|
That’s a lovely situation since it’s right at the edge of being a fair chunk of money for you but also maybe not enough to pay someone to figure it out for you. You might offer to / send the net and see what happens. It could delay the situation long enough that they might take any further action or give you time to get the remaining amount together. Might also give you time to get your w-2 and see what the withholding actually looks like These are just guesses and hopefully there is a lawyer / accountant that knows more here
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
There is an area near my work where the speed limit is maximum 35, minimum 30. Then the next sign is maximum 25. I'd always been taught that new speed limits only apply after the sign but obviously I can't instantly go from 30 to 25. It seems like there is no legal way to proceed when the new maximum is lower than the old minimum. I've always assumed that I should start slowing down to 25 since that seems like the most common sense solution but common sense doesn't usually work with legal interpretation. Is slowing down before the sign correct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Which state? Traffic laws vary in each.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Which state? Traffic laws vary in each. On a military base in Oklahoma
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
 so state laws don't matter since that's federal land. We need a JAG in here for that, but my guess is you're at the mercy at whatever MP pulls you over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:
That's kind of the problem. MPs are pretty pedantic about this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Sounds like just a speed trap where lazy cops can go to fill their ticket quotas easy. But then I live in Pennsylvania where that is a very common thing so that may color my estimation here
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Slow down before you hit the new sign. That's the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Yeah MPs of any branch are fucksticks 99% of the time. I'd get written guidance from their HQ but even then that's only gonna cover your rear end half the time. Hell, maybe bringing it up to the right person could get it changed. Good luck
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
What’s the penalty for going below the minimum 30 vs over the maximum 25? Because I’d wager that would support this answer:Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Slow down before you hit the new sign. That's the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Slow down before you hit the new sign. That's the answer. THIS WAS MY MOMENT AND YOU TOOK IT FROM ME
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Not a single person has ever, or will ever get a ticket for going 26-29 mph on that stretch of road. Ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:THIS WAS MY MOMENT AND YOU TOOK IT FROM ME I'm taking your thunder for not supporting my socialist agenda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
A question for the crim law folks based on a law and order episode. In the episode the victim was killed by a single gunshot after being raped by two individuals. For some reason the defendants motioned for separate trials. After the motion was granted the state argued in each trial that the defendant in that trial was the shooter. I was wondering if that could even happen and if so what would happen if both were convicted in separate trials of being the shooter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:A question for the crim law folks based on a law and order episode. In the episode the victim was killed by a single gunshot after being raped by two individuals. For some reason the defendants motioned for separate trials. After the motion was granted the state argued in each trial that the defendant in that trial was the shooter. I was wondering if that could even happen and if so what would happen if both were convicted in separate trials of being the shooter? A felony (murder) committed by one person during the commission of another felony (aggravated sexual assault) is imputed to all the parties, so I'm not sure why arguing which one was the shooter would matter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not a single person has ever, or will ever get a ticket for going 26-29 mph on that stretch of road. Ever. This is a quote from someone who has limited time driving on a military base. Speed limits and minimums are strictly enforced. This applies both conus and abroad. Air force security forces were notorious for enforcing traffic laws (combined with license points) almost as soon as we would get new bases established in iraq and afghanistan. Military police are a special breed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is a quote from someone who has limited time driving on a military base. Speed limits and minimums are strictly enforced. I skipped the follow-up part where its on a military base. God knows what those assholes do with themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:On a military base in Oklahoma Is it on or near a flight line?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Every minimum speed law on earth has a necessity exception. Its why you can't get a speeding ticket for doing under the minimum speed in a traffic jam or in a snow storm. In this case to travel at the safe speed 10 feet ahead (or whatever), you have to drop your speed below the minimum. Or just do 27mph, radar guns tend to be about 2-3mph off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Is it on or near a flight line? Close but there's a fence in-between nm posted:Every minimum speed law on earth has a necessity exception. Its why you can't get a speeding ticket for doing under the minimum speed in a traffic jam or in a snow storm. This was kind of what I was thinking but people tend to apply over use necessity defense to apply to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Close but there's a fence in-between I expect the minimum is to deter rubberneckers. So long as you're not acting like one, you can slow down in anticipation of the change to a lower max speed. Comedy option: Article 138, UCMJ
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:A question for the crim law folks based on a law and order episode. In the episode the victim was killed by a single gunshot after being raped by two individuals. For some reason the defendants motioned for separate trials. After the motion was granted the state argued in each trial that the defendant in that trial was the shooter. I was wondering if that could even happen and if so what would happen if both were convicted in separate trials of being the shooter? Was this actually Law and Order, or Law and Order: SVU? The distinction is important; if it's the former then it's probably actually based on something real, if it's the latter then the writers probably just threw some darts at a wall and hit the "separate trials" post-it note and went from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Was this actually Law and Order, or Law and Order: SVU? I didn't see the episode so I don't know when it aired, but I think people have become interested in this sort of thing recently for whatever reason. There was a New Yorker article about prosecutors presenting conflicting interpretations of the same events in separate trials last month. The article answers the original question, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:38
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:There is an area near my work where the speed limit is maximum 35, minimum 30. Then the next sign is maximum 25. I'd always been taught that new speed limits only apply after the sign but obviously I can't instantly go from 30 to 25. It seems like there is no legal way to proceed when the new maximum is lower than the old minimum. I've always assumed that I should start slowing down to 25 since that seems like the most common sense solution but common sense doesn't usually work with legal interpretation. Is slowing down before the sign correct? Good news! It's apparently installation-specific. (e-g) suggest you may need to look at how Oklahoma handles its traffic laws first, but the installation code can apparently go above and beyond. So just contact the installation command directly for the separate traffic code, which definitely exists, and is certainly the genuine basis for enforcement on the installation, and for which your request will not cause any problem for you whatsoever!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
There was some news about a lawyer filing against Jared and Ivanka for failing to disclose assets. Should the suit fall under a judge appointed by Trump, does the lawyer have any chance of refiling in the hopes of getting another judge? Or could a different person file the same suit and get a different judge? It was filed in Washington DC, but since it's federal court I'm guessing it doesn't matter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
It’s been a while since I’ve been in federal court but If I recall a litigant can’t strike a judge. Most states give litigants the ability to strike a judge no questions asked, but I don’t think that exists in the federal system. A judge can refuse himself for a variety of reasons, bias etc, but being appointed by a president who is the subject of a suit isn’t one of them. Federal judges are appointed for life so once they are in you shouldn’t, in theory, expect loyalty to a person. Typically the reason the media or whatever mentions who appointed a judge is to let you know if that judge is “conservative” or “liberal” as a general indicator of how people think they will rule. You can not dismiss and refile to get a new judge, odds are you’ll have to explain that choice at some point, and the court won’t take kindly to that type of gamesmanship. Someone else can file the same suit and get a different judge but odds are the judges will figure out how to handle things once they learn of it, it’s not judicially economical to have two judges spending their time on the same case, so they might be consolidated or one might be stayed pending the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Without doing any research whatsoever, I'm sure theres a mandamus procedure for forcing a judge to recuse themselves, and I'm also sure that "they were appointed by the president who's family is being sued" is not a good enough reason, considering they're lifetime appointments for that very reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I imagined that you couldn't do it with cause, so I was wondering if there was a way to "game" the system. A few weeks ago a Trump-appointed judge denied the TRO requested by the deputy CFPB director that tried to block the one appointed by Trump, and I figured if there was an option to recuse or somehow change the judge, they would've used it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Are there any unofficial (of course) levels of indemnity by wealth in either civil or criminal suits? That is, if someone can drop 1 million USD on a team of lawyers, can they expect to win regularly and often against someone who can only pay $50k and/or the prosecutor? Or otherwise, is there a point where additional money is marginally useful? I know this will depend enormously on jurisdiction, specific evidence, and details of law, but are there any general guidelines or breakpoints where paying out will avoid typical legal consequences due to ability to file out of it, so to speak? There are areas of law where this practice is well known, e.g. patent trolling against small companies - but how does it apply to the greater sphere of legal actions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Are there any unofficial (of course) levels of indemnity by wealth in either civil or criminal suits? That is, if someone can drop 1 million USD on a team of lawyers, can they expect to win regularly and often against someone who can only pay $50k and/or the prosecutor? Or otherwise, is there a point where additional money is marginally useful? I know this will depend enormously on jurisdiction, specific evidence, and details of law, but are there any general guidelines or breakpoints where paying out will avoid typical legal consequences due to ability to file out of it, so to speak? My feelings: there's a diminishing rate of return on how much you're willing to spend, and the curve is steeper the weaker your case is. In other words, if it's a close call and/or there are good issues for appeal, money can be the difference. But if it's a strong case for the poor person, they just need enough money to participate. But, that's why contingency fees exist!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
baquerd posted:There are areas of law where this practice is well known, e.g. patent trolling against small companies - but how does it apply to the greater sphere of legal actions? This actually doesn't work the way you think it does (did) for patent trolling. The model for a patent troll was always to have a legally credible claim that would cost $1,000,000 or more to defend and then to offer to settle it for around $100,000. It actually worked better against a larger company that could eat the $100,000 as a cost of doing business in lieu of legal fees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Are there any unofficial (of course) levels of indemnity by wealth in either civil or criminal suits? That is, if someone can drop 1 million USD on a team of lawyers, can they expect to win regularly and often against someone who can only pay $50k and/or the prosecutor? Or otherwise, is there a point where additional money is marginally useful? I know this will depend enormously on jurisdiction, specific evidence, and details of law, but are there any general guidelines or breakpoints where paying out will avoid typical legal consequences due to ability to file out of it, so to speak? See Peter Thiel's comments about the legal system being broken because an single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan doesn't have the resources to defend themselves against Gawker's libel; which was why it was moral and important that he funded that lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Any personal injury lawgoons? I got in a fender-bender back in early October and my insurance paid out, but I just got a copy of a letter they sent to a local injury law firm that had a copy of my policy attached, as well as info about the claim. As far as I knew, my insurance settled up with the people I hit, and I haven't gotten any information beyond this letter. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:Any personal injury lawgoons? I got in a fender-bender back in early October and my insurance paid out, but I just got a copy of a letter they sent to a local injury law firm that had a copy of my policy attached, as well as info about the claim. Yes, but your insurance adjuster can shed more light than we can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:Any personal injury lawgoons? I got in a fender-bender back in early October and my insurance paid out, but I just got a copy of a letter they sent to a local injury law firm that had a copy of my policy attached, as well as info about the claim. Your insurance probably paid out property damage for their vehicle, which is separate from personal injury claims. Plaintiff lawyers like to see available insurance before committing to a plaintiff's claim. If you have minimal limits, then the plaintiff lawyer isn't likely to front the thousands of dollars for steroid injections or surgery, for example. Presumably in your state an insurance company is required to provide that information upon request. Now that the lawyer has that information s/he will prepare his clients' case accordingly. It's quite the interesting coincidence how serious some people's injuries and treatment become once they learn that there are large policy limits at stake. But yeah, call your insurance company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Australia law goons, is there a way to electronically access criminal court records? I've come across someone I know has a criminal history in australia but I suspect is less than forthcoming about the specifics. Is there an equivalent of PACER or other portal that would make court documents from any criminal case involving them accessible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
What kind of lawyer do I need for a medical billing issue? Long story short, I went to the hospital and they used the wrong code (which I discovered on my own after calling the hospital, my doctor, and my insurance), so nothing was covered when it should have been entirely covered. Every time I've called them, they said they would take care of the issue, freeze the account so I wouldn't receive bills or be sent to collections, and contact me when the issue is resolved one way or the other. Every month I've received a bill and called them, and learned that they basically did one thing (contact the doctor, received a reply, re-contact the doctor). Now the bill says "final notice" and, when the hospital inevitably fucks up again, I'm concerned the bill will go to collections and at that point, poo poo will be a lot harder to fix. I plan to call them everyday from now until New Years, but don't have high expectations of success and want to be prepared if this doesn't work. I've searched, but all I can find are medical malpractice and insurance claims attorneys. Would either of these be the right ones? Maybe collections? This is in northern VA, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
So I'm in Michigan and one thing that's been in the news relatively frequently is the Larry Nassar pedophile case (Larry Nassar was a doctor for Michigan State gymnastics as well as USA Gymnastics for those not aware of this case). One of the turns that emerged today is McKayla Maroney was, in her view, pressured into signing an NDA with USA Gymnastics about all this. That got me thinking about NDAs. If you are a typical minor (that is, non-emancipated), your parents/guardian have power of attorney for you, correct? If they sign an NDA on your behalf, are you legally bound to follow it? I get there may be lots of reasons you want to follow it, or should follow it, but do you face penalty if you don't? Or if once you are no longer a minor and don't want to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
so the block of houses I live in has a mouse problem. there is no physical evidence of them being in my apartment, I've never spotted one, seen mouse droppings, or discovered a chewed bag of food in the kitchen. my downstairs neighbours, however, have been complaining of hearing mice scurrying along the ceiling. I split 50/50 the cost of an exterminator with them. the exterminator told us that due to the nature of our block of flats, the mice have free reign of all the houses. they can run between the wall cavities and floor cavities. now the exterminator said there's not much for us to do but put bait out. i've gotten my landlady to send someone out and put bait under the floorboards. if that doesn't solve the issue, and my neighbours keep insisting on solving the problem, do I have a leg to stand on by telling them to buzz off? they're writing angry letters to their estate agent and having their estate agent contact my landlady. if I were to go away on holiday, would I be legally obligated to allow them access into my apartment? could I tell my landlady to ignore them and not let them in? I don't particularly like the thought of being away from the apartment for a week, and having them message me halfway through it demanding access to my apartment in order to let an exterminator in. I want to be present for it. it's christmas holidays now so I'm going away on the 22nd to spend time with family until early January. it's really starting to get on my nerves. we've point blank been told by the exterminator that the mice have access to all the houses on our block. there are no mice in my apartment. I've been polite up til now and really helpful, but my patience is wearing thin. I feel because I've been so receptive and helpful, they're just bugging me to try and solve the problem instead of harassing other neighbours who are equally in a position to put bait under their floors. the stupid thing is, even putting bait under my floorboards, I doubt that will solve anything. more than likely, the mice are between the empty spaces between the houses, as opposed to directly under my floorboards. my landlady didn't even have to help with the cost of the exterminator, as she told me it wasn't her responsibility (rats, however, would be her responsibility). I just don't appreciate waking up to a message from them saying they've contacted their estate agents and will demand my landlady give an exterminator access when i've already been helpful, and I'd love to put my foot down and tell them to quit bugging me about something that isn't even my fault without realising I don't have a leg to stand on. update: gently caress it, I'm texting my neighbours tomorrow and telling them I'm wiping my hands clean of the situation. I'll also call my landlady and tell her exactly what is up, and to ignore any "insistence" from the other estate agents. Qubee fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Q8ee posted:so the block of houses I live in has a mouse problem. there is no physical evidence of them being in my apartment, I've never spotted one, seen mouse droppings, or discovered a chewed bag of food in the kitchen. my downstairs neighbours, however, have been complaining of hearing mice scurrying along the ceiling. I split 50/50 the cost of an exterminator with them. the exterminator told us that due to the nature of our block of flats, the mice have free reign of all the houses. they can run between the wall cavities and floor cavities. What does your lease say about pest control? That would typically be the responsibility of your landlord, with you being required to tell them if you see pests. Splitting the cost of the exterminator may have been something you weren't required to do. If you do tell your landlord about the pest complaints, allowing access to your apartment for an exterminator is pretty reasonable. The person downstairs may have received the 'nothing you can do' explanation, but the landlord might want to bring someone in themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 14:37
|
|