|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:
Lots of people come into law school making grand statements about the niche area of law they intend to practice. They are almost universally dumb and insufferable (which does not meaningfully distinguish them from their law school peers), and wind up doing something else entirely. Some people have a non-retarded plan for what they want to do post law school, and they can do a fair bit to make it happen primarily via internships, volunteer experience, and other things accomplished outside the confines of a law school classroom. This is especially true for people pursuing public service ish jobs, which a) tend to have things they let eager beaver law students do, and b) tend to look for some demonstrable interest in the field before hiring someone. Most wind up chasing the BigLaw/ prestige clerkship brass ring described above. Like salmon swimming upstream, most fail, and the lucky few who make it win a futile miserable death.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
The set of circumstances under which driving without a license is a net positive due to avoiding implied consent liability are so narrow that they verge on useless. You would have to be driving drunk pretty much always, but in a manner that would not lend itself to a behavioral basis for either a DUI conviction and/or probable cause for a warrant to test BAC. Otherwise your daily liability exposure to driving without a license charges would probably outweigh the benefit of occasionally escaping implied consent liability. Asking for One Weird Trick to dodge a DUI rap in DUI therapy seems like a good reason to flunk DUI therapy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Dr. Josef Mengele posted:Do you think any lawyer would take this on as a test case? Given a client with a lot of money, no drivers license, an implied consent charge, and a burning need to beat that charge, and a state law with more ambiguity than the two quoted in this thread, sure why not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
nm posted:Ya'll know there was a pretty big supreme court case on this a while back right? I vaguely recall that. Didn't they hold that warrantless blood testing for BAC, if supported by probable cause, is not a Fourth Amendment violation, or something similar? That would seem to backstop most holes in implied consent laws, give or take stronger state constitutional protections. Dr. Josef Mengele posted:Is there a possibility this client could get famous like Dred Scott and get a huge book deal out of it? Would that be worth it? No I'm just playing dumb imagination games trying to come up with some real world scenario where this bad idea might possibly allow someone to make a colorable argument in circumstances that would make it worth while. The fatal flaw is that driving without a license is not that much less serious than refusing an implied consent test. There may be an edge case out there where someone simply cannot have an alcohol related conviction but could survive a dwol conviction. The first thing that springs to mind is someone like a long haul trucker who makes good money on the road, and thus has a strong incentive to pay a lawyer to help him stay on the road. But that is immediately undermined by the fact that a trucker would have to have a license in the first place. I can't really think of another situation where the circumstances line up predisely enough to make this worth exploiting, presuming some state's implied consent is even loose enough to do it in the first place. In sum, "aha, I'll just drive without a license!" is a real bad idea, and the morherfucker who asked should just stop drinking and driving.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Wtf is Shanghainese?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Reason, do you have a lot of money or a little bit of money? If you only have a little bit of money, give legal aid a call, landlord tenant is their bread and butter. If your income is above their threshold they may still have good self help resources. Additionally, a free consult is not hard to find. Google some lawyers in your area and call them. Your question is both law and fact specific, that's why you're not getting the answer you're looking for. It would be irresponsible to just spitball you an answer. At first blush, your landlord sounds shady. That lease term would not stand in my jurisdiction, your lease would become month to month. But I don't practice in WA and I'm not doing an hour or two of research on my phone, gratis, so that doesn't get you very far.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Hypothetically? Sometimes! I'd be careful admitting that, adult baby fetishes are often poorly received on SA.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
I know gently caress all about IP, but I did date a teacher once and she retained rights to her lesson plans, which I think is common. Some of them even sell plans and such. I'd guess this sort of thing is governed through employment contracts more often than not. IP is funky and I never want to know more about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
I think my favorite episode of Cops all time is the one where two rednecks are having an all you can eat pork dinner at Sonny's Real Pit Barbeque (I am p sure I have eaten at that Sonnys!) and the cops get called because they attempt to leave with an enormous doggy bag of pulled pork, and refuses to pay when the the manager denies the request. The cop has to repeatedly explain that is not how all you can eat buffets work, and threatens to arrest the patrons. How to pay and leave a restaurant: a higher level skill than one might think.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I mean, business does have a prerogative to detain a thief. Any minor inconvenience in the process of paying does not entitle to shout "USERFRUCTUS, BY THE LAW OF CAESAR TODAY I EAT FREE!" The (made up) protagonist was essentially complaining about inconvenience. It is really no different than the line to pay being hella long. Sometimes a credit card machine goes down, and reasonable adults wait a bit for it to work, not storm out sputtering mad. I think if I were managing that ihop I'd let people go for free, it's cheap goodwill, but at the same time it was not outlandish, and probably not illegal to grab his arm to prevent him dashing. It was proportional. He didn't tackle him or lock him in a broom closet or w/e.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
You are giving ihop employees way too much credit assuming they know how to use the manual machine. That's like using a fax machine, and goddamned if I've used a fax machine error-free in under five minutes in forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Hm, you're right. For some reason I thought he had not said he was going to an ATM, but had instead stormed out when told he'd have to pay cash. No, that's not shopkeeper's privilege. I probably thought that because that is in fact what the gun toting methhead likely did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Hypothetically speaking, if an attorney becomes a judge, would it they get offended if you referred to them as a lawyer? Four turbomad Supreme Court justices just had a whole tired little tantrum in which they repeatedly called the other five "unelected lawyers." So, if it is decorous for the Chief Justice to refer to other justices as "lawyers" in a published dissent, it's probably within the bounds of civil conversation. That said, they did it expressly to annoy the majority. The judge I clerked for would pretty frequently say "I dunno guys, I'm just a lawyer, show me some briefs," but he owned and didn't wave a giant ego around. There are many judges like this. There are probably more judges who are type A douchebags with fragile senses of self and enormous toes for you to step on, so probably just call judges judges.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Logic and reason . . . ex spouse and child custody dispute. Good luck!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
I think OP should take boxing lessons, and kick that guy's rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
I don't do real estate and I've never bought a house, so please cure my ignorance: Title insurance is a bet based on research - the bet being there are not any surprise parties holding some unknown interest in real property. If that's a good bet when A sells the property to B, why isn't it a good bet the next day, or the next year. Title insurance isn't insuring against the seller coming back and suing the buyer, it's insuring against some unknown third party suing the buyer. I don't see how it's tied to the transaction, other than the fact that it would be dumb to buy property without getting it. It's not like getting trip insurance for last year's trip, or flood insurance after the flood; the thing you're insuring against hasn't actually happened yet. What is the flaw in my understanding?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
Okay that makes sense and is basically what I was thinking. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
I guess the follow up question is what even is the value of title insurance? It sounds like defects in title are either discovered before a policy is issued and must be fixed before closing, or discovered after closing in which case they are probably an exception to the title insurance policy. It seems like the value is actually in the title opinion, which looks more like a pre-requisite to a mortgage than to a traditional insurance policy. What circumstances would actually lead to collecting on a title insurance claim?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Lockheed or whoever makes Abrams tanks probably holds trademarks on the name, just like Boeing presumably holds trademarks on the 747 aircraft name, etc. It would be somewhat odd for the consumer to hold the IP. Whether naming a car an Abrams would infringe is a different question, and beyond my expertise. Sports cars and tanks are pretty different markets with different likely buyers and it would be pretty hard to confuse the two. It's harder to just sit on a trademark than other forms of IP. There could conceivably be copyrights on certain design elements. An Abrams tank is a pretty distinctive looking thing. Whatever design elements make it so recognizable, whether it's specific shapes or combinations of angles or whatever could conceivably be copyrighted. So if you just like, tried to make the front end look like the angles on an Abrams turret or something maybe that would infringe. That seems like a stretch to me though, or at least pretty easy to work around by altering shapes or angles somewhat. Haven't various first person shooters paid licensing fees to firearms manufacturers for using their weapons in games? I'm not an IP guy, I just took one IP course in law school.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 10:00
|
|