That latter is horrifying :(. Bastard. I hope someone reported the lawyer to the bar association!
On the former: well, if all the siblings WANT TO distribute money differently, there’s nothing to stop Andrew from giving his 1/4 of the estate to Betty, Chuck and Diane, or if Betty and Diane need money more, nothing to stop Andrew and Chuck from sharing… but still, the lawyer should have been reported.
I just remembered something I remember hearing multiple people claim growing up. (Post 9/11 too)
“If you ever wanted to sneak a knife on a plane, get one of those belt buckles with a knife built in and they won’t be able to tell the difference”
I had a credit card knife I forgot to take out of my wallet before a flight (It’s basically a square flat piece of metal the size of a credit card but it’s got swiss army knife style slide out tools) and they immediately caught it when they scanned my wallet and made me throw it away.
Similarly the even dumber “If terrorists wanted to bring a gun on a plane they could just get plastic guns, then each wear a necklace with a bullet on it with a cross carves into it and the TSA wouldn’t be able to confiscate it due to religious discrimination reasons”
I actually would like to see the legal battle if this happened. It would probably be…entertaining.
Also, if you tell the officer that you only had “one or two beers,” the officer will NOT take that as a literal confession to driving under the influence. “Oh, if it was just one or two then you’re probably fine. Why don’t you head on home and get some sleep?”
Particularly in these days of dashcams and bodycams, it’s more likely that you’ll end up on YouTube than let go if you pull the “DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?” stunt.
Full video: Port Authority commissioner confronts police during N.J. traffic stop - YouTube
When pulled over by an officer, remind him that your taxes pay his salary and as such he works for you. And as he works for you, you are one of “the people” and all sovereignty derives from the people, he will realize that he is acting tyrannical by giving you a ticket and let you go. Officers enjoy citizens who properly instruct them in the law.
Also if you shoot someone outside of your house, you should drag them inside of your house to have a rock solid self defense claim.
It could work in one way, but it won’t likely keep you from being arrested, charged, or convicted. If you drink alcohol in front of the officer, they likely can’t determine what your blood alcohol content was at the time you were driving. But that’s usually only one way to prove you were under the influence. In my state, and I presume others, the officer can testify about signs of intoxication they observed. Plus, making a point of drinking a bunch in front of the officer can be argued to show consciousness of guilt. That is, it’s an obvious tactic for concealing the actual BAC.
Also, refusing to take an intoxylizer breath test can just mean you get the automatic license suspension plus a ride to the hospital for a blood draw.
Again, this one is wrong, but in a game of telephone way. The way I’ve been told to do it, is, if you think someone you don’t want to leave anything to might make trouble, you can leave them something, but make it contingent on them not contesting the will. So, “you get $1,000, unless you contest the will, in which case you get nothing.” The amount will vary based on how big the estate is – it needs to be enough that they won’t want to risk it.
If you (driving) hit someone and damage the front end of your car, immediately obliterate the first damage by deliberately driving into another car.
(Extracted from one of the Perry Mason books.)
I read this one in The Onion; when you’re doing your taxes, claim self-defense. If it works for murder, it’ll probably work for tax evasion.
Especially if you kill your accountant.
It is incredible how many people believe this. I think the police spread this story, but it should be obvious among those who believe this that it never works.
There’s an old urban myth about a dental patient dying in the chair of a heart attack before ever being seen by the dentist. The dentist and assistant are said to carry the patient back out to the waiting room so the patient’s family wouldn’t have grounds to sue the dentist.
“I lived with him for six months. So that makes us common-law right? And I get half of whatever he owns, right?”
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Lady, you get nothing. In my jurisdiction, you have to be cohabitating for three years before we can even contemplate splitting up anything. And then, the amount might be what? Two or three thousand dollars, tops, if we settle? You certainly don’t get any part of the Picasso he bought in 1990, or the house he bought in 1995, or the Porsche he bought in 2002. That was all prior to his meeting you; and those assets are his, and remain his. Hell, you only moved in with him in 2007, amiright?
I’ve had to explain this over and over and over to wannabe-clients, who are invariably women. They are extremely disappointed that they cannot take former boyfriends for half their total lifetime assets after six months of cohabitation. So here’s some advice:
Women: Do not believe your girlfriends when they tell you how to “take” your boyfriend for a lot of money. Do not believe that “six months” is the magic time when you can sue him for half of what he has owned since childhood. Hell, do not believe that he owes you for anything he has owned since childhood (so give up on that antique “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots” game that you want to sell on E-Bay). Do not believe that he owes you anything at all after six months, except perhaps, a pittance. Do not believe any of this crapola.
Consult a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction, and/or consult local law; which is usually available at your local public library. Get the real story, and don’t put any trust in your girlfriends’ stories.
If you pay $11.99 to unlock the “pro” level legal advice, you will discover that you should keep a second home in a state with more favorable castle doctrine laws, and drag them there.
I was having lunch with my coworker, who handled family law before I hired her to do civil defense. She gets a series of texts from her cousin, explaining that the cousin has been texting her husband about how much more money she makes than husband, and how he should stop contesting the divorce because he can’t afford a lawyer. (In Florida, a divorce court must award attorney’s fees to a spouse from the other spouse if one has the ability to pay and the other does not.)
One thing I’ve noticed on relationship subreddits is that there’s an ironclad conviction that the law works how people feel it should work:
“He cheated on you?!? Divorce him and you’ll get everything!” No, in most divorces infidelity has little to no impact on division of assets.
“She cheated on you? Dump her stuff on the curb and change the locks!!” No, if she lives there then that would be an illegal eviction.
Here’s one I read in a “life hacks” list.
Get a personalized license plate that has something on it like IM0KAY. It will keep you from ever getting tickets.
Because that plate looks like it says eye-em-oh-kay-ay-why and a police officer writing out a ticket to you will put it down that way.
But when you go to court, you can point out it wasn’t your car. Because your license plate reads eye-em-zero-kay-ay-why. And the judge has to dismiss the ticket.
I am dubious that this would work.
I think it would work O times.
Maybe I’m the one who’s wrong and needs correcting, but I have had conversations with some lawyers before and was shocked at how wrong their notion of some legal matters was. I once conversed with an attorney who thought double jeopardy means that if you are arrested but the charges are dropped or you aren’t indicted within a deadline, that the government can never bring charges against you again for that accused crime (whatever it is.)
Has anyone brought up “Traffic Cameras are Unenforceable because a camera can’t testify in court” yet?