Ask DrewDevil your legal questions

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics is the art and science of implausibly arguing that Barry Bonds never used steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drew, I got a legal question...serious question:

I signed a uniform player contract with an MLB team in 1995. It did not contain any mention of steroids being illegal.

I was also issued a copy of the MLB CBA as a condition of my admittance into the MLBPA, and in it, it outlined banned substances, but steroids were not among them.

I also attended mandatory briefings on the MLB drug preventaion policy, and was issued a listing of banned substances and intialed my agreement to it, and steroids were not listed as banned.

My MLB career ended in 1999.

Recently, people are telling me that steroids were banned during my short MLB career on the basis of a memo in 1991 that I was never shown nor told about, and despite it not being a condition of any of the contracts, nor it ever being mentioned to me during that time.

How was I supposed to know, and would that be considered in effect, despite all the contracts and rules stated saying otherwise?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics is the art and science of implausibly arguing that Barry Bonds never used steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Drew, I got a legal question...serious question:

I signed a uniform player contract with an MLB team in 1995. It did not contain any mention of steroids being illegal.

I was also issued a copy of the MLB CBA as a condition of my admittance into the MLBPA, and in it, it outlined banned substances, but steroids were not among them.

I also attended mandatory briefings on the MLB drug preventaion policy, and was issued a listing of banned substances and intialed my agreement to it, and steroids were not listed as banned.

My MLB career ended in 1999.

Recently, people are telling me that steroids were banned during my short MLB career on the basis of a memo in 1991 that I was never shown nor told about, and despite it not being a condition of any of the contracts, nor it ever being mentioned to me during that time.

How was I supposed to know, and would that be considered in effect, despite all the contracts and rules stated saying otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't crap all over my thread. Go back to Sporting Events.

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I belt the living daylights out of OP because he is the biggest wanker on OOT, will my defence of "he is a douche" stand up in my local court? If not, then I need a new lawyer, because he told me this is true (the douche part, not whether or not it will hold up)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if you kill me in Texas, try the "son of a bitch needed killing" defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

O EMPIRE WIDE AND GLORIOUS.

[nickg1532]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drew,
1) Do you need a retainer to answer my question?

2) Is NT!'s back-to-back banning of quickfetus anti-Semitism?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes, $3,000 should work.

2) No comment; we will reserve our testimony for the hearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. In regards to #1, I did not know if you saw my question earlier in the thread or if it was simply unanswerable in a general sense. I googled some stuff but it was still somewhat murky. If you missed it, I welcome your thoughts, but if it's overly broad in scope I understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, no I just missed it.

[ QUOTE ]
My grandfather died without a will and the property was/is in his name. My grandmother is now in hospice and has been in nursing home for ~8 years. She is of sound mind but she is fading fast. Is there a legal maneuver to retroactively get the property transferred into the childrens' names as this was my grandfather's (and grandmother's) intent? Does it automatically go to my grandmother once he died? I don't think anything has been legally done since my GF's death.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will have to check your state's "intestacy" statutes to determine what happened to your grandfather's property when he died. In Texas, for example, if a person dies intestate, then 1/2 of his property goes to his spouse and 1/2 in equal shares to his children, IIRC.

If your grandmother is still with it, she should either sign a will asap or a power of attorney granting control of her financial affairs to someone else, with either instructions on how she wants her property disposed of or just trusting that the person with the POA will act as she would have wished.

If your grandmother either loses her faculties OR dies before she makes one of these arrangements, there could be a huge mess in sorting out the estate. If the estate is sizable and the heirs don't see eye to eye, you might even see conflicts arising before her death, if one heir seeks to declare her incompetent and/or challenge her competency at the time she signed the POA, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the will gets successfully challenged on grounds of incompetency, it appears (based on his brief description) that intestacy would be pretty close to what he wants to have happen, which is have the property pass to the kids. Nevertheless, it's always a good idea to have a will. A good estate planning attorney can do things to minimize the risk of a successful incompetency contest.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Drew, I got a legal question...serious question:

I signed a uniform player contract with an MLB team in 1995. It did not contain any mention of steroids being illegal.

I was also issued a copy of the MLB CBA as a condition of my admittance into the MLBPA, and in it, it outlined banned substances, but steroids were not among them.

I also attended mandatory briefings on the MLB drug preventaion policy, and was issued a listing of banned substances and intialed my agreement to it, and steroids were not listed as banned.

My MLB career ended in 1999.

Recently, people are telling me that steroids were banned during my short MLB career on the basis of a memo in 1991 that I was never shown nor told about, and despite it not being a condition of any of the contracts, nor it ever being mentioned to me during that time.

How was I supposed to know, and would that be considered in effect, despite all the contracts and rules stated saying otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't crap all over my thread. Go back to Sporting Events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, sorry. It's a serious question though.

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drew,

I was on a callback at a NYC firm and a partner was bringing me to my next interview and we took the stairs, five flights up, in a suit. I asked him "So is this why they call it a sweatshop?" He just looked at me a little weird and half-laughed.

I haven't heard back yet. What are the odds this [censored] me?



Also, describe the optimum path out of law school to pay off debt, get well off (not rich, but not struggling), and be able to enjoy life a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is hilarious. i'm pretty sure you won't get an offer, though. out of curiosity, was this skadden?

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, not skadden.

i don't think it'd hurt, he seemed to think it was funny and we had good rapport before and after this.

my other favorite line so far:

interviewer: so how would you say you work in a team environment?

me (trying not to groan or roll eyes): well when i was ten i broke the basketball league record for most assists.

[awkward pause]

him: umm....

me: just joking, (he smiles)....i played center.

him:....

me: seriously though, x, y, z....


that one i got an offer so it was fine. once i started getting offers it let me not care as much about other places and just joke around, etc.

[/hijack]

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that, but how can you be sure he played soccer?

[MiloDanglers]

It has recently come to my attention that many college bars or bars that have amazing deals like pitchers for $2 are not serving the beer they advertise. They might be advertising Miller Light but are really getting Natty Light. I have talked to 3 employees at three different bars who have confirmed this. I am assuming it is a fairly common practice.


I guess I'm wondering if this is false advertisement and what could the legal consequences be. The phrase "false advertisement" has almost became a cliche. I have no idea what it means or what results from it. Would these bars just get fined by the court? What, if anything, could happen to the patrons? Are they entitled anything other than what is advertised?

[ChipsAhoya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you declare bankruptcy what happens to your 401k?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about bankruptcy, but in general, your creditors are made to back off while you offer a reorganization plan to pay them off at a discount. My hunch is that the bk court would resist forcing you to disgorge your retirement funds, given the high taxes and penalties, but I honestly don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that's under chapter 11 (or 13 I forget). Under chapter 7 you don't have to pay anything back. But if you have a house with large enough equity they can put your house up for sale. Then if they sell it they have to give YOU the first $7500. Then the rest goes to your creditors.

As far as 401k's go I believe if you have one and you're fully vested they can take some of it from you.

Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer but I have known people who have gone bankrupt. This is also in Tn so I don't know how much of it varies by state, if any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I know anything either, but we were discussing personal guarantees at the bank I work at and I believe it was said we aren't allowed to go after retirement accounts in cases of default so don't include those in the client's net worth.

-ChipsAhoya

[microbet]

I'm starting a company and want to have a temporary partner. Because of licensing issues it's necessary that he own at least 20% of the stock.

I want to have an agreement between us for me to have the option, before some distant date, to buy his shares of the company at a set price.

A 2p2 young brilliant poker dude attorney already said this was kosher in principle, but a second opinion would be ok.

But, what I'm really asking here is...Would it be appropriate to do this in the shareholder's agreement or is there some better way? Is there any specific language that I should include in the agreement?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting a company and want to have a temporary partner. Because of licensing issues it's necessary that he own at least 20% of the stock.

I want to have an agreement between us for me to have the option, before some distant date, to buy his shares of the company at a set price.

A 2p2 young brilliant poker dude attorney already said this was kosher in principle, but a second opinion would be ok.

But, what I'm really asking here is...Would it be appropriate to do this in the shareholder's agreement or is there some better way? Is there any specific language that I should include in the agreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should obv. talk to a lawyer, but isn't this a terrible idea practically? A partner who has no stake in the company's long-term value is more like an employee.