|
drat Bananas posted:This seems really bizarre if it's true, but my dad has informed me that he "found out" he's entitled to surviving ex spouse social security benefits from my mom. He and my mom married around 1981, divorced 1998, then he remarried lady #2 in 1999, divorced 2006, remarried a lady #3 in 2008, my mom died in 2012, and he divorced lady #3 in 2015. He is currently not married. They were both 54 when my mom died, and my dad is 62 now. I'm not in legal but that just sounds crazy to me, and I can't follow the logic of why someone so far removed deserves her SS. Does this sound right? A quick googling says if he remarried he isn't eligible but I'm wondering if there's something else that could be at play. There're a million lawyers out there who do Social Security benefits plaintiff's work, typically on contingency. Dunno if that's different for disability benefits vs other benefits, but he'd benefit from calling one of them up and having an hour consult to work through the byzantine maze of his love life and the complex rules. That way, if he's wrong, it's also not his kid telling him he's wrong. It's an objective third party.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
Xenoborg posted:Doctors in residency make 80k/y, but it is 2-4 years depending on specialty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Student teachers don’t do a year of unpaid work A full college school year, fall and spring semester, where not only you do unpaid work, but you also have the privilege of paying tuition to do it. Also, if your mentor teacher doesn’t like you complaining to your cohort advisor that all you get to do for them is make copies there’s a very real chance they won’t sign off on your hours, making you have to do a third semester of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 08:52
|
|
|
So how good/bad is today's SC decision that half of Oklahoma is actually Native American land and is only subject to federal jurisdiction under the major crimes act? Roberts seemed to cast some gloom and doom: In his dissent, Roberts warned that "across this vast area" now deemed to be Native American land, "the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out." "On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma," Roberts wrote. "The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law."
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:So how good/bad is today's SC decision that half of Oklahoma is actually Native American land and is only subject to federal jurisdiction under the major crimes act? The state of Oklahoma and the Five Tribes that the opinion applies to are working to put a fix in place, most likely by the tribes consenting to concurrent state jurisdiction. This will not fix the convictions of Indians for state law crimes on Indian Land that have already occurred, and should be overturned. The feds can take up the major crimes and the feds or more likely the tribes can pick up the rest. The rest of Roberts' parade of horribles is probably not going to happen, and what might happen is not going to have a big effect. That stuff may (should!) get included in the agreement between the tribes and the state re: criminal cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The rest of Roberts' parade of horribles is probably not going to happen, and what might happen is not going to have a big effect. That stuff may (should!) get included in the agreement between the tribes and the state re: criminal cases. It's pretty awesome leverage for the tribes' negotiating position, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Devor posted:It's pretty awesome leverage for the tribes' negotiating position, too. Not necessarily. The tribes don't have jails or prisons or a criminal court system with experience doing anything other than misdemeanors or a police force that can take over the law enforcement duties of a dozen or two jurisdictions. The state has always done that, at no cost to the tribes. And at least the Creeks don't have the money to take over any of that, even if they had the will. They just don't have the capital right now to take advantage of their position. joat mon fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jul 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Quote is not edit. It's even more of a mess for the Creeks because their law enforcement and the non-tribal local law enforcement in their capital city are already in a pissing match. joat mon fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jul 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
The tribe does not have jurisdiction over serious crimes; that's federal only. Tribal court can only prosecute minor crime between tribal members. All previous state convictions where victim and criminal are natives can be challenged and overturned. Major crimes can have new federal trials, minor crimes be retried in either tribal court or federally, but that seems unlikely to actually happen. Tribes would normally get a bunch of regulatory and tax power + civil jurisdiction, but the laws that left the mess did explicitly strip a bunch of authority, so what's left is unclear. The case was about criminal jurisdiction, which wasn't explicitly stripped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
What's the actual process for a hypothetical inmate whose conviction is now illegitimate? Does everyone have to appeal individually? Can the state even logistically retry that many cases or are a whole lot of people gonna just go free by being too expensive to retry?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 07:40
|
|
|
Either the state proactively releases people or prisoners start filing habeas petitions to force them. Also, the state can't retry anybody, they don't have jurisdiction. Only federal for major crimes, tribe can do minor crimes. Tribal court could do a mass fake paper trial to apply <=6 month sentences, longer sentences than that requires bill of rights protections for accused and would have to be individual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 08:00
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:This seems really bizarre if it's true, but my dad has informed me that he "found out" he's entitled to surviving ex spouse social security benefits from my mom. He and my mom married around 1981, divorced 1998, then he remarried lady #2 in 1999, divorced 2006, remarried a lady #3 in 2008, my mom died in 2012, and he divorced lady #3 in 2015. He is currently not married. They were both 54 when my mom died, and my dad is 62 now. I'm not in legal but that just sounds crazy to me, and I can't follow the logic of why someone so far removed deserves her SS. Does this sound right? A quick googling says if he remarried he isn't eligible but I'm wondering if there's something else that could be at play. If you're married to someone for a certain period of time, I think 7 years, you can get a portion of their social security benefits. So deffo have him check it out I guess. Kids get survivors benefits only if they're under 18 when the eligible spouse kicks the bucket, so you're outta luck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Yeah in Canada lawyers managed to get legislated exemptions from employment standards law. Combine this with desperate students who will basically do anything to ensure they can become a lawyer and you get basically indentured servitude. Not Fish, but from my experience watching my ex try and find an articling position? There's no real organization to it, it's very much just a free for all. The Toronto program was intended to fix some of that, but it was canceled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Yeah in Canada lawyers managed to get legislated exemptions from employment standards law. Combine this with desperate students who will basically do anything to ensure they can become a lawyer and you get basically indentured servitude. Well, sort of. An apprenticeship is only a qualifier for a bar exam/attorney qualification, so there's a second class lawyer citizen which is people with a degree but without an atty qualification and those with one. The former work case worker jobs and maybe consult, attorneys attorney mostly. This makes an apprenticeship (which comes in three forms, and I'm using the term apprentice loosely here but that's what it basically is) highly sought after. There's three basic ways to qualify, which is 1. Getting a job as an trainee attorney (fullmektig, empowered assistant) which for all intents and purposes lets you practice law under that attorney's license and supervision, appear in lower court etc. There's a bunch of restrictions but after two years of that bullshit and a certain number of full trials, you can do a university level training course and do a bar exam. Obviously, this way means employment as basically an apprentice. An attorney can have any number of apprentices, but are bound by ethics rules to not overdo it, pay them a fair wage (or what, what'll happen, what? nothing really) and actually loving train them. Corporate Biglaw actually goes to the three universities and actively recruit by doing interviews for placements, which later turn into apprentice jobs if they do well in internships, get stellar grades and maybe write a master thesis on something the company needs. It's kinda gross. The old school way is getting an apprenticeship with non biglaw, which is basically everyone else (but that doesn't really mean that they necessarily are small). That's mostly freeform and regionally based. All in all it's some bullshit. 2. Getting a job as a trainee prosecutor. Same deal, two years. 3. Getting a job as a trainee judge. Different deal, three years, potential track to a later judge's position. I don't know what a clerkship is, maybe that's the same deal? I keep hearing it mentioned, but it's basically being a trainee judge and overseeing minor bullshit cases. All of these roles are limited in scope and severity of case by statute. The fourth and last one is getting a dispensation if you have a PHD in law. Which I think is bullshit. Out of all of these, only number 1 will prepare you for general practice in any sort of real way. So the basic answer is you need a job. That's about as organized as it is. Is this predatory? Is it stupid? Is it burnout prone? Is it unfairly scewed towards people with connections? Is it unfair in general? Is it a dumb loving way to select who gets to be big boy lawyers? Yes to all of those. Go to law school, kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Sounds like the only winning move is not to play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Not necessarily. The tribes don't have jails or prisons or a criminal court system with experience doing anything other than misdemeanors or a police force that can take over the law enforcement duties of a dozen or two jurisdictions. The state has always done that, at no cost to the tribes. And at least the Creeks don't have the money to take over any of that, even if they had the will. They just don't have the capital right now to take advantage of their position. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
sullat posted:If you're married to someone for a certain period of time, I think 7 years, you can get a portion of their social security benefits. So deffo have him check it out I guess. Kids get survivors benefits only if they're under 18 when the eligible spouse kicks the bucket, so you're outta luck. (Disabled children get lifetime survivor benefits. An important carve out. Or they did I haven’t done social escorts law in 5+ years)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Also if the 18 year old is in school it can continue for awhile until they graduate iirc
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Yeah, fewer prisoners in America is truly a disaster of enormous proportions. Maybe they can work out some sort of deal where the tribes can use a private prison, then get a kickback for it? That seems like the sort of arrangement that can only lead to better things. Not going to object to release of people convicted of drug stuff and petty crime, but the justice system around reservations is a shitshow. Any major crime is the domain of the FBI (who are not set up to be a local police force/do not care that much) and minor crimes go to tribal police, who usually have no resources. If you are a Native person living in a random suburb of Tulsa, the state PD no longer has any authority to investigate serious crime like domestic violence, rape, or murder. Those have to wait for the FBI. (Congress passed some laws semi-recently improving this a bit by allowing tribal justice system to do more things, but it's still bad)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also if the 18 year old is in school it can continue for awhile until they graduate iirc A while? Me, at 56: Yeah I dunno Mr. Krabs, I just can't wrap my head around this Home Economics stuff. Guess I'll be repeating AGAIN.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Not going to object to release of people convicted of drug stuff and petty crime, but the justice system around reservations is a shitshow. Any major crime is the domain of the FBI (who are not set up to be a local police force/do not care that much) and minor crimes go to tribal police, who usually have no resources. State law enforcement in Tulsa County doesn't have authority to investigate non-major indian crimes either. Depending on what part of Tulsa County (not just suburbs), either Cherokee Marshals or Creek Lighthorse can investigate indian crimes- but they're going to be stretched thin. e(g): (Lighthorse have 4 major crime investigators) joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Could the tribes who actually yeah totally own that land, collect taxes on the people living there? Perhaps to help pay for their services?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Could the tribes who actually yeah totally own that land, collect taxes on the people living there? Perhaps to help pay for their services? The tribes own next to none of the land. Their ability to collect taxes on the land under their jurisdiction from Indians or non-Indians is a question above my pay grade that's going to hinge on the treaties and federal law. (But collecting taxes is something that would probably bestir Congress into either forbidding taxation or disestablishing the reservations)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Just questioning the idea of police leading to safety for native Americans. Maybe you are right
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
They don't own the land. There's clear legal history for ownership going Tribe Collectively -> Individual tribal members at that time -> Other people. They have jurisdiction over the land. Same way that California has jurisdiction over land that it doesn't own. If it were a normal reservation, the tribes could tax it. This particular one is unclear because there is a series of laws where Congress stripped away tribal power. Congress never actually passed anything that directly ended the reservation, so it keeps whatever default authority was left, but anything actively removed is gone. In their brief, the Creek claim some tax powers survive. If they try to exercise it, there will probably be another suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Hypothetically, if my friend was collecting partial unemployment while working part time and their employer asked them to pick up an extra shift a day before said shift, would said friend’s refusal of that shift be considered a refusal of work for ui purposes? Let’s say they are based in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
RobrtDwnsySyndrome posted:Hypothetically, if my friend was collecting partial unemployment while working part time and their employer asked them to pick up an extra shift a day before said shift, would said friend’s refusal of that shift be considered a refusal of work for ui purposes? Let’s say they are based in Iowa. My understanding is you can't refuse offers of employment. If this isn't a promotion to full time employment or some other permanent increase in weekly hours, I'm not sure how it could affect UI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
I suppose what I am asking is can an employer claim that an employee is refusing employment if they are ask employee to cover a shift last minute and employee tell them to go gently caress themselves, if said employee is still working all scheduled shifts. Definitely no offer of permanent hours or promotion. Just a last minute save my rear end please
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
RobrtDwnsySyndrome posted:I suppose what I am asking is can an employer claim that an employee is refusing employment if they are ask employee to cover a shift last minute and employee tell them to go gently caress themselves, if said employee is still working all scheduled shifts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Unemployment is largely administered by the state. What state? Iowa
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also if the 18 year old is in school it can continue for awhile until they graduate iirc Just high school. They rolled away the survivor’s benefits for college when I was a junior in high school THANKS REAGAN
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
RobrtDwnsySyndrome posted:I suppose what I am asking is can an employer claim that an employee is refusing employment if they are ask employee to cover a shift last minute and employee tell them to go gently caress themselves, if said employee is still working all scheduled shifts. Don't respond until after the shift because you're out of cell service? Or make up a truth like 'I'll be out of town and can't work that day'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
In my state if you travelled more than 100 miles from your home this week you are ineligible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
therobit posted:In my state if you travelled more than 100 miles from your home this week you are ineligible. Yikeseroo. If that was the case here my question would be answered. Outrail posted:Don't respond until after the shift because you're out of cell service? Honestly, hypothetical boss wouldn’t necessarily even report it as a refusal of work, especially as she would likely be unaware that someone could both come back to work and simultaneously collect unemployment. My major concern is not so much ‘would someone report this to unemployment agency,’ as it is ‘if someone were to report this, would they consider the employee’s ui claim fraudulent’
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread but I’m in Arlington, Virginia and just got a red light camera ticket for $50. However, it's at the beginning of a traffic light cycle when the left turning cars in both directions go first, then you get a red light for a couple seconds before the straight traffic gets green and you yield before turning. That’s the red light they got me on. I wasn’t blocking traffic like tends to happen when too many people turn left during rush hour, but the straight on lights hadn’t turned green so I was just following the left turning cars in front of me. Can I contest this or should I just pay the $50 fine? It may not even be worth it because it's not a moving violation so no points on my license.
Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jul 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Not sure if this is the right thread but I’m in Arlington, Virginia and just got a red light camera ticket for $50. However, it's at the beginning of a traffic light cycle when the left turning cars in both directions go first, then you get a red light for a couple seconds before the straight traffic gets green and you yield before turning. That’s the red light they got me on. I wasn’t blocking traffic like tends to happen when too many people turn left during rush hour, but the straight on lights hadn’t turned green so I was just following the left turning cars in front of me. Can I contest this or should I just pay the $50 fine? It may not even be worth it because it's not a moving violation so no points on my license. But parking at the courthouse plus your time at the courthouse plus your commute time is probably worth a lot more than $50.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Not sure if this is the right thread but I’m in Arlington, Virginia and just got a red light camera ticket for $50. However, it's at the beginning of a traffic light cycle when the left turning cars in both directions go first, then you get a red light for a couple seconds before the straight traffic gets green and you yield before turning. That’s the red light they got me on. I wasn’t blocking traffic like tends to happen when too many people turn left during rush hour, but the straight on lights hadn’t turned green so I was just following the left turning cars in front of me. Can I contest this or should I just pay the $50 fine? It may not even be worth it because it's not a moving violation so no points on my license. If it's the same thing they have in Fairfax it may just be an administrative ticket you can't even get a hearing on. You won't get out of it just based on your word that you didn't do it in a NoVA GDC, so probably not worth it unless you have dash cam footage or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Not sure if this is the right thread but I’m in Arlington, Virginia and just got a red light camera ticket for $50. However, it's at the beginning of a traffic light cycle when the left turning cars in both directions go first, then you get a red light for a couple seconds before the straight traffic gets green and you yield before turning. That’s the red light they got me on. I wasn’t blocking traffic like tends to happen when too many people turn left during rush hour, but the straight on lights hadn’t turned green so I was just following the left turning cars in front of me. Can I contest this or should I just pay the $50 fine? It may not even be worth it because it's not a moving violation so no points on my license. Pretty sure that's just illegal, not as much of a gray area as the sneakers at the end of a traffic signal. You don't "know" that the traffic signal is about to give you a permissive green after your green arrow turns red - that's just your assumption based on previous experience. Maybe overnight the traffic engineers changed it, and now you're just sitting illegally in an intersection blocking traffic. Or did you just finish your turn and fully run the red light, but got through before oncoming traffic started? That's super duper just running a red light.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
Devor posted:Pretty sure that's just illegal, not as much of a gray area as the sneakers at the end of a traffic signal.  This is the same angle on Google Maps: 
Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jul 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:These were the photos included on the ticket. The cross-traffic had stopped so my left turn and the opposite left turn got a green arrow, then yellow arrow, then a momentary red light before it went to a green light and the non-turning lanes also got a green light. I guess their argument is that the yellow arrow turned to a red light before I entered the intersection. The citation is "failure to comply with traffic light signal." Google Maps shows that there are concurrent green ball phase on Columbia Pike for EB and WB - so I'm assuming this is a normal-ish traffic signal that has either leading or lagging left-turn green arrows. Leading green arrow is more common, but lagging green arrow isn't unheard of - although it's less common when you have a dedicated left turn lane. If it's a leading green arrow, then by running the red you are spending some of the all-red time that we build in to keep idiots from killing people. We give people tickets during this time, because if we don't, they'll keep pushing and pushing and we need more and more all-red time, or they kill people. If it's a lagging green arrow, then by running the red you're just a "late" sneaker. Same deal. Running a red, using up some of the safety buffer. Punishing people keeps them from pushing the limits. The only time when it might make sense not to punish a red-light-left-turn is in a poorly-programmed signal where opposing left movements NEVER run concurrently. You'll see this in some intersections where opposing lefts have multiple lanes such that the opposing lefts can't run concurrently, and the through movements are relatively small compared to the lefts. That's not this intersection, particularly since google shows me concurrent through movements on Columbia Pike. I'm 99% certain that someone was going to want to make a conflicting movement that would hit your car not long after you ran the light, and your argument is that you just ran it a little, and there was plenty of all red time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 04:55
|
|