|
WouldDesk posted:Would one of you fine people be able to translate this from moonspeak to English please? I would appreciate it. Pre-trial order submitted Next appearance on 8/29/11@ 10am.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:Unless it's in the lease, the landlord can't prevent you from staying over. Your girlfriend would have to handle this, next time the landlord complains, she should just state that nothing in the lease prohibits overnight guests, and to make any further complaints in writing. As for the parking ticket, you seem rather unclear about it. Were you parked on private property or a public street? What exactly do you mean by a "visitors pass"? Was the ticket written by law enforcement or some private group? What exactly does it say you are charged with? I was parked on a public street that allows 'resident only' parking. You can also park there legally if you have a visitors pass, which each resident who lives on the street gets. My girlfriend has one and I use it sometimes. I've been doing this for over a year without any issues until now. The ticket was written by the city. It says under the violation, "Resident permit only" and under comments "Resident complaint." I wasn't parked in front of their house, but up the block a little bit. I disputed the ticket and am awaiting a response. If they were to keep reporting my car when I legally park on the street, could it be considered harassment? Thanks for the response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:I am not really upset with having to give up my "notes" since when I got outside I just jotted them down from memory on another scrap piece of paper I have, but I am confused as to what law I was breaking by writing down the displayed prices in a business? I understand businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone, and if I was holding up the line to ask my questions I could understand some annoyance, but I waited until there was no one in line to ask. So, did I gently caress up and if so, how? The store owner was probably paranoid that you were from a competitor and you were trying to survey their prices. Even an "ethnic" grocery can see stores like Meijer and Marsh as competitors, as they often carry "ethnic" favorites. I have heard of large retail stores kicking people out for wearing a competitor's uniform or uniform item out of suspicion that they are comparing prices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
JohnnyHildo posted:The store owner was probably paranoid that you were from a competitor and you were trying to survey their prices. Even an "ethnic" grocery can see stores like Meijer and Marsh as competitors, as they often carry "ethnic" favorites. I have heard of large retail stores kicking people out for wearing a competitor's uniform or uniform item out of suspicion that they are comparing prices. Ok, I can understand that, but is that actually legal, i.e. can I refuse to hand over my notes? (I understand if the business wants me off the property I have to legally leave it) The only thing I can think of is that because it is not just going to be me using the information, i.e. I am not just "shopping around" and comparing prices for my own future purchases, I am telling other people these prices with which to the audience can be seen as hey look, the price of milk here was, say, $4.29 while over on the other side of town it's $4.09, and letting them make the judgement of which is closer and what's the worth of that 20 cents, taking the option away from the store owner to advertise the product they want it to be shown as.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
nm posted:Counsel appears for pre-trial conference Someone gets a gold star for trial-speak!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Someone gets a gold star for trial-speak! 08/19/11 8:30 21 IC ARR PNG WFA NTW OR .1 NM DA ld=9/26 08/26/11 10 24 OR PT This means: On August 19, 2011 at 8:30 I (NM) appeared in dept 21 for an arraignment. Appearing for the people was DA. Plead not guilty. Wave formal arraignment. Time was not waved. Client was in custody, but released on his own recognizance. Last day for jury trial is September 26. Oh and I spent .1 of an hour on it. Next appearance is on August 26, 2011 at 10 am in dept 24 for a pre-trial conference. Client will be out of custody.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Ok, I can understand that, but is that actually legal, i.e. can I refuse to hand over my notes? (I understand if the business wants me off the property I have to legally leave it) Haha, no, they can't take any of your stuff off you. The only people who can do that are the police (edit: or certain security guards in certain locations), who are going to take an extremely loving dim view of a store clerk calling them and saying "there's a bad man in my store and he's writing things down". Seriously. Even if you're taking photos in a shopping mall that has a "no photos" policy, they can't just loving confiscate your camera or your film or anything, they can just kick you out, or at most detain you until the cops arrive to deal with it depending on whether you have any stupid local laws or not. It might be different at airports or government buildings, but a loving grocery store can't arbitrarily confiscate your stuff, no. Edit: That came out pretty badly, reading back over it, but this sort of stuff makes me irrationally angry. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
nm posted:That has less acronyms than my notes: waived, you dork
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Ok, I can understand that, but is that actually legal, i.e. can I refuse to hand over my notes? (I understand if the business wants me off the property I have to legally leave it) No, the clerk who took and refused to return your property was committing an illegal act.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
I recently moved into an apartment that had a pet deposit that I paid. Now they tell me that they never sought approval from my roommates, and it turns out one is allergic to cats. If I can't have my cat, I don't particularly want to live here anymore. Could this be considered a violation of the lease on their part? I'm in Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:waived, you dork
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
I work until 4am tonight/tomorrow morning. I usually get out of work around 430-445 and get home about 5ish. My boss has scheduled a mandatory meeting tomorrow morning at 11am, with all of the managers giving us thinly veiled threats about "you better be there or it wont be good for you" Can my boss legally force someone to be back at work for a meeting 7 hours after our last shift? I was pretty sure you were required to give employees 8 hours between having to be at the workplace. Is it exempt because its a meeting and not a shift?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Old Man Pants posted:I work until 4am tonight/tomorrow morning. I usually get out of work around 430-445 and get home about 5ish. My boss has scheduled a mandatory meeting tomorrow morning at 11am, with all of the managers giving us thinly veiled threats about "you better be there or it wont be good for you" Are you paid to be there? If not they can't require it, if so it's a 'shift'. Your local or state laws will determine what the minimum time between shifts is. Here it's 8 hours unless certain circumstances apply (ie, emergency services workers who are on call). Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 16:24
|
|
|
It's kinda a moot point since he's going to call in sick (and put his 2 weeks notice in at his current job) but I have a question about how my bf's work has been treating him. I have two questions, both related to Ontario employment law: 1) According to Ontario employment law, a business can't schedule someone more than 48 hours a week. However, it's kinda murky how it's defined. His work will regularly schedule him 7-day, 9.5hr/day stretches, from, say, Friday-Wednesday. Is a "week" defined as a set time period (say, Sunday-Friday,) or just any 7-day stretch? The last time they did this they gave him 2 days off, then scheduled him another 5. 2) He came in today and, even though the schedule was "set" last week, he found out that, without notifying him, they had given him a shift on a day he was originally not scheduled for. He's not planning on coming in--it was the last straw and he gave his two weeks notice today, so he's going to say gently caress it and call in--but is this actually legal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
sexily posted:I looked for pro bono stuff in my area, but came up empty. Are you in the SF Bay Area by any chance? Bay Area Legal Aid has pro bono family law assistance if you qualify, and if not, they probably can give you a referral at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
robodex posted:It's kinda a moot point since he's going to call in sick (and put his 2 weeks notice in at his current job) but I have a question about how my bf's work has been treating him. I have two questions, both related to Ontario employment law: IANAL but I know for sure that what you're stating is 1 is completely legal and follows the law precisely. The work week is Sunday-Saturday and beyond the number of hours between shifts and max hours per week one can be scheduled you are required 24 consecutive hours off weekly or 48hrs bi weekly. As for 2, I'm not positive but I'm fairly certain that is also legal, in that as long as the other requirements are fulfilled, ie hours off between shifts, max per week, that the shift doesn't have to be determined ahead of time. That's simply a convenience that most employers afford their workers. Its scummy to switch it after the schedule is set though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I figured both were legal. Like I said, it's a moot point mainly because he's just decided to quit alltogether (no minimum wage job is worth the poo poo they're putting him through) but a lot of my friends started screaming "ILLEGAL" when I told them he was given a shift after the schedule was put out. I figured it was just scummy as poo poo to do that and not actually illegal. \/\/ Yeah. I figured all that they were doing was legal but pretty dickish. For the record, it's a Tim Hortons he works at, and they're pretty much the wal-mart of foodservice in Canada with huge turnover and no regard for their employees. They regularly do dick stuff like deny him time off because he's "the only person that can do his job" (he works as a baker) and schedule him for huge stretches at a time. Legally they're pretty much experts of being right on the line; for example the most someone can work in a week is 48 hours and usually he's scheduled for 47.5. Or, when they do a seven-day stretch, it's Wednesday-Wednesday which gets around the 48-hr restriction (which is why I asked, since when I looked it up for him it was kinda nebulous how it defined "a week.") They're also wildly inconsistent in when they post schedules in that he'll sometimes go to request a day off two weeks in advance only to find out they'd already made the schedule--while other weeks sometimes he won't know until the day before if he's working. The last straw was him being told he had 4 days off on the posted schedule, then him coming in yesterday and seeing they had added a random shift in the middle of his time off. From what I'm to understand as well he's technically still defined as "part time" since he doesn't always get 7-day stretches, and some weeks he'll just get under enough hours to be considered full-time. Since it's not consistent apparently he's not defined as full time even though most weeks he's working 48-hour weeks. But he was also afraid to bring it up with them since he's seen people have their hours cut dramatically when they've pointed out they've been working full-time and not getting the benefits associated with it. robodex fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
robodex posted:Yeah, I figured both were legal. Like I said, it's a moot point mainly because he's just decided to quit alltogether (no minimum wage job is worth the poo poo they're putting him through) but a lot of my friends started screaming "ILLEGAL" when I told them he was given a shift after the schedule was put out. I figured it was just scummy as poo poo to do that and not actually illegal. I'm a long loving way from Ontario, but changing a shift after the schedule is released isn't illegal where I am. It is a huge dick move no matter where in the world you are, especially if they didn't ask first. Good on him for quitting if they've been doing that poo poo regularly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Is it my landlord's responsibility to pay for an exterminator? I'm tired of seeing bugs in my house. I just want to know what to expect before i go making phone calls to set an appointment up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
whatspeakyou posted:Is it my landlord's responsibility to pay for an exterminator? I'm tired of seeing bugs in my house. I just want to know what to expect before i go making phone calls to set an appointment up. Your lease should have something about it if you're living in an apartment. Either way, usually you have to tell the landlord about the problem and the onus is on them to set an appointment up. I wouldn't expect them to pay for it if you call the exterminator yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
whatspeakyou posted:Is it my landlord's responsibility to pay for an exterminator? I'm tired of seeing bugs in my house. I just want to know what to expect before i go making phone calls to set an appointment up. How many bugs are we talking about, and what kind? In any case, you should talk to your landlord about it first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
You might also look up the local relevant tenant's/renter's rights, there's usually language to the effect of "landlord must keep the room fit for habitation" which an insect infestation definitely is not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
On my return trip from Germany to the USA, Delta airlines canceled my flight due to a non functioning starter motor. It looks like the European Union's Regulation 261/2004 entitles me to 600 euro as compensation. Delta has the regulation posted on their website as well. Delta is arguing that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances, which is a reason to deny compensation. Regulation 261 does state: quote:An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the The regulation doesn't define extraordinary circumstances but I did find a ruling by the European Court of Justice that says: quote:The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance do not constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances I'm speaking with a Delta executive assistant who stated in am email that: quote:this specific problem, that is encountered unexpectedly, which presents itself beyond our scope of influence and is a threat to flight safety, can nevertheless be regarded as [an extraordinary circumstance], even when it concerns a problem of a technical nature." At this point it doesn't look like I can get Delta to provide compensation unless I take legal action. Would I have a chance at winning this in small claims court? As a CT resident, I could start a small claims case for $75 + ~$30 to serve notice to Delta's agent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Super Delegate posted:On my return trip from Germany to the USA, Delta airlines canceled my flight due to a non functioning starter motor. It looks like the European Union's Regulation 261/2004 entitles me to 600 euro as compensation. Delta has the regulation posted on their website as well. I'm not barred in CT, this isn't legal advice, etc. While it looks on the surface like it's a goddamn slam dunk, since it would be obvious to anyone with a multicellular structure that they hosed up, I can see how they might respond to a small claims suit. My guess would be multiple motions intended to drag poo poo out, motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which they'll lose but don't care, motion to remove to the regular court, expert witnesses, etc. They'd have a decent amount to lose if they actually followed the law, so they'll try everything they can to fight you. So while you'd probably eventually win, unless they somehow convince the court that it's your burden to show that the particular type of engine trouble was not extraordinary and in which case you'd need to get an expert to testify on your behalf which will cost you butt-tons of money, they're going to make it as painful as possible, so be prepared for that. Summary: you're likely right, they're wrong, but they have the money, ability, drive and lovely justice system to make sure that you're going to bleed every step of the way and probably end up paying more than you recover, not because they hate you but because it would set a bad precedent that would probably bankrupt them if followed in good faith. Unless you happen to have connections in the media who would publicize the poo poo out of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
boooooooooooooooooooo
N. Senada fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
If wanted to lease my car to my fiancee for one year for $0 so that he can get insurance cheaper... what would I need to sign?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Effexxor posted:If wanted to lease my car to my fiancee for one year for $0 so that he can get insurance cheaper... what would I need to sign? You can't lease something for 0$
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which they'll lose but don't care Do you know why small claims court would have jurisdiction? I think Delta would rather settle before the court date than pay lawyers to fight this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Cross-posted from the Long-term investment thread. This is an odd one so not sure where to fit it: I have a very unique question that may require someone who works for a custodian to answer. I have a client who is a conservator for her grandmother who has dementia. This woman has $615,000 in assets and the court is requiring that she (the conservator on behalf of the grandmother) either put up a $2k/yr surety bond, or deposit the money in a bank/investment account. The latter definitely is the preferred choice, but the court is requiring that the custodian sign a letter (that the court will provide) stating that they will not release any of the assets in the account without a court order. I've already touched base with Schwab, and after escalation they said that is not something that they do. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing? Is there a name for this type of account (aside from the ambiguous Restricted Account)? Just looking for some direction. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Super Delegate posted:Do you know why small claims court would have jurisdiction? I think Delta would rather settle before the court date than pay lawyers to fight this. Depends on the state, but small claims court usually has jurisdiction if the amount being sought is under a certain amount, i.e. $10000 or so, and if there's personal jurisdiction. In my experience, big companies will usually fight these, because they believe that if they settle one, word will get out and there will be a flood of claims. I'm sure there are some out there that would settle, but I haven't worked for one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Super Delegate posted:Do you know why small claims court would have jurisdiction? I think Delta would rather settle before the court date than pay lawyers to fight this. I'm not countering Abugadu's advice or experience (IANAL), just offering up that small claims is exactly where you want this to be heard. You seem to have a legitimate complaint (are maintenance issues "extraordinary circumstances"?). I do know two things about small claims courts: If you have a legitimate complaint backed up with facts (not legalese) you have a very good chance of winning. The second thing is; if you sue a "big company" expect a call from someone in line with a bill collector ready to "settle".
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:I'm not countering Abugadu's advice or experience (IANAL), just offering up that small claims is exactly where you want this to be heard. You seem to have a legitimate complaint (are maintenance issues "extraordinary circumstances"?). But can a US small claims court uphold an European law/regulation against an American company? I'm guessing that's the jurisdictional issue, although I'd be happy to learn otherwise. He's asking for the EU-dictated compensation, not the US DOT's...
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
'Super Delegate' did the legwork on that: http://www.delta.com/traveling_checkin/ticket_changes_refunds/eu_delayed_canceled/ I'm happy to learn otherwise too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
Married just under 5 years in California. Divorcing. I have an IRA account and 401K. Is she entitled to half of what is in there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
visuvius posted:Married just under 5 years in California. Divorcing. I have an IRA account and 401K. Is she entitled to half of what is in there? If it is community property, yes, it is 50/50. Is it community property? That's harder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
nm posted:You need a lawyer in California. Community property's a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I am pretty clueless, but wouldn't it be 50/50 on the increase in value since the marriage? Which is why I'm telling him to speak with a lawyer. I know it is 50% on community property, but I don't know what is and isn't community property under our laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Yeah okay its community property. I guess I'm just astounded at how hosed up the laws can be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
visuvius posted:Yeah okay its community property. It's an ugly situation that doesn't have any easy solutions. Those accounts were part of her financial future too, and while I understand you may not necessarily have charitable thoughts about your current wife, there are undoubtedly other, more deserving women out there who don't really deserve to be cut them off from funds they were counting on to retire on down the line. It's counterintuitive since retirement accounts seem to be implicitly tied to you personally in a way that liquid assets aren't, but I work for a financial planning office in a non-community property state and from what I gather the practice is often to give away retirement assets first--that way the primary earner isn't giving up liquid assets or real property that they're currently using, but the spouse still keeps access to the safety net they had a reasonable expectation of being able to rely on. I've worked with clients on either side of divorces where the settlement just outright handed over whole retirement balances in exchange for keeping a bigger share of tangible assets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Interesting fact on divorce: even on the most wide ranging 50/50 total splits of assets, where the husband was the sole earner his quality of life is likely to actually improve after a year (whereas the wive's tends to stagnate or decline).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 20:59
|
|
