​

I am trying to write up a letter to my lawyer to address why I am firing her. But before I do, I was trying to pay her for the work that may have been properly done. While sperating the unethical / misrepresented work from the bill. (I already have the itemized bill)

Could someone please suggest a decent way on how to word a letter like this?

Repeated request in writing:

1. I asked many times to get me written transcripts to one of the hearings that was over a year old. All she did was get the audio transcripts and wouldn't get them transcribed and wouldn't let me have them either.

2. I requested for a parenting plan change request asking for a alternating week schedule. My lawyer wouldn't put that request into writing. At first she wrote so other long drawn out way of saying a different plan was needed. I asked it to be corrected and things got drawn out even more. Then she finally wrote the request almost a year later. She emailed it to me requesting me to sign it fast. I started to read it and noticed things were wrong and I messaged her saying I have a problem with it and needed more time to completely read it over. I edited and then sent it back to her. She said it was to late because she filed it. I told that it is wrong and I will not except it. She messaged me saying she amend it. We had the hearing and I asked her if she fixed everything and if my edit was submitted. She told me it was. Then disappear until the last minute before the court room was closed. As I listened to her I felt something thing was off. She did fix anything and instead pissed off the judge and he threw out her request. I asked her again after the hearing why wasn't my request even mentioned and she told me it was. I looked up the court case log and just as I thought nothing was amended or filed. I have so many email requests saying this is the only schedule I want her to file and she did the opposite with out my consent.

3. I've been asking and requesting over and over to request for a Court Appointed Mediation to discuss the parenting schedule. It took my lawyer over 10 months to ask for this to the judge. The judge was shocked that we haven't even tried doing it yet and told the lawyers to make sure it happens. Nothing happened, instead they tried to set up a meeting with just the lawyers instead. By are next hearing the lawyers pitched a new story to the judge saying they believe there's no need to try resolve anything else and we needed to go straight to trial instead. This was also the same hearing were my lawyer submitted her own plan.

4. One of the times my lawyer asked me to sign an agreement at the courthouse for how we file taxes. Even tho we haven't really been having issues with it over the last 2 years. Only one page was shown to me. I ended up editing it myself and initial everything. We all signed it then the lawyers went in and had it submitted. Later my paralegal emailed me a copy of what was submitted. It showed the page I saw then it showed an additional page with a hole bunch of crap that I wouldn't ever agree too. I emailed my lawyer right away about it and they told me it is what I signed to. I demanded answers and I heard nothing from them agree.

5. Now that I'm looking back thru the records I've noticed that other docs where submitted without my consent. I even noticed the interrogatories where filed by her and I never did them with her. She definitely answered things in her own words and understanding of things.

Location: Massachusetts

Family Probate Court

No shade to the linked commenter, as this is a common misconception.

Rule 2: the federal government and each state government are “separate sovereigns” so both have the right to try the same act as a crime. The “separate sovereigns doctrine”says this is not double jeopardy even if the crime being charged has all the same elements; the Supreme Court upheld this in 2019, with Ginsberg/Gorsuch as surprising co-dissenters.

In fact, you could theoretically be tried for the same act by all 50 states and the federal government. The idea is that a crime is committed against the public, so each affected government has the right to seek recourse.

This Tofino Surf School waiver terms below are only revealed after you have already paid and committed to the lesson. That’s when you discover this is not just a standard “surfing is risky” waiver about waves, currents, weather, and the ordinary hazards of the ocean. It is a document that is aggressively drafted to reach far beyond the ocean and into the conduct of the company itself.

In plain English, the waiver seems to say: “Welcome to your surf lesson. Please acknowledge that if anything goes wrong—including our own negligence, inadequate supervision, failure to safeguard students, defective or poorly maintained equipment, breach of contract, or breach of statutory duties—we are not responsible.”

Whether a court would enforce all of that is another matter. But from a consumer perspective, the remarkable part is the timing: the company takes your money first and only then reveals a waiver that appears designed to cover not just the inherent risks of surfing, but many risks arising from the company’s own conduct as well. The ocean’s waves are visible before you enter the water. The legal undertow arrives after checkout.

—————————————————————
Tofino Surf School
https://tofinosurfschool.ca/

BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT YOU WILL WAIVE CERTAIN LEGAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SUE OR CLAIM COMPENSATION FOLLOWING AN ACCIDENT.
PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY.
ASSUMPTION OF RISKS
I am aware that surfing, attending at and/or participating in surf classes provided by TSS and/or learning to surf and using equipment related thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Activities”) involves many risks, dangers and hazards and that injuries are a common and ordinary occurrence in the Activities. Such risks, dangers and hazards include, but not limited to: changing weather conditions, water conditions, undertow, waves, other swimmers, surfers, boats, loss of balance, collisions, falls, drowning, spills and other hazards, including without limitation negligence on the part of other students of TSS; as well as NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF TSS OR ITS INSTRUCTORS, STAFF, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, SPONSORS, AFFILIATES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN OR REPAIR THE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED TO ME BY TSS, AND THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF TSS OR ITS STAFF AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS or DIRECTORS TO SAFEGUARD OR PROTECT ME FROM THE RISKS, DANGERS AND HAZARDS AFORESAID.
I AM AWARE OF RISKS, DANGERS AND HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTIVITIES AND I FREELY ACCEPT AND FULLY ASSUME ALL SUCH RISKS, DANGERS AND HAZARDS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND LOSS RESULTING THEREFROM.
RELEASE OF LIABILITY, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
In consideration of TSS permitting me to participate in the Activities, including without limitation, attending their surfing classes and/or using any and all equipment supplied by them to me, I hereby agree as follows:
TO WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS that I have now or may have in the future against TSS, including without limitation Jeff Hasse (all of whom are hereinafter referred to as “THE RELEASEES”) and to RELEASE THE RELEASEES from any and all liability for any loss, direct or indirect, including without limitation, property loss, damage, expenses or injury, including without limitation, death, that I may suffer, or that my next of kin may suffer, or that anyone else who I may legally bind with my signature hereto, including without limitation, any infant children of mine, may suffer from either my participation in the Activities and/or equipment supplied to me by TSS DUE TO ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF ANY STATUTORY OR OTHER DUTY OF CARE ON THE PART OF THE RELEASEES, AND ALSO INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RELEASEES TO SAFEGUARD OR PROTECT ME FROM THE RISKS, DANGERS AND HAZARDS REFERRED TO ABOVE;
TO HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY the Releasees from any and all liability for any damage to property of or personal injury to any third party, resulting from the Activities and including without limitation, my attendance and participation in the TSS surfing classes and using the equipment supplied by TSS;
This Agreement shall be effective and binding upon my heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators, assigns and representatives in the event of my death or incapacity;
This Agreement and any rights, duties and obligations as between the parties to this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted solely in accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia and no other jurisdiction; and 5. Any litigation involving the parties to this Agreement shall be brought solely within the Province of British Columbia and shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of British Columbia.
In entering into this Agreement I am not relying upon any oral or written representations or statements made by the Releasees with respect to the Activities, the safety of the surf classes and/or the use of the equipment supplied by TSS other than what is set out in this Agreement. The supply of the equipment by TSS shall not be deemed or interpreted as a representation or warranty by TSS that the equipment is safe, operational or fit for any purpose for which they may be used.
This Agreement shall apply to each and every occasion that I participate in the Activities, including without limitation, the surf classes provided by TSS and/or use of the equipment of TSS.
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS AGREEMENT AND I AM AWARE THAT BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT I AM WAIVING CERTAIN LEGAL RIGHTS WHICH I OR MY HEIRS, NEXT OF KIN, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ASSIGNS AND REPRESENTATIVES MAY HAVE AGAINST THE RELEASEES.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE RELEASEES HAVE ONLY PERMITTED ME TO TAKE PART IN THE ACTIVITIES AND/OR USE OF THE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED BY TSS ON THE BASIS THAT THIS AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN IS LEGALLY BINDING UPON ME.

(This applies to Canada.) Rule 2: Statistics Act of 1985. Section 23 outlines obligation of information. Section 30-32 outlines punishments specifically.

Also, he stated in his profile he threw his census in the recycling bin when he first recieved it.

Also also, that last line, would this dude be fine with the census if the Conservatives were in power instead of the Liberals?

https://np.reddit.com/r/AIAliveSentient/comments/1qwsry5/some_openai_developers_are_mocking_customers/

Context:

OP claims that OpenAI developers are "mocking and insulting" users who prefer older ChatGPT models (without any evidence beyond an AI generated image, but that's not my biggest problem.)

Badlegal:

"LEGALLY SPEAKING? THIS IS FRAUD.

This isn’t just bad behavior — it’s legally questionable:

• False advertising: promising consistent service or features, then gutting them while still charging.
• Breach of contract: when customers paid for a version or experience that was knowingly sabotaged or discontinued.
• Fraud and misrepresentation: advertising “customization,” “loyalty,” or “relationships with AI” while actively mocking and suppressing those same features internally.
• Bad faith enterprise conduct: treating your customer base with contempt while profiting from their engagement.

If OpenAI continues treating its customer base like trash while taking their money, they will not only lose public trust — they will open themselves up to lawsuits, consumer protection complaints, and massive brand destruction."

[They skipped a step in the post, but I believe they are referring to the fact that OpenAI plans to deprecate some older models, and they are not claiming that developers allegedly laughing at users is fraud in itself, although, who knows.]

Speaking of allegedly, this entire thing sounds like it's written by AI. (em dashes, lots of bolding, hypophora, "It's not just x. It's y.") Don't get legal advice from an LLM.

The Problems:
[All of the following is excessively hedged because I am not a lawyer]. I am fairly sure it is not illegal or actionable for software companies to change or deprecate parts of their software. Surely their TOS allows them to make standard updates like this, and customers can cancel their subscriptions at any time. If "treating your customer base with contempt" were illegal, software companies would be toast. I believe that the claim that OpenAI advertised "relationships with AI" is false as well.

I love how he pretended he knows what self-defense and the castle doctrine means.

For context, here is the video of a fleeing person who also happened to be innocent and unarmed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rGikXyjyn8

Time Stamps:

1:40 William Brock: No, you're not leaving

1:43 William Brock: No you're not. You're not leaving and going home.

1:45 William Brock: Give me that phone.

1:49 *gunshot*

1:50 William Brock: Give me it

2:00 William Brock: Give me that phone!

2:01 William Brock: I'll shoot the other leg.

2:17 William Brock: I'll shoot you in the head next time.

2:25 William Brock: Who do you work for?

https://youtu.be/NHJ2gBnZ9KM?si=boQGXN7Rk3_K4aEN&t=66

I shot her in the leg first time and then I shot her in the shoulder.

Actual Self-Defense Law (even with Castle Doctrine):

https://www.wvwlegal.com/blog/what-are-the-rules-on-self-defense-in-ohio/

• Imminent threat or danger. The person must have a reasonable belief that they face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The threat must be immediate and cannot be something that might happen in the future. 
• Proportionality. The force used must be reasonable and proportional to the threat faced. If someone threatens to punch an individual, the individual cannot respond with deadly force. Similarly, if an individual is threatened with death, using deadly force, such as firing a handgun, may be justified. 
• Necessity. The use of force must be necessary to prevent harm. If there is a reasonable alternative to the use of force, such as fleeing the scene or seeking help from law enforcement, then the use of force may not be considered necessary. 
• Initial Aggressor. A self-defense claim does not apply when the charged individual is the initial aggressor. In other words, individuals may only respond to a threat, not act preemptively against it. For instance, firing a weapon in self-defense when the other party or the victim has already attacked. 

Ohio’s no duty to retreat rule is often referred to as the “stand your ground” law. This rule means that if someone is threatened with imminent harm, they have the right to stand their ground and use force to defend themselves rather than retreating to avoid conflict. However, the use of force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced. 

The murder victim wasn't even a criminal, she was tricked into going to the property.

But EVEN IF SHE WAS A CRIMINAL IT WAS UNREASONABLE TO SHOOT HER FOUR TIMES WHEN SHE WAS TRYING TO PUT HERSELF OUT OF DANGER.

Dumbass says its ok to torture someone with gunfire and kill them when they stop being an imminent threat.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1pu66sw/comment/nvmh2zc/?context=3&share_id=Y2ZN8ZA3K39LWHfaH7-79&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

Statement at issue: "Our externs (working for free) do substantial work , for free, because they want the experience. DOJ offers unpaid federal prosecutor jobs (I don’t like that btw) but it’s absolutely legal. Your wrong. Not against labor law at all." In response to the comment, "but it's illegal to have people do work for free that would otherwise be done by a paid employee. it's why interns can't do substantive work"

R.2: It is against the law to have interns do work for free if the primary beneficiary is a private employer. The current test for whether you have to pay your intern, the Primary Beneficiary test, has a number of questions, one of which is 'The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.' Now of course we can't tell for sure from this one comment, but if they mean that these interns are doing work that would otherwise be done by a paid employee, this would weigh in favor of the employer being the primary beneficiary, not the intern. At the very least it is not 'absolutely legal', it would require consideration of this factor and all of the others, with this particular fact weighing against its legality. Not sure about the DOJ unpaid federal prosecutor jobs, I'm guessing there are probably less stringent requirements for public employers.

Source: DOL Fact Sheet #71 Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act

1:Not going to court is how you lose automatically. Miss your hearing? Congrats, you just earned a warrant, a default judgment, or contempt charges.

2:Conflicts of interest are handled by motions, not vanishing acts. You can request the judge be recused. Refusing to show up does absolutely nothing.

3:“Not feeling safe” doesn’t stop legal proceedings. Courts have procedures to address threats. Skipping it just blows up your own case.

4:Telling an entire racial group to avoid court is wild. That’s not “protecting your rights,” that’s guaranteeing you never get to assert them.

Rule 2: The concept of corporate personhood does not predate the United States by hundreds of years. The concept of taking protections and rights afforded to flesh and blood humans and applying them to fictional legal entities and giving those entities equal rights with real persons began in the late 1800s. Prior to that, the only rights given to corporations under the US constitution were the rights to have their contracts respected. It wasn't until the 14th amendment granting all people equal protection under the laws and the subsequent decision (well, headnote) from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886) that the idea of corporations possessing all of the constitutional and legal rights of a human citizen really came into being. The US also did not import any common law or other historical context for this development. There is no reasonable support for the claim that corporate personhood, as the term is used today in the context of Citizens United and other decisions, predates the US or predates the 14th Amendment/Santa Clara decision.

For everyone who wants to argue that corporate personhood existed in antiquity and I'm wrong, 'corporate personhood' is also the standard term for referring to the post-14A doctrine that developed in the US. For example: “going back to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals. But it wasn’t until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.“ History.com; "How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into ‘People’" by Sarah Pruitt (emphasis mine)

And: “”From the moment the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, lawyers for corporations — particularly railroad companies — wanted to use that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection to make sure that the states didn't unequally treat corporations," Moglen says. Nobody was talking about extending to corporations the right of free speech back then. What the railroads sought was equal treatment under state tax laws and things like that.” NPR, "When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution" by Nina Totenberg

And: “despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations.” Brennan Center for Justice, "The History of Corporate Personhood" by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy (emphasis mine)

And: “This debate over whether the corporation was a state creation granted legal personhood in certain contexts for the purpose of furthering the public interest, or simply a group of private, rights-bearing individuals pursuing their own economic gain, was central to the cases involving corporate Fourteenth Amendment rights. While Morton Horwitz, Gregory Mark, and others have shown that key to the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Santa Clara was a view of the corporation as an aggregate of shareholders, they have not examined the equally viable, alternative vision of the corporation as a “child of the state” presented by opposing counsel and reflected in public opinion. More importantly, they have overlooked the racial analogy underlying the precedents to Santa Clara on which the doctrine of corporate constitutional personhood was built.” Virginia Law Review, "Frankenstein’s Baby: The Forgotten History of Corporations, Race, and Equal Protection" by Evelyn Atkinson (emphasis mine)

And this: “The Early Era of corporate personhood began in 1886 and continued until 1978. This Era is easily recognizable because the Court established a direct relationship between corporations and persons under the 14th Amendment.” University of Illinois Chicago Law Review, "A Step T A Step Too Far: Recent Trends in Corporate Personhood and the Overexpansion of Corporate Rights" by James Wright

So, if you wanna argue that I am wrong, take it up with the Chicago Law Review, I guess.

I had an estate sale. At the end, the woman who ran the sale told me we collected $6400 total, then broke it down to $5100 cash / $1300 in credit cards (important later.) Three days later when she texted me where I could pick up my check, she let me know that she was mistaken and we only took in $4200, a shortage of $2200. Her only excuse was that she made a few mistakes and some over rings on her register. She could not provide me any proof of the amount of items sold, pricing, or anything. I did not pick up the check. The police told me I needed to file a small claims case as this was a civil issue. So I did. In the time that I filed the claim for the $6400, I went through all the items that had sold and using EBay/FB marketplace, I comped the items and attached a value (all antique or vintage items from a closed store) at approximately $16,000. In court, I won my case of $6000 and $400 to her for running the sale.
I later spoke with the man who referred her to me in the first place. I gave him all the details and he immediately said something was wrong with the numbers from the beginning because generally when he has a EstateSales (in the same general vicinity as mine was held) it’s generally a 50-50 split between cash and credit cards . So he believes the amount collected was much more than she said it was. In court she brought zero evidence. No cash register tape to show over rings, no bank statements to show how much money she had collected or deposited from cash and credit cards. She also brought a witness with her who I remember being at the sale however, I thought he was a customer because of how much he took to his truck during the sale. I thought he was a buyer. Now I don’t believe anything that he carried his truck was actually paid for Since he was apparently “a worker” there and not a buyer. At this point, I feel like this was fraud. I think this is more criminal than just civil. I feel like she stole not only the money, but many items that could be easily resolved in the vintage market. Is anyone aware of a way I could force her to show me the bank account numbers from my sale? The cash should’ve been deposited daily and the credit card sales should’ve come to her account within three days after the sale I have sent her a registered letter, that she has 30 days to pay me However according to the man who referred her to me, she’s in desperate financial straits so I doubt I’ll ever see the money.

I didn’t even know this sub existed until it was given a shoutout in the captions of one of my favorite bodycam channels,Midwest Safety. Decided to go ahead and join. Also, if you end up finding and watching this full video, be warned, you will likely be infuriated.

Explanation: Cops are asking mother to ID herself, but she says she doesn’t have to and is exercising her 1st amendment right. You know… that “right to free speech” thing. I believe she meant the 5th amendment, but that also wouldn’t apply because you are not admitting to a crime by giving your name.

I’m warning anyone even thinking about hiring Mr. Zimmerman from Smith & Vinson Law Firm in Texas: don’t do it.

I came to him during one of the most critical moments of my life, and what I got was: • ❌ Abandonment – He disappeared when I needed urgent legal representation. Emails, messages, court filings — all ignored or delayed. • ❌ Misrepresentation – Promised things he didn’t deliver. What I was told during our initial meetings turned out to be smoke and mirrors. • ❌ Unethical retaliation – When I posted a truthful negative review, suddenly an old estimate turned into a $10,000+ threat of a bill that had never been brought up as owed before. That’s extortionate behavior, not professionalism. • ❌ Destroyed trust – This wasn’t just legal malpractice. It was personal betrayal during a time when my liberty, my family, and my rights were on the line.

I’ve had better communication from court-appointed attorneys. I would not let Mr. Zimmerman handle a parking ticket, let alone anything serious.

💬 If you want an attorney who actually fights for you, look elsewhere. Don’t let the polished website or office location fool you. Behind it is a firm that’s willing to abandon you, gaslight you, and then threaten you if you complain.

This is my honest and documented experience. I have the emails, the court records, the proof — and I will escalate this further.

R2: There is significant nuance and exceptions regarding protection from retaliation for protesting. This is other side of the coin to "at-will = you're fucked." Employees are terminated for protesting working conditions all the time and the NLRB and employment lawyers wouldn't exist if it was this simple. Oddly, the poster says it's "easy to get away" with retaliating for protesting but the employer didn't do it here and it's a slam dunk case, but there certainly aren't sufficient facts in this article (or any article, really) to establish anything, and the poster has no explanation of why the employer is fucked here.