Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Tax_Counsel

  1. You'll need to take a copy of the trust to a lawyer. Your mother has discretion but it is not absolute given that the trust gives direction concerning the sorts of things for which he thought would be ok for distributions. Your mother can, of course, say no. The real issue is how likely it is that a court might overrule her and compel the distribution. And without reading the entire trust, knowing the details of this business idea, and not having researched Wyoming law on the subject I cannot say what the likelihood of that is.
  2. Do that in court and it will not help you in the least because those tactics do not work and the arguments behind them are not legally sound. And you might just find that the judge sanctions you for making frivolous arguments. Oh, and filing the 1099 in the circumstance you described is improper and may lead to criminal prosecution. Believe the sites that promote these tactics at your own risk. If you really want to succeed in court, consult an attorney for the type of court matter you have. That'll do you a lot more good than what you suggested above.
  3. Your cousin is either putting you on or very misinformed.
  4. You've not given us all the facts, and perhaps at the moment you don't have all the facts. In general law enforcement needs a warrant to search the hotel room. If they had a warrant then the extent of the search they could do would be defined by what the warrant says. Note that in case alleging human trafficking they would not just be searching for persons who were being held for the purpose of trafficking but any other evidence that might support that trafficking was occurring, like photos, videos, letters, e-mails, text messages, financial records, and a whole lot more. As a result the warrant is likely to authorize a pretty broad search, and that would include searches of small areas where evidence might be hidden. For example, videos and photos of the persons to be trafficked might be found on a small flash drive which could be hidden in any number of small places in a room. If they encounter evidence of other illegal activity, like illegal drugs, while doing the search that the warrant authorizes they may seize that evidence, too. In the case of illegal drugs, finding them is usually enough for probable cause to charge at least one of the room occupants with possession of drugs. Once arrested, he'd be charged and given a bail hearing where bail would be set. But if there is a federal hold, he won't get out on that bail until the federal hold issue is resolved. Without knowing the details of why the Marshals have a hold, there is no way to tell if the hold can be challenged. One thing seems pretty clear. Your boyfriend really needs an attorney.
  5. She can ask for it, but she won't get it. Those writs are not applicable here. She could, if there is time left, file an appeal of the dismissal with prejudice. But you've given nothing in your post to suggest good grounds for appeal. She might have been able to file a motion with the trial court to set aside the dismissal with a proper showing, but again your post does not say anything to suggest she has grounds for that either. The judge dismissed with prejudice, which suggests to me there may be more of a history to this than you have given. Has she missed other court dates prior to this, too, or filed previous actions related to this that did not succeed? In any event, the judge indicated it borderline to begin with, and she still set the evidentiary hearing. But then she failed to serve the respondent, failed to file for a continuance (which she could have done some day prior to the hearing date when she realized she'd not get the respondent served on time) and on the day of the hearing didn't show up and didn't notify the court. If it was important to her, she would have ensured she'd have transportation that day. And in this day of mobile phones, including some that are pretty cheap, how did she not have access to a phone — whether hers or someone else's? The impression you've given is that she really didn't care all that much about if she couldn't be bothered to get a continuance filed before the day of the hearing or ensure she had the arrangements she needed to show up. She didn't even arrange to make sure she could contact the court. She already wasted the courts time in scheduling a hearing where the judge was ready to hear the matter and then she just wasn't there. And if she didn't care enough to do the work needed to reschedule the hearing or show up, why should the courts now bend over and give her yet another shot? She needs to see an attorney to review the entire matter and see if she has any way to now seek that restraining order. And she should do so ASAP since there may be short deadlines to act. But she may find there is nothing for her to do now. She may find that she can't fix the mess she made.
  6. If its a California employer it must still comply with the law regardless of whatever other state it my store the records.
  7. I agree with that when the employee is employed by a private (i.e. nongovernment) employer, as the OP apparently was considering the use of the word "company". But for employees who work for the government the applicable civil service rules for the particular agency involved might require that the employee be given some reason or feedback on why he/she was not selected. I mention this for the benefit of other readers who may come across this thread.
  8. He's 19, so he's an adult in every U.S. state (and DC) except Mississippi. In Mississippi, it's 21. But even in Mississippi, age 18 is what matters for most things. He can enter into enforceable contracts, he will be treated as an adult for traffic citations and criminal prosecution, he can vote, own property, marry, etc. So if you are pulled over in any state and he gets a ticket he won't have to tell his parents or deal with them at all if he does not want to.
  9. No. You may have your passport application or renewal denied or passport revoked if you owe delinquent child support or if you owe delinquent federal taxes over $50,000. But your regular medical debt will not prevent you from getting or renewing a passport.
  10. My condolences on the death of your husband. Although it happened several years ago, I'm sure it's still very painful for you. When someone is injured or killed through the negligence of someone else the usual thing the victim or his family does is hire a personal injury lawyer to sue the negligent person for compensation. It is standard for most personal injury attorneys to take these cases on a contingent fee, meaning that the lawyer only gets paid if the lawyer succeeds in getting compensation for the injury. So what you did in going to a personal injury lawyer is how these things go. The lawyer then would determine which persons, if any, could be successfully sued for the injury. As a result, if there was a good claim to make against the police or the kid I expect you lawyer would have pursued that. The problem with suing the police is that the police had no obligation to your husband to do anything before the accident. He asked a police officer to drive him somewhere, but the police are not a taxi cab company and are not obligated to drive citizens around. If the officer could see that your husband was in serious medical distress the officer should have called for medical help. But from what you describe it may not have been apparent to the officer that your husband was having any medical difficulty. It's also not clear if the kid was negligent or not. Just because the kid hit your husband does not automatically make the kid responsible. From what you stated, your husband was apparently walking down the middle of Route 66, a highway where the speeds can be 55 mph or more. Depending on the details of the roadway and the conditions existing at the time, it may not have been possible for the kid to see your husband in time to avoid hitting him. If the kid could not have avoided hitting him then the kid is not liable for the injury. Even if the kid might have been negligent, there is also the issue of contributory negligence by your husband. He should not have been walking in the middle of a highway. His own negligence would work against getting a judgement against the kid, or at least may have reduced the amount of the judgment. There is also the issue of whether the kid had any money or assets from which to collect a judgment. If the kid had no insurance and no assets then a judgment would do you no good. If your insurance covered it and the insurance company was balking at paying then the insurance company may be sued to collect from your insurance company, which is apparently what you lawyer did for you. That may have been the only recourse you had here. Again, I'd have expected your lawyer to go after the kid or the police if there was something worth pursuing against them. But for the reasons I've discussed, there may simply have not been anything to get by doing that. In any event, as the others have pointed out, it appears the statute of limitations (SOL) to sue for this is now expired. If the SOL is expired then it's too late now to sue. Unfortunately, your husband was doing something dangerous. And while I understand the desire to blame others for his death, his own actions certainly contributed to his death. He ought not have been on that road. I know that's not easy to accept. But coming to some peace on that may help you to get some closure on this.
  11. Not even close. You did not mention the state, and that matters because not all states even have a crime called extortion. But among those that do extortion is generally the use or threat of violence or some other illegal act or threat of an illegal act in order to get something of value from you. So if the family member put a gun to your head and said you had to pay up that would either be extortion or robbery. But demanding that you settle up an old debt before signing off off on the deed is a completely legal thing to do. If you didn't want to do that you could have refused to pay. But then you wouldn't have got his/her signature that you wanted. So you decided you wanted the signature badly enough to pay on that debt. That was your choice. That you didn't like the choice doesn't make it illegal. As RetiredinVA stated, it's simply negotiating.
  12. Didn't mention it to whom? Given the charges the defendant faces, it is unlikely that the defense would want him brought to trial quickly in any event. The defense will need to time to gather all the evidence they can and prepare a defense. Moreover, often in this circumstance putting some time between the actual incident and when a jury hears the case is helpful to the defense. Given that the guy barricaded himself inside his home for 12 hours, an outright acquittal on all charges might not be a realistic outcome. But even if that is not possible, the defense will want to limit the damage as much as possible. The defense attorneys should not be discussing trial strategy with you if you are not the defendant; the last thing they'll want is the possibility that the prosecutor may learn of what they plan to do.
  13. I agree but I'd phrase it a bit differently. It's not the insanity defense itself that leads to this problem, but rather the claim that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. As long as the court finds the defendant is not competent to stand trial the defendant may be stuck in a mental facility until such time as he or she is competent. And if the defendant never becomes competent to stand trial then he or she may never get out of the mental facility.
  14. The problem is that you had violated the seat belt law and the officer needed to have adequate indentifying information to complete the citation. You can quibble about whether the officer really needed the SSN but the officer is allowed by law to require you to provide that information in this kind of circumstance. If you don't the officer may detain you until the officer can verify your identity. Had you simply complied with the officer's request for the SSN you'd likely not have been arrested. So I'm not seeing a good case here to make against the city or county
  15. Actually, he is not by law entitled to the best defense he can get. He's entitled to a competent defense. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in a fairly recent case: "The lawyer has discharged his constitutional responsibility so long as his decisions fall within the 'wide range of professionally competent assistance.'” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 775, 197 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2017). You may, of course try to determine who some of the best criminal defense attorneys are in your area and hire one of them if you truly want the best defense for him. With the time and budget constraints PDs in your state have, he's unlikely to get the very best counsel. But he should get competent representation as that is what the law demands.
  16. Ah, then you are stating you have a different opinion on what the lawyer should do than I do. Fair enough. I've seen cases in the states where I practice where a lawyer inadvertently mentions something to a person other than a client that has the effect of disclosing a confidential client communication and thus blew the privilege. It can be very easy to do. And of course, there is the issue of potentially violating the attorney's duty of confidentiality, too. With those things in mind, the better practice in my view is for an attorney not to have conversations with friends and relatives of the client concerning the case unless such conversations are actually conducive to advancing the client's case. You might have a different view of what good practice is, of course.
  17. I stated that the lawyer's discussion with the mother "may" put the attorney-client privilege at risk, not that it "would". Of course it matters exactly what the discussion is. But as you yourself note, it certainly may be a problem if the statements made to the mother implicate a confidential attorney-client communication. So I don't see what your disagreement is with my statement. It was accurate, just perhaps not as detailed as you would like.
  18. YOU can't get it. You are not the one charged with a crime, your son is. And unless you are a licensed attorney, you may not represent your son or give him legal advice on his case. Your son is represented by a lawyer and as long as he is represented by the lawyer it is his lawyer that must file any motions with the court to compel disclosure of evidence from the prosecutor. If your son wants to make motions himself, he'd need to fire the lawyer and go pro se. That's typically not a good way to go. His lawyer should not be discussing the details of the case with you. That may put at risk the attorney-client privilege. Are you sure there is even body cam or other video/audio of the stop? And as doucar asks, why does the PD say it cannot be obtained? The reason matters. If your son was speeding, then the cop had the reasonable suspicion needed to pull him over. From there, how the cop found the needles matters. If the needles were in plain view that the cop could see while talking to your son about the ticket then the needles were fair game for seizure because no warrant is needed to seize items that are in plain sight. If the cop had to conduct a search to find them then the cop had to get a warrant to conduct the search unless the circumstances were such that a warrantless search was permitted.
  19. While some refer to a termination that results in a breach of contract as a wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, I don't see it that way. A breach of an employment contract simply gives you a breach of contract claim; calling it a wrongful termination does not change or add to the claim in any way.
  20. A wrongful termination is one that is in violation of the law. A termination that is a breach of contract is not a wrongful termination. It is simply a breach of contract. The distinction matters because the remedies and damages are different between wrongful termination claims and breach of contract claims. A lot of employees think a wrongful termination is any firing that was done without a good reason or where the reason given was false (e.g. the employer fired the employee for doing something that the employee says he did not do). But of course legally that's not the case since an employer doesn't need a good reason to fire an employee. Just a reason that is not prohibited by law.
  21. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 3402 requires the employer to withhold income tax from employees based on tables provided by the IRS. When the employer receives a Form W-4 from the employee that seems to be valid and the employer withholds based on that W-4 then the employer has met its responsibility. Otherwise, there is no W-4 submitted or the W-4 that is submitted is invalid then the employer is supposed to withhold using a filing status of single and using one exemption. There is nothing in the federal tax law, however, that penalizes an employer for withholding more than is required. It is only a problem if the employer withholds less than is required. The reason for this is that the whole goal of withholding is to ensure that the government gets at least the minimum amount of required tax withholding from the employer. In other words, if the government gets at least the minimum withholding that the law requires, it is happy. It has the money coming in. Here, if the W-4 claiming exempt was valid, it would relieve the employer of the responsibility to withhold tax entirely. If the employer withholds tax anyway, then the employer has not violated the tax law because the employer didn't have an obligation to withhold in the first place. The employer is doing more than it has to do. Sure, the employee might be a bit upset that she has less in her paycheck and has to wait until next year to file the return and get it back, but the IRS is not concerned about that problem.
  22. The employer didn't change the W-4. The employer ignored the exempt W-4 that the employee provided and instead withheld tax from the pay anyway. And there is nothing illegal about that. The tax law is concerned about ensuring that there is at least sufficient withholding to meet the employee's tax obligations. If more is withheld, that is not a problem for federal tax law. It just means the employee gets more of a refund when she files. In any event, no law prohibits an employer from firing an employee over this issue so there is no wrongful termination.
  23. It may not come to the point of going to court if they get a lawyer on board. I had a client who had a similar problem with her HOA. She and her husband built a small shed on their property that the HOA said violated the rules. I wrote a letter to the HOA board and copied its lawyer pointing out that a number of other homes in the HOA had sheds built that violated the rules and none of them had ever been told to tear down their sheds. I advised them that this kind of arbitrary enforcement of the rules was not permitted and if the HOA took action against my client to force tearing the shed we would take the matter to court and that, in our state, if we could prove the HOA enforced rules arbitrarily or selectively we may get the court to invalidate the enforcement powers of the HOA entirely, rendering the HOA essentially powerless. I wasn't surprised to see that the HOA quietly abandoned the shed issue. It wasn't prepared to enforce the rules against all the violators and it certainly didn't want to risk the possibility of losing its enforcement powers altogether. The bottom line is that my client got to keep the shed, and the HOA has given up on the shed issue going forward. Point is, a good lawyer might get the HOA to back down with a well drafted letter. No guarantees of that, of course, some HOA boards are more obstinate than others.
  • Create New...