|
I work for a very small not-for-profit in Illinois and there is a chance that myself and my co-workers could be losing our jobs within the next couple of months. The crux of the situation is that the organization is affiliated with a certain religious faith but there some board members who feel that the organization is not "____ enough" since none of the staff members are adherents of that faith and a couple of other issues which have been going on long before I started and which I don't understand. As a result the organization could decide to "restructure" which would mean that all staff (only 3 people) would be laid off. I currently only work there one day a week for a small wage but it means a lot to me right now as its my only work Is it possible to sue the organization/or the governing body of the faith for violating equal employment if they choose to do this? Could it possibly be worth it since I don't make that much anyways? I realize I am probably being too vague in order to actually get an answer. I would appreciate it if someone would be willing to help through PM though I hope all information would be in confidence.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Maybe. Talk to an employment lawyer in your state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
I have a custody/child support question, and my situation is pretty weird. My son Chris is 16. After this school year, he will be coming to live with me, he will be 17 at that time. baby's mama will be staying where she's at, so I'll have him full time, barring vacations. I live in Louisiana. Baby's mama lives in maryland, where Chris currently lives. California currently collects child support, which I pay and then it's sent to baby's mama in Maryland. We were never married, and I am not on Chris's birth certificate. Because of this, I'm the "non-custodial parent" on the child support order. There are no disagreements between her and I, she is willing to work with me to make the move possible. However, she doesn't want to expend a lot of effort, so I'll be doing all the legwork. Without getting into legal jargon, I would like the following things to happen: 1. I have all the legal poo poo in order to send him to school, take him to the doctor, and get him health insurance. 2. I no longer have to pay child support. 3. I DON'T have baby's mama paying child support. Is there a remotely easy way to do this? As long as Both her and I are legally protected, I'm fine with any way to accomplish these goals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 01:38
|
|
Their flashing tongues, spitting out blood and poison.
|
The SituAsian posted:Is it possible to sue the organization/or the governing body of the faith for violating equal employment if they choose to do this? Could it possibly be worth it since I don't make that much anyways? The relationship between the non-profit and the church is going to be important, as will any state law on the subject (the odds are against you on the Federal side, especially if the non-profit is closely tied to the church) You need a lawyer who specializes in this particular niche of employment law. Since you don't make that much anyways, he/she may not be that interested. malal posted:I live in Louisiana. You need a LA family law attorney who's familiar with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Hopefully the child support order is out of CA and not MD. Since the mother of your child (that isn't so hard, is it?) is amenable, it shouldn't be too hard; but if you don't do it right, you could end up owing a lot of back child support to CA/MD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
sorry, I was trying to be funny, I appreciate your response. The child support order is in fact out of CA, and I've paid my child support his whole life. how could I possibly end up owing more in arrears? One last question, assuming I only need the attorney to file everything, any idea how much I'll end up paying? I fully understand that prices range wildly, I'm just looking for a ballpark figure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
malal posted:sorry, I was trying to be funny, I appreciate your response. You could owe more if you stop paying without getting it fixed properly - you'll still owe arrears no matter what, though. I just checked with someone smarter than me - you'll need to do this in MD or CA since your son isn't an LA resident. If you change the child support arrangements and you are also paying an arrearage, you'll have to get the state of CA involved; so it might be easier to do this in CA and then get the agreed order modifying child support/custody registered in LA. Guestimate on price? $1000, give or take $500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
alright, I'll look into doing it in cali first. Thanks for all your help! I'm hoping it's not too difficult, there are no arrears on the support order and she and I are in agreement for having him move in with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Hi, I've been doing a little t-shirt printing as of late and needed to ask you a question about what I can and cannot make legally. I have an idea for a shirt, it has the name of a local public high school, a graphic of the mascot, and a weed related play on the name of the team. Is it safe to make this? I live in Tennessee by the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Hi, I've been doing a little t-shirt printing as of late and needed to ask you a question about what I can and cannot make legally. I have an idea for a shirt, it has the name of a local public high school, a graphic of the mascot, and a weed related play on the name of the team. Is it safe to make this? I live in Tennessee by the way. Is the mascot trademarked/copyrighted? Are you a student of this high school?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
Hi again, more legal advice please :P (Grayslake, IL) My girlfriend's dad is an incredibly controlling rear end in a top hat who wants to steal her financial aid money. We live together in an apartment and her parents live 30 miles away. My gf had the random luck of being selected for an audit to make sure she/her parents are actually as broke as they say they are (they are). At first he didn't want to comply with it because he "didn't know if [my gf] was going to be eligible for financial aid next spring". Now he wants her to sign a release so he can "go in and talk to them without [my gf] knowing", also some bs about him not having to go in twice because they'll have a lot of questions like last time (they thought he made like 1mil$ last time, he didn't). Obviously she doesn't have to sign the release since she's an adult, but what happens if he doesn't comply with the audit? She can't file as an independent because she's not 26 years old, a graduate student, in the military, other bullshit conditions that don't include living on your own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Bodybuilding Virgin 420 fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Is the mascot trademarked/copyrighted? Are you a student of this high school? I'm not sure if its trademarked, but I doubt it. It is a generic indian chief. And no, I am out of high school.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I'm not sure if its trademarked, but I doubt it. It is a generic indian chief. And no, I am out of high school. Next question, is there any history regarding this team or it's members that might result in people thinking that you were making a serious accusation of drug taking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
Bodybuilding Virgin 420 posted:I was assaulted in Brooklyn by four guys a few days ago. I remember walking out of the subway exit, then the next thing I remember I woke up in the ambulance and the EMT was telling me what happened. They gave me a few facial fractures and broke my jaw, its going to be wired shut for 4 weeks. Someone from the district attorney's office emailed me the supporting deposition and it says they are only going to be charged with 3rd degree assault, menacing in the 3rd degree, and 2nd degree harassment which are all minor charges. Two of them are adults and the other two are juveniles. My question is, is there any way to give them more severe criminal charges and is there any use in trying to file a civil suit against them? I don't know how much money they have and am not sure how to find out. How severely to charge (and whether to charge at all) is the DA's call. Around here, a person could gather signatures to call a grand jury to hear a case the person thought he DA ignored; I don't know about Brooklyn. Call the DA and ask why he/she charged so lightly, it can't hurt. There might be other information that you don't know (since you don't know anything from leaving the subway to waking up in the ambulance). The DA may have identification problems, maybe you did something (that you can't remember) that would make it harder for the DA to prove the case, maybe the eyewitnesses are going squirrely or some other problem with the case that makes the DA want to go for the easier conviction rather than maybe losing everything if he/she makes the stakes higher. See if the defendants get a PD. If they do, it's a good sign they're judgment proof (i.e. you could win a civil case, but never collect anything from them) When you talk to the DA, ask if he could get you some restitution as part of a plea bargain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
joat mon posted:How severely to charge (and whether to charge at all) is the DA's call. Around here, a person could gather signatures to call a grand jury to hear a case the person thought he DA ignored; I don't know about Brooklyn. Call the DA and ask why he/she charged so lightly, it can't hurt. There might be other information that you don't know (since you don't know anything from leaving the subway to waking up in the ambulance). The DA may have identification problems, maybe you did something (that you can't remember) that would make it harder for the DA to prove the case, maybe the eyewitnesses are going squirrely or some other problem with the case that makes the DA want to go for the easier conviction rather than maybe losing everything if he/she makes the stakes higher. This would likely be charged as a strike in CA, though it would get negotiated down for a plea. If they don't help you to your satisfaction, NYS has some crime victims rights stuff: http://www.ovs.ny.gov/Services/Advocates.aspx nm fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Random hypothetical: How to insurance companies/the courts determine who is at fault in a traffic accident if both parties were breaking the law at the time? For example, if Driver 1 switches lanes without signaling and is hit by Driver 2, who is speeding, who is at fault? Or any other situation like this, like if a speeding driver hit a pedestrian who was crossing outside a crosswalk/against the light. I'm in NC, but I'm interested in hearing about anyone's jurisdictions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
haruspex posted:Random hypothetical: Courts determine who is at fault by having attorneys present the case to a finder of fact (judge or jury) to apply the law of that jurisdiction (typically comparative negligence) to the facts of the case. In my jurisdiction, a jury would be instructed to divide responsibility between the parties - i.e. that guy is 70% responsible, and that other guy is 30% at fault. Then any damages suffered by the parties would be reduced by the percent of responsibility and offset against each other. Insurance companies do it the same way, mostly, except that when two insurance companies are involved on opposite sides of a case, they typically use a summary proceeding called "inter company arbitration" to avoid the cost and delay of the court system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
Im trying to be a Registered Nurse in Texas, and part of the process is getting a FBI fingerprinting done. I have a juvenile record. Will my juvenile record show up or only my adult record? or is that sealed and unable to be looked at unless court ordered?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Dick Smegma posted:Im trying to be a Registered Nurse in Texas, and part of the process is getting a FBI fingerprinting done. They'll be able to see it, but usually the FBI check is to see if your prints match up to any unsolved crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 08:41
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:They'll be able to see it, but usually the FBI check is to see if your prints match up to any unsolved crimes. Well no, they are doing a background check, and im sure the agents at the FBI have everything I have ever done on record, but are they allowed to send that information? I thought in Texas when you turned 18 your record was not allowed to be looked at by anyone expect judges and a few other law enforcement agencies
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
Dick Smegma posted:Well no, they are doing a background check, and im sure the agents at the FBI have everything I have ever done on record, but are they allowed to send that information? I thought in Texas when you turned 18 your record was not allowed to be looked at by anyone expect judges and a few other law enforcement agencies I am kind of unclear on exactly how the FBI>State relationship works with juvenile records but I'm pretty sure that you are ok since most states to include taxes have laws that automatically "seal" juvenile records. Oh and in Texas it is 21 for the automatic "sealing" and conditional. http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/programs/famcode_records.html relevant to your question: quote:§ 58.205. REQUEST TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ON CERTIFICATION. Hope that's worth the 10 bux! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
UK law: During a conversation today, someone told me that for a case to set a precedent, the judge must say that he is setting a precedent at the time. This sounds like utter bollocks to me - is it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
Anjow posted:UK law: I'm not a UK lawyer but considering that the U.S. case system grew out of the English common-law system, I think I can safely say that the judge doesn't have to explicitly say "And now, I declare a precedent!" for the case to have precedential effect. Now, there is a difference between the holding of a case and dicta. The holding of a case is the legal principle that the case affirms, and this principle has precedential effect for later cases. But sometimes judges will remark on issues that are relevant to the case at hand but aren't actually in dispute, and the judge's opinion on these related issues is called dicta and is not precedential, technically - although this line can be blurred.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Anjow posted:UK law: This is utter bollocks yes. Binding precedent is set by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (wrote House of Lords then had to backspace it out there!) in ascending importance. What matters is whether the statement is considered ratio or obiter. In layman terms, that means that only the statements that directly decide the case form precedent. So if it's a murder case and the appeal judge starts talking about contract law, nobody in a contract case has to pay attention to what that judge wrote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
Thanks. I was told about this many years ago but wasn't sure if I remembered enough to argue with him. I didn't really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 10:06
|
|
|
I need some reliable, professional legal counsel, and I know turning to a forum thread is the right choice, so here I am. Recently made a separate thread about this, but the responses I were getting were vague and inconclusive. For reference, here is the thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3356103 Here is my issue (directly copy-pasted from the above thread): I recently was in a car wreck. Let me briefly describe the incident: I was traveling down a major street in Orange County during rush hour (around 5pm). I was approaching an intersection at a freeway underpass. At this time in the evening, the sharp sunlight made it very difficult to see in the darkness of the underpass. When my eyes adjusted to the underpass, a car was stopped at the stoplight about 100 feet away. I hit the brakes as fast as I could, but they locked up (ABS failed) and, boom: crashed into the back of the stopped car. Let me also mention that I was obeying the speed limit. In fact, in that much traffic, it is nearly impossible to break the speed limit. The speed limit (as I recall) was 50 and I was going at least 15mph below that. Police quickly came and helped both me and the other driver. My car was badly crumpled and was towed away. The other car, however, had some minor rear fender damage and was able to drive away. One police officer immediately helped us both. However, about 20 minutes after the incident occured, another police officer arrives, observes the wreckage, and writes me a ticket. The violation reads "Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions" (section statute "22350 VC" if that means anything to anyone). This upsets me. Is it lawful for an officer to write a ticket for an incident he did not see? For the record, insurance deemed the car a "total loss" and paid me very fairly for the estimated cost of the car. Also, I do not want to deal with this ticket because I already have a point on my driving record from this accident. Paying for it and doing traffic school is the least of my worries. So, can anybody out there give me sound legal advice? Thanks in advance. tl;dr: I got in an accident. Cop writes me a ticket for a different violation which he did not witness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 11:34
|
|
|
Do you have any idea what sort of person gets a ticket for "unsafe speed for prevailing conditions"? This sort: http://wic.sjsheriff.org/WhosInCust...CB33CB30078EA42 No, but really, it's an entirely appropriate and legal ticket for the officer to give here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 11:41
|
|
|
In my jurisdiction, there's a basic speed law. Under it, you must operate your vehicle at a "careful and prudent speed" which is neither more nor less than is reasonable under the conditions of the road at that moment. You also may not operate your vehicle at a speed greater than would permit you to stop within the "assured, clear distance" ahead. MCL 257.627(1). In accordance with this rule, you must always drive your car in such a manner so as not to endanger other people or their property "and if to accomplish this it is necessary to drive at a lesser speed than the maximum provided by statute, [you] must do so.” Bade v Nies, 239 Mich 37, 39 (1927). Under this analysis, I think if you'd had this accident in Michigan, the officer's thinking would run "you were traveling too fast to allow you to stop within the assured, clear distance ahead, therefore you were in violation of the basic speed law." I consider that a reasonable interpretation of the statute, even if he weren't present. Obviously, none of this applies to Orange County, but if the traffic laws there are substantially similar, I wouldn't find this ticket outrageous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 12:51
|
|
|
You are not supposed to go faster than what would allow you to come to a safe stop. If you can't see what's under the bridge, slow down, so you can stop if there is something under the bridge. Quit crying and pay the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 13:46
|
|
|
hella cool posted:Is it lawful for an officer to write a ticket for an incident he did not see? No, people only get in trouble for crimes they commit in sight of the police. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
hella cool posted:... My first question in this thread was about the same kind of situation. To add on to what Alaemon said; basically if you get into a wreck and there's no real evidence of any other infraction you are going to get that ticket. It's basically a "catch-all" stating "if you got into a wreck you were going to fast".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:No, people only get in trouble for crimes they commit in sight of the police. In CA, an officer cannot arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless he saw the behavior (with some exceptions for domestic violence and what not). You can still be cited and released. You can also be subject to citizen's arrest, which while technically different, feels the same to the suspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
hella cool posted:tl;dr: I got in an accident. Cop writes me a ticket for a different violation which he did not witness. Like nm said, you can't be arrested for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence (unless you told him what happened; then your arrest would be based on your admission) The fundamental issue here is "people should not be deprived of their liberty by being arrested and taken to jail for a minor offense if the only basis is, "somebody told a cop you did something minorly naughty"" In a case like that, the cop has to go before a neutral and detached magistrate (a judge) and get him/her to sign off on an arrest warrant. Being given a ticket does not impact your liberty like being arrested and jailed, so the basis for giving a citation is simply probable cause; some reason to believe that you broke the law. Whether it was in the officer's presence isn't part of the analysis. Even if they did arrest you, all you could do is challenge your arrest, not your ticket; the underlying facts (you rearended somebody) and the underlying allegation (you were driving too fast for conditions) aren't affected by the arrest. Now, if you were searched and they found your stash or you made a statement and confessed all over yourself after a (warrantless) arrest for a misdemeanor not in the officer's presence (except domestic violence and DUI), you could get the results of the search or your statement suppressed because of the illegal arrest. However, all the other evidence would still be in play and could still be used to find you guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
I have to assume you folks mean "make a warrantless arrest" of a misdemeanor defendant when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the officer. A full-on "cannot arrest" seems absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I have to assume you folks mean "make a warrantless arrest" of a misdemeanor defendant when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the officer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I have to assume you folks mean "make a warrantless arrest" of a misdemeanor defendant when the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the officer. In the context of the aftermath of a car wreck, the police will not have a misdemeanor arrest warrant for a driver's actions. But you're right. Speaking more broadly than hella cool's situation, the 'in the cop's presence/ not in the cop's presence' analysis applies only to warrantless misdemeanor arrests - because with a warrant, that deprivation of liberty has already been approved by a neutral and detached magistrate, which is supposed to be a greater liberty protection than 'has a LEO actually seen it happen?' And for felonies the greater potential risk to the public justifies the greater liberty intrusion of warrantless arrests based on hearsay. e.g., Title 22, Oklahoma Statutes posted:Section 196 - Arrest Without Warrant by Officer joat mon fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
Drinking an open container of alcohol is illegal in my town. My friend passed me his drink on the sidewalk, when no more than 30 seconds later a cop came out of nowhere and busted ME and gave ME a ticket for his drink. The drink was covered in a brown paper bag and the officer had no way of knowing what was in it--in fact, he just assumed, and he snatched the drink out of my hand to check a few minutes into our conversation. My friend, obviously, is going to pay for my ticket, but should I plead guilty or not guilty? I don't want some bullshit ticket that I don't even deserve going on my record as Guilty, a record that is otherwise clean sans some parking and speeding tickets. I just don't know if its a big deal or not to plead guilty to something like this and what that could mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
Tostito posted:Drinking an open container of alcohol is illegal in my town. My friend passed me his drink on the sidewalk, when no more than 30 seconds later a cop came out of nowhere and busted ME and gave ME a ticket for his drink. The drink was covered in a brown paper bag and the officer had no way of knowing what was in it--in fact, he just assumed, and he snatched the drink out of my hand to check a few minutes into our conversation. Which town are you in? I doubt it's more than a civil infraction, but you should probably check before you enter a plea
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
Tostito posted:Drinking an open container of alcohol is illegal in my town. My friend passed me his drink on the sidewalk, when no more than 30 seconds later a cop came out of nowhere and busted ME and gave ME a ticket for his drink. The drink was covered in a brown paper bag and the officer had no way of knowing what was in it--in fact, he just assumed, and he snatched the drink out of my hand to check a few minutes into our conversation. I expect that the basis for the snatch and check was based upon the cop smelling the alcohol during his conversation with you. If that's the case, the case is good, legally speaking. Practically? whether the cop shows up, whether the DA is willing to dump it if you pay court costs, whether you can get a deferred sentence or deferred prosecution will depend on what your local attorney tells you/ can do for you. Tostito posted:My friend, obviously, is going to pay for my ticket
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
joat mon posted:I expect that the basis for the snatch and check was based upon the cop smelling the alcohol during his conversation with you. If that's the case, the case is good, legally speaking. Let's be realistic: even if that wasn't the basis for the snatch and check, that's what the cop is going to say it was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 07:23
|
|