|
In banking you are absolutely required to disclose to the applicant that they are applying for credit, but retailers are more loosely regulated so I don't know if it would be required there. It is the type of thing the CFPB would have been interested in a couple years ago but now it is being dismantled.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
The only way to see how much you'll qualify for is to apply for a credit card though, right? And then they tell you and ask if you want it, at which point you sign up for the card? BTW if you get a credit card from a retail store you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
My target card used to give me 10% off my entire purchase but then they made it 5% so I stopped using it. Congratulations target, you just played yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Agreed, and that fills me with uncontrollable despair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Agreed, and that fills me with uncontrollable despair. I prefer to think of it as an opportunity for moral freedom quote:“Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.  , while gobbling whale meat and rolling coal
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
Whale meat is pretty alright. Hard to cook well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Whale meat is pretty alright. Hard to cook well. Hard to tell with Norwegians cooking it
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
LifeLynx posted:
New York State and New York City have much better consumer protections than most of the US, so there may actually be someone to whom you can report this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 18:32
|
|
I just had a mild curiosity over if that kind of lying was illegal. But if it's just lovely business practices and there are no laws directly against it because USA then I guess it's really a topic for another thread.
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:My main interest in law would be helping myself and other people in situations like that where they can't find help anywhere else, not necessarily being some big shot lawyer making crisp hundred dollar bills every few minutes. Thats also why I said the end-game for me isn't necessarily being a lawyer, but learning more about law. There are actually quite a lot of people who go to law school with this idea. It's not as easy as it seems, though. The best way to accomplish this is in real life is to become a public defender or work for a non-profit, which a lot of people are actually doing. But these are really incredibly demanding jobs without a corresponding amount of pay. It takes a really special kind of person to sustain a career like that, and even then it's usually not how you imagined it to be. It's really tough to pull off what you want as a solo practitioner. There are a lot of costs that go into representing people, fees are not just pure profit. Just the court fees can be astronomical, depending on what kind of case it is. And if you do manage to work out how to balance keeping fees low and turning some amount of profit, you also have to actually get paid. Not everyone just pays their bills on time, no problem. You'll either have to spend a significant amount of time chasing down your fees or hire someone to do it, which is more overhead. And you'll be running a business, on top of your already full workload as a lawyer. I say this as someone who actually did do what you want to do. I worked with the elderly and disabled, many of whom were on limited incomes, helping them get and keep their public benefits and otherwise stay solvent. My salary was $55,000. My firm also did volunteer work for people who couldn't afford lawyers or who were incapacitated and couldn't hire a lawyer for themselves. We would never have been able to survive as a for-profit firm doing just that work, though. We also did a lot of trusts, estates and corporate work for wealthy people. Another thing you might not be anticipating is that not every client is an average person who will just listen to you, follow your advice, say thank you and leave. A lot of clients are dramatic people with dramatic issues (to put it as nicely as I can). They will take up a very large amount of your time and will make things as difficult as possible. Sometimes they will have untreated or undertreated mental health issues, and you'll have to get extremely good at dealing with this assertively. It's still emotionally exhausting, even when you get better at it. Sorry for the novel, but this idea that attorneys are all some conspiracy of fat cats is annoying to me. I met a lot of real rear end in a top hat lawyers when I was practicing, there are definitely a ton -- but I also met a lot of people who were busting their asses to help people and weren't getting rich from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
if i get accused of a crime but my calendar says i wasn't doing a crime, how innocent am i? assume i am rich and white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
A 50S RAYGUN posted:if i get accused of a crime but my calendar says i wasn't doing a crime, how innocent am i? assume i am rich and white. You really should be resting up for tomorrow, Your Honor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You really should be resting up for tomorrow, Your Honor. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
Lowly posted:There are actually quite a lot of people who go to law school with this idea. It's not as easy as it seems, though. The best way to accomplish this is in real life is to become a public defender or work for a non-profit, which a lot of people are actually doing. But these are really incredibly demanding jobs without a corresponding amount of pay. It takes a really special kind of person to sustain a career like that, and even then it's usually not how you imagined it to be. I love you. This is the best post I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You really should be resting up for tomorrow, Your Honor. "Surely this new sexual assault allegation will derail the nomination", says increasingly nervous man for seventh time this month
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Speaking of which: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/me...ed-states-day-5 Click play if it says "rescheduled".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
homullus posted:The cheapest path by far is to get a fantastic LSAT score and go to a low-ranking accredited school with a part-time program. This school will have a harder curve than better schools and a 3.2 gpa requirement to keep your scholarship. Statistically some of those in the top of your class will not have a scholarship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This school will have a harder curve than better schools and a 3.2 gpa requirement to keep your scholarship. Statistically some of those in the top of your class will not have a scholarship. Some schools (from Harvard to TTT) offer such scholarships with no GPA requirements beyond those for staying in the school. In not offering conditional scholarships, schools do not have to post an ABA Conditional Scholarship Retention Worksheet at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Lowly posted:There are actually quite a lot of people who go to law school with this idea. It's not as easy as it seems, though. The best way to accomplish this is in real life is to become a public defender or work for a non-profit, which a lot of people are actually doing. But these are really incredibly demanding jobs without a corresponding amount of pay. It takes a really special kind of person to sustain a career like that, and even then it's usually not how you imagined it to be. The non-profit side can also be just as exclusive as biglaw if you want to work for, say, the ACLU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The non-profit side can also be just as exclusive as biglaw if you want to work for, say, the ACLU. Tbh it’s more exclusive. Biglaw needs a lot of ditch diggers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Lowly posted:There are actually quite a lot of people who go to law school with this idea. It's not as easy as it seems, though. The best way to accomplish this is in real life is to become a public defender or work for a non-profit, which a lot of people are actually doing. But these are really incredibly demanding jobs without a corresponding amount of pay. It takes a really special kind of person to sustain a career like that, and even then it's usually not how you imagined it to be. It's doable, but yeah, it's a lot like being a public school teacher: low pay, long hours, an immense amount of frustration, paid for with essentially random and excruciatingly rare moments where you might actually be making a difference and changing someone's life for the better, if they don't gently caress it all up again a week later. Bright side is when people give you crap about being a lawyer you can make "No, I'm one of the good ones!" jokes (they don't believe you). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
homullus posted:Some schools (from Harvard to TTT) offer such scholarships with no GPA requirements beyond those for staying in the school. In not offering conditional scholarships, schools do not have to post an ABA Conditional Scholarship Retention Worksheet at all. This is correct. It's not a hard rule that a lower ranked school will have some impossible to meet scholarship retention requirement. And in any case, you can find this out before attending so it's just something to be aware of, not something to discourage applying/attending. That's what the employment rate/salary/hours are for!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Adar posted:"Surely this new sexual assault allegation will derail the nomination", says increasingly nervous man for seventh time this month Then they'd just nominate a still hateful but not rapey judge off the list, get him (or the lone potential her though that is unlikely since Trump found her insufficiently deferential) rammed through in the lame duck session and they would then be on the court for ages since whilst still shamelessly partisan they were still clever enough to stay on the right side of the impeachability line. My preference would be for Kavanaugh to get rammed through, the truth then to come out and him getting impeached off the court (cue unprecedented legal drama).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
I was watching a tv show where a character lies under oath and a few minutes later confesses to that lie of their own volition, apologizes to the judge, and provides useful testimony. Have they technically committed perjury? And if they have, can they be prosecuted for that even if they confessed in essentially the same act?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:I was watching a tv show where a character lies under oath and a few minutes later confesses to that lie of their own volition, apologizes to the judge, and provides useful testimony. If Law and Order has taught me anything it's that as long as you change your testimony while still under oath it doesn't count as perjury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:I was watching a tv show where a character lies under oath and a few minutes later confesses to that lie of their own volition, apologizes to the judge, and provides useful testimony. A person commits perjury if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's meaning: He makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath; A person commits aggravated perjury if he commits perjury (as defined above) and the false statement: Is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and Is material (A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under the rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding). Classification of the Crime Class A misdemeanor Third degree felony for aggravated perjury Sentences and Penalties Class A misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in county jail, fine of up to $4,000. Third degree felony: 2 to 10 years in state prison, fine of up to $10,000. Defenses Lack of intent to deceive Lack of knowledge of the statement's meaning Mistake Entrapment Note: It is not a defense that the oath was taken in an irregular manner or that there was some irregularity with the appointment or qualification of the person who was giving the oath.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Technically, yes, the person has committed aggravated perjury. As a practical matter, basically no one is ever prosecuted for it. The defenses to perjury are broad enough to make prosecution pretty difficult to begin with, the "intent to deceive" element is very difficult to prove, and I think, but I'm not sure, that with hundreds of cases on their desk already, going after people who've already lost in court because their lying was found out is a very low priority for prosecutors. Also, there is a very complicated rule about judicial privilege for pleadings and statements made in court that you can look up if you're bored.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
There was a notable murder case a few decades ago that I read about wherein the murderer was acquitted, and then smoking-gun evidence (photographs of the murder in progress, this guy was world class evil) was discovered afterward, so he was prosecuted for perjury since he'd testified he hadn't committed the murder. He pled guilty to the perjury charge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
The thing is the vast majority of the time the person committing perjury is the defendant, and any sentence for perjury related to their crime would run concurrently to the primary sentence - there's no point in wasting time having another trial. The judge just notes 'you showed no remorse and lied in your trial' and turns towards the high end of the sentencing guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
The key is the intent element. Often, although not always, anyone changing their testimony on the stand could simply say they misspoke the first time and corrected themselves as soon as they could, and that would be enough of a defense to give them a decent shot at acquittal. Obviously dependent on the situation and wording, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:and any sentence for perjury related to their crime would run concurrently to the primary sentence -
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
In the criminal context there's very little enthusiasm for charging your own witnesses with perjury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
I feel like anytime the defendant needs to testify, the jail time for perjury is a rounding error compared to whatever charge they're staring down the barrel of so not really a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Oh, my sweet summer child... Sorry I live in a country with a functioning non-politicised legal system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Sorry I live in a country with a functioning non-politicised legal system. Impossible by definition
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:In the criminal context there's very little enthusiasm for charging your own witnesses with perjury. Whatever jail time might be possible is NOTHING compared to the eternal judgment of the LORD OUR GOD awaiting those swear falsely on His name
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Javid posted:I feel like anytime the defendant needs to testify, the jail time for perjury is a rounding error compared to whatever charge they're staring down the barrel of so not really a deterrent. We actually don't have perjury for defendants, to prevent them being barred from doing whatever they feel is needed in their defence. Still have accessory to perjury though, and false accusation so it's not a free for all. Alchenar posted:Sorry I live in a country with a functioning non-politicised legal system. euphronius posted:Impossible by definition I'm sorry, as much as I appreciate and feel grateful for the quality and functionality of our system which is honestly one of the best ones in the world by observable metrics, euphronius is right. No such loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
I'm disappointed to discover that Jack McCoy is not the unimpeachable legal mind Dick Wolf would have me believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I'm disappointed to discover that Jack McCoy is not the unimpeachable legal mind Dick Wolf would have me believe. Law and Order used to do a pretty good job of dealing with emerging legal issues. Rote procedural ones, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
There was former DA back where I used to work who became a better call saul style CRIMINAL defense attorney a few years before I got there. He got busted bringing drugs into the jail. He represented himself, testified in his own defense and was acquitted. Then he was charged and convicted of perjury. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:02
|
|
