Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RetiredinVA

  1. First of all, no one is ridiculing you. The only solution to your problems is simply Divorce. You said as much in your first writing. I find it difficult you cannot find an attorney to handle a divorce involving a family business. That is the major issue in many divorces and, unless you live in a very remote location, there is almost certainly an attorney, possibly even many attorneys, near you who could handle such a case. If there isn't, you may need to look in a nearby larger city. But family business valuation and ownership is not a rare issue in divorce. Finally, you do not understand what you have been told! No one said your husband "walks away, takes 75% of his income and the kids lose their home, their school and way of life?" Those questions can, and will be resolved by a judge in a divorce court. They will not be dictated by your husband.
  2. You really need to identify your state before anyone can comment. Common law marriages do not exist in all states. Also, separation papers do not terminate a marriage. Only a divorce (or annulment or death) can terminate a marriage.
  3. I must apologize. I have learned newborn infants ARE routinely administered hepatitis B vaccine within 12 hours of birth. My reliance on a nurse who had not worked in delivery for several years was misplaced. Today, it is recommended that all prospective mothers be tested for the presence of hepatitis B and, if it is confirmed, the administration of the vaccine is highly recommended to prevent the vertical transmission of the disease. Since false negatives may also occur on testing the mother, it is recommemded that HepB vaccine be administered to all newborn children within 12 hours of birth.
  4. At the risk of being accused of being judgmental and berating, let me try to give my comments as an experienced attorney. You have four defenses: (1) The box marked "Agressive Driving" is improperly marked. The judge is not going to order the mark removed because you were only accused of one of the offensives. You were charged with speeding at 94 mph but the officer obviously observed you doing at least one of the other indicia of aggressive driving. The judge, who was not able to observe your performance, is not going to order the officer to not note that you appeared to be driving aggressively. So, do not expect the ticket to be modified. (2) Since there were at least three vehicles in the vicinity of his clocking someone at 94 mph, it is possible he incorrectly thought you were the person driving at 94 mph. The trooper said he used his eyes and radar to determine it was you. Your defense is apparently that he possibly was mistaken, because he looked behind him as he entered the highway and picked out the wrong car when he looked back. You are suggesting that the trooper was unable to identify one vehicle out of four based on their relative positions and appearance after probably a momentary look for oncoming traffic. BTW, you said elsewhere that you were in the fast lane there was no traffic behind you except a vehicle behind the office and in the slow lane. The remote possibility that there was another car in such close proximity and of such similar appearance as yours so as to deceive the officer is not an adequate defense in my opinion. (3) The officer did not pull you over properly. In my opinion this could get you a worse punishment. How are you so knowledgeable about proper procedures for pulling a speeder over? You said "He violated almost six safety rules that I know FHP has for pulling people over . . " How did you know that? There are three alternatives here: (1) you are or were a trained traffic police officer, (2) you at least attended classes in proper highway safety at, for instance, the academy, or (3) you have been pulled over so many times that you are familiar with the proper procedures. I would be interested in how else you would explain your expertise. All three theories would turn out badly for you. Anyway, it doesn't matter how you were pulled over - you were charged with speeding and it is not disproven, or even questioned, by the procedure in pulling you over. (4) The radar gun picked out the wrong car or the wrong speed. The article you cited was interesting but it is not terrible obvious that it applies to you case. You did not mention that the trooper who stopped you had been driving on the other side of the turnpike, toward you, and timed you across the median. If he got you in his radar while he was, for instance, stationary in a turn-around (very common, BTW) the article would not apply at all. Also, the article you cited presupposes the existence of another vehicle within the cone scanned by the radar. This simply raises the unsubstantiated possibility there was another driver at fault. Mere possibility based on a phantom driver does not raise reasonable doubt. I would also note that the article presents an intricate scientific argument but concludes by stating that the argument was dismissed by the trial judge and the driver was still found guilty and fined. So, without being accusatory, my suggestion to you would be to take driving school if it is offered to you. Feel better now.
  5. They are obviously trying to establish residence for an illegal purpose, such as government benefits, deportation avoidance (Obama's new programs), driver's license, etc. let them do it and you may end up in jail!
  6. Looks like you need an eye exam more than the officer. The page you cited specifically says the Aggressive Driving box is for data collection purposes only and is not an offense. The offense is 24 over and I note you did not deny it. I would note that where I practiced (Northern Virginia) driving over 90 would buy you a minimum weekend in jail. - maybe more with a child in the back seat.
  7. The shelter usually knows little more about the dog than what they are told by the person who drops the dog off. The dog may be in the shelter for only a few days and may not exhibit any aggressive behaviour in the care of the shelter employees. I sincerely doubt that a shelter would deliberately release a dog that shows aggressive behavior. I have heard of dogs that get very agitated in vehicles because of association with visits to the vet, being taken to a kennel, etc. Perhaps that triggered the stress and unprovoked attack. If that is the case it is likely the shelter would have no way of knowing. On the other hand, there are also no-kill shelters who may go to extraordinary lengths to place a dog. If the shelter is a no-kill shelter it would be interesting and useful to determine whether this has happened before with their placements. In any event, you should at least contact local counsel in case it is necessary to file a notice of possible claim within very strict time limits.
  8. Of course they can. Why would you think they couldn't?
  9. PKU's are not shots. They are blood draws to determine whether the baby can assimilate phenylalanine. A drop of blood is drawn from the baby's heel during the first 24 hours after birth and another drop is drawn later. Nothing is injected into the baby. It is NOT a vaccination and it is a test performed on all babies in the United States. The nurse did not violate your rights because your baby was not vaccinated. You are concerned about nothing.
  10. I am at a loss to imagine why the police would arrest him and interrogate him about something that happened several years ago. What charge could you possibly level against him? Why would the police arrest and separately interrogate his corroborating witness? This fantasy is probably feeding your anxiety and it must go. Perhaps counseling might help.
  11. Just a suggestion: Ask your attorneys if an "Accord and Satisfaction" is available in your jurisdiction.
  12. I checked with a nurse with extensive hospital experience. She says there are no vaccinations given to newborns. Hepatitis B, in particular, would never be given to a baby. Blood will be drawn from a baby's heel to check for PKU. Hep B shots are usually given to adults, especially those who will have contact with children, such as day care workers.
  13. In addition, a lot of judges, especially those dealing with domestic violence issues, get so sick of people calling the police and then deciding they don't want to press charges, that the judge will instruct the prosecutor to charge the person with filing a false police report. If you spend much time in domestic relations court you will hear, "Complainant: Yes he beat me up, but, I love him and I don't want him to go to jail. Judge: Okay, then you can go to jail instead. The police are not referees for your fights."
  14. It is not clear when you moved out. Apparently you executed the lease on September 14, 2014. Was the lease for year or was it for a six month stay as you indicated at the end of your question? Or, did you mean you executed it in September and moved on March 1? When you moved did you hand over the keys to the property manager? Why are they expecting 3 months rent now? Did you pay the rent for October through February? When did you get the email from the property manager and why does it not mention the demand for the three months rent?
  15. BTW, there is a special vaccination claims procedure if there are adverse consequences from vaccinations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
  16. Please try to re-write your question so it makes sense.
  17. Stitched her up from delivering the child. I agree the child probably benefited from the vaccination. But, if adverse consequences occur, and they do in rare cases, she may have a case. The administration should certainly be put on notice just in case a problem does develop in the future.
  18. Have you been to court about this at all? Have custody or visitation orders ever been entered?
  19. Actually, I read the headline and context as saying he previously had committed a crime with/against a 13 year old girlfriend. Now he has impregnated "his new girlfriend" but is enjoined from visiting her. Not sure where "his niece" fits in unless she is one of the girlfriends.
  20. Please turn off the caps lock, We can hear you in lower case. Not many details are given here but we can start by saying that generally grandchildren do not inherit if their parent is still alive, unless there is a Will that says otherwise. You refer to the "Trustee". Is there a Will or a Trust involved.
  21. The fact that the ice was not visible goes against your claim. In addition to responsibility for snow and ice removal imposed by statue, ordinance or case law, the landlord can be held liable for defects on the premises that are known to the landlord or should reasonably have been known to the landlord. This usually involves defective railings, decks, balconies, wiring, etc. But you say the ice that fell on your car was not visible. It was also, of course, not a permanent part of the premises (it was probably not there this summer). You also said there was no ice on the overhang above your car. Therefore, it is not likely the landlord had notice of the ice and had any duty to remove it. I suspect the landlords you consulted may have had a different attitude if it the ice fell off their roof.
  22. Ordinances and court rulings often hold landlords and/or residents responsible for shoveling or salting sidewalks, stairs, and walkways. But, I suspect there are no similar rulings or precedents requiring snow removal from roofs and removing icicles. The landlord can be held liable only if he or she fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury. Ordinary care may require keeping walkways clear or salted but it does not require climbing on the roof to remove snow and icicles. The most common cases involving snow accumulation, other than slip-and-fall, involve roof failure and are usually in the context to damage to commercial buildings. Also, in many areas where snow is a problem there are clauses inserted in the leases for single family dwellings to make the tenant responsible for snow removal. We don't know the nature of your residence or the provisions of your lease. Finally, if the icicle that damaged your car was an obvious hazard (which you could argue required the landlord to remove it) why did you park your car under it? We do not know who you talked to who said the landlord is definitely liable, but I bet they were not lawyers or insurance adjusters. Do you have comprehensive auto or renter's insurance? You should contact them.
  • Create New...