|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Serious response: Thanks. Sounds good 
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
I would first check to see if there's a tenants' rights or similar organization in the municipality or county or state (ha ha it's Nevada, but still).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
People always say take pictures of your apartment before and after you leave but can't you just take a picture after you damaged it and say it was like that when i moved in e: or take pictures the day you move in, before you damage it, and say the undamaged pictures are how it looked when you moved out Ein cooler Typ fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
You can but you'll be committing perjury and could go to jail when they find out you intentionally tried to defraud the court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Ein cooler Typ posted:People always say take pictures of your apartment before and after you leave I dunno about small claims court in Nevada, but in real court you could (maybe/probably) get undated photos excluded as evidence Also at least one attorney out there has a great story about introducing the properly dated photos the landlord took that shows the tenant is full of poo poo and committing perjury
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
The key is to make sure you've got a copy of today's newspaper in each picture frame, and to then mail the developed prints to your home address. That way you have time-stamped (postal stamp) evidence demonstrating the state of your apartment. It's good because - Opening a sealed, post marked envelope can be quite dramatic in small claims court - This one weird trick also works for copyrighting your inventions
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
Ok actual legal question regarding current politics One thing I've noticed in these "one year old in immigration court" cases is that the judges appear, at least from press reports, to be actually attempting to put the babies through some kind of colloquy -- asking questions like "do you understand why you're here", " are you competent to represent yourself," etc. Now, *obviously*, the answer to those questions is "no, I am baby." How on earth can 1) The court believe it needs to ask those questions yet 2) apparently never accept or produce the answer of "No"? Is the entire procedure just a kangaroo court farce? Or is this the typical loop in such situations where anyone who is competent enough to raise the "I am not competent" defense, is clearly competent because they raised the defense, etc. ? I could understand if the judges weren't asking at all. if there was no colloquy.. But since they're asking . . . what the gently caress? How are none of these courts ever ruling that the one year old is clearly not competent to represent themselves? If courts ever do rule like that, what happens then to said baby? Can anyone point me to actual cases on this? I haven't seen a legal analysis of this that goes beyond the initial "gently caress this is absurd" level and I'd be really interested to see what knots prior courts have tangled themselves into on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Immigration court isn’t court. It is an administrative hearing and they go through the hoops of asking those questions to demonstrate the person received at least the due process of a hearing. The hearing officer (“judge”) knows the process is horrible but is also probably a bit of a PoS to take that job knowing what it would entail. The reason this continues is no one has the ability to really appeal/challenge this process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Right, but even in administrative hearings, on paper at least, people have due process rights . I don't know if Goldberg v. Kelly rights apply in immigration hearings or not (I suspect not), but even so. They obviously feel the need to go through the farce of a colloquy, so there's probably some policy somewhere saying they have to. I guess what I'm asking is, I suspect somewhere there must be a piece of paper giving the official "rationale" for that bullshit, and I'm wondering if anyone can cite me to it, because it must be one of the all-time greatest legal absurdities. Edit: for example, with a bit of googling I found this: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=lawineq So there have been holdings that due process required the presence of an interpreter in deportation hearings. Such a requirement would then immediately create an argument that a non-verbal child cannot receive due process without representation. According to that link, appellate courts appear to have evaded this by ruling that the interpreters in deportation hearings are for the record, not for the immigrant, and thus due process isn't entailed. This is of course bullshit, but they appear to have at least jumped through the hoops of writing the bullshit down in rulings. I'm wondering what exactly the bullshit is that, on paper, justifies both giving the colloquy to one year olds and then ignoring the inevitable answers. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
The real reason is likely to create a record of the fact that these questions were asked, and the respondent was unable to answer them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Lol at "a serious thread"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Looking for a German securities law firm that can draw up incorporation papers. If anyone knows such a beast (ideally one that bills at non-BIGLAW rates), please PM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but even in administrative hearings, on paper at least, people have due process rights . I don't know if Goldberg v. Kelly rights apply in immigration hearings or not (I suspect not), but even so. They obviously feel the need to go through the farce of a colloquy, so there's probably some policy somewhere saying they have to. You’re approaching this from the perspective that the agency in charge would want to ensure the person being brought up has their rights respected. The agency in charge wants to go through the motion so they can deport people as quickly as possible because politics. It’s 100% a kangaroo process, it’s 100% ridiculous and unfair and if you are an American citizen its 100% your fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:It’s 100% a kangaroo process, it’s 100% ridiculous and unfair and if you are an American citizen its 100% your fault. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:You’re approaching this from the perspective that the agency in charge would want to ensure the person being brought up has their rights respected. No I'm not, and I don't think you understand my question. I'm approaching this from the perspective that administrative agencies and administrative law courts write their bullshit down. They frequently make bullshit rulings and act in bad faith, but they write it down. I was hoping someone could point me to where they had written the specific bullshit down that they used to on paper explain this bullshit. Unfortunately it looks like nobody here knows  Past that there are millions of Americans trying to fight this bullshit and all the other Trump bullshit in a lot of different ways at a lot of different levels and in a lot of different ways. If you've got a great way to instantly fix this poo poo please share it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Reminder that the garbage system has literally detained and deported actual US citizens, so if nothing else you should feel weird blaming victims for their own plight. Hieronymous Alloy, I wanted to pitch your question to our partner that specializes in this area (asylum, removals) but he's out of the office at the moment. When he's back I'll see if I can get him to answer this at all and report back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ I read this article last night and found it quite interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
is this the timeline we get when we kill a vital npc in Morrowind and keep playing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Colorado: Is constructive dismissal considered universally without cause or is it case by case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
you mean like "getting fired"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
I think "I quit, but it's [employer]'s fault!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I think "I quit, but it's [employer]'s fault!" I think that term is for situations where the employer technically refuses to fire someone but just makes it impossible for them to work. i.e., "No you're still on the roster, we just aren't assigning you any hours" or "we've reassigned you to the Nome, Alaska store. You'll have to cover your own relocation costs."
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
They stop giving you paychecks, and when you don't stop coming to work, they relocate your office to the basement
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
In this case a 1/3 paycut, which was ruled by the 2nd court of appeals to be effectively trying to force someone to quit. I’m not a lawyer, that’s just the first thing that popped up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
I didn't know if he meant "dismissal = termination/firing/discharge" or like, dismissal of a lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Colorado: Is constructive dismissal considered universally without cause or is it case by case? If you're interested in whether you can collect unemployment benefits if you quit, it seems like a constructive dismissal is normally treated the same as a regular firing; if you hosed up bad enough that you wouldn't be able to collect unemployment if you were fired for it, then the fact that they cut your pay and you quit instead doesn't change anything. The good news is that Colorado's standard for being ineligible for unemployment after a firing is "gross misconduct", which means you'd have to gently caress up in a worse way than just being generally bad at your job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
I'm considering joining a company with a management position that has certain milestones where I will receive a bonus payout. For example, after 2 years with the company I will receive a bonus payment and a decent number of shares of the company stock worth around 2% ownership (it's a small, non-publicly traded company). What type of clause should I insist on in my employment contract that would prevent them from terminating me at 23 months to prevent the bonus payment and equity transfer? I'm in Nebraska, if that makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:I'm considering joining a company with a management position that has certain milestones where I will receive a bonus payout. For example, after 2 years with the company I will receive a bonus payment and a decent number of shares of the company stock worth around 2% ownership (it's a small, non-publicly traded company). What type of clause should I insist on in my employment contract that would prevent them from terminating me at 23 months to prevent the bonus payment and equity transfer? I'm in Nebraska, if that makes a difference. Speaking from a practical perspective rather than a legal one, you probably won't get them to agree to not terminate you, but you might be able to get them to agree to prorate the bonus if you're terminated early. Of course, if they're planning in advance to screw you over, they won't agree to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Speaking from a practical perspective rather than a legal one, you probably won't get them to agree to not terminate you, but you might be able to get them to agree to prorate the bonus if you're terminated early. Of course, if they're planning in advance to screw you over, they won't agree to anything. I'll talk to them about prorating it. They don't seem like bad people but when I'm counting on the results of the 2 year payout I want some kind of assurance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:If you're interested in whether you can collect unemployment benefits if you quit, it seems like a constructive dismissal is normally treated the same as a regular firing; if you hosed up bad enough that you wouldn't be able to collect unemployment if you were fired for it, then the fact that they cut your pay and you quit instead doesn't change anything. The good news is that Colorado's standard for being ineligible for unemployment after a firing is "gross misconduct", which means you'd have to gently caress up in a worse way than just being generally bad at your job. Does it make a difference that I would have to sign/agree to the pay cut if my current employment contract didn't say anything about pay reductions? Someone said that being fired for refusing to sign a new contract counts as without cause in all 50 states, I'll call the Colorado DoL tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:I'll talk to them about prorating it. They don't seem like bad people but when I'm counting on the results of the 2 year payout I want some kind of assurance. You'd ask for single trigger acceleration in the event of termination without cause. (Also perhaps in the case of change of ownership?). Acceleration isn't pro rated. You probably won't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Does it make a difference that I would have to sign/agree to the pay cut if my current employment contract didn't say anything about pay reductions? When I was googling your thing yesterday, I recall reading that a 30% pay reduction was found to be constructive dismissal. I can't find the link at this point, and I think that was from a judge's ruling so it wasn't a slam dunk in that case, and I have no idea if the court would be precedential for Colorado So, maybe? I'm not a lawyer If you were a contract employee whose contract term ended, I would be more curious about whether that still allows for unemployment. Were you an independent contractor, or did you just have an employment contract? It would be pretty unusual in the US to be a regular employee with a contract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
Constructive *discharge* is statute and state* specific. * there is also federal law on it
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Generally You have to be an employee to be eligible for unemployment. Generally independent contractors are not employees. The analysis of this however varies state by state and is not controlled entirely by whatever your employer labels the relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Devor posted:It would be pretty unusual in the US to be a regular employee with a contract. It’s very common for an employee to have an employment contract. You likely signed one when you started your current job, if any.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
An employment contract may or may not be an employment contract in the US for reasons that were discussed at length a few pages back. Or maybe it was discussed in the Trump thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It’s very common for an employee to have an employment contract. You likely signed one when you started your current job, if any. That *really* depends on who you are and what your job is and where it is. Most US jobs are at-will with no contract and the employer can fire whenever. If you're in a high status job that may be different but a majority of people are not in high status jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
I have often seen employment contracts (or things labeled that at least) specifying at-will employment. Are those things not compatible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Also often employment docs will have other requirements - eg non compete, non solicitation, NDA. Not that they guarantee you employment, just that you agree to stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
You have a document called a contract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 13:22
|
|