who his insurance carrier is so you can verify Clients do this all the time. It’s not impolite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 12:51
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Clients do this all the time. It’s not impolite. When clients asked me this question, I always replied the same: How DARE you speak to me???
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 13:00
|
|
|
Not a lawyer but it’s super normal to ask suppliers and contractors for proof of insurance. Chances are they already have a letter or certificate from their insurer without any confidential info ready to go because they get asked often. Or, you know, they’re shady.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Devor posted:What's the polite way to ask your lawyer who his insurance carrier is so you can verify Ahem, if you don't trust me then maybe this won't be a good working relationship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Terces posted:IANAL but it's sometimes considered an animal part so there may be a process you need to go through before you can legally send it to another country, probably due to illegal animal parts being traded regularly or concerns about importing diseases/other public health issues. Years ago I was looking into mailing some snake sheds from Canada to a company in the States and cost ~$60 dollars extra per shed as they couldn't just be put in the mail and sent as is, they needed to be inspected at the border and receive some kind of clearance, making the process not very cheap even if I sent small shed pieces. Also this was for snake sheds from non-CITES species, snakes listed under any of the CITES Appendixes are basically considered 'endangered or at risk of endangerment' and have even more laws regulating them + their parts and usually cost more to export. A lot of pythons and boa species are protected including some of the most commonly kept snakes in North America like ball pythons and boa constrictors. In my case I contacted US Fish and Wildlife Services to find out if I would need some kind of permit or whatnot to send shed skin to the US, since they deal with wildlife/exotic species and I found them helpful. For Canadian authorities I'm not sure who you would contact exactly, if the shed came from a CITES species then it's probably Environment Canada as they have a specific department for that and would probably know what you need to do even if you don't require special permits. Thank you! Just for the record, both species are domestic and of no concern, conservation-wise. I think I'm just going to find someone local and drive it the skins over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Could I sell that debt to a collector? no but depending on the amount of the debt, you can get a lawyer to try to collect it on contingency basis. they'll handle doing the lien/execution/foreclosure, whatever, to get the money if they have any assets you can enforce it on, or they handle the payment plan etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Do jurors ever fall asleep during a trial? What happens if they do? i watched an attorney get picked for the jury (he was pissed about it) and then sleep through a whole day of the trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:i watched an attorney get picked for the jury (he was pissed about it) and then sleep through a whole day of the trial. In an american criminal court??? They should have held that guy in contempt for obstruction of injustice
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Is “I’m supposed to be in court next door” a valid excuse for a lawyer to get out of jury duty? Also, are inmates in prison or jail on the hook for jury duty? I guess assume the former such that just deferring for a bit won’t help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
I'm struggling to imagine how either prosecutor or defense would want a lawyer in the jury box
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
My Dad was sat next to a sitting judge for voir dire. Both were dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Is “I’m supposed to be in court next door” a valid excuse for a lawyer to get out of jury duty? When I got stuck on a jury for a criminal case there was an attorney who had to beg to get out due to having trial next week. If the judge didn't excuse her the DA/defense attorney would have kept her on lol They also kept me on and I was a dumbass law student at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm struggling to imagine how either prosecutor or defense would want a lawyer in the jury box White dude (in a plurality black city) with no criminal background whose entire practice is defensive civil work. Neither side was willing to spend a strike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
If I were to wear a shirt that said RESEARCH JURY NULLIFICATION on the front, back and inside of the shirt would this help me get out of jury duty or just get me in trouble?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:If I were to wear a shirt that said RESEARCH JURY NULLIFICATION on the front, back and inside of the shirt would this help me get out of jury duty or just get me in trouble? yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:When I got stuck on a jury for a criminal case there was an attorney who had to beg to get out due to having trial next week. As a lawyer or the defendant? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:In an american criminal court??? civil trial
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:As a lawyer or the defendant?  (As a lawyer. They were in near tears)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
So now Chauvin got a sweep, what’s next? I assume appeals and such, but he gets to do that from the comfort of prison after he’s sentenced, right? The judge mentioned Blakely Factors or something? What’s all that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Is it a good idea to put together an LLC for my band? Seems like a smart move to limit our personal liability. Is there a downside besides whatever costs / reporting are involved? Could I use the LLC for both band and any recording stuff I do or would that require a separate LLC? My HOA got sued last year over stupid stuff, and after seeing that process, I want to avoid the possibility of my hobby wrecking my families finances. Insurance thread said insuring a band LLC is definitely a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
some_admin posted:Is it a good idea to put together an LLC for my band? Seems like a smart move to limit our personal liability. You can get your butthole insured if you’re willing to pay. Ask your agent what they recommend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
No agent, my butthole is strictly freelance
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
Yes, it's like that thing where hand models get their hands insured. No. Yes, exactly, it's my actual rear end in a top hat. I've insured my rear end in a top hat. Yes, against anything that can happen that might make it unfit for display. Yes, even against extremely hot peppers, but that's really more painful than damaging in the long run so they didn't make me agree not to have wings. Wings are kind of low risk for them. Yes. Yes. Lloyd's. Yes, that Lloyd's. No, I don't know them. No, I don't think their rear end in a top hat is insured, but really who knows? No, I'm pretty sure there's other butthole insurance deals but obviously they're not going to announce that, are they, so I don't know who. No. No, not them either as far as I know... Well, ok, maybe I guess but it would be surprising at this stage of their life honestly.
Volmarias fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
Lawyers aren't allowed to serve on juries here, I was kinda sad I never got to do it before I got admitted  I'm not sure if there's some sort of philosophical reason or just because parties would always challenge lawyers so why even try it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Lawyers aren't allowed to serve on juries here, I was kinda sad I never got to do it before I got admitted It's because even lawyers don't like lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So now Chauvin got a sweep, what’s next? I assume appeals and such, but he gets to do that from the comfort of prison after he’s sentenced, right? Great questions! It is possible to get bail pending appeal. It fully depends upon the particular rules of Minnesota. Up here in Alaska, bail pending appeal is wholly normal, so once a person is convicted they can appeal from the comfort of their own home. Since we all saw him remanded, I'm guessing that Minnesota does not allow that for people convicted for murder (neither does Alaska). The Blakely question is a longer answer. In America, a majority of crimes have two things that define their sentence: a classification and a presumptive range. The classification is "A Misdo" or "C Felony" or "3rd Degree Felony" or "Traffic Felony." It depends, again, on the legislature. In Alaska, the rule is that B misdos have a maximum of 90 days to serve, A misdos have a maximum 1 year, C felonies have a maximum 5 years, B felonies have a maximum of 10 years, A felonies have a maximum of 20 years, and Unclassified felonies have a maximum of 99 years. The second half of the sentencing consideration is the presumptive range. Let's take a typical example of a first time DUI. In Alaska, the first time standard DUI is an A misdemeanor with a presumptive range of 3-30 days. A second time standard DUI is an A misdemeanor with a presumptive range of 20-180 days. A third DUI is a C felony with a presumptive range of 90 days - 1 year. So let's use the first time DUI example. In that case, the presumptive range is 3-30 days, but because it's an A misdemeanor technically the maximum is 1 year. If a prosecutor wants the judge to impose a sentence higher than 30 days the prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the DUI is "aggravated." Why is this a jury issue? The constitution says that juries get to decide whether or not a defendant loses their liberty (i.e. go to jail). The Supreme Court, in a case called Blakely, decided that "When raising the possible sentence above the presumptive range, that counts as subjecting a defendant to loss of liberty, thus the existence of at least one aggravating factor is a question for the jury." There are lots, and lots, and lots of aggravators. Say for instance that someone committed a low level felony assault. He's an rear end in a top hat who hit someone with a bat. C felony, he gets 90 days which he'll do on an ankle monitor. But what if the exact same person hits a 5 year old kid with a bat? That's an aggravated C felony, thus the range goes from 90 days-1 year, up to 90 days-5 years! Thus the prosecutor may ask for 2 years to serve, and the judge may do that. Other aggravating factors may include "deliberate cruelty," "derives a significant percentage of their income from criminal activity," "within 100 yards of a school," "member of a criminal street gang and crime was done in furtherance of the gang's interest," "abused a position of power." I have no idea what the rules are in Minnesota. There are lots of reasons that a Blakely aggravator might not go to a jury. For instance, if the aggravator is "Dude was on probation when he committed the new offense." That is not a jury question because the defendant being on probation is solely within the jurisdiction of the court to answer. Or "dude has three prior DUI convictions" - in that case another jury has already decided that the dude was convicted of a DUI, so a new jury does not need to re-establish that fact. This question gets complicated. The defense may waive jury trial on the question of an aggravator. "Dude was three years older than the victim" is not going to be a hotly contested issue, maybe the defense just doesn't want to waste the jury's time on whether the 55 year old defendant is at least three years older than the 12 year old he raped. One big exception is if the presumptive range and the maximum range are the same. In Alaska, that's pretty rare. Kidnapping, Sex Assault 1, and Murder 1 are about the only crimes where the presumptive range is "maximum 99." Because aggravating factors in those cases do not increase the maximum presumptive sentence, there is no need for a jury to decide aggravating factors. If I had to guess at this trial, whatever the highest count Chauvin was convicted of has a maximum 99 year sentence baked into it, so the Blakely aggravators do not need to go to the jury. The State still wants to prove them, because they want (1) a big sentence from the judge and (2) that sentence to survive appellate review. The way to do that is to prove up a bunch of aggravators. I'm super happy to answer any further questions with similar dissertation long answers! This is my wheelhouse! BigHead fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Apr 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 05:27
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:civil trial Same thing applies also you are insane for having juries for civil matters
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Great questions! Wanna know how your your entire field is treated in Norway? 1. gently caress you there is no bail 2. If police can show cause you are incarcerated until trial, even if that is a year away in cases of murder. 3. You have the right to a hearing every 4 weeks to determine in you can be let free, spoileralert you won't unless the police don't really have a case. 4. There is a specific ordre-public adjacent statute that allows the court to keep you in jail in case of a charge of an extremely heinous crime such as murder, child rape etc. where if you were set free people might get mad and kill you. Much simpler!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
This is a hypothetical based on a real situation but one I'm not actually involved in. Say I make widgets and have a website where I sell them, and someone else has a site that's primarily a database of widgets and widget makers. Say it's the biggest known database of widget makers, and everyone interested in widgets knows about it even if they don't use the database. Pretend the database has an entry for my widget brand, because widget afficionados have added my info to the database and added entries for each of my widgets. However, someone (with whom I'm beefing) with database access keeps editing the entries to say I don't have a website or directs to someone else's site. Let's say I'd rather my brand and widgets not be featured on this site at all, because I dislike the owners and don't want to be associated with them, let alone allow them to make money on my products. Would a registered trademark or something give a widget maker some control over the use of their brand name to stop this kind of thing, assuming the database company didn't have infinitely deep pockets to drag out litigation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
Not generally, no. Use of a mark to refer to the relevant product is generally an instance of nominative fair use in trademark law. Coke doesn’t get to stop you from saying “Coke sucks,” much less “Coca Cola has a website and is a cola type soda.” The falsified information is a little bit harder but unless your mark is really famous (think Coke/Apple/Nike levels of fame here) you probably can’t make anything of it under trademark law. (Extremely famous marks get a few additional protections that ordinary registered marks don’t.) Now you might be able to bring some other kind of claim (unfair competition or tortious interference, maybe) against the person editing your info, rather than the site, but those are going to be harder to prove out and win on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 07:13
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Not a lawyer but it’s super normal to ask suppliers and contractors for proof of insurance. Chances are they already have a letter or certificate from their insurer without any confidential info ready to go because they get asked often. Grip it and rip it posted:Ahem, if you don't trust me then maybe this won't be a good working relationship. Um. Just want to point out these two posts right next to each other 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 10:12
|
|
|
If a client started asking me for my insurance provider details at a case intake interview, I would decline to take that case. Professional responsibility insurance is a requirement for an active attorney license. This is clearly stated by every available official resource including the bar association web page. The level of distrust you would need to for that to be an issue really prohibits that lawyer from even working with that person just from a plain ethical standpoint. The attorney-client relationship presupposes a working level of mutual confidence. In my opinion. Where I practice. Caveat emptor. gently caress yourself etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 10:30
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Wanna know how your your entire field is treated in Norway? Yeah, but your police aren’t constantly doing what they can to lock up black people for petty poo poo to keep the beds at the private prison full so the state doesn’t have to pay CCA a penalty for dropping below 95% capacity. Nice piece of fish posted:If a client started asking me for my insurance provider details at a case intake interview, I would decline to take that case. Unfortunately, such coverage is not required in the USA. Asking about a lawyer’s malpractice coverage is a prudent decision, here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 12:15
|
|
|
Some companies also have blanket policies that they have to get proof of insurance from every suppliers, ans lawyers are suppliers. It’s fun when you’re dealing with a 70 year old self-employed plumber who’s coming on site for a forty minute job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:
IIRC the time spent here is counted against any prison sentence isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 14:29
|
|
