|
Alchenar posted:But for the real reason you asked that question, incest laws are based on blood links and not legal ties, so no, you cannot get adopted and then go gently caress your sister. quote:(1) A man with his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister; or Bolding is mine. You have no more a blood relation with your wife's mother than with any other random human being on earth, yet it is prohibited as incest.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
A hypothetical question for the California lawyers of this thread: California is a two-party state for recording phone calls; if someone were to record harassing phone calls including one where the aggressive party threatens to kill the recorder (for example), without a warning that the conversation was being recorded, under what circumstances would that recording be permissible? Would it be viable as evidence when asking for a restraining order, but not available at trial? Or, alternatively, is the degree of threat serious enough that it would be allowed? I think the legal system is a very interesting hydra and was actively discouraged from applying to law school a decade ago; advice I took, and though the study of law may be a fascinating one, I'm glad I didn't get into it as a career.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 11:17
|
|
|
Redfont posted:Hey I'm at work so I can't trawl the thread currently, but I have a quick question. Redfont posted:Neither of those things, but he can qualify as my dependent if he lived with me for over a year and he depended on me to pay for him to live, from what I understand. He didn't actually live in the apartment itself with me for a year, but he did live with me beforehand. Although the intent of the clarification of 'dependent' was meant to cover aged parents or disabled brother situations, it now covers those for whom you provided more than 50% of their support for the 180 days immediately before requesting protection under SCRA. However, with regard to leases, a "dependent" is covered only if he/she can demonstrate that their ability to pay the lease is materially affected by your military service. However, the landlord is not allowed to retain your security deposit, so long as you properly terminate the lease under SCRA. a good write-up on SCRA and leases the SCRA if you want to go wading lease termination is section 535, lease termination for dependents is 538, definition of dependent is 511(4), making withholding a security deposit a misdemeanor is 535(h) joat mon fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:A hypothetical question for the California lawyers of this thread: It's a crime. Cal. Penal Code § 632. Don't do it. I'm not a California lawyer, but that was pretty easy to find. Pretty much the same in any 2 party state, as I understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
joat mon posted:However, the landlord is not allowed to retain your security deposit, so long as you properly terminate the lease under SCRA. I've been eyeing this bit of the SCRA, but I wasn't sure if it applied in this situation or not. The administration of this place has been exceedingly difficult and has tried worming their way out of letting me out for several months now. My main concern is that since he's not on my lease and he's (probably) not covered under the SCRA with my wife and I, if they don't remove him from the lease does that mean they get to keep my deposit? Because if it's illegal for them to keep the deposit even if they don't want to take him off the lease that would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Dogen posted:It's a crime. Cal. Penal Code § 632. Don't do it. Basically yes. The best way to handle it is to not pick up the phone. These types of people will tend to say the same poo poo to a voicemail eventually. Then they become my clients 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Redfont posted:I've been eyeing this bit of the SCRA, but I wasn't sure if it applied in this situation or not. The administration of this place has been exceedingly difficult and has tried worming their way out of letting me out for several months now. You might try the Legal office at Warren: 6307 Randall Avenue Building 232 307-773-2256 I'm not sure where you are in the process, but if they give you the runaround, ask your recruiter to set things up with Legal first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
nm posted:Basically yes. I assume that works since they know they're being recorded at that point? No expectation of privacy in a voicemail, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
joat mon posted:You might try the Legal office at Warren: Thanks for the info, I will definitely get in touch with them to see what they have to say about it. Basically I'm just waiting on the paperwork to break my lease right now, I just had to get my recruiter to essentially write a letter to my landlord saying "this person is not a big scammer."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
I started a construction job when I first relocated to Nashville a few weeks ago. We framed an expansion onto one of the TV stations in town. The problem is the owner of the company which is doing the work walked off the job, didn't tell us, and is now avoiding the workers. He owes us a lot of money and most of us really need that money. He has lied to us constantly. He keeps back peddling and feeding us crap which now seems like a plan to stall for time. He has owed us our checks for over a week now. % of us have banded together. We plan to go to the News station Monday morning to try and see if there is anybody who will talk to us about this. I want to let them know what is going on before they pay our boss. Can we go over our bosses head and demand that the general contractor pay us? Can we make a request to the news station to not pay the guy for the work, and to pay us (the workers) the money instead? I would rather just get paid instead of dragging this poo poo into court. I don;t have the money to fight for the money that is owed to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
KelJu posted:Can we go over our bosses head and demand that the general contractor pay us? Can we make a request to the news station to not pay the guy for the work, and to pay us (the workers) the money instead? To clarify are you a subcontractor or an employee of the owner? If your an employee - Department of Labor. Subcontractor - claims court. Either way though the station probably has no obligation to you personally and neither would the GC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
CDG posted:To clarify are you a subcontractor or an employee of the owner? If your an employee - Department of Labor. Subcontractor - claims court. I am an employee of a subcontractor. What if I and the other workers threaten the station to go to other stations and tell our story of how poor hardworking "white" Americans did work for the TV Station, but were never paid?. Now we are in risk of being evicted from our homes because we can't pay the rent and all that Jazz. I shouldn't really say "all that jazz" since it is mostly true. I have $11 to my name and I don't get paid on my new job for another 2 weeks. I would think a TV Station would know what a pain in the rear end that would be for them. It would be hard to explain to people why the Station isn't liable. By the time we were done spinning this poo poo, the Station would appear to be evil in people's minds. I'm loving broke, and not above using misinformation and political rhetoric as tools to get what is owed to me. The Station has the money to just pay us off. It's only a few weeks of pay, which is peanuts to the station, but absolutely critical to the workers getting hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
KelJu posted:I am an employee of a subcontractor. That's not a legal question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
KelJu posted:I started a construction job when I first relocated to Nashville a few weeks ago. We framed an expansion onto one of the TV stations in town. The problem is the owner of the company which is doing the work walked off the job, didn't tell us, and is now avoiding the workers. He owes us a lot of money and most of us really need that money. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not American, so my knowledge is entirely Canadian and based on my construction law classes and tests related to my professional engineer licence. Look into whether you jurisdiction allows for construction liens or requires a construction holdback. In Canada, at least, any business or person involved in the improvement of a property that hasn't been paid can file a lien against the property title. Generally, an owner would also hold back a certain percentage of money owed to a contractor until after the lien period (a couple of months after completion) is over. Subs can claim against that holdback. Construction is an incredibly heavily litigated industry. I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of recourse for you. edit: In Tennessee they're Mechanic's Liens. edit2: Deleted a link because it was to a pay service that file liens for you and I have no idea if they're any good. Search for Mechanic's Lien Tennessee and you'll find a bunch of information T.C. fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jun 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Who doesn't love labor law questions? Job and company are in Pennsylvania. And there are two little ones: 1) Is it legal to be paid by the day as opposed to being salaried or hourly based? I am paid by the hour but not really. Each day is "eight hours," regardless of the time spent working (this I know is patently illegal). Could my boss have just said the rate is $x per shift worked and have been in the clear? 2) I thought I read that it's illegal for an employer to not pay their workers when they agreed to. For example, payday is Monday, but, since I started, I haven't gotten my paycheck before Wednesday. EDIT: For what it's worth, the line is that the payroll company has been missing their deliveries. BirdOfPlay fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jul 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Who doesn't love labor law questions? Job and company are in Pennsylvania. And there are two little ones: Your employer can set your pay on a per day or per shift or per year basis, or however else he wants, but your resulting hourly earnings still have to meet minimum wage requirements and you still must be paid 1.5 times whatever your normal hourly rate is for every hour over 40 hours in a workweek (unless your position is exempt from the FLSA requirements, of course). You don't get overtime for working more than eight hours in a day if you still end up working 40 hours or less in that work week, however, so you wouldn't get overtime pay for, say, working two 12-hour days and three 5-hour days during one workweek. As you noted, it is expressly illegal to under-report actual hours worked to avoid overtime pay, and you cannot sign away your rights to overtime pay through any agreements with your employer. The Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law does require employers to pay their employees on the scheduled pay days. I'd guess it's unlikely that anything would come of a complaint about an employer missing their scheduled pay date by just a couple of days, though (other than your employer possibly figuring out who reported them and coincidentally laying you off for entirely legitimate and unrelated reasons shortly thereafter).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
I don't carry drugs around in my car or anything, but I'm still curious about the laws allowing cops to search your car. I've seen a lot of places on the web suggesting that if a cop tells you to get out of your car, you should immediately close and lock your door after getting out. My question is, does locking your door really help? I was under the impression that cops can't search your car without probable cause regardless, so I don't see how locking your door would afford you more protection than just simply closing it. And it seems like it would just make the cop more suspicious anyway. I assume there's a good reason, but what is it? Billy Idle fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jul 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I don't carry drugs around in my car or anything, but I'm still curious about the laws allowing cops to search your car. It means the cop now has to explicitly ask you to unlock the door or take your keys from you instead of just yanking the door open and sticking his head in (as he's asking you if you don't mind him having a look around) and spotting or smelling something suspicious that he can later claim was "in plain view". Locking your door might annoy the cop if he's being an rear end in a top hat, but it's not improper; if the cop really has a legitimate reason to search your car, he'll just get the keys from you when he empties your pockets before he cuffs you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
I have two small questions. The first is I live in California where it is illegal to text or talk while driving without using a hands free device and every day I still see  criminal scum breaking this law. Should I write down their plates and a description of the car and phone in the non emergency line or should I stop being a sperg and go about my commute.My second question is that I am certain that a boyfriend and girl friend are cheating together in a math class. I sit a few feet from them but I can hear them whispering answers back and forth. My disabled student services organization allows me to use a tape recorder for lectures and my question is would it be permissible to present a section of the audio from when the test with them whispering as evidence of academic dishonesty to the instructor or should I just let it slide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Guidos Python posted:My second question is that I am certain that a boyfriend and girl friend are cheating together in a math class. I sit a few feet from them but I can hear them whispering answers back and forth. My disabled student services organization allows me to use a tape recorder for lectures and my question is would it be permissible to present a section of the audio from when the test with them whispering as evidence of Why are you tape recording during tests? Anyway, California has pretty strict laws against taping someone without their permission. Why not just err on the side of caution and tell the instructor what you've observed? That's usually enough to get the ball rolling anyway. You know, if you want to be THAT GUY
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Some disabilities will get you permission to record lectures for whatever reason. Presumably such official permission will cover you legally but ianal
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
I wouldn't record them; an easier first step is to just tell the professor, the department head, or the dean of students. Odds are they won't really get caught, but if they're spoken to in the investigation then they'll know people are noticing and they need to cut it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Guidos Python posted:I have two small questions. How do you know they're not making an emergency call or dialing a number, though? (That is perfectly legal, by the way, even though the DMV encourages people not to dial while driving.) Or selecting a song on their iPhone's iPod music application? (Also legal.) Plus, if you're writing down so you can call later, what exactly do you think will happen? How are you going to prove to an officer that the person talked on their cellphone while driving? Do you think the police are going to launch a full-blown investigation based on your calling with a list of license plate numbers and accusations you cannot possibly substantiate? I'm also assuming you're a passenger rather than the driver here. Otherwise, writing down people's license plate numbers and automobile descriptions when you're doing something at least as distracting while driving is a wee bit hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Guidos Python posted:I have two small questions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Guidos Python posted:I have two small questions. Let me ask you a question: Why do you care?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Guidos Python posted:The first is I live in California where it is illegal to text or talk while driving without using a hands free device and every day I still see
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
This is the guy who calls 911 eleven times a day because someone walked their dog without carrying a poo bag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
Javid posted:Some disabilities will get you permission to record lectures for whatever reason. Presumably such official permission will cover you legally but ianal No he said he was recording them during tests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No he said he was recording them during tests. Ironically enough, recording during tests would probably be an honor code violation by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Here's a fun thing I've been wondering about recently, ADHD and the Americans with Disabilities Act. There's a notion that I've heard of that ADHD is a condition covered by the ADA and, as such, if you need it, work, school, etc. have to provide accommodations for you. Is this true?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
There is more to it than just getting a diagnosis. You have to establish that you are disabled as defined by the statute and caselaw to be covered by the ADA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There is more to it than just getting a diagnosis. You have to establish that you are disabled as defined by the statute and caselaw to be covered by the ADA. Ok. I remember hearing it talked about like it was "if you have a dianogsis, they've got to accommodate you." And no, I'm certain that, for most cases, if properly treated or managed, it really doesn't reach disability status.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Here's a fun thing I've been wondering about recently, ADHD and the Americans with Disabilities Act. IANAL but I've worked with plenty of ADHD kids. As far as (public) school goes, ADHD can be a reason for a student to be granted an IEP (though note that's thanks to IDEA and not ADA), which depending on the specifics/severity of the disability will give the student a number of accommodations. For ADHD this is typically time-and-a-half on tests and prewritten notes for each lesson in class (sometimes also allowance to bring and use otherwise banned devices [ie laptops/tablets] for note taking). Edit: if you're trying to get an IEP, you (and/or your parents) will have to contact your school administration and ask for an evaluation. They can let you know what kind of documentation you will need, and your doctor/psychiatrist should be able to supply that stuff for you. If the school is really reticent it can take a bit of fighting though. Also good luck getting all your teachers to respect your IEP. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:IANAL but I've worked with plenty of ADHD kids. It's worth noting that, as I recall, IDEA doesn't apply post-high school. Colleges, for example, only have to make a "reasonable accommodation" for learning disabilities and whatnot, and sometimes professors can refuse to do that if doing so would "compromise the academic integrity of the course."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:It's worth noting that, as I recall, IDEA doesn't apply post-high school. Colleges, for example, only have to make a "reasonable accommodation" for learning disabilities and whatnot, and sometimes professors can refuse to do that if doing so would "compromise the academic integrity of the course." My husband is a community college instructor and he gets a sheet at the beginning of the semester for students who get special consideration and he defiantly gets students who need special consideration for ADHD. The students have to take their documents to an office on campus and they get considerations based off of what they have. If they don't do it officially, he can't do anything for the students. Most of the accommodations are reasonable. Its definitely not a pass to get out of doing work. Its usually something like extra time on tests or being allowed to take tests in the on campus testing center away from distractions and things like that. He also can't make the student use their accommodations, they have to ask to use them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Alterian posted:My husband is a community college instructor and he gets a sheet at the beginning of the semester for students who get special consideration and he defiantly gets students who need special consideration for ADHD. The students have to take their documents to an office on campus and they get considerations based off of what they have. If they don't do it officially, he can't do anything for the students. Most of the accommodations are reasonable. Its definitely not a pass to get out of doing work. Its usually something like extra time on tests or being allowed to take tests in the on campus testing center away from distractions and things like that. He also can't make the student use their accommodations, they have to ask to use them. Right, but IDEA creates a legal framework to enforce getting those rights, and as I recall it doesn't apply to post-high school work. That's not to say that there isn't a state law or school policy that would give them additional rights, but they don't usually get an IEP as a right in college Edit: that's just what I recall, I read the statute a couple years ago Incredulous Red fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
I don't remember exactly what regulates his school's responsibility to students with disabilities, but it can be pretty rigid and ridiculous at times. All coursework and material has to be accessible to students with handicaps including the blind meaning any text book he uses or any extra material has to be usable to them. He teaches 3d computer art and modeling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
On this topic, are there any consequences for a person who will not give up their seat on a bus/train/subway for someone who has a documented disability? I'm in NY, but I'd like to know about these laws anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
elisaaa posted:On this topic, are there any consequences for a person who will not give up their seat on a bus/train/subway for someone who has a documented disability? People will think they're a jerk? Apparently some places have fines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Here's a complicated but maybe not so complicated issue regarding debt collection on an unpaid credit card. The person that this affects is Meg, who stopped paying her Washington Mutual credit card in July of 2008. She resides in the state of Pennsylvania. She is already broke from hardships that occurred years ago and it is the reason she is still trying to climb out of this credit card debt which is why she did not see a lawyer (before anyone asks). She has spent hours and hours doing the best she can researching to figure out how to fight these collectors. Now a collection firm who bought the debt is coming after Meg. They bought the debt from Chase, a Delaware corporation, who bought the asset from WaMu who failed in September 2008. In November 2011, the collection firm filed with the local county courts and set up an arbitration for July 31st, 2012. Meg has mostly been fighting this collection on her own since then, filing her own papers at the proper offices, including Answers and New Matter. She thought she was doing a pretty good job, showing that the firm hadn't produced any documents to indicate that they had the proper statements and card member agreements to prove that it was her account. Unfortunately, today in the mail arrived these very documents that basically beat her defense less than a month before going before the arbitrator. Today, Meg found something interesting when reading over the card holder agreement that she was sent. She knew that Pennsylvania's statute of limitation in this situation is four years and so she did not include it in her defense. However, the agreement states that since Chase is a Delaware corporation, she has the right to work under the laws of Delaware. In Delaware, the statute of limitations for this type of case is three years, which would be July 2011. They filed with the county in November 2011. She did not include this in her defense that was filed and has now only become aware of this fact less than a month from the hearing. Is there anything Meg can do to use this information to win here? She is well outside of the time limit to submit new matter or further defense to go to the hearing. The card holder agreement that the firm has produced shows that they are trying to collect outside of the statute of limitations defined by their own agreement. Will she be able to mention this during the hearing? Is she still financially responsible as per their own contract? Does she have any shot at all in front of an arbitrator instead of a court? Any insight that doesn't involve the suggestion to lawyer up would be awesome! Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 03:55
|
|