|
toplitzin posted:"I'm sorry sir are you running your rental empire out of YOUR condo too? That sounds like working from home. Better put yourself on the list." I'm sure none of his tenants ended up on that list.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:How far does criminal liability for COVID infections go? If an assistent manager goes to work sick and sickens other people, they get charged, but what if they only show up because their superior threatened their job over it? Cite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:there are pros and cons to everything, but on the whole i think i prefer our system of badge-wielding psychos with big guns and tiny dicks arbitrarily enforcing the laws they feel like to yours of an institution revoking peoples "privileges" like being able to work and travel by mail because they've been deemed undesirable I mean, I can understand the police harassing people is not good, but police harass 'undesirables' everywhere. Maybe in Norway they revoke your drivers license and hunting license, but it's that really worse than just straight up shooting them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
It's bc OP can imagine having privileges revoked surreptitiously but not their life
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:This was posted in the coronavirus thread, curious what you law goons think aside from "gently caress HOAs forever" Actual real estate attorney here (I have litigated for, and against HOAs numerous times). TLDR: While its totally possible the letter was actually typed by a human and sent to other humans (probably not), the things it claims are "fake." An HOA cannot non-judicially foreclose on a property because it suspects a violation of the deed restrictions. At most, it can levy a fine against the homeowner. Now, in theory, if the fine remains unpaid, the HOA could then obtain a lien against the property for the unpaid fine. If the fine continues to remain unpaid, the HOA can then "post" the property for foreclosure to sell it at auction to pay for the lien. This means sending out generally 21-30 days statutory notice of the foreclosure sale, posting a statutory notice at the Courthouse, traveling down to the courthouse and hosting a foreclosure sale where they auction off the property, and, if no one buys it at the foreclosure sale, they then become the owners of the property. AFTER all that, they could then send a "notice to vacate." However, that notice has no legal effect either. They would then, after acquiring the property at the foreclosure sale, have to send the notice to vacate (another statutory 30 days, usually) and then file an eviction suit. Then they'd have to get a hearing, no less than 7-10 days from teh day they file the eviction suit, then win, get a writ of eviction, and call the sheriff to enforce the writ. The Sheriff usually posts the writ, waits 48 hours, then comes and drags people out. In other words, the first date the HOA, if it does everything correctly, could have someone evicted, would be 3-4 months after the suspected violation was discovered and noticed. And they'd have to go through all the aforementioned steps. At any point prior to the foreclosure sale, the owner could pay the fine, and the whole process drops. Any property that has a first lien (a mortgage with a bank) on it will have the fine paid off by the bank, and the bank will roll it into your note and/or then foreclose on you. Then the whole process drops. The first lien would wipe out the HOA lien, and the HOA would get poo poo. 99% of those houses will have a mortgage on them. The things the drafter of the letter (again, probably fake) are conflating are the enforcement rights of the HOA, and the Right of Possession. Only the owner of real property has the right to possess it, the inverse of that being the right to dispossess someone of it. An owner can "sell" the right of possession to someone on a monthly basis - i.e. rent the place to them. There are no self-help evictions for anyone possessing property under color of title or contract. You must be the legal owner of property to make someone leave. Hope this is clear as mud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:It's bc OP can imagine having privileges revoked surreptitiously but not their life or maybe it's cause i'd rather deal with lovely individuals than a lovely bureaucracy like i said, psych jr. i was just kidding with the "usa #1" thing but i will straight up double down and say that i would rather have to cut local law enforcement in on my crimes and hope they don't shoot me than worry about talking to a therapist causing the state to revoke the "privileges" that allow me to work and live not that either one is exactly appealing. anyways we're getting pretty far from legal questions and i don't want to fling too much more poo poo in these nice people's thread, if you have any more hot takes about why i think the way i do maybe you could just pm me
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Cite? i, uh, this is kind of embarrassing but i swear i saw a news story about a worker in Massachusetts arrested and charged with a crime for coming to work sick, but I can't seem to find it. Here's a kinda similar story out of Illinois: https://www.propublica.org/article/coronavirus-self-isolation-illinois-jasper-county-arrest fellow is charged with a crime for not self-isolating. If, instead of letting his son pee, the man had come into the store because his boss threatened to fire him if he complied with doctor's orders, would that boss have any culpability here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:or maybe it's cause i'd rather deal with lovely individuals than a lovely bureaucracy like i said, psych jr. i was just kidding with the "usa #1" thing but i will straight up double down and say that i would rather have to cut local law enforcement in on my crimes and hope they don't shoot me than worry about talking to a therapist causing the state to revoke the "privileges" that allow me to work and live Just to be precise: your therapist can't say poo poo and your personal doctor (everyone has a doctor assigned to them incharge of coordinating their care) has a theoretical duty of reporting, but I've never seen them use it once. In fact the medical association maintains no medical professionals are ever mandatory reporters and the courts have upheld that on every occasion. But if you - like I said - got picked up by police for involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, that will be in the police logs and that might get used to revoke your gun or driving permits, for instance. Also, our definition of "undesireables" when it comes to this stuff is legally defined as a requirement to be generally lawful (not a violent offender), be medically capable (not insane, epilleptic, etc.) and sober (not alcoholic or an habitual drug user). And we have super strict anti-discrimination laws to prevent this from disproportionally affecting minorities. In addition to that the vast majority of people are not dependant on a vehicle to live or work, public transportation is much cheaper than driving and available to anyone that doesn't live way out in the hinterlands. Cars are loving expensive here too, like road tolls alone into a city will run you 250+ USD a month on average. Most urban-ish people use public transport whether they have a car or not, since that's cheaper than just road tolls. Just so I'm not giving the wrong impression. I'm not defending the practice, because I (obviously) think it is excessive and draconian, but you seem to have formed a misleading impression from my hyperbolic screeching for justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 07:30
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:or maybe it's cause i'd rather deal with lovely individuals than a lovely bureaucracy like i said, psych jr. i was just kidding with the "usa #1" thing but i will straight up double down and say that i would rather have to cut local law enforcement in on my crimes and hope they don't shoot me than worry about talking to a therapist causing the state to revoke the "privileges" that allow me to work and live lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 12:49
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Just to be precise: your therapist can't say poo poo and your personal doctor (everyone has a doctor assigned to them incharge of coordinating their care) has a theoretical duty of reporting, but I've never seen them use it once. In fact the medical association maintains no medical professionals are ever mandatory reporters and the courts have upheld that on every occasion. thanks for clarifying, i still really don't like the idea of being monitored by a bureaucracy and having my rights/privileges/whatever you call a locus of control over there restricted based on their findings but it's nice to hear the level of scrutiny isn't as intense as i imagined from your earlier posts. we have an insane amount of surveillance over here for "national security" reasons, and i went straight to that kind of system being applied to regular crimes. also as i'm sure you're aware vehicle ownership is a whole different game over here, losing your license is a life-changing thing not a mild administrative penalty. you'd be lucky if that just led to you having to get a new job rather than losing your house etc, and we've got plenty of people (usually with mental health or substance abuse issues) already living out of their cars who would have to decide if they wanted to sleep on the street and rattle a can or just keep driving and risk jail time. my $400 truck is absolutely essential to maintaining my lifestyle Hoshi posted:lol good point
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Wish I could say the same but I already knew an apple isn't an orange, kiddo
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:Wish I could say the same but I already knew an apple isn't an orange, kiddo please help, this really good poster is owning me
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:i, uh, this is kind of embarrassing but i swear i saw a news story about a worker in Massachusetts arrested and charged with a crime for coming to work sick, but I can't seem to find it. "I don't know why I'm being charged," says man who stopped at a gas station on his way to visit his inlaws while four days into a two-week self-quarantine order. Dumbass. Sure, he probably feels fine. So do I, asides from a nagging cough, and I just finished getting tested and have been told to keep self-quarantined until either two weeks after my symptoms started or 24 hours after they stop, whichever takes longer. And it's not like people haven't been asymptomatic!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Do we even have self-driving trains or light commuter rail? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:i, uh, this is kind of embarrassing but i swear i saw a news story about a worker in Massachusetts arrested and charged with a crime for coming to work sick, but I can't seem to find it. No, you don't get to break the law consequence free because your boss told you to break the law. The closest that criminal law gets to that is the defense of duress; "I had no choice to break the law because if I didn't break the law, another person or I would be immediately killed or grievously injured because I didn't break the law." In the civil liability side, there is respondeat superior, where a boss can be made to share responsibility for actions by an employee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Possibly the first person to be arrested for refusing to self-quarantine. Man violates self-isolation order 3 times in 24 hours The third time, apparently, they caught him trying to leave before the police had even left. Claiming he was going to go stay at his mother's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Interesting. A skimming of the article suggests some trains are automated and some are manually driven, but there's no elaboration on when or why. That it's not easy to find examples suggests that we're a long way from trusting computers to drive cars without supervision, given how much more difficult that challenge is; but, as a counterfactual, train infrastructure is notoriously slow to upgrade, so it may be that we'd have automated trains everywhere by now if they were cheaper and more easily replaced on an independent and individual basis the way cars are. So it's not necessarily a strong indicator, just something I wondered about. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
If I, hypothetically of course, wanted to cheer up a future lawyer despondent that COVID-19 will delay/prevent them from taking the bar this year by telling them the nerdiest law joke imaginable, what would it be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:In the civil liability side, there is respondeat superior, where a boss can be made to share responsibility for actions by an employee. this is basically what i'm curious about, how much of the burden can be placed upon the employer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:this is basically what i'm curious about, how much of the burden can be placed upon the employer. You can't pin civil liability on the employee for being at work and giving you Covid-19, so there's nothing to go up the chain to the employer
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:If I, hypothetically of course, wanted to cheer up a future lawyer despondent that COVID-19 will delay/prevent them from taking the bar this year by telling them the nerdiest law joke imaginable, what would it be? Dick jokes that end with “de minimus non curat lex.” Govern yourself accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 07:06
|
|
|
Is the statement in the last panel considered admissible, and what would its weight be if so?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 09:25
|
|
|
Devor posted:You can't pin civil liability on the employee for being at work and giving you Covid-19, so there's nothing to go up the chain to the employer Yes you can They may liable under any worker’s compensation regime
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Interesting. A skimming of the article suggests some trains are automated and some are manually driven, but there's no elaboration on when or why. No? To the best of my knowledge all DLR trains are 100% automated. I've never seen a driver and I dont know where they would even sit. Other bits of the Underground/TfL still have drivers. The article suggests there's a dude on there checking tickets etc who could take control in an emergency, but in normal operation, it's fully automated. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Apr 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
The police in my city have started randomly stopping cars to see where they're going. We are under a stay at home order and the exceptions are a long list of regular stuff (you can go out to shop for groceries, get gas, exercise, see a doctor, go to a necessary job, etc, etc). Is this generally legal? I find the idea of police detaining you to see if you're breaking the rules (with no probable cause first) to be troubling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:The police in my city have started randomly stopping cars to see where they're going. We are under a stay at home order and the exceptions are a long list of regular stuff (you can go out to shop for groceries, get gas, exercise, see a doctor, go to a necessary job, etc, etc). Not addressing the "random" stops issue because I'm not a lawyer, but a quick clarification of a common misunderstanding: probable cause is not the requirement for temporary detention in the USA. Reasonable suspicion is what you're looking for, which is a much lower burden to reach. Probable cause is what's required to make an arrest, or obtain a search or arrest warrant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
I'm no criminal lawyer but in general the police can stop any vehicle they want to ask questions for any reason, but if that stop leads to evidence and there was no probable cause for the stop then (theoretically, because SCOTUS has eroded a lot of 4th amendment protections in recent decades) the evidence would not be admissible. It certainly does not give the driver a right to recover money damages or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:The police in my city have started randomly stopping cars to see where they're going. We are under a stay at home order and the exceptions are a long list of regular stuff (you can go out to shop for groceries, get gas, exercise, see a doctor, go to a necessary job, etc, etc). There’s a pandemic on, there’s a state of emergency on, it gives the government extraordinary powers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:The police in my city have started randomly stopping cars to see where they're going. We are under a stay at home order and the exceptions are a long list of regular stuff (you can go out to shop for groceries, get gas, exercise, see a doctor, go to a necessary job, etc, etc). A stop isn’t an arrest or a “detaining”
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:A stop isn’t an arrest or a “detaining” Isn't refusing to stop evading or resisting arrest?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Isn't refusing to stop evading or resisting arrest? only if you create joinder
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
AMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINEDAMIBEINGDETAINED
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
My house rental lease ends at the end of May, and the landlord said we had to move out by then. Since there's a loving pandemic, I asked if there was any way we could stay. She said that we could go on a month to month lease, but she would be listed as our roommate. She said she had no intention of living here, but needed to because she has a mortgage for an owner-occupied house. So she's doing some mortgage fraud. I don't want to be an accessory to that, but I also don't want to have to move during what may be the peak of the outbreak where I live. I don't really see any option but to sign the bullshit fake month to month lease, other than perhaps forcing her to try to evict us. My wife is in a high risk category for Covid, so we really don't want to have to move. Realistically, any idea what might happen if we signed the document knowing it's bullshit? We live in NC. I consulted an attorney but she said she can't really help us since what we're considering is illegal. Inept fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Apr 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
I have a work and pregnancy-related question. I work at a university that, like most universities right now, is going through a hiring freeze. While I haven't heard anything specific from my boss, I am afraid leadership may decide to downsize my team to save money. I am pregnant and due in August, and I have not told HR yet (I will have to inform them at least 30 days prior to taking maternity leave, so in July). At this point I am worried for my job as I get health insurance and partially-paid maternity leave; if I were to get laid off, I'd lose my health insurance and the ability to support my child. I have a good relationship with my boss and got a great performance review, but I'm afraid that may not be enough to protect me if the university decides to lay some of us off. So here's my question: would disclosing my pregnancy earlier than July protect me from getting laid off, or make HR think I'm more of a money drain/liability and be more likely to lay me off? Edit: This is in Illinois. Carotid fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Inept posted:My house rental lease ends at the end of May, and the landlord said we had to move out by then. Since there's a loving pandemic, I asked if there was any way we could stay. She said that we could go on a month to month lease, but she would be listed as our roommate. She said she had no intention of living here, but needed to because she has a mortgage for an owner-occupied house. So she's doing some mortgage fraud. I don't want to be an accessory to that, but I also don't want to have to move during what may be the peak of the outbreak where I live. It's not like you're under some mandatory obligation to report a crime. IANAL. But I have been a mandatory abuse reporter, for example. It's not like you're comitting fraud, the landlord is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:It's not like you're under some mandatory obligation to report a crime. IANAL. But I have been a mandatory abuse reporter, for example. It's not like you're comitting fraud, the landlord is. Yeah, I'm just worried about being an accessory to it. I have no idea what the possible repercussions are since it's a criminal offense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
No one will be able to help you without knowing what state you're in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:No one will be able to help you without knowing what state you're in. He said NC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:No one will be able to help you without knowing what state you're in. NC. The lawyer they talked to sucks. e: so much do that I doubt they talked to one, particularly not in the last month ee: has LL been signed on as roommate for the last year? Did LL just get a new mortgage that doesn't come into effect until May? joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Apr 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
joat mon posted:NC. Landlord has had a fraudulent mortgage for a while. She contacted me in November asking me to be part of her scheme to say she was our roommate in exchange for lowering our rent because the bank was asking her for proof she lived there. I said no thanks, that was the end of it. She originally was fine with us going month to month and brought it up herself about 3 weeks ago, and then a week ago sent us an email saying she changed her mind and we had to move out. I'm guessing the bank came back again and said "we need more proof you live here". We consulted with a lawyer for an hour about what we could do. The lawyer said that legally, if the lease is up, unless there's some executive order, nothing prevents the landlord from kicking us out. We could stay and wait to get evicted, and the lawyer said that we could probably stay in the house for another month or two while that went on if we went through all of our appeal options. She advised us to reach out and see if we could find out why the landlord was kicking us out and to see if there's a way to stay. That's when the landlord gave us this "you can stay if you sign this" email. I relayed that information to the lawyer, who said that she can't advise us to fill out documents fraudulently. I don't think she gave us amazing advice, but I doubt any lawyer is going to tell us anything other than "find a new place or deal with eviction". No one will tell us to sign the document and roll the dice. Also why would I lie about speaking to a lawyer? What?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 23:15
|
|