|
Leperflesh posted:He actually had the letters handy, although I did not read them because at that point my goal was to escape the store without angering the only man I know in my town who can sell me a decent piroshki. At the end there I was standing in the doorway, trying to slowly close the door and nod, and he just kept talking to me while my frozen food slowly thawed in the bag. Well I hope you can do use all a solid and either read those letters or get us copies because I am super curious about this now. Texas abc (tabc) is basically the gestapo and I knew a few agents of theirs and a couple different underage sting people and they were all dumb as poo poo, but I can't imagine them putting in writing that they were gonna ignore a court decision Tabc used to have this gigantic Mexican pace outside the gas station I worked at in the same outfit every time and try to sting us with underage kids. It was so obvious we'd walk outside and offer the dude coffee
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
I wouldn't put it past the angry deli owner to not have a complete and accurate understanding of the finer points of his legal situation, either.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I wouldn't put it past the angry deli owner to not have a complete and accurate understanding of the finer points of his legal situation, either. Empty quote.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sorry, legal goons, but going back in there as a customer he maaaybe recognizes because I come in every three months or so, and asking for copies of his legal paperwork, would be really weird and awkward and I assume he'd be instantly suspicious and say no. I think it's likely that what the ABC has been up to can be better chalked up as rampant incompetence, rather than an active vendetta against this one shop owner. It's also likely that yes, his lawyer understands the situation much better than he does. His position is that of the beleaguered small businessman being hosed around by the filthy regulators, and I assume that colors everything. He does not strike me as being an especially stupid person, mind you. He's kept a small business afloat for 20+ years. Maybe he could have fought his situation without spending ten or twenty grand on legal fees, I don't know. I was mostly just curious to hear if there was anything he said that was blatantly impossible and/or a well-known situation, like, among legal nerds maybe everyone knows the CA ABC is an evil bunch of vindictive fuckers who go out of their ways to destroy small businesses or somesuch. One thing I do know, is it's really loving stupid for an 17% ABV bottle of booze to be regulated as if it were spirits just because of a word on the (mostly non-English) label, and the ABC's own rules should be simplified on that basis alone: a beer & wine license should define those drinks based entirely on alcohol content, not some hosed up labyrinthine definition of distillation processes or whatever. Cough syrup has distilled spirits in it, so a corner store shouldn't be able to sell Robitussin without a liquor license, right?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Cough syrup has distilled spirits in it, so a corner store shouldn't be able to sell Robitussin without a liquor license, right? It's complicated because industry will create an entire genre of products to avoid regulatory classification. This is especially true of folks who make addictive substances(industry is trying to push several different kinds of e-cig as legally distinct), but it's also how we got the SUV for example.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
It's not that complicated. You have beer and wine licenses, and then general alcohol license. There's not Byzantine system of production involved, as beer, wine, and distilled liquors are all made by distinct processes. Liqueurs are distilled, so they are liquors. It's easier to classify them into three broad groups then worrying about abv of each product. He has a beer and wine license. Liqueurs are neither of those things quote:It's complicated because industry will create an entire genre of products to avoid regulatory classification. This is especially true of folks who make addictive substances(industry is trying to push several different kinds of e-cig as legally distinct), but it's also how we got the SUV for example. But yea, things like "supplements" are clear attempts to avoid proper regulation EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 06:55 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
That bottle is neither beer nor wine but is distilled and then flavored so...
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
My bad, I've spent too long in dietary supplement land.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
If the Second Amendment stated "Because the Moon is in the 7th House , the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" does that mean that if the Moon leaves the 7th house, the Second Amendment does not apply?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:If the Second Amendment stated "Because the Moon is in the 7th House , the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" does that mean that if the Moon leaves the 7th house, the Second Amendment does not apply? Yes if you have five justices and enough of the public behind you
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:If the Second Amendment stated "Because the Moon is in the 7th House , the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" does that mean that if the Moon leaves the 7th house, the Second Amendment does not apply? I guess, but it doesn't - you've done a switch. (but you probably knew that) In your example, if you wanted to use "because," it would be written, "because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the moon is in the 7th House."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
The moon in the 7th house, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
One easy trick for amending the constitution; internet activists HATE this!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Ohio. Today after my accident, for which I was absolutely not at fault, i went to my car at the lot to retrieve my possessions from my vehicle only to find that they dumped gravel and oil all over the back seat of my car, destroying everything back there, including my $240 of Dominion cards. They gave me absolutely no warning that this was a possibility. The only times I've seen absorbent car fluids dumped on the seats was when the car was a disgusting wreck and was obviously a total loss. Usually we try to put the absorbent in a bag and then place it on a floormat.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I guess, but it doesn't - you've done a switch. (but you probably knew that) I don't follow. Imagine the founding fathers being superstitious and saying "holy poo poo, the moon is in the 7th house, better make sure everyone has a gun!" Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Yea I read it as an argument that the 2nd amendment was based on a premise, which existed when there was no standing army. So remove the premise and the conclusion logically fails. Not agreeing or disagreeing but that's how I understood the question.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Having the right to bear arms makes possible the existence of a militia. Baron Porkface was positing that having a militia made possible the right to bear arms. That's backward. The right(remember, this is in the Bill of Rights) to bear arms is the foundational assumption that makes possible that which flows from the right to bear arms; an armed populace already armed with the skills to defend the country. In a sense, the right to bear arms was the right; the responsibility that flowed from (not created) the right was membership in a militia. It's "if right, then militia", not "if militia, then right." See also, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the history of the English Civil War.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
So I posted this first in the SCOTUS dnd thread because I forgot this place existed but my family, having decided that because of my mastery of the eldritch magicks known as Google I am to be harassed with all questions they might have about anything forever, have tasked me with explaining why a stupid cousin is about to get reamed by the legal system for proscribing b17 through their stupid PMA poo poo. I've already had it pointed out that b17 doesn't mean she was giving people flintstone vitamins to cure cancer, but is actually a pretty dangerous poison. So there's that question answered. But between learning that and now, I took a look at the giant block of police reports and various other legal poo poo they've accumulated and noticed some interesting documents they filed. I'd like for the good goon legal experts here to reaffirm my suspicious regarding them:  So yeah. Cousin's drank the sovcit koolaid right? e: What the gently caress is with the lack of signatures. She obviously felt it important to poo poo this out at the court, so why are none of the handwritten portions empty? e2: I guess since her name is typed next to it that's supposed to be her signature. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
You can generally sign documents electronically, like /s/ Name. And yea, she's hosed. What cult does she belong to?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
No idea. Like I knew she was a conspiracy theory type, but I'm not really close to her at all. As far as I knew she was just the usual Southern Baptist the rest of my family is.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So yeah. Cousin's drank the sovcit koolaid right? hahahahahahahha yeah she's hosed apologize to everyone involved in the case as early and often as possible
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Yea I read it as an argument that the 2nd amendment was based on a premise, which existed when there was no standing army. So remove the premise and the conclusion logically fails. Article 1, Section 8 gives the federal government the power to arm and regulate militias, which makes the 2nd amendment superfluous with respect to militias. Exactly why they thought it was necessary isn't particularly clear.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So yeah. Cousin's drank the sovcit koolaid right? This is a textbook example of the type of document to come out of the "Sovereign Citizen" movement. Considering you mentioned she was into conspiracy theories, it's not surprising she fell into this group. These people believe in a whole slew of different things that translate to; if you utter the right magic phrases in a court of law, the law does not apply to you. The two most popular categories are severing your "legal" persons with your "physical" persons and refusing liabilities assigned to the legal persons (most popular in cases involving money) -- or declaring that you are a sovereign citizen of the United States, which is somehow different than what everyone else is. These people are causing huge headaches in the court system right now. Someone probably has a better tl;dr link where you can read about these, but the best (and incredibly interesting) document I've found about the movement is this one where an Alberta judge handling a Sovereign Citizen defendant goes over the movement, how it applied to the specific case, strategies for judges to deal with these litigants, and what happened in this specific case. It's not as long of a read as it looks. Of course, when trying to find a link to the PDF, I found the alternative way to handle these people; which apparently is very popular in Texas because they are having huge issues with Soverign Citizen defendants. It can be summed us as "gently caress them, use your judicial power to force them in front of the bench, appoint legal counsel, and just keep throwing contempt charges at them until they realize how much trouble they are really in". Goodluck if your sister ends in the latter case.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
What the gently caress is PMA in this context? We had a local ER doc get his license severely sanctioned maybe 10 years ago due to over-prescribing opioids (and possibly his own use?) and he filed a bunch of sovcit bullshit in response, it was ridiculous and hilarious. He was an rear end in a top hat anyway. I was bummed he was still able to practice at all.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:What the gently caress is PMA in this context? Positive Mental Attitude, I expect.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Trying to track the document's source is mostly dead ends so far. The initial identity statement "I am the sovereign of my domain, my nation-state, one of the Untited States" is discussed in a couple right wing prepper forums, and a facebook post by http://www.peacemakersociety.org/ Who are worth checking out just for the groovy music on their website. It is supposedly taken from Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652. I can't find anything resembling it in the case, which at a glance has something to do with jurisdictional issues regarding the Phillipines, so the word "sovereign" appears a lot. "freewill act and deed" pops up in a lot of places on the legal fringe, so it doesn't narrow things down. Hey, what's this? http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/cmps_index.php A forum devoted entirely to sovcit theory. A lot of overlaps in posts here with the posted forms. My guess is the cousin is a user there. More generally, this site could be a great separate mock or study thread in another subforum. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:07 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:What the gently caress is PMA in this context? pastoral medical association
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So yeah. Cousin's drank the sovcit koolaid right? Yes. And it tastes like losing everything in Court. Make them get an attorney. Edit: and now I'm considering the irony of the following conversation: "Look, this stuff you found on the internet about what you need to do is bullshit. I read on the internet that you need to..." But we're legit. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Just looked up what the ND she put beside her name means. Its a "doctor of Naturopathy". Naturopathic doctors are officially licensed in Florida through a grandfathering in program from the late fifties. Meaning you can only get a license if you were practicing when that law went into effect. So she was faking being a quack doctor that doesn't even exist anymore. I'm trying to come up with a way to explain to the family that she's a moron who's probably hosed because she pretty unambiguously broke the law, but they seem pretty hellbent on their "religious freedom" angle.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
This is beautiful. I hope you don't like your cousin very much because the next 6 months to 25 years of her life are not going to be pleasant.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:
Looks like typical sov-cit stuff to me. All the references to "domicile" and "real" and the like is a huge give-a-way. The only thing that's missing is a reference to maritime law. EDIT: That stuff (and the accompanying blank docs) are everywhere on the web. You can trace it all the way back to people being pissed off at blacks integrating in the South, and you can see it in arraignments of black people charged with murder in Baltimore. Its pretty contagious.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This is beautiful. I'm sure there is a gold fringe flag joke to be made here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
I was the staffer assigned to the naturopathy lobby by my member when I worked in the Texas house. It did not go well for me. I wish I could say I called them on their bullshit, but I probably agreed with them like a sycophant because I'm a spineless baby.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
So this morning around 4 am some fucker got into my paypal account and purchased $400 worth of itunes gift cards, $200 from ebay and $200 from target (which got canceled for some reason about 30 minutes later). I immediately did the rational things, changed my ebay and paypal passwords, ran a malware scan, and changed my gmail password for good measure as all the confirmation emails somehow ended up in the trash... I then set up a dispute for this through paypal, and tried to dispute it on my CC, though they were too new to be able to do anything apparently. Also, my CC company called with a fraud check, and canceled my card as a result to be safe. The thing is though, paypal ended the dispute by saying that it was all legitimate! I'm glad my bank canceled it and is not holding me responsible for this as I'm pissed at paypal for that decision. My legal question is (and I may have completely incorrect assumptions here): if the CC company does a chargeback on paypal to recoup their money and gets money from paypal, I'm sure paypal would try to bill me for that $200 again directly right? If so, would they be able to go after me collections wise (credit hit, yada yada), and could I use fraud as a defense to get the debt eliminated? Or, assuming they bill me for the money and I need to use paypal for whatever reason, could I take them to small claims or whatever for that $200? edit: http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/jon-martindale/teamviewer-hackers-are-stealing-hundreds-from-users/ this is how they did it.... Watermelon Daiquiri fucked around with this message at 04:22 on May 24, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Yeah I hosed this one up. The only reason the title was in my name was because my dad did not want to be awkward about it.
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
At what point should I consider legal counsel / representation over workplace harassment? I've been at a smallish company for five months. My direct supervisor is integral in the company's functioning, but has harassed me routinely since my first day - asking about my sex life, making comments about my appearance, and telling me about his sex life. He also had voiced a number of racist opinions, and instructed me to ignore job applicants with foreign sounding names. HR is, at best, ineffective and I'm genuinely concerned about retaliation. I didn't pursue this during the 90 new hire probationary period, for the same reason. Yesterday, in front of another co-worker, he made a joke and called me a "stupid bitch." This kind of thing happens all the time and I document exactly what he says, and when he says it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Uh...now?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
If there's any justice in the world, you're going to own that company.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Uh...now? Actuallu 4 months ago.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Uh...now? I posted about the same issues in March, and they've gotten worse. Shockingly. What sort of attorney should I look for? What area of law is this - is it labor law? I'm in Pittsburgh, if anyone has recommendations or could PM me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:30
|
|