|
Because voters are screened for felony status or other flags prior to voting as opposed to afterwards, it's unlikely that there is even a standard mechanism for determining that the vote shouldn't have counted. Even still, he wasn't a felon when he cast his vote, so for no reason other than logic I assume that the vote would count regardless.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
If he votes democrat, he will become part of the voter fraud statistics provided by the republican party. But for real on that note, I recall a more in-depth look at that, that some significant portion of the tiny number of "fraudulent voters" were people who voted on their way to becoming felons, and what I recall from the analysis at the time was that because of that, they weren't actually fraudulent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
One of the sad/ironic things I am tasked to do is have 17 year olds on adult probation sign that Voter Ineligibility form. Youngest person I've processed in adult probation was 15.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:If he votes democrat, he will become part of the voter fraud statistics provided by the republican party. The voter fraud statistics are weird because no one really considers what it takes for a case of voter fraud to become a statistic. For example, consider those old time sodomy laws. Based on the number of convictions, hardly anyone had ever been blown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
http://www.omaha.com/money/nouvelle-eve-adds-to-legal-drama-from-m-s-pub/article_b484b079-0549-54f2-8a84-23b0e08b1ad8.html Some fiber workers ruptured a gas line that caused a restaurant to burn down. Because they were displaced and their property ruined, condo and shop owners in adjacent buildings sued the fiber companies for negligence. What benefit would there be to doing this rather than making a claim on your homeowner's and letting your insurance co duke it out with them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:http://www.omaha.com/money/nouvelle-eve-adds-to-legal-drama-from-m-s-pub/article_b484b079-0549-54f2-8a84-23b0e08b1ad8.html Not a lawyer, but they may not have had loss of use/business interruption coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Any number of reasons. More money, loss profits, convinced by a plaintiff attorney, your insurance suing on your behalf to recoup insurance payout, your insurance refusing to payout on it, etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
I realize this is a very by-the-state/county question but just in general: How difficult is it to get a court/judge to take online threats/harassment (from someone in the same city/county) seriously to get an RO? I'm just imagining trying to convince 74 year old Judge Higgenmeyer III that "meatus420_weed_lord_" is a serious enough problem to warrant legal intervention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Javid posted:I realize this is a very by-the-state/county question but just in general: How difficult is it to get a court/judge to take online threats/harassment (from someone in the same city/county) seriously to get an RO? Depends on the judge. The hardest part to me would be proving that he was the person who posted said things on the interwebs. I've seen people prosecuted for death threats on the internet, but this is California so we are maybe more up on our technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Also depends on what you want to do about it. Prosecute him? Sue him in civil court? Have the police pay him a visit? All three have varying levels of difficulty in getting them to do anything and getting any lasting results. Also depends on circumstances. Are you a black guy getting harassed by a neo nazi trump supporter? Is it your kid getting harassed? Are you a grown man getting harassed on twitter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Also depends on what you want to do about it. Prosecute him? Sue him in civil court? Have the police pay him a visit? He wants a civil restraining order, which is an enforceable court order to not come within X feet of him. If the person violates it, they go to jail. It would depend on the harassment (it would almost certainly need to be threats), and it would sure help if the harasser has actually met the OP in person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
My end goal is that they're legally prohibited from my physical proximity and from contacting me in any way. At that point either he follows it and I get what I want, or he doesn't and he goes to jail, which would solve the problem in a different manner. If the gun he claims to own gets confiscated that's a bonus but I don't think non-domestic ROs trigger that restriction. (His existing criminal record may or may not already bar him from gun ownership; I want that question to pass through the courthouse, too) I'm calling legal aid type places here when they're open tomorrow, but I harbor a suspicion that this is supposed to be a DIY type process. Let's say "meatus420weedlord" is also in his facebook URL, with the "420" tattooed on him if there were any doubts, and his real name on there matches the name on the criminal record info I turned up, and obviously the photos are the same guy. Is that likely to be sufficient to prove the correct person is being filed against? (It's not actually something stupidly common like 420) There have been veiled threats, and the guy has physically shown up at my/other people I know's residence and refused to leave. If it was just hot air I wouldn't give it this much thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
That doesn't sound like evidence that that dude is who you say he is if he denies making those statements (but he also might be stupid). Also, veld threats aren't always enough. Showing up at your house probably helps though Permanent ROs are actually a pretty big deal (and do take away your guns in CA at least) and judges are careful when granting them. I do recommend an attorney if you actually want this to stick
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
What kind of attorney does this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Javid posted:What kind of attorney does this stuff? Family law or criminal generally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll start there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Javid posted:Thanks. I'll start there. Legal aid might also be able to help depending on the circumstances, so you might start there if you have an income that would qualify. Note that if he's done anything criminal threats like, the easiest way to get an RO is if he gets charged with a crime against you. Probably unlikely given only veiled threats though. If he says anything serious and you believe him to own a gun and knows where he lives, do not hesitate to call the police. This depends on how bored the local PD is. LAPD's probably not going to care, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
From my legal aid experience, you're most likely to get assistance there if it's a DV situation. But in Texas, the DA office has independent authority to seek protective orders if you apply for them. They're also only likely to do so in the event of past physical domestic violence, but you might call your local DA to see if they have a process. Doing this pro se is really tricky, and if you can afford a lawyer, it's definitely worth running down your legal aid and DA office options.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:There is a company that keeps calling my cellphone to try and sell me health insurance and has been doing this for nearly a year. This number is enrolled in the Federal Do Not Call Registry. I've never done business with this company before and its employees don't follow any of the laws related to telemarketing. This company was operating under a fictitious name and I managed to track down the LLC behind the name using the Department of State's database. The information I found included the registered agent and authorized persons. Basically I want this company to stop calling me and be held accountable for their actions. What should my next step be? https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx Then block the number. You're overthinking this. It's gonna happen. Don't get your panties in a twist over it. Report and block.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Something we were discussing in the office this week... We had a client with (supposedly) 8 children with 5 different moms. First time I have seen a judge write special probation orders to take a class in Birth control. How does court ordered child support work when there are that many Payees? Every kid gets a check for 10$, or some sort of order of need/1st in, first paid thing? Comedy note: He really didn't know the term birth control. I explained it meant using a rubber to not have more kids. Garnishing unlikely, too as his conviction was Possession w/ intent Coca.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
I dunno about where you are, but in California that term has been found unconstitutional. Can't recall if it was a federal or state case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
I'm hoping that it's unconstitutional to call it birth control but not to require a family planning class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
In California? Probably both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Birth control is known to the state of California to cause cancer
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Cancer is known to the state of California to cause cancer
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
nm posted:I dunno about where you are, but in California that term has been found unconstitutional. Can't recall if it was a federal or state case. I thought that case was about actually requiring the use of birth control, not requiring a class?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I thought that case was about actually requiring the use of birth control, not requiring a class? I apparently misread and thought it was birth control, not a class in. However, the class would also likely not be legal as it has no nexus to the charge of possession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
nm posted:I apparently misread and thought it was birth control, not a class in. So if his charge was for failure to pay child support, would waiver of 4th Amendment rights as a condition of probation be unconstitutional as having no nexus to failure to pay child support?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:So if his charge was for failure to pay child support, would waiver of 4th Amendment rights as a condition of probation be unconstitutional as having no nexus to failure to pay child support? I've had that term dropped from some charges for that reason. Like a reckless driving or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
It's Wisconsin, and it was a class, not 'use'. In probation, as part of the plea, and orders of the court, I regularly copy down specifics like 'not to be in any resale shops' 'not to be within 3 blocks of _____ street', 'Agent to do random searches of home and car for weapons'. I also see 'no physical discipline of any child' way too often. The big, standard boiler plate stuff is covered by one of 3 sets of standard rules, Domestic violence, Alcohol and drug, Standard, supplemented with sex offender rules. Anyway, didn't want to derail, and I'm not even an agent, was just curious how max garnish worked on a flock of kids in different households.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Arkhamina posted:It's Wisconsin, and it was a class, not 'use'. In probation, as part of the plea, and orders of the court, I regularly copy down specifics like 'not to be in any resale shops' 'not to be within 3 blocks of _____ street', 'Agent to do random searches of home and car for weapons'. I also see 'no physical discipline of any child' way too often. The big, standard boiler plate stuff is covered by one of 3 sets of standard rules, Domestic violence, Alcohol and drug, Standard, supplemented with sex offender rules. I think here the State makes up the difference and puts it on dad's 'tab' to be paid...forever. nm posted:I've had that term dropped from some charges for that reason. Like a reckless driving or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
My wife knew someone in Oregon who was dumb enough to get knocked up by a guy who already had 3 kids he wasn't caring for, and supposedly there is the assumption that you can only garnish up to x% of someone's inxome, and that it is "first in time, first in line." Then again, she wasn't so bright (see above) and he had a habit of finding a new employer (sometimes under the table) whenever the court got around to garnishing so she may have had the details wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
This came up at work and I got busy and couldn't Google. Now that I'm home I can't find all that much or I'm not searching for the right things. This is specifically in NY but I'm curious how it is elsewhere. A child is adopted, his biological mom dies, is he entitled to any of the estate if she has no will? One coworker said yes, our boss said no, but neither was around to discuss it so we never understood why each thinks that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
What kind of lawyer would a theoretical creditor in a theoretical bankruptcy case need? Do bankruptcy lawyers typically work both sides?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Creditor in a bankruptcy is a bad position Seriously weight the cost benefit analysis of the attempt of collecting anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
ilysespieces posted:This came up at work and I got busy and couldn't Google. Now that I'm home I can't find all that much or I'm not searching for the right things. This is specifically in NY but I'm curious how it is elsewhere. A child is adopted, his biological mom dies, is he entitled to any of the estate if she has no will? Here are the relevant statutes. As far as I can tell, the biological child is entitled to a share of the estate in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:What kind of lawyer would a theoretical creditor in a theoretical bankruptcy case need? Do bankruptcy lawyers typically work both sides? You need one that does creditor's rights. They might do both, but they more likely specialize in it. If the debtor is an individual, you're likely out of luck
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
This is why I insist on liquidation preferences when I loan friends money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Here are the relevant statutes. As far as I can tell, the biological child is entitled to a share of the estate in this situation. Awesome, thanks, I'll bring this to work tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:This is why I insist on liquidation preferences when I loan friends money. LOL if you give any kind of credit that isn't for necessaries for the voyage of the vessels to any of your "friends". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:59
|
|
