Search results

If you decline to be interviewed then an attorney is hardly necessary anyway. This would be more of client dropping attorney than attorney dropping client. Keeping your big yappper shut is a tried and true best policy.

That isn't even close to what I said. And still, there is absolutely nothing wrong with declining to be interviewed.

You are overthinking it.

If he was being investigated for a crime he would be interviewed by law enforcement, not a social worker. Granted, the social worker could notify law enforcement, but based on what is provided above there seems to be nothing to worry about here. Also, there is nothing wrong with declining to be...

If the kids are not yours you should have no worries about speaking with CPS. Their job is to look after the welfare of the children and they are looking for information to help guide decisions regarding that. There doesn't seem to be anything for you to worry about here.

It sounds as if there is no evidence a recording actually exists- just suspicion. An investigation may not go far.

Yep... You need to go to the DMV right away. In the mean time, keep the vehicle secured in a garage or somewhere that it isn't likely to drive away in the middle of the night. If you were scammed then the name on the bill of sale isn't going to have the right name on it.

Your ex tenant doesn't likely have much of an argument to make and may not even show up. The only thing that comes to mind that may work against you is if the point is raised that you apparently made no effort on your own to find a new tenant and minimize your loss, even after your tenant...

Based on what you have provided here I would say your chances of getting the judgment are good. Collecting is your main concern.

Does this person have any assets? If he doesn't have cash you could potentially use your judgment to place a lien on property and get paid if that property is sold. The amount owed should help you determine whether to pursue it or not. While collection can be difficult, it is not impossible.

No need. He stayed, paid at first, gave you required notice, and acknowledged inability to find a replacement or pay. You can show he was familiar with and advertise the agreement. It doesn't have to be a formal document.

It is possible the vehicle no longer has enough value that they would bother with repossession. It is more likely that if they locate you they would make attempts to garnish wages, but repo is possible.

Regardless of the DA statement, Georgia law on the subject is clear. Tasers are classified as "less lethal". I believe this is true of department policy as well. The state recognizes that sometimes under certain circumstances death can result from use of a taser.

Time will tell on this one. I would expect the attorney to give his client public cover regarding any cooperation.

I don't believe that for a second. This is just politics. The DA announced well in advance that the decision on charges would be decided and announced on Wednesday, and the time of the press conference was announced in advance too. GBI may not have been formally notified or consulted, but they...

Here is one of the disciplinary incidents- Docs: DA had just cleared ex-officer in Rayshard Brooks case of wrongdoing, alleged 'cover up' in 2105 shooting

Not good for the officer if true. I've read he was reprimanded for a use of force issue. If he was caught lying then that certainly doesn't help him now. I haven't seen anything solid about the details of the reprimand though, and I wouldn't expect to until a trial.

That is the question for a jury to decide- was the shooting legal? If so most of the charges will go away. If not, there will be consequences. It all hinges on the reasonable fear of imminent death or GBI as set out long ago in Tennessee v Garner. The APD policy on use of deadly force says it...

That isn't what I said. I just noted that the liability is different. A person escaping is different than letting them escape. Sometimes, depending on the circumstances and the offense, letting someone run is an option. Pick them up at a later time. This isn't one of those circumstances.

They are saying the use of force was unreasonable/unjustified, which makes each shot fired an aggravated assault. The ones that struck Brooks resulted in death and became felony murder. The one that struck the vehicle remained aggravated assault. I don't know how strong the argument for that is...