Jump to content

pg1067

Members
  • Content Count

    56,810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    180

Everything posted by pg1067

  1. Add the word "legally" after the word "can" and you have an accurate restatement of what I previously wrote. Keep in mind that, while some teenagers are mature enough to be left home alone, some are not. If a parent or parents leave a teenager home alone and it results in damage to some third party, the parent(s) could be held legally liable for negligent failure to supervise his/her/their child.
  2. "50/50 custody" is not a term that appears anywhere in the Domestic Relations Law, and "liv[ing] with the dad" does not sound like anything that could be reasonably described using that term. In any event.... For starters, who are you? Are you the father? I assume you're not the mother since you obviously know what's going on despite the father's plan not to inform the mother about this. As for the question, no law in the State of New York (or any other state) makes it illegal to leave a teenager without adult supervision for any particular period of time (and parents have been leaving teenagers home alone for decades). Nor is there any law that would require the father to notify the mother about this. It is not inconceivable that the divorce decree or custody order may have something to say about this, but we obviously have no idea what these folks' decree/order says. Do you?
  3. Only a local criminal defense attorney with fully knowledge of the relevant facts can opine intelligently about whether you should be given more time to prepare for trial. Among other things, one would need to know (1) what it is you are charged with having intent to distribute; (2) what the evidence against you looks like; (3) what you were initially charged with; (4) what led to the charges being "[a]mended . . . to intent to distribute;" (5) how much time passed between the initial filing of charges and 9/12, and, most importantly, (6) how much more time you need/want and why. I'm not suggesting that you should provide a full scale explanation of these things (and, indeed, talking about the case in a public forum that could be used against you would be a bad idea), but this should hopefully illustrate why we can't give you an informed opinion about the propriety of the judge's ruling.
  4. As phrased, I don't disagree. However, if the personnel file contains documents that contain "interview feedback" or state the reasons why he/she was not selected, then there are states that would give the employee the right to view or obtain copies of those documents.
  5. Any relevant law would be depend on the state where this occurred, which you didn't identify, so we have no way of answering the question intelligently.
  6. 1. Yes. 2. This isn't a question. 3. No. As for the question in the last paragraph, no one here is in any position to explain why things have worked out as they have for you.
  7. Can you explain a little better what is leaking? "[T]he main water unit that goes from city and ones that go into my house" is a bit unclear. Regardless, the answer likely depends on the terms of your lease with the trailer park.
  8. Pretty easy to find this with a simple Google search: SDBAR : Lawyer Discipline. Easily done without an attorney.
  9. This doesn't make sense. If, for example, your friend's bail was set at $10,000 and you had $10,000 in cash, there'd be no reason whatsoever to involve a bondsman. The only reason to involve a bondsman would be if you wanted to buy a bail bond (which, for a $10,000 bond would cost about $1,000. Indeed, your second post in this thread indicates that's exactly what happened: that you bought a bond. If you just wanted to put up the $10,000 cash, all you'd need to do would be to wire the money to your friend's attorney who could deposit it with the court. Because that's what you voluntarily agreed to. When you voluntarily agreed to bail out your friend, you also voluntarily agreed to be financially responsible for his compliance with the terms and conditions of the bail. If you didn't want that, then you could have chosen not to bail him out. Since you bought a bond, you're completely wrong that the bondsman stands to lose nothing. The surety company's and the bondsman's butts are on the line (financially) if you're friend skips bail. While the bondsman has your cash as collateral, that doesn't mean the bondsman has nothing to lose. As for the rest of this, "they are able" to tell your friend what to do because that's what he voluntarily agreed to as a condition of release. He could have chosen to stay in custody. Of course, if he had done that, then there would be other people telling him what to do. And no, there's no way out of the contract that you voluntarily agreed to. No, the bondsman's rights are constrained by the terms of the contract and the applicable law. And how did the bondsman get your card number in order to run it? Because you voluntarily gave it to him. You could and should have insisted on having a signed agreement in place before doing that. You're not a victim of anything other than your own voluntary choices. Also, we all understand the definition of duress. We also understand that the concept has no relevance here because of the voluntary choices you made.
  10. Are you talking about paying first and last month's rent and a security deposit? That's very common and legal. Some landlords will insist that a prospective tenant's rent be no more than X% of the tenant's monthly income. They do that because, historically, if a tenant's rent is too high a percentage of his/her income, the tenant will be far more likely not to make rent because of other expenses. Again, perfectly legal. None of this is based on the law. These things are simply common business practices of landlords.
  11. What does this even mean? The case in question was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice a year and a half ago. Again, what does this mean? Since the case is over, there's nothing to "counter-litigate." It's also worth pointing out that your own motion to dismiss argued that the statute at issue does not provide for an award of attorneys' fees. That's not what perjury is. P.S. This has nothing to do with criminal law, and there's no way you spent $40k in fees for a motion for an extension of time and a motion to dismiss.
  12. Please start your own thread. This thread is over eight years old.
  13. That's an awfully vague question, and creating or attempting to create a list of rights would serve no useful purpose. Sounds like you need to consult with a local divorce attorney ASAP.
  14. What does this mean? 2.5 or 3 times what? As a general rule, it is legal for a landlord to charge any amount he/she/it sees fit for an apartment. Rather obviously, the quality of the apartment, the neighborhood in which it's located, and other market conditions will determine what prospective tenants will be willing to pay. The biggest exceptions to the general rule are apartments located in cities with rent control laws and apartments that are rented through public assistance programs like Section 8. Without any clear background or context, the rest of your post makes no sense.
  15. pg1067

    house

    As phrased, the answer is unequivocally no, but she might be entitled to some very small amount of money or a slightly uneven distribution of marital assets (if any) based on half of the increase in equity (if any) during the very short length of your marriage.
  16. Case law varies from state to state, and you didn't identify any state in your post (which isn't to say that, even if you had identified one of the 50 states, anyone would know any relevant case authority). Since you're obviously not trained in how to do legal research (and, presumably, do not have access to either Lexis or Westlaw), you are unlikely to be of any use to your lawyer in this regard. Are we to infer from this that your ex has filed some sort of legal proceeding in furtherance of her request for half of your pension? Honestly, I think the best defense to this claim is probably that, after a decade and a half, it's way too late to revisit this issue, but that's something that you should discuss with your lawyer.
  17. In any future posts, please make an effort to use proper capitalization and punctuation. Doing so will make it easier to read and understand what you write. I'm not sure what "with dependency of court" means, but why did the court order a guardianship? Who is the guardian (not a name, but is it a relative or some independent person)? Is there a court order that says you're not allowed to do this? Is anyone claiming you're not allowed to do it because of the guardianship? Not sure what this means.
  18. Simple solution: stay out of Mississippi and, if you do drive through Mississippi, don't violate traffic laws or you drive and not him.
  19. This is a six and a half year old thread. Why the f*** would you resurrect it and write a bunch of stuff that has no relevance to anything that the OP wrote?!
  20. The overwhelming majority of traffic tickets do not result in required court appearances. If an appearance were required, only someone familiar with the traffic courts in the states under discussion can give an informed answer about whether a minor would need counsel or a parent or guardian. However, generally speaking, a minor lacks legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf in a legal proceeding.
  21. Not really sure what this question means, but I think you answered it yourself. The statute of limitations depends on the laws of the unidentified state where this occurred, but it's probably at least a year. Such testimony would likely have little or no bearing on things because it doesn't foreclose the possibility that the drugs were your son's. Also, think about it logically for a moment. If the drugs weren't your son's, then whose were they? Probably one of the other persons in the vehicle. Do you suppose either of those persons will be so altruistic as to put her own ass on the line for your son's benefit? Rather obviously, your son needs a criminal defense attorney and should be speaking with no one other than the attorney about this case.
×
×
  • Create New...