Jump to content

adjusterjack

Members
  • Content Count

    9,153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    135

Everything posted by adjusterjack

  1. If this is federal court and your two priors were drug related you could be looking at up to 3 years in the pen and a minimum fine of $5000. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844# Hire a good lawyer.
  2. And nobody has to show you the policy, telling you is enough.
  3. If the other party doesn't like the fee he can petition the court to lower it.
  4. In your case the person who took out the policy on you is the owner of the policy, you are the insured, someone is the beneficiary, likely the person who took out the policy. Yes, the owner of the policy would have to authorize the insurance company people to discuss it with you. You were a minor. That family member did not need your consent to insure you. If the policy was term life insurance there is no cash value and the policy would only pay out when you are dead. If the policy was some variation of whole life insurance, depending on how long ago the policy was issued, there might not be any appreciable amount of cash value because the cash value accumulation doesn't start right away and then builds very slowly. It would help if you had the actual policy in your hand so we can discuss it further.
  5. In your other thread I referred you to Terry v Ohio for the Supreme Court decision about searches. The Terry decision was expanded to vehicles in later decisions. I've narrowed the case search to California involving a Terry Stop of a Vehicle and got 2550 hits. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=terry+stop+of+a+vehicle&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5,60,321,322,323,324 I'm sure that some went one way and some went the other way. You'll get plenty of examples by reading those cases. You're a writer. Writer's do research. Do yours.
  6. A lot more. Maybe $1000 to $1500 for the lawyer fee. No, it's not defective. The officer could have written dog license or fishing license and the ticket wouldn't be defective. Can you take traffic school? If you are eligible it will keep it off your record and out of the hands of your insurance company.
  7. Obviously they CAN do it because they DID do it. If you feel that it was done wrongly ask for the money back. If they don't pay, sue.
  8. Call up a law firm that has many lawyers. Repeat the paragraph that you just wrote and ask "Which one of your lawyers handles something like this."
  9. We don't have to explain it to you. You can read it in your CC&Rs which is something you should have already done. If you don't understand them have the lawyer read them because we can't read them from here. That's ridiculous. All that lawyer has to do is read the CC&Rs to figure it out. If that lawyer is not capable of understanding CC&Rs, get another lawyer.
  10. The only one who can fix this is you. Stay off social media and get yourself a new set of friends.
  11. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If the search is "clearly" illegal then your story comes to a screeching halt because nobody will need to know the rest of the story. You have to make the search questionable but not "clearly" illegal. Then your readers will have to keep going to find out how it turns out. I suggest you read the Terry v Ohio Supreme Court Decision and see how complicated the issue is. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=806&q=terry+v+ohio&btnG= Note that the Terry decision has been cited over 43,000 time in subsequent cases both in federal and state courts. I'm sure that many decisions upheld a search and many didn't. Research into case law will give you idea on how you can write your search where a decision for or against is unpredictable and keeps the reader on the edge of the seat.
  12. I'm guessing that the son who was arrested has bigger problems then just a little weed. He needs a lawyer. If there was anything wrong with the search his lawyer can address it in court.
  13. She was found behind the wheel. The presumption that she was driving is difficult to overcome. Marijuana is legal but so is liquor and both could result in a DUI conviction. Sure. Nobody's likely to believe it. Frankly, I think your other story is more interesting, though derivative. This one is just boring.
  14. Assuming you have been sued and there is a judgment against you, you have basically been served with a post-judgment debtors examination. You will have to reveal the nature and location of all your assets whether it be money or property, and your income and its source, or you could be held in contempt of court. I'm pretty sure that the interrogatories gave you instructions on what to do. Follow them.
  15. What law is that? Cite the statute. I haven't found anything that says that. Besides, if you are told about tip pooling before you get your first tips, that's advance notice, and you have the option of saying no and heading for the door.
  16. You refer to a camera in your office. It could be argued that you are expected to spend your day working on your employer's interests and your employer would thus be entitled to monitor every thing you do and say with regard to your employer's business. You would, therefore, have no expectation of privacy since you should not be doing anything personal or private while on your employer's premises (other than going to the potty).
  17. You're going to have to go deeper into detail. How much money? What kind of equipment? What does that mean? Did you have a written contract with this man? If yes, please upload it after you have redacted any identifying information. Have you been served a summons and complaint? How much is he suing for? What court level? Small claims? Higher? What does the complaint allege? What does the summons instruct you to do.
  18. I had to stare at that for a bit before it dawned on me that you were referring to people lining up on the sidewalk to enter the businesses. Of course not. If the customers of business A are interfering with business B then business B has a right to have them removed and vice versa. Heard that from where? I know of no statutory authorities that support that statement.
  19. Read the easement document. The responsibility for maintenance should be written in the document. If it isn't, you'll probably need a lawyer to research case decisions on the question.
  20. Well, for one thing signing checks and signing a contract are two different things. For another, you don't have to sign a contract to have a contract so a lot is going to depend on what the contract was about. Also depends on just what kind of mental illness. Besides, how do you know he can't sign his own checks? What was your arrangement with this man and why are you being sued?
  21. Did you read your lease to verify that? Come back when you've read it and say whether it does or doesn't say that.
  22. Yes, that's true. But a check to the estate is likely to compel an heir to open probate and get his/her court papers to be able to process the check.
  23. The safest thing to do is make the check out to "The Estate of Name of Dead Person." And send it to a family member. Then you are done with it.
  24. You make a good point. Public perception can result in bias. One can only hope that the prosecution does its job right and that the evidence is sufficient enough to convict (or acquit) in spite of any jury bias.
×
×
  • Create New...