|
you'd think that, but no
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:28 |
|
bigpolar posted:It's really prone to abuse. There was s case a few years ago in a small town near me where a police officer in his squad car ran a stop light (the kind with yellows flashing one direction, reds the other, he ran the reds without his lights and siren) and T boned another car. Not only did the city refuse to pay, they refused to allow a claim on their insurance, and even got the police officer ruled to be not personally responsible because he was acting in his official capacity. That has nothing to do with sov immunity.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Wait, in the US the government gets to claim sovereing immunity on cases brought forward by it's own citizens? What the gently caress. It's not black and white by any stretch. Certain rights cannot be legislated out (bill of rights eg guns). Other causes of action only exist via statute so the state (and understand in the U.S. We have federal law and state law) has the ability to carve out exceptions. Allowing civilians to sue New York City for damage caused to cars by snow plows would bankrupt the city in one winter, yet I have a slip and fall pi claim against a city and state agency that is not barred. So, as with most legal things, "it depends".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
"It depends" is my favorite legal answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:"It depends" is my favorite legal answer. And it's the correct answer 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:And it's the correct answer 99% of the time. I'm curious about that 1%. When does it not depend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I'm curious about that 1%. When does it not depend? When the other side is a soverign citizen. Then you just have to deal with that nonsense in court till the judge is tired of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I'm curious about that 1%. When does it not depend? When the girl is 15.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
When the answer is clear, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I'm curious about that 1%. When does it not depend? It depends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:When the girl is 15. Depends. Is she married?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:"It depends" is my favorite legal answer. I tell people "If you get a lawyer to say anything besides 'it depends' to that question, don't hire them."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I tell people "If you get a lawyer to say anything besides 'it depends' to that question, don't hire them." It depends. What if you're hiring them as a wedding planner instead of as a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:It depends. What if you're hiring them as a wedding planner instead of as a lawyer? I like money. So yes, I'll plan your wedding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:It depends. What if you're hiring them as a wedding planner instead of as a lawyer? And if you're hiring them to drive from Houston to Orlando quickly enough to kidnap your romantic rival as she gets off the plane that she took from Houston to Orlando? DependsTM
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I like money. So yes, I'll plan your wedding. Can you imagine vows written by a lawyer as if they were a contract?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:Can you imagine vows written by a lawyer as if they were a contract? You mean prenuptial agreements Yes I can imagine those
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Lawyers have very good imaginations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You mean prenuptial agreements No like actual standing up in front of a priest or whatever and saying some legalese bullshit while grandma in the front row looks confused. And then quoting Corinthians of course 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Lawyers have very good imaginations. I had to share a room with a National Guard Jag Officer who was a criminal defense lawyer at his real job I asked him one evening, while he was morosely sifting through a mountain of papers, what his civilian job was like. He replied: "Mostly trying to keep pedophiles out of jail." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:No like actual standing up in front of a priest or whatever and saying some legalese bullshit while grandma in the front row looks confused. Chapter 7 on marriage already sounds pretty legalesish, but I'm sure an M&A lawyer could turn Chapter 13 on love to crap pretty fast. Chapter 7 needs to have a bankruptcy lawyer do the rewrite ("Admitting failure, we now move forward as failures, with the knowledge that at least we're not as terrible failures as we would be if we didn't file) e: And the chapters match! IT HAS BEEN FORETOLD. joat mon fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I had to share a room with a National Guard Jag Officer who was a criminal defense lawyer at his real job Well, someone has to do it. Though I'm not sure I'd want a lawyer that referred to his clients like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
You don't have to like your job to do it well. I imagine poo poo-shovelers have no particular fondness for feces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:You don't have to like your job to do it well. I imagine poo poo-shovelers have no particular fondness for feces. A poo poo shoveler's client is not the feces, but the person who wants the feces gone. To convert your analogy back to the example, the defense counsel is working for the prosecutor. If that wasn't gallows humor on the JAG's part, the guy's not just in the wrong line of business, but in the polar opposite wrong line of business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If that wasn't gallows humor on the JAG's part, the guy's not just in the wrong line of business, but in the polar opposite wrong line of business. He and I are bother older Soldiers with multiple deployments. It was humor. Speaking of legal stuff: How fun is it to pull into the base every day and be greeted by federal police officers that you busted for drugs when you were their commander (and they were still in the military)? Answer: It's pretty fun. spacetoaster fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:Can you imagine vows written by a lawyer as if they were a contract? I have a request for proposal written by my grandmother (a lawyer) and my grandfather (an engineer) when they wanted to have their house painted. It's an amazing half dozen pages of specifications and requirements for something that a normal person would do by calling up a company and asking "how much will it cost to paint my house green?" I think it's hilarious, but nobody ever agrees with me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
SubCrid TC posted:I have a request for proposal written by my grandmother (a lawyer) and my grandfather (an engineer) when they wanted to have their house painted. It's an amazing half dozen pages of specifications and requirements for something that a normal person would do by calling up a company and asking "how much will it cost to paint my house green?" Please post it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Please post it. Also whether they got anyone to agree to their proposal in full?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
SubCrid TC posted:I have a request for proposal written by my grandmother (a lawyer) and my grandfather (an engineer) when they wanted to have their house painted. It's an amazing half dozen pages of specifications and requirements for something that a normal person would do by calling up a company and asking "how much will it cost to paint my house green?" After dealing with contractors who promise everything and then say "well that wasn't specified in the contract - I was just being agreeable" - I would understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
My wife is 37 weeks pregnant, working a contract-to-hire W2 job. She was supposed to work through the end of this month, but after she told them the due date (February 12th) she was terminated the next day. She had exceptional production/numbers by their standards during her time working there, and they already refused to hire her on (conversion) due to her being pregnant and not wanting to pay maternity leave (literally what they told her), despite the fact she had the productivity numbers required. Is this legal? It really loving our finances a bit since we were planning on her ending the job at the end of the month, so it is a week's worth of pay we will not be getting now. It isn't like we are in a position where we can sue them since we are broke with a baby coming next month anyway, but I am curious if what they did was legal. She was not given any negative reason for terminating her, they basically told her "they thought the baby could come any minute so we filled your position and don't need you anymore". State of Colorado, she worked for this employer for about 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
If 6 months full-time employment she might be eligible for unemployment
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:It isn't like we are in a position where we can sue them since we are broke with a baby coming next month anyway . . . Many plaintiffs lawyers don't charge anything up front. They take a cut from any potential settlement/winnings (a contingency fee). Your situation sounds sketchy, but employment law can be highly fact specific. Might be worth talking to a lawyer about it. Check ahead of time, but a consultation likely will not cost you anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
In a hypothetical case with similar facts one would estimate the damages to be like a week of pay so .....
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Terminating an employee for being pregnant is against the anti-discrimination laws, although your situation is complicated by the fact she was a contractor at the time (but it could be argued she was an applicant for an employee position--which would bring her within the scope of the law.) In any event, it doesn't cost anything to file a charge with the EEOC or the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
This isn't legal advice but if lacking a week's worth of pay is loving your finances, termination-due-to-pregnancy is not your only problem. If you would like help with finances, plenty of people in BFC love giving it. They'll also probably mock you if you make particularly bad mistakes but that's the fee they charge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
If a small company (less than five employees) in California, stops giving an itemized pay stub (just a regular check), drops the insurance without saying anything but continues to take it out of the paycheck for a full month, and hasn't been paying the taxes, how much trouble would they be in? Edit: Also, is there a general time limit (statue of limitations?) for the employee to make a big deal about it and go to court, if they never get reimbursed and stuff. Raimondo fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Any New York law goons? I was served today via certified mail on a UCC business debt in Civil Court of the City of New York. When is my answer due? Does service start from the date they sent it to me or the date I received? Huggles. Roger_Mudd
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
A judge is in serious trouble for ordering the tasing of a sovereign citizen: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/judge-pleads-guilty-to-ordering-defendant-shocked-with-50000-volts/ I had no idea stun cuffs existed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:A judge is in serious trouble for ordering the tasing of a sovereign citizen: Having been tasered before, I hope the judge goes to jail for a year. Can you imagine the power trip we'd give officials if they could just electrocute you during court whenever you annoyed them? lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Having been tasered before, I hope the judge goes to jail for a year. Well, as long as it is only used on sovereign citizens, it should be OK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:29
|
|
