New profile posts

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills (at the top of the page it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being sued without bothering them for a signed waiver? Why can the news media do it legally? I know that CNN, NBC and the rest are all in it to make money. They are not giving the people news for free. They say you can show your artistic ability but how can an artist do it without promoting himself at the same time? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be afraid of then, right?
Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states : Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING - When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot
legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed, and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?
"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom) of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.
Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures, impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...
In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic "street photographers out there"? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn't harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at any wedding, you would have to get a "model or other release" from the bride and groom, plus each family member or guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither'.
So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk? How about is the headline reads "Examples of my art"?


Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills (at the top of the page it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being sued without bothering them for a signed waiver? Why can the news media do it legally? I know that CNN, NBC and the rest are all in it to make money. They are not giving the people news for free. They say you can show your artistic ability but how can an artist do it without promoting himself at the same time? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be afraid of then, right?
Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states : Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING - When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot
legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed, and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?
"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom) of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.
Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures, impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...
In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic "street photographers out there"? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn't harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at any wedding, you would have to get a "model or other release" from the bride and groom, plus each family member or guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither'.
So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk? How about is the headline reads "Examples of my art"?


Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills (at the top of the page it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being sued without bothering them for a signed waiver? Why can the news media do it legally? I know that CNN, NBC and the rest are all in it to make money. They are not giving the people news for free. They say you can show your artistic ability but how can an artist do it without promoting himself at the same time? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be afraid of then, right?
Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states : Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING - When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot
legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed, and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?
"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom) of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.
Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures, impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...
In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic "street photographers out there"? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn't harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at any wedding, you would have to get a "model or other release" from the bride and groom, plus each family member or guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither'.
So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk? How about is the headline reads "Examples of my art"?


Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills (at the top of the page it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being sued without bothering them for a signed waiver? Why can the news media do it legally? I know that CNN, NBC and the rest are all in it to make money. They are not giving the people news for free. They say you can show your artistic ability but how can an artist do it without promoting himself at the same time? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be afraid of then, right?
Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states : Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING - When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot
legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed, and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?
"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom) of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.
Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures, impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...
In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic "street photographers out there"? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn't harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at any wedding, you would have to get a "model or other release" from the bride and groom, plus each family member or guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither'.
So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk? How about is the headline reads "Examples of my art"?


Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com

Hi
I have read your replies to a number of issues and was wondering if you could take a look at mine. I would be most interested in hearing what you have to say on this topic concerning such a big powerhouse company as Sallie Mae. Listed on 11-19-08 under mattaryn in Consumer, Credit, Collections, Leins Section. Thanks so much!

I'm not trying to be pushy but I'm lost and need help fast. court sent me a letter 7 days the date i have to be in court. it took two days in the mail then it was the weekend sop by days are numbered before i have to be at court got 2 days to figure out what to do.

please read my post in general law questions on re-sentence
http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29561
i have posted a description on what happened and whats going on. Thank you for any help you might be able to give me

I'm not trying to be pushy but I'm lost and need help fast. court sent me a letter 7 days the date i have to be in court. it took two days in the mail then it was the weekend sop by days are numbered before i have to be at court got 2 days to figure out what to do.

please read my post in general law questions on re-sentence
http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29561
i have posted a description on what happened and whats going on. Thank you for any help you might be able to give me

I'm not trying to be pushy but I'm lost and need help fast. court sent me a letter 7 days the date i have to be in court. it took two days in the mail then it was the weekend sop by days are numbered before i have to be at court got 2 days to figure out what to do.

please read my post in general law questions on re-sentence
http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29561
i have posted a description on what happened and whats going on. Thank you for any help you might be able to give me

Dear sir/madam, I am employed by a department store that offers credit card to the customers. They just implemented a new policy, if you do not open one with the week, then you are required to attend credit card opening classes that sunday. you have to go whether you are scheduled to work or not. They do pay you for attending, but if you do not attend, you will end up on the let go list. i need to know if this is legal

Okay, I am sorry, Jacksgal - please review my thread under small claims court / kitascredit. Thank you. -Chrissy

Dont post questions in visitors messages. I wont answer. If you have a question create a thread and if you want me personally to reply send me message to read your thread

Thanks for your help with this...My husband to be and I were at a party where I was designated driver and he and the new couple we just met played some darts at a bar and then they took us to their friends house. Where that friend proceeded to get everyone lit and had loud music on parting in garage turned game room. Everyone was up and dancing and all of the sudden my future husband came crashing down on this guys table. The coffee table did break and he said to the guy (whos house we were at that he would fix it -well he had been drinking and is no carpender) so the guy demanded $100.00 right then and there - well we are broke and there was no way I was letting my man pay $100.00 for a yardsale appearing coffee table. It was very dated (not a good kind of antique dated - but a bad kind of old used and passed down dated). There were buckles everywhere on this table. The next day the guy left me a voicemail stating that he wanted now $200.00 to buy a new table. Of course my answer is still no. Meanwhile I drove to three thrift store in the area. I got almost the exact table as they were looking for...it was light oak, it just did not have the bottom that their table had (sorta a bottom shelf)...but it was in way better shape on top than the table that was previously broken. I also brought a nice coffee table that did not match, but it was way nicer with two nice glass peices (nothing broken chipped anything) and it was a darker wood. So we drove 40 miles + round trip and brought the tables, well they took the lighter colored table and said they would use it until we paid for their new table on Sunday (this was the Tuesday before). We I posted two ads on craigslist looking for anyone that had this exact table and no -one responded to my ads even with a picture posted on it so my future husband called the guy today to say we looked for the exact table to get you, and we could not find it I am willing to mail you a $50 check today, now the guy says he is going to sue us for the table and court cost etc. Now we are not suing types of people...but isn't is so that my husband to be could complain of neck, back and sholder pains and sue this guy for falling on his property? Not that we would - but we just want to tell this guy he has a loosing case. Please let me know your thoughts. Appreacate your time. Have a great day and I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for your help with this...My husband to be and I were at a party where I was designated driver and he and the new couple we just met played some darts at a bar and then they took us to their friends house. Where that friend proceeded to get everyone lit and had loud music on parting in garage turned game room. Everyone was up and dancing and all of the sudden my future husband came crashing down on this guys table. The coffee table did break and he said to the guy (whos house we were at that he would fix it -well he had been drinking and is no carpender) so the guy demanded $100.00 right then and there - well we are broke and there was no way I was letting my man pay $100.00 for a yardsale appearing coffee table. It was very dated (not a good kind of antique dated - but a bad kind of old used and passed down dated). There were buckles everywhere on this table. The next day the guy left me a voicemail stating that he wanted now $200.00 to buy a new table. Of course my answer is still no. Meanwhile I drove to three thrift store in the area. I got almost the exact table as they were looking for...it was light oak, it just did not have the bottom that their table had (sorta a bottom shelf)...but it was in way better shape on top than the table that was previously broken. I also brought a nice coffee table that did not match, but it was way nicer with two nice glass peices (nothing broken chipped anything) and it was a darker wood. So we drove 40 miles + round trip and brought the tables, well they took the lighter colored table and said they would use it until we paid for their new table on Sunday (this was the Tuesday before). We I posted two ads on craigslist looking for anyone that had this exact table and no -one responded to my ads even with a picture posted on it so my future husband called the guy today to say we looked for the exact table to get you, and we could not find it I am willing to mail you a $50 check today, now the guy says he is going to sue us for the table and court cost etc. Now we are not suing types of people...but isn't is so that my husband to be could complain of neck, back and sholder pains and sue this guy for falling on his property? Not that we would - but we just want to tell this guy he has a loosing case. Please let me know your thoughts. Appreacate your time. Have a great day and I look forward to hearing from you.

Could you view my post concerning quashing a grossly invalid search warrant under searches and seizures? I have a huge number of details I can email explaining the whole situation if you can assist. Thanks. loveladyrick@yahoo.com

Try to find a mediator in your hometown with experience in matters like yours so you can resolve this amicably without having to spend money on attorney fees. If mediation does not work, then talk to your divorce attorney.

Your poem hurt my feelings!

I love you. Bend Over.

HI,

Part of the MSA was we would each keep our cars. Both car leases are in her name. All the paper work(Registration renewal, Emission information ect.. goes to the lease company and then to her address. The problem is she does not give me the information and this leads to difficulties like expired registration. Cooperation with this is not her strong point and the lease will be ending in March. I can only imagine what the turn in of the car will be like. What can I do?

Thanks for respecivly replying to my post & not putting me down. The facts are I was not arrested, I was told to expect a LETTER in the mail that did not come, the only info originally found only had date, offense, and court. No arrest date, no arraignment date, all other blanks were enter because there wasn't any arrest or arraignment. This is my point. Dallas county screwed it up from the beginning and my lawyer used it to screw me out of as much money as he can get his hands on. It disappeared from background check after it was reduced to disorderly conduct & has since reappeared with a NFOG( not found of guilt) by it.

my mother has agreed to give me the child support from my father which is $617 a month until 6/09 i do not know how to write up the agreement and have it noterized

my mother has agreed for me to pay the car payments for a car $250 a month until payed off then the tile is to be signed over to me imeditly. she agreed to pay the car insurance and i am to pay payment and upkeep car. if there is a car accident i am to pay for repairs and ticket. If a traffic is inquired i am responsible to pay for . She can not remove car from my possesion for any cercomstances.

help please dont know how to write