|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:Thank you anyway. drat, chill out. You can probably take a plea deal for probation or something.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
NancyPants posted:The most shocking thing to me is that in at least two places in America, one of them Texas, you have to actually be doing something lewd beyond being nude for indecent exposure to stick. That is far more reasonable than I would ever expect from any law involving nudity. In Seattle, simple public nudity is straight legal. Hell, we have a naked parade every summer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
I posted a while ago about selling a bunch of anonymous eCommerce goods, and everyone told me I was an idiot. The jury is still out on whether I'm an idiot, but after some back and forth with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I have legal counsel to sign off on my decisions. So don't let SA color everything you do, and thanks for the input and time taken to respond.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I posted a while ago about selling a bunch of anonymous eCommerce goods, and everyone told me I was an idiot. The jury is still out on whether I'm an idiot, but after some back and forth with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I have legal counsel to sign off on my decisions. So don't let SA color everything you do, and thanks for the input and time taken to respond. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Honestly, his post history makes him seem like a colossal rear end in a top hat, so I'm really hoping he makes a thread about his new business that I can follow all the way to either the cold feet moment, or to the inevitable plea bargain.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Enjoy your money laundering scheme!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I posted a while ago about selling a bunch of anonymous eCommerce goods, and everyone told me I was an idiot. The jury is still out on whether I'm an idiot, but after some back and forth with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I have legal counsel to sign off on my decisions. So don't let SA color everything you do, and thanks for the input and time taken to respond. Did you pay the EFF lawyer money or have them otherwise directly indicate they were acting as your lawyer? What do you think "legal counsel to sign off on my decisions" means?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
You do you, crazy guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I posted a while ago about selling a bunch of anonymous eCommerce goods, and everyone told me I was an idiot. The jury is still out on whether I'm an idiot, but after some back and forth with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I have legal counsel to sign off on my decisions. So don't let SA color everything you do, and thanks for the input and time taken to respond. Keep the thread updated on your business so you can really stick it to these know-nothing idiots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Korgan posted:Keep the thread updated on your business so you can really stick it to these know-nothing idiots. Please do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I posted a while ago about selling a bunch of anonymous eCommerce goods, and everyone told me I was an idiot. The jury is still out on whether I'm an idiot, but after some back and forth with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I have legal counsel to sign off on my decisions. So don't let SA color everything you do, and thanks for the input and time taken to respond. As a matter of fact, his lawyer is also a Parse Syntax Grammer Guru, and Plenipotentiary JUDGE!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I posted a while ago about selling a bunch of anonymous eCommerce goods, and everyone told me I was an idiot. The jury is still out on whether I'm an idiot, but after some back and forth with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I have legal counsel to sign off on my decisions. So don't let SA color everything you do, and thanks for the input and time taken to respond. And then all of the Supreme Court stood up and clapped?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
And that poster's name was Albert Einstein
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Pure Hypothetical for any of the real estate attorneys here. If I were to have a time machine, how far could i go back and still have a valid claim today for a legally purchased/recorded property purchase? Say if i were to go back after a town has been chartered and purchase a few acres in New England and then left them alone to come back to now and re-claim. Is there a way to prevent it from being claimed/squatted say by homesteaders? I'm pretty confident that i'd have a hard time fighting any eminent domain claims, so obviously I'd want to buy something at least mildly rural. (so no buying the land of central park from the Native Americans) Or would the internvening 200 years of inactivity/non use kind of make this a non-starter. Perhaps a buy it, donate/long (free) lease it in trust to the state with lifetime easement/use clauses written in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
You could go back to when the Courthouse in any County started keeping records, and record your deed there. Problems: 1) As soon as taxes start piling up and not getting paid, the county will foreclose and take it. 2) If there is ever a condemnation/easement or replat, people might notice you're not around anymore and deem the property abandoned. 3) People might notice you're not around anymore anyways and deem the property abandoned. 4) "Squatters" are more of a news story than a real thing; the actual legal concept is "Adverse Posession" and it generally runs back about 25 years. 5) A lease, trust, or property transfer or any other bequest or attempt to finagle title back to yourself won't really work more than 80-100 years out because of whats called "the rule against perpetuities." Edit: 25-50 years back, so long as you have a trust set up to pay the taxes, is probably how far back you would want to go. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Also property law 101, the courts generally want property issues resolved so even if you showed up with a deed for 10 acres in downtown Manhattan today you'd probably have a hard time getting it enforced if you've done nothing in the past 200 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
I like how you specified that your time travelling deed question is a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I like how you specified that your time travelling deed question is a hypothetical. Sure, all the OTHER times someone claims a situation is hypothetical in this thread, people assume it's not, but THIS time, we all happily accept it as such? That's some bullshit, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Did someone watch the pilot episode of Gargoyles or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Did someone watch the pilot episode of Gargoyles or something? Demona was my jam as a teenage boy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
I have a little back and forth with a non-profit who told me some general information. Anything I do I am now immune from prosecution for because my lawyers signed off on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I have a little back and forth with a non-profit who told me some general information. Anything I do I am now immune from prosecution for because my lawyers signed off on it. Yeah that was my thought. Why would EFF assist a for profit enterprise? Even if the for profit was furthering EFF's goals (which I can only assume are full communism now), they'd be doing their donors a disservice by assisting this idiot seeking to sell drugs online.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
So, a Federal Judge ruled that holding a defendant in jail because they cannot post bail is unconstitutional. A guy in Georgia was arrested and couldn't pay his bail. He sued because he couldn't take meds and won. Now, from what I gather, this is only for misdemeanor charges, and they are gonna have to cough up if they skip town. Courts must consider a person's indigence and look for other ways of guaranteeing they will appear. I can certainly see why this would be a boon for anyone who doesn't have a couple hundred to thousand dollars sitting around and needs to be working, but is there anything more to this I can't see because I've never taken a law course?
sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So, the Justice Department has stated that holding a defendant in jail because they cannot post bail is unconstitutional. Now, form what I gather, this is only for misdemeanor charges, and they are gonna have to cough up if they skip town. Courts must consider a person's indigence and look for other ways of guaranteeing they will appear. I can certainly see why this would be a boon for anyone who doesn't have a couple hundred to thousand dollars sitting around and needs to be working, but is there anything more to this I can't see because I've never taken a law course? Well for starters, the Justice Department doesn't really get to decide such things for the States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
If I have a time machine, can I delete all my records and wipe my server after every use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If I have a time machine, can I delete all my records and wipe my server after every use? Does the time machine have a gold fringe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
If I have a time machine can I go back and not apply to law school
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Mucilaginous posted:Does the time machine have a gold fringe? I've been back and forth with the gold fringe foundation and the gff has signed off on it The bond thing got discussed in the scotus thread I think EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Santilli, a sovcit "journalist" and one of the supporters of the occupiers of the Malheur reservation, is coming up for trial. His attorney just filed this, which focuses on the application and argued effects of a rule/doctrine/bullshit latin called Strictissimi Juris. Help me out here- how reasonable is this filing? IANAL, but it seems to go from implausible to nuts pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Santilli, a sovcit "journalist" and one of the supporters of the occupiers of the Malheur reservation, is coming up for trial. His attorney just filed this, which focuses on the application and argued effects of a rule/doctrine/bullshit latin called Strictissimi Juris. Help me out here- how reasonable is this filing? IANAL, but it seems to go from implausible to nuts pretty fast. Wish I could read the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Santilli, a sovcit "journalist" and one of the supporters of the occupiers of the Malheur reservation, is coming up for trial. His attorney just filed this, which focuses on the application and argued effects of a rule/doctrine/bullshit latin called Strictissimi Juris. Help me out here- how reasonable is this filing? IANAL, but it seems to go from implausible to nuts pretty fast. As I said in the other thread, he's trying to claim protection under something that was designed to shield members of disliked political parties not for armed rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Santilli, a sovcit "journalist" and one of the supporters of the occupiers of the Malheur reservation, is coming up for trial. His attorney just filed this, which focuses on the application and argued effects of a rule/doctrine/bullshit latin called Strictissimi Juris. Help me out here- how reasonable is this filing? IANAL, but it seems to go from implausible to nuts pretty fast. You were almost a lawyer though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You were almost a lawyer though. Crim wasn't a focus, though- I was looking at admin and FDA stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Labor law! Are employers who terminate employees in at-will states (in this case, Pennsylvania) required to give a reason for termination? I realize that at-will means a person can be terminated for any reason, but what I am basically asking is whether an employer is allowed to tell an employee, "We are firing you, but we are not going to tell you why." Assume that the employee is not a member of a union or anything else that would compel the employer to follow due process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Language is usually "any or no reason".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
ann disaster posted:Labor law! IANAL. No, they are (generally) not required to tell you why they are terminating you. If you are not being fired for cause, you can be fired for literally any reason, and telling you why is just going to result in potential liability so it is better for them not to (as it's still illegal to fire someone as a result of discrimination, and some other stuff). If you were fired for cause, it would come out in the unemployment proceedings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
ann disaster posted:Labor law!  You know the answer in your heart and the other posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Zauper posted:IANAL. No, they are (generally) not required to tell you why they are terminating you. If you are not being fired for cause, you can be fired for literally any reason, and telling you why is just going to result in potential liability so it is better for them not to (as it's still illegal to fire someone as a result of discrimination, and some other stuff). Okay. So say a person in this situation filed for unemployment. During the determination process, the employer informs the unemployment office that the employee was fired for cause (and gives a reason) but does not provide evidence and the employee is granted unemployment benefits. Does this matter or change the answer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
ann disaster posted:Okay. So say a person in this situation filed for unemployment. During the determination process, the employer informs the unemployment office that the employee was fired for cause (and gives a reason) but does not provide evidence and the employee is granted unemployment benefits. No, no. Neither an employee's right to quit at will nor an employer's right to fire at will require a reason. The legally and philosophically separate process regarding a state's rules to administer the state's social safety net as it relates to employment compensation may, and often does, require a reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Is there any repercussion for an employee who quits a job even though they signed a contract? In this hypothetical the person didn't actually start working for them yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:42
|
|
