|
sullat posted:If you can find a Freeman Court you can try to file alien against the Court's assets for any damages they have caused you by their attempt to create joinder with you. Freeman Court is real easy to find. It's in the test chamber, Gordon
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
I know the answer to this already, I think, but does going to court over a speeding ticket matter? I got caught by a radar attached to a stoplight near where the speed drops from 55 to 45. This is absolutely on me, I’m not trying to make excuses, I should have slowed down. Would going to court matter in how the ticket is handled? I can pay the $150, but I happen to have the day off on the date of my court appearance. I’ve never had that opportunity before. Would I potentially get a reduction? Or am I likely to pay the full price anyway and should just save myself some time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Hey, a speeding question! I was traveling interstate this weekend and had a question occur to me. So let's set up a situation (disclosure, while I might have been going like 5 over, no one pulled me over, and I don't even think I saw any cops in the area I'm interested in learnimg about): I am traveling between Indiana and Michigan (home to perfidious Courts that want to take down your LED Gadsden flag billboards, apparently). Indiana's speed limit on the interstate I am traveling is 55 due to construction. I am a reckless bandit and am traveling 65. We are VERY close to the border, in fact, a matter of a few hundred yards when I see the police lights blip on behind me. Like a law-abiding bandit motorist, I pull over to the side of the road, but in the time it takes me to stop, I have crossed the state line and am now in Michigan (where construction never happens if you go by the condition our roads are in) and the speed limit is now 70. For funsies, let's say I have a dashcam that I can use to prove I crossed the border. Would the Indiana troopers be able to follow me/write me a legally binding citation? I am no longer in their jurisdiction, after all, right? Or have I immeasurably hosed myself by crossing state lines in an effort to evade the police and now I have committed a federal felony where they sic the FBI on me?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
I want to hear more from Soothing Vapers about how if you REALLY think about it (and aren't a tool of the corrupt ABA), then you really aren't bound to the law of a state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Probably not - I don't know why they propagate the rumor that if you just show up the judge will be lenient/dismiss the ticket. I've never seen it happen. I expect the result you are going to get is you show up in traffic court, say all that, and the judge, not even feigning to have listened or cared, will say "guilty" and the fine will be lower than the cost of appealing the decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Probably not - I don't know why they propagate the rumor that if you just show up the judge will be lenient/dismiss the ticket. I've never seen it happen. It can happen in my state. The traffic judge will often reduce the fine and order the offender to traffic school, which will keep the ticket off your record. I have also personally experienced it go completely the other way when, after I got my first ticket at age 20, my parents said I should go to court and plead guilty. The judge lectured me, then made me eat the whole fine, plus court costs, plus ordered me to serious offender traffic school (8 hrs instead of 4 hrs). So I was worse off having gone to court and I wish I had hired or consulted a lawyer because in this particular instance, for once, I was not speeding at all and there were several deficiencies in the cop's case. I was just led to believe it would be easier for me if I ate it. Basically, it's a gamble. My general sense is it's a bigger gamble in small towns than it is in big cities. I've gotten two tickets in big cities dismissed by calling the prosecutor and pleading that I can't make the court date. If you don't get tickets often, maybe best to just pay the fine if you know you're guilty as hell and they wrote the ticket for more than 10 mph over the limit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:It can happen in my state. The traffic judge will often reduce the fine and order the offender to traffic school, which will keep the ticket off your record. I have also personally experienced it go completely the other way when, after I got my first ticket at age 20, my parents said I should go to court and plead guilty. The judge lectured me, then made me eat the whole fine, plus court costs, plus ordered me to serious offender traffic school (8 hrs instead of 4 hrs). So I was worse off having gone to court and I wish I had hired or consulted a lawyer because in this particular instance, for once, I was not speeding at all and there were several deficiencies in the cop's case. I was just led to believe it would be easier for me if I ate it. Part of this is that it was a radar trap. No human involved. It was a 56 in a 45. I have received tickets in this town in the past 18 months. One was a camera which got me for rolling through a right turn on red on an empty street (I was really mad about that one) and another for going ahead of a cop that I thought I beat to a stop sign. I dunno. I don’t want to make things worse. I was definitely going over the speed limit but this wasn’t a case of going 70 and having the cop be nice and write it for 56. It’s just a camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Hey, a speeding question! I was traveling interstate this weekend and had a question occur to me. So let's set up a situation (disclosure, while I might have been going like 5 over, no one pulled me over, and I don't even think I saw any cops in the area I'm interested in learnimg about): You'll find that departments cooperate regarding the borders of their jurisdictions. Also, the offense occurred where it occurred, not where they caught you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Probably not - I don't know why they propagate the rumor that if you just show up the judge will be lenient/dismiss the ticket. I've never seen it happen. I saw it happen in Atlanta, except it was the Solicitor that did it. Literally every ticket for anyone that showed up to court with a ticket they could have just paid got reduced one grade (so like 11+ over to 6 over, etc.) if they pled guilty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:Part of this is that it was a radar trap. No human involved. It was a 56 in a 45. I have received tickets in this town in the past 18 months. One was a camera which got me for rolling through a right turn on red on an empty street (I was really mad about that one) and another for going ahead of a cop that I thought I beat to a stop sign. Red light camera enforcement varies by state. For instance, in TN they're not enforceable at all legally and they just rely on you paying them as a matter of course. So it depends entirely on where you're at. mercenarynuker posted:Hey, a speeding question! I was traveling interstate this weekend and had a question occur to me. So let's set up a situation (disclosure, while I might have been going like 5 over, no one pulled me over, and I don't even think I saw any cops in the area I'm interested in learnimg about): Typically they would apply the law of the place where you committed the crime, I don't think it would matter that you crossed state lines when you were pulled over -- there is jurisdictional overlap to some degree. You would almost definitely still have to pay the ticket or appear in court in Indiana. There are some mechanisms for this built into jurisdiction and court rules that really don't matter to you in the end -- just that Indiana is going to be where you're going to end up if you want to fight it. I don't think they could or would charge you with evasion for reasonably pulling over where you happened to end up in Michigan, lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Red light camera enforcement varies by state. For instance, in TN they're not enforceable at all legally and they just rely on you paying them as a matter of course. So it depends entirely on where you're at. Isn't there a legal thought question about a somewhat similar location in a tiny rear end corner of Yellowstone/Idaho/Montana/Wyoming??? The 'Zone of Death' IIRC. The only place where a SovCit might have power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Typically they would apply the law of the place where you committed the crime, I don't think it would matter that you crossed state lines when you were pulled over This is not what I learned watching the Dukes of Hazzard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:I know the answer to this already, I think, but does going to court over a speeding ticket matter? I got caught by a radar attached to a stoplight near where the speed drops from 55 to 45. This is absolutely on me, I’m not trying to make excuses, I should have slowed down. Going to Court in my jurisdiction means entering a plea of not guilty, which usually results in an offer of deferred (pay a fine, no conviction) or defensive driving (take the class, pay a lower fine, no conviction), and then if you take neither of those you can sometimes meet with the prosecutor who will then offer you a less favorable deferred. 999 times out of 1000 it does not result in a dismissal by the Court or the Prosecutor. Going to Trial is the next step, and that never goes well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
If you have the cash, a lawyer can usually get it knocked down to a non moving violation. Probably cheaper in the long run as it won't impact your insurance rates. To be clear: I am just a dumbass on the internet who has successfully done this. Cost me $500 for the lawyer to show up to court for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Lowness 72 posted:If you have the cash, a lawyer can usually get it knocked down to a non moving violation. Probably cheaper in the long run as it won't impact your insurance rates. I can also tell you from experience depending on how backwoods your venue is, you can do this by looking like a lawyer. I was 19 when I got busted in a speed-trap going 55 in a 25, (typical rural town poo poo). Showed up in a suit and tie, prosecutor didn't even question, asked if I had the cash to pay the ticket, said yes, they dropped the ticket to like 6 over but had to pay the full $300 fine or whatever. I don't know how much of that is just a product of their entire local revenue being derived from tickets though. Come to think of it, there is no way they would have thought I was a lawyer anyway. I guess the lesson is just show up to your corrupt local court and dress like you can pay them. 
Kimsemus fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:dress like you can pay Thread title?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1158937091046330370
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Gotta get em started young
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
So my employer (fairly large company) sent out a letter about an arbitration agreement. Long document short, unless we opt out, we agree to "Arbitrate" and waive the right to sue each other in court with some noted exceptions(and a $100 filing fee). I have to assume that my best course of action is to opt out of this agreement. right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Quabzor posted:So my employer (fairly large company) sent out a letter about an arbitration agreement. Long document short, unless we opt out, we agree to "Arbitrate" and waive the right to sue each other in court with some noted exceptions(and a $100 filing fee). I have to assume that my best course of action is to opt out of this agreement. right? Do you have more money to litigate than your employer does? If the arbitrator is from a professional arbitration group then this is normally a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
We can't really know enough about your situation to know if you individually should or shouldn't sign a particular thing. We don't know you, we haven't read the thing and don't know what it covers, etc. Hence the thread title. That said generally arbitration agreements are exploitative and the corporation is issuing them to shield itself from liability, because arbitrators tend to favor the entity that pays their bills, and also because forced arbitration clauses make class action litigation against them much more difficult. That said enough people are probably opting in that that will happen anyway. From the company's perspective this is already a fait accompli. A few questions worth asking yourself : "how much of a stink will I raise by opting out?" "is this arbitration agreement about something I care about, or not" "if they gently caress me over, how likely am I to want to go to court about it?" Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Arbitration agreements are loving evil. At the same time,  that uber is going to be bankrupt in a year because of arbitration fees draining the companies already draining coffers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
It makes me sad arbitration gets abused like this because normally when used by two sophisticated parties of relatively equal power they are a good alternative dispute resolution
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It makes me sad arbitration gets abused like this because normally when used by two sophisticated parties of relatively equal power they are a good alternative dispute resolution Such entities can go into mediation anyway. Functionally, binding arbitration is waiver of your right to go to court, and that right should not be waivable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Such entities can go into mediation anyway. Except by two sophisticated parties of relatively equal power that would prefer another forum than the default, whether for reasons of preferred venue, availability of arbitrators with deep expertise, or other. Fundamentally, I can at least waive "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" of my theoretically inalienable rights, so I'm not sure why "the right to go to court" is more important than the first two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
There are pluses and minuses between choosing mediation , non binding arb, and binding arb and ADR is a complex subject . The garbage arb clauses put into consumer and unrepresented workers contracts need reformed however . Unfortunately we have a 100 year old arbitration federal law that is expansive and the Supreme Court is run by fascists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Eh, big companies hate arbitration. But what they hate more than arbitration are class action lawsuits and binding precedent. Arbitration is more expensive for everyone than litigation in court, but it saves you from class actions and from the Ninth Circuit screwing you over nationwide. (The secret solution is to file a simple action against a single witless employee in Texas and get the Fifth Circuit to give you a ruling first.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Arbitration agreements are loving evil. At the same time, I think social media is weaponizing class action / arbitration demands in a way that hasn't really been anticipated before. Like the Equifax credit breach settlement - there were so many people posting "Go get your pound of flesh and $125 from Equifax" even though the total payout was capped such that if literally every class member signed up nothing would change from Equifax's side, they'd still pay $31M / 20c per person. I feel like the next time one of these settlements is getting negotiated, the judge is going to look harder at the estimated number of claimants - if the offer was $5 for leaked individuals I doubt it would have gotten approved. At least I hope it wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Except by two sophisticated parties of relatively equal power that would prefer another forum than the default, whether for reasons of preferred venue, availability of arbitrators with deep expertise, or other. There are plenty of rights we consider non-waivable (for example, you can't sell yourself into slavery). Maybe the theoretical two equal parties of relatively equal power exist somewhere but they seem like frictionless spherical cows to me -- theoretical rather than actual entities. There's always a power disparity between any two given parties to litigation and it's usually a large one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Note my weasel word “relatively”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There's always a power disparity between any two given parties to litigation and it's usually a large one. Nah. In my sphere (patent lit) the parties are often of equal sophistication and close to equal power. Of course, arbitration often fails there for other reasons, but it isn’t about power disparities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nah. In my sphere (patent lit) the parties are often of equal sophistication and close to equal power. Yeah, like, in the abstract, I can intellectually grasp that such balanced situations must exist, but given the population I (at least currently) work with (indigent, disabled, etc.) such events seem like unicorns -- intrusions from an alternate universe. euphronius posted:Note my weasel word “relatively”. And my "usually." I mean, if the parties are actually equal, they tend to work poo poo out one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We can't really know enough about your situation to know if you individually should or shouldn't sign a particular thing. We don't know you, we haven't read the thing and don't know what it covers, etc. Hence the thread title. there's zero legal downside to rejecting the arbitration agreement because if you do, sue, and then decide you want to arbitrate you'll be able to agree to arbitration at that point because the company is still going to want to arbitrate (but you'll be able to negotiate better arbitration terms)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's zero legal downside to rejecting the arbitration agreement because if you do, sue, and then decide you want to arbitrate you'll be able to agree to arbitration at that point because the company is still going to want to arbitrate (but you'll be able to negotiate better arbitration terms) Yeah, but in practice depending on his workplace it might identify him as a "troublemaker" and lead to reprisals. Or it might go completely unnoticed and unremarked on. Impossible to say from this vantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's zero legal downside to rejecting the arbitration agreement because if you do, sue, and then decide you want to arbitrate you'll be able to agree to arbitration at that point because the company is still going to want to arbitrate (but you'll be able to negotiate better arbitration terms) (Assuming parties of equal sophistication and close to equal power)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
If you refuse they can just fire you. In most states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
I will only answer legal questions related to perfect spheres in a frictionless void tyvm
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Hello, if someone (not me) threatened to fire their (not mine) employees for talking to a union organizer, can that go to the NLRB without an organization campaign being underway? https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1161268795278790658?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Hello, if someone (not me) threatened to fire their (not mine) employees for talking to a union organizer, can that go to the NLRB without an organization campaign being underway? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
literally cant believe his lawyers havent made him take it down yet edit: he's like quadrupled down now. this has to be some sort of insanely poorly thought out bit Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 17:42
|
|
