Top legal guidance New Jersey, US from John Sandy Ferner? Should I Mediate My Family Law Issues? Absolutely. You should mediate your family law issues, whether those are divorce issues or post-judgment issues. Mediation is an excellent way to reach resolution without spending a ton of money and without going to court a bunch of times and arguing left and right over every issue. Recently, I had a case, and it looked like it was heading towards litigation, and the parties were really far apart on every issue. They had financial issues, which involved real estate holdings, business interests, stock options, retirement accounts, and the parties could not see eye to eye on any of these issues. Early in the process, my adversary and I discussed going to mediation, and we selected a great mediator, and our clients agreed to go to mediation, and literally, within three sessions of mediation, we resolved the case. We resolved the entire case, which would have taken over a year and may have been a ten-fold in costs to litigate. The parties were able to come up with creative solutions with our help, of course, and the mediator’s help, which the court would’ve never ever implemented in a case such as this. Read more info at Sandy Ferner.
Law advice of the day by John 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.
Property owners must ensure that their premises are safe for visitors and guests. Not only does this include eliminating slip and fall accident hazards, but this also includes every other part of the premises where people could pass through. Some of the most common causes of premises liability accidents include accidental poisonings, defective displays, faulty stairs, elevators, or escalators, and more. Product manufacturers, companies, distributors, and third-party sellers have the duty to ensure that any product sold to consumers is safe. Unfortunately, there are times when defective products make it to the market. This can include products with defective designs, products damaged during the manufacturing process, and products that have misleading or inaccurate labels.
Your first indication that you have been sued is when you begin receiving advertisement letters from lawyers offering their help because you are being sued. Lawsuits can be scary and confusing. Lawyers can help you understand what’s happening, though. Law firms have access to the basic information contained in a lawsuit (who is suing, who is being sued, the dollar amount claimed, etc.) through the various courts’ and clerks’ computer systems.
Why You Need a Lawyer? In New Jersey, child custody matters are complex. Complex cases require an attorney. It is virtually impossible for a person to represent themselves through the court system in a true custody case. If we’re talking about just negotiating a couple of days of parenting time here or there, people represent themselves all the time; but if it’s a true custody case, and there’s the welfare of the child at stake, there are going to be experts involved. They could be court-appointed experts or they could be experts who you individually retain. Our courts are guided by a statute that has a lot of factors, which deal with custody and parenting time, and those factors are very case-specific and they need to be addressed – the provable facts, along with our experts to those factors – and then presented to a court. If you’re going to have a true custody case, you definitely want to be represented by an experienced attorney who has tried and dealt with custody cases.
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.