Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/18/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Tax_Counsel

    401K Loan Dispute

    Under the federal tax law, the employer may require in the plan documents that outstanding loans be repaid when the employee leaves the company or the plan is terminated. So whether you must repay the loan now depends on what the plan documents and your loan documents say. The plan trustee must follow the rules provided for in the plan. So read the plan and see what it says. If it does require that you repay it when you leave then the trustee must apply that rule and you are stuck with that. However, in the event that you cannot repay it, you can avoid the immediate tax consequences by rolling over the outstanding balance into an IRA or other eligible plan by the due date to file your return for the year, including extensions. So if you get an extension until October 2020 you would have that long to roll it over and avoid the income inclusion and early withdrawal tax. See the IRS page on Retirement Loan Topics. If you need to get some other loan to cover the roll over that might still be a better outcome for you than the tax hit. You could see a local attorney to find out if under your state's tort law you might have a claim here for negligence against Prudential. The problem that I see, though, is that if the answer is clearly in the plan documents it is likely that you would be expected to have looked at those and you'd have had the right answer. Since the plan documents should have been readily available to you, relying on the customer service people may not have been reasonable in the sense meant by the law. But you can discuss that with the attorney to see how that might impact things. Many civil litigation attorneys give free initial consultations, so you'd only lose a little time. In the end, though, if you can do the rollover, that's probably your best solution to this.
  2. 1 point
    ElleMD

    Step parent visitation

    Talk to an attorney because the devil is in the details, but if the agreement is just between you and the father, you only need to allow the father the opportunity to exercise his parental rights as outlined in the agreement. Those rights can't be delegated to another party.
  3. 1 point
    adjusterjack

    Workplace injury and...

    The best answer should come from the disability agency. However, my guess is that he not file a second claim until the WC doctor releases him for work. Then, if he can't work because he is not yet recovered from the surgery, it would be time to file the second claim. Again, that's just my guess. Bob needs to confirm that independently of strangers on the internet.
  4. 1 point
    Tax_Counsel

    Step parent visitation

    The step mother would not have a right to visitation if it is not specified in the order. The issue would be whether under the current order he may allow his wife to spend time with the child during his visitation time. I suggest you see a family law attorney for a review of the order to see how that would go. You might need to modify the order to make it clear that if he's not there to take the kid during his visitation time that none else may substitute in during his time.
  5. 1 point
    You try re-reading it. Your questions: Followed this: And you called your children's behavior the "major issues." So I addressed your "major issues."
  6. 1 point
    Yes, I have lots of experience with something like that. It's called disciplining your children. You should try it. There's no excuse for their behavior when they are home alone. Since you are the custodial parent and they live there, there is plenty of punishment you can dish out. As long as you accept the behavior unchallenged you have nothing to complain about. PS: Nothing wrong with your ex dropping your kids off when you aren't home. They are certainly old enough to be on their own.
  7. 1 point
    You're not. "Indefinite unpaid leave" means you've been laid off, fired, canned, given the axe. It's also a scam that employers pull so that naïve people don't file for unemployment compensation. You've already lost a great deal of money by believing it. File now. You should have been looking for another job from the getgo. That you haven't gotten any answers speaks volumes. Nobody wants it.
  8. 1 point
    You most certainly can file for unemployment. If you are able and available for work and your employer has no work for you you can apply.
  9. 1 point
    Absolutely don't vote.
  10. 1 point
    We don't know anything about your case. However, one might guess that it is not very good if five lawyers have considered it and declined to represent you. Have you applied for unemployment insurance?
  11. 1 point
    PayrollHRGuy

    Are these legal marriages?

    I think your money would be better spent in counseling.
  12. 1 point
    pg1067

    Employee Bathroom Breaks

    I completely disagree that you'd have legal liability, but you could get fired.
  13. 1 point
    MiddlePart

    R. Stokes-Bolon

    Instead of PG1067 probably meant to say: If the judge signed it, it is presumptively legal.
  14. 1 point
    cbg

    Petition for Legitimation?

    What kind of idiots were you both, PLANNING an unmarried pregnancy while you were still in high school? Way to completely screw up your lives, bud.
  15. 1 point
    cbg

    Employment Question

    Changing the law is not something that's going to happen overnight. Even if you were able to find a congress-critter in the LA state Legislature (which is not currently in session) who would be willing to drop everything and give it their full attention right from the get-go, you should be thinking in terms of months if not years, rather than days or weeks. The fact that they suggested you look into finding out about the law and the possibility of it being changed, rather than them doing it themselves, only says to me even more clearly that they are not really interested in hiring you but are trying to let you down gently. If they REALLY wanted to hire you and felt that the only block to doing so was this law, they have legal counsel that could clear up the matter far more quickly and expeditiously. No employer is obligated to hire you. In the meantime, you might want to make yourself familiar with this: https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2018/code-revisedstatutes/title-17/rs-17-15/ https://www.teachlouisiana.net/pdf/ConvictionPolicy.pdf
  16. 1 point
    cbg

    New Telecommuter Policy

    Just remember that telecommuting is a privilege and not a right. No employer has to allow it.
  17. 1 point
    PayrollHRGuy

    Cease and Desist in School?

    It was Friday afternoon.
  18. 1 point
    cbg

    Employment Question

    I don't know whether there is such a law. I do know that no matter what excuse they give you, no school board is obligated to hire you.
  19. 1 point
    Pretty good. If her history on following up on things is any guide it should be about 22 years.
  20. 1 point
    Nobody is talking about your grammar for fun. If we can't understand you we can't help you.
  21. 1 point
    Nothing about those cases is right. This is not something I get any joy in sharing on public forum, but it probably helps drive the point home. I used to believe exactly what those cases appear to prove. That there is some distinction in the law that exempts people requirements of using public roads if I am traveling, not engaging in Commerce. As a matter of fact I am philosophically in favor of lifting government impediments to freedom of movement, including driving a car. But what I want is not what is. I strongly encourage you to do what I only thought to do what I did not until I was in Pre-Law & studying for LSAT... That is to go look the cases up yourself. Just go down the list and read the full legal brief for each case. Without exception, you will find at least one of the following things is true: -The Quote they use is from the dissenting opinion and not the majority opinion -The quote comes from piecing together parts of sentences taken from completely different parts of the brief - The quote is technically correct, but comes from a case that has nothing to do with a right to travel - The quote is technically correct but it has been taken from a sentence affirming in the negative (By which i mean a quote like "a right to travel freely and unencumbered..." comes from a statement that says "a right to travel freely and unencumbered is not overly-burdened by requiring a driver to demonstrate a level of safety and proficiency before using public roads") -The quote they use comes from a real case, but the quote they cite is completely fabricated and nothing even remotely similar to the quote they give appears anywhere in the brief -The Case they cite itself doesn't exist -The case cited is a municipal violation heard in a district court which means even if the quote was both accurate and in proper context (it never is. but even if it was) the scope of that court's jurisdiction is limited in rem and in personam (to the area within that court's district and to the individual named in the lawsuit.) Also, as far as definitions go, you need to see if a given term in specifically defined in the applicable statute. Only if it is not would you generally want to use a legal dictionary definition. In cases where a legal dictionary is proper to use, ask yourself why they choose editions that predate the existence of mass produced, commercially available automobiles. Legal dictionaries don't put out new editions so you can keep on using obsolete editions. They put out new editions so the definition they provide matches the definition you are most likely going to be using in a court of law. You quoted a 1914 edition of Bouviers. Ford had only started producing the Model T a couple years before that.... And as a matter of fact even John Bouvier says the point of new editions of legal dictionaries is to keep up with changes in law and precedent. This comes from the Preface of the first edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, publiched in 1839: "…most of the matter in the English law dictionaries will be found to have been written while the feudal law was in its full vigor, and not fitted to the present times, nor calculated for present use." that preface continues to be included in every new edition of Bouvier's.... The most recent edition having been published in 2018... So the only reason someone would give you a 1914 edition definition, I would have to believe, was chosen because it hit the sweet spot only a couple years after the first internal combustion engine powered motor vehicle was created, but before the government would have had time to establish the kinds of regulations that the person who chose it wanted to pretend don't actually exist
  22. 1 point
    And when you talked to your wife about your child's unhappiness and the allegations that mom neglects her to go out drinking, what did she say? When you visited the residence of your wife and child did it appear that it was a safe living environment with evidence the child is being adequately provided for? As for your wife's immigration status, if you are a citizen, it is unclear what if anything you have done toward naturalization. If you are divorcing, that could have a huge impact on what might be in the works. If you have simply done nothing but cross your fingers for the past however many years, you have put your child in a very, very bad position particularly if your wife is the primary custodial parent and you are out of state. You being out if state means your daughter is more likely than not to end up in foster care for at least some period of time. Courts don't much care about the living arrangements of married couples and their children. Teenagers thinking the grass is greener elsewhere is also not really a shock, particularly grass they only see for a few weeks a year when there is no school.
  23. 1 point
    As noted, as long as you're married and no one has filed for divorce, the law has nothing to say about where your kid lives. As someone previously mentioned, if your kid doesn't go back, it's probably likely that mom will file for divorce and custody where she lives. If I were you, I'd consult with a local family law attorney and think hard about filing where you live and beating her to the punch.
  24. 1 point
    Practical advice, not legal advice. Keep your daughter with you, enroll her in a local school in the fall and see what happens. Just make sure that your daughter understands that the choice you are making could have consequences. That the mother is illegal gives you some leverage if you want to play dirty.
  25. 1 point
    That's right. I'm wondering if they're a small company who has only just reached the size to file an EEO-1 report and is woefully ignorant as to how to go about it. I remember the first time I had to complete one, wondering how I was supposed to provide numbers of employees with characteristics I am prohibited from asking about.
  26. 1 point
    cbg

    Jr verse Sr mix up!

    Then find a way to explain it that makes sense to people who don't know the situation.
  27. 1 point
    "Writing off" debts does not necessarily mean the debt is forgiven. It is basically a bookkeeping function that removes the debt from the list of court assets. However, the debt can still be collected, for instance, by collection agencies which purchase the debts for pennies on the dollar. Of course, the order you posted only applies to public defender fees anyway.
  28. 1 point
    I'm not one to bend over and take it, lol. Yes, it is a straight line - there is a 3rd pin because of a change in elevation that leads into a pretty heavily wooded area. I spoke to a lawyer last night who mentioned the injunction also but said to get a survey first...however I LOVE your suggestion of boulders. I can't believe I didn't think of that! It's in an easement so technically not allowed but hey, he's got a parking pad poured in the same easement so...it's a risk I'm willing to take. We have considered moving, but my husband is a paid on call firefighter and we are restricted on where we can live in order for him to stay in the department - and collect his pension in a few more years. Thanks so much!!
  29. 1 point
    It has already escalated to the point where you either go all in or bend over and take it. My suggestion: Get the plat diagram from the county. If the property line on that side is a straight line between the corners, buy yourself 5 or 10 300 pound boulders and have them laid out just on your side of the property line along the pad. If he hits a boulder with his car it means he drove on to your property and that's his problem. Yeah, he will yell and scream and might even sue you, but that's the risk you take with a lunatic neighbor. Or, you can sue him and seek an injunction compelling him to remove the pad. Home owners typically have the right to sue neighbors to enforce zoning and deed restrictions. Another alternative is to sell your house and move. I had to do that years back because of a crappy neighbor.
  30. 1 point
    pg1067

    Relationship Status Discrimination

    Of course not. You're both getting $X in benefits. The difference is that, because they don't need your employer to provide health coverage, all of their benefits are coming in the form of wages, which your benefits are divided between wages and health coverage. It has nothing to do with marital status. Rather, it has to do with them having other health coverage. They could just as easily be single and still covered on a parent's health insurance.
  31. 1 point
    cbg

    Relationship Status Discrimination

    It is, in fact, becoming rather common for an employer to provide a financial incentive for an employee to go on a spouse's/partner's/parents insurer instead. My employer does not do so, but I am regularly asked if we do (I work in the Benefits office) by people who have had such a benefit in the past.
  32. 1 point
    pg1067

    Eviction

    I'm not sure what "is it legal" means. If you're late with your rent, your landlord has the right to serve you with a "pay or quit" notice. Pay the rent on time and this won't be an issue. "Only one day late" is one more day than you should be late. P.S. Posting your name and home address on the internet is not a very smart move. You might want to edit your post. It's unnecessary to post a picture of the notice.
  33. 1 point
    The problem is that the comment in the article applies to only to persons convicted of state crimes, which the article did not make very clear. For someone that is convicted of a federal felony offense the state's action to restore state voting rights has no effect with respect gun rights. With federal convictions, only federal law may restore the right to possess a firearm, and currently there is no way for a convicted federal felon to do that. The U.S. Department of Justice explains that in its Criminal Resource Manual (CRM) section 1435. Thus, if you are convicted of, say, federal tax evasion, which is a federal felony, you will be prohibited from possessing a firearm regardless of what the state does. As things currently stand, a federal felon needs a presidential pardon to get those firearms rights back.
  34. 1 point
    I don't see any issue with distributing copies of the public documents WITHOUT COMMENT (no cover letter, no signature, no opinions, no recommendations, no return address on the envelope, no nothing), just the documents. Let the 150 homeowners draw their own conclusions and make their own decisions. Just make sure none of those "public" documents have your name on them. In other words, if you made a complaint all you've made are unproven allegations which might give rise to grounds for a lawsuit. Of what? When most people write that they have "proof" they often don't. Example: You have photos of a guy coming up to her house and handing her a plastic bag of white powder. She hands him money. Is that "proof" that she is dealing drugs? No. It's a suspicion. If you voice that suspicion it's an unproven allegation. He could have picked up some baking soda for her at the store and she is reimbursing her. You would have no way of knowing unless the contents were analyzed in a lab. Or: You have photos of cops coming to her house 50 times in a year. All that proves is that cops came to her house 50 times in a year. Was she convicted and jailed as a result of any of those visits? No? If you had any real proof of crimes being committed she'd be in jail. Don't count on that. Lawyers can take a defamation case on a contingency. I'm not saying you don't have a problem neighbor, I'm just suggesting that you be careful about what you say.
  35. -1 points
    pg1067

    driving without a license

    Query what you think "the best" is. Obviously your friend doesn't get it and thinks it's ok to give a big old middle finger to the laws that most folks observe without pause. After 11 priors, I would hope he'd spend some time in jail. I would also hope whatever car he was driving was impounded.
  36. -1 points
    commoncitizen

    driving without a license

    No traffic court has any jurisdiction on a persons liberty....if at the time he was pulled over he wasn't for hire or on the clock than he was well within his rights to travel freely. He doesn't need a license to be liberated or free. In fact he will then become a slave to the state if he gets a license. By getting a license he signs a contract with the state
  37. -1 points
    Philipem

    driving without a license

    Right to drive? The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (Va. 09/12/1930). The holding doesn't remotely support the argument it's being used for (which is no surprise). The case involved the city having an ordinance which gave the chief of police the power to revoke a person's permit to drive in that city. Mr. Thompson had the required permit to drive his car and police chief, Smith, revoked it under a provision in the city code that gave him basically the unfettered discretion to do so. With regard to the right of the government to require licensing or permits to drive, what the Virginia Supreme Court held was "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." At 378. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html Miller v Reed In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place.   The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.   See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979);  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). ....[continued, out of order]   The Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to interstate travel. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986) (Brennan, J., plurality opinion).   Burdens placed on travel generally, such as gasoline taxes, or minor burdens impacting interstate travel, such as toll roads, do not constitute a violation of that right, however.   See Kansas v. United States, 16 F.3d 436, 442 (D.C.Cir.1994)  We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel.  See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose to drive a limousine;  a poor man may have to walk.   The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional. ”);  City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel.   That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”).
  38. -1 points
    adjusterjack

    Eviction

    Late is late. I always served pay or quit notices on the day after the due date. Any landlord who doesn't do that is making a potentially costly mistake.
  39. -1 points
    How can I get a copy of my rental agreement other than the landlord
  40. -1 points
    The law states that groups A B or C are exempt for reason Y. Clearly, the intent of the law, as written, is to allow police the use of unmarked vehicles for undercover or special investigations, and those purposes ONLY. Anyone who paid attention in 4th grade during sentence diagramming can clearly see this. So, unless you are the subject of an ongoing undercover or special (which could have broad meaning but does not encompass a split second decision to pull you over or not pull you over for a traffic violation) investigation and you are pulled over by ANY police officer who is in an unmarked car (and, the standards for "marking" are clearly called in the statute as well, and lights and a grill commonly used by police do not meet the standard), THAT OFFICER IS ACTING UNLAWFULLY (this is stated at the beginning of the statute). I would not cooperate with the officer, which could lead to my arrest, but that would give me an immediate chance to fight the unlawful behavior by the officer. Now, am I guaranteed a win in court? No, but should I be granted a probable cause hearing by a judge who is fluent in English and has some modicum of respect for the law, I should easily find my motion granted and the case dropped. The real trick would be convincing the judge to then issue a warrant for the officers arrest (unlawful detainment among other things). I don't think my chances here would be more than 1 in a metric **** ton, but I would remind the judge how many times I've been told that ignorance of the law is not a defense, and that illegal is illegal no matter who perpetrates the crime. I'm pretty sure I'll get laughed out of court as the prosecutor has his or her tail between their legs, having been quickly bested by someone without a bar card, but with some sense of satisfaction that I was mocked on my way out of court. At least that's what's happened the 3 other times I had cases dismissed in motions court, pro se. I swear, lawyers are great with procedure and sometimes their familiarity with the judges and clerks has value, but they are the only people who know less about the actual law than I do.
  41. -1 points
    Oh go ahead and pick that one apart for grammar too if it entertains you. What you give eventually will come back. Good Day
  42. -1 points
    always wanting to know

    driving without a license

    I just wanted to point out that the government can not grant rights and their powers are enumerated which means anything not enumerated to them is not under their authority. Government was intended to be limited , it has and is ever expanding with no end in sight , which also requires more funding from us. Government never cuts costs only creates them , all day every day , making sure they spend their entire budget each year so they can get more for the next . Also our rights can not be deprived or diminished without due process , neither can life , liberty or property be seized , apply this to what you will .
  43. -1 points
    Dslyfe

    Child custody change

    This would require going to court to get a change in custody
  44. -1 points
    Dslyfe

    Employee Bathroom Breaks

    As a partner for a retail store.... u legally cannot be held liable.... but u can be terminated for negligence on the job. It's a slippery slope for most businesses though.
  45. -1 points
    PayrollHRGuy

    Employee Bathroom Breaks

    What a terrible regurgitation of exactly what pg1067 wrote. It seems that with over a week to think about it you could have come up with something better.
×
×
  • Create New...