|
Oddhair posted:...but all the bills were in my name as he had outstanding balances with one or both of the power and cable providers... I loving love sentences like these, because you can always tell what comes next like it's a beautifully written 3 Act play. "The bills were in my name because..." "The cell phone was in my name because..." "The credit cards were in my name because..." "Only my name is on the lease because..." "They needed me to co-sign on the mortgage because..." And what follows the "because" is always a detailed reasoning of why no one ever should enter into any kind of financial arrangement with the person.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
spregalia posted:Yeah, seems like LSU, PSU, 'Bama, and Auburn are all going this route. There's a lot of questions about their interpretation of the applicable laws and the way their communicating it. Time out. Penn State University is doing this too? Do you have a link to that? I was there when we threatened unionizing and managed to get the health plan that was better than some of the faculty, and last I heard the post-docs were doing a pretty good job of throwing up a stink too even though the school was threatening all the Asian post-docs with not renewing their visas. So I would love to know if suddenly PSU actually managed to set back 10+ years of awesome student organization.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
This question is a bit different from the usual hypotheticals we get here, but I was curious how this kind of thing worked in real life. In the HBO miniseries The Night of the main character is charged with first degree murder amongst a pile of other charges. A big-shot lawyer sees his case on TV and decides she wants to represent him so she can get more camera time. She visits the man's family and tells them that she will personally represent their son, and will do it pro-bono. She tells them to fire his previous lawyer (who they have not paid a retainer yet), and then she represents him during a bail hearing. Shortly after, he rejects a plea bargain after indicating he would accept it to his lawyer and she gets pissed off, "quits", and tells his family that some random low-level associate in her firm will now be his lawyer, and that it will no longer be pro-bono. I was curious what the real world legality of all this is. Can a lawyer "quit" once they've already appeared representing a client? Specifically can they quit because their client refused to take a plea? Can a lawyer agree to represent someone for free, then suddenly change their mind and start charging them after taking the case?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:This is in Pennsylvania, actually, the Pennsyltucky part far from either of the cities. I don't know why they never seem to incarcerate the dude longer than a few months at the far end. I lived in Pennsyltucky, right in Center County and they still were very harsh on drunk drivers. Your friend must have been very lucky. I recall one dude who worked with me who as part of his punishment had to announce to the whole workplace that he had been convicted of a DUI, and that he would be giving an open presentation to anyone that would come where he would go over PA DUI laws and punishments.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Why didn't they just put him in the town square in the stocks? You may kid, but it kept him out jail and the embarrassment has kept him from drinking since then.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Nevvy Z is being very vague in their description, but as someone that's seen these kinds of programs it's almost certainly a discount the school is giving an affiliated company in exchange for internships provided by the company. The school is giving the business X amount of discount for them to dole out as they wish and the business is distributing it based on whatever system they want to. It is most definitely an employee benefit and the school has nothing to do with how the company doles it out. The company handbook likely doesn't talk about it, but just as likely the employee contracts don't guarantee it either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If someone is getting sued by a British citizen living in Thailand in California court for a civil issue (libel and slander). Nice throwaway account Elon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Y'all really need to click the button and read his older posts in this thread. I knew I remembered him posting here about a year ago, and you're missing out if you don't go back and read them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This arises in the context of having been arrested. If you have been arrested, you don't have to already have a lawyer to ask for one - at which time, all questioning is supposed to stop. If you can't afford one, and you have been charged with a crime, you can have a court-appointed one assigned to you at your arraignment. I quote this post and suggest everyone watch part 1 of the HBO Documentary "Who Killed Garrett Phillips" and then come back and re-read the quoted post again so you can chuckle with me. I suggest people watch that documentary anyway, because it's good. EDIT: I'm specifically referring to the (incredibly high definition) video of the interrogation of the alleged killer where he politely tries to leave over and over and is prevented despite never being told he is under arrest. Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
tinytort posted:Haaaah, I've been following that, yeah. It went "Mignogna may have a legit malpractice suit" levels of badly. I'm having trouble finding somewhere that lays the whole story out. How exactly did his lawyers screw up?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Big Dick Cheney posted:I am not driving it because it doesn't run. It is in my driveway. I think a cop drove by and saw that there were no plates. Does NJ not have a thing where you can change your car's registration to being "off the road"? I know in CA you can literally do this online.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:For the 3rd time. I need to respond to this because you are misinformed and everyone needs to know about Lowtax being a wife beater. Read the forum announcement on the top of every sub-forum right now (https://forums.somethingawful.com/announcement.php?forumid=1). The mods are in contact with Logan, and she absolutely was hit by Lowtax. There is also the fact that both of his ex-wives have filed police reports for domestic abuse against him in the past. Lowtax is a wife beater. Do with that information what you will. vvvvvv EDIT: I may have, haha. poo poo's moving fast, crazy times. Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jun 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Wouldn't the company also need your address to withhold proper state taxes (assuming you're not moving within the same state, and also assuming you care if the right amount is withheld)?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
So I have a question about which type of attorney is necessary for what I'm looking for. I live in California. The recent pandemic has left my wife and I wondering what would happen to our kids and our estate if we were both rendered hospital-ridden or dead. We have family and even have a family member we would like to take care of our kids, but they all live on the East Coast and are for the most part incapable of getting to California quickly because of the pandemic and their age. We have family friends that live in the same city as us, and have a sequence of people that would watch our kids in an emergency. But none of this is in writing and we suddenly had the thought that if we both were rendered sick or dead then there would be no way for anyone to know who is supposed to watch the kids, or how they are to be supported. Is there a single attorney that could help us get this set up (both a sequence of custody and guardianship should we be killed, and where our money/death benefits should go)? Is this all estate planning, or is it two different things? Is it possible to write a document that says "These family friends are going to watch my kid, unless they are dead so then it's these family friends, on and on..." until my family can show up to get them?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
My favorite title insurance story was actually linked in this thread quite a long time ago. It went something like this: Homeowner A buys a house (in Texas?) and moves his family in. At some point he gets into a feud with Neighbor B about the location of a fence (or some other structure) and calls in a surveyor to mark out the edge of his property so he can fight Neighbor B in court. The surveyor proceeds to discover that at some point in the past all the land was owned by Landowner Alpha who then divided it up among his kids, and who had given a piece of the land to his son-in-law. Son-in-law built a house, which he lived in for years and then sold the house and property, which passed through several owners before reaching Homeowner A. HOWEVER, the house son-in-law built was not actually on the land that son-in-law owned, but was part of some other family member's parcel. The actual land son-in-law owned was some undeveloped space without road access farther North. The house Homeowner A was living in was actually on Neighbor B's land, and Homeowner A actually owned the undeveloped land up north. There is no explanation for why son-in-law built his house on someone else's land or how no one noticed he didn't own the property when he sold it. Apparently, title insurance didn't cover this because the deed the guy bought was clean, it just wasn't the land he thought he was buying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:In any situation that doesn't deal with explicit sig figs, zeros are implied. 5 is 5.0000.., 12.058 is 12.05800000.. 4cm is 4.0000.. cm. 6.5 kilos is 6.500000.. kilos and 5:00pm is 5:00:00.000000.. pm Not entirely accurate when it comes to deadlines. I've personally seen multiple systems that ask for something to be submitted online "by 11:59pm" which will happily accept something submitted at 11:59:59.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
pentyne posted:You're describing a system based in computer code, essentially a wildly convoluted mess of yes/no & and/or, which doesn't really seem directly comparable to real world legal application. Ah, but how do they know Kayne filed 14 seconds late if it wasn't a computer doing the recording? Was a clerk starring at a clock to discern that it was 14 seconds late? Could a case be made that if said clerk was not starring at a clock that 15 seconds could have been saved in filing? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
I too have a (firstname).(lastname) gmail account and over the years of receiving many of my many many gmail doppelgangers emails I've learned to never reveal to them that I exist. Every single one has responded poorly to finding out their "personal" correspondence were accidentally sent to me, and they always believe it's somehow my fault for "stealing" their email. Fake edit: Most of the emails are boring, some are account verifications, one fellow has been sending his Amazon order receipts to me for close to 7 years, but the absolute winner was the guy having an affair with his female co-worker who was inexplicably sending all her replies to my address instead of his. That's the kind of poop you never touch.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
Haha, it's late at night and my decision making is pretty bad right now, so I probably would if I still had them, but that was easily 6 years ago and I usually delete my doppelganger emails after awhile because it feels kind of scummy to keep them around when they contain personal information. Those particular emails (there were only really 5) also easily led to the two people's real identification in the company they worked for and the dude's Facebook, which was public, so I really felt scummy even knowing that much and deleted them after showing them to my wife so she wouldn't randomly look at my email and misinterpret emails coming from a woman using my first name talking about how to gently caress around on the next business trip.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Some dude in Florida keeps using my email to sign up for lovely dating sites (think Plenty of Fish, and apparently worse). Usually just file them as spam. Also got a car loan application for him, which I did inform that it was the wrong email. Haha, that reminds me of the guy who signed up using my email for "Farmeronly.com" a dating site specifically for farmers, ranchers, cowboys/girls, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:this is incredible deep cover for your philandering I would have gotten away with it too, if not for 23andMe revealing all my secret love children!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
I don't know how legally binding it is, but when we entered our daughters into their pods here we had to initial and sign a whole pile of paperwork where they laid out what the classes would be like, how they were keeping the kids distanced, how shared spaces worked, the punishments for not abiding by the rules, the expectations of the kids, parents and families in how they were to act outside of the pods, etc., etc. And then at the very bottom was a paragraph that basically said, "We're going to do our best, but you still could catch the rona, so please be aware of that risk." I really feel like it would be hard to convince a judge or jury that parents didn't know what they were getting into after signing all of that, but who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Bodrick posted:If Rudy Giuliani had believed Maria Bakalova to be 15 (even though she was 24), and still actually had sexual contact with her, would he have committed a crime? It's obviously sleazy AF, and I'm fairly sure it would be statutory rape if the ages were reversed, but it seems like it possibly wouldn't be illegal if they both consented, since they were both legal age (even if he didn't think she was). I loving love living in the Hell Timeline where this question even needs to exist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
Outrail posted:So if someone truly believes a stuffed animal is real and shoots it, they could get arrested on animal cruelty charges? Game's Enforcers have realistic robot deer they use to sting illegal hunters, so yes, this does kind of happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
I guess I'm also curious if those dudes on To Catch a Predator ever actually get charged or convicted of anything beyond being embarrassed on TV, since those shows use adult women posing as underage victims.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
The real issue is that you feel you are receiving conflicting advice from your lawyers. A lawyer is someone whom I pay with the understanding that their expertise is greater than mine and who I'm trusting with my best interest on an issue I am under-qualified to approach on my own. If you are receiving two different pieces of advice then, as suggested above, you should get them both in the same room so you can understand what's going on. If the issue is that you do not trust your lawyers, so instead you come ask the internet a question that they should be able to answer, then you have a completely different problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
This reminds of the documentary Who Killed Garrett Phillips? (which I mentioned before in this thread), where the defendant in that trial rightfully realized that everyone in that town was insane, and requested a bench trial to avoid having to deal with a jury of absolute lunatics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
I know it's a page back but I just wanted to mention that France is fine as long as you look European, are male, and don't look in any way vaguely Arab or Muslim. If you're a woman, non-white, or Muslim then get ready for a totally different ride (especially if you check off all three). When we lived in Switzerland my wife took a day trip to France to give a talk at a university, and living in Switzerland her danger sense was completely off so she just took a train there by herself. The degree of racism and sexual harrassment she experienced was absolutely ridiculous, and actually traumatized her a bit. And this was from a woman that started college in the US days before 9/11. Saying France is "racist" is such an understatement that I think most Americans can't picture how bad it is there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers? All the other people answered above, but comedian Mike Birbiglia had a great comedy routine awhile back where he discussed being in a accident where he was sitting completely at rest at a STOP sign and the resulting police report was a hilarious mess of contradictions which involved, amongst other things, him colliding with himself. He went down some kind of rabbit hole trying to get it fixed up until his wife basically told him to let it go and just eat the insurance costs.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
I recently had to dispute an item on my credit card that was not a specific act of fraud or straight identity-theft, so I actually looked up the process so that I knew what I was doing. Go ahead and do the same if you want. The government lays out three specific protected actions that can trigger a dispute. The one your thinking of is a merchant acting in bad faith and charging you without ever giving you the item. When you disputed this, your bank gave you provisional credit. It doesn't matter what they called it, but it is provisional and is required as part of the law as they "research" the dispute. This temporary credit can sit on your card so long that you believe it's real, but it's not. It's just there until they complete "researching" the dispute. Even an absolute bullshit dispute will put this credit on your card...for a time. You should be sharing all information you have with your bank and be updating them with new information. When you initiated the dispute somebody likely started researching the facts and asked the merchant WTF was going on. They probably sent you the gun at this point. In [x] number of weeks your bank is going to close the dispute because you received the item, and they are going to remove the provisional credit, and then you are going to pay the bank that money. They never took the money from the merchant in the first place, so you aren't really screwing them. You can go and call them and tell them that you received the gun, or you can wait until they close the dispute, but you are going to pay either way, it's up to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 08:35
|
|
|
I just want to repeat myself because lots of people don't understand how credit disputes work. The gun merchant didn't lose any money. They at most received notification (potentially by snail mail) that a charge was disputed, and they likely replied with proof of delivery. The money OP is seeing is just a credit from the bank and will vanish when the dispute closes. This can take a long time, which is why he should just tell them he received the item so they can close the dispute faster, but it doesn't change that he'll pay his bank back eventually. I know Lowtax years ago was claiming that malicious goons were buying forums poo poo and then stealing his money by issuing chargebacks, but the dude is full of poo poo and that's not how chargebacks work. The banks just credit the cardholder and only take money from the merchants after they investigate and only under a narrowly defined set of circumstances. Buyer's regret is NOT one of these circumstances. They all involve some sort of fraud.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This is not accurate as far as the forums store is concerned. That's interesting then. How does it work for the forums? Is the difference because the forum doesn't have a physical product that is delivered? Everything I read about disputes described it as a process that usually ends with the bank saying "tough luck" unless active fraud has occured.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
So I have a hypothetical situation that I would love to hear thoughts on. The hypothetical facts go something like this: - A major state university offers multiple different health insurance options to their employees. Employees pick their option upon starting their job, and can change their choice during and only during an open enrollment period at the end of each calendar year. - After making their choice their health insurance premium is deducted from their paycheck each month. No further input is required from the employee if they want things to stay the same. - A hypothetical employee, after doing research, chooses a particular insurance option based on it's costs, standard co-pay, and the fact that it gives access to a nice private hospital in their town that has features they wish to make use of including an excellent emergency pediatrics unit. - At some point, for reasons never explained to the employees, somehow a sub-group of employees get dropped from the company health insurance. The deductions stop being taken from their pay, and they are no longer insured. This occurs in the middle of the year, not during the open enrollment period, and no one is told this has happened. Some employees notice this has happened and have their insurance immediately re-instated, they are told that it was a clerical error in emails. - Hypothetical employee does not notice this happened, and their child has a health emergency. Child is brought to the private hospital and admitted without the insurance number being immediately asked for due to the urgency. Later the doctors inform the employee that the child is not insured by the hospital and needs to be transferred by ambulance to the local city hospital. Hypothetical employee owes a significant amount of money to the hospital for the treatment up to that point, must pay for the ambulance ride, and now owes money to the city hospital as well since the child is "uninsured". - Both hospitals say that the child being uninsured by accident is not their problem, and employee needs to go to the University for compensation, and that the bills stand. University claims that because they were not deducting money for insurance, the employee should not have been under the illusion that they were insured and thus it's not their problem. Exactly who do they start suing, and what kind of damages can they seek?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:How long was it between the cessation of health insurance deductions and the medical emergency? Within this hypothetical, lets say they stopped deducting in May.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
So in this hypothetical, would that be a thing that's only easy BEFORE an employee incurs a large hospital bill from multiple hospitals, or would the insurance company just shrug and take that cost on?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
EDIT: On second thought, way too many details.
Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Aug 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
As someone once jokingly said in one of socialist circlejerk threads awhile ago, "Nuance isn't praxis friend". That being said, at this point I'm convinced that none these guys have spent a day working towards social justice anywhere outside their keyboards. When I volunteered for a homeless organization in PA a decade ago, absolutely none of the people from top to bottom sounded like these CSPAM warriors. We, in fact, had close relationships with landlords since they were the people we were convincingly to take people in. We were getting subsidized rates or straight rental vouchers to pay them so that we could get roofs over people's heads before winter. We were providing documentation to prove that the tenants were not going to trash the places because that happening made it harder for us to work with the same landlords again. No one, even in private, was spouting this inane anti-social rent-seeking parasite bullshit, and it's a riot everytime one of these guys bubbles out of D&D to start their rants.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I was thinking about getting one of those phone mounts that sticks to the dash or windshield so I can use my phone as a GPS that I can see rather than just listening to it giving directions from my center console, but then I realized there might be legal issues. I'm in CO, but is there anywhere I could look up the relevant regulations by state? The way I see it there are potentially two issues. One would be if it sticks to the windshield, there might be laws against having anything on the windshield. Two would be I could see some places counting having a gps running on your phone as using your phone if they didn't have the foresight to carve out an exception there in the distracted driving laws. Google is your friend (https://www.motorbiscuit.com/is-it-illegal-to-mount-your-phone-on-windshield/) quote:So these states allow mounting your phone anywhere on the windshield:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
PI attorneys seem to be pretty creative at squeezing blood out of the stone when it comes to some judgement-proof defendants. A fellow in my department got head-on obliterated on the highway by a drunk driver that was so plastered he was apparently asleep when the paramedics checked on him in his car. My co-worker's car was totaled, he needed to be removed with the jaws of life, and he still can't work due to his injuries. Of course the drunk guy is some 22 year-old dude claiming complete poverty. The sports car he totaled isn't his, he has no insurance or job, and he didn't even have a license since it was suspended or something from previous DUIs. The case is still ongoing, but apparently the PI attorney is basically dragging everyone this guy knows into the mess. His parents for loaning him the car, his friends for letting him drive off drunk, etc. I'm not sure what the limits on liability are for this kind of thing, but his lawyer seems to think it's worth it to try.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Good luck. I'm pretty sure at UC the members of the union who volunteer to be delegates are the ones doing the negotiating themselves, and it usually consists of them using their own money to travel to Sacramento where they'll wait in a crowded conference room for 8 hours because the UC reps will just no show.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2022 02:17
|
|