Solomon Grundy posted:

Not basic questions. Very complicated questions in fact. You have created some sort of quasi-sublessor situation. Are you co-tenants with a side agreement, or are you some sort of landlord? Does your state's statutory tenant-landlord law apply? You could argue about these issues all the way to your state supreme court (whatever state you are in) because it is a weird relationship.

Serrath posted:

I'm not sure this question is appropriate here but I didn't want to start a whole new thread for my own (minor) legal problems.

I live in Australia (Queensland) and I was caught by a speed camera doing 12km over the speed limit. This means I'm liable for the fine imposed when you're caught doing 12 or above over the limit but less than 20. I really want to contest this but my only defense is that I simply don't think I was going that fast. I remember the date and the trip (it was only 8 days ago) and I was with my girlfriend and she flips her poo poo when I speed. It's really tough, though, because speed cameras are seen as objective... I feel like it's mistaken, even if I was speeding, I don't think I was going that much over the speed limit.

Is there any point in contesting this? Is the argument that the speed camera is wrong a valid reason to contest this or is it possible I will be further penalized for making a fuss? It's not about the money; I'm happy to pay the fine but I don't want to accrue 3 points on my licence, especially given that I don't feel the ticket is accurate.

What should I do? I have 7 days to respond to the notice of infringement. Is there any way for me to admit partial liability? Like say maybe I was speeding but I wasn't going that fast or is that like an admission of guilt?

Incredulous Red posted:

Your only real hope is to attack the accuracy of the camera system.

Grazing Occultation posted:

I'm an Aussie living in the US. When I went home to Melbourne last year, I had an eventful (ugh!) evening: I kept one bloke from beating another to death. I'll be giving evidence soon at a committal hearing via videolink.

I'm pressing charges (assault and making threats to kill) and most likely the prosecution's main witness - I bore the brunt of the guy's rage. Well, aside from the poor bastard he attacked.

The hearing is at the Melbourne Magistrate's Court. What would the committal hearing be like? Should I expect to be grilled or will this just be the defence probing for information?

It's funny: I didn't even think about pressing charges when I gave a statement. I didn't find out until later that charges were being pressed on my behalf. I never really thought about how that worked before - is it usually so automatic?

wormil posted:

Yeah, he's a real outlaw doing that five over; totally deserves being harassed week after week. Probably should be maced and beaten too. gently caress that scumbag.

Javid posted:

Oregon:

Bought a used car some months ago, was doing some work on it this week and discovered it had been in a massive collision at some point, and then more or less stapled back together. The mechanic said it should've been cubed at that point. Obviously, this was not disclosed to me at the time of sale. Are there laws governing this, and if so how would one go about filing suit? (Civil, criminal, small claims, what)

It was bought off the owner, not a dealer, if that matters.

JudicialRestraints posted:

'Caveat Emptor'

If the seller told him that the car had never been involved in an accident we'd be in business...

xaoult posted:

The letter did come from an attorney's office. This is all over an ex girlfriend actually. We don't have any problems with each other. I also have a letter from the ex stating she would release me of all legal liability even if I did want to contact her, which I do not. I'm just wondering if this cease and desist sent by her parents attorney is a bullshit scare tactic or not.

xaoult posted:

No the letter didn't even look like that, it was just a standard typed up letter without any references to any laws in it at all, and there wasn't even mention of stalking in the letter. From what I understand from it it's just if she makes contact with me, and I reply, or try to make contact with her they'll try to come up with some reason for suing me.

kalonji posted:

Is there anything criminal about whats going on?

How can I deal with this so I come out on top, preferably retaining my shares/the idea or domain but more importantly protect my assets.

Also, could I sue this person if they start a similar site in the near future.

kalonji posted:

I already know I could get sued, hence why its a legal problem and I have a legal question.
A vague answer that tells me what I already know is absolutely useless. Thats poo poo posting.

cory ad portas posted:

So this girl's crazy boyfriend threatened to shoot me, apparently he's Sur13 which I doubt. Still, he kinda kept going on about how he had "a .40 for my rear end," blah blah blah.

ROTC and poo poo seriously make me not want to have to deal with this rear end in a top hat, I don't need that kind of crap around me. Any advice?

Vestral posted:

EDIT: I'm in Australia, but general advice from anyone still welcome.

Bougie Black Women posted:

Is that a rhetorical question?

joat mon posted:

Reztes posted:

This is probably super

About a week ago, I was right behind a minor rear-end collision. I was about to merge back into traffic when one of the involved drivers got out of her car and flagged me down. I was on my way to work, but they asked me for a statement that I witnessed the accident. I wrote something vague about seeing the one rear-end the other, and gave them my name and phone number before leaving. No police had arrived, but I think one of the involved drivers was calling them at the time.

State Farm called me later that day, and I gave them pretty much the same statement.

Now the county sheriff's department is calling me in relation to the accident to give a statement.

I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm worried about talking to the police and inadvertently getting more involved, or charged with something. Watching that whole Don't Talk to Police video made me kinda paranoid. Southern California, by the way.

SRQ posted:

I'm not entirely sure where to ask this, but here goes-
I'm Canadian, And I want to Emigrate to England, it's just been one of dreams for all my life and since I turned 18 recently I kicked things into gear.
How does British citizenship law apply to people who are citizens of the "Colonies"? Does being a "Subject of the Queen" grant me a fast track or something?
Thanks.

Anjow posted:

UK law, asking purely out of interest. A question that is often asked, often answered (often contradicting others), but never cited. The question itself:

If someone in a shop accidentally breaks an item that was on display, do they have to pay for it?

I assume it's a civil matter and not criminal, since there would be no mens rea, being that it's an accident. If you are able to decisively answer this question, is there any chance you could back it up? Like I said before, I never see anyone provide a source for their answer and I see people say both yes and no so I don't know which is right. 7 years ago my A-level law teacher said no, 6 months ago the programme Watchdog said yes.

Eli Cash posted:

I got accepted to pharmacy school, so the state board of pharmacy for my intern license would be it if not additional methods. I'm pretty sure I'm hosed, though I'm sure they have accepted at least one person with a record. I did read, however, that expunging juvenile records (as opposed to adult records) erases them completely. Christ, the internet has been useless in finding info on this and the law confuses me.

O Hanraha-hanrahan posted:

I think I have a pretty strong case for unfair dismissal. Am I better off going to an employment tribunal or taking them to small claims to get money owed to me. Can I do both?

This is in the UK.

OzzyBlood posted:

You cannot modify a written contract with a verbal one, at all. So what they're saying doesn't hold water. IANAL however I do enjoy watching a lot of tv court

JudicialRestraints posted:

My contracts class was kind of a gigantic joke, but I do remember the professor mentioning a 'parol evidence rule'

I'm not sure what the exact content of the rule is and if jurisdictions actually use it, but I thought the jist of the rule was that verbal modifications of written contracts - especially when they directly contradicted written contracts, didn't hold much water (unless we're talking about warranties or something).

Again, IANAL (Is there an acronym for "I am just a stupid 1L" yet?) but I think the poster is ok.

Corsair Jr posted:

I was in a traffic accident about a week ago and am wondering what the best approach to take is. Essentially, I was driving down a 4 lane road and someone entered the intersection (no light), cutting me off and causing me to hit them. Both cars suffered moderate damage and my airbag deployed. I went to the hospital so I wasn't there to talk to the police. The officer later came to the hospital and wrote me a ticket for reckless driving because "witnesses said I was speeding". Is this worth getting a lawyer for? I realize reckless is a fairly serious offense but I haven't had any other traffic tickets except 2 speeding tickets about 4 years ago. One lawyer quoted a fee of $1,500 to take the case. Is that high? This is in Virginia.

Stormtrooper posted:

I have a question about copyright. Why are pictures/scans of medieval manuscripts copyrighted? (Example) Surely the original work is in the public domain, and as I understand it, you can't copyright a photo/scan of a public domain work if its intentionally a close duplicate. This is based on my understanding of American law, and most of these manuscripts are in Europe (the example I linked is in the UK). Do copyright laws differ so much that its possible to copyright such images?

FreshShoez posted:

So in Missouri, the law is that a landlord has to give you a bill with all the things they're spending your initial deposit on (if they don't plan on giving it back entirely) within 30 days of the lease ending. My lease ended 32 days ago, I called my landlord about it, she said she hasn't even walked through the apartment to check yet... and she is going to mail me a bill soon. Aren't I supposed to just get the whole $420 back because of the law? Am I reading something wrong? Should I be a huge douchebag or take her to court or whatever? They've made my last 2 years a living hell, and I honestly just want the entire deposit back. If I take legal action, can they try to sue me for things like replacing the 30 year old carpet or whatever else they try to fabricate?

Mdubb posted:

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Since he's in Germany, is he just protected against civil actions that would require him to show up for court, or would it still be possible to simply draft papers and have him sign them?

Talking to his CO is something we've discussed, but as much as he's pissed us off, we'd really rather not see him thrown in jail. He's already in quite a bit of trouble for his past actions, i.e. misconduct and insubordination.

Femur posted:

Am I screwed? It seems completely ridiculous that these two clauses lets them do whatever they want, without responsibility? I've contacted a lawyer to discuss my options, but I wanted some other opinions before my lawyer responds.

Ghosthotel posted:

So for the past day or so I've had some nut from a small company in australia seeking punative damages of about $308,000 or so because I apparently went out of my way to harass one of his employees. The "harassment" he's talking about was a complaint I filed with the company about said employee.

In one of his many email messages to me he openly admitted that the idea behind this wasn't to win any sort of claim, but it was purely to ensure I spend as much time and money as possible fighting this venture.

So what im asking is, it seems to me that he's not doing this because I supposedly harassed one of his employees, he's just doing it to be a dick, in which case would that be considered harassment on his part?

JudicialRestraints posted:

Could he actually use rule 11 here?

Edged Hymn posted:

Hi guys, I'm 19 and live in Boston and I'm in a bit of a pickle. Long story short, I was letting my friend drive my car (he's also 19, and only has his permit) to teach him the ropes and he got in a fender bender. My car's got a busted hood and radiator, but the lady we hit just had a few scuffs on her back bumper.

She filed a claim with the insurance company and I got the accident forms I have to fill out in the mail. My question is, if I put my friend down as the operator of the vehicle, am I gonna be royally hosed? The police know he was driving illegally, but didn't seem to care and neither did the lady we hit. I just don't want my parents to get surcharged an outrageous amount since they've been under a lot of financial stress. I've learned my lesson and my friend and I are splitting the repair bill, but I really don't want my parents to have to pay for my dumb rear end mistake. Any suggestions?

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.

ODC posted:

My friend is in a situation and I'm trying to help direct them to the best lawyer and options for them.

ODC posted:

She had already given them the check, the just hadn't cashed it yet. Basically after two weeks, she was trying to figure out what to do and called her bank. The bank said they hadn't cashed the check yet and could stop payment on it.

I'll be calling her here in a little bit to talk to her about it.

Robawesome posted:

I've got what I hope is a straightforward question on behalf of a friend. Is it illegal for police to use information obtained in a crime to get a warrant? A friend of mine was robbed early this year, and the police executed a search warrant at his house a month or so later based on information received from the person apprehended for invading his home. Is this legal?

edit: Canada, if that matters.

Robawesome posted:

But in this case it's not an informant, it's a crime they didn't have any direction in. The way I see it, without the information from the robbery suspect (who likely got a deal for his information), they wouldn't have any information to obtain a warrant.

edit to your edit: the police didn't commit a crime, but this certainly wasn't an informant before he robbed my friend. It doesn't sound like you're sure of your answer in this regard.

Robawesome posted:

Thank you very much for your reply. I will surely note those terms as I believe they directly apply. If it helps, it's drugs I'm referring to and not a laptop, so I suppose it's not unreasonable for police to assume the staleness doesn't apply to a drug house but reliability of a first-time informant should be an issue.

edit: mboger yes, but obviously he didn't claim it was drugs that were taken from him. It also occurred in a security building with cameras so the landlord would have reported it had he not. Perhaps content wasn't the term I should have used