Indiana General Practice Legal Questions

Hi Thomas. We spoke a few weeks back about your fiancé adjustment of status case. I can handle the case from start to finish for $1,500 flat fee (no hidden costs) split up into two payments. ($750 down then $750 when the case is filed. Her medical exam in the Philippines will still be valid for a year from when her Doctor signed the form. Otherwise, she will need to retake. ... Read Answer

Not unless the will provides or you have some claim as an heir intestate. Your "understanding" is of no value especially if there was a will. You are legally nothing more than the guest of the decendant and now that they have passed, you residency will be subject to the decisions of the new owners. ... Read Answer

You can put it in your will, but I don't think it would be very effective. first of all, the disclsoure is likely to be made befoe the will is read.  Second, the person disclosing (for example, the medical examiner) will probably not be aware of the will.  Third, how do you enforce it?  It might be possible to have an enforcement mechanism against those inheriting, for example you get the house unless you disclose my ccause of death, but there would be no penalty for anyone who was not receiving anything under the will, and even if it wsa someon who inherited, enforcing it would require someone an interest to sue the discloser, and it might be very difficult to prove who did it. ... Read Answer

What do you mean by allowed?  Of course, lawyers have the same first amendment rights as anyone else to have tattoos without government interference, and of course a lawyer's private employer may forbid them, again like anyone else's private employer.  Given the prevalence of tattoos these days, I think it unlikely that anyone would care.... Read Answer

You can sue the people who sold the cart for the damages  you suffered rom their conversion (theft), i.e. the value of the cart, but have no claim to recover the cart from the purchasers unless the purchasers knew, or had reason to know, that the cart did not belong to the sellers.  Absent such knowledge, the purchasers are what is known as "bona fide purchasers for value", against whom you would not have a valid claim.... Read Answer

The answer to your first question is no, a constitutional provision trumps a local ordinance.  The answer to the second is maybe.  Does the Constitution specifically provide the right to hunt with a gun or bow?  Does the local ordinance prohibit all use of a gun or bow?  Does it allow it, for example, in uninhabited areas?  Localities do have a right to regulate even constittutionally protected activities in reasonable ways.  For example,you have a constitutionally protected right to freedome of speech, but that doesn't mean that a town can't prohibit the use of a bullhorn at 2 A.M.... Read Answer

As a general rule, when you give someone something, whether it be information, or money, or a pair of sneakers, they are free to do what they like with it.  There are certain exceptions, such as healthcare information shared with your doctor, privileged information shared with your lawyer, etc., but I'm not aware (although I am by no means an expert) of any statute prohibiting a website from sharing information with which you willingly provide it.  If you want the information you provide to remain confidential, you would need an agreement beforehand that it is not to be shared. I understand why you're freaked, but for what it's worth, I doubt that you will have any trouble.  If any dangerous inmates get out, I'm sure they will have much more to deal with than harassing you.  ... Read Answer

A power of attorney does not survive the death of the party who granted it.  At any rate, all it does is empower one party to act for another.  It does not impose any personal financial responsibility on the person who has it.  Thus, for example, you may take out a bank loan for your friend if he has authorized you to do so with a power of attorney, but you're not responsible for paying back his loan if he doesn't.... Read Answer

No and no.  Your cousin is an employee of the bank, and the bank, while it should not share the information with third parties, certainly has the right to look at its own account information.  Sharing the information with the account holder (your grandma) was not improper in any way.  Arguably, depending on the instructions your grandma had given them about sharing the information with her kids, your cousin should not have shared the information with your grandma's kids, but that is between the bank and your grandma; if she agreed to it, either before or after the fact, it would be permissible, but either way the grievance would be your grandma's, not yours.  As for fruit of the poisonous tree, it does not apply for at least two reasons.  First, the term refers to evidence gathered BY THE POLICE as the result of an illegal search; this evidence was gathered by private parties.  Second, if anyone's rights were violated, it was your grandma's, not yours.  Therefore, if improper evidence was gathered against her, she could protest, but there is nothing to stop the evidence from being used against  you.... Read Answer