|
How is it decided which laws apply to members of the military stationed stateside? When I was in, if I got a ticket or an arrest for civilian offenses such as speeding or passing bad checks, I would have had to go to court just like anybody else and deal with the consequences in the county court (then go back to my unit and play double jeopardy with the UCMJ ). On the other hand, I could pop into the Dunkin' Donuts for some coffee (in uniform) carrying an M-16 and a live hand grenade on my belt and civilian laws regarding guns and wandering around in public places with high explosives didn't seem to apply.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Aishlinn posted:Here's a question, i work in Pennsylvania, part time at a small retail store, along with my wife, who has been an assistant manager there for 5+ years. I was hired on as seasonal help, and asked to stay past the holiday season. Another Manager/significant other also works there, as had one in the past. During the holidays, my work was exemplary, and I was told i was going to be kept on, and now, out of the blue, they are saying that Married people aren't allowed to work with their spouses "Except during the holidays", and that i will be let go. Do they have any legal grounds to fire me for that reason? Especially on the precedent that another husband/wife had worked there for many years, not just during the holidays. Yup. google protected classes. Basically race, religion, disability, genetics, gender, sexuality, and couple other i'm forgetting are the reasons you can't be fired for. Anything else is not protected. Welcome at will employment! Being a spouse isn't protected, even if it is 100% horseshit. You should apply for unemployment and if they contest it point out the obvious fact that their reasoning is bullshit there is another married couple working there, but otherwise sorry man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
I'm having a bit of trouble with my roommate and I'm wondering if she has any actual grounds to threaten me with legal action. We co-leased an apartment last summer in CT for a one-year term, and we both signed the lease. She now wants out of the lease early, and contacted our landlord to see what her options were. According to what she said, the landlord said that the only way she would be released from the lease is if I allowed her to. Being that we're in grad school, I told her that I couldn't afford to do that. I then contacted the landlord, who confirmed that I could let her out of the lease. Additionally, she could also pay the remainder of her rent upfront, or continue monthly payments. I told the landlord that I would not release my roommate from the lease. I got a confirmation from the leasing office that they would garnish my roommate's wages should she stop making rent payments. I then gave my roommate the same options the landlord gave her. She replied with this email: Roommate posted:Good evening Banana dose, So does she have grounds to threaten me with legal action? Based on what research I've done so far and the assurances of the landlord, it doesn't seem like she has grounds to sue for anything (my emphasis): legalmatch.com posted:Can a Roommate Get Out of a Lease Early? Is there anything I should do to protect myself? I am absolutely unwilling to release her from the lease; aside from not being able to afford the rent on my own, she's been an awful person and I don't want to do her any favors. Should I respond to her email or just ignore it? I don't particularly want to lawyer up if it isn't necessary, but I will if need be. As a side note, can her threat be potentially construed as harmful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Banana dose posted:I then contacted the landlord, who confirmed that I could let her out of the lease. Additionally, she could also pay the remainder of her rent upfront, or continue monthly payments. I told the landlord that I would not release my roommate from the lease. I got a confirmation from the leasing office that they would garnish my roommate's wages should she stop making rent payments. I then gave my roommate the same options the landlord gave her. She replied with this email: (Not a lawyer.) Does the the lease say that you are jointly and severally responsible & liable for the obligations of the lease? If so, I wouldn't count too hard on the leasing office taking your roommate to court, getting a judgement, then using that judgement to garnish wages when they could just simply require you to pay the full amount. You'd then be able to potentially sue your roommate, but you're still expected to try and mitigate the damages, basically to try to find a new roommate. Wouldn't it be simpler to tell her you'll let her out if she finds a new roommate acceptable to you and the landlord?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
fordan posted:Wouldn't it be simpler to tell her you'll let her out if she finds a new roommate acceptable to you and the landlord?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Yup. google protected classes. Basically race, religion, disability, genetics, gender, sexuality, and couple other i'm forgetting are the reasons you can't be fired for. Anything else is not protected. Welcome at will employment! Being a spouse isn't protected, even if it is 100% horseshit. You should apply for unemployment and if they contest it point out the obvious fact that their reasoning is bullshit there is another married couple working there, but otherwise sorry man. In Pennsylvania, he may be out of luck, but I'm not sure it's that clear-cut in all states: https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/sites/workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/files/imported/pdfs/policy_makers21.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
"Your honor, the Defendant Banana Dose refused to unilaterally accept thousands of dollars of payment obligations to my personal benefit, and he was a total jerk about it. Plaintiff rests."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:How is it decided which laws apply to members of the military stationed stateside? When I was in, if I got a ticket or an arrest for civilian offenses such as speeding or passing bad checks, I would have had to go to court just like anybody else and deal with the consequences in the county court (then go back to my unit and play double jeopardy with the UCMJ ). On the other hand, I could pop into the Dunkin' Donuts for some coffee (in uniform) carrying an M-16 and a live hand grenade on my belt and civilian laws regarding guns and wandering around in public places with high explosives didn't seem to apply. It's not so much that certain laws don't apply to you, it's that federal laws allowing soldiers to do such and such in the course of duty supercede local/state laws. You're generally not committing local traffic violations in the course of duty (if your duty includes the realistic possibility for that, local police might or might not have to step off), but you are carrying a high-powered rifle for duty (but not usually to DD just saying).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:This is the correct answer. Since you don't like her anyway, you should probably start looking for a new roommate who you do like; she gets out of the lease, you get your choice of roommate, win-win. Good point. I have no problems with finding another roommate. I just don't want to get stuck with paying a rent I can't really afford. Believe me... if I could write her off completely, I would. At this point, she's just been a nasty piece of work. She can't sue me for not releasing her from the lease outright, can she? I mean, she's got a number of options to handle this, and she is both named on and signed the lease.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:How is it decided which laws apply to members of the military stationed stateside? When I was in, if I got a ticket or an arrest for civilian offenses such as speeding or passing bad checks, I would have had to go to court just like anybody else and deal with the consequences in the county court (then go back to my unit and play double jeopardy with the UCMJ ). On the other hand, I could pop into the Dunkin' Donuts for some coffee (in uniform) carrying an M-16 and a live hand grenade on my belt and civilian laws regarding guns and wandering around in public places with high explosives didn't seem to apply. Speeding/bad checks: on base or off base? M-16/grenade: on base of off base? What base? M-16: Condition? Hand grenade: really?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Banana dose posted:Good point. I have no problems with finding another roommate. I just don't want to get stuck with paying a rent I can't really afford. Believe me... if I could write her off completely, I would. At this point, she's just been a nasty piece of work. She can't sue me for not releasing her from the lease outright, can she? I mean, she's got a number of options to handle this, and she is both named on and signed the lease. She can sue you because she doesn't like your face. The only questions are whether or not she'd win, and how much of your time/money would she eat up defending it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Hello legal thread. I have a hypothetical question regarding contracts. I'm in the UK, but am not looking for a specific answer so whatever you people could tell me would be of interest. My sister has done some modelling work for hobbiest photographer who signed an agreement with her stating that they COULDN'T publish her photographs online without her written consent. Being the ditzy clutz that she is, she then went and signed the photographer's contract which included a 'model release' clause stating that they COULD publish the photographs online. So my question is: if two parties have signed two contracts which contradict each other, which one, if either, is valid should a dispute arise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Whichever one was only signed in black ink. No wait, the one on the left. Like, that would be the whole purpose of a room full of bickering lawyers, determining the results of two conflicting contracts, right? In any event, in your non-hypothetical hypothetical, it sounds like there's no conflict: first contract says "Don't publish without my permission," and then the second says, "Okay here's my permission."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Generally, whichever was signed most recently will trump inconsistent terms in the earlier writing. If it was all at the same time more or less, then Bad Munki is right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:It's not so much that certain laws don't apply to you, it's that federal laws allowing soldiers to do such and such in the course of duty supercede local/state laws. quote:(2) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty;
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Is a court order enforceable if the name of the individual the judgement is against is incorrect? His middle name is wrong. I have a court ordered garnishment against one of my employees and he is having a fit about it because his middle name wrong on the order; he is obviously just trying to delay this as long as possible, but now I'm stuck in the middle. The only reason I'm even worried about this is that the labour board here is very strict on employers regarding payroll deductions and in this exact situation it seems they have never made a ruling either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Any of you law goons behind this new fad of using a printed piece of paper on a car window to avoid dui checkpoints?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Kidavenger posted:Is a court order enforceable if the name of the individual the judgement is against is incorrect? His middle name is wrong. Ask him if the kid named in the order is his kid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Any of you law goons behind this new fad of using a printed piece of paper on a car window to avoid dui checkpoints? A map?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Hypothetically, someone is looking at real estate lawyer websites, and alleges that these sites are generally absolute poo poo, even for top rated attorneys. In this hypothetical alleged situation, why are these pages such poo poo? Assume for this hypothetical a list of real estate lawyer websites is located at https://www.redfin.com/buy-a-home/openbook/chicago/real-estate-lawyer
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
I like to look at negative reviews on Avvo, they're hilarious for a lot of reasons. I keep hoping my ex's attorney gets a negative review eventually but it doesn't seem likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Speeding/bad checks: on base or off base? Off base. Off base. Would it legally make a difference if it was a large infantry post such as Benning or Bragg where soldiers carrying weapons is more common than a smaller intel post like Meade or Deterich? Or are you specifically asking which state? Condition of M16: Loaded? Safety on/off? I don't understand the question. Hand grenade - no, not really. That was just an example. I haven't touched a live hand grenade since BASIC and we sure as hell didn't just wander off the firing range and into Dunkin Donuts with one dangling from our belt. I just used that as an example of how I could have walked in with an AT-4 across my back, a belt full of grenades and then set a claymore mine on the counter while I dug through my wallet to pay my bill and not have had any worries about being arrested. I was just curious about how that was viewed legally. Is that something that is technically illegal, but not enforced?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
My wild-rear end guess is that weapons regulations tend to include "except by the military or police" whereas other laws do not; The general course of such occupations is likely to involve weaponry, but not, say, bouncing checks. Local laws aside, the federal law that prohibits possession of explosive weapons like your grenades does exempt the military in particular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:This is the correct answer. Since you don't like her anyway, you should probably start looking for a new roommate who you do like; she gets out of the lease, you get your choice of roommate, win-win. But then how does he spite her? No no, the correct answer is to be as dickish as possible, pay her part of the lease, and undetectably sabotage any attempt to find a new roommate, all so you can take her to court and sue her for her half. And if Judge Judy offers you money, definitely don't go, what's the point of being made whole and getting a few grand on top of that if your hated roommate gets a few bucks too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Javid posted:My wild-rear end guess is that weapons regulations tend to include "except by the military or police" whereas other laws do not; The general course of such occupations is likely to involve weaponry, but not, say, bouncing checks. What are the chances that this might actually be illegal, but very few people are going to report an apparently active-duty soldier and even fewer cops are going to try and arrest them? I mean, this seems like the kind of thing where people's brains will go 'Oh well of course weapon laws don't apply to our brave troops  god bless them', even if that is technically incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:What are the chances that this might actually be illegal, but very few people are going to report an apparently active-duty soldier and even fewer cops are going to try and arrest them? I mean, this seems like the kind of thing where people's brains will go 'Oh well of course weapon laws don't apply to our brave troops no, most state gun laws have explicit exceptions for law enforcement and military when required as part of their official duties. And that is interpreted pretty generously in favor or the cop/troop. HOWEVER, I imagine the soldier in question is actually violating military regs, as every base I've seen makes you check your weapon in at the armory at the end of your shift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Hypothetically, someone is looking at real estate lawyer websites, and alleges that these sites are generally absolute poo poo, even for top rated attorneys. In this hypothetical alleged situation, why are these pages such poo poo? Assume for this hypothetical a list of real estate lawyer websites is located at https://www.redfin.com/buy-a-home/openbook/chicago/real-estate-lawyer For established lawyers, the vast majority of Non-criminal/Non-personal injury clients come from personal and professional references. Websites aren't that important to them, and they very rarely, if ever, hear that their websites are lovely. Their businesses hum along, and they never know any different. Its 2014, and law firms are just now starting to pull their ads from the phone book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Off base. There used to be an off-base difference with regard to the UCMJ, where the UCMJ didn't have jurisdiction over you unless the offense was service-connected. So bad checks and speeding? no. M-16 and grenades off base in a Dunkin Donuts? Yes, probably service-connected. However, that all changed in the late 80s with a case called Solario which did away with the service connection requirement, so the UCMJ does cover that bad check off base too. Bringing your rifle into Dunkin Donuts offbase will be illegal under both state law and the UCMJ. If the civvies don't arrest you, it's out of deference to the military, not because they can't. (But even then there will be a quick call to PMO asking WTF. In 20 years as a dependent and 10 years active duty, I never saw a servicemember offbase with a service weapon unless it was for an exercise that we'd already cleared with the locals. This was all before GWOT, so things may have changed? Bases like Bragg have what is called exclusive federal jurisdiction which means the civvies don't have jurisdiction on base. Some bases have concurrent jurisdiction, meaning the civvies have jurisdiction there too (there's usually a memorandum of understanding that lays out the division of duties) If your hypo was for on base, this would have made a difference. You were in a don't know weapon conditions for an M-16? Condition 4: safety on, bolt home, chamber empty, ejection port closed, no magazine in 3: safety on, bolt home, chamber empty, ejection port closed, magazine in 2: trick question, the M-16 does not have a condition 2. 1: safety on, bolt home, loaded chamber, ejection port closed, magazine in The cops would have been 100% within their rights to arrest you for all that stupid in Dunkin Donuts. Unless the state had a staute disclaiming jurisdiction when the military and/or feds took it, you could be charged under state law and the UCMJ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:For established lawyers, the vast majority of Non-criminal/Non-personal injury clients come from personal and professional references. Websites aren't that important to them, and they very rarely, if ever, hear that their websites are lovely. Their businesses hum along, and they never know any different. I guess. Lawyers, this is how to do a website: http://mattalbrechtlaw.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I guess. Lawyers, this is how to do a website: http://mattalbrechtlaw.com No, this is how you do a website: http://velakeller.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No, this is how you do a website: http://velakeller.com/ I hate that style of website and would automatically be annoyed with the law firm that had it. I like the other one better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
http://mattalbrechtlaw.com gives me a clickjacking virus warning so lawyers maybe don't do your site like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
doverhog posted:http://mattalbrechtlaw.com gives me a clickjacking virus warning so lawyers maybe don't do your site like that. I just found it randomly, though after reading about clickjacking, it seems like something that would have a high rate of false positives. What I liked was that the information was clear and easily accessible and didn't have that annoying Web 3.0 layout as MonkeyBot pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
California: I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I certainly hope so. I had gone to the store to pick up a couple sick packs. Prior to this I had 2 beers. While driving back, someone swerved into my lane. I bumped into the back of his car scaring the poo poo out of me as I result, i over corrected and rolled my car three times, totalling it. The other vehicle sped off. Luckily it was in front of a park so plenty of witnesses saw him some speed off. Now, since I had 2 6 packs in my car that broke, it obviously smelt like beer. The officer gave me a sobriety test and I was just under the legal limit. He seemed to not care about the other car. In his report he wrote that I was most likely over the limit and sobered up which is not true at all. Since it was a hit and run I should have no problems with the insurance covering the costs correct? 10bux fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Not a lawyer but I already know: you need a lawyer. NOW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
10bux posted:Since it was a hit and run I should have no problems with the insurance covering the costs correct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Does your insurance cover damages you caused while DUI? Because if not... Doesn't sound like he was charged with a DUI? That said -- get a lawyer you dumbass. No one is going to comment on the facts you posted, it's not a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
I did not get a DUI. The cop gave me a full sobriety check then breathalyzed me to which I blew a 0.4. There's witnesses that say the guy came into my lane, hit me, causing me to roll three times, then Sped off. Shouldn't the insurance be able to handle it? Edit: just for an anecdote, my brother rear ended someone totalling his car. The guy sped off. My brother got a brand new car from the insurance company. The only difference here is the breathalyzer which i was well under the legal limit. Like I said, I rolled three times and hit a fire hydrant. I could have been serious injured but the guy didn't stop. I am fine however. 10bux fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
10bux posted:I did not get a DUI. The cop gave me a full sobriety check then breathalyzed me to which I blew a 0.4. There's witnesses that say the guy came into my lane, hit me, causing me to roll three times, then Sped off. Shouldn't the insurance be able to handle it? I hope you mean .04. Get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
10bux posted:I did not get a DUI. The cop gave me a full sobriety check then breathalyzed me to which I blew a 0.4. There's witnesses that say the guy came into my lane, hit me, causing me to roll three times, then Sped off. Shouldn't the insurance be able to handle it? Depends? How's your uninsured motorist coverage? Who's your insurance with, and what state are you in? Yes, presumably your insurance will handle it. It's possible, though rare, that the insurance company could opt to drop your coverage because of the alcohol, even though you were legally sober because they could still argue you were impaired and intentional did it to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 05:34
|
|