Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/22/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    doucar

    Possible Medical Malpractice?

    Wisconsin law allows a victim to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit within: Three years of the act, or failure to act, that resulted in the injury. One year of the date on which the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. The law allows the victim to use either one of the above standards, but not both. If these standards result in different deadlines then the standard which would apply is the one that provides the most time to the medical malpractice victim. Generally, a medical malpractice claim may not be filed more than five years after the act, or failure to act, that resulted in an injury—even if the medical malpractice injury was not discovered within that time.
  2. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    Possible Medical Malpractice?

    No, you're not off-base. I agree that your co-worker should consult a malpractice attorney. There's no way to say one way or the other if there is anything to it. I keep forgetting where you are. Maybe you should start putting your state where we can see it. There may be a statute of limitations issue to deal with.
  3. 1 point
    pg1067

    What rights do we have ?

    When did your father die? You told us that you moved in after your mother died and that you've been living there for more than ten years. Your post seems to imply that your father died before your mother. If that's the case, why would you and your siblings allow the home to remain in your father's name for so long? Even if he died more recently, there's not likely any good reason for the house still to be in his name. Was his estate ever probated? If not, why not? Also, who are the parties to the agreement for you to live in and maintain the home, and is that agreement in writing? It's not really clear what this question means, and attempting to create some sort of list of "rights" would serve no useful purpose. It certainly appears that you have no ownership interest in the home, no enforceable right to possess the home, and no right to prevent your siblings (or really anyone else) from occupying the home. Of course, if there is a written agreement with your siblings, that will significantly impact the issue.
  4. 1 point
    Tax_Counsel

    VA Home Loan Protections

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not have anything to do with mortgage loans and would not have helped you in any way to avoid the foreclosure. Nor does the law prohibit a VA lender from foreclosing when payments are not being made for whatever reason. The VA offers some help to veterans facing foreclosure, but you needed to contact the VA yourself to see what it could do for you. If you have not already, contact the VA to see if there are any services it can provide you to help with your current situation. Some VA lenders will provide help to avoid foreclosure, too, like restructuring the loan, forebearance, etc., but you needed to address that with the lender. If all you did was call once and tell the lender you were in a treatment facility that wouldn't help much in alerting the lender that you may need help with payments while your were in the treatment facility. Ultimately, it is up to you to ensure your payments get made and to seek out VA or lender assistance when you couldn't make the payments. Those organizations are not going to step in to help unless you've contacted them to get that help.
  5. 1 point
    MiddlePart

    First time in this situation. Please help!

    Speak to a lawyer in your area who handles plaintiff-side employment cases. The lawyer can review your information and advise you on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim against your former employer based on the facts of what happened and any supporting documentation or other evidence that you may have. The lawyer can also assist you with getting the claim filed timely and correctly.
  6. 1 point
    cbg

    Risk of worker's comp claim as a homeowner?

    In the circumstances you are describing, it is about 99.8% certain that you will have IC's and not employees, and the only reason I'm not saying 100% is that I don't like superlatives. It's the totality of evidence that determines IC vs. employee, not any one point.
  7. 1 point
    ElleMD

    Sex crimes

    Waking up naked and hung over does not automatically mean one was raped or had any sexual contact. Sure, it is theoretically possible that some sort of sexual activity took place while he was intoxicated, but that is far from the only explanation.
  8. 1 point
    doucar

    Managerial titles for limited partnership

    And let anyone who deals with the partnership know the limitations of the authority, or else you may wind up with an "implied authority" situation.
  9. 1 point
    pg1067

    Roommate Didn't Pay Rent. What Are My Rights

    There are no laws governing the relationship between roommates. Unless you and your roommate entered into a roommate agreement that sets forth your rights and obligations vis-a-vis each other (which I'm guessing you didn't), he had no such obligation. Why would he have given you a deposit? Under the circumstances you described, your roommate does not appear to be a subtenant, and without any sort of written agreement concerning the "deposit" he gave you, any use of it without your roommate's express permission would be at your own risk. I'm guessing the terms of your lease would prohibit this. Most residential leases do. Nothing in California's landlord-tenant law applies to roommate situations. Unless the apartment manager (if there is one) happens to be a lawyer, he or she should not be dispensing legal advice. Suffice to say, however, that the landlord will likely commence eviction proceedings unless the June rent is paid in full. Those proceedings will be against both the OP and the roommate. The OP has no ability to have his/her roommate evicted.
  10. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    Windshield Damaged Possibly by Storm

    My guess is that a piece of debris got blown by the wind and hit it just right. That doesn't make sense. If that were true then any windshield installation would void the warranty. You've probably read my stuff in the past where I say car dealers are liars and thieves. The dealer wants to sell you a $394 windshield. Never believe anything from anybody who wants to sell you something. I suggest that you carefully read your warranty. Then call around to some of the independent windshield installers. I paid $160 last October for a windshield.
  11. 1 point
    pg1067

    Create a Trust?

    Does this 30 year old will contain language about what happens "in the event my husband Bob predeceases me, then my stuff goes to..."? If so, does she want to change that? Nothing wrong with an estate planning review (especially if your mother wants to set up what you described), but just because a will is old doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be changed.
  12. 1 point
    pg1067

    Create a Trust?

    How so? Does she share your opinion that it is outdated? Your mother should consult with an estate planning attorney. Anonymous strangers on the internet are in no position to know what might be the "best" way for your mother to handle her estate. That said, she certainly could, if she wants, create a trust for the benefit of your children. Whether having you as trustee of the trust would be a good idea is something she should discuss with local counsel.
  13. 1 point
    Across the street from me 50 ft maybe my neighbor is allowing a homeless woman whom someone gave a motor home to to use his bathroom, electricity, and live outside his fence on a corner on the easement at the corner of my street and the one across from my driveway, police say some state tertiary law prevents them from moving her at least from living out of the trailer. She has friends there and their cars, and her dog. She is there all the time for 7 weeks now. She's even asked me to shut off my porch light earlier! I cannot find this law that supposedly prevents police from moving people who are living among tax paying homeowners I'm the one who has to look at here day in and day out as she is right at my door and driveway not the guy who says she is down on her luck. She also has a car newer than mine parked behind her motor home.
  14. 1 point
    RetiredinVA

    Is 50-50 fair when one car ran a red light?

    Police officers.do not decide liability issues. The fact that the officer issued the ticket and the police report would both be inadmissible. Unless the officer actually saw the crash anything he did was based on the statements of the drivers and his assessment of their statements. It is hearsay and would not be admitted into evidence.
  15. 1 point
    pg1067

    Is 50-50 fair when one car ran a red light?

    Unless there's traffic camera footage that will resolve this, the testimony of the officer who wrote the ticket despite not having witnessed the incident is meaningless, and the other driver should fight the ticket. You seem to have left a word out of this sentence. The fact that the ticket was written, by itself, should not be considered. If the other driver is ultimately found guilty, then that ought to be considered. Likewise, if the other driver is found not guilty, that ought to be considered.
  16. 1 point
    pg1067

    Is 50-50 fair when one car ran a red light?

    If the other driver's insurer believes the other driver's story that the other driver entered the intersection on yellow and that your daughter failed to yield, absolutely it's fair. Are you of the opinion that the other driver's insurer should blindly accept your daughter's story even though her story is contradicted by the other driver's story? Note that your daughter's statement that she "never saw that there was a vehicle still coming through the intersection" in the other direction is quite telling. It sounds to me like your daughter gunned it as soon as her light turned green and didn't exercise due caution for what else was going on. If that's the case, then 50/50 might be overly generous to your daughter.
  17. 1 point
    You can't make people agree with you. If you think you can prove that he ran a red light, then you can have a trial and let a jury decide your damages, or just go to Small Claims.
  18. 1 point
    ElleMD

    Ex Spouse Denying Vacation Dates

    You can, but it is a toss up whether the court would agree that of all the days in the year, you had to take the children on vacation with this group, that just happens to be going to the lake during his regularly scheduled time with them. It depends how much this particular battle is worth to you. If you were entitled to a week and by necessity it crossed over into some of "his time", sure, you'd have a decent argument there, but just 3 days that are "his" 3 days at least looks fishy. You can try to offer him the rest of the week to "make up" for the missed weekend or whatever you think might get him to agree, or you can waste a whole lot of time ad money taking this to court and take your chances.
  19. 1 point
    pg1067

    Request for a special meeting

    Yes.
  20. 1 point
    pg1067

    Ex Spouse Denying Vacation Dates

    What "should" or "shouldn't" be the case isn't relevant. What does the parenting plan say? You told us that it says you have to provide your dates to your ex by May 15. Ok...does it say that, when you provide him your dates, the ex gets veto power (and vice versa)? Does it say anything one way or the other about the extent to which your selection of dates must take into account the regularly scheduled visitation? The bottom line is that you're bound by what the parenting plan says. If it's vague or silent about how to deal with a situation such as you are confronting, then you'll either have to acquiesce or take the matter before the court.
  21. 1 point
    pg1067

    Hypothetical Crime

    Including the fact that this thread is nearly seven years old!
  22. 1 point
    MiddlePart

    Landlord & Tenant Issue

    You've described a difficult and unpleasant living situation. But nothing in what you wrote seems to be a matter that the landlord would get involved with. The landlord is not responsible for mediating issues between co-tenants. The landlord might have grounds to evict you and your roommates if the electricity gets cut off for nonpayment (depending on the terms of your lease). You might have some claims against your roommate based on damaging your stuff, and, depending on how you all agreed on sharing the utilities, you might have some claims against your roommate for her share of the utilities.
  23. 1 point
    pg1067

    Removing or modifying Bylaws

    1. Seems to me your post answers this question (assuming the bylaws were validly enacted). 2. If the board has the authority under the CC&Rs to adopt bylaws, then it has that authority. That some or all of the directors have knowledge that they might be removed isn't going to change that. 3. I can't tell who "he" is that you refer to in this item. Needless to say, if there is a requirement that three directors approve the bylaws and only two have done so, then the bylaws shouldn't be valid.
  24. 1 point
    RetiredinVA

    Paternity test

    Are you married to either of the men? I don't practice law in Oklahoma but it appears an acknowledgement of paternity has the same effect as a court order establishing paternity. Therefore,it would appear someone not a party to the acknowledgement cannot challenge the acknowledgment except for fraud, durress or mistake of fact. You should check with the child support officer todetermine if my interpretation is corret\ct.
  25. 1 point
    Ted_from_Texas

    Sneaky grandmother and guardianship

    No one can "just go down to family court one afternoon and steal a child." And even if she could, she couldn't do it without your knowledge. You would have been served with a copy of her petition or complaint and given instructions what to do about it. Nor can she legally deny you access to your place of residence without a proper eviction, even if she is your mother and she owns the house. She's blowing smoke and she will get away with it as long as you let her. The police cannot help you. They only enforce the law. They can't interpret the law or give legal advice. Without a court order to enforce they are powerless. It seems you're living under your mother's thumb, possibly because of your perception of financial dependence. If you want your son you're going to have to grow a spine, call her bluff and get your son -- and you -- out of there ASAP. You can start by demanding to see this so-called guardianship order and restraining order. I'll lay odds she can't produce either one, but if she does, read them carefully. If they're not signed by a judge and file-stamped by the court clerk, they're not worth the paper they're printed on. If you need encouragement, a local family law attorney can explain in detail your rights and possible options under your particular circumstances and your unidentified state's laws.
  26. 1 point
    choosefreedom

    Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

    Google & youtube are the best, on this site you can look up case law but don't look for any help from professionally indoctrinated lawyers they make their living with today's legal jungle and most will never admit their first allegiance is to the court not you the defendant/client. Do your own research and use this site to look up the case law and you should be good to go.
  27. 1 point
    choosefreedom

    Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 179." So I guess this is legalese and doesn't mean what I think it says? I have read been taught that common/inalienable rights can not be made subject to licensing, because if they are they become privileges not rights. The definition of a licence according to Blacks is "permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal" I dare say God given rights are not "otherwise illegal". Rights cannot be converted to privileges or they are not rights.
  28. 1 point
    bill888

    Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

    Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, .(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel; (5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.  
  29. 1 point
    smokiepost

    Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

    Thank you for your consideration. With all due respect, the article is quite clear to many of the unwashed masses, of which I humbly remain, the right to travel unrestricted under common law, which is protected by the Constitution. However, to your point of States requirement of licensing... Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc. State statutes and codes apply only to those who waive their rights under common law. Sounds like you have waived your rights and signed on with the state. Thats ok with me goodman, though I wonder if you knew you were waiving your rights as a freeman would you still consent? Just curious.
  30. 1 point
    smokiepost

    Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

    Free Enterprise Society Traveling is a Right For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval. "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.) "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 179. It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293. As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen." This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions. Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc. Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations: "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489. Reprinted from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb. It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police state exists on America’s highways today. Traffic Support Services’ goal is to reestablish the RIGHT to travel!
  31. 1 point
    Fallen

    FMLA time

    "I have read the FMLA information on this web site but that does not fully answer the question I have." Can't imagine it doesn't cover the basics, however. In any event, the hospice nurse is wrong. You can read up about FMLA at the dol.gov site as well.
  32. -1 points
    GuessAgain

    Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

    The article is incorrect from its premise to its conclusion. As was already explained, the cases cited do not support the position taken and the conclusion is pure fantasy when it comes to what the law is. The right to travel does NOT mean the right to travel by motor vehicle if you are not properly licensed just as you cannot travel by plane or bus or train if you didn't pay for the ticket.
  33. -1 points
    I'm asking, not rebutting. Have you asked the police to bring her home, or have you assumed that they will not? There are a couple of states that have a poorly written law which makes law enforcement reluctant to bring home a recalcitrant 17 year old, but your state is not one of them.
  34. -1 points
    Oh my ****ing god. I’m talking about only staying with him for a few weeks. What I do is none of your business anyways:)
  35. -1 points
    adjusterjack

    Is 50-50 fair when one car ran a red light?

    More than fair. When you make a left turn on the green light or arrow you MUST yield to oncoming vehicles. That your daughter got hit means that she did not yield. That makes her at fault for the accident. Her statement that the other driver ran the red light is biased and self-serving and is given little or no credibility. The other driver denies running the red light. That the officer wrote him a ticket is not "evidence" of any wrong doing and will have no bearing on a determination of negligence. Were I the other driver's claim rep I would have denied the claim outright. 50% is a gift.
  36. -1 points
    cbg

    Neighbor allows a person living in a motor home

    So you have to look at her motor home. How is this hurting you?
  37. -1 points
    SammieGIrl

    Neighbor allows a person living in a motor home

    I’d be mad as well. There must be some type of code enforcement that prevents this woman from living in her motor home that interferes with you’re home. Asking you to turn off your porch light is so nervy. i, like you, live in California and I know that my neighbors aren’t allowed to park their motor homes on the street for longer than three days. They can certainly park it on their side yard though. I would certainly contact the Parking Enforcement as well as seeking out city codes. This isn’t a “home” and shouldn’t infringe on you!
  38. -1 points
    cbg

    Ignored disability warning

    If your health insurance was not through work I can't help you with that. I have lots of experience with the laws regarding employer-based health insurance but none with non-employer based. And since you're trying so hard to make the point that they knew about your illness but refuse to say whether you did or did not request an accommodation, I'm guessing that the answer is no. In that case, I can't help you with that either. If you did not specifically go to the employer and specifically request an accommodation, there's nothing to be done but apply for unemployment and hope you get it. It doesn't matter how long they'd known about your condition or how hard you were having it. No request, no accommodation. When you're ready to answer the questions I'm asking instead of what you think I ought to be asking, come on back. Until then, sorry but I'm done here.
  39. -1 points
    pg1067

    Possession of Traffic Sign

    I'm curious why your mother thought she should do anything with them other than leave them where they were? What sorts of signs are these that you have kept possession of them for over three decades? I can see a 10 year old or teenager thinking that having a traffic sign might be cool, but one would think the novelty would wear off long before reaching the age of 40+. I could probably count on one hand the number of things I still have that I had in 1986 (when I was 18/19), and none of those things are things I dug out of the trash. Without suspicion of a crime? You mean a crime other than illegal possession of a traffic sign? In any event, the cops did confiscate the signs, so it should be obvious that they can do that. Why would they notify you of something you obviously already know? We have no way of knowing. Did you receive a ticket or any paperwork relating to what happened? If not, you'll have to try contacting the officer who handled the matter or his/her supervisor. Ultimately, how much time and effort do you want to spend dealing with this?
  40. -1 points
    reenzz

    Double dipping on late fees

    You likely just owe $100 in late fees. Being behind a month an a half is serious. I think you should kiss your landlords behind for not evicting you after being a few days late. You are in serious breach of your lease and may not just owe late fee, but the landlords attorney fees and court costs.
  41. -1 points
    cbg

    rights for death of a parent.

    Then contact him offline.. Don't reopen a thread that's been inactive for months to complain about someone's manner to a third party.