|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:Maybe they yelled at them because they're mad, and will also pursue legal action because they're mad Well that was stupid, you never fire a warning shot.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:What if the OP had just tossed all of them in the dumpster? Does he have any legal obligation to find the owner and return the items? Well the key thing is that if you accept delivery then you've accepted responsibility for the other person's property and you don't just have the right to treat it as your own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Ah but I thought there was some law where if you were sent something in the mail unsolicited, it's your property. I think it was to stop malicious companies sending you stuff and then demanding payment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Well that was stupid, you never fire a warning shot. Right but people who are mad don't necessarily act in a tactically optimal way
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:What if the OP had just tossed all of them in the dumpster? Does he have any legal obligation to find the owner and return the items? Is return to sender not a thing where you're at?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Lowness 72 posted:Ah but I thought there was some law where if you were sent something in the mail unsolicited, it's your property. I think it was to stop malicious companies sending you stuff and then demanding payment? If it's sent to you. If you accept delivery of something addressed and intended for someone else then you have to deal with that (basically by letting them know and making reasonable efforts to let them repossess it. If you get in contact and they don't want their stuff back then you can reasonably say it's been abandoned but you have to make that effort).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
We finally have a serious issue to debate from reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5iqb09/ontario_canada_is_farting_on_the_train_assault/ posted:I was on the go train, basically a commuter train, it wasn't too busy but someone sat across from me diagonally. I had McDonald's as I was in a rush, got gassy, was holding it in but it was a bit bumpy and I let a fart out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Motronic posted:We finally have a serious issue to debate from reddit: I think unless it rises to the level of taco bell farts you're safe from liability. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Motronic posted:We finally have a serious issue to debate from reddit: Filed under stdh
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Haha oh man the police officer in the ER is filling the lulls watching sovcits getting wrecked. No P Barnes yet, though : (
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Hey everybody, I was hoping somebody here might have some advice for us. We've been renting a 2br house in West Seattle for $1650/month for about 5 months now and have had contractors working on our house for about a month on our water pressure, our heater/furnace, and building a big trench around the house so water doesn't get into the crawlspace. But still we do not have heat in the house and I've had to pick up some tower heaters just to keep our place livable for the few months that it's been freezing cold. Apparently what the contractors say is that there was a fireplace next to our air intake and that was the heat source (there is no fireplace now, just an odd little inset area with drywall and molding). We apparently have a furnace under the house but there are no heating elements or "blades" as they call them inside the actual furnace and they suspect somebody either took them out or we never had them before we moved in. Our utility bill has shot up a ton, we've paid $280 last month and this month was $310, which is really driving us nuts. A few months ago our landlord had somebody come out and check the heat and they said "Well, you're getting heat out of here but not much" and then the problem didn't even begin to get fixed until months later, the current contractors suspect it was just circulating the already warm temperature inside or outside of the house. We were curious about what type of action we could take to either get reimbursed for utilities, reimbursed for rent, or both if possible. All of this has taken a stressful toll on me and my girlfriend and I, there have also been times where we've been without water for 1-2 days at a time. I work from home so keeping the place a decent temperature is essential for me. If anybody knows what the tenant laws are for stuff like this I would really appreciate it. We're both really pissed off that we've been paying full price rent for a place that has had so many problems and taken so long to get fixed (and yet to be fixed). I appreciate any advice or resources you guys might be able to tell us about. We're going to look over our lease and see what the details are but we would love some advice in the meantime.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
What's your goal here? Break the lease, get a rent discount, force the landlord to install more heaters? edit: Sorry I'm dumb, and missed the sentence where you said the goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Pretty sure heat is a requirement for a place to be habitable in most places, especially states that touch Canada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Wanna read this judge's full decision if it contains more like this:quote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/dog-custody-dispute-saskatoon-1.3889188
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
I love the "tend not to" construction. That is a person who does not entertain fools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Most Canadian judges are like that, it's amazing the kind of stealth barbs they'll throw at parties in decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
It was a Canadian judge that wrote that detailed destruction of a sovcit for everyone else to enjoy, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:It was a Canadian judge that wrote that detailed destruction of a sovcit for everyone else to enjoy, right? Correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Please link.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Please link. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
I wore myself out laughing at just the table of contents, that it is the driest, most hilarious burn all on its own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:I wore myself out laughing at just the table of contents, that it is the driest, most hilarious burn all on its own. Judge Rooke was just tired of the sovcit bullshit he and the other courts had been dealing with so he wrote the god damned bible on why all of it is horseshit. Now any canadian judge in the future can just immediately dismiss any sovcit poo poo, cite meads v meads, and be done with it which I've seen happen a few times already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Judge Rooke was just tired of the sovcit bullshit he and the other courts had been dealing with so he wrote the god damned bible on why all of it is horseshit. Now any canadian judge in the future can just immediately dismiss any sovcit poo poo, cite meads v meads, and be done with it which I've seen happen a few times already. But the videos of these idiots "owning" judges is part of my regular internet video diet, let's not kill the movement too quickly okay?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
You don't have to worry about that, a quick YouTube search shows that the author of that decision is not actually a judge, but a satanic clerk employed by the United Nations pretending to be a judge. I doubt the well of sovcit insanity will dry up anytime soon,
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Just had someone refuse to sign his felony paperwork for probation: reason? He's an election judge, representing himself pro se, of course! So he pleads to a felony, but refuses to acknowledge it because it would "Deny him income". 11 counts of felony failure to pay child support. All but 2 dismissed. I hope states share felony lists (he belongs to the neighbors). Anyone know if that data hits a national database?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Would it be legal and appropriate for you to drop a note to his state's board of elections?Mr. Nice! posted:Judge Rooke was just tired of the sovcit bullshit he and the other courts had been dealing with so he wrote the god damned bible on why all of it is horseshit. Now any canadian judge in the future can just immediately dismiss any sovcit poo poo, cite meads v meads, and be done with it which I've seen happen a few times already. In Canada, when talking about a court case, do you say "Meads and Meads" or "Meads vee Meads" or "Meads versus Meads"? Asking AlbieQuirky fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Judge Rooke posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:Would it be legal and appropriate for you to drop a note to his state's board of elections? Civil and family we'd say Meads and Meads, but if Mr. Meads were to be arrested and charged, his case would be R vee Meads for most people. Probably. Unless you're in Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:Civil and family we'd say Meads and Meads, but if Mr. Meads were to be arrested and charged, his case would be R vee Meads for most people. Probably. Unless you're in Quebec. What other sorts of legal things does "unless you're in Quebec" apply to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
therobit posted:What other sorts of legal things does "unless you're in Quebec" apply to? Most non criminal things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
My question is about invoking speedy trial to prevent the prosecution from being able to gather sufficient evidence. If someone is charged with a crime that is not ultra-super-bad, like a third degree felony, and to make a real case the investigation involves a lot of asking various companies to turn over data they might have, trying to corroborate stuff, decrypting files, etc. Something that doesn't warrant a lot of man power but it would be needed to really bring things together in less than 90 days. Is there a hard rule or law on how to calculate what speed trial would be? Would the prosecution be able to push the dismissal date if they couldn't gather evidence? Could the defendant be retried once they put the pieces together?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:My question is about invoking speedy trial to prevent the prosecution from being able to gather sufficient evidence. The answer is, it depends. There is a federal statute that puts down rules for federal criminal cases and there are some states that have similar rigid rules. If you're in a state that doesn't have a statutorily defined time, then there's are four factors to weigh: 1. the length of delay, 2. the reason for the delay, 3. the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right, and 4. the degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused. So the delay might not be prejudicial at all, especially if the delay is caused by the defendant's actions to conceal his tracks or destroy evidence. If the state is found to violate the speedy trial right, charges will be dismissed with prejudice meaning they cannot be brought up again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Feds aren't going to charge without having done the investigation first. What state?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Feds aren't going to charge without having done the investigation first. This, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The answer is, it depends. There is a federal statute that puts down rules for federal criminal cases and there are some states that have similar rigid rules. If you're in a state that doesn't have a statutorily defined time, then there's are four factors to weigh: joat mon posted:Feds aren't going to charge without having done the investigation first. What state? Thanks for the replies and that is a fair point and I think answers my question. The police, no matter the state or feds, will serve the warrants and what not but won't charge someone until they've gathered sufficient evidence. Rest of the (not real) story: Florida and that the case is 3rd degree burglary and stealing ID information (taking a picture of bank statements, social security card, etc.). In this case the person was reported for the crime by the victim but there wasn't strong evidence it was them and the suspect didnt say anything damning. The police are able to get a warrant for his computer/phone but need time to decrypt the files. You'd speculate that the police won't charge him until they've gotten the smoking gun (pictures off the hard drive)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Thanks for the replies and that is a fair point and I think answers my question. The police, no matter the state or feds, will serve the warrants and what not but won't charge someone until they've gathered sufficient evidence. A Florida appellate court a few days ago ruled that a party can be compelled to give up their cell phone passcode when police had a valid warrant because it falls under an exception to the 5th amendment. In this case the guy was taking up skirt photos of people. The appellate court used the foregone conclusion doctrine, that is when the government can show with reasonable particularity that the evidence is present the 5th amendment doesn't apply. This has been used to compel people to give up encryption passwords on computers as well. In some jurisdictions passcodes aren't held to meet muster but thumbprints are acceptable to compel. So if the police have enough evidence without the decrypted drive, they're going to go ahead and press charges. If they don't have enough evidence without it but can show reasonable particularity that the files are on the computer, they're still probably going to press charges and work to get the evidence out. And to answer your followon question of "what happens if they continue to refuse to provide the password" is people will get held in contempt (thus jailed and/or fined until they comply with the court order) or they'll be charged with obstruction of justice or something similar. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A Florida appellate court a few days ago ruled that a party can be compelled to give up their cell phone passcode when police had a valid warrant because it falls under an exception to the 5th amendment. In this case the guy was taking up skirt photos of people. The appellate court used the foregone conclusion doctrine, that is when the government can show with reasonable particularity that the evidence is present the 5th amendment doesn't apply. This has been used to compel people to give up encryption passwords on computers as well. In some jurisdictions passcodes aren't held to meet muster but thumbprints are acceptable to compel. Wow that's very interesting and quite timely. It looks like the case is the one mentioned here. I always thought the test for the fifth amendment is whether or not the knowledge was stored in your brain. E.g. a court could compel documents with apsswords written on them but you could take the fifth on the same passwords if they're only stored in your brain. EDIT: I am reading the brief here. On page 9, how the gently caress is saying something that you have in your head not testimonial? Saying you know the password implies the phone in question is yours. (Though he already stated that the phone number tied to the phone was his) EDIT2: The answer is: We believe the facts here set forth one of the "very few instances in which a verbal statement, either oral or written, will not convey information or assert facts," and therefore would not be testimonial. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Just tell them you don't remember the password. Problem solved.  A lot of my passwords are automatic and if the "remember password" box was ever unchecked, or got logged out, I honestly wouldn't be able to remember it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
I use LastPass so almost all of my passwords are an alphanumeric jumble generated by that. I literally only know my Facebook password. Real talk, how would "not remembering" go over?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
D34THROW posted:I use LastPass so almost all of my passwords are an alphanumeric jumble generated by that. I literally only know my Facebook password. Not remembering the password to unlock your phone or computer is not going to go very well because ostensibly you use said device daily and unlock it daily. From there you're going to face at a minimum contempt of court and possibly face obstruction type charges. I'm assuming the OP in question's entire drive was encrypted. Even if its just some files that are directly encrypted on the drive, they are still going to show when the last time it was accessed, so they'll be able to tell that you're lying. The only time "not remembering" might go well is if it was some sort of backup or archive that you hadn't touched in years. The courts might not always be up to date on technology, but by and large they aren't idiots. Also for you they'd just get your lastpass password or access code or whatever and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:46
|
|