Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/26/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points

    Death With Dignity Law

    When I first got my hearing aids I was amazed at the sound of my feet on gravel, the sound of the wind, and peeing sounded like Niagara Falls.
  2. 2 points

    Death With Dignity Law

    Buy her a book: Stephen Hawking: A Biography https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Hawking-Biography-Kristine-Larsen/dp/1591025745 Might inspire her.
  3. 2 points
    That surprised me since civil forfeiture has been in existence in GA with regard to drugs for years. The legislature amended the code effective in 2015 to add a statute under the civil code (Title 9, Chapter 16). It got a lot of online coverage at the time. It may be in civil code but the forfeiture is tied directly to your criminal case....
  4. 1 point
    The strength of any given piece of evidence is for a jury to decide. Not really sure what you're asking, but evidence of a crime committed in June 2018 is likely not relevant to an alleged crime committed in June 2019. First of all, if you're subpoenaed and don't show up to testify, you'll be arrested and hauled into court. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "a personal certificate." You're free to contact your psycho girlfriend's attorney and tell him or her whatever you want. No. Think about it. What happens the next time this whack job tries to kill you? You call the police and they show up and just dismiss you because you lied this time. Then you get killed. If you are subpoenaed to testify, yes. Dump the psycho bitch and move on with your life.
  5. 1 point

    Death With Dignity Law

    You can say whatever you like to whomever you like. However, having a power of attorney ("POA") doesn't necessarily mean you get to override her own decisions, and medical POAs typically don't become effective until and unless the principal is unable to make her own medical decisions. That said, you certainly can voice your concerns to your mother's doctor. Realistically, nothing.
  6. 1 point

    Death With Dignity Law

    It's as good a place as any and, as you know, we all read all the forums anyway. You should thoroughly and carefully read the statute. The provisions may allay your concerns. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=1.&title=&part=1.85.&chapter=&article= There are some serious checks and balances in the statute, not the least of which is the definition of "terminal disease." There is also some serious (even draconian) paperwork involved for both patient and doctor. Given those requirements I don't see your mother succeeding in charming any doctor into going through that process to the point of actually providing the drug. On to your questions. This answers both. If she becomes mentally incompetent (dementia, alzheimer's, etc) that's a whole nother issue. But if she actually does some day become terminally ill and is still mentally competent, you won't be able to prevent it. Nor will you be able to sue any doctor that properly provides the drug. Unfortunately, even without being able to get the drug if she is seriously determined to commit suicide, there are a lot of ways she can do it. However, I tend to treat The same way I would treat "I have made a decision to quit smoking on my own terms within the next few months." With a considerable amount of skepticism.
  7. 1 point

    ongoing criminal investigation

    Yes, and they routinely do exactly that. Keep in mind, however, that this is an incredibly broad question. Yes. Based only on the incredibly limited and general facts in your post, no.
  8. 1 point
    She can't stop the grandparents from claiming anything on their returns. For the years 2018 through 2025, as the tax law stands today, the dependent exemption is zero and thus there is no tax benefit for claiming a dependent. There are the child tax credits, however, and those credits do depend in part on whether the taxpayer would qualify to claim the kids as their dependents. All she needs to do is claim the child related tax benefits on her return that she qualifies to take. If someone else claims the same tax benefit for the same child the IRS will catch that on computer matching about a year after the returns are filed and spit out letters to each of them to start the process of verifying which one was entitled to those benefits. The one not entitled to it will have to pay back the tax they saved from the benefit, as well as interest and possibly a penalty, too. Note that if both of you file electronically and claim the same benefit(s) for the same person the IRS will reject the second filed electronic return. All that means is that the person with the rejected return will need to file on paper instead and wait about 4 weeks or so longer to get any refund check. That short delay is the only disadvantage to filing second. So no need for her to get overly worked up in January simply to file first. I'll not get into the details here of what the requirements are to claim the dependent exemption or the child tax credit. She can read those rules in Publication 501 (dependents) and Publication 972 (child and dependent credit). If she's interested in amending prior year returns she'd need to look at the prior year versions of those forms as the rules change a bit from year to year, especially the changes from 2017 to 2018 that occurred with the Republican Tax Act passed in December 2017. Note that it may be that the grandparents were entitled to one or more of the dependent exemptions they claimed during the years everyone was living in their home, so she'd need to read the rules carefully for those years. She can only amend returns as old as 2016 now and get a refund. It's too late for years before 2016 unless she paid that tax within the last two years.
  9. 1 point
    I am guessing that your daughter was kind enough and smart enough not to claim her children as dependents (before now) because she realized there would be a conflict/or confusion with the IRS about this, and so your daughter graciously backed off from claiming them if she knew that the grandparents had already done so. If your daughter had gone ahead and filed using her children as dependents, the matter would have been looked into before now. Your daughter can go ahead and claim the dependents on her return at any time, and it would be better if she files first, but if she doesn't, it won't matter in the end. When the IRS gets your daughter's return and the grandparents' return and sees that the Social Security Numbers for the children match on both returns, they will begin to investigate to determine who is the correct party who is eligible to claim. The IRS will send your daughter and the grandparents a form or notice about how the correction will be made. Your daughter needs to ask whether she should file an amended federal income tax return for any previous year's tax returns where someone else erroneously claimed her children as dependents and maybe she can receive a refund. I don't know whether the grandparents will be asked to pay back the IRS for any monies they wrongfully claimed and were not entitled to claim. If you have any questions about this you can discuss with the IRS on their toll-free number or with a local federal income tax preparer.
  10. 1 point

    Traffic stop

    Wow talk about doing some Olympic style contorting on that one. You are trying to split hairs but are on the wrong side. That law does not make the conversation itself illegal, just the content of it. You could go and strike up a conversation with anyone and talk to them for hours on end and it be legal. But the second you asked them to do a specific act it would then be illegal. The words and intent would make it illegal, not the act of conversing with someone. Also it does not specify that it would need to be a conversation. You could pass a note, send an email, old fashion snail mail, or any other way you could get your request across. So no this does not come close to "prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process". It just prevents someone from going up to someone and asking for a specific thing. That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence." This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure. No this would not clearly demonstrate that. The OP stated he pulled into Walmart with the intent to go inside. Last I checked you couldn't drive a truck into Walmart to get milk. Clearly the OP would have to park his vehicle and get out.The officers could have legally parked their vehicles to the front and rear of OP's truck after he stopped. He never stated that he was blocked in, if they activated their lights, or if the used some other form of authority to make him believe he was not free terminate the encounter. Just that one was positioned to the front, and one to the rear of his truck. Beyond that the OP stated his intent was to presumably walk inside the store to pick up milk. If his truck was temporarily blocked by the parked cruisers this would not stop or obstruct him from merely walking inside as he had already planned prior to the encounter. No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.
  11. 1 point

    Lack of cold water in apartment

    I've never seen laws requiring "cold water", plenty requiring hot water. Have you checked with other places in the neighborhood to see what their water temp is?
  12. 1 point
    Get a report from whom? A written report? Verbal report? I'm certain that you do lots of things. Filed a report with whom? Based on what you wrote, it's possible that you'll be arrested and charged with one or more crimes and sued. It's equally possible that nothing at all will happen. Obviously, if you're arrested and/or sued, you should retain an attorney. It might also be a good idea to contact your auto liability insurance carrier and report what happened and what is happening.
  13. 1 point
    The first count is a first degree felony. The person is designated as a major drug offender, and the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term a maximum first degree felony mandatory prison term which is at least 11 years.
  14. 1 point
    To the best of my knowledge, no Ohio criminal defense lawyers follow these boards, so it's unlikely you'll get a response from anyone with personal knowledge of actual cases. Beyond that, and assuming that the time offered is within the range of sentences for the crimes charged, the reasonableness of any sentence obviously depends on the relevant facts and the defendant's prior record.
  15. 1 point
    This thread is over 6 years old. If you have a question please start your own thread.
  16. 1 point
    The bomb always gets defused with one second left on the timer when the star of the show defuses it.
  17. 1 point
    Religious practice trumps a statute (whether criminal or civil) when that practice is protected by the Constitution and the government lacks the compelling state interest needed to overcome that protection. For example, the Amish have a well established belief that goes against participation in Social Security programs. That belief is protected by the First Amendment and as a result the Amish legally do not have to pay FICA taxes nor do they claim Social Security or Medicare benefits. They are completely outside that system due to their religious beliefs. As to use of illegal drugs, religious belief and practice can overcome criminal drug laws. Some Native American tribes have the right to use peyote, which otherwise would be illegal, for their religious practice. Of course, the tribes had been using peyote in a religious context well before it was banned, making the case it was truly a religious matter easier to prove. It becomes harder when a new religion pops up that no one ever heard of before and that religion has as a major part of it the use of illegal drugs. The suspicion will be that the claimed religion is merely a sham designed primarily to get around the prohibition of the drug. That makes it more of a challenge to the persons claiming it is truly for religion to establish that to the courts.
  18. 1 point

    FedEx Express break policy

    The company did mandate it, so it is obvious that it can do so, and it is legal to do so.
  19. 1 point

    FedEx Express break policy

    Yes, they can mandate the break. The law in NY that requires breaks are minimums, not maximums. They would be within their right to require any break longer than the required breaks and more of them.
  20. 1 point

    FedEx Express break policy

    Yes. They cannot require less than the law allows but they can require more than the law allows.
  21. 1 point
    While I don't really think this is the sort of thing that should cause DFCS to become involved, given the circumstances, why don't they stop doing this? If that's the one and only issue that might cause DFCS to become involved, discontinuing this activity is an absolute no-brainer. Are they so addicted that they cannot stop for a few months? Given these circumstances, a POA would not do much of anything (except as noted above). While I don't know the details of GA guardianship law, it's likely that, if you sought a guardianship, notice would have to be given to the other grandparents.
  22. 1 point

    HOA Setup Fees

    Obviously they CAN do it because they DID do it. If you feel that it was done wrongly ask for the money back. If they don't pay, sue.
  23. 1 point

    Hidden cameras in the workplace

    From the information you've provided and Jack's links, I would say that assuming there is a camera there at all, which I think is doubtful at best, it is legal. You have no expectation of privacy in your office and while I'm not saying I necessarily approve of the way she is alleged to have gone about it, there is nothing wrong or inappropriate with her checking to confirm you're not working at your other job while on her time. It doesn't matter a whit whether she owns the business or not.
  24. 1 point
    The word "can" denotes the ability to do something. So the answer to the question is yes. Whether it actually happens is anybody's guess and completely up to the prosecutor.
  25. -1 points
    juliano fernandes

    Who is liable

    Its an Act of God many insurance claims will tell you. Your company did not create the wind. Juliano Fernandes
  26. -1 points

    Traffic stop

    Your statement that anyone else could have done the same thing that the poster described happened to him is totally bogus. For one, the poster's statement was that the police officers parked their cars in front of and behind his vehicle while he was sitting in their vehicle in and of itself would indicate that either officer, or both officers were knowingly restraining the liberty of the poster. So in my opinion a person doesn't' have a privilege to block your vehicle in so they can strike up a conversation with you. Neither did the police officers have the privilege to restraint the poster unless they had probable cause that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed prior to detaining him. If you going to give your advice to somebody then at least give it in context of the question being asked. šŸ˜ And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.
  27. -1 points

    Traffic stop

    Solicitation according to Black's Law dictionary is the asking; enticing; urgent request.. If it is your opinion that a person can walk up and ask someone to have sex for money is legal then of course you are right. But if you can't then you are wrong. You can twist it any way you want but you asked for a example where a person couldn't walk up and start a conversation and I gave you one.
  28. -1 points

    Traffic stop

    A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Compel another to engage in sexual activity for hire; (2) Induce, procure, encourage, solicit, request, or otherwise facilitate either of the following: a) A minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor; (b) A person the offender believes to be a minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the person is a minor. Black's law dictionary defines solicit as: 1. To seek or to plead, to entreat and ask. 2. To lure or tempt a person.
  29. -1 points

    confidential infomants

    that did not answer the question.
  30. -1 points

    grandparents getting custody

    You stateā€assuming that bio dad(s) have clean records or if they are registered sex offendersā€. Those are both mute points because as long as their crime a) was not an extremely violent or extreme drug related crime that makes them not have a clean record and that might make them a danger to the child(ren). Or b) in being a registered sex offender their offense was not against a child and they have not been ordered to not be around children then usually no judge unless they are being biased(which is against the law)will not allow a parent to have custody of their child(ren).
  31. -2 points
    juliano fernandes

    Hot tub purchase, leaks!

    Honestly Buyer beware on this one. Unless you have it in written he states no issues you are going to be hung out to dry
  32. -2 points

    Traffic stop

    Please cite such a law. If you are unable to cite such a law, on what basis do you make this claim? Let's start with solicitation of prostitution for one, (Ohio Rev. Code Ā§ 2907.21). While the communication to compel might not have to be verbal, it still would not give a person a right to walk up to someone and bring up that conversation subject. So yes, a person, even a police officer does not have a right to simply walk up to someone and start any conversation they want therefore in conclusion, the subject matter of the conversation does matter.
  • Create New...