Jump to content

LegalChess17

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. LegalChess17

    At-will

    Yes, I've heard that the person who was the main reason I was let go was eventually fired as well. Karma sometimes takes a very long time to come around but come around it does. When I die, I will never think "if only I could have worked one more hour", I will think of how I always chose life over work and never let proving myself right to an employer take over my life again. Cheers and best of luck in the future.
  2. LegalChess17

    At-will

    I won't comment on your situation but I do know that some bad managers in bad companies do those kinds of things. When employees do not shoot themselves in the foot, they are set up to fail. Impossible tasks or timelines are assigned and collaboration partners that rub each other the wrong way are teamed up on a project. Anything to get the target off their game and to make mistakes that can be acted on. Yes, there are people like that out there. I was not one of them because I don't like being an a-hole. I believe in Karma. I was however a target and experienced getting fired too. Fired for not doing something in a given timeline despite not having the manpower or tools to get it done with. Documented all of that in plenty of time to inform leadership, change resources and seek alternatives but it made no difference. Once management decides that an employee is no longer viable, you will be let go and nothing you do will stop it. Only how difficult it will be. It took them 6 years to do it to me and I thought I was accomplishing something by lasting that long. A game of chess without the Queen. I should have just left. The "reasons" are just a way to avoid problems while accomplishing the task. Unions make it so if you are going to get fired, it is because you actually did something wrong and it can't be corrected. The other side of that coin is all of the people who abuse the protections to minimize efforts and maximize taking advantage of those protections. Every coin has two sides. Anyway, I took what lessons I could from being let go and became better at seeing the writing on the wall and moved on. Hopefully, this helps someone understand how some of those games work.
  3. Hi, I received a speeding ticket in NYC (40MPH in a 25MPH zone) on a two-lane twisty undulating road with seemingly no mile markers, street signs or posted speed limit signs (in the direction of travel I was going). The road leads to the on-ramp of a highway where the speed limit is 50MPH. The police officer said he used a radar gun to gauge my speed from a location ahead of me on this road. My questions are the following. 1) Given that there are no speed limit signs on this road in the direction I was traveling, would that be sufficient to dismiss the ticket even if the actual speed limit is 25MPH and I was actually going 40MPH? I took pictures of the entire roadway and only found a single speed limit sign in the opposite direction of travel that is not visible to cars coming in the direction of travel I was going in. 2) If the police officer fails to state or reference an intersection (i.e. infraction occurred 20 feet from the corner of roadway A and roadway B or halfway between mile markers 1 and 2), would that be grounds for dismissal because the location of the infraction cannot be determined by the "statement of evidence by the police officer"? I ask this because I have previously had a ticket for failing to stop for a stop sign (at 2MPH I might add) dismissed for this reason without me proposing it as a reason for dismissal in another case. The judge just came out and said that was the reason for the dismissal after the officer read his written notes for the court (which only mentioned one of the two streets where the infraction took place). 3) Is there any truth to the idea that radar guns cannot accurately gauge speeds on vehicles moving on a curved roadway and thus, readings from such a roadway be discarded as evidence? 4) Is there any truth to the idea that an undulating roadway can obscure radar gun readings and if so, is there a certain number of degrees difference required (by law) before reasonable doubt on a radar gun reading is viable? 5) By any chance, does anyone know the proper way to request a supporting affidavit of a traffic stop in New York City? I am unable to find that answer on the DMV, TVB or NYPD websites and thought maybe someone here might know that. Some people may think this is a ridiculous post and my questions overkill for a speeding ticket but when you are paying insurance on two cars in NYC, the points for these tickets don't just mar your driving record, they also hike the price of your insurance to unreasonable amounts. No defensive driving course will take away the insurance points that will keep you paying higher rates for 5 to 7 years ... way beyond the cost of the ticket fines, fees and surcharges. If it were just a hit to my driving privileges, I would take the cost and consequences of getting caught violating the posted speed limits. In the case of this ticket, I had no idea I was breaking the speed limit because it was not posted anywhere. However, experience tells me that ignorance is not an excuse although how the hell they expect you to know how fast you can go if there are no signs to tell you is beyond me? I know, logic has no place in law. Still don't have to like it. Thank you.
  4. LegalChess17

    At-will

    I am not an attorney and do not pretend to know any more than you do, but from a logic and experience perspective (which is already a mistake), I will share my thoughts and insights. The main reasons for not just firing people are: 1) unemployment expenses (probably more of a reason in smaller businesses) 2) the fear of litigation/retaliation from a disgruntled employee (especially nowadays where people don't even need a reason to commit mass murder) *** 3) on rare occasions, the employer might want to save the investment in the employee; especially if it is a hard position to fill due to skill set or location factors 4) the compensation is not in line with the skill set of the employee to the company's benefit. *** Usually the main reason in the corporate world I think. Having fired people in the past, I can make example of two instances of firings that were very different in the way they were handled. The first was an employee who had done extremely well in every position he held until he took one on that was more than he could handle. Instead of just firing him for poor performance, we sent him to training and got him to improve his performance for a while. Unfortunately, as the demands of the position increased, he was unable to keep pace with it and eventually, we had to let him go rather than demote him (as he would not have accepted that). I took the time to explain the reasons and encouraged him to continue his learning. This process took 1 year (and he was given a severance package for his years of service). The second was an employee who was very talented (more so than the first) but erratic and had an explosive temper. Of course, that was not known when he was hired and did not show up until well after the probation period was over (once the job pressure started ramping up). In any case, we tried speaking to him and issued a written warning to see if we could change the direction it was going in. We asked that he participate in an anger management class but he strenuously refused. At that point, on a Thursday, he walked off the job and did not come in the next day or call out. When he showed up on Monday, he was walked out the door with no explanation or reason given (and with security present). This process took 1 month. In both cases, the legal department was on board with the firings because in both cases, we had clear evidence and a paper trail of trying to work with the employee before terminating them. The possibility of a wrongful termination lawsuit or the appearance of bias was in their estimation, minimally viable. Had I just wanted to fire them, legal would have recommended against it (even though employment is at-will). I asked why when I just wanted to fire employee #2. lol Took me 1 month to replace employee #1 and 9 months to find a suitable replacement for employee #2. Even then, I had to settle because we weren't offering the kind of money needed for the level of talent we were looking for. Obviously there are no facts or laws referenced in this post so this is all anecdotal. I hope it is found useful by those who read it.
  5. LegalChess17

    Help w/ 10 year old out of state divorce

    Yes. I certainly am going to discuss with an attorney. Just not going in clueless like would have before. 🙂
  6. LegalChess17

    Help w/ 10 year old out of state divorce

    Oh sorry about that. No, no enforcement action I have ever been aware of in any jurisdiction or by any means (letter, email, phone call, smoke signal, etc.). I am leaning towards letting it ride and hire an attorney in my state should it ever come up. I hope this post helps others in the future as it answered a lot of questions I had not seen answered anywhere else I looked. That said, the ultimate answer is to find a good attorney because this stuff is not simple. I never would have learned about personal jurisdiction on my own and would have ended up possibly being my own worst enemy. One last thank you to all.
  7. LegalChess17

    Help w/ 10 year old out of state divorce

    I thought about that too. Thanks for the idea. I came here with no ideas and now I even have options to consider. Great experience in an internet forum. I guess there is a first time for everything after all.
  8. LegalChess17

    Help w/ 10 year old out of state divorce

    Thank you friend. I will inquire about that too with the attorney I eventually work with..
  9. LegalChess17

    Help w/ 10 year old out of state divorce

    Thank you for the feedback without the usual internet troll annoyances. I got the answers I was looking for and feel better equipped to move forward. I didn't even think of the interest so that right there was worth the effort of posting. As was mentioned, the attorney I consult should be in Hawaii because that is where the judgment was right? One last thing. If a divorce decree is a judgment and any judgment can be set aside, why would it not be relevant anymore to seek a civil annulment? I'm just curious why the passage of time has any bearing on it. I've read this before and just want to understand the reasons why in case someone offers it to me as an option in discussing the case. If I know why it is not relevant anymore, then I know that person is either not well informed or trying to hustle me. Thanks again for the good feedback, it is greatly appreciated.
  10. Hi, I have read in different forums that once the divorce decree has been granted, changes or annulments of any kind are not possible. That basically, nothing can be done so don't bother. However, I thought I should consult a local attorney (in the Greater NYC area) just to be sure. Before I do though, I wanted to ask some questions and try to educate myself a bit about my particular situation. I will try to give a brief but detailed account of what happened according to me and list the questions I have. Thanks in advance for not passing judgment, posting snarky replies or having a condescending tone. If I knew what I don't know, I wouldn't be posting this to the internet. Also, no offense to any lawyers reading this, but I am not in the habit of handing over $10,000 on a retainer just to ask a question (yes, I was told that by one attorney I contacted once). If I can get some information from this post, I can at least know if someone is a just out to make a buck off of my misery without the possibility of anything positive coming out of it. My Case: - Married my ex in 2003 in New York - Lived in NY/NJ until she left me in mid 2006 - She filed for divorce in Hawaii at the end of 2006 - Uncontested divorce granted in Hawaii, mid 2007 - I did not find out about it until several years later and then looked up my case on the Hawaii State Judiciary Court systems public website where I learned of the outcome. We had no kids together, no real property or assets to divide and no other considerations I am aware of that might have needed to be addressed in the divorce. The case said I was served via certified mail and although I was not the person who personally retrieved the mail, i have learned that it really doesn't matter. That just sending the certified letter was enough to move forward with the case. I was not represented in the case and never had any communication with her, her lawyer or the court. The judgment called for alimony for two years (totaling about $15k if I recall correctly). No other considerations were afford to her. Anecdotal background: - Met her abroad. Returned twice more to see her, meet her family and ask her to marry me. - Brought her back with me on the third trip back to immigrate to the US and marry. - Went through with the marriage and immigration process and she got her green card. - Maybe 6 months after getting it ... she left me and went to stay with her sister in Hawaii. Not sure if it was a set up all along that I fell for or if it was because I did not want to have kids and she did. All I know is that she left me one morning while I was getting dressed for work and despite my best efforts to try and get her to stay or at least tell me why she was leaving, she left without saying anything else anyway. It wasn't until later that I found out that she went to stay with her sister in Hawaii (as far as I know). I also found out that she has since remarried and is probably still there. No collection of the alimony award has been attempted and for many years, I had worked in the same place as well as having the same phone numbers. I never hid but I also never attempted to address the alimony. No one ever called me or followed up with any correspondence. My reasons for asking about this now after so much time has passed: 1) I want to resolve this alimony issue. It does not go away with time so I would like to finally address it after burying my head in the sand and ignoring it for so long. 2) I am considering getting married to someone and would like to know that I can without issue (because of the alimony owed). She is concerned that the alimony I owe will become her debt as well and wants it resolved. I agreed. 3) I am considering buying some real property and the last thing I want is to have my credit and/or property come under jeopardy because of the alimony owed. 4) I also wanted to know what bearing the divorce can have on my retirement and estate planning. My questions. 1) How are issues of unpaid alimony usually taken care of? I don't want to open myself up to further penalties or problems by going into it without a clue. 2) I also wanted to know if there is anything that applies to my situation that could be looked into. Based on information I found on this website, would there be grounds for civil annulment based on the following criteria? a) Fraud or Misrepresentation - 6 months after she gets her green card, she dumps me and goes to live with her sister in Hawaii? Eventually marrying someone else ... not long after divorcing me I think. b) Misunderstanding - I did not want to have children and she did. Those were irreconcilable differences we had but I never misled her into thinking we would have children. In fact, I never did have children. My only goal is to remove any lingering issues and to ensure that I do not have future "surprises" I am unaware of when I go to marry/buy a house/retire/upon my death (for my loved ones). If I can just pay the alimony without future complications or consequences and never need to think of that part of my life again, that would be ideal. However, given the little I have learned since then, I doubt it will be that simple. If it will be complicated and burdensome anyway, it might be worth the trouble to pursue the validity of that marriage based on one of the above criteria ... if that is even a possibility. Thanks for any constructive feedback given in advance.
  11. Thanks for that additional feedback. Unlike most humanoids, my mother and I have a great relationship by which money would never come between us. I don't want hers and she doesn't want mine. In fact, we often end up giving each other the same money back and forth several times before we spend it on each other. Also luckily, I am debt free and haven't paid more than a nickel in credit card interest in years (which I love to repeat often). Instead, I use my cards around 20 times a month and get cash back a number of times year. More than the average interest bearing savings accounts! *haha* Your last point is the one I am concerned with now. Mostly for the gift tax implications but also any additional capital gains that could complicate my own finances. I need to learn about what rights she has for the use of the account (if any) under the ITF and how to undo it without harm to either of us (if that is what she wants). She may have just figured out a way to shove that "dollar bill I won't take" into my pocket. I wouldn't put it past her. :-) One other question,does come to mind. How can this be done without my consent or knowledge? Put me in a position of financial responsibility without so much as having to even notify me? So odd how this has all happened.
  12. Thanks for the replies. I think I figured it out. In one of my many google searches, I decided to word play it and tried starting with "A"TF until I hit "I" - ITF aka "In Trust For". It was probably a typo (written in ink ... to help explain it ... by a bank worker). You just can't make this stuff up. Anyway, an ITF is like naming a beneficiary except that it gives the beneficiary (me) immediate equitable ownership of the funds in the account. The "Primary" account holder (Mom - so sweet, even if she doesn't know it) has no equitable ownership of the account assets which would then make it vulnerable to her creditors. In essence, she became a trustee of the account during her lifetime when it became an ITF account. Why is that important? With a traditional Designated Beneficiary or Payable on Death (POD) account, the beneficiary's interest in the asset during the primary account holder's life is non-existent. It is secondary.and limited to what is left in the account upon the primary account holder's death (and after the creditors are done taking their share). The ITF offers additional protection against attacks towards the account assets by creditors that the Designated Beneficiary and POD do not while also affording the same probate avoidance. Now I just need to make sure that this is what she wanted to do and check to see if I am going to get screwed on taxes. I decided to post a full explanation in case this might help someone else looking for an explanation of what an "ETF" is.
  13. Hi, Recently, my mother opened a personal wealth management account at Citibank and asked that I be named the Designated Beneficiary. She was given a document listing me as the "ETF" on the account. When I asked her what ETF stands for, she could not tell me. A search of the forum and Google turned up nothing. Does anyone know what ETF stands for when it comes to designated beneficiaries? I've never heard of it before or if I have, I forgot what it means. I guess I was just expecting the document to say "Designated Beneficiary and/or POD (Payable on Death) somewhere in the documentation. Thanks in advance.
  14. LegalChess17

    New York City Elder Matter

    Final update (since I don't think anyone else is going to add anything else to this topic). We were able to convince him to speak to a lawyer independently and put us in his will if he so chooses. We will not be involved in any way. That seemed to appease his desires and allow us to stay out of harms way. It will likely mean a fight from his so-called family over his estate once he is gone but we don't care. It was upsetting him to think he couldn't do as he pleased with his money and this gives him the appearance (at least) of control again. After this experience, I am going to a lawyer myself and taking care of all of these end of life issues for my mother and I way ahead of time. It is clear to me now that once you are past a certain age and beyond a certain point of health, all manner of people have more say about your life and personal finances than you do. That is, unless you pay someone else to say it for you. Yay capitalism.
×