Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›6 »

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

This series of posts makes me happy I work at a larger firm representing mostly commercial entities where we generally only have to communicate with in-house counsel.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2013 14:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:35

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Is this the thing with the goon digging a hole and then he gets stuck and decides to keep digging?

# ¿ Mar 16, 2013 18:22

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

I wrote my student note a few years ago on the spread of "false identity"-type laws in response to cyberbullying. There are a handful of states that have enacted anti-bullying statutes that are overbroad enough that they may cover the simple use of a fake online identity, but most are focused on people using a fake identity (or someone else's identity) with intent to defraud, harrass, threaten, etc.

There's also the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 (CFAA) which would theoretically allow prosecution of like 90% of the internet, but that's a different can of worms.

I'm not your lawyer, but I don't think there is a lot of risk involved in your plan as far as creating accounts here and there. It seems like prosecuting people for accepting a EULA under a false name is probably pretty far down the list of law enforcement priorities. However, I'd be hesitant to use a false identity to make purchases or anything of that sort; you're going to have to provide correct payment and shipping information anyway.

You're probably better off limiting how much and what kind of information you give out.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2013 17:36

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Really bad idea. I'll admit I don't even know the first thing about the law regarding artificial insemination, but the course of action you are considering sounds like hypotheticals they make up in law school that are purposefully exaggerated in order to illustrate a point. Paternity standards probably vary by jurisdiction, but "biological father" is probably enough.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 00:25

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Oh yeah, I know it's A Thing (unfortunately), I was just failing to illustrate how ridiculously bad an idea it is.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 00:43

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Xenoborg posted:

Where can I get my traffic violation history?

Filling out job applications, specifically for the military, they are asking me to list and explain all violations, including minor traffic, regardless of severity. I have gotten 2 speeding ticks, and was in one minor accident, both over 9 years ago, and I don't remember any specifics like dates, offense, ect. Is there anywhere I can go to get records of this, like the local DMV? Also, regarding the accident, I believe it was 'fixed' into a non-moving violation, does that have any bearing on what I should put on official forms?

Many state DMVs let you look up your driving record for a small fee, sometimes online. Check out the websites for the state(s) you've been licensed in.

# ¿ May 13, 2013 23:51

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Yes, but there's nothing you can do to stop her from pursuing what sounds like a frivolous claim. And you haven't done anything wrong... right?

You'll be happier and better off in the long run if you just do what you need to do to get away from this woman and forget worrying about engaging her somehow.

# ¿ May 20, 2013 15:12

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Flippycunt posted:

Is my only option to take the other driver to small claims?

This is nowhere near my practice area, but you may have trouble proving your side in small claims court, not to mention collecting a judgment (and the time you'll spend doing all of the above). If you're dead set on it I guess give it a shot, but personally, I'd be more inclined to not waste my time and take the $2000 loss.

Chalk it up as a learning experience. Next time, maybe call the police and get a police report (even though that wouldn't have helped here if the officer didn't believe your story).

# ¿ May 21, 2013 01:35

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

You can tell your friend that you're legally entitled to that money, and she can just as easily tell you to go pound sand. You are basically SOL, especially so if she doesn't live in the same state as you.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 20:31

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

To the privacy guy: That's a pretty specific question. Since this sounds like a business you run/work for, it would be worth paying an attorney in your jurisdiction to advise you and be sure you avoid any future liability.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 14:39

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

KillHour posted:

That being said, some rough guidelines on what is and isn't allowed would be hugely helpful when making recommendations.

You should not make any recommendations to clients regarding the legality of what they intend to do, and I hope your employer has told you as much. You or your employer (or both!) could get roped into an expensive lawsuit pretty easily.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 15:23

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

KillHour posted:

Thanks for this. I'm following up with legal (Well, trying to. It's a big freaking department; figuring out who to talk to is HARD), but we're a distributor, so I don't install anything. I sell products to a reseller/integrator who will then install or sell the product to the end user. Most times, the only way I find out if something actually worked well or not is if they try to return it.

Every time the subject of audio or anything else remotely sketchy comes up, I only say "I recommend consulting with a lawyer regarding this opportunity" and leave it at that, but I just want to make sure that's enough.

It shocks me that a Fortune 100 company doesn't have a policy for this. The F100 I worked at even had a written procedure for how to write procedures.

Given the size of the company and the role you describe, I wouldn't worry much if I were you. There could hypothetically be some risk for the company (which they probably control via their sales contracts), but you're probably fine as long as you aren't giving out advice regarding legality. Just do whatever your employer says, and don't volunteer advice beyond that.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2013 15:41

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Windfall posted:

All right folks, my timeline for researching law on my fraudster landlord situation just became a lot more rushed. Rent was due 10 days ago and yesterday my landlord delivered me a "3 day notice to pay rent or quit". Obviously, I don't want an eviction proceeding marring my credit history and making it impossible to get new apartments.

Now time is short and I gotta think fast.

I've always paid rent up to this point, so here's what's stopping me now: Thus far I've paid rent to the original owner of the house / illegal slum hotel / whatever it technically is. Since he's quietly foreclosed and sold the house from under us, this is the first payment that would go to the "new owner". The old owner and new owner are obviously the same party and have an arrangement that is very suspicious, and it's clear the money is still going to end up in the same hands regardless of whose name is on the check, with one difference: The new owner is not the one that all of us tenants are about to sue. Any money I pay to him is, I presume, gone forever, without the same chance of recovery.

So, help me decide, because I only have one day: Do I pay the new owner $800 plus $60 late fee to ensure my credit stays safe, or not? Is their threat credible even in light of:

I have signed no contract with the new owner (other than whatever automatic transfer of terms of old leases happens during sales)

I have received no letters or official documents from the new owner about the ownership transfer; just notices to quit.

The rental arrangement was illegal to begin with (being technically a hotel on a single-family zoned property, complete with missing building permits and unregistered additions), and again, I've received a flyer from the city claiming 100% rent reimbursement from him is possible

The old owner wants to deliver the check himself, since he has been protecting all of the new owner's contact information (I have his address anyway, because it was on a security deposit check someone got back)

Also never received / posted: City notice of trustee sale, statement of tenants rights (supposed to accompany the notice of sale)

He's been renting it out to us under false pretenses, forgoing to tell us about the impending foreclosure (he let us keep renewing month to month leases under the guise that it wasn't about to foreclose / sell, which he lied about whenever asked)

Numerous habitability and safety issues the place has always had, like black mold. Although at this point, sending a certified demand letter would be almost silly since the house is sold and he wouldn't have time to repair them by the time we were ordered to move out, plus a letter wouldn't get to him by the end of my 3-day-notice.

So can these guys really damage my credit by successfully starting eviction, or would they not get far enough before the illegality of it all backfired on them? Are they bluffing or do I need to pay $860 by tomorrow that I'll likely never see again?

Help!

Your question is very specific, we don't know what your lease says, and it's difficult to give you any advice without skirting into "legal advice" territory. You need a lawyer yesterday.

The best I can say right now is that you need to decide whether you want to be right, waste huge amounts of your time, and also very possibly be locked out of your house (however wrongfully), or do you want to have a place to live and access to your things while you hunt for a new place? It can take a long time to resolve a lawsuit, even if you're 100% in the right, and you may be better off cutting your losses, moving, and screwing the guy over later by reporting everything to the relevant authorities.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2013 21:25

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

If you have actual, substantial assets and/or unique circumstances, you should hire a lawyer. Even if you don't, a lawyer will likely save you money in the long run by avoiding common problems, taxes, administration costs, etc. It's not my area, but I'd be surprised if a run of the mill will costs very much.

If you're just putting a will together because you want to have a will, just use Legalzoom or whatever other site is out there and cross your fingers that everything works as planned when it needs to.

If your situtation is relatively simple, you can probably do as good a job as Legalzoom by using legal self help books available at a bookstore. Lots of law schools also keep materials like that around for the nearby community to use, so you may want to look into that.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2013 15:29

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

euphronius posted:

This is radically unethical. What the christ.

Yeah, that's pretty much the example of how to get in trouble with the state bar in every single ethics CLE.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2013 19:22

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Virginia has a statute that says process is sufficient so long as the party to be served actually gets service within the specified time, so even if you ignore every rule of procedure everything's gravy if the defendant gets the summons and complaint one way or another. I don't know for sure, but I imagine other jurisdictions have something similar (yes, surprisingly, Virginia is not at the forefront of legal innovation).

Of course, following the rules makes it much easier to prove the defendant actually received everything.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2013 20:47

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

In general, an attorney can't practice in any state in which he lacks a license, so no. I think some states have weird rules about bar association membership, but the federal courts require that you be a member in good standing of the bar of the state in which the court sits.

In other words, you can't practice law without authorization. If that authorization is suspended by the state, you can't practice in that state, regardless of whether you're in court, out of court, whatever.

the milk machine fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 14, 2013

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 15:07

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Right, hence the "in general." In the above question, an attorney suspended in his state can't practice law in that state.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 17:10

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Angry Hippo posted:

You folks ought to consider that perhaps some people oversee their own legal issues not out of choice, but necessity.

Oh my god, I have never thought of this before.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 02:59

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Lawyers can't tell you specific steps because that's legal advice. I haven't looked at it in awhile, but I think the OP explains that.

However, if the girl is in CA and you're in NY, actual legal action won't be worth your time and money over only $700--that is, suing and collecting would cost way more than 700. A threatening letter from a lawyer might help, depending on the recipient, but carries basically no legal effect. Hiring a lawyer will also cost you more than $700.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 00:17

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

You'd have to pay a lawyer to write you a letter, or ask a friend/family member if you know any lawyers.

You can contact her all you want; I don't know CA or NY harassment laws, but generally if you have to ask if you're being harassing, you might be.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 00:27

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Lowly posted:

Technically, you don't need to go through anyone at all. You can just handwrite your will and sign it, and it will hold up in court as a holographic will, or type it out, sign it and have it witnessed by two people in front of a notary if possible.

Be aware that this varies by jurisdiction and is not true in every state.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 02:17

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

As I believe someone else already pointed out, your fish will be dead by the time someone starts the process of administering a will. Just make alternate arrangements and tell your family/friends.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 12:31

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Did the two if you sign a contract? Do you otherwise have documentation of what you agreed on?

All of that aside, your company will need to hire a lawyer.

Alchenar posted:

This should be pretty straightforward. You talk to a lawyer. They send a threatening letter. For the cost of that letter you are morel likely than not to get your money.

I doubt this very seriously, but I do agree his company needs a lawyer.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2013 14:04

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

RapturesoftheDeep posted:

A friend of mine is writing his memoirs and I've been editing them (which involves some pretty drastic changes, since his English skills are not strong.) He's a bit paranoid and wants to conclude some kind of an agreement before we go any farther. I'm not invested enough in this project to pay for a lawyer, and he doesn't have the money, so does anybody see any major issues with us both just making a written agreement that states the following:

1. Only he can publish the resulting book and can do so in any form he likes; however, I must be credited as coauthor.
2. In lieu of payment for my work, I get 1/3 of any earnings from the work exceeding CA$100,000 (or some other large number).

I'm in Pennsylvania and he's in BC, Canada. I assume that the governing law would be Canadian, though I don't know if that needs to be stated in the agreement. I realize that enforcing this would be difficult in any circumstances; the purpose is mostly to assuage his paranoia that I'm going to steal his story and make sure that I get a piece of the action if this is some fluke success (he's a minor celebrity and has a lot of crazy stories to tell.)

And if anyone can point me to any kind of simple guide to relevant copyright laws, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks!

This is way way too specific for any lawyers here to able to help you--see the OP. If you can't afford a lawyer, keep copies of all of your discussions and agreements. That said, the only way any of this would matter is if the book makes any money, so you might be the best judge of how likely that may be.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 00:40

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

euphronius posted:

This is in California which might as well be Laos when compared to my native Pennsylvania, but I don't see how a lawyer could ethically represent both of you. Hopefully some other law goon will chime in.

I'm in Virginia and can't be bothered to look it up, but I sort of recall this might be the one of those de minimus conflicts that are ok so long as each client consents to dual representation (until they become actually adverse to each other).

# ¿ Aug 14, 2013 02:01

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

front wing flexing posted:

Virginia

Virginia does allow an omitted child to take from the estate under the right circumstances, but you'll need a lawyer to navigate everything.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 18:35

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Pay the money and forget about it. You could refuse to pay, and they could in turn refuse to host your wedding. Even if they're in the wrong, your wedding plans just got hosed.

You could probably "win," but in this case "winning" may involve having your wedding day hugely screwed up and then getting into a lawsuit for what amounts to chump change. Sometimes it's better not to fight.

Depending on where the venue is, you may get more mileage out of telling them they can't modify the contract on their own and mentioning you'll post negative (but accurate) reviews on the various wedding websites. A lot of these places rely on positive word of mouth, they may waive the fee on their own.

the milk machine fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Aug 21, 2013

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 22:22

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

The owner may qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value, in which case they probably wouldn't be on the hook for the debt, but it depends on the jurisdiction and lots of other stuff. That person should definitely get a lawyer.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2013 22:53

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Alchenar posted:

The whole point of having a land registry is that purchasers of land are never 'without notice' of equitable interests.

e: how does a mortgage against the property 'appear' after a change of owner? Was due diligence not done on the property?

Sure, but all sorts of weird poo poo happens. Lost or misfiled paperwork, fraud, and so on. Land registries don't always work as intended and purchasers do end up without notice.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2013 00:26

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

etanmaet posted:

Is there anything I can do at this point? Do I have ground to stand on to pursue damages?

Nope, not really. It's not clear what your damages would be, plus the terms and conditions you probably accepted almost definitely severely limit amazon's liability and probably your right to sue. That's probably for the best, as you don't really want to file a lawsuit against a company as big as amazon.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2013 12:46

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

Yeah, Wells Fargo did that for me several months ago, and my wife accomplished the same from BB&T a year ago or so. Call your bank.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2013 16:57

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

patentmagus posted:

Actually, it's fun to sue companies as big as Amazon. The only real issue is doing your homework. Check those terms and conditions and make sure that there is actually a case.

You and I have different definitions of "fun."

The amazon prime T&Cs limit amazon's liability to the prime membership fee. Good luck paying a lawyer to work around that just to recover overdraft fees.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2013 17:13

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

To be fair, based on the few details you know and you've posted, either your sister is actually lying to you or the judge is nuts. Could be both I guess.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 22:32

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

In short, we can't require criminal defendants to disprove the state's case; that's unconstitutional. However, in certain cases, a defendant may be required to prove a defense he asserts.

In the rape context, the defendant can't be required to disprove the elements of rape (i.e. forcible intercourse without consent) because the state has to prove those elements. However, where the defendant raised the defense of consent, he would have to prove consent. Some states do it differently, where the defendant would just have to show a bare minimum of evidence suggesting consent and then the state would have to disprove it to prevail.

The text you quoted is pretty much the court explaining why the jurisdiction's burden shifting is constitutional in that it's not requiring the defendant to disprove the state's case.

A defendant can be found not guilty either because the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant proved an affirmative defense. In this case, some of the proof of the affirmative defense is the same evidence that would tend to introduce reasonable doubt, so the court has to explain where the burdens of proof are coming from.

the milk machine fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Sep 29, 2013

# ¿ Sep 29, 2013 15:37

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

patentmagus posted:

Actually, more problems come in when judges decide they are experts. Us lawyers often prepare filings using a formula that assumes the judge is not an expert. I was in a hearing last week wherein the judge was asking patent law questions specifically because he didn't know that area of the law.

There have also been plenty of times that the judge was winging it or just plain distracted. That's when all that silly procedure for preserving issues for appeal comes in.

I practice construction litigation and this is Every Case, even at the $1+ mill claim level. Please get a lawyer everybody. :smith:

# ¿ Oct 26, 2013 06:00

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

I'd guess lies or "creative" answers on official forms are pretty common for a lot of people. Credit applications, taxes, etc.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2013 14:51

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

If it's a court order, it probably has a court name and docket number on it. Try calling the clerk of that court and asking?

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 03:15

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

They're either shady or incompetent, and you probably don't want to live there if that's how the management acts towards potential tenants. Legally, you don't really have any damages and hiring a lawyer to do anything would cost much, much more than you've already spent. Their actions may violate some Georgia landlord/tenant law (which I don't know anything about), but even if so, your best course of action is to find somewhere else to live and be thankful you didn't sign a lease with those people.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2013 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:35

the milk machine: Jul 23, 2002; lick my keys

It will cost more in time and frustration to sue, win, and collect (if you even can) than three months of rent. Plus you get to live near these scumbags while involved in a lawsuit against them. Move ASAP.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2014 00:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›6 »