Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«898 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

Outrail posted:

Honestly can't tell if you're having a go at me but yeah, I guess those are kind of questions I might have.

The smart move would be collecting UI/UBI/dole for 11 months a year and then bill for the previous 11 months in December. That has to be against the rules somehow.

Maybe that's one of the perks of living in a country without a functioning unemployment benefits system? I have no idea what that would constitute in the US, but in many other countries that would be pretty clear benefits fraud which lands you anywhere between 6 months to a couple of years in the big house.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

USPOL May

Devor posted:

My bosses laid me off and told me not to work on a patent I was doing at work. But I went home and finished the patent. How much of that patent do I own now?

Employment contract will control much of this, as well as the timing of when exactly the invention was “ready for parenting” (which is not the same as having a patent application ready nor is it necessarily the point engineers think it is.)

But basically, assuming a typical employment contract (your employer owns you), they’re gonna own the rights to your invention if you came up with it while you were still employed.

If there was no employment contract it gets more complicated and depends on what exactly you did when. (Also, if your boss told you to work on something, you probably aren’t the inventor anyway so it doesn’t matter because you get no rights.)

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

As far as I'm aware, the primary distinction between a tax preparer and tax attorney is that the latter is able to represent people in tax court

AlbieQuirky
Oct 9, 2012



College Slice

My layperson advice is to start with a tax accountant who is an IRS Enrolled Agent. They can represent you to the IRS. If you wind up in tax court, they can refer you to a tax attorney.

incogneato
Jun 4, 2007

Zoom! Swish! Bang!

I don't have any hard statistics, but many (if not most) tax attorneys actually do not do controversy work (e.g. tax court). Lots of tax attorneys have specialties like corporate tax, mergers or entity changes, tax-exempt orgs, estate planning, etc. They'll be useful for planning and compliance before and while engaging in those areas, and many of them work for larger firms to assist in these transactions. Controversy and tax court work is definitely something tax attorneys do, but it's somewhat niche on a larger scale.

The advice of hiring a competent non-attorney tax professional and letting them tell you when you need an attorney is probably the correct way to go. But yeah, if you get to the point where you're filing pleadings in US Tax Court, you should probably at least consult an attorney to see if it's worth hiring them (it may not be for the amounts involved). And if you find yourself being charged with tax-related crimes by the US Attorney, maybe also consider it...

MadDogMike
Apr 9, 2008

Can I come out and play?

Sugartime Jones

blarzgh posted:

As far as I'm aware, the primary distinction between a tax preparer and tax attorney is that the latter is able to represent people in tax court

Speaking as a tax preparer who lurks this thread, a very important distinction is I do not have any attorney-client privilege to hold up with regard to discussions with me. I'm not expected to go running to the IRS telling them you asked me about doing X bad thing (though I'm obviously ethically required to tell you X thing is illegal and the consequences for doing it, and if I help you do X I'm on the hook as well) and I am legally required not to hand out your tax info to most people on pain of criminal consequences, but if I get a subpoena I have to answer questions. Enrolled Agents and CPAs can both represent you before IRS audits as well as tax attorneys, but in general most tax preparers in my experience are more about preparing returns and answering general questions than audit work. I do some since I work offseason usually, but as a non-EA my powers are limited and even the EAs in my office don't tend to have lots of audits beyond mail ones. I will say you have to basically be doing fraudulent activity to get criminal issues with the IRS, they can do a lot of nasty civil actions if you owe money, but they can't generally throw you in a jail cell for anything that's a reasonable mistake. Just don't ever lie to them, it doesn't end well no matter what the original problem was. I would say my usual defining line for telling someone to go to a tax attorney is when you have criminal fraud issues or if your tax problem is less questions of fact and more actual legal arguments, but it's kind of hard to tell outside a potential criminal accusation (where I immediately say "see an attorney, do not pass Go, it's probably going to be a lot more than $200"). Also be aware if it's a state tax agency or IRS issue, the rules obviously can vary there.

Man with Hat
Dec 26, 2007

Open up your Dethday present
It's a box of fucking nothing


Wedge Regret

If someone in the US is out on bail and dies, what happens to the bail money?

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

Man with Hat posted:

If someone in the US is out on bail and dies, what happens to the bail money?

Im pretty sure it belongs to the estate, like any other unclaimed property. Goes to whatever heirs.

spacetoaster
Feb 10, 2014





So a dam broke and a lake has become a river just flowing through the area in Michigan. All the people who had homes on the lake shore, now have homes a significantly longer distance from the new river.

My question is who owns the new land (or newly usable land)? Assuming the lake is gone for good, that is.

Here's a video that shows what I'm talking about :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7tacsTLK0

Does it all just belong to the state? Or do people claim it somehow?

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

USPOL May

spacetoaster posted:

So a dam broke and a lake has become a river just flowing through the area in Michigan. All the people who had homes on the lake shore, now have homes a significantly longer distance from the new river.

My question is who owns the new land (or newly usable land)? Assuming the lake is gone for good, that is.

Here's a video that shows what I'm talking about :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7tacsTLK0

Does it all just belong to the state? Or do people claim it somehow?

Probably irrelevant as they’re likely going to rebuild the water control structures to restore (more or less) the old waterline, but it would depend on if the flooded land was taken when the dam was constructed and probably on complex state law issues.

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

spacetoaster posted:

So a dam broke and a lake has become a river just flowing through the area in Michigan. All the people who had homes on the lake shore, now have homes a significantly longer distance from the new river.

My question is who owns the new land (or newly usable land)? Assuming the lake is gone for good, that is.

Here's a video that shows what I'm talking about :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7tacsTLK0

Does it all just belong to the state? Or do people claim it somehow?

It could be federal property if its connected to the waterways of the united states. If not, state property.

PHIZ KALIFA
Dec 21, 2011
ABS THUNDERSKULL.

element: thunderbolts.

steed: a thunderbolt.

slogan/motto: "gonna clap them cheeks like a Thunderskull."


if it develops into a vernal pool or other seasonal/temporary water body that's a whole other layer of complications on top of it too. a lot of towns have a whole board & commission dedicated just to wetlands management, including vernal pools.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Mr. Nice! posted:

It could be federal property if its connected to the waterways of the united states. If not, state property.

Waters of the US are regulated, but I don't think they typically convey a property interest to the US

I would imagine that when the dam was built, they exercised eminent domain to purchase the property being flooded.

Fake Edit: Today it's owned by the Sanford Lake Preservation Association, Inc, according to GIS property records. Its purposes, according to its bylaws, are:

quote:

1.1 To encourage communication, cooperation, and understanding between all law abiding users of the lake.
1.2 To provide community awareness through safety and educational programs.
1.3 To explore opportunities to improve, maintain, and protect our lake.
1.4 To provide and/or promote community activities.
1.5 To be advocates for lakefront and lake access property owners with law enforcement agencies, local governing units, and the operators of the Sanford dam.

Bad Munki
Nov 4, 2008

We're all mad here.



Well they certainly nailed 1.3 there, explored the hell out of it.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Bad Munki posted:

Well they certainly nailed 1.3 there, explored the hell out of it.

When I was looking this up, I found some news articles where adjacent property owners were objecting to a special assessment district where lakefront properties would be assessed $750/yr to keep the lake from being destroyed.

Property owners opposed this levy, woops.

Edit: Hahaha, levy/levee

Bad Munki
Nov 4, 2008

We're all mad here.



Devor posted:

Property owners opposed this levy levee

e: Aww, you got there already

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

Devor posted:

Waters of the US are regulated, but I don't think they typically convey a property interest to the US

I would imagine that when the dam was built, they exercised eminent domain to purchase the property being flooded.

Fake Edit: Today it's owned by the Sanford Lake Preservation Association, Inc, according to GIS property records. Its purposes, according to its bylaws, are:

I should have said waterway. The feds own all inland waterways and the land that’s under it.

This lake/dam/river is not considered part of the inland waterways.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Mr. Nice! posted:

I should have said waterway. The feds own all inland waterways and the land that’s under it.

This lake/dam/river is not considered part of the inland waterways.

It might be navigable now that the dams have been destroyed, with a sufficiently motivated tugboat

ChocNitty
Aug 3, 2011


I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions?

toplitzin
Jun 13, 2003


ChocNitty posted:

I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions?

They can stop you and ask questions, but to search you they need probable cause or consent.
Also they'e somehow made the argument that seeing the checkpoint signs and turning off the road is probable cause for further investigation.

See also: "Drug checkpoint ahead 3 miles" and then searching anyone who stops at the exit/rest area before.

Volmarias
Dec 31, 2002


toplitzin posted:

They can stop you and ask questions, but to search you they need probable cause or consent.

It's convenient that they have walking probable cause machines for anyone who declines though.

toplitzin
Jun 13, 2003


Volmarias posted:

It's convenient that they have walking probable cause machines for anyone who declines though.

Isn't it?

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

ChocNitty posted:

I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions?

essentially, checkpoints are a governmental function rationally related to the governmental interest of preventing drunk driving. The short stopping of all drivers is a minor inconvenience, and a few questions before sending people on their way is not intrusive.

Also, reasonable suspicion is what cops need to detail someone not probable cause.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


Mr. Nice! posted:

essentially, checkpoints are a governmental function rationally related to the governmental interest of preventing drunk driving. The short stopping of all drivers is a minor inconvenience, and a few questions before sending people on their way is not intrusive.

Also, reasonable suspicion is what cops need to detail someone not probable cause.

are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. also the lines at those things can be huge, the questions are prying and invasive, and they are literally just looking for/making up excuses to search anyone interesting. how about the "border patrol" checkpoints on the interstate like 150 miles from the nearest border?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



owlhawk911 posted:

are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. also the lines at those things can be huge, the questions are prying and invasive, and they are literally just looking for/making up excuses to search anyone interesting. how about the "border patrol" checkpoints on the interstate like 150 miles from the nearest border?

border patrol checkpoints are a different legal basis

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005



Nap Ghost

owlhawk911 posted:

are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right. also the lines at those things can be huge, the questions are prying and invasive, and they are literally just looking for/making up excuses to search anyone interesting. how about the "border patrol" checkpoints on the interstate like 150 miles from the nearest border?

I am a lawyer. The case you wanna read is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The SCOTUS breaks down each and why these checkpoints are constitutionally authorized.

Border patrol checkpoints are completely different.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


Mr. Nice! posted:

I am a lawyer. The case you wanna read is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The SCOTUS breaks down each and why these checkpoints are constitutionally authorized.

Border patrol checkpoints are completely different.

ok i googled and read it, and it basically seemed to break down to "it's useful to them so they can do it". imo

quote:

[I]t seems evident that the Court today misapplies the balancing test announced in [Brown v. Texas]. The Court overvalues the law enforcement interest in using sobriety checkpoints, undervalues the citizen’s interest in freedom from random, announced investigatory seizures, and mistakenly assumes that there is ‘virtually no difference’ between a routine stop at a permanent, fixed checkpoint and a surprise stop at a sobriety checkpoint. [The dissenting justices] believe this case is controlled by our several precedents condemning suspicionless random stops of motorists for investigatory purposes.”
this isn't really the moral questions thread so i'll just say i think my interest in freedom from random, announced investigatory seizures is being undervalued as all hell and leave it at that

what's the excuse for border control checkpoints that aren't on borders?

toplitzin
Jun 13, 2003


owlhawk911 posted:

ok i googled and read it, and it basically seemed to break down to "it's useful to them so they can do it". imo

this isn't really the moral questions thread so i'll just say i think my interest in freedom from random, announced investigatory seizures is being undervalued as all hell and leave it at that

what's the excuse for border control checkpoints that aren't on borders?

BP has "authority" 100 miles from any border, including beaches.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

I googled this question and this is the first hit

owlhawk911 posted:

what's the excuse for border control checkpoints that aren't on borders?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...hts-border-zone

Excerpt:

quote:

Are immigration officials allowed to stop people in places wholly inside the U.S.?

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency tasked with patrolling the U.S. border and areas that function like a border, claims a territorial reach much larger than you might imagine. A federal law says that, without a warrant, CBP can board vehicles and vessels and search for people without immigration documentation “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” These “external boundaries” include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline.

What is a “reasonable distance”?

The federal government defines a “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S. So, combining this federal regulation and the federal law regarding warrantless vehicle searches, CBP claims authority to board a bus or train without a warrant anywhere within this 100-mile zone. Two-thirds of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region, according to the 2010 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.


owlhawk911 posted:


what's the excuse for border control checkpoints that aren't on borders?

Communist infiltration.




No, seriously.

Outrail
Jan 4, 2009

www.sapphicrobotica.com


Devor posted:

I googled this question and this is the first hit


https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...hts-border-zone

Excerpt:

Does this mean boarder control can systematically kick in every door in Florida and search every square inch of the state? That seems problematic.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


toplitzin posted:

BP has "authority" 100 miles from any border, including beaches.
i know they do, i was wondering what the justification for it is. is there a case to read like the last guy linked re: dui checkpoints? i technically live in one of those areas along with 2/3rds of the us population, but they don't operate checkpoints like that up here and i was pretty upset by getting stopped on the interstate in arizona and thrown in a little cell in a trailer for 4 hours and having my campervan completely stripped with the interior in a big pile next to it when i came back out and having some dickwad with an ar standing there watching me put it back together. i didn't consent to the search on principle so they just pointed at my van and locked me up/had at it anyways when their trained dog barked. cuffs and all. it seems like *exactly* the situation the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us against. isn't it a relatively new development? post-9/11?

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

owlhawk911 posted:

i know they do, i was wondering what the justification for it is. is there a case to read like the last guy linked re: dui checkpoints? i technically live in one of those areas along with 2/3rds of the us population, but they don't operate checkpoints like that up here and i was pretty upset by getting stopped on the interstate in arizona and thrown in a little cell in a trailer for 4 hours and having my campervan completely stripped with the interior in a big pile next to it when i came back out and having some dickwad with an ar standing there watching me put it back together. i didn't consent to the search on principle so they just pointed at my van and locked me up/had at it anyways when their trained dog barked. cuffs and all. it seems like *exactly* the situation the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us against. isn't it a relatively new development? post-9/11?

They needed probable cause (or permission which you denied) to search your vehicle. The dog alerting probably gave them their probable cause, for better or worse.

quote:

CBP at Immigration Checkpoints

CBP operates immigration checkpoints along the interior of the United States at both major roads — permanent checkpoints — and secondary roads — “tactical checkpoints”— as part of its enforcement strategy. Depending on the checkpoint, there may be cameras installed throughout and leading up to the checkpoint and drug-sniffing dogs stationed with the agents. At these checkpoints, every motorist is stopped and asked about their immigration status. Agents do not need any suspicion to stop you and ask you questions at a lawful checkpoint, but their questions should be brief and related to verifying immigration status. They can also visually inspect your vehicle. Some motorists will be sent to secondary inspection areas at the checkpoint for further questioning. This should be done only to ask limited and routine questions about immigration status that cannot be asked of every motorist in heavy traffic. If you find yourself at an immigration checkpoint while you are driving, never flee from it — it’s a felony.

As before, when you are at a checkpoint, you can remain silent, inform the agent that you decline to answer their questions or tell the agent you will only answer questions in the presence of an attorney. Refusing to answer the agent’s question will likely result in being further detained for questioning, being referred to secondary inspection, or both. If an agent extends the stop to ask questions unrelated to immigration enforcement or extends the stop for a prolonged period to ask about immigration status, the agent needs at least reasonable suspicion that you committed an immigration offense or violated federal law for their actions to be lawful. If you are held at the checkpoint for more than brief questioning, you can ask the agent if you are free to leave. If they say no, they need reasonable suspicion to continue holding you. You can ask an agent for their basis for reasonable suspicion, and they should tell you. If an agent arrests you, detains you for a protracted period or searches your belongings or the spaces of your vehicle that are not in plain view of the officer, the agent needs probable cause that you committed an immigration offense or that you violated federal law. You can ask the agent to tell you their basis for probable cause. They should inform you.

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.


Outrail posted:

Does this mean boarder control can systematically kick in every door in Florida and search every square inch of the state? That seems problematic.

No, they can't.

8 USC 1357 posted:

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
...within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;

Phil Moscowitz
Feb 19, 2007

Chief Justice of the United States of Anime



I used to drive through the San Clemente checkpoint fairly regularly and it always made me laugh that they basically waved anyone through without stopping who was (1) white and (2) not driving a van

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.


Phil Moscowitz posted:

I used to drive through the San Clemente checkpoint fairly regularly and it always made me laugh that they basically waved anyone through without stopping who was (1) white and (2) not driving a van

From the pertinent SCOTUS case:

quote:

Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, we perceive no constitutional violation. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





owlhawk911 posted:

are you a lawyer? this doesn't sound right.

Lol Jesus Christ. You got a good answer. Your reply here is very funny to me. I’ve heard it before.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


Phil Moscowitz posted:

I used to drive through the San Clemente checkpoint fairly regularly and it always made me laugh that they basically waved anyone through without stopping who was (1) white and (2) not driving a van

yeah it's probably a lot funnier if you're not brownish and in a van

euphronius posted:

Lol Jesus Christ. You got a good answer. Your reply here is very funny to me. I’ve heard it before.

hey i just asked, sometimes randos (like me) try and answer here too and "because it's useful" seemed like a pretty incredible reason. it *was* a good answer (about a bad situation), no need to get defensive. the followup with a case i could read was even better. i'm not at all surprised that you've heard this before, i'm glad to hear other people share my concerns

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





I’m not mad at you or anything. It’s just a funny think to hear.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Thanatosian
Apr 16, 2013

Angrier, Bitterer Man


Grimey Drawer

ChocNitty posted:

I dont see how DUI checkpoints are legal. Dont they need probable cause to stop you and ask you questions?
IANAL, but the rule of thumb I've heard from multiple criminal attorneys is to assume that the Constitution is suspended while you're in your car. It's not 100% true, but in practice, that tends to be how things work. It's bullshit, but welcome to America.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«898 »