|
Otoh the records in question may be obtainable for the public record via FOIA. * talk to an attorney in your area before doing anything* as you might irretrievably gently caress up any claims you might have by going off and doing your own thing the wrong way.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
E.g., don't accidentally commit blackmail by mentioning crimes you plan on keeping hidden in a severance demand
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Otoh the records in question may be obtainable for the public record via FOIA. * talk to an attorney in your area before doing anything* as you might irretrievably gently caress up any claims you might have by going off and doing your own thing the wrong way. Neither the courts nor 501c3s are subject to FOIA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Neither the courts nor 501c3s are subject to FOIA. Not directly as such no but apparently there are state and federal grants involved, so information related to those grants may be obtainable, or the grants may open the nonprofit up in other ways. It can be quite complicated! He should talk to a lawyer!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not directly as such no but apparently there are state and federal grants involved, so information related to those grants may be obtainable, or the grants may open the nonprofit up in other ways. It can be quite complicated! He should talk to a lawyer! The grants don’t seem to have anything to do with the whistleblowing, though? Though they might be and just not in the post. FOIA isn’t going to get you discovery was my point. Definitely talk to a lawyer, though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Would it make a difference legally if his investigation was validated by exposing criminal activity vs. being unfounded?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
Not the question, but what law have they allegedly broken? "internal control and policy violations" doesn't ring any bells. Also potentially relevant for the "blackmail" question. Otoh, companies routinely negotiate severances to resolve threats of various employment-related lawsuits... so yeah, employment lawyer is good call.SkunkDuster posted:Would it make a difference legally if his investigation was validated by exposing criminal activity vs. being unfounded? At least in the realm of civil discrimination law, retaliation usually only requires that the complainant raised the complaint in good faith Thesaurus fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 11:14
|
|
|
Assuming what the employer did was illegal, do whistleblower protections act retroactively? Could OP get any sort of compensation for the retaliatory firing if they made a report today, or is it too late? I thought I had read somewhere that if you don't make a report prior to being poo poo-canned, it's nearly impossible to get any actual legal protections. Not sure if it's because it's hard to prove the cause and effect at that point, or if whistleblower protections just don't apply before you make any report to the authorities. Thesaurus posted:Otoh, companies routinely negotiate severances to resolve threats of various employment-related lawsuits... so yeah, employment lawyer is good call. I would expect that OP won't see a single penny of severance without a massive NDA. But, tying in to my question above, would that even be necessary? Or would retroactive whistleblower protections allow OP to recover lost wages/etc.?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:00
|
|
|
Ex post facto laws and statute of limitation extensions came up in D&D for various reasons which lead to me reading a little of Stogner v. California where SCOTUS said extending a statute of limitations across an event for which it had passed is ex post facto law. This was 5-4 with a liberal majority. Now that that decision is in place though, how would the government go about seeking to have it addressed again by SCOTUS, if it wanted to? As I understand it, once a prosecution is dismissed at trial due to this, that's it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Ex post facto laws and statute of limitation extensions came up in D&D for various reasons which lead to me reading a little of Stogner v. California where SCOTUS said extending a statute of limitations across an event for which it had passed is ex post facto law. This was 5-4 with a liberal majority. Dismissal at trial for an ex post facto violation does not mean the case is unappealable. File a case where the statute of limitations has expired. If the trial judge dismisses it, appeal it through the state courts, then to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Dismissal at trial for an ex post facto violation does not mean the case is unappealable. And that's not double jeopardy or something? That's where I got confused, because I understand generally that it's harder for the government to ask for a redo and for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:E.g., don't accidentally commit blackmail by mentioning crimes you plan on keeping hidden in a severance demand their_crimes.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:And that's not double jeopardy or something? That's where I got confused, because I understand generally that it's harder for the government to ask for a redo and for good reason. An appeal is not a new trial. Double jeopardy is about multiple trials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Muir posted:An appeal is not a new trial. Double jeopardy is about multiple trials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:And that's not double jeopardy or something? That's where I got confused, because I understand generally that it's harder for the government to ask for a redo and for good reason. But it's still a good question. Generally, the government cannot appeal factual determinations, like a jury finding that a defendant is not guilty. The government can appeal some legal determinations, like a judge finding that a violation of the ex post facto clause has occurred. Even then, the government's ability to appeal legal determinations is limited (generally) to decisions that are 'case dispositive' - either the decision causes the case to be dismissed (e.g., a statute of limitations or ex post facto issue) or the decision hampers the government's case so much that the government has little or no chance of winning at trial (e.g., excluding important evidence due to a search and seizure or Miranda violation) Muir posted:An appeal is not a new trial. Double jeopardy is about multiple trials. Harold Fjord posted:So dismissal on the grounds of an expired statute of limitations is not exculpatory. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
Note that a lot of that is criminal trial specific - for example, in a civil case the government can and will appeal adverse factual determinations, and there’s no double jeopardy rights (though there may be estoppel against the second case retrying an issue that was determined.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
I had a co-worker get indignant about something that some politician is proposing that will allow felons to vote. She didn't think that people like that should be allowed to vote. I don't think she meant it in a "those people" racist sense, but who knows. She had mentioned in the past that she used cocaine as a teen, so I told her that she is also a felon and the only difference between her and a convicted felon is that she didn't get caught. She said that she did cocaine, but didn't actually possess it. My non-lawyer logic says that when she cut that line and snorted it up her nose, she was in possession. What is the legal standpoint on that? To go a step further, if you take a piss test and come up hot for cocaine, is it any different than being caught in possession of cocaine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
Depends on the state, Google “internal possession”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
When she used cocaine, that was 100% possession. No ifs ands or buts. She sounds like a just world addict. When she tested positive for cocaine metabolites, she possessed the metabolites, not cocaine.* *(Does not apply in the military or while on probation or possibly in some dumb states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
Arkhamina posted:Took some trainings at a previous job Re: sov cits, as Wisconsin has a lot of them. They are known to pull poo poo like bogus leans on court or lawmakers homes, also to just declare they own property, because people (not banks) can only own property. So if it's unowned, I dunno, it's like legit salvage? The logic is wild. I once sat through a pro-se Moorish bench trial where the defendant ran loops around the (terrible) prosecutor, at least on the criminal charge. Guy was charged with identity deception, which specifically required that he identified himself to the officer in a manner inconsistent with a way he had held himself out in official proceedings in the last five years. The issue was, he had been Moorish for more than five years, and used that name for everything. Guy got to call in several of his Moorish friends to testify that they have only known him by the name he gave the officer. It was almost, though not entirely, on point direct examination with very few tangents. Of course he was removed from the courtroom when arguing the infraction that was forcing him to identify in the first place, and it's the only time I've ever seen one of our criminal judges give out a non-nominal fine for an infraction, but you can't win them all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
joat mon posted:When she used cocaine, that was 100% possession. No ifs ands or buts. That’s why when you should store your drugs and alcohol internally when driving
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
If a cop busts in on you doing a line you are absolutely going to be found guilty of possession. It was in your custody or control. Once it's in your system it's more complicated. E.g., in my state possession is defined in part by weight, and they can't weigh your bloodstream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
i have def done lines that were not in my custody or control
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:i have def done lines that were not in my custody or control My rear end is always in your custody and control tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Depends on the state, Google “internal possession”. Spooky. Does that make narcan an exorsist? Anyway, love the logic on this but if your body has drug metabolites this does mean that you either possessed drugs and/or used drugs and overwhelmingly likely both, and are widely accepted as unequivocal proof of either in some courts. Like where I practice. Hell, the bar for accessory to possession (yes, this is a thing) is so low if someone to your knowledge or negligent ignorance leaves their drugs in your house, you are donezo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Spooky. Does that make narcan an exorsist? Nice piece of fish posted:Hell, the bar for accessory to possession (yes, this is a thing) is so low if someone to your knowledge or negligent ignorance leaves their drugs in your house, you are donezo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:if your body has drug metabolites this does mean that you either possessed drugs and/or used drugs and overwhelmingly likely both, and are widely accepted as unequivocal proof of either in some courts. Like where I practice. You could've been administered the drugs unknowingly or without consent! My jurisdiction has fairly specific requirements as to lab testing / chemical analysis / chain of custody for drug offenses, to the point that I'm not sure it'd be possible for a blood draw to meet the requirements. I just looked and I don't see any local case law on it, interestingly. It does come up sometimes in the DUI or child protective context but to prove the DUI or the neglect, not to prove criminal possession.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I had a co-worker get indignant about something that some politician is proposing that will allow felons to vote. She didn't think that people like that should be allowed to vote. I don't think she meant it in a "those people" racist sense, but who knows. She had mentioned in the past that she used cocaine as a teen, so I told her that she is also a felon and the only difference between her and a convicted felon is that she didn't get caught. She said that she did cocaine, but didn't actually possess it. My non-lawyer logic says that when she cut that line and snorted it up her nose, she was in possession. What is the legal standpoint on that? To go a step further, if you take a piss test and come up hot for cocaine, is it any different than being caught in possession of cocaine? My legal opinion is that your coworker is a dipshit and a moron and they shouldn't br allowed to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
There's probably zero I can do about this, but it (IMO) is scummy as gently caress. It's around the way my town assesses and applies late fees and cutoffs. I got cut off today, and find out I'm paying a $45 "late fee" even though I pay the statement amount every month. . I get in my statement for last month. It is 121.78. I have 3 line items, current balance and total balance as follows: Previous Balance: $45.00 WATER: 38.39 SEWER: 38.39 Total Current Charges: 76.78 Total Balance: 121.78. There are no other items on this bill that have a price except for the water usage breakdown. Below in another box are the "announcements" which simply consist of: TIER 1 LATE FEE 2/21 @ 8:30 AM TIER 2 LATE FEE 3/1 @ 8:30 AM CUT OFF's 3/7 @ 8:30 AM Below the statement summary it reads: quote:This bill is now due and payable. Failure to receive bill does not relieve customer of responsibility for timely payment. quote:PAYMENT TERMS: Some payment terms and associated fees are noted on the front of this bill. Please note: If any bill is paid I paid the amount on the statement, which was 121.78+ fees on 2/7, and was disconnected today. So the basic gist of what they're doing is sending me a bill with a previous balance that is "late" (the $45), having an amount on the bill, then applying ANOTHER late fee $45 since it's after the first of the month). So other than reading the specific texts and actually understanding what it means, they have zero notification of the late fee that is basically a recurring late fee. I'm just hosed aren't I? And no, the town doesn't give a poo poo, they don't care, they're going to get their money either way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
I'm confused. You have a bill that you paid on 2/7, then you received another bill that has a late fee because there was some kind of double late fee that they didn't tell you about on the first bill? Did they acknowledge receiving that 2/7 payment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I'm confused. You have a bill that you paid on 2/7, then you received another bill that has a late fee because there was some kind of double late fee that they didn't tell you about on the first bill? Did they acknowledge receiving that 2/7 payment? It's confusing as gently caress. So here's how it basically plays out: 1/1 - Get bill. Assume I pay all but $45 on the bill for whatever reason. 1/20 - $10 late fee assessed (NOT POSTED ON FEB BILL) 2/1 - $35 late fee assessed (NOT POSTED ON FEB BILL) 2/1 - Get new bill with statement balance. 2/7 - Pay FULL statement balance. 2/20 - $10 late fee assessed on "unpaid" bill (NOT POSTED ON BILL - Seeing a connection yet? - I'm paying a late fee on a late fee that was never put on a bill). 3/1 - $35 late fee assessed on "unpaid" bill 3/1 - NEW bill (Has January's late fee from 1/20 and 2/1 as a "prior balance", which you guessed it are the new "late fees" on 2/20 and 3/1). 3/7 - Cut off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
So that "total balance" doesn't include some late fee you apparently owe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Trapick posted:So that "total balance" doesn't include some late fee you apparently owe? Correct. It includes the Prior balance, which is the late fee from 2 months prior, which is what is getting me cut off. If I don't pay the EXTRA $45 which is not explicitly stated on the bill, I incur another late fee, and potential for disconnect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Step one call up customer service and ask them to help you get the account current. As you are going through that with them, ask if there's a way they can waive (some/all of) the late fees. If at the end of that you have paid fees you want to try to remove, maybe there's an appeal process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
What about the scenario where you are held hostage and the guy forces you to eat a poo poo ton of poppy seeds or else
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What about the scenario where you are held hostage and the guy forces you to eat a poo poo ton of poppy seeds or else I think you mean 2143 poppy seed muffins, eaten very quickly so as not to metabolize the first muffin by the time you finish the last. Edit: Or about 500g of raw unprocessed poppy seeds. BigHead fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Mar 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What about the scenario where you are held hostage and the guy forces you to eat a poo poo ton of poppy seeds or else You still end up paying the late fee
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Epitope posted:Step one call up customer service and ask them to help you get the account current. As you are going through that with them, ask if there's a way they can waive (some/all of) the late fees. If at the end of that you have paid fees you want to try to remove, maybe there's an appeal process. Account is current and overpaid now. They will not waive any fees because "I should have read the bill". Small town, they immediately went into defense and blame me mode (I mean -- technically it is my fault, but still). They wanted to charge me another $25 to turn the water back on because I didn't realize it was off until someone came home and tried to use the bathroom, so I was after their 2:30 cutoff. It just looks like I'm basically hosed (even though I know I'm not the only one who has this issue since the defense mode went up IMMEDIATELY as soon as I mentioned not seeing the late fee on my statement balance).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
your best remedy is probably calling up a local tv/newspaper reporter, to the extent your local news orgs weren't gutted a decade ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:Small town, Not really legal advice, but if it's small enough that you can bug the mayor or clog up a public council hearing, that might be a way forward. Of course, this assumes that the elections aren't effectively hereditary, and that the elected officials may give even a single gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 23:46
|
|