Best legal assistance in New Jersey with John Sandy Ferner

Legal guidance New Jersey, US from John Sandy Ferner today? What Should I Do if I Don’t Have Control of the Finances? When a client doesn’t control the money, they can be confused what to do. In that situation, the first thing they need to realize is that you don’t need necessarily to have control over the finances or a job or direct income to you to pay your legal fees or retain an attorney. A lot of times, courts are going to award attorney fee awards along the way to make sure that the marital income and assets is fairly utilized by both sides to have access to legal counsel. The first thing to just take a deep breath over is it’s not a question of not having access to have a lawyer. You unquestionably have access to a lawyer, and most attorneys like ourselves are going to give you a free consultation up front anyway to help you navigate through those situations to not only help you retain an attorney but to pay your bills regularly and continuously each and every day. Find extra info on John Sandy Ferner.

Legal tip today by Sandy Ferner : Sometimes our discovery demands, which our client faces and has to produce, are voluminous. Sometimes there are thousands of pages and rather than pay us to copy those, go do it yourself. Go to a Staples or go to a Kinko’s, if they even have Kinko’s. Bring your copies, do your homework. When we ask you to fill out things like a case information statement and bring tax returns and give me statements, get those on your own. It costs money to subpoena documents. It cost money to ask for documents through discovery in the other side. The less paperwork we can do to get the paperwork – if that makes any sense – the better it is for you.

Surgical errors are procedural errors that cause injury or death before the surgery has even taken place. While there are many types of errors that can occur all have devastating impacts. If you have been a victim of a surgical error you have the right to recover compensation. Learn more about how we can help you today! Spinal cord injuries can have catastrophic, often permanent repercussions. Our firm understands the devastating impact these types of injuries can have on you and your family and are dedicated to working hard to recover the compensation you deserve. Learn more about injury law and how our team can help you by reading our spinal cord injury page.

Discovery is a formal request for information and documents during the lawsuit process. If the case is pending in a justice of the peace court, court approval must be given prior to either side beginning the discovery process. If the case is pending in a county court or a district court, court approval is not needed. Typically, but not always, discovery must be concluded thirty days before the case is set for trial. If the ‘Plaintiff’ (the person or company doing the suing) believes that they have all the proof they need to win the lawsuit (and there are no disputed facts), they can file a writing with the court asking for a judgment to be entered. This writing is called a motion for summary judgment. If the ‘Defendant’ (person being sued) believes that the Plaintiff is absolutely lacking some of the proof required to win the lawsuit, the defendant can file a writing asking that the case be dismissed. This writing is called a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

Presuming that there is no justifiable or reality-based reason why that parent cannot see the children – it’s not an abuse situation, there’s not a neglect situation, there’s nothing like that – just a refusal by one parent to allow the other parent to see the children and that refusal is unreasonable, then we need to rectify that quickly. We may need to get the court involved quickly and file an application to have immediate parenting time with the children. Whatever that schedule looks like, we would have to talk about it – if it’s overnights, if it’s 50/50, and what that means – and we’re going to have to get into court really fast to have a judge address this quickly. The last thing you want to do is let that go on or prolong that because then you get stuck in the situation of, “You let this go on for too long. You didn’t really want to see the kids, and now you’re coming back and you want to see them.”

State v. Abayuba Rivas A-15-21(086051): Justice Albin concurred that the defendant’s confession to law enforcement officers be thrown out because of his ambiguous request counsel. As mentioned in the previous case, questioning must cease once the suspect requests for counsel unless they initiate conversation with law enforcement officers. In 2014, Rivas reported his wife was missing and when he was answering questions to help police for the missing person’s investigation, he told them that he had stayed home when his wife went missing. Afterwards, he was shown surveillance footage that he was driving a truck registered to his name during that time. Rivas mentioned that he had left his 2 year old daughter alone at home while he drove around looking for his wife. He was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for child endangerment and providing false information to the police. Once he was placed in jail, he attempted suicide. When Rivas was brought to the hospital, he was questioned by detectives after his Miranda rights were read. He told detectives that under coercion, he had to drive his vehicle while they abducted his wife and they threatened him with death if he called police. Questioning went into the next day. Rivas told detectives, “Ah a lawyer, I need time to find a lawyer. I need to see how much they charge.” and “Do you think that I need a lawyer? Because how you say innocent?” The detectives told him that he had to decide that. Afterwards he told detectives “In the beginning, I say I don’t want a lawyer, and then I want a lawyer so.” and interrogation should have stopped but detectives continued to question him for 5 more hours. Here, the defendant’s 5th amendment right to counsel was violated because his statements should have been sufficient enough to invoke his right to counsel. During this interrogation, he admitted to killing his wife. The next day, the same confession was recorded but with added details. Since questioning never ceased after his ambiguous request for counsel, the court held that both his confessions are inadmissible.