|
Honestly the decision of her calling and reporting what happened is going to be a personal one, especially if the stress of it all is a concern. The police are opening up for calls to see how many other people the guy has victimized , what info is out there, and what else might be actionable. It's up to her to weigh how comfortable she is with that and any follow up conversations with the police and that process. There might be groups/organizations that provide support for sexual assault victims and similar situations in your area. That might be a good sounding board in a confidential setting to discuss how she wants to approach it.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Well part of her concern is that it didn't rise to a level of "call the cops" at the time, only a "complain to the office and bring me to future appointments" level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
This isn't legal advice, but there's something to be said for speaking out when you can. In a neighborhood facebook group in my town, a woman asked if anyone had advice about a landlord that wouldn't let her mail in rent, and insisted that she drop off checks, and that she wear a bikini. Some other people chimed in and said to just have a male friend drop off the checks, and that'd always worked. Some other people then chimed in to say, wait... what?! Fast forward and a bunch of reporters started asking people to share their stories, turns out this was the tip of the iceberg. So, my point here is maybe you report his misconduct, the police see two data points and shrug it off, or maybe you and 5 other people report this and the police decide they need to figure out the actual extent of the crimes here and start going through his entire history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah I just realized I'm a big dummy and my friend's wife is a sex crimes prosecutor a county or two over. Not her case, but she said she'd want to know her story if it was - because if a bunch of other women come forward with similar not-quite-criminal stories it can cast a different light on the case, deals, etc. She's forwarding my wife's info (with her permission) to the people investigating it. My wife would much rather get a call than make a call. So problem solved. Thanks goons!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Also, it would help her if she decides to jump on the civil suit bandwagon when payouts start happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
bobua posted:lmao. The day after my post here he's johnny on the spot with email replies. You're here aren't you you son of a bitch. gently caress JIMBOB, I DONE BEEN FOUND OUT
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:gently caress JIMBOB, I DONE BEEN FOUND OUT Should have specialised in tree law, then you wouldn't have this specific problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 08:15
|
|
|
Could something like this even be enforceable? At this point I assume almost everything is legal under "right to work" laws and "you don't have money, but your employer does, we dare you to fight us" but this reeks of some serious bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
"Your car sucks" is not a protected class unfortunately. It's likely this could be enforced on the idea of needing to present a certain look to clients.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
I'm kind of impressed they put that into writing. Go talk to an employment attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:I'm kind of impressed they put that into writing. It's going around on the internet. I don't think it's from his boss. But if it is, oh boy do I want to hear how this shakes out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
It looks incredibly fake but what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
my first thought on reading that is "this employer must be running a get-rich-quick scheme"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It's going around on the internet. I don't think it's from his boss. This is what I get for not checking the rest of the internet. I assume an update will follow somewhere. Edit: at this point I assume when it comes to things like this that no, people are in fact that dumb, so maybe it is real!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
I bet they know a guy at the dealerships they want to recommend
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
The original reddit post was titled "2005 Camry is too Crappy for this Company" but the poster has since deleted the post and all of their comments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
2005 camrys have major oil burning problems iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It looks incredibly fake but what do I know. same
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
It’s fake. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
I have a couple of questions from the state of Iowa about wiretapping law, the website recordinglaw.com indicates that it is legal to record a conversation without asking any other party for consent as long as you are a contributing member of that conversation, and my interpretation of the Iowa statute on interception of communications indicates the same. I am currently involved in civil litigation with another party, I have asked my attorney previously about whether recording a conversation could be a viable means to force them to keep to their word, and my attorney indicated that it was legally questionable and he couldn't advise me to do it or not. It seems to me that the statute makes it legal in the context that I would intend to use it, so, questions are; 1: Am I interpreting the statute correctly? 2: Can it be a good idea to record a verbal conversation without the other party's consent for the purpose of holding someone to their word in later civil litigation? 3: Are there some contexts for which #2 might or might not be acceptable? 4: Is recording a conversation in general going to be a questionable or worse idea even if it is legal in my state?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:I have a couple of questions from the state of Iowa about wiretapping law, the website recordinglaw.com indicates that it is legal to record a conversation without asking any other party for consent as long as you are a contributing member of that conversation, and my interpretation of the Iowa statute on interception of communications indicates the same. I am currently involved in civil litigation with another party, I have asked my attorney previously about whether recording a conversation could be a viable means to force them to keep to their word, and my attorney indicated that it was legally questionable and he couldn't advise me to do it or not. It seems to me that the statute makes it legal in the context that I would intend to use it, so, questions are; Your loving lawyer, that you loving pay to answer your loving legal questions, loving told you not to loving do it, you loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
I say go for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Your loving lawyer, that you loving pay to answer your loving legal questions, loving told you not to loving do it, you loving idiot. Well, I didn't really touch on it in my other post, part of why I am seeking additional advice is that the way he phrased it was that he couldn't advise me to either do it or not, he made another comment about it that seemed to indicated he thought it might potentially be helpful, and I question if he was familiar with wiretapping laws (which is not the field he focuses his practice on) since it appears totally legal in my state, whether or not it's a good idea. I have some doubts about his general competency and how much effort he is putting into my case, but I also am not competent enough with legal things to know if I am at all justified or being an idiot. After all that added, I am asking for advice to keep myself from doing stupid things, so if that's still your advice I am going to take it into strong consideration Bad Munki posted:I say go for it Well I guess that settles it wiretapping everything
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Listen to your lawyer dude. So you understand: in the US some states are what’s commonly known as “two party” states. That means no recording conversations unless everyone in the conversation consents. Other states (like Iowa) are “single party” states. If anyone in the conversation consents, the conversation can be recorded for legal reasons. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE CONVERSATION CAN BE RECORDED FOR ANY REASON. Making someone “keep their word” could mean all kinds of illegal poo poo that nobody on this website can reasonably talk about with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Also “dealing with law for non lawyers, part one chapter one” says: Shut the gently caress up and let the lawyer talk to: —the police —the people you’re suing —the people who are suing you —the people you might sue or be sued by
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Those are all compelling arguments but I think I'm gonna record conversations anyways Just kidding, thank you for the advice and explanation
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Seems to me like it's legal to record in Iowa but not legal to ask someone else to do it when you're not a party to the conversation, so maybe your lawyer doesn't want to come off as asking you to for their own benefit. Anyway my point is, congrats on the felony, Munki!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
So if you record the convo in Iowa on your own initiative, peachy keen. Does that mean it could be admissible in Iowa courts? What happens if the person you are talking to is in a 2 party consent state? Would that mean the same recording would be inadmissible there? Could THEY record YOU by virtue of the fact you're in a 1 party state?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:Anyway my point is, congrats on the felony, Munki! Sue me
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
What if two people both accidentally left a recorder on and had a conversation. Does that mean they both unwittingly committed a crime? Is butt dialing a crime? My rear end is in so much trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Is butt dialing a crime? My rear end is in so much trouble. Your rear end lacks the mens rea
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your rear end lacks the mens rea Unless all it requires is negligence. Cause that rear end is clearly a hazard
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Your loving lawyer, that you loving pay to answer your loving legal questions, loving told you not to loving do it, you loving idiot. e: new thread title
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your rear end lacks the mens rea if my rear end is not a mens rear then what is it???
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:"Your car sucks" is not a protected class unfortunately. Nor should it be. If anything it should be the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Will question: Is it possible for a couple to write up a will that it's legally impossible to change after one of them dies? My dad remarried a younger/healthier woman like 15 years ago and IIRC told everyone that they wrote up a will such that everything got split 50/50 between her kids and his kids when the second of them died and it couldn't be changed so that, e.g., if he died a year later she couldn't stiff his kids on the estate. This was a fairly reasonable thing to consider given my father's propensity for smoking Marlboro reds, drinking straight tequila, and eating lard products but the odds have been defied and he's still truckin along at 78 and she died from cancer 8 years ago. But even if it's true it also seems maybe pointless unless they wrote something in that prevented gifting the estate a way a chunk at a time over a decade? I dunno. I suspect that none of it was true and he just told people this (either unprompted or because one of my sisters flat out told him he should consider the possibility) to keep anyone from hassling him. The reason it came up is because apparently he told one of my sisters that he was considering revising his will so that it wasn't split 50/50 anymore because he has a decent pension so his net worth is still increasing and he doesn't really see the need to give her kids half of money that he "earned" 10 years after she passed. I'd ask him but tbh we don't talk that much, he's not quite as sharp as he used to be so he might not even really remember the actual details, plus he's always been the type to "spin yarns" i.e. make poo poo up for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Is it possible for a couple to write up a will that it's legally impossible to change after one of them dies? 1. No, although one law professor has suggested maybe we should allow that: https://www.law.virginia.edu/system/files/faculty/hein/2016/JohnsonA_53%20U.%20Louisville%20L.%20Rev.%20393%20.pdf It would be the functional equivalent of Congress passing a law with a "and the next Congress can't change this" clause. 2. There are ways to get to the same result by putting all your poo poo in an irrevocable trust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Nor should it be. If anything it should be the opposite. Yeah, at my small business we require employees own a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, or a 1969 Dodge Daytona if in management. If they don't want to own an awesome car, why the gently caress would we hire them in the first place? They won't be a good culture fit. We are an equal opportunity employer, and we also encourage/require our staff to adopt culturally appropriate hairstyles. Which means a mullet if you're white or Hispanic, no exceptions. If you aren't white or Hispanic and feel that a mullet doesn't look cool enough on you or isn't feasible given your hair type, you can have any hairstyle you want as long as a panel of HR employees deems it sufficiently rad looking blowing in the wind with the T top down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Will question: Wills are personal only They can be changed after death
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
therobit posted:Yeah, at my small business we require employees own a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, or a 1969 Dodge Daytona if in management. If they don't want to own an awesome car, why the gently caress would we hire them in the first place? They won't be a good culture fit. are you hiring? would an iroc-z be acceptable if my mullet is rad enough?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:09
|
|
