|
Incredulous Red posted:1) What do you mean by "in-law" apartment? 1. Just lower level of a two house. It's indirectly connected to the other part of the house through the garage as the stairs up from the lower level and down from the main level meet there. 2. Connecticut 3. No, said person does not and hasn't paid in part of the utilities or rent.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:1. Just lower level of a two house. It's indirectly connected to the other part of the house through the garage as the stairs up from the lower level and down from the main level meet there. How did this guy come to take up residence in your house anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
Not us actually, other family, but the problem is it's one of those touchy mother/kid issues. Long story short at one point said daughter was living with mother, and was supposed to be paying rent, but started doing a lot of hosed up things so the mother and step father began the eviction process, before it was done though the daughter had moved out to an apartment. Flash forward some time, more bad things happen, daughter moves back into in-law apartment, but not paying rent or anything, her mother took her back in out of the fact she had nowhere else to go. Well a little more time goes by and the daughter just keeps doing terrible things to the point the mother calls the cops to try to get the daughter and her b/f to leave, as she was under the assumption she can just say leave and they'd have to go since she was not a renter. Well cops come and say they can't do that because technically she's taken up residence here so they have to go through the eviction process. Well the daughter has been out of said house for over a month now living in a variety of places. So at what point would it count as abandoning the residence? (Also for note this isn't a case of some whiny 18 year old brat who can't get their poo poo together and an over reacting mother, the mother/daughter involved are 26 and 47 respectively)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Not us actually, other family, but the problem is it's one of those touchy mother/kid issues. Long story short at one point said daughter was living with mother, and was supposed to be paying rent, but started doing a lot of hosed up things so the mother and step father began the eviction process, before it was done though the daughter had moved out to an apartment. quote:Sec. 47a-11a. Abandonment of unit by tenant. Have fun. Personally, if you know where she's staying, I'd consider just evicting her, because (1) she's not paying rent and has never paid rent, (2) you know where to serve her, (3) you won't have to prove whether or not she has intended to abandon the premises. But I'm not a lawyer. Here's an eviction handbook: http://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/landlord.html#evict http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/hm014.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:the mother/daughter involved are 26 and 47 respectively That doesn't sound right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Any screwing up of the criminal issue happened with pleading guilty/ being found guilty on the ordinance violation; paying the fine is immaterial. If someone's already been found guilty (and been ordered by the court to pay a fine), paying the fine can't make someone any more guilty. Oh crap, I tried. Anyway, the finding against d. (fine, me) in the ordinance was for failure to appear (as per the lawyers advice "oh don't worry, I'll go"--he did, filed no appearance and said nothing during proceedings). Lawyer has his fee, had it way before the ordinance hearing. Motion to dismiss due to double jeopardy was denied in criminal court. I thought that my lawyer was representing me for the ordinance, I found out Tuesday that he was not--only for the felony...but he will for $750 more... And my stomach sinks lower and lower... I filed my Motion for Continuance today and will be spending the weekend in the local law library. Ugh!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Yeah, most states are like that. It's a backdoor way of funding the court system. When MN raised court fees to $84, not a cent of that increase went to the courts, prosecutors/PDs, or police (unless it went in and made its way out accidentally). Thanks pawpaw!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
Would someone mind explaining to me the difference between the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" standards? I'm trying to better understand the new immigration law in Arizona, and I want to know exactly how abusive it is. If there's a link outside of Wiki that explains it, I'll take that as well. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Would someone mind explaining to me the difference between the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" standards? I'm trying to better understand the new immigration law in Arizona, and I want to know exactly how abusive it is. If there's a link outside of Wiki that explains it, I'll take that as well. Burdens of proof are like pornography; a cop/judge knows them when he/she sees them. Probable cause is the amount of evidence required to justify an arrest or a search warrant; 'some reason to believe' that a person committed a crime or that certain contraband will be found in a certain place. Reasonable suspicion is something less than probable cause and something more than 'mere suspicion.' Reasonable suspicion is best known as the basis for a Terry stop [opinion] [wiki] which is a brief investigatory stop and /or a pat-down search for weapons, based on an officer's reasonable suspicion, plus articulable facts that a specific person is armed if he wants to do a pat-down. So basically, under the passed AZ law if a cop thinks he has enough reason to stop or frisk you, he can also ask you about your immigration status. If you can't provide any proof, that additional information would be enough to amount to probable cause to arrest you. So, that means the courts get involved, and a judge gets to hear the cop's BS justification (he seemed nervous; he didn't seem to want to talk to me; he was in a day labor line; he wouldn't make eye contact; you fill in the blank) Surely the judge will find the stop unreasonable and throw the case out... Unfortunately, no. EVEN IF hell freezes over and an immigration judge rules against the cops and for an illegal, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply in deportation proceedings. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (opinion) [The exclusionary rule is what gives teeth to a court's ruling that an action is unconstitutional. Because the Constitution does not give a remedy for unconstitutional police actions, the Supreme Court created one in the 19 teens; if the police get evidence illegally (like from an illegal stop, arrest, search, etc.) that evidence is excluded from the case against you; the State can't use it.] However, in Lopez-Mendoza the US Supreme Court said (basically) 1: deportation is a civil matter so the exclusionary rule doesn't apply, and 2: if you're here illegally, you're still illegal no matter how you got picked up - GTFO. The only way this law will fail legally is if a U.S. citizen gets picked up, suffers damages of some sort as a result, and successfully sues the State. e: graphics! 
joat mon fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Apr 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The only way this law will fail legally is if a U.S. citizen gets picked up, suffers damages of some sort as a result, and successfully sues the State. Thanks, I figured it was completely hosed up, but I wanted to make sure. As far as damages are concerned, couldn't the first non-white legal resident/citizen/visa holder simply claim that they were being racially profiled, and would that be enough to claim damages? I mean hell, what's to stop a group of folks with a certain "look" to them from choosing to vacation in Arizona hoping to be asked for their papers to this very end?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
uG posted:In Michigan if you received an arrest warrant for violation of probation will your hearing not be scheduled until after you're arrested? I would be surprised if any jurisdiction scheduled a hearing before there was any reason to believe the parties would appear. If you think you've got such a warrant, get an attorney. Have him/her get in touch with the judge/DA/probation officer so your attorney can surrender you. Maybe your attorney can work out the violation issue, or at least have a chance of getting you a personal recognizance bond since you turned yourself in. (demonstrating that you're a good risk to show up for the parole violation hearing)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
I've suddenly gotten into a bit of a clusterfuck of a situation with my apartment and am looking for some advice. Apologies if this is stuff that's been touched on already, I've spent so long looking all over the internet for information I may have missed it glancing through the thread. Anyway, I rent my apartment. Included with the rent is water. All other utilities I pay. A couple months ago I get a letter from attorneys representing a bank saying the landlord had entered into an Assignment of Rents with the bank, which financed the property. So at that point I was to start paying rent to the bank and not the landlord. Fine, I've heard of this at least in passing before, it all checked out, every tenant in my building (18 units) was told to do so. Fast forward to today. The city shows up and shuts off the water. Apparently the landlord owes $6,000. This starts to make sense when we consider he's already had to enter an Assignment of Rents with the bank, he obviously owes money everywhere and hasn't been paying anything. We ask the city if we can instead open up individual accounts and start paying our own water. No dice, it apparently has to go through the building owner, something or other about the meter running into the building. No one can track down the landlord. Apparently he has other buildings in town that are already in foreclosure. No one knew about this. He owes money all over town we're told. So now I have no water, and the city is saying that legally speaking in 48 hours if water isn't turned back on through payment of the outstanding bill, the entire 18 unit building can be declared unfit for living in and condemned. We can't pay a $6,000 bill of some guy we can't find, so we can't figure out a way to get water back. My question now lies in this: I clearly need to get the gently caress out of here. I have been led to believe I can write a letter to the landlord (if I can track down an address where he would be) saying that he is under violation of the Landlord-Tenant code of Virginia stating he has to maintain a habitable building by providing running water and thus the lease is broken and I no longer have to pay rent and am free to move (or at least that's what I gather in a nutshell? Something about a constructive eviction?) But if the rent is now going to the bank as an Assignment of Rents, doesn't that mean they have the lease now as well? So they would have to pay the water and get it back on or would I have to notify them I'm not paying rent and am leaving? It's not like I even have another place picked out yet. That's first thing in the morning. I just know that there's very little I can do here legally, and I want to cover my tracks so I don't lose any more rent to a lost cause but also don't get sued later for not paying someone I still should have. Wow that's a lot of words. Thanks guys! This literally came out of nowhere, not a single one of us had any clue what was going down with this guy. I feel like a helpless idiot for not seeing the writing on the wall and getting stuck in this position but that's how it goes, could always be worse. warheadr fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
warheadr posted:I've suddenly gotten into a bit of a clusterfuck of a situation with my apartment and am looking for some advice. Apologies if this is stuff that's been touched on already, I've spent so long looking all over the internet for information I may have missed it glancing through the thread. Start by contacting the attorneys for the bank. If you all stop paying your rent, the bank will lose. So they have some motivation to solve the problem. Whether they will be permitted to solve the problem by the water company is a different matter. But certainly, don't pay the bank if you are not receiving a habitable dwelling. I am not a Virginia lawyer, but I would be shocked if the assignment gave the bank any greater rights than the landlord had. If, under the VA code, your liability for rent is cut off by the landlord's behavior, then your liability to the bank is likely cut off as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 11:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I would be surprised if any jurisdiction scheduled a hearing before there was any reason to believe the parties would appear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
uG posted:Should I get an attorney from the city im on probation from (its not the city I live in), or the attorney from my city that handled my previous case which is how I violated? I'm guessing jurisdiction "A" with the older case has the probation violation warrant for you, based upon your picking up the newer case in jurisdiction "B"? Get an attorney in jurisdiction "A" unless the attorney for your new case in "B" also knows the people and the system in jurisdiction "A". You should have told your attorney for the new case about your old case. Your attorney should have taken care of both cases, or at least greased the skids where you had the old case. (Unless there was a tactical decision by the attorney to keep that information close to the vest in order to improve your chances of probation in the new case) I hope that made sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
Say, if I wanted to post a rant on the internet about my state senator, without leveling any accusations or threats, but using fairly abusive language (saying "go fist yourself" seven or eight times reaching a grotesque crescendo), that's protected speech, right? Like as long as I don't suggest someone *should* go fist her, or suggest that she engages in fisting, or say anything otherwise libelous, I'm not opening myself up to prosecution, right? I know anyone can bring suit against anyone for anything, but is it likely? I mean, I'm aware it's a freaking comedy blog, and it's a freaking state senator, so this isn't exactly the biggest deal in the world, but I'm really not in a position where it'd be advantageous to get my door busted down and be arrested for threatening a public servant, even though there's no threatening language.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:Say, if I wanted to post a rant on the internet about my state senator, without leveling any accusations or threats, but using fairly abusive language (saying "go fist yourself" seven or eight times reaching a grotesque crescendo), that's protected speech, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
Don't say it though because that would misogynistic as heck and you should try and be better than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'm guessing jurisdiction "A" with the older case has the probation violation warrant for you, based upon your picking up the newer case in jurisdiction "B"? I was surprised to get the arrest warrant notification though. My probation officer from jurisdiction A told my probation officer from jurisdiction B (I have two since I have the one from where I live and report to, and then my actual one that he reports to) that if my sentence on my new crime was harsh enough that she would wouldn't give me any time. So my probation officer in jurisdiction B recommended a rather harsh sentence (that I had already served all of before being bonded out) in hopes of me not doing and probation violation time. Next thing I know I have the arrest notification from jurisdiction B. I figured i'd get a notification for a hearing like I mentioned before. I'm hoping the whole arrest thing is an automatic thing and that ultimately when my hearing takes place they don't give me any time... but I kinda assume that if that was the case I wouldn't have an arrest warrant notice. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:49
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:Say, if I wanted to post a rant on the internet about my state senator, without leveling any accusations or threats, but using fairly abusive language (saying "go fist yourself" seven or eight times reaching a grotesque crescendo), that's protected speech, right? gvibes posted:Really, really doubt that would be illegal. Though, of course, you can be sued for whatever they want to sue you for. So long as you're not in the military. ^^^^^^^ yeah, you can do better than fisting (unless it's Nancy Elliot, but that's old news)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
i saw dasein posted:Don't say it though because that would misogynistic as heck and you should try and be better than that. In fairness, it is directed at everyone in the state senate who's taking credit for the bill she started direct-marketing about. I shall throw in a disclaimer noting that male state senators can also go fist themselves. Ed.: It's Andrea Stewart Cousins. This was about repealing a law that allowed convenience stores and gas stations to sell wine, and she had a volunteer calling around talking about how great this was for "Main Street Small Town America" (I believe she represents lower Westchester county) and how she's saving America's children (from... buying wine... from the same places that will still sell beer). I was looking for something to articulate the level of loathing this sort of "puffing up oneself on account of having passed meaningless legislation FOR THE CHILDREN" brings about in me, and "go fist yourself" was really the most loathsome thing, but I guess I could come up with something more originally vulgar. Y'know, if it's legal. betaraywil fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
uG posted:Next thing I know I have the arrest notification from jurisdiction B. This doesn't make sense. Is it a typo? uG posted:The reason my attorney didn't take care of both cases is because he was a public defender for the new case. Were you able to get your PD to go back and try to get you a restricted license? uG posted:I figured i'd get a notification for a hearing like I mentioned before. I'm hoping the whole arrest thing is an automatic thing and that ultimately when my hearing takes place they don't give me any time... but I kinda assume that if that was the case I wouldn't have an arrest warrant notice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:state senators can also go fist themselves...[over]...repealing a law that allowed convenience stores and gas stations to sell wine Oy veh. Have a glass and chill. If that's the worst law or worst rhetoric your legislators are pushing, pour yourself another glass from me, because you live in a well governed paradise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Oy veh. Have a glass and chill. See, that bothers me (the rhetoric, not so much the law) and that's why I want them to fist themselves. Plus it's sort of a comedy thing. But let's not derail; thanks for the legal advice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
joat mon posted:This doesn't make sense. Is it a typo? The clerk for my judge is looking into my license thing. In any case, I can't get a restricted license until my license has been suspended for 60 days. Luckily my boss is a good guy and picks me up for work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:Say, if I wanted to post a rant on the internet about my state senator, without leveling any accusations or threats, but using fairly abusive language (saying "go fist yourself" seven or eight times reaching a grotesque crescendo), that's protected speech, right? For you personally, there's no law against being an rear end in a top hat. More generally speaking, NPR's "On The Media" reported recently that a defamation insurance rider on your renters or homeowner's insurance is really loving cheap. The author himself paid $3 per year for it. If you're the type of person that speaks out at public meetings, has a blog with commentary that puts someone in a negative light or are paranoid about SLAPP lawsuits, it's cheaper than a latte to protect yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
This is probably super  About a week ago, I was right behind a minor rear-end collision. I was about to merge back into traffic when one of the involved drivers got out of her car and flagged me down. I was on my way to work, but they asked me for a statement that I witnessed the accident. I wrote something vague about seeing the one rear-end the other, and gave them my name and phone number before leaving. No police had arrived, but I think one of the involved drivers was calling them at the time. State Farm called me later that day, and I gave them pretty much the same statement. Now the county sheriff's department is calling me in relation to the accident to give a statement. I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm worried about talking to the police and inadvertently getting more involved, or charged with something. Watching that whole Don't Talk to Police video made me kinda paranoid. Southern California, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure if you guys can help me with so little info, but I guess it's worth a shot. Sorry in advance if I don't use the proper legal terms. I'll start with some back info. Anyways, the father of my 3 younger siblings (never married) was hit by a truck in Colorado. He signed an agreement that my mom would receive $10,800 out of the settlement from the drivers insurance company. He moved out here to Nebraska and stayed with us for a few months. He hired an attorney in Colorado, got all of his medical things done in Nebraska, and then moved back to Colorado. His attorney offered my mom $3,500 and the hospitals/clinics/surgery centers a percentage of the settlement. She didn't agree to it as of yet, and we recently heard that the child support lean would take precedent over anything. I've been looking into it and can't really find a definitive answer. Like I said, it's a shot in the dark but if anyone could even point me in the right direction as far as research on it goes, it would be much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
betaraywil posted:See, that bothers me (the rhetoric, not so much the law) and that's why I want them to fist themselves. Plus it's sort of a comedy thing. I agree that the rhetoric is the more troublesome part of it - maybe you could express your displeasure in a more constructive but still satisfying way. Start with who's really pulling her strings - it's not the children, they don't vote and more importantly, they don't give campaign contributions. The list of her contributors and their names and addresses are publicly available, and almost certainly online. Find out who they are; google their names and find out what they do. Are any of them on ABC boards or liquor wholesaler/ liquor store trade associations? Hmm... liquor stores... they might have an interest in preventing convenience stores from selling wine... IF you can develop that information, you've got ammo for something more interesting than a vulgar and self-centered cathartic: "AAAGH MY WINE FUUU CHILDREN MY LEFT NUT FUUUU FISTING FUUU!!!!!" If you could make that connection, you can legitimately call her a whore; a whore for the liquor stores, and a pimp; pimping out the people's children to fill her campaign coffers with the liquor business' baksheesh. That's useful to the political process; fisting isn't. [/derail] (civics is law-like, isn't it?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 04:54
|
|
|
uG posted:Do you think I could hire an attorney 'just' to get the warrant dropped and a hearing scheduled? uG posted:To me, it seems like an attorney won't be much help in a probation violation hearing where the violation was a new crime... there isn't much in the way of defending my action. But I could very well be wrong. Around here, having an attorney in your situation would be the difference between prison and not prison. But then again, we're in the top 5 for percentage of population in prison (and #1 for percentage of women incarcerated. Yay us!) (Ideally) your attorney will know what things your judge wants to hear. He/she will know which facts matter and which ones don't. He/she will know how to get the DA on your side or how to blunt the DA's attack. He/she will know how to best use your probation officers to help you. get an attorney If you go to jail, you'll probably get a PD. You'll be in custody, which will suck. If your boss will hold your job, your attorney will still be able to argue that you can work and stay out of trouble and pay taxes and fines and PO fees and not cost the state $50+ a day to keep you in prison. And your attorney can argue that the state's already taken enough of that pound of flesh by keeping you in jail until your hearing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Was I having a dream, or isn't it completely illegal for cops to set up checkpoints and just pull over X number of cars that are not seen to be performing any violations and request licenses and registrations? I'm not talking about times they set up with five cars in busy areas on summer holidays and they wait for drunks and speeders and whatnot to pull over, I mean pulling over drivers who aren't visibly breaking any laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 08:52
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Was I having a dream, or isn't it completely illegal for cops to set up checkpoints and just pull over X number of cars that are not seen to be performing any violations and request licenses and registrations? I'm not talking about times they set up with five cars in busy areas on summer holidays and they wait for drunks and speeders and whatnot to pull over, I mean pulling over drivers who aren't visibly breaking any laws. Why would that be illegal? You basically agree to allowing the cops to stop you anytime they want when you get your license.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 08:54
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:Why would that be illegal? You basically agree to allowing the cops to stop you anytime they want when you get your license. I don't know how they do things in Soviet Russia but holding a driver's license in America does not give police the right to stop you whenever they feel like it just because. e: Although further research suggests in some states that's just fine. Looks like regulatory stops are basically exempt from the 4th amendment but depending on the state, they may or may not be allowed to use them as sobriety checks. Answered my own question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 09:19
|
|
|
Reztes posted:This is probably super If you are genuinely worried you can ask if you are under suspicison of something and they should have to tell you. But it seems overwhelmingly likely that the rear driver is going to be charged with careless driving or similar and being the third party with no personal stake in the matter your statement/testimony will be the difference between a conviction and an aquittal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 09:26
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Was I having a dream, or isn't it completely illegal for cops to set up checkpoints and just pull over X number of cars that are not seen to be performing any violations and request licenses and registrations? I'm not talking about times they set up with five cars in busy areas on summer holidays and they wait for drunks and speeders and whatnot to pull over, I mean pulling over drivers who aren't visibly breaking any laws. Why the hell would this be illegal? This is probably one of the least racist/capricious things that police actually do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 12:39
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Was I having a dream, or isn't it completely illegal for cops to set up checkpoints and just pull over X number of cars that are not seen to be performing any violations and request licenses and registrations? I'm not talking about times they set up with five cars in busy areas on summer holidays and they wait for drunks and speeders and whatnot to pull over, I mean pulling over drivers who aren't visibly breaking any laws. As a matter of federal law, police checkpoints are generally constitutional. Individual states are free to outlaw them, though -- Michigan has (which is interesting, because it was a Michigan case that established their constitutionality).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
So long as the police follow a regular and verifiable pattern of stopping cars, there is no constitutional issue. This can mean every car, every third car, every red car, etc. It could possibly extend to every foreign car, but I don't recall any language specifically on point for that. In order to show discrimination, there has to be some showing of discriminatory intent on the part of the police. Showing a disparate impact on people of [protected class] isn't necessarily enough, although it will weigh strongly in court. If the police were stopping every Cadillac Escalade with spinners or Honda Civic with a huge gently caress-off spoiler, that would probably be unconstitutional. Also, I'm an attorney in Tennessee and I'm happy at least to read and maybe to answer any questions via pm or email if you don't want to post it in the thread of some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:As a matter of federal law, police checkpoints are generally constitutional. Individual states are free to outlaw them, though -- Michigan has (which is interesting, because it was a Michigan case that established their constitutionality). D.C. has challenged them and I believe found them illegal, though the Metro PD does them anyway. It was a big scandal last year because they basically said gently caress you, and someone got fired over it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Why the hell would this be illegal? This is probably one of the least racist/capricious things that police actually do. Not if they're only set up in predominately minority neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Alright let's see if I can put this as not retarded as possible... I know a glass blower and want to sell glass pipes (for tobacco use only!) on the internet with a fancy web page because Im poor and have a worthless degree. Couple of things First though - I'm in Florida - where we either just passed, or will be passing HB 187/SB 366 (not positive on the fine details, very little press on the matter and thus little internet-able info) which is amongst other things a ban on all types of "Tobacco Pipes", metal, ceramic, stone, glass etc - everything - unless the shop that sells them derives 75% of it's profit from tobacco sales. Q1: How would this affect a web store vs. a physical store? And also: I am aware that federally to a certain extent all pipes or manner of paraphernalia even tweezers deemed to be roach clips can be illegal - and than in the past retails of glass pipes such as Tommy Chong have been busted federally, not just by their state governments. See operation pipe dreams. I'm fairly sure that Chong's only offense was not merely selling glass pipes but a confluence of factors including the heinous crimes of 1) admitting to multiple informants that yes, the products were meant for smoking pot. 2) calling them "Bongs" rather than tobacco water pipes in a cheeky marketing effort to rhyme Chong with Bong and 3) being (or being seen as by the gov't) a massive cultural cannabis Icon who 'needed to be made a lesson of" tl:dr - Q2) How much risk does the everyday average pipe shop-website owner who flies comparatively under the radar assume, compared to the largely high-dollar high-profile figures targeted federally in the past. Q3) Can I start a web site and sell glass pipes (for tobacco use only!!) )without excessive fear of legal recourse? Q4) Does living in Florida with it's newly passed or passing laws affect my ability to do so? I am aware that the most likely answer is "you're fine but the risk is always there that for whatever reason LEO could choose to shut you down", but I was curious if I could find a more optimistic or pessimistic view on here, especially with all of the online head shops that exist today compared to 2003 when Operation Pipe Dreams occurred. Thanks in advance. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 07:26
|
|