|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:... whaaaaaaaat When I was in uni I worked at a small wholesalers for trades an they used to have to sign a receipt to confirm they took all the items on it. It was then scanned and the copies were sent out to the companies every month in order for them to pay. Red pens never showed up on the scanner.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
That's why colorblind people shouldn't develop scanners...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:That's why colorblind people shouldn't develop scanners... I know you're joking, but my best friend is red/green colourblind, and he has had to explain to more than one person that no, wearing red or green around him won't make you invisible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
My state, Arizona, is currently considering a law to ban the collection of mail-in ballots. http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/hb2023p.htm&Session_ID=115 As background, it's pretty common practice in Arizona for political groups to call low-efficacy voters in the time period where it's too late to mail in a ballot, but before the election deadline, and personally deliver their ballots to a polling station. It's effective in increasing turnout. Anyways, I live in an apartment complex. In the main office, there's a tray for outgoing mail. I don't know if there's a legal definition of mailbox or anything, but it's just a shallow, open topped, rectangular bin. Would me or my apartment complex be committing a felony if I dropped off my mail-in ballots this way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:My state, Arizona, is currently considering a law to ban the collection of mail-in ballots. Not unless the bill becomes law. You would not be comitting a felony in any case. Does a postman come pick up the outgoing mail from the tray, or does an apartment employee take the mail to a mailbox?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
I assume the postman comes to collect from the tray. I suppose I would be safe, but the thing that bothers me is the way it defines "collects" Does possession have the same kind of meaning here as it would if the ballots were baggies of heroin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I assume the postman comes to collect from the tray. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I suppose I would be safe, but the thing that bothers me is the way it defines "collects" Dr. Arbitrary posted:Does possession have the same kind of meaning here as it would if the ballots were baggies of heroin? There is a requirement that the taking of the ballots be 'knowing,' if that's what you meant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
I'm applying for a job with a government agency. Am I being paranoid to be concerned that this authorization to disclose my information (which will include a background check, drug test, wants things like my social security number, passport, high school transcripts, etc.) is way too broad? I'm located in Seattle, Washington, in case it matters:quote:A feature of this electronic system (known as eSOPH) allows the <Government Agency> to share information from your background investigation process with other entities who may request such information, for official purpose(s). This includes, but is not limited to: Any information you enter or upload to this system, to include responses to questionnaires, documents, and images. I'm primarily concerned with the bolded, because it seems to give them the right to give out my information to any Tom, Dick, or Harry that walks in and asks for it, regardless of appropriateness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Welcome to 3rd party background searches contracted out by your government. A lot of agencies are using eSOPH now but I don't know if it's better or worse for the applicant as compared to when the agencies did this work themselves. If you're uncomfortable with any of this government work is not for you. Ninja edit: I should have said direct hire by a government entity is not for you. Contractors are barely regulated based on largely one-off contract negotiations with whatever firm is supplying them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I'm applying for a job with a government agency. Am I being paranoid to be concerned that this authorization to disclose my information (which will include a background check, drug test, wants things like my social security number, passport, high school transcripts, etc.) is way too broad? I'm located in Seattle, Washington, in case it matters: The key bit is back at the top: quote:A feature of this electronic system (known as eSOPH) allows the <Government Agency> to share information from your background investigation process with other entities who may request such information, for official purpose(s) It's not any Tom, Dick, or Harry, it's any entity that wants the information for official purposes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I suppose I'll just have to let them have my precious bodily fluids. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
go native. life off the grid. free man upon the land.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Yeah, I suppose I'll just have to let them have my precious bodily fluids. Thanks. Don't worry, the OPM is pretty sure they fixed the security vulnerabilities in their system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
sullat posted:Don't worry, the OPM is pretty sure they fixed the security vulnerabilities in their system. I hope whatever fuckheads are responsible for that (and the Chinese now hunting the credit reports of every Federal employee) gets genital cancer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Not a (US) lawyer, just curious. Are referral fees between lawyers usually frowned upon in the US (in whichever state)? I remember hearing that mentioned in some TV show and it's stuck with me ever since.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Not a (US) lawyer, just curious. It depends. Lots of rules on referrals and lots of ethical concerns and much of it is state-by-state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Referral fees loving own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Small question about Jury Duty in MA. I know you're disqualified if you've had Jury Duty in the last 3 years, but is that time between dates of the service or dates of the summons? More specifically, I did Jury Duty in April of 2013 and recent got summoned again for May of 2016. So, the dates of service are 3 years apart, but I was summoned less than 3 years after my last service. Guessing I'm out of luck but they are really lining me up for back to back dates here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
The statute refers to jury service. http://law.justia.com/codes/massachusetts/2006/gl-pt3-toc/234a-4.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
The general term "Jury Duty" refers to everything from getting called, showing up, getting on a jury panel, and serving on a Jury. Serving on a jury is actually getting picked as one of the 14. Only like 10% of potential jurors ever actual make it to serving on a jury. There should be a checkbox on the back of the summons, or a website you can go to. Even if you're disqualified, you still have to tell them somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses. MA has a "one day, one trial" policy that equates serving on a jury for a full trial to showing up on your assigned day, even if you're not ultimately selected to serve on a jury (at least that's my understanding). So, I would equate my last 'service', which required me showing up and sitting around a while before being dismissed, as satisfying that policy and making me ineligible for the 3 years they say. That said, I still don't know if that 3 year time refers to the service itself or the notice to serve, but I'll try the disqualification option and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Hoopaloops posted:
Can you like, call, and ask if your situation counts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
There really should be a law about distance for jury duty too. I live in AZ, and when I lived in Litchfield Park, I got a summons for loving Mesa. Over an hour drive away. Thankfully I only had to go in the one day but I can't imagine how bad it would have been had I been picked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Say I'm driving down the road and the guy in front of me comes to a dead stop. I had enough room to stop too, but the guy behind me didn't or wasn't paying attention and I get rear ended. Is the guy in front of me culpable at all? I saw a dashcam video where this happened and am curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Say I'm driving down the road and the guy in front of me comes to a dead stop. I had enough room to stop too, but the guy behind me didn't or wasn't paying attention and I get rear ended. Is the guy in front of me culpable at all? I saw a dashcam video where this happened and am curious. IANAL, but the answer is "it depends.". Probably not, but if he was doing it maliciously, deliberately trying to cause an accident, and the footage showed that, then maybe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
was it the guy stopped in front of you whos negligence caused the collision, or the guys in back of you, is the question of "producing cause" that a jury would consider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Deuce posted:I moved out of an apartment a few months ago and now the landlord is claiming I didn't give notice. Phil Moscowitz posted:Does your lease define what type of notice is required? Just says "written notice." In Minnesota. Anyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Do you have a copy of your letter, or a copy of the fax transmittal? If the latter then it sure seems like you have proof of written notice. Have you shown them that fax transmittal? Are you sure the lease doesn't say somewhere, for example, that "written notice shall consist of hand delivery or certified mail delivered to the following address" or something similar? I don't know whether Minnesota has some kind of particularity but if you have proof that the fax went through to their number, you seem covered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Do you have a copy of your letter, or a copy of the fax transmittal? If the latter then it sure seems like you have proof of written notice. Have you shown them that fax transmittal? Unfortunately it's one of those dumb fax machines that only spits something back at you when it fails to send.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
So my MIL is aging and is in the midst of developing dementia. She's getting to / at the point where she really can't be making any decisions on her own. My wife has access to all of her banking/investment accounts, but she still is in charge of her finances. At this point, she isn't trying to make any bad decisions, but there is concern that in the future, due to her disease process that she may. She has a financial adviser who is concerned about her decision making ability as well. What sort of options do we have to put something in place where she can't gently caress up her finances. Just curious what the term for this sort of arrangement would this be called?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
n8r posted:So my MIL is aging and is in the midst of developing dementia. She's getting to / at the point where she really can't be making any decisions on her own. My wife has access to all of her banking/investment accounts, but she still is in charge of her finances. At this point, she isn't trying to make any bad decisions, but there is concern that in the future, due to her disease process that she may. You can set up a trust with her as the beneficiary and your wife (and others she trusts to act in your MIL's best interests) as the trustee(s). There are lots of particulars and you need to talk to a real live lawyer about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
OK yeah that's sort of the guidance I was looking for. We're definitely going to hire a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Good. A lawyer can help you coordinate financial, estate, and tax considerations to make sure everything with your MIL's estate is in order and her tax exposure is minimized. All of these things are intertwined and should be handled together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
I live in NC, back January 2014 my ex moved out leaving a ton of furniture and other things. I was told they would pick everything they left up in March 2014. They never did and hadn't spoken to me since then. I just found out from a mutual friend they intend to show up the first weekend of March to collect everything. The things they want to collect I am mostly okay with(it is boxed up in the attic) but the also want to take things like the living room furniture. After all this time of no contact do they still have legal claim to the items? Am I required to give them the items back?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Unless you have in writing, text, or voice format that she "gave" you these things, or you have proof that you paid for them then you probably have to give it back. If it's hers then they belong to her, if they aren't then they don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Pretty good claim that they abandoned it actually. If they move out, say they're going to pick it up a year ago, never show, don't contact you, and then come by a year later to get it? You'd have a pretty solid abandonment defense. I'd give them their personal items and any thing you don't want, but they can sue you for the rest (they won't, but if they do, you've got a defense - That doesn't mean you'll win). Just read that they haven't bothered for two loving years and have had no contact. Yeah, your defense of abandonment is pretty strong. You've just got to see how much poo poo you want to go through. You don't have to let them in the house if they don't own it/aren't on the lease. Did you agree to hold it for him fit two extra years? Hot Dog Day #91 fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
House is owned by me they aren't and never were on a lease. I didn't agree to hold it for them past march 2014. I still have it simply cause I put the boxes in the attic and never had reason to go up there but the furniture is in use everyday cause it is my living room furniture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Tell them to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Or in legalese, "sue me"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Or as lawyers say to opposing counsel, "do what you gotta do"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:15
|
|