|
SkunkDuster posted:If they can do that, is there anything stopping them from passing an ordinance that lets them collect income tax on your wages? Are earnings protected from local tax in a way that winnings aren't? Texas now constitutionally prohibits income taxes, and banned them by state law previously. IANAL, but I doubt a town could make a lottery winnings tax stick, because it would plainly be a prohibited income tax.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
are gambling winnings considered "income" by texas state law?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Gambling winnings are income, that's why you have to pay federal income tax on them. Leperflesh posted:are gambling winnings considered "income" by texas state law? I guess if you're a town trying to tax lotto winnings, that's the argument you have to make, but it would require pretty tortured thinking, even for a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:Gambling winnings are income, that's why you have to pay federal income tax on them. "by texas state law" is the key phrase there, and what Texas defined as an "income" tax in their ban and what you think of as an income tax may be two entirely different things the specific wording is: quote:Sec. 24-a. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX PROHIBITED. The legislature may not impose a tax on the net incomes of individuals, including an individual's share of partnership and unincorporated association income. and just reading that it has one big honkin' loophole that a tax on one specific form of income on a gross basis is not covered. i.e. based on the plain language "the state gets 25% of any gambling winnings over $5 million" would not be barred by this clause, as i read it how texas courts have interpreted it, however, may be very different
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Does the fact it says "the legislature" imply that a lower tier of government, such as a municipality, is not so prohibited?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Lower government is entirely a creation of the state and has no independent power besides what the state deigns to give it. Legislature can't delegate down a power it doesn't have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:How come more defendants dont use no contest or alford pleas? Is it because prosecutors don’t give them as good of a plea deal than if they plead guilty? And whats the difference between a no contest and alford plea? In Indiana all pleas are required to come with an admission of guilt and an agreement to the factual basis for a charge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:How come more defendants dont use no contest or alford pleas? Is it because prosecutors don’t give them as good of a plea deal than if they plead guilty? And whats the difference between a no contest and alford plea? An Alford plea is taking a plea to a charge that you are adamant you are innocent but you also understand the evidence against you and see how a jury could find you guilty so you want to minimize the risk. A no contest plea is not saying you are innocent but rather that you aren't contesting the charges. In my state, the DA usually does not let us take Alford pleas with crimes that involve victims. I've had people want to plea no contest instead of guilty and the DAs don't care about that. Legally, there is no difference between Guilty, no contest or Alford guilty. The only difference is if you plead no contest to something, someone can't use the no contest in a civil suit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
i had something come up the other day: so, i drive through a small town on my way home from work, and there's usually a cop sitting at the entrance to the municipal complex searching for speeders etc. i drive past a cop going under the speed limit and he pulls out after me, but it's close to lunch time so i don't think too much of it. i realize he's still behind me after like two miles and he's fairly close behind me in the way that, ime, means a cop wants to pull you over. so at the next traffic circle I get to, I pull off at the first exit and he follows me. this is right about where a friend of mine lives, though, so i pull into his neighborhood and the cop continues on his way. i pull into my friends house for a few minutes (i hadn't intended to stop here, but i did talk to him for a few minutes before leaving). so then i leave, pull back onto the actual route for my way home...and get pulled over by the same cop who was sitting not too far away, who asked why i pulled into the neighborhood. to my understanding, i hadn't broken any traffic laws, and the non-moving violation reason he gave for pulling me over was pretty clearly made up in the context of sitting and waiting for me. so i guess my question is, if a cop really wants to pull you over and does the thing where they're just sitting right behind you, is there anything stopping me from just...pulling off the road and letting them past?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
If you circle a block and he follows you that's harrassment
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
In the cop’s mind, you were delivering drugs to that “friend”.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If you circle a block and he follows you that's harrassment lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
That's exactly what you did, effectively (pulled over and let him pass) and the cop went ahead and did what he wanted to do, anyway. If he didn't want to wait for you, he would have just pulled in behind you, asked you why you pulled over, and given you a citation under some bullshit reasoning (just like he did). This is America: ACAB and they can do whatever they want, without any consequences. EDIT: As to whether you have any actual legal recourse, after the fact, I don't know. If you're middle-to-upper class you can probably take the day off from work and contest it in court, and possibly win; if you are a lower income person, you can't afford to take the day off from work so you just eat the fine. There's nothing you can do to stop a Bastard Cop from continually doing this, as far as I know. null_pointer fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jan 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:There's nothing you can do to stop a Bastard Cop from continually doing this, as far as I know. well...
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
If the police want you to pull over don't they he'd to use their lights?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:well... 'Hey guys sorry to be posting here again but I've got some questions...'
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Spoilers for Knives Out? if you do something to a person that would cause them to die, but they commit suicide before the thing you did kills them, what crime are you guilty of? Assume that the person knows you did the thing to them and are killing themselves to die faster/less horribly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
negligence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Spoilers for Knives Out? What jurisdiction? In mine, attempted murder 8-21 years. Or, if the court for some reason knew the victim killed themselves as a direct result of whatever you did, accessory to suicide which carries the same penalty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What jurisdiction? This would be the same in the US. Full murder requires causation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
That movie pretty intentionally creates the messiest shitshow of causality that it possibly can. I feel like in reality a lot more of the people involved would end up in jail for various periods E: though it's worth noting that the thing she did did NOT kill him, he would have been literally fine if he let her call 911 like she said rather than preemptively killing himself Javid fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Javid posted:That movie pretty intentionally creates the messiest shitshow of causality that it possibly can. I feel like in reality a lot more of the people involved would end up in jail for various periods I have no idea what the plot of the movie is nor do I care. She did actions sufficient to guarantee death with the full knowledge that without intervention death would ensue? Attempted murder. (You don't need to actually have crimed the crime to be guilty of attempt, that happens when you cross a certain line towards the crime. The state is under no obligation to refrain from prosecuting someone who hasn't done the crime; if you arrest the robber while he's outside the bank with the gun, they don't go free, they get charged with attempt) She attempted to remedy the situation by offering to call 911 but death ensued regardless? She did not successfully remedy the situation before remedy was no longer possible, therefore would in my jurisdiction no longer be able to claim aborted attempt and thus, attempted murder. Also, lol at the idea of telling a judge "but I offered to call 911" because the immediate reply is "well you had a duty to remedy/prevent a wrongful death, why did you offer instead of calling immediately, go straight to jail do not collect 200 $".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
It's hilariously convoluted, here goes A switches the contents of two med bottles belonging to B C, B's nurse, grabs the slightly heavier bottle without looking for the 812th day in a row C correctly administers the correct amount of the correct thing in a mislabeled bottle, C sees the mislabeled bottle and believes she has administered a fatal OD of something else C immediately tells B and, because B is an insane rich mystery book author, he decides he's going to stage his own suicide instead so his nurse he likes isn't ruined for life [at this time if B just did literally nothing other than wait for the OD to hit, he would be a very confused alive person in the morning] Instead, B actually suicides with a knife he has, which is the actual and only medical reason he stops being alive. C witnesses this, too late to stop it. the net result in the movie is B dies and A goes to prison, everyone else in A and B's family is merely financially ruined, and the nurse inherits the rich guy's house because of the inheritance shenanigans behind the whole thing I can fully believe that most of the cast would have ended up prosecuted for something or other if that utterly batshit sequence of events occurred in our reality, however e: also this is maybe 10% of the convoluted family drama machinations that play out during that movie, this is just the stuff directly relating to the actual murder Javid fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
And that is why oversimplifying leads to wrong answers, garbage in garbage out. That is not even involuntary manslaughter on part of nurse C, since there was no chance of death. Malpractice maybe. A lacks intent for rear end. suicide and whatever they are guilty of is probably at most attempted reckless endangerment or something? Was there intent to kill? I don't understand what he thought he was accomplishing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
A was specifically trying to murder B in a way that framed C so as to invalidate B's new will giving everything to C, on the general premise that you can't inherit from somebody whose death you cause? this is also why B just immediately made his cause of death a thing other than the medication, he wanted his carefully crafted will disowning his rear end in a top hat children to actually take effect and not be derailed by a medical mistake Later on A actually kills somebody else so he gets arrested for THAT; specific charges aren't covered in the film so  what he actually got for the original plotalso A is Chris Evans so seeing captain america be a piece of poo poo is certainly something I actually enjoyed this ridiculous film and I'm glad somebody thought to feed the plot into this thread for proper discussion
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:And that is why oversimplifying leads to wrong answers, garbage in garbage out. I think he was trying to accomplish death of B and also pin B's death on the nurse. efb
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:And that is why oversimplifying leads to wrong answers, garbage in garbage out. More spoilers for the movie: The intent was to frame C for killing him so that she would not inherit under B's will-- which was just revised to leave everything to C-- under the slayer statute. After his plan is revealed and it appears another woman he drugged survived, A flippantly confesses to everything and says that once he's out on lesser charges that he'll be coming for C. C reveals that the woman is actually dead and that he has confessed to her murder, at which point he grabs a knife and tries to kill C, stabbing her with what turns out to be a prop knife. Honestly, it's a really good movie. Daniel Craig has a silly accent. I'd go see it. E: Beaten, w/e. Still go see it even if you read the spoiler here. It's a very funny movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Javid posted:
Without saying more, you should watch The Boys
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
So A: drugged someone with intent to kill: attempted murder first degree. Possibly attempted framing/obstruction of justice. Murder on the dead drugged woman. Attempted murder on C. Then for C, prob. negligent possession and unlawful use of a controlled substance (probably should have noticed the wrong medication before administering) under the medications act, fine around 600-800 $, negligent dereliction of duty under the health personnell act, loss of medical license. The writer of the movie: Should be forced to attend law school, but not like a real one. Cooley probably. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Jan 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
I would assume her not being charged is within the discretion of the charging authority in the case, and given that she was the only vaguely normal person dragged into that insane family's grand climax they just let it be Alternatively, they did charge her with something and she lost a license and paid a fine, but she now has several hundred million dollars so it's not really an issue that affects her life beyond some initial grief
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 13:05
|
|
|
Gonna post a stupid question mostly for fun and because I'm feeling a bit fiery. That, and I loving hate landlords/real estate agencies. They should be served as a side along with the rich when Bernie is elected. Was in a duplex from January 2019 to December 2019 with a month-to-month lease, and the property has a fireplace. The lease has language that says its use is optional and they "recommend" an annual cleaning/inspection of the fireplace at the tenant's expense. Nothing in the lease says an inspection is mandatory. December 2019 I buy a house and move out of the duplex and I got my deposit refund this last Sunday. On it, they list a $175 charge that says "Clean & Inspect Fireplace - $175". That threw me off since I never used the fireplace and nowhere in the sections that says what the deposit can be used for does it say a charge for the fireplace can or will be deducted. Lease says "all refundable deposits, however designated, may be used by Owner/Agent to offset any damage, unusual wear and tear or unpaid accounts (including rent) at time of move out". Before that section though in a separate security deposit note, they do write "charges related to Resident(s), performance of this Lease Agreement, including, but not limited to, cleaning, repair of damages, unpaid rent, late fees, and dishonored check/payment rejection fees.", which is the only 'gotcha' part I see as it calls out "cleaning" in general. All I've done so far is draft (not send) an obnoxious and pretentiously Strongly Worded Letter with annoying bold parts and very professional looking indented sections to highlight how offended I am and actually I'm not upset, you're upset, requesting they refund my $175 for the fireplace cleaning, citing sections in the lease as to why I feel I shouldn't be charged. I made sure to write out "do not" instead of "don't" to highlight my professionalism. I'm very smart. Here's some language from the lease I cite: -“It [fireplace/wood stove] is not inspected and certified between each tenancy, and we have no way to monitor or track the usage history of the fireplace. It is recommended that you arrange for an inspection of the fireplace & chimney before using it and arrange to have it cleaned and inspected annually. This is a tenant expense related to the use of the fireplace/wood stove. Your proper use of the fireplace/wood stove is the most important variable in safe operation, and this is entirely up to you.” -"All refundable deposits, however designated, may be used by Owner/Agent to offset any damage, unusual wear and tear or unpaid accounts (including rent) at time of move out. Owner/Agent may deduct the cost of carpet cleaning from the deposit regardless of whether resident cleans the carpet before delivering possession of the dwelling unit back to Owner/Agent. In almost all cases, some cleaning is required after a tenant departs to sanitize, clean hard to access or missed areas, and blinds for example" - god this section pisses me off, it's written to gently caress people out of their deposit regardless of how well they clean. At this point should I just say "hey, I never used the fireplace, can you please refund my money?", send my long email instead, or send after they tell me to gently caress off? Ultimately I know I'm not getting my money back and normally I'd write something like this off but again, I loving hate landlords and how they gently caress over people that can't afford to fight them. I'm in Oregon if it matters. Thanks for reading. gently caress you. e: jesus christ that's a long post, shameful
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Shoulda burnt the apartment down. gently caress landlords. This feels like one of those 'ultimately not worth it to fight and the landlord hopes you'll get fed up and stop bothering them' deals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Gonna post a stupid question mostly for fun and because I'm feeling a bit fiery. Pun intended, I'm sure. The long story short is that each state has a set of rules for how security deposits are handled. Generally, if the landlord deducts(holds, doesn't pay back) a portion of the security deposit, you can go to small claims court and argue whether they were entitled to do so. If so, thanks for playing. If not, they pay it back, typically plus some fees or a fine to make it worth your while. Instead of thinking you're right, you have to think, "Will a JP read these two provisions of the lease together the way I read them, or the way the landlord reads them?" Will the JP feel that the fact that I never used the fire place negates the first provision? Will the JP feel that cleaning an unused fire place is above and beyond "normal wear and tear?" Hell, will the JP believe you that you never used the fireplace? Those, and many other questions are components of whether you would be successful in a lawsuit. Additionally, each state has rules about the back and forth of letters, notices of deductions, and deadlines related thereto which can significantly impact a case. It takes a fair amount of time just to familiarize yourself with those specific rules and their impact on a case, and I've even seen lawyers gently caress it up. So, is it worth your time? Thats for you to decide. How will they respond to an angrily worded letter? Who knows. Will this whole process go down in flames !?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Usually in my experience questions of whether such a charge is allowable comes down to local practice and what the small claims / magistrate judges think is ok.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Pun was absolutely intended. I'm ablaze and alight with a heated passion to extinguish this feverish situation.Outrail posted:This feels like one of those 'ultimately not worth it to fight and the landlord hopes you'll get fed up and stop bothering them' deals. Right, and I'd love to fight it on principle because too many people get taken advantage of by landlords. They get away with screwing over poor people because they can't afford to fight back and it pisses me off. blarzgh posted:So, is it worth your time? Thats for you to decide. How will they respond to an angrily worded letter? Who knows. Will this whole process go down in flames !?!?!?! Appreciate the insight and figured this was the answer. Getting down to it, I have no evidence that I DIDN'T use the chimney, and if the agency did hire a 3rd party to clean it, I wouldn't be surprised if they noted there are signs of use but without extensive carbon or other element dating, the burden of proof is definitely on me, and I have nada. I think I'll start with a nice letter stating I didn't use the fireplace and if it'd be possible to receive all or part of the money back and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Call on the phone > send the email > send the letter > take them to small claims court if not resolved Post a bad review at any point for additional leverage You've got nothing to lose and this could absolutely be decided in your favor on testimony alone Nonexistence fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jan 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Filing fee may be close to your damages
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
I think fireplace maintenance is at minimum normal wear and tear unless they find a brick missing or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
nm posted:I think fireplace maintenance is at minimum normal wear and tear unless they find a brick missing or something. I bet it is, even though it wasn't used. Still, it's my understanding that a tenant isn't responsible for general wear or tear in Oregon, only damages, cleaning or whatever's listed in the lease. This one's fun because it noted that even if you clean the carpets and the property itself, you'll still be charged because there's always going to be cleanup no matter what. Extremely cool language to squeeze tenants for money. I sent an email (would've called first if I had saw the above flow chart) asking if I could be refunded since I didn't use it, and will follow up soon with a polite call too. Appreciate the feedback so far and for not calling me a dumbass. If they say no then I'll just move on, it's only $175.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Louisgod posted:I bet it is, even though it wasn't used. Still, it's my understanding that a tenant isn't responsible for general wear or tear in Oregon, only damages, cleaning or whatever's listed in the lease. This one's fun because it noted that even if you clean the carpets and the property itself, you'll still be charged because there's always going to be cleanup no matter what. Extremely cool language to squeeze tenants for money. It's highly unlikely the fireplace was even cleaned/inspected. Did/does the landlord have to product an invoice to justify taking part of your deposit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 20:37
|
|
