|
Field sobriety tests are not usually a part of implied consent laws, but it is something that an officer can use to get probable cause for requiring a chemical test. I skimmed through colorado's statutes on the matter (Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1301.1) and it doesn't seem to indicate FSTs at all under the implied consent section. I'm not sure on Colorado's caselaw or anything on the subject, though, and you can be certain that refusing an FST is a fast track to a chemical test anyways. Your best bet would be to ask a colorado attorney. If you teach DUI school I'm sure you have contact info for a ton of DUI attorneys. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 19, 2016 |
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
seacat posted:Can you provide any more information on this? My understanding (State is TX) is they confiscate your license if you refuse to blow. How is that not theft?  EDIT: It's not theft because driving is a privilege not a right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
A guy that starts his statement with "I want to get a new lawyer because this one said he'll only represent me if I let him suck my dick" is probably not right in the head and I'm going to side with his attorney on any discovery provided.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:I have to at least try. I didn't realize the odds were so stacked against me when I didn't take the settlement before, otherwise, I would have just accepted it. Honestly this is why you hire a lawyer. Sure they're going to take their pound of flesh, but they save your rear end from these things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Droo posted:I am using Quicken Willmaker 2016 (updated from my previous 2009 version) which gives you a somewhat freeform box to enter each specific bequest. You should really pay someone a couple hundred bucks to make sure your will has what you really want in it. If you have enough that this is actually an issue, then it's absolutely worth it to have someone who does this professionally look over it and make sure it's actually legally enforceable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Once you start getting into anything more complicated than I leave X to Y person, you really want a professional to handle it to ensure that it is legal. It is significantly more likely than not if you try to set up something complicated yourself, you will do it wrong and will make a mess of the whole situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Comey was in a no win situation and was trying to cover his rear end for the inevitable congressional hearing. Police come out all the time and explain why or not they are recommending charges in high profile cases.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't know that there are any formal guidelines for how, or whether to say, "this is what we think happened, and that's why we aren't filing charges," but it does happen, although he does seem to concede that he went a little far out of bounds. Considering he knew that the moment he said "no recommendation" that he would be sitting in front of members of both houses getting grilled for not ruining Clinton's presidential chances, I figure he wanted to get his message out first and set up his inevitable defense. He was hosed before he stepped on that stage. Either say prosecute with no real evidence and get eviscerated in court and by one half of the political spectrum, or do what he did and get eviscerated by the other half. Comey is in full CYA mode and trying to shield his agents from the shitstorm that's raining down on him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Brady posted:Not sure what you mean. Also not sure if that was a stupid question to ask or not in the first place, sorry. I've seen tax services and the like on here so I didn't think it was too far-fetched. he was making a joke about morally bankrupt services. We all provide that, because we are all morally bankrupt. Well, not all of us. Most of us, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
I don't know of any Kansas lawyer goons off the top of my head, but there very well might be. You might have just as much luck in the phone book. Good luck with your bankruptcy, though!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I refuse to bow to the calls of expediency at the expense of justice. how well do those wars over $500 speeding tickets pay off?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If by "wars" you mean "20 minute, patty-cake jury trials," then yes, the rate of return is sufficient, I would say. The thought of a jury trial over a traffic ticket amuses me. Just seems like such a petty waste of time and the guy is almost always absolutely guilty and is just fighting it because he can. I'm glad you're able to do well off of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
I'm suggesting that a jury trial is excessive for a traffic violation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
doverhog posted:blarzgh assumes tickets are given out for law enforcement purposes. Given that assumption, don't doubt he's right. Those who claim that tickets are used for other reasons reject that premise. If the cops are handing out tickets for reasons other than law enforcement, blarzgh's whole argument becomes moot. What other purpose does a citation for a crime serve other than a law enforcement purpose? Unless you're suggesting fraudulent tickets, but that's a different matter altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
This whole derail started because someone was saying that tickets were given for non-LE purposes. Getting pulled over is not the same as getting a ticket. I will concede that not all traffic stops are indeed for traffic violation purposes. However, I still contend that citations given subsequently always serve an LE purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:MADD was the original Outrage Politic 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
doverhog posted:As long as the ticket money goes to some kind of local government entity there is incentive to use it as a form of tax. They should go to the federal government, that way the recipient of the money is far enough removed. That's how it's done here (Finland), minus the federal part. Ticket revenue is just added to the national budget, police departments or municipalities get nothing from tickets. It doesn't matter where the money goes. A citation is only given when a crime has occurred. All traffic citations are for law enforcement purposes. Specifically to deter people from breaking the law. You proposed that tickets could be given for a non-law enforcement purpose. Can you provide any example of this where the cited party wasn't also actually innocent? Outside of racism, I can't think of any in particular. I'm not convinced by a revenue driven argument, because the source of said revenue is law breakers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If tickets are a source of revenue and are handed out with such vigor that the law breaking actually goes down, there is going to be pressure on the cops to keep up their ticket numbers. This is not good. The incentive is "more tickets more money", not "less tickets less crime". This is turning into a derail tho. What I'm saying is, if people aren't breaking the law (racist police aside), they aren't receiving tickets. There's a very easy solution to avoiding traffic citations and I'm not ever swayed by any revenue generation arguments. Pressure on police to issue tickets doesn't matter because you actually have to break the law to get a ticket. https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/3cb7f4d6-6624-4a7a-a60b-bfdc31e7794c
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
nm posted:Revenue generation provides an incentive to trap people into speeding with poorly signed dramatic speed limit changes not supported by public safety. That's not the fault of the police. That's the democratically elected local government's call. ulmont posted:Not really. There are a lot of relatively vague traffic statutes, even before you pull speed trap bs. Most of that falls under racist bullshit used to harass minorities. That caveat goes far beyond traffic citations and this thread so I'm deliberately sidestepping that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
My thought on traffic ticket fines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbOtyWTRZ_g&t=14s Edit: But yes fines should always be on a sliding scale based on income.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Also quit being impatient and stop speeding.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Bitchkrieg posted:Hi legal thread. I need help negotiating an immediate exit due to ongoing sexual harassment. you should look up your local federal department of labor people and explain the situation to them. They'll let you know the best way to legally proceed with your specific circumstances. Lasca posted:I have a bit of a situation with my landlord and the tenants that live above me. So they like to water their garden in a way that sprays down my door and stairs making them a slippy stone accident waiting to happen. I asked them not to and the reply was "Our plants need water, take it up with the landlord". So I sent the letter but have yet to get a reply more than 2 weeks later. Have I covered my rear end enough? I want to make sure that there's zero liability on my part and make sure if anyone get's hurt it's on their rear end. I'm in BC. Do they have a patio? Is the garden outside of their apartment door? This is an odd situation, but I think actually phoning or discussing with your landlord in person might help you most to alleviate the situation. Perhaps there is some time of splash guard or something that could be put in place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Bitchkrieg posted:Points taken. Thanks thread. But seriously hit up your local federal department of labor people about the harassment and hostile work environment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That would be the eeoc not the dol. I had typed EEOC at first but was unsure. Then a quick google for right to sue letters all went to the DOL website so I hedged my bet and figured that the DOL could get them the right phone number at least. Lasca posted:Talking is the best way to sort this out but the dude has become elusive. The tenants are also the landlord's ex-wife and son. His new wife owns the property, but they're selling and maybe don't want to bother anymore? (Ex and new wife hate each other). so they're literally just like hosing down your door? I don't think your neighbors like you or she's using you as a tool to get back at her ex husband. Either way sucks to be you. Also move out of the basement.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Bitcoins are only useful for criminals and only solve problems criminals have. I agree that you need to get proper counsel before you go forward with any bitcoin business. Just getting banks to do business with you will be a challenge enough because of the money laundering implications. Also, you're absolutely going to get used frequently for money laundering if you accept bitcoin only. You better do as much due diligence to cover your own rear end or you'll end up in jail like oh so many bitcoin celebrities.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Look, goddamnit, don't run the good ones off right out of the gate! I'm hoping for a response to see how he's different than the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Have you talked to the landlord at all? If he's not cool enough to drop you off the lease then you might be able to get an extra set of keys.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Since we're on traffic chat. The way respondent superior works is that for most any offense committed in the line of duty the owner is liable. There will be some variations depending on jurisdiction. Federal law covers testing drug/alcohol testing requirements for a lot of transit employees, so this driver would be immediately removed from the road following the incident. Many states have mirrored or harsher laws than the federal ones regarding CDLs, this guy's license will probably be revoked and he will likely lose his job and not be employable as a trucker for some time. As far as a complete liability shift away from the company when the only fault of the driver is the substance use is a dicier proposition. If the drug use was his only violation, they may not be able to escape liability at all. Dealing with driver liability is a huge cost for a lot of trucking companies. Many decide to set up a large system of wholly owned subsidiaries in order to limit liability as much as possible to the main corp. Take, for example, Affiliated Foods (restaurant/grocery food wholesale delivery place like Sysco or Ben E Kieth) based out of Amarillo, TX. My dad used to drive for them. One of their drivers 15 years ago or so had a similar incident and the main corp was on the hook for the full bill. Very shortly thereafter all of the trucking portion of the business was split off onto a new company called Panhandle Transportation Group. Any future liability from incidents, so long as PTG is ran properly, stops at PTG and no longer touches the parent company.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Thanks, that's what I imagined. That's what I meant by "so long as [subsidiary] is ran properly." To avoid piercing the veil, it needs to be ran as an independent venture with it's own officers, meetings, charter, etc. If the parent is exercising direct control, then they aren't truly operating as a separate company hence the veil piercing. Even if wholly owned, the subsidiary must be ran entirely as an independent entity. This is the part that a lot of people fail, but it isn't really difficult to do. It's tedious, but necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Nah, if this had actually happened I would have been bitching on These Are The People You Share The Road With. I've never actually gotten a ticket before, though God knows I've deserved a couple in the past. If you are not the at fault party, you want the police called 100% of the time so you have a fault determination from the officer. This helps you immensely when it comes to claims/lawsuits following the incident. If you're on private property, the cops likely won't show up at all. If you're in a big metro area and there's no injury, it's also likely that the police will not show up for a minor bump. Your best bet, dash cam or no, is to pay attention, maintain a 2 second distance, and stop tailgating people because its dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And quite frankly, you have to be in pretty hosed-up, and in-the-extreme-minority, of a legal situation to even get to this point, because insurance should have made you as whole as the law allows before you have to ask and answer these questions. Sadly a non-trivial number of small business owners think things like insurance and taxes are just theft. These people often only pay "employees" under the table. When I started my own business, insurance was one of the first things on my list after setting up a proper liability limiting entity.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Actually in this case insurance co. has refused coverage because the driver was under the influence of drugs. The answer is maybe. Some auto policies may have a clause in them that exempts them in the case of a driver under the influence. Some will not. Regardless, the company is going to be on the hook and will probably have some sort of other business liability insurance to cover gaps in the auto policy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Enjoy your money laundering scheme!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Korgan posted:Keep the thread updated on your business so you can really stick it to these know-nothing idiots. Please do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Did someone watch the pilot episode of Gargoyles or something? Demona was my jam as a teenage boy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Santilli, a sovcit "journalist" and one of the supporters of the occupiers of the Malheur reservation, is coming up for trial. His attorney just filed this, which focuses on the application and argued effects of a rule/doctrine/bullshit latin called Strictissimi Juris. Help me out here- how reasonable is this filing? IANAL, but it seems to go from implausible to nuts pretty fast. As I said in the other thread, he's trying to claim protection under something that was designed to shield members of disliked political parties not for armed rebellion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
AnonymousNarcotics posted:Is there any repercussion for an employee who quits a job even though they signed a contract? In this hypothetical the person didn't actually start working for them yet. If your question is can you be forced to work for a company that you don't want to work for, and the answer is emphatically no. Might you be on the hook for some expenses the company spent on you is a different question entirely and the answer is "it depends." Also you cannot quit a job that you didn't start.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
SMDFTB posted:Yeah, she told my fiance she was laid off. I know she works for a non-profit, so anything is possible...just seems really convenient. However, if it was paid maternity leave, then maybe they were doing everything they could for her to wait out the maternity leave. No worries, just curious since it was right after she came back to work. If I had to guess, it was a situation where they really didn't have a job for her when she came back. If they hired someone immediately to fill her now vacant spot, then that's a different story.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
If you're going to use your rental as a hotel you should probably get it registered as a hotel instead of trying to skirt around the edge of laws. You leave yourself open for a lot of liability and may very well end up getting screwed by renters, the state, or both.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:I'm honestly trying to figure out what set of rules the rental falls under. If I'm actually operating a hotel and try to follow landlord tenant rules I'm subject to a significant fine. If I'm actually operating a single family rental and try to follow the hotel rules I open myself up to legal judgments by not following the landlord tenant act. The section of code for hotels says that it applies to, "any hotel, motel, camp or other place at which is located two or more houses, huts, cabins, individual dwelling units or other forms of shelter." Meanwhile the landlord tenant act says that it doesn't apply to "transient housing." Is one unit transient housing exempt from all rules? Sounds great but I kind of doubt it. If you're operating it as a hotel (which is what you're doing) you need to follow hotel laws. My recommendation is to talk to whoever does hotel licensing about how to approach this since they'll certainly have dealt with this. If you can't get licensed as a hotel because it's a single unit, then there currently is no legal way for you to use airbnb in that location. You're opening yourself to a potential world of hurt if you choose to operate without a hotel license. Edit: See two posts for pertinent info. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 18:37
|
|