Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/18/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Have you already filed bankruptcy? If not (and even if you have) you should consult an attorney who can review the complete situation. Bankruptcy exemptions are (for the most part) matters of state law. Only a Wisconsin attorney who is familiar with Wisconsin law and the practices and procedures in your local bankruptcy court should be relied upon for advice.
  2. 1 point
    Tax_Counsel

    Physician Assisted Suicide

    Well, your mother is free to commit suicide if she wants and is capable of doing it on her own (assuming she doesn't get committed for psychiatric help before she succeeds) but she won't get a doctor to assist her in it over a complaint that she just doesn't want to live life having to use a walker or cane. Seven states and DC allow for physician assisted suicide, and all of them place significant limitations on it. For one thing, all of those jurisdictions (last I checked anyway) required that at least one physician attest that the patient has 6 months or less left to live. So these are very much laws about ending suffering for a patient who is about to die soon anyway. These are not laws that allow reasonably healthy people a way to get help to commit suicide. No doctor is going to assist a woman who is not terminally ill in ending her life, especially for minor complaints like not wanting to use a walker or cane. Rather, they would be inclined to refer her for mental health treatment since a desire to die in that circumstance likely indicates a mental issue of some kind, perhaps severe depression. Assuming though that your mother is mentally competent, her health decisions are hers to make. You cannot take some legal action to override her decisions regarding her own care while she is competent. So if the law did allow her to get assisted suicide in this circumstance, that would be up to her. As hard as it can be to see close family or friends make decisions about their care that you think are terrible choices, they have the right to make those choices themselves. Just as you have the right to make the decisions for your care without others intruding and imposing their values and choices on you.
  3. 1 point
    PayrollHRGuy

    Unsafe working environment

    I am an HR professional and I have read both of your posts. FROM WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN, it is my opinion you have no valid EEOC or OSHA claim. You may well have an ongoing Workers' Comp issue and I would advise you to speak with a WC lawyer.
  4. 1 point
    RetiredinVA

    Denial process

    The substance of any workers case is how did the injury occur and did it result from the substance of your work. All you said was you suffered a lumbar strain at your work place. If you simply fell on the stairs at the office it would not be work related. If you strained your back because your job required you to lift heavy weights it would be work related. Although you have posted 66 times you have never given us any indication how your injury occurred and how it was work related.
  5. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    Unsafe working environment

    All I can suggest is that you consult with a workers comp lawyer. You might not be able to keep your job but he can make sure your benefits and proper treatment continue.
  6. 1 point
    cbg

    Denial process

    What kind of an investigation are you thinking is required? Many, many w/c claims can be 'investigated' from the adjuster's desk without ever leaving it.
  7. 1 point
    pg1067

    Accident in parking lot...

    Under the circumstances, it doesn't sound unreasonable. If you had the ability to avoid the collision, yes, that's exactly what you should have done. I think we've all had situations such as you described, and I've done exactly that. I've also blasted my horn. You don't decide to "use" her or not. She is a witness. Of course, unless she was looking behind the car, she probably doesn't have anything useful to offer. Well...first of all, the OP can testify regarding the other driver's admission. The OP can also call the other driver as a witness as part of his/her case in chief. As you mentioned, however, we can't know in advance exactly what the other driver would testify to. Assuming any video footage hasn't already been deleted (after three weeks, there's a pretty good chance it has), you can obtain it without a police report if you sue and serve a subpoena. One thing you ought to do is send the store a demand that any video footage be preserved in anticipation of litigation. I'm inclined to agree.
  8. 1 point
    HustleandJustice.com

    2 part story.

    Sounds like you have a basis to argue that the other driver was negligent in failing to warn of his disabled vehicle. I did not find an Illinois statute requiring drivers to illuminate the hazards if their car becomes disabled, but I am not an Illinois attorney, so check with a local attorney. There is a statute, which doesn't apply, that requires oncoming vehicles to move over a lane, or greatly reduce speed if they come upon a disabled vehicle with its hazard lights illuminated. (Section 11-907.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code). In Illinois, you can sue for up to $10k in Small Claims. Bring photos of the roadway as you approach the collision site, photos of the damage to your car, and estimates/receipts for repair and rental car. If you are injured, get medical treatment and consult with a local PI attorney.
  9. 1 point
    HustleandJustice.com

    Accident in parking lot...

    If the damage is $730, and they are attributing 30% to you, this fight is over $219. Move on. But if you insist, sue him in Small Claims court for the full value of your damages. Bear the risk that the Small Claims judge will assess each of you at 50% fault. Bring your photos, estimates for repair, and witness, and prove your case.
  10. 1 point
    PayrollHRGuy

    Accident in parking lot...

    The DMV report is certainly worth a try. So is heading down to the police station and asking to file a report. If you report it to the DMV it will almost certainly be reported on CarFax. There is also a chance that any repair you get done will be reported to CarFax because many body shops and service centers report to them.
  11. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    Accident in parking lot...

    She's your girlfriend. Her testimony could easily be discounted as biased. Any number of reasons. One possibility - you placed yourself in a position where he couldn't see you, where he had no expectation that another car would be there, etc, etc, etc. Every driver doesn't want to be at fault. Your story is subjective, biased and self serving. Not saying you're a bad guy, just giving you the reality of these kinds of accidents. Would you be offering to take less than 70% of your repair cost? 50%? 40%? Why would he talk to you at all if he's already mostly at fault? He has no incentive unless you are going to absolve him of fault and keep his insurance company out of it. Will he admit to that in court? The burden is on you to present a prima facie (google it) case without him saying anything to help you.
  12. 1 point
    cbg

    Sub Rosa

    If the video was taken in February or March and this is now September almost October, the carrier probably doesn't have multiple copies floating around. Even if it was edited, and I don't know how you could know that for certain, there's no guarantee that the alleged unedited copy still exists. You've raised this whole claim fairly recently, if I recall correctly. I'm sure they have a copy of what they sent you in your file but who knows if they kept the originals?
  13. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    Accident in parking lot...

    No witnesses. Two conflicting stories. Sorry, but that's how backing up in parking lot accidents go. More often than not it's 50/50. If the other driver's insurance accepts 70% on the part of its driver, count your blessings. You can try to convince your own liability claim rep to find you at zero fault but understand that your policy's insuring agreement gives your insurance company the right to settle as they see fit. The alternative is for you to sue the other driver in small claims court and convince a judge to rule him 100% at fault.
  14. 1 point
    PayrollHRGuy

    Sub Rosa

    You can request it via discovery prior to your hearing.
  15. 1 point
    cbg

    Sub Rosa

    When were these videos taken?
  16. 1 point
    MiddlePart

    EMERGENCY phone

    The time you spend on the phone actually handling a call would typically be compensable at your hourly rate and might be payable at the overtime rate depending. The time you spend off the phone during periods when you are on call -- when you're just available to be called but are not actually on the phone -- is typically not compensable if you're otherwise generally allowed to, and as a practical matter able to, use that time for personal purposes. But if you're effectively restricted from doing anything during the on-call period other than waiting for the phone to ring, then the whole 'on-call' time would typically be compensable at your hourly rate and potentially at the overtime rate. There are some other factors that the courts (and the Department of Labor) would consider in evaluating whether and how much of the on-call time is compensable, but the employee's ability to use the time effectively for his/her own purposes is critical to the analysis.
  17. 1 point
    Tax_Counsel

    In The News

    No. Under Wisconsin law, it illegal to discriminate against an employee because of their marital status generally, not because of their marriage to a particular person or because their spouse engaged in unwanted behavior. The state Court of Appeals held that: Bammert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 28, ¶ 14, 232 Wis. 2d 365, 376, 606 N.W.2d 620, 625. What this means is that employer policies or decisions that treat employees differently simply because of the fact they are married (or not married) are illegal. This means it is the status of being married or single, rather than the identity of the spouse or the actions of the spouse, that matters here. So, for example, an employer who preferred hiring married persons thinking them more stable and reliable than single persons would violate the state act because the employer is discriminating against the applicants simply based on whether they are married or not, regardless of who it is that they are married to. It is not the identity of the spouse or what the spouse did that prompted the employer's actions but instead it is just the fact that the person is married (or not) in general that is relevant for the purposes of the Act. Thus, if the actions of an employee's spouse might be considered by an employer to bring disrepute to the employee, too, it would be legal for the employer to fire the employee. It is not the fact that the employee is married in general that is the problem; it is the actions of the particular spouse. Presumably the employee would do the same thing if the employee's live-in boyfriend/girlfriend did the same thing.
  18. 1 point
    pg1067

    In The News

    It is highly unlikely that the chancellor of a state university is an at-will employee. A person in such a position would almost certainly have an employment contract. If we were to assume that this person were an at-will employee, I know of no law that would make it illegal for an employer to fire an at-will employee because of the employee's spouse's inappropriate behavior -- especially when that behavior occurred in the context of the spouse's unpaid appointment as "Associate to" the chancellor, who is his wife. No. Do you follow college football at all or are you otherwise familiar with what went on over the summer with respect to the head coach of Ohio State University? The head coach is not alleged to have done anything wrong but came under fire (and, in fact, was suspended for a few games) simply because the alleged spousal abuse by one of his assistants happened under his watch and because he either knew or should have known what was going on and failed to fire the assistant. According to what I read about the situation you described, the senator is not calling for the chancellor to be fired. Rather, he is calling for her to resign (and he's not the only person to have done so). It appears that the senator has opened an investigation and, presumably, the issue will be whether the chancellor knew or should have known what her husband did. This will probably lead either to a termination for cause under the chancellor's employment contract or -- more likely -- a negotiated buy-out of the employment contract.
  19. 1 point
    My dad died 2 years ago leaving my mother behind, they had a will made up and they wanted everything sold and split between my 2 sisters and myself. The whole family knew it..there was no secrets there, however they didn't resubmit the will to have everything split 50/50 between my oldest sister and i. they had it ready but unsubmitted, my parents didn't want my oldest sister in charge because she has a way to manipulate and control and she wouldn't be fair in any decisions. they had asked me to be p.o.a. because they didn't trust my sister especially in end of life care..well my mom had dementia. After my dads death she declined rapidly. i am the only one who would help her she required 24x7 care, well before she got to stage 3 she had appointed me poa and conservatoire when she became unable to make sound mind decisions. she told me what she wanted in her will and her and i sat down and wrote out her wishes and her second will with her and another witness. We had it notarized and had 3 copies one for mom , myself, and county clerk. this was in Feb 2017, my mother was at a stage 4/5 by end of march 2017. her doc wrote 4 letters of my mothers need for live in care and about her cognitive problem too saying she was no longer able to make her own decisions. the first letter was in march 2017 and the last one i believe was in end April/may2017. my sister came to give me couple hours off and managed to empty my moms office of all her paperwork, documents, will, everything. kept what she could use to her advantage and burned the rest , i have no records of these documents now, she kept everythjing hidden from me when i demanded to know what she was up to when she would come "relieve me for a few hours" including written agreements made between my dad and mom for some financial help i recieved from them and the reciepts then made up a will that wasn't even a option to consider by my mother, but mother wasn't in sound mind, so my sister had these documents signed taking me off poa, guardian, conservator, executor. then took me out of the will and making accusations that i forged checks of my parents me in the will. i have a financial time line of my moms banking that was locked up. there over $10,000 missing, my sister opened up a account in her name and put my moms money in there with out mothers knowledge, then made her self moms social sec payee. the list goes on..i have recorded conversations that my sis stated what she was doing, but because i was on moms cell phone family plan, my sis had it shut off, i cannot access it because i went to a different cell phone carrier, the list goes on with what she has gotten away with, shes done it so well she looks legal but i know better, so do other people in the family and people who know the family. She's trying to get me in trouble, she has taken 90percent of mom and dads stuff and hidden it in storage units . i want to know what i can do to prove she's done this and let law take its place.
  20. 1 point
    ojosazulesma

    i guess i am lost on licensing

    Doucar, I do apologize, I haven't had a day off since my last post. I am searching for the Case number, and other info. I saved it my book marks and when I click the link, I get an error msg saying the page is no longer there. I will find it.... Not that it matters. This country was built on the belief that we have the freedom to say what we want, go where we want,and there laws written so we may always know what those laws are and what they mean. You just need to learn a few things before diving into the laws, statutes,law dictionaries and case laws to find out what freedoms we still have but are being robbed of by our local and state government. First - Laws are written very specifically so they may not be misinterpreted. The definitions of legal terms are usually conveniently written with the law so you may see the terminology is very specific, and different in the courtroom. You must learn legal definitions for every legal term used in a law so you may understand it completely and correctly. The definitions do vary state to state so be sure you are looking FIRST in your state's Statutes. If you do not see a definition for a word in the statutes, it still means exactly what is written in Blacks or Bouvier's law dictionaries. They are very old because law doesn't change. The laws written in the early 1800's have been amended over the years as we, our lives, and technology changes BUT no law can change our fundamental rights that have been recorded in the United States Constitution so we do not forget. If a law were to be so drastic as to change our "constitutional" rights it would have to go through a long process. They have attempted, and FAILED, to impede on our right to free travel many times throughout history. They always fail and the United States Supreme Court always finds in favor of the traveler. Those laws have never been repealed, which is the only way they can impose those laws on us, the traveler. The Licensing laws do not pertain to a private citizen going about daily life in the pursuit of happiness because it is always ruled that we have the right to travel freely. That means we do not have to have a contract with the state, or keep paying fines and penalties for rules that were put in place so that we the citizens can travel safely and freely without delivery people,taxis and merchants making our roads less safe and convenient for our use. The only reason we have been taxed and criminalized for not having a license is because we think the simple terms used to charge us with something have the same meaning or definition as is in basic english. That just is not true. As is in the law dictionaries and statutes, driving is moving something/someone using a carrier (which has it's own legal definition) for profit, Automobile,motor vehicle, carrier, etc. all are defined as some type of carriage used by a driver (has it's own legal definition) to transport (has it's own legal definition) people or goods for MONEY. There is a lawyer who talks about this subject extensively. His knowledge is of Texas law but he always tells you what parts of each law are law in virtually every state and which parts you will need to research further. He explains how to understand what you are reading, and that some of these publications are changing slightly every year to make it harder to find the definitions,case law,and sometimes actual truth. If you watch and listen carefully you will know what you need to know to educate yourself further about this subject. This is SO boring and SO very long but it all good information. Even if it can't tell you what the law is exactly in your state, you will be able to find and understand that info. Watch it all the way through and watch it more than once. I watch it still. I study and learn then go back and understand everything he says more thoroughly than I did before. It is truly confusing at first and every part of it can always be debated by some goof ball that no longer even knows what rights we have as they are unalienable and inherent. You can not change one word of one law ruled by the Supreme court. The supreme court is the highest court. It is the ultimate court. To change one word of one ruling handed down by the Supreme Court is unlawful. Any law maker or peace keeper who does so is being unlawful. Laws are made in court all the time. That is what we refer to as "case law" They are laws that have been made by simply being ruled in court. When you go to court and you are trying to defend yourself case law is very important and is usually essential to winning. This is one of the hardest subjects I have ever tried to learn and I still have a long way to go. Thank God I don't have to do the LSAT or pass the bar. I just refused to accept that in a free country we can be taxed for everything, charged with anything, and criminalized without ever having hurt anyone or doing anything malicious. That is another topic that will addressed in the video. I hope I have helped you at least learn how to get the correct information regarding this subject. Good luck finding answers.
  21. 1 point
    pg1067

    i guess i am lost on licensing

    Only as to matters of federal law. The Supreme Court doesn't pass laws. It obviously is true that other courts are bound by U.S. Supreme Court holdings regarding matters of federal law. Ummm...no. Yeah...and how'd that work out for ya? Oh really? Here's a list of opinions decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2014 term (i.e., from October 2014 through June 2015): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/14 (if the opinion in question was issued during the 2015 term, you can easily obtain a link at the same site with only a few clicks). In which of these opinions does this unprecedented holding appear? As soon as you (or anyone else) can cite an opinion that actually says what you are claiming, I will happily stop "surrender[ing] [my] freedom." Until then, my alleged ignorance will remain because I'm not aware of any authority that supports what you're saying.
  22. 1 point
    ojosazulesma

    i guess i am lost on licensing

    Oh, and Adjusterjack, please stop talking!!! If you were intelligent at all you would realize how utterly stupid you really are. When you talk to these people like they dare to ask a question that requires actual intellect to understand then you say the most idiotic thing you think makes you sound like you actually know something. YOU ARE A TOOL! Apologize to the person who posted Report #5
  23. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    i guess i am lost on licensing

    You have no idea how often this silliness comes up on legal websites so please don't take our responses personally.
  24. 1 point
    Will

    Mobile Home Leasing

    I have a home the South Carolina, Horry County. I own the I own the Mobile Home and it is paid off. The house is unfeasible to move it's bricked in and has stone pouches. I was told by the owner of the land I could rent the house out but after posting the house for rent he has now told me today I'm not allowed rent it. I have never signed anything that says I'm unable to rent my property out but the rental is month to month. I was told if I do rent it out he would give notice a force me to move the house which would destroy it. I have invested thousands of dollars upgrading the house before renting it. I am abiding by all park rules to this point but don't know what to do.
  25. 1 point
    Findlaw_JN

    wrong eviction

    Hi toomuch_7240, No, your landlord cannot just throw you out and take your property. Before you can be evicted, your landlord must serve you with proper written notice (which varies according to the state). If you do not vacate within the period specified by the notice, the landlord can then go to court and file an eviction suit. He'll then have to serve you with a copy of the papers, you would have a chance to respond, and then you and the LL would go to court. Even if the landlord wins, you'd usually have a few days to move out before the sheriff comes and locks you out. So, basically, a number of things must happen before a landlord can throw you out -- all of which takes at least a few weeks. An eviction is not immediate. Please read up more on the topic in FindLaw's section on eviction, or feel free to contact a landlord-tenant attorney or your local legal aid society for additional assistance. Good luck!
×