Help Me With Sign Presentation for Legal

This type of scenario has two potential issues. The first is the safety of the woman and those around the area. Public safety concern, especially where a possible immediate need for action is warranted, is a top priority and will give you plenty of authority to stop the two. It will also give you the authority to make a safety check, which can be as easy as asking the woman if she is okay.The second issue is less clear at this point, but it is the potential for a crime having already been committed or one that is about to be committed. We know that “help me” could have multiple meanings, but under the circumstances, it would appear to suggest both a potential safety threat and a potential crime. In this sense, you have entered at least the realm of mere suspicion if not fully into reasonable suspicion to stop and make an inquiry.Mere Suspicion is when the officer has enough information to allow for the natural feeling that a public safety issue or a crime is present. This is the first step in our Probable Cause model, and it is where most self-directed investigations begin. Examples would be hearing the sound of breaking glass in a shopping district at 3:00 a.m., or in seeing a person climb out of a window of a house in the middle of the day, or observing a person testing the locks on a door. In each situation the officer lacks enough evidence to prove that a crime is being or has just been committed; however, there is enough to make a reasonable person believe that additional inquiry is needed.In this instance, the act of mouthing the words “help me,” especially when taken under the condition of silence, will prevent mere suspicion easily. So the first step you want to take is to prevent them from moving away and make an attempt to separate the woman from the man. I’d start with a simple request, “May I speak with you two for a moment?”At this point, we are using a request because we don’t want to escalate the situation. We want the request to be clear, stated loud enough to be heard, and with enough authority in the voice that it conveys the request is a serious one. It does not have to be an order, at least not at this point, but it should not be tentative or leave either party with the impression that you won’t follow-up.Even if the guy turns around and questions you about the legality of your request, you have accomplished the first mission of the intervention. You have stopped them from moving away from you, which in turn keeps the woman in a safe zone, of sorts, while now opening the door to her being able to separate from the man.On the crime side of things, we are also looking for evidence that the woman is being held against her will. These signs may appear in her posture, the way she responds to request, or in the way she moves along with the man. He may not have realized she mouthed the words “help me,” so it would be reasonable for the two of them to have very different reactions. Just as watching her demeanor and response is important, so too is the need to watch his demeanor and response.The next step will be to put a little space between the man and the woman. “Ma’am, could you step over here near me?” may do the trick. If she hesitates then watch her facial expression, her posture and movement, and for any signs that she is uncomfortable with the request. It could be that she was playing a practical joke on her companion, which now means she’ll have to convince you that there is no need for action, or it could be that she is truly in need of help. By moving the two apart, you reduce the chance for the man to grab her or injure her in any way. It also gives you a chance to have a bit more control and access to the woman in case something does start to go wrong.There are too many variables now for us to give a specific answer other than to say that you will be working off of the action/reaction of the two people. If the woman truly needs help then your intervention will provide that opportunity. It will be the actions/reactions of both the man and woman that will determine if you heighten the level of the contact or if you find it to be unwarranted.Raising the level of contact could mean physically separating the couple, taking the man into custody, and even arresting him. In a different case, the matter may turn completely on the intentional actions of the woman in mouthing “help me” as she walked by. You don’t indicate what her facial expression or demeanor was like, but assuming that they match the need for help then everything we’ve done so far is correct. On the other hand, if she mouthed the words “help me” with a big grin on her face, then you need to be a bit more cautious in how you stop them and separate them. It is because of this uncertainty at this point that we can’t really go much further with the analysis.

Not so much a legal question, but I whooped their arse in court, representing myself.I was being sued by a debt collection agency for over £1000 for a debt I had run up on a credit card I used to hold. They had taken over the delinquent account and added their standard charges, fees and interest, bringing what was originally a £400 debt to just over £1000.I had received many of their letters and told them I refused to pay a debt that wasn't owed. They told me tough, pay up. I said no. They said fine, see you in court.As you walk from the waiting area to the court room, there are signs everywhere saying turn off your mobile phone, is your phone worth a contempt of court charge etc. I had already done so and it was sitting in my jacket pocket.The judge introduced himself, asked why I had not brought any paperwork in my defence and told me what was going to happen as I was representing myself. All very amicable.I told the judge I had not brought any paperwork as I didn't need any. I then stated that, with his permission, I would like to break one of the courts rules when making my case, but I would explain at that time what I needed and why.The debt collection agency had sent several solicitors to fight for their money. They were all sat on their side of the court with folders full of paperwork, in nice fancy suits and expensive briefcases. I was sat on the other side, on my own, with nothing but the glass of water provided for me in front of me and my wallet on the desk.Their solicitors made their arguments. I had knowingly entered into a contract with a credit card company. I had the benefit of that card (legal speak for “he used it”). I had failed to make payments as proscribed in the contract. I was warned the account would be closed if I refused to make payment, and eventually, with much reluctance I’m sure, the bank closed the account and sent it to debt. Cut and dry, airtight case. They had contracts. They had my signature and it was the right one (I use several different signatures depending on what I’m signing, so a signature cannot be lifted and photoshopped on something it should not be on). They had copies of account statements showing I used the card. They had everything really.In fact, they had nothing.It was my turn. I explained that I had never denied having or using the card. I asked to see the evidence used against me, and asked to approach the judges bench. I showed each and every instance where I had made FULL payment for monies owed, on time, every time.I then explained that when an account goes to debt, the bank closes the account and the card can no longer be used. The judge looked at the solicitors and they agreed the account was indeed closed.That was what I was waiting for. I then said to the judge that this was the point I would like to break the court’s rules and explained what I wanted to do and why.The judge agreed.I then took out my phone and asked the clerk to call the number on the back of my credit card, and to confirm that number was the same as the customer services number on the statements provided against me by the debt collection agency. I got the clerk to do this so I could not be accused of calling a friend who had a pre-arranged script.I got through to the customer services, passed through the usual security questions, and, over speaker, asked the rep to confirm if my account was open or closed, and if any money was owed on the account, other than the normal minimum payment required at the end of the month.The rep said the account was still open (of course) and no money was owed. Just to labour the point a bit more, I asked him to read off the last few transactions, amounts and dates, to confirm the card was still in regular use. He did. I said thanks and ended the call. I made sure to turn the phone off afterwards.The judge demanded to know why the debt collection agency were chasing me as there was clearly no debt owed. He demanded to know why they claimed under oath that I had never made payments, when their own evidence against me proved otherwise. He demanded to know how their fees and charges were made up.The solicitors could not answer a single question.The judge immediately dismissed the case as I had proven beyond any doubt I was right and they were wrong.As I was putting my jacket on to leave the court room, the judge told me “well done”.I walked out smiling.

It was the summer of 2009, and we were closing in on our Series A funding. I wanted to update my fellow co-founders on our progress, so I scheduled a meeting at the local Starbucks.A little bit off topic, but Starbucks is a great meeting venue for an unfunded company with no office space. So is Peets, by the way. You get a nice environment with beverages and a bathroom. What more can you ask for…Four of the five founders were on time for our 11AM meeting. We were waiting on our Chief Technology Officer, Raphael.I was already worried about Raphael’s erratic behavior by this point. And I had a sneaking suspicion that he was never going to join the company. I wondered what version of Raphael we would see today.11:10AM. Out of the corner of my eye I say Raphael walking through the parking lot. He looked like a geeky gunslinger dressed all in black.We had been raising money since January 2008. We had survived the nuclear winter of the Great Recession. The fund raising had been exhausting. Everyone’s patience, and belief in the company, was tested.Raphael opened the doors to Starbucks abruptly and sat down at our table.Before I could update the team, Raphael started talking.“So”, Raphael said in his thick accent, “DO WE HAVE A TERM SHEET OR NOT!”Raphael was pissed.You could feel his anger push everyone back from the table.“We are getting close,” I responded.“CLOSE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! I AM TIRED OF WAITING. THIS IS GOING NOWHERE!”“This is how it works,” I said. “We are making really good progress. We…”“SOMETHING BETTER HAPPEN SOON!” Raphael said.With that, Raphael walked out of Starbucks.I went on with the meeting and updated the rest of the team. One of the other co-founders asked me, “What are we going to do about Raphael?”“Let me think about it,” I answered.We concluded the meeting, and I thought about what we were going to do about Raphael.You can always live without a brilliant jerk no matter how great they are at what they do.Raphael was a great engineer. I asked myself if we could live with Raphael’s “eccentricities” because of his skills?I realized the answer was obvious. In fact, the decision was crystal clear.A couple months later we were closing our funding, and I met with Raphael and Jeroen, our VP of Engineering. This time we met at Peets.Raphael was again about 10 minutes late.Raphael walked through the door of Peets again wearing all black.Raphael sat down at our table, and I began speaking.“We’re closing our funding next week as you know. I’ve decided we are going to go forward without you.“I am giving you a check, buying back your shares for $100.” I had checked with our attorney, and she felt giving him a check was the cleanest way for us to go forward.Raphael looked relieved.“Okay,” he responded.The three of us shook hands, and Raphael walked out of Peets.I felt the weight of the world lifting from my shoulders. We didn’t have to deal with a toxic coworker anymore.The only question I had was, “why did I wait so long?”The meeting at Starbucks was my “enough” point. I kept thinking to myself, “What is Raphael going to be like in a real work crisis?”The answer was simple: Raphael will be a cancer.Start-ups are fragile by their very nature. You are fighting an uphill battle with less resources than your competitors.You can’t afford to have someone wavering during the tough times.Yes, it’s going to suck if you lose your cofounder. But don’t be afraid of taking action because you fear losing the person’s supposed skill. You will not miss it. Trust me.More importantly, you can’t let your company be held hostage by one person.Think of it this way. Someone who is already wavering before you have even started likely doesn’t have the stomach for the real tough times. You can be guaranteed there are going to be real tough times.So find someone else as tough as that seems now. There is more than one person for any role, you just have to find that person.For more, read: Why You Need Fanatical Cofounders - Brett J. Fox

What do you think of this NBC article which calls for the regulation of hate speech?Opinion | Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speechIt’s idiotic rhetoric.The very first line of the article is “Must we defend Nazis?”Followed immediately by an incredibly disingenuous “For many free speech advocates, the answer is not just ‘yes,’ but ‘hell, yes.’”There is just so much stupid in this article, I’m going to focus on the highlights.They mischaracterize the argument for Free Speech. They put their words in our mouths so that they can argue. “It's precisely because they are so loathed that Nazis must be vigorously defended, the argument goes.” No. We’re not arguing to defend the loathsome, we’re arguing that what is loathsome to one may not be loathsome to all. It is those who are in power who get to determine what constitutes “hate speech”, so before you go banning words that upset you, consider what will happen when the other party is in power and can use those laws you wrote against you. Free speech is valuable precisely because it protects unpopular speech, be that the vitriol of Neo-Nazis or the radical words of Martin Luther King Jr.Then we get this gem. “The best way to preserve lizards is not to preserve hawks” The argument is nonsensical. It is a false analogy, entirely unrelated to the matter at hand, and being deliberately used to dismiss valid arguments.Then, they try to “prove” that hate speech causes real harm. “For example, a John Hopkins study published in 2013 concluded that being exposed to racism can lead to high blood pressure and stress among African Americans.” Well gee, reading this garbage certainly spikes my blood pressure. This article should be banned as hate speech, because it harmed me. Jon Davis just wrote an excellent answer on to this question where he address the difference between harm, as I would use the term, and “harm” as idiot ideologues misuse the term.“Probably the most popular counterargument to regulating speech is the slipper slope argument.” I’m going to take puerile pleasure in pointing out the spelling mistake here. However, it turns out we’re right. Just look at the case of Lindsey Shepard. of Wilfrid Laurier University. She was accused of violating Hate Speech laws in Canada for showing a video to her students by one Jordan Peterson, without first telling them what to think of the video. The slippery slope isn’t hypothetical, it’s happening right now.As I said in Murphy Barrett's answer to Why do conservatives feel the need for a right to hate speech? Can they not keep their feelings to themselves?It’s not the right to hate speech we care about. It’s the right to free speech, of which hate speech is an unfortunate side effect.Free speech is vital to liberty and a free society.Free speech that only protects non-offensive words is about as useful as a solar powered flashlight. When you need it, it doesn’t work.Consider, what is hate speech? Who decides? You? Us? Them? People who prattle on about hate speech seem to always forget that they won’t always be the ones in power. It’s great, when your side gets to decide what is “hateful” based on your values, your limits, and your taboos.But what happens when the other party is in power? What happens when hate speech is based on their values, their limits, and their taboos?Before conceding to the State any power or authority, you must consider first what happens if the other party would use that same power against you.What do you plan to do when hate speech is illegal, but is defined as advocating for the murder of the unborn (abortion), denying the Lord God Almighty (atheism), and sedition (criticizing the US in any way)?Do you still want to ban hate speech?What you call hate speech, as part of free speech, has to be protected. There is no way to write a law that bans “hate speech” and protects “good speech”, apart from personal opinion, and that is no way to write laws. The law must be consistent, and treat people equally, else it is a tyrannical law subject to the whims of the rulers.Neonazis, disgusting swine that they are, must be allowed to march in Skokie so that great men like Martin Luther King Jr. can March on Washington.Look, you don’t have to like what assholes say. You don’t have to give them a soapbox. But you cannot take their own soapbox from them, beat them, fine them, jail them, just for saying things you don’t like. You ignore them, or you prove them wrong.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”-1st Amendment, US Constitution

I didn’t - but my ex-husband did!I’ve written about our divorce - and his alcoholism that led to it - before on here so I won’t rake over those coals again, but when I knew the marriage was over & I had to get out to keep my life and sanity intact, I had a feeling he’d do exactly what he did, and try and ignore the matter.I was very choosy in my choice of divorce specialist. My ex-husband still had a fantastic income and his family were more than comfortable as far as money went. I was doing this alone as a disabled mum claiming benefits. By the time we got to the actual divorce stage of the relationship I knew I just wanted out and quickly. I didn’t want any maintenance, no pay outs, we had no children together, no assets, no savings, lived in s rented house and only 1 mutual debt I stupidly thought we’d already arranged to jointly clear, so I just wanted someone to understand that & help me get a quick clean break. After speaking to 3 other practitioners, I found the wonderful lady who did my paperwork. I told her everything relevant and let her do what she had to.My soon-to-be-ex-husband was eyeball deep in a bottle and denial, so would not even acknowledge any letters from her, let alone hire his own solicitor.I guess I could have taken advantage, and I know many solicitors and clients who would have, but that’s not me, nor was it the legal executive I chose to do my work, and that’s exactly why I chose her. Yes, it was my ex-husbands duty to get his own legal counsel who would serve his best interests but I knew he wouldn’t, I knew he’d stick his head in the sand and as I said, I just wanted to be out of it and safely by that point.He never acknowledged a single letter. Not one. In the end we had to pay for official court servers to take the documents to him and for them to swear service. A judge took forever to sign off on it because neither my ex (nor the solicitor he couldn’t be bothered to employ) was looking out for his best interests! It took twice as long as it should have done all because he refused to acknowledge or answer any official papers.I also know his mother actively pleaded with him to retain legal services, she even offered to pay for it, (yes, they probably were hiding money and/or assets but I really didn’t care by that point, getting away safely from an abusive drunk was my only priority) so he just continued & consistently avoided the whole issue. He didn’t see a solicitor. He didn’t reply to any legal letters, he refused to acknowledge court orders, he acted as if none of it was even happening. And I actively pleaded with the rightly furious presiding Judge more than once NOT to find him in contempt of Court for his behaviour! The guy was fit to burst a blood vessel apparently! I think my ex thought it would stop the divorce if he ignored it, obviously it didn’t. Everything was double checked with a fine tooth comb to ensure he wasn’t being taken advantage of but there’s only so far a Court can protect someone who refuses to participate, he was given every opportunity to speak up and hire his own legal team. He refused to. It was obvious he could afford it, it was definite he’d had the papers served on him, he lived a 2 minute walk from the Court too, but he made it clear it was a ‘won’t’ participate rather than a ‘cant’ and I doubt that anyone took too kindly to all the extra wasted time & effort that caused.I know I could have been a bitch, I know with a different solicitor I could have taken him to the cleaners and probably financially cleaned up but I’m not built that way. I’m appreciate I’m probably also in a minority for that viewpoint too; I worked in family law for longer than my nerves could stand, I’ve seen what happens when people think they ‘know’ the law and their rights. Men & women can & do behave like savages once divorce papers get drawn up.Pro-top: Solicitors don’t spend years in school just learning to iron their suits, and wrote neatly, they actually really learn & know stuff, and how to apply said stuff that the common man doesn’t, they’ve worked and studied for years to hone that knowledge, to stay upto date with that knowledge and to know how best to protect you & your interests with that knowledge . They may be expensive but they are worth it. You pay them for their expertise in best knowing how to look after you and yours. They know your best interests better than you do. They think of the things you don’t, they know things you don’t, they antipathetic the things you don’t - they think straight with the cold facts when you don’t because your emotions are still on the spin cycle. Whatever they cost you, what they’ve saved you in the long run will more than make up for it.So yes, you can divorce without a solicitor. Maybe your soon-to-be-ex-spouse is one of the minority like me who just wants to split and get a clean break, and did I mention I had previously also found my ex accommodation and even brought him at my expense the majority of the contents of our home too? (I really wanted a guilt free clean break and fresh start - I mean REALLY, I wanted him to have no possible reason to ever need to contact me again)But I wouldn’t ever advise it to anyone else. You need to have someone who knows what they’re doing to navigate the legal system for or with you even if all you want to do is that clean break & you need to file the relevant and correct papers. If you divorce you need to be sure everything is sorted out and finalised, no unfinished business or nasty surprises to come in the future. As it turned out my ex drank himself to death shortly after our divorce was finalised. I can’t begin to tell you the trail of devastation and destruction proceeding his death, I’m just glad that legally I wasn’t responsible for any of it any more. It was a mess I’m glad I didn’t have to handle - thanks to an excellent legal executive.

Should you ever agree to give a police statement without a lawyer present? The only exception to keeping your mouth shut is when you have a rock solid alibi that government itself doesn’t have to admit, like, “I was in the hospital when this happened.” If you don’t, later in court the prosecution will argue you cooked it up for trial and your silence can be used against you.It is better to tell the police from the get go when an alibi is the case.Police are good at seeming friendly and being there to help you get out of trouble or reduce the trouble you are in. They are very manipulative liars. Do not believe a word they say and don’t talk except for alibis. They ...

Hi Chris , I think most people , myself included advise no contact with a narcissist as there is no reasoning with or accountability held by the people afflicted with this disorder. In my experience narcissists at the severe end of the spectrum only show their true selves to those within the immediate circle of their family at home. The world gets their persona or false self representation. Often , by the time the spouse or other inner circle member is ready to expose the narc , they are prompted to that action because of severe abuse that’s been heaped upon them by the narc over time which leads to them appearing unhinged or less credible than the narc in a public authority forum like with those in law enforcement or court authority type positions. Ask me how I know…. I reported my narc ex husband after he raped me for years and after he physically hit our disabled child and caused her a concussion and both the SVU detective and the Dept of children and families both said I didn’t have enough evidence to prove anything and I had a lot . The SVU detective told me straight out he didn’t believe me only after speaking to my then husband ( we were living separately) I had lots of text evidence and did a controlled phone call at PD headquarters . I also had , by this point developed clinically diagnosed C-ptsd . I am certain I did appear unhinged albeit understandably . I hold no guilt regarding what happens to any future victims as I did my part and reported his abuse every time. DCF told me I didn’t have enough evidence even though our daughter’s concussion was diagnosed by a pediatric neurosurgeon at a children’s hospital after I took her for an mri. My ex husband divorced me leaving me with a very difficult situation with our disabled daughter and I have been her primary caregiver her whole life so that means I was at home with her from birth as she has both physical and emotional disabilities which she has been on 4 types of prescription medication for since age 4 . She is now almost 8 years old. Our divorce was finalized 6 months ago and I had no choice but to give our daughter to him so I could rebuild my life. I couldn’t be her primary caregiver anymore as all aspects of my life need to be re- built from scratch . A harrowing task for anyone particularly for a 44 year old woman who has been out of the work force for about 81/2 years , being severely abused and still healing her ptsd and other physical illness as result of extreme prolonged stress while still being financially abused . I have also recently been forced into bankruptcy. I believe my ex was believed because he is a very convincing pathological liar and most neurotypical people are not aware that there are people that exist and practice evil at that level. I am not running anywhere . I am a woman of faith which is the only reason I’m still standing. My ex has proven to be like Teflon … nothing sticks . However I am a believer that he will be held accountable in God’s court for his crimes against me and my kids. My son from a prior marriage was 10 when my ex narc and I got together and now being 24 carries ill affects from all he has witnessed me suffer. I have never and will never act intentionally to harm anyone . I have advocated for myself in court being pro se for a good deal of my restraining order and divorce cases due to lack of funds. The court found me civilly indigent . I did wind up with help from a legal aid type agency in the end and managed to get some small gains but sadly , none that will really help me long term. I am taking each day as they come and spend much of my time practicing multiple healing modalities to recover my health and life so I can regain my A - game so I can be present for my children as much as possible . No one really understands what it is to deal with narcissistic people on the malignant end of the spectrum unless they’ve been there. I appreciate your question and will encourage you to research about the disorder and the impact it has on its victims. They have a human body but that’s where all similarity ends . They practice inhumane treatment of others who have the knowledge to expose them. I will say , I’m well aware he is not invincible and I , at this point have let go and let God . His judgement is righteous and He never abandons those who love Him in faith with a steadfast heart. I have educated myself on the subject of cluster B disorders and am rebuilding my life at current and can say I am most grateful that I feel and see God’s hand at work in my life on a daily. He has helped me see that if I can take all the difficult suffering I’ve experienced and transmute some of it by helping others with my knowledge , I have lessened my own trauma burden by taking something that could easily have killed me and turned it around with information that can potentially be lifesaving and insightful to others . I consider it one of the greatest blessings in my life and gaining this experience has helped me to know that people like this exist , thereby enabling me to help others recognize the danger signs so they can steer clear . I am a survivor and a faithful warrior , no longer a victim - Thanks for the opportunity to answer your question . Blessings to you .