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 money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

cruft posted:

I just know that the next note we get is going to send my family into another stress-fueled tizzy.

Re-read what you typed here and think about how insane that is.

This is seriously a "get over it" kinda thing. Your reactions as you laid them out (keeping the dogs inside, the stress you are putting on yourself) is way over the top to the point where you either need to talk to someone in a professional capacity to work this out or you need to stop growing pot/making meth/sawing up hookers in your basement. Because unless you're doing something like that you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

euphronius posted:

There aren't really traffic lawyers in pa outside of Philadelphia which is a strange place.

Because (outside of Philadelphia and maybe a Pitt and Scranton) traffic citations are handled in a district court by the elected district judge, who may or may not even be a lawyer (they usually aren't but have to pass some BS 2 week class on.....banging a gavel?). So while you won't likely find an attorney who does nothing but traffic work you will be able to find one that deals with that kind of thing and knows the local DJs as well as just how insane they may be. In some jurisdictions you pretty much need to do whatever to get something kicked to county court to be heard by someone who actually knows the law. A local attorney will know this.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Lightning Knight posted:

Being present in the park after close.

The question was to find out exactly what you were CHARGED with, not why. It's listed on the citation.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Lightning Knight posted:

15.07 Regulation of Lighthouse Grounds.

(1) Definition. The term “Lighthouse grounds” shall mean the outside grounds
of the Lighthouse including the adjacent land owned by the Village of Wind
Point, and all buildings located on such grounds except the Village Hall and
caretaker's residence.

(2) Closing Hours. The Lighthouse grounds shall be closed to the public between
the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. No persons excepting law enforcement
officers, employees of the Village present for the purpose of conducting
Village business or persons attending a function in the Village Hall or
properly present at the caretaker's residence shall be present during such
hours.

Insofar as I can tell, this is the ordinance cited as being violated on the ticket. I'm sorry if this doesn't answer the question, I'm not exactly clear on what's being asked.

When you get a citation ("ticket") it has what you are charged with on it. If what you found in that section was 15.07 and nothing else then that answers the question. If that's not what was on there or there were other things it doesn't answer the question.

It really sounds like you need an attorney since you're having trouble interpreting the paperwork.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Konstantin posted:

From a legal standpoint, it seems rather burdensome to contact the authorities to verify a valid license every time you want someone else to drive your car.

It would be so easy to check on this to a reasonable level of certainty if only there were some sort of document that everyone qualified to drive a motor vehicle was issued and required to carry with them when operating a vehicle, and when one's privileges were revoked the authorities took that document from them.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

pandariot posted:

ETA: Apparently I can file a Wage Claim with the Dept of Labor. Would this be a better (less severe) course of action than a lawyer? http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm

This is EXACTLY what you should do. Although I'd call them and tell them you need your PTO right now or you'll be forced to file a claim. Any CA employer should know what that means.

If they don't wire the cash right away (it was due upon termination, or 72 hours after you notified them you quit) tell them you'll file with the labor board. Have you check stubs ready that show your accrued PTO and salary. Also have bank records to show that they mishandled your final paycheck (it was also due the day of termination).

You'll be fine.

I am not a lawyer, but I have worked for many CA companies and have many friends in CA who have been through this exact thing. CA is so worker-friendly that there are entire companies dedicated as "Professional Employer Organizations", where they hire your employees into a shell company and you pay the PEO so that the liability is on them.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

pandariot posted:

He said he'd look into it and let me know. I wish I had just filed the loving claim. I worked for them for 6 years and I can't believe they are even doing this.

If I were you I'd call at 3 or 4 PM and ask where the check is (be ready with a number for what you are owed). If they can't hand it to you or wire it start your wage claim. You have the weekend to wade through the paperwork on the web site. And call the Dept of Labor if you have any questions. They are on your side.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

chemosh6969 posted:

Is there something I'm missing here because it doesn't seem that complicated, nor a reason to panic.

You're missing the part where people can write whatever they want and ask for whatever they want on a civil complaint and most people don't know that.

Also the fact that people don't know that being stamped/signed by a clerk and served doesn't mean it's "the way thing are"/official.

Most people have no idea how these things work, which is why they need attorneys to explain in plain english what arguably should be obvious and readable by an average person but is most definitely not.

The only reason I have any idea about any/most of this is because I've been self employed or working with startups most of my life. Most people don't have that much exposure to the legal system......and certainly not the civil side of things.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Lowness 72 posted:

Is "prays" really the legal term used?

Yes....read almost any civil complaint (any I've read) the "pray" is what they are asking for as a remedy. It's near the bottom of the document.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

SalTheBard posted:

I have a question about notarized documents. I have a friend in another state, I was supposed to visit him and while I was there we were going to get paperwork signed and notarized regarding his daughter. He wants to make sure that my wife and I get his daughter in case something happens to his wife. Due to circumstances beyond my control I can't make it out there. What would the fastest way to be to get this paperwork taken care of? We are looking at roughly a 3 week window.

As far as I know both of your signatures don't need to be notarized at the same time or place or even by the same person. It's just validating that the signatures are authentic.

Have him send them to you, go to a notary and get your signature witnessed and notarized and send them back for him to do the same.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Devor posted:

In Maryland, you have pretty much an absolute right to a satellite dish. The HOA covenant that prohibits them is unenforceable.

In the entire US. It's an FCC ruling.

Of course there are specifics like where you can put it and if the HOA agrees to make similar accommodations (putting in a communal one and wiring it to you on their dime, moving yours somewhere they prefer and wiring to you on their dime) they are permitted.

Been there, done that with an HOA I was subjected to for a few years.

gently caress HOAs. Never again.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Southern Vulcan posted:

So this morning
...

I'm not injured in any major way

There is absolutely no way for you to know this and you should know that if you're a med student.

You are doing to feel like you got run over by a truck in the morning.

If you didn't go to the hospital or see your GP you need to go do that as soon as possible.

edit: new page, I see you did, so that's good. But you still won't know for sure and you will feel like rear end tomorrow.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

I'm confused. What just happened?

It seems like someone was told to get a lawyer and they did. What is this thread coming to?

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Have you been at 100% of where you were the second before you accident from the second after your accident?

Answer: Of course not, you even say so here. Because you were injured. You were not able to do things you would have been able to do because you were in an emergency room and/or recuperating. You are entitled to seek compensation for that. This is what your attorney is trying to help you do. There is no ethical problem here unless someone is lying about the extent of injuries.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

spotswood posted:

Apparently the Fire Marshal checked off the box "Other: Unintentional".
In the comments section it says "Stove breaker tripped, box on stove". In no way does it insinuate that that was the cause of the fire.

Former fire marshal checking in. Without knowing the extent of damage that's not very useful, but I can tell you that most of the check boxes are irrelevant or not helpful (thanks federal government for requiring us to use a reporting system designed by not-fire-investigators if we want grant money!). What matters is the narrative.

And what is said there cane be subtle, especially when it's not arson or an obvious product defect. It's only when we get subpoenaed by fighting insurance companies that things get interesting. Because by that point they have each sent their own fire investigators out to write reports that suspiciously always support their financial interest, and you get to defend your own against the two.

Also, than you for spelling marshal correctly. Seemingly no one else does.

Ninja edit: Beejay is correct, but there are categories other than "unintentional" that are also not arson. The "unintentionals" point blame at one or more human beings.

Motronic fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Nov 13, 2014

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

spotswood posted:

If it's subtle how is that enough evidence for cause? Shouldn't the report have to say eliminated all other possible sources for them to win this?

Cause and origin only needs to be "not arson" for it to basically not matter to a municipal fire marshal.

Sure, you have crusaders and there is the occasional investigation that you really want to put yourself out on because you feel strongly about it. But it's not our job to assign liability unless it's criminal. Just like the police, who many of us fire marshals carry the same responsibilities and duties.

What you should be reading here is: your civil case is not our problem. We deal primarily with criminal law. If a criminal act has been reasonably discounted we're out. And that's not by choice for many/most of us. But it is reality/people who pay you/keeping your job.


euphronius posted:

A report is not evidence anyway.

It's at best a reason to subpoena the person who wrote it in civil matters. In criminal matters it was the reason I put cuffs on you and called the PD to transport you to lockup.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

'

euphronius posted:

Still you couldn't use it in a criminal case.

Not sure what your're saying here. My reports have been used in both civil and criminal cases.

I'm obviously not a lawyer so I don't know if they count as "evidence" (because I have enough contact with the legal system to know that words normal people use often don't mean the same thing in legal matters) but they are certainly used in court.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

But I filed a police report!

Oh....maybe that's what he meant.

Yeah, my report isn't the same as a police officer writing down your unconfirmed story. I'm an investigator providing an interpretation of physical findings which are very often weighted based on my training and track record. I guess it's more like the opinion of an expert witness who was on the scene.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

euphronius posted:

Are you there to testify about the report?

If I'm subpoenaed. Which almost always happen when these thing go to court.

Sometimes I'm not even asked about the text or conclusions of the report when I'm there. It's just to be asked about the photos. (
'Is this and accurate representation of what you observed in <place> on <date/time>?") In fact, I've been subpoenaed for a report that a friend the next town over wrote because I was the one taking the pictures for him for the same thing.

I'm sure some of the actual lawyers here can shed light on why this seemingly obvious thing is important to officially scrutinize on the record in person.


spotswood posted:

I still don't see how they can prove anything with only a box on stove as seen in fire report. What about bad wiring? What if in the pre-occupancy cleanup they turned on an element? none of us turned it on and all witnesses can testify to that.

It would take more than an internet thread to refute this further than to say that, depending on what was at the scene you can tell A LOT about what happened. This is why we go through years of training and being an assistant/deputy before you get the job. And decades of being a firefighter before that.

No, you can't always puzzle out and prove everything. But most laymen are very surprised at what we can prove, and most times in a manner that is really obvious/intuitive (when you know exactly where to look and take photos/samples/document).

I'd be happy to sperg about this and dig out old photos, but this is obviously not the place.

Motronic fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Nov 13, 2014

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Kalman posted:

Also, I am curious what your opinion on splash marks is.

In what context? Are you talking about accelerant trails/marks?

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer


Give me a hint. That's a pretty deep subject.

I think what you're getting at is some pseudoscience that the old dudes seem to get into, but from a straight forensic standpoint I go by actual science, which includes boring things like lab testing samples to confirm your suspicions. I also am aware that many things around the home are accelerants and just because you found one doesn't mean it was intended to cause or even meaningfully contributed to a fire.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Thanatosian posted:

At the very least, a lawyer will be able to tell you whether or not you need a lawyer.

Thread title?

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

jassi007 posted:

Ok this is Minnesota. Someone linked the law for MN to create an easement by neccesity.

Easements By Necessity – Easements by necessity are a type of implied easement. To establish an easement by necessity, a claimant must prove four elements:
1. A common title to the parcels at issue at the time of the use of the easement;
2. That the common title was severed;
3. That the use which gave rise to the easement has continued for so long and has been so apparent as to demonstrate that it was intended to be permanent; and
4. That the easement is necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the property which has been granted.

So blue land party doesn't meet the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd points. The only point they do meet is the 4th.

Blue land party seems to meet all of those with purple based on what has been said here.

And if all of that is the case, messy poo poo between blue and purple aside it would be pretty hosed if the OP ended up permanently inconvenienced by this.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

^^^^^ This

And also, in what universe are potentially open sores, regardless of the reason, not a risk especially in a child care setting? Not only to the caregivers and other children but to the child who has them (increased risk of them being infected by anything in the environment).

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Acrolos posted:

The only risk is to my daughter, not to her, other children, or her family in any way.

I wouldn't say that's the only risk, but let's say I agree that's all: plenty for someone charged with the care of multiple children in a traditional childcare setting to very reasonably not want anyfuckingthing to do with that from a liability standpoint.

I totally get your being upset with this. I know I would be too. But as a dispassionate 3rd party I'm telling you that any reasonable minded business owning layperson (can't speak to lawyers) thinking of liability issues is going to want to steer clear of any child with special needs of any kind unless they are in the business of caring for children with those needs. I also get that you might not think these are special needs. If so, you are incorrect but understandably so.

Motronic fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jan 12, 2015

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Not a lawyer but I already know: you need a lawyer. NOW.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

The last time I asked an actual CA labor attorney about this I was told (and given a citation to show) that CA employers are under no obligation whatsoever to allow you to use your PTO. They have to pay you out for any of it that is unused when you quit or get fired, but that's about all. And it can't be taken away. If they don't allow you to carry it over from year to year they have to pay you out for whatever they aren't letty you carry over as well.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Chard posted:

Thanks. That's basically what I thought, unfortunately. Still steaming about this bullshit; this is not the first time the "university" has hosed with our hours with zero warning or negotiation.


should we have been receiving compensation for those hours?

Absolutely yes (my understanding - not a lawyer, but have been down this path in CA).

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

It seems you already have in house council. Why in the world wouldn't you ask them these questions?

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

MonkeyBot posted:

As long as it's not known to be previously damaged I'm gonna guess that the old damage would be indistinguishable from the new.

That's pretty doubtful coming from the standpoint of someone who has done bodywork. Not only are most things like this obvious due to rust on some spots vs. no rust/less rust but also different paint transfers and the general angle of damage, some or all of which may apply depending on this particular situation. I'd think most adjusters would know this also.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

MonkeyBot posted:

I guess I can see that especially for bodywork. My mind was going to more mechanical damage. I'm not necessarily gonna give adjusters the benefit of the doubt here. I think it's gonna depend a lot on how much your mechanic likes you.

If it was compromised enough to need serious MECHANICAL work it shouldn't be on the road to begin with and you have what my non-lawyerly-self would think could be a whole other issue of operating an unsafe vehicle.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Cowslips Warren posted:

My friend, lovely girl that she is, was stupid, met some dude on WoW, decided to date him via WoW, and then they got married (not on WoW for once) and because he's Canadian, she moved to Canada, SK, to be with him. They've been married about five years now and the marriage built on night elves and orcs is not good. She's working full time, is considered a part-citizen because she is married to a full citizen, but the marriage is over in everything but name. She's working full time, he has a job but calls out sick at least once or twice a week. She makes more money than he does, and his parents, who don't like her, have told her if she does leave, that's considered spousal abandonment and she will be deported.

Anyone got any handy Canadian legalese to tell me if that is bullshit or not? I know in the US, a green card is drat hard to get, and people who marry for those usually fall under harsh suspicion when they get divorced, but it seems odd she can't even have her own place to live (what if her husband beat her instead of just neglected her in every other way?) without losing what she has of citizenship.

Wouldn't it just be easier to just get her character switched to a different realm?

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Sinestro posted:

If I own a business in the state of California that hosts its website using a Polish company with servers in Montreal, does this give me any sort of Polish/EU or Canadian tax liability, either for sales or income taxes? It's a mixed retail/wholesale store.

The location of a service provider doesn't effect your tax liability in any situation I've ever heard of.

This would be akin to you picking up tax liability in every location google has an office or servers in if you pay them to use google apps for business.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Tab8715 posted:

If I can't compete that means I'm effectively unemployable for a year.

Which is where it's unenforceable according to everything several attorneys have told me over the years.

Stealing customers is still a no-no. Or employees.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

They're usually not enforceable, unless they are. Hope that helps!

This is exactly why I read this thread.

I'm' starting to feel like I could channel these answers on my own now.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

ulmont posted:

With the constitutional amendment

Wait now.....which constitutional amendment in regards to non competes did I miss? The last I can recall is 27.

Edit: GEORGIA constitution. Got it.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I'm not currently entertaining any offers of employment, but hypothetically, if I was offered a sign on bonus, how would I figure out what I'm actually going to get?
Should I just ask them "Hey, Is this going to be a bonus of $1000 and then you'll take out a huge chunk of taxes so I'll get a $600 bonus or is it going to be a $1500 bonus that you take $500 from to make it end up as $1000?"

Why would it matter? You'll have to pay the same taxes on it later anyway (the same assuming your withholding stuff was filled out properly).

Income is taxable. SURPRISE!

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Chaotic Flame posted:

When I purchased the car from the dealership, it had a clean vehicle history report and no indication of having been in an accident/damaged.

Obviously it did have those indications, you just didn't have it inspected by someone who would tell you that before you bought it.

Pre purchase inspections are pretty important on used vehicles.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Rated PG-34 posted:

Yes, the transaction already occurred, and in an uninsured fashion; we're more worried that the title isn't clean, which is suggested by not being able to purchase title insurance on it now for potential resale.

The fact that you can't purchase title insurance is suggested by the fact that the transaction already occurred. Because that's how title insurance works.

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Rated PG-34 posted:

I'm told that it can be bought at any time: refinancing a mortgage requires new title insurance for the bank for instance.

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Title insurance isn't insuring against the seller coming back and suing the buyer, it's insuring against some unknown third party suing the buyer. I don't see how it's tied to the transaction

The cost of the transaction (this includes a refi) is what the policy is written against.

I'm talking about a normal and typical real estate transaction in the US.

Can you get insurance on just about any drat thing at any time for any reason if you're willing to pay for it? Sure. But that's not how regular title insurance works in my experience.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

blarzgh posted:

[sidebar: its odd, because this is usually a condition of sale - I've never heard of an escrow agency that would sign off on the funds without a good title policy; its generally a condition to closing.]

This along with "who the gently caress would underwrite that mortgage" if everything isn't in order (at least these days I hope).

But maybe OP paid cash.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply