|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
AN E-BULLETIN
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE -- CORNELL LAW SCHOOL
lii.law.cornell.edu
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
On Mar 19, 6:58 am, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> It isn't practicing law because you didn't charge for it.
And Seth further wrote:
> In article <n6ent3pih51udr9tmmtlq4fil9vs7d3...@4ax.com>,
> Dick Adams <rdad...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Where do
|
|
|
On Mar 19, 6:58 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Daniel R. Reitman wrote:
....
> > There is an ALR annotation on tthe subject of specific performance of
> > the get (religious dvorce) clause in ketubahs. The courts are split,
> > dependi
|
|
|
In article <bj2it397lgfc87e0rqdpuvef9kl69ulbrt@4ax.com>,
henri <henri@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:58:14 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>In article <ui25t3hrtpie6cvjp16j8ocn3o6siohme1@4ax.com>,
>>henri <henri@nowhere.com> wrote
|
|
|
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported w
|
|
|
On Mar 19, 6:58=A0am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Daniel R. Reitman wrote:
> > There is an ALR annotation on tthe subject of specific performance of
> > the get (religious divorce) clause in ketubahs. =A0The courts are split,=
> > dep
|
|
|
On Mar 19, 6:58=A0am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Daniel R. Reitman wrote:
> > There is an ALR annotation on tthe subject of specific performance of
> > the get (religious dvorce) clause in ketubahs. =A0The courts are split,
> > depending
|
|
|
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <sm1qt35i1o8sp427eck77a100agu78kt6o@4ax.com>,
> Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>
> [[.. munch ..]]
>> By the way,
>>
>> *** I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice. ***
>>
>> Discuss amongst yourselves whe
|
|
|
In article <mds1u3ptvhe30d8bdpj86vveb3qpkemd19@4ax.com>,
HawtDawg <HawtDawg42@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, my question is this: Can I legally log into Angelo's email
> account and read messages between Sal and him in order to ascertain
> what type of t
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:58:16 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
>Daniel R. Reitman wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:40:31 -0400, David Chesler
>> <chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> There is an ALR annotation on tthe subject of specif
|
|
|
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:9ds1u39lphp7srhjqiok78h3hfht0kse4t@4ax.com:
> In article <sm1qt35i1o8sp427eck77a100agu78kt6o@4ax.com>,
> Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>>*** I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice. ***
>>
>>Discuss a
|
|
|
If one has Mediation in LA County (tenant-landlord matter) anything
discussed apparently can not be brought up later in a trial per
Evidence Codes 1119 and 1120.
Questions:
1.
Does this only apply if a settlement is made?
2.
What if one party -
|
|
|
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In New York, I once asked an attorney just that question. He told me
> there were two things that were practice of law: (1) Acting for
> somebody else in circumstances where a lawyer was required (e.g. in
> court).
|
|
|
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>>*** I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice. ***
>>
>>Discuss amongst yourselves whether the statement above will
>>protect me from a charge of practicing law.
>
> It isn't p
|
|
|
Haw,
You were a friend to A for a long time. You know his e-mail password. You
had a falling out with S, who blames you for many petrsonal problems. You
now believe that A and S have joined forces to spread rumors about you. You
also believe t
|
|
|
I agreed to host an event for the members of a non-profit organization
in our house. Everything is safe around here, and we had more guests in
the past than we are expecting now. However, I can easily imagine that
if some accident happens, my liabil
|
|
|
On Mar 19, 3:58 am, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In New York, I once asked an attorney just that question. He told me
> there were two things that were practice of law: (1) Acting for
> somebody else in circumstances where a lawyer was required
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:58:12 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>It isn't practicing law because you didn't charge for it.
Most definitely not true.
Daniel Reitman
|
|
|
If the Supreme Court holds in the Heller case that the Second
Admendment Right is an individual right to bear arms, will that have
any effect on the federal felon firearm laws? The blogger over at the
Sentencing Law and Policy blog seems to think it's
|
|
