|
Oregon question. An application asks this: "I have NOT been committed to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Services Division under ORS 426.130, nor have I been found mentally ill and been prohibited from possessing a firearm because of mental illness. True/False" This is 326.130. Is there a specific ruling that has to be made to the effect of "this person is batshit and should never own a gun ever" for this to matter, or do they just pull medical records? I wouldn't think they could do the latter without a release form, but really, who knows.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Javid posted:I wouldn't think they could do the latter without a release form, but really, who knows. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/426.070
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
Don't know about Oregon, but mental health history is one of those things that may cause you to be ineligible to purchase a firearm. I know one of the criticisms about the background check system is that it failed to find the Virginia Tech shooter's history of mental health issues. Oregon might have a way to check, I don't know. But it is never a good idea to lie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
I get that, but it's asking "committed or found", which is what I'm trying to get defined. The person filling out the app has never been placed in involuntary care or involved in any legal procedure related to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
Hopefully a quick question... is it considered discrimination not to hire someone based on allergies? Situation: we have a cat in the workplace and are hiring new folks. We've actually had a few people in the past who were allergic but took claritin or whatever and were able to deal with it, but I'm wondering if we can even ask people if they're allergic during interviews? If we hire someone who is allergic and they cannot control it with claritin, do we have to get rid of our cat?  Hopefully the people we interview just won't be allergic. But I am curious about how this works. It's not like we're hiring someone for a peanut eating job and they're allergic to peanuts... the cats are not a necessary part of the job, but we don't want to lose our little furry friends. E: we're in DC, but I imagine this would fall under the ADA which is federal, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
kedo posted:Hopefully a quick question... is it considered discrimination not to hire someone based on allergies? Situation: we have a cat in the workplace and are hiring new folks. We've actually had a few people in the past who were allergic but took claritin or whatever and were able to deal with it, but I'm wondering if we can even ask people if they're allergic during interviews? If we hire someone who is allergic and they cannot control it with claritin, do we have to get rid of our cat? How big is your organization? edit: I don't know too much about the ADA but if I remember correctly, a disability has to impair a "major life activity." From a quick look through Westlaw, animal allergies may or may not constitute a disability - it's going to depend on the individual circumstances. I just found a case in which a woman was allergic to pets, but her use of an inhaler, and the fact that she could continue to talk and hold conversations even while experiencing symptoms, lead the court to conclude that her allergies did not impair breathing, which was the "major life activity" at issue. In that case, the employer won. One issue is how bad the person's allergies are - if they present annoying symptoms, but they can still do normal things and breath relatively normally and whatnot, then they are going to have a hard time proving their allergy is a disability. entris fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
entris posted:How big is your organization? Small, 4-6 people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
kedo posted:Small, 4-6 people. The ADA won't apply to you, then. It only kicks in with employers who have 15 or more employees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Ah, good to know! If we were over 15 would it be any different?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
kedo posted:Ah, good to know! If we were over 15 would it be any different? Well, the ADA would apply to you in general, so other ADA-recognized disabilities would be protected. But I don't think allergies enjoy strong protection under the ADA - from what little looking around I have done. I'm not an expert on ADA stuff, though, and I don't enjoy looking through that stuff so I won't dig any deeper. If you hit 15 people, and you are really worried about the issue, do a brief consultation with an ADA discrimination lawyer, who can give you a solid answer for a reasonable amount.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Reposting from http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3385045 I was working at a job where I was responsible for developing image processing algorithms at a startup. This startup had problems and I quit a while ago. Before I quit, I made some images to save of the outputs of the algorithms I designed to demonstrate past experience of what I've worked on. Basically supplemental resume material. I used image content that was not associated with my employer. I used the images on a website to try to get contracting work while I'm in school (I've now got a full time job lined up after I finish school). The web site did not claim that I could provide these algorithms to anyone, just that they were demonstrating past work. My ex-employer found the website and are threatening legal action (e-mail saying they think I stole code and whatnot and are going to 'investigate'). I haven't released anything that isn't already public information or taken anything from the company that I shouldn't have, I just used content that was not associated with the company to avoid any possible copyright issues. The closest analogy I can think of is say a camera company engineer took some photos with the publically available camera he worked on, highlighting his particular work on the camera, and used those photos as resume material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Earlier tonight I saw something weird. Well that's not saying much considering there's a lot of weird things around here, but I guess it was weirder than usual. At first I thought some guy was being pulled over, but the cop behind him was very very very close. So close he was touching. I was parked and went to follow them, got onto the interstate behind them and realized that the cop was actually pushing the car down the road. Did I witness some kind of weird slow-speed chase, or was the cop just trying to give the guy a hand? If the latter, is that even legal? It seemed kind of dangerous to me, especially since they were on the interstate, going maybe 30-40MPH while people normally go anywhere from 65-80+ on that stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
So I have a bit of an odd question hopefully someone could help me figure out an answer to. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html I'm curious about the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] because of two things: The opening of the acts states "U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship." The third part of this states: quote:entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); Bolded is the part I'm interested in. It speaks a lot to intention and I'm trying to figure out if me, as a dual American/Canadian can join the Canadian Forces as an officer without giving up my US citizenship. I'm obviously not going to just take the advice of SA, I've sent a letter to state department as well but in general it's really hard to find information for Americans joining foreign forces.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
All the usual caveats apply, and, I have done no research on the issue beyond looking at the page you linked, but it APPEARS that the enumerated "potentially expatriating acts" only impact your citizenship if they are performed with the intent of giving up US citizenship. From the same page: quote:The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they . . . serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States. . . . (Emphasis added) I'll grant that I know basically nothing about this area of the law, but this page, at least, strikes me as one of those "it means what it says" things. I've tried to edit it so it reads like actual human-speak, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
silversiren posted:Earlier tonight I saw something weird. Well that's not saying much considering there's a lot of weird things around here, but I guess it was weirder than usual. I've seen this happen before, in my case on a freeway offramp where there was no shoulder and a stalled car would clearly be a hazard. My guess would be, a cop won't do that for you normally, but will do it to help clear a car stopped in an unsafe area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Bolded is the part I'm interested in. It speaks a lot to intention and I'm trying to figure out if me, as a dual American/Canadian can join the Canadian Forces as an officer without giving up my US citizenship. I'm obviously not going to just take the advice of SA, I've sent a letter to state department as well but in general it's really hard to find information for Americans joining foreign forces. From what I have heard elsewhere, it's okay to join a foreign military as long as they are an allied country. Quite a few Americans have joined the French Foreign Legion and retained their citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
e
usually fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
edit: nvm, had a case of the stupids
entris fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
So my roommate was arrested last night for Burglary I, Criminal Mischief III, Harassment, and Disorderly Conduct II in Oregon. It seems that at least Burg I carries a mandatory minimum of 36 mo here, so he'll probably not be coming back. Rent's due in two days and it doesn't look like he'll be paying his $500, so I guess what I am asking is how long until I can sell all the stuff he's left behind (assuming it gets left) to recoup what we're gonna lose? More importantly, are we able to replace him the moment he stops paying rent (because he is in custody)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
QUID PRO BONO posted:So my roommate was arrested last night for Burglary I, Criminal Mischief III, Harassment, and Disorderly Conduct II in Oregon. It seems that at least Burg I carries a mandatory minimum of 36 mo here, so he'll probably not be coming back. Is he on the lease or is he your tenant?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Is he on the lease or is he your tenant? He's one of five people signed on the lease, including me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
I have a question. I have a legal form for name change that was approved on August 4th 2010 by the district's Supreme Court. I only recently got some other legal stuff sorted out that allowed me to get it published (it's a long story) and therefore get approved. Even thuogh it's been something like 7-8 months, was the name change approved by the judge still valid? I'm in Upstate NY if that helps any. Wyoming County. EDIT: Nevermind. it said 90 days on the form. Welp, time to pay another 210 dollars because I'm a lazy bastard. Elephantgun fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
QUID PRO BONO posted:He's one of five people signed on the lease, including me. My guess is that you won't be able to sell his stuff until you get a judgment against it and a lien against him. What state are you in? How much longer do you have on the lease?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:My guess is that you won't be able to sell his stuff until you get a judgment against it and a lien against him. Oregon Lease ends in June.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
My girlfriend is having some roommate drama and needs some advice on what her legal options are. She lives in an apartment home with 4 bedrooms, each room is currently occupied and everything is basically split 4 ways. Everyone's names are on the lease. This is happening in Tucson, AZ. Basically one of the roommates is a huge loving bitch. She's been hiding a cat in the room that is violating the lease and they confronted her about this. In addition her boyfriend is banned from the house because he sucks as a person and steals poo poo. Now she has threatened to move out and not pay any future rent as well as back utilities that she owes to the other 3 roommates. They can't afford the rent without her payment because its due in 2 days, and this all has come to a head within the last day so its too late to scramble for extra money. Assuming she does actually go through with this, and leaves them high and dry, what recourse do they have since her name is on the lease? She's not just allowed to pull out like that without some sort of penalty or finding a replacement person right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Armacham posted:My girlfriend is having some roommate drama and needs some advice on what her legal options are. She lives in an apartment home with 4 bedrooms, each room is currently occupied and everything is basically split 4 ways. Everyone's names are on the lease. This is happening in Tucson, AZ. She has 2 issues here. Issue one is paying rent to the landlord. Most likely, the tenants are jointly and separately responsible for rent. Basically that means that the landlord can collect the full amount from whichever party he chooses. This means he doesn't give a gently caress about your girlfriend's drama, and even if one or more tenants leaves he's still owed the full amount. Generally the landlord is going to go after whoever has the most money, because he's most likely to recoup. If you can't come up with this month's rent in time, call the landlord and explain. As long as its a one-time thing and the landlord gets his money, he generally won't pursue it further. Issue 2 is getting money from the lovely roommate. This is very specific to your local jurisdiction. She'd probably have to talk to a lawyer to find out if she had a case or not and how to proceed. It would most likely not be worth it. Come up with the money and chalk it up to a life lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 18:58
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:So I have a bit of an odd question hopefully someone could help me figure out an answer to. So in case anyone was curious about the answer to this, the state department answered my e-mail and said: quote:If you serve as a commissioned officer in the Canadian army, you will only prejudice your U.S. citizenship if you advise the Department of State in writing that you intended to relinquish your U.S. citizenship when you received your commission in the Canadian military. So  
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Ok, first things first I live in New York City. Over a year ago I worked for a company for two weeks as a freelancer. When filing for unemployment again after my job was over, I went through a lot of bullshit with the unemployment office. They told me I was eligible to file a new claim, so away I went! In filing a new claim, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork with who my last few employers were from the last time I was unemployed. After speaking to a representative several times over the phone, I was advised that if my new claim didn't work I could go back onto my old claim and collect from that for the remainder of the time that was left on it. I assumed because I had only actually worked for about three months for various freelance companies, that I would probably have to fall back on my old claim. Regardless, I filled out the paperwork as per requested and told all my previous employers to fill out their portion of the paperwork. All of this happened with no problem. I started collecting unemployment and never thought of it again. I collected for about three months at the beginning of 2010, and in September I got a notice that one of them was claiming that they didn't owe me benefits. I was completely confused, as I had assumed I was collecting on my old claim the entire time, not my new claim. Regardless, I had filled my paperwork out incorrectly, and if I had received a phone call of any kind between then and now it would have never been a problem. There was no number to call, no one to contact, except for the last place I worked at for two weeks. They're the ones filing against me. I e-mailed them in hopes that they would respond and I could possibly get some kind of insight as to what was going on, and heard nothing. Cue to this week -- I get a letter in the mail for my hearing. I can't afford a lawyer, as I am a freelance artist and extremely poor. I make too much money to get a lawyer on-assistance, and any pro-bono lawyer for unemployment claims that I call (as recommended by my hearing notice) I only get an answering machine. What are my options here, if I have any? Would it be worth it to get a lawyer or am I hosed no matter what? I feel like regardless of my representation, I'm going to have to pay back whatever it is I owe. Is there any way to find out how much I would owe? I'm so lost, I've never had to go to court before and this is putting me in a terrible place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Long time listener, first time caller. Virginia question! I'm currently 7 months into a 12 month lease on a rental house where the property management company decided to drop the owner of the house because of how difficult she is to work with. We would like to drop the lease, but the lease doesn't actually address early terminations of the lease on either side (except for active duty military). Details below! Background: My wife and I were about to sign the lease renting this house back in July with the intent on staying for a year while my wife finishes out a contract for work. At the end of the process, directly before actual lease signing, we are told that the owner is nearly in foreclosure, but not actively in the process as of yet. Our choice in accommodations was limited, so we ultimately settled on still going for the house as it was cheap, big, and ultimately in the best spot between our jobs (we both commute ~45 miles due to my rather nice promotion). Three months into the lease, the property manager calls and lays out that the owner, as part of the refinance "OH GOD I'LL DO ANYTHING TO NOT LOSE THE HOUSE" arrangement, is supposed to have at least one utility in their name to show stability and intent to keep the house. Granted, I get this call a day after our local water company called and informed me that someone tried to transfer the water out of my name; the water company awesomely told them "Once they terminate service we'll transfer, but not before." The lease stipulates that we, the tenants, are responsible for having the utilities in our name. However, we agree to allow the electric bill placed back in the owner's name for the requisite three months, with the understanding that we are responsible solely for the actual electricity usage, not the new deposit or any other miscellaneous fees. All's well for the most part up until two weeks ago, when the property manager sends us a bill for nearly $600 for the electricity. I look at the partial months statement included, and...surprise surprise, they were trying to get us for the $300 deposit. I informed him of the mistake, they reexamined and sent back a corrected bill for ~$100. We paid right away, settling the difference. One week later, the owner calls my wife at around 2030 at night and starts bitching about how she's going to have the electricity shut off and how we're deadbeats, etc. This upset both of us greatly, but I had the presence of mind to call the property manager, who in turn spoke with the owner as was their place. This was the only time we had ever directly communicated with the owner, so this left a rather poor taste in our mouths. The property manager called back the following day, giving us a head's up that they would be terminating the relationship with the owner effective at the end of the next month due to the "difficult relationship" (their words). The property manager calls again at nearly 1700 a few days later (on a Friday afternoon), letting us know he just found out the owner had scheduled to have the electricity disconnected the following Monday and we had likely would want to try to get it in our names ASAP to maintain service. As luck would have it, since we had an account before, the electric COOP was able to set it up in our name in time. If we hadn't we would have been without power for a day or two, which just happen to coincide with a winter storm in the area. Given that 1) the property manager is leaving the arrangement (who served a good role as a safe buffer between us and the owner, including being the possessor of the security deposit); 2) the owner appears to have attempted to restrict access to a fundamental service (electricity), which is in violation of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA); and 3) the owner's stated financial difficulties without any guarantee in place protecting our security deposit -- do we have grounds to break the lease? Again, the lease doesn't specifically lay out remedies or methods for early lease termination. Thanks! I'd be willing to pay a lawyer to avoid later headache; I've essentially written off the 1400 deposit now, so I might as well use it as a driver to proactively remove my family from the situation. I just want to ensure we have something to work from before I spend money for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Preface: In Ontario right now, signed a lease for 12 months (says 12 months, not 1 year, not sure if that matters) and have been living here off a sublet with 4-5 months left. Landlord has not fixed the major issues, like heating or electrical. It took him 7+months to replace the stove that had a broken door. I will be calling the hotline for the ministry that deals with landlord/tenant issues, as well as the local free legal advice hotline about my rights. Just want to see if anyone else has anything to add. Questions: 1) I called the landlord tonight to discuss our options. I recorded the phone call and transcribed it (took forever, 10 pages long). Under the privacy act, it says as long as I consent to the recording of a conversation I am a participant in, it's legal. I also do not need to inform him of the recording since I consented. True facts? 2)He belittled me, interrupted me, spoke over me and told me that involving the ministry responsible for rental units (and the building inspector) was a waste of my/his time. He went on to tell me to basically "knock yourself out, it's a waste of my time". He views repairs to essential systems in the unit (like replacing the front door which has a huge hole in it) as "minor cosmetic issues" that aren't a concern, and I'm being basically a poo poo disturber who will terminate the lease anyway. Note- He did not swear at me outright. He also tried to pry into the details about my disability application and my husbands finances. I'm filing a complaint to the Board about this, and requesting our lease to be terminated on the grounds of refusal to properly maintain the unit, and coercion/harassment. We were already in talks about our options to try to get the lease transferred to someone else, but this is the straw breaking the camels back- in my opinion. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go through with this? The form I'm filling out is the T2, which is just to schedule a meeting in front of the Board members. 3)Because of his hostility/aggression, I am not comfortable with him coming in to my unit anymore (I work from home). Not only did he ignore giving us 24 hours notices about entering/doing repairs, but he also got really aggressive in the phone call to the point where he was yelling and refusing to allow me to speak. Am I allowed to refuse his entry into my apartment unless there is a police escort present? (I've been sexually assaulted before and it's a concern for me). TL;DR Landlord goes ballistic in phone call while I was trying to find a way to terminate the lease, recorded the whole thing, and now I no longer feel comfortable being here/having him come in here. Think I got a chance with a T2 form?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
Aculard posted:2)He belittled me, interrupted me, spoke over me and told me that involving the ministry responsible for rental units (and the building inspector) was a waste of my/his time. He went on to tell me to basically "knock yourself out, it's a waste of my time". He views repairs to essential systems in the unit (like replacing the front door which has a huge hole in it) as "minor cosmetic issues" that aren't a concern, and I'm being basically a poo poo disturber who will terminate the lease anyway. Note- He did not swear at me outright. Take pictures of everything. Now. When the board complains goes through, poo poo might start getting fixed overnight, and you'll be the one who ends up looking like a whiner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
I'm writing up a story about how I sued a company in small claims court when I was 17, about 8 years ago, and I'm trying to make sense of something. I was suing a company in Northern California, and on the day of the trial the company had sent an attorney and two very large, neckless, men. The neckless men never spoke. I got the impression that they drove quite a long way, since they likely drove from southern California to get to the courthouse. Were they there just to intimidate me? Or is there some more reasonable explanation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
They likely are the attorney's clients from the company you sued?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 11:03
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:They likely are the attorney's clients from the company you sued? Is that even allowed in small claims court? Sending a lawyer, I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
Depends on jurisdiction. Did you know for sure the other guy was an attorney?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 11:15
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Depends on jurisdiction. Did you know for sure the other guy was an attorney? I'm not 100% it was an attorney, but from her practice in the court room and amount of preparation she definitely seemed like one. She talked a bit fast, jumping from one argument to another until the judge hit his gavel down and transfered the case to southern California without letting me speak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 11:44
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Take pictures of everything. Now. When the board complains goes through, poo poo might start getting fixed overnight, and you'll be the one who ends up looking like a whiner. Will do right now. I'm not sure how fast he can repair it since he needs to give 24 hours notice of entering my unit/making repairs, and I fully intend to get the police to escort him the gently caress out if he tries any shady poo poo. We also have him admitting that we gave him a letter of repairs that needed to be done in October, so he can't just backpeddle and claim we never told him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
Aculard posted:Will do right now. I'm not sure how fast he can repair it since he needs to give 24 hours notice of entering my unit/making repairs, and I fully intend to get the police to escort him the gently caress out if he tries any shady poo poo. Doesn't mean he won't try. "That's fake, they never sent it to me!", that kind of poo poo. Same with the 24 hrs notice thing. Check if your area has some sort of renter's right advocacy group, or whatever the gently caress they call themselves. They should be able to help you, or at least supply you with litterature. Heck, the board might be able to refer you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Rent related issue. I moved to Chicago for law school in September, along with a random guy from facebook who was going to the same school. He dropped out in the first week, moved back to Arkansas, and paid rent until December, at which point he stopped paying rent. Last month (January), the landlord had me pay $400 of his $900 rent while I looked for a roommate, but in February I will have to start paying the full amount or face eviction. Can I sue my roommate for his half of the rent? I don't know if the joint and separate thing about leases defeats that, but I figure I signed the lease relying on his paying half (actually a little more than half as he had the big room). I'm only a 1L though so I don't trust my own judgment/experience. I'll be bankrupt by next month if he doesn't pay his share, and he hasn't found a replacement roommate (neither have I, though I only found out recently he hadn't been paying/looking and so I haven't been looking very long).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I was suing a company in Northern California, and on the day of the trial the company had sent an attorney and two very large, neckless, men. The neckless men never spoke. I got the impression that they drove quite a long way, since they likely drove from southern California to get to the courthouse. They might have been other attorneys, or clerks if the attorney was with a firm. I cannot imagine that a company would bother sending muscle to intimidate a kid suing them in small claims court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:03
|
|
