rondoggnuts

Ignoring ANYONE who bombards you with questions is undoubtedly VERY difficult, and there's a chance that police will simply lie, just to get an arrest no matter what (among other similar examples).

But suppose that all cops are good, and that all suspects are capable of sealing their lips entirely. Also, when accosted by them you decide to sit on the curb, remain perfectly still, and say nothing WHATSOEVER.

In such a case, is it possible to be arrested (legally)?

I'm talking about the "light switch" next to a door leading to any given room, which controls the function of any given electrical outlet in said room.

Here, I have a bedroom that has 4 (pairs) of outlets (1 pair on each wall), but I tested all 8 sockets (toggling the switch) and didn't find it..

So, I consulted a friend to help figure out a solution, but he FIRMLY claims that:

I'm only entitled to any given switch's functionality if the wiring was set up that way. Put differently, he claims that at some point during this building's, say, 30 year history, the wiring could have been pulled out entirely, due to age, and rewired to *exclude* the use of the switch altogether. In such a case, I'm not entitled to its function. But if the wiring was NOT "all pulled out," at any point, I WOULD entitled.

This guy is ADAMANT, but I find his claims improbable. I'm no expert, so I just want to see the response here first, from you fine people, before I even consider calling him on it.

Little help? Thanks, folks!

One night, I had no red light on the back of my bicycle while I rode to the corner store. I parked by the front door, then stepped to the side to finish my cigarette. It was at this point a squad car pulled up.

I refused to answer any questions, and in fact, tried to terminate the encounter and walk away. I was ordered to sit my a$$ back down, and confirmed it was indeed a detention. He claimed that I must give my name and date of birth because I committed a "crime," but in this particular sense, I beg to differ. I.e., I don't think my infraction is (or should be) classified a "crime."

Now, I recognize that writing a ticket w/o a name is impossible, but that doesn't mean that all laws are so precisely tailored to accommodate such situations. In gray areas like this, I can imagine that it's typically no big deal for them, since almost everyone will readily identify themselves without hesitation. But when they come across people more educated, I think they should be SOL, if the "perp" decided to walk away, for example.

Are "infractions" like mine indeed considered "crimes," as some people seem to assert (and certainly, the cop)? But whatever the "classification," must I comply as ordered in this situation? I.e., do "Stop and Identify" statutes (in CA) clearly delineate at which point a "non-crime" becomes a crime?

Or, is it that ALL disputes, not classified as "civil," are automatically subject to the directives concerning "criminal" offenses? Or perhaps, it's considered civil to begin with? I did some research myself, but it's still unclear, just as much of the law is.

I have a great insurance company, but I don't even know if ANY insurance company would cover this. I rented a car with my neighbor (i.e. we agreed to split it), but I'm the one on the paperwork. Stupid, I know. However, I recall that we added him as an authorized driver (he's 25), if I'm not mistaken.

In any case, he ended up STEALING it, and he also disappeared himself. He supposedly still lives next door (according to his roommate), and his mom lives next door, no joke. She says the same every time: no idea where he is, and no help whatsoever. I've already filed a police report, as soon as I realized he stole it (weeks ago, in fact), but I haven't been able to reach the rental company, other than leaving 3 detailed messages.

My question is, would ANY insurance company cover this under comprehensive? I'm worried about the caveat that an authorized user stole it, because if the car was simply stolen by an unknown, I'm almost certain they'd cover me. But in this case, what should I expect?

Assume it's NOT an emergency. In fact, management tried claiming that it was an emergency. In reality, it concerns a spigot, the outdoor connection that goes to a water hose. Ours leaked (just DROPS), but ONLY when the thing was ON! When OFF, it didn't leak a single drop. Emergency? No way, right?

If I'm not out of line, I get the impression that it was illegal for them to shut off the water for OVER AN HOUR without giving any notice whatsoever. If indeed illegal, what the heck does that mean? Would it render our lease unenforceable, for example? So we can just GTFO to get away from these jerks? Or does it mean they can actually get punished, like fined or suspension of credential/license? What can possibly happen here, supposing the outage was sufficiently recorded? It might even be something like a warning letter or something, a bummer obviously, but please let me know if it is?

FYI, it's a 5 unit building, with a "superintendent" (the douche bag) next door. To be ultra blunt, he makes our lives miserable, but everyone else LOVES us, no joke.

What do we do?

There are flies galore here in my back patio, and we're using traps that attract by scent (which becomes AWFUL after fly corpses start accumulating). So, I got the UV variety, specifically, the "Stinger Cordless Rechargeable Insect Zapper," $30 at any BB store. I have it on currently (in broad daylight), but have caught nothing yet. The stinky trap is still collecting new victims, however, so I'm inclined to think the UV is only good at night? The manual doesn't specify, either.

It has a cheap padlock, currently. But I have a good $10k worth of stuff in there so I'd like to secure it proper. Any tried and proven methods, or random ideas? Thanks!

A, B, and C decide to get a 2 br 2 ba apartment together, where A and B stay in the master bedroom, and C in the smaller room. C's bathroom is also what guests would use.

FYI, units of measure merely indicate the number of tiles (18" I think), NOT feet /meters /etc.:

Indoor common areas are ~ 17 x 12 = 204 sq. units

Master bedroom (master bath EXCLUDED, to essentially "cancel out" the size of guest bathroom) is 11 x 9 = 99 sq. units

2nd bedroom is 7.5 x 8.5 = ~ 64 sq. units

Suppose their rent is 100 tissues, and that utilities are an entirely separate issue. How much should A, B, and C be required to pay, all other variables ignored?

The other issue is utilities. Should it simply be 33% each (assuming nothing unusual)? Or should C be required to pay a bit more? Why? Because things like, say, powering the light bulb in C's room costs the same as the same bulb in the master bedroom, supporting the light needs of TWO people vs ONE, thereby making the cost *per person* LESS for the couple, than the cost is for C (again, on a per person basis). It's okay if you can't grasp this, but I ask that you kindly exit if this is the case. No offense; I'm only pointing out that this post is not meant for masochists (who, fyi, enjoy the punishment /pain, just as what 90% of the people here should* (but don't, sadly)). Our hearts go out to you, battling such a profoundly debilitating disease. I'm J/S, all bets are off once you post your silly crap here, so just don't unless you like it.

If the above logic is sound, it would seem more appropriate that C pay, say, 40-45% of utils (electric, at least). What do you think? As for the other utils, should they simply be split 3 ways, or is there something I'm missing?

And btw, if you thought that I must be sympathizing with A or B, you're wrong.

I paid a lawyer $1600 because I had a bogus restraining order (temporary until scheduled hearing) issued against me, which prevented me from going to my residence. When I called police to escort me, they said I'm not allowed to get my cat (yes, MY cat 100%, evidenced by extensive vet bills all paid by me, etc, etc.). She is sick and would die quickly without meds and food, so I hired the kid specifically for the cat.

So, we had an "early" hearing, which we lost. The day before, I went to his office to create a response (15 min). And my understanding is that's what I paid for, and moving on to the scheduled hearing would cost another couple grand. HOWEVER, my main beef is that the restraining order was misinterpreted by the police, and subsequently by me. But my lawyer should have picked that up, no? It DOES NOT stipulate I can't get the cat, it just SEEMS to, but the box is NOT checked saying it's "requested" or w/e. How the heck did my lawyer not catch this when it was the ONLY reason I needed his help?

In any case, I violated the order a couple times to try to find her, but she's almost certainly dead by now (unless a vet miraculously saved her, if only she wasn't afraid of strangers). But if my incompetent attorney freaking picked up the thing and read it, all this would be avoided.

I'd imagine they protect themselves up the wazoo to make sure they keep their money, but this has to be an instance where I should at least get SOME of it back, no? If I were to chargeback my CC, what can I expect? Or am I SOL because incompetence is allowed in the industry? Any help? Thanks!

First

Specifically, she is worried that the landlord will enter her space, but MOST IMPORTANTLY may very well KILL her cat, according to her. She may be making all this up, but I'd rather take her seriously, vs blowing her off, like I would otherwise.

In any event, she's a good friend, and I've invited her to stay at my house. Unfortunately, she also recognizes that my wife would prefer otherwise.

Thus, we have one option, but very much need w/e advice you fine people are willing to give...

By that, I mean it WOULD be just fine if you typed out "for example" at the end a particular sentence. In such cases, can it be substituted with "e.g." instead? Or does "e.g." automatically require a list of examples to follow it?

I'm in my early 30's and single with no kids. Both of my parents are dead (most recent death was my grandma, preceded by my mom, and my dad died in 2007). Since my mom's death, I've been gradually "shunned," if you will, but also criticized (subtly by most, but explicitly by my stepdad), all for reasons that seem arbitrary. In any case, I'm not here to figure out what went "wrong," but to ask if relocating overseas is even a feasible option for me.

I considered the possibility of teaching English, because it's the only language I'm fluent in, thereby making any other "career" impossible (but please correct me if I'm mistaken). Still, I may very well become fluent in their language eventually, no? If I did, I'd imagine that it would provide for more suitable opportunities, particularly for someone a tad bit educated like me, am I wrong? My "education" I consider trivial, being just a BS in Business /Finance, but from a well respected state university, at least. I just earned my degree in spring (w/ a B+ avg in my major, and slightly better overall), but a huge problem is that I absolutely HATE it. Each time I had to study was like pulling teeth, so I may very well just be lucky to be good a cramming, which unfortunately means that I ultimately retained almost nothing. Anyhow, my point is that I don't want to pursue this field; while so many others have ambitions to become CFO of company X or something. Without determination, I'll be sunk in no time, so I'd like to play this as smartly as possible.

Please don't come with the typical "everyone hates their job," or "you gotta do what you gotta do." It's not that those statements are false, but that related scenarios can be avoided in some cases, especially when it applies to someone who isn't immediately desperate for money, like me. Thus, I'm trying to evaluate whether my situation qualifies, and what kind of future I'm looking at (and btw, I'm diagnosed with a rare heart disease that will certainly shorten my life substantially. The Drs. opted not to estimate it, but my own research suggests I won't live to 50, or maybe even 40.

In any case, I have about $60k saved up, and a "degree" (though it essentially means nothing in reality). I'm adamant in my intention to abandon this crappy life, with which I have absolutely no one I care about all that much. The only 2 exceptions are my 16 yr old niece, and my best friend, an 11 yr old cat called "Daughter." However, I'm guessing that transporting my cat to my new home is feasible, so long as I'm willing to pay the premium, no? But if it's impossible, it's a deal breaker right off the bat. She seriously means the world to me.

Man, I guess I just don't know how to shut up, sorry about that, folks. It will be no surprise when 90% answers are garbage, but the other 10% has yielded so many fantastic that I simply must try, in hopes that those incredibly helpful people turn up. I appreciate it very much, thanks folks.

By "debunked," I mean just that, not "contested" as it has been for just about ever. I'm only asking because I recently got into it with someone, and the topic came up. The status quo supported my position (i.e. global warming is real), but if it has been debunked, my position is weaker (though not invalidated entirely).

I don't mean to be such a lazy ***, but he sent me a couple links that *SEEM* to back his claim. However, I can't base a thing on illegitimate articles, so I'll only read them and research further if the scientific community at large says I should.

Thanks folks!

By "loss," I'm mostly referring to her personal property. Among it all, the worst loss would be her dog, and by a landslide, AFAICT.

My first impression was LOL, STFU foolia, stop being excessively silly today. But after a few seconds, it became clear as a bell she was serious.

Down to brass tacks, her landlord, according to her, has not given her any sort of eviction notice. Instead, he simply began trashing any of her property he comes across. It's certainly a passive-aggressive approach IMO, but his "style," per se, legally has no bearing whatsoever, AFAIK.

I've known this girl a good 10 years, and I've come to learn that many of her outlandish claims are nonsense. However, I'm actually inclined to listen this time. I honestly think she's entirely being honest.

As such, what the heck should she do? Yea yea, of course she can simply "take the hint" and leave, but there's still a "grace period," if you will, correct? By that, I mean that she's simply not prepared to leave right this second, but she definitely has been looking, ever since this all started last week.

In the mean time, she claims that he has been throwing out her things ruthlessly, and most recently, even entered her room! At first, I called BS, or that she's mistaken, but she seems adamant that she's absolutely certain of it, on the basis that someone tripped her "sensor." It's a mechanical type, not electronic, and she swears up and down that she definitely set it that day.

As such, she is very worried about the things stored in her room, particularly her 8 yr old Jack Russell terrier, Benny. So far, she has been looking for a sitter, and no dice so far. I took him in for a couple days, but I can't watch him, starting this morning (in about 4 hours). Besides that, she wants to know if she has any recourse whatsoever, regarding her less valuable things. The stuff already gone, I'm guessing she can't do a thing, but would anything (short of a video camera) actually help? When first asked, I speculated that video footage can't possibly be the only useful evidence possible, simply because that would imply that no one was held accountable before the 50's. In any event, the poor girl needs some advice. Ideas?

Matthew 12:31-32 seems to indicate that a certain sin is absolutely unpardonable, thereby condemning the sinner to suffer in hell, for eternity, regardless of anything else, whatsoever. That is, he is doomed no matter what, as soon as the sin was committed. Otherwise, ANY other sin(s) (no matter how awful, cruel, evil, etc., such as raping /torturing / murdering hundreds of babies < 1 month old, CAN be forgiven, so long as certain requirements are met (such as true repentance, e.g.).

In any case, the issue at hand is regarding those who commit the "unforgivable" sin, not the ones who merely commit crimes that 101% of the population are disgusted at.

The Bible doesn't really make crystal clear God's intent, and I'm sure that interpretations will vary considerably. *Some* "clarity" can be gotten in other books, like Mark, Luke, John, Timothy, Numbers, etc., among others. I sincerely tried making sense of all this, but I ultimately failed, as usual (i.e. WRT the Bible, at least).

Those knowledgeable, I'm sure already know what I'm talking about. But I'll remind them (and reveal to others) that "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," is the unforgivable sin in question (again, the ONLY one).

Before, I thought that the criterion necessarily includes all atheists, but after reading up on it more, I get the impression that I was wrong. If I understand it correctly, I now think that only a VERY select few fit the "doomed" category. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I *now* think it only applies to those who not only reject certain Christian ideas, but ALSO do so in a specific manner. That is, their fate is never sealed for their disbelief, per se, but because they attribute certain acts of God (e.g. miracles) to the work of the Devil (or w/e you call "him," like Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub, etc.).

So, I'm asking if my interpretation is on the right track? Regardless, please clarify anything you see that can help set me straight? I appreciate it, thanks good folks!

Is there a certain threshold that dictates what can or can't be answered by non-attorneys? To me, that notion is absurd. However, with clarification I may very well begin to understand...

For now, I'm totally befuddled, which started upon hearing that my last question, posed here, *requires* an attorney, that it's essentially impossible to find helpful answers to my question, here.

If you care, look at my last question, even though I expect that many will back the answerer without hesitation. In such a case, please tell me exactly how I'm wrong?

I don't deny that I'm ignorant, unintelligent, or whatever insults that can be thrown my way. I merely asked my last question, in hopes that someone was familiar enough to properly answer, but I was only met with a sense of rebuke (from 1 answer total). Next, I was hit with the claim that Y!A is NOT the place to ask for legal advice.

If this is true, should I completely disregard the dozens of answers I got previously? Doing so would not change much, WRT the law, at least. But in the future, I find that such an "analysis" would be an abomination to the legal process.

To be fair, I can never consider anyone's interpretation of the law to be 100% accurate, with attorneys being the only exception (implied by the answer in my last post), but also since we all know they are *never* wrong, ever.

Further, if the last answer is true, I'd feel compelled to contact an attorney for ALL legal matters. But this is purely hypothetical, since I (and my family) can barely afford the fees as is. I don't mean to be fallacious (slippery slope, e.g., here). Further, some will say I'm wrong, but I ask that you kindly explain specifically how this is so? Finally, is the answer to my last question the best I can hope for on here? That reliable legal advice simply can't be had in this forum? If so, please explain the threshold that dictates this?

Thanks, folks

****If you aren't 100% CERTAIN, please refrain from answering. Please. I seriously appreciate it. The reason is because I asked previously related questions (many deleted by me), and way too many people post personal judgments rather than what's legal (i.e. I later found that the law totally contradicts them). Further, it shifts the perspective of subsequent answers, thereby rendering my question(s) futile.****

It's a long story, so let's get down to brass tacks: there's NO lease, or ANY kind of agreement, not even verbal. The owner has not even initiated any eviction through legal avenues, and is instead changing locks and trashing the tenant's personal property (stored in places other than his bedroom, that is).

I'm absolutely certain that throwing away his property and locking him out of the house is illegal (though he knows a way to get in through a window). My question relates to which rooms can legally become off-limits. Specifically, he previously had access to the bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and garage. However, all of those rooms (besides the kitchen) have been inaccessible for nearly a week (he comes to my place to $hit /shower /shave /etc.)

Previously, in a now deleted question, someone argued that he is entitled to NO rooms whatsoever (besides his bedroom). But without a bathroom, it violates the implied warranty requiring that the residence be inhabitable. Am I mistaken?

I'm pretty sure the laundry room and garage can be withdrawn, but the prohibition of the bathroom and *maybe* even the kitchen is illegal, no? But even if the owner is within his rights to prohibit the use of his kitchen, can he legally "enforce" it by tossing all cookware, dishes, utensils, food, etc., even if there WAS a written agreement that the kitchen is off-limits? I'm 99% sure the answer is no, but what can my friend do about it, besides moving all his stuff into his room or elsewhere?

He wishes to support the worst possible result for the owner, which at best would be a criminal charge (grand theft >$1k). But even if it is merely a tort, or whatever civil matter most appropriate, what can he do, in terms of collecting useful evidence? Video recordings would almost certainly suffice, but supposing he failed to record good footage (of the owner trashing his things, for example), is there anything he can do otherwise that can prove to be useful evidence in court?

In any event, my primary question relates to which rooms can legally be revoked. The rest, we'll take step by step, I guess. Unfortunately, his counsel is not very forthcoming (to me, at least), so I'm hoping to get sound advice from the fine people here.

I've been searching around and I'm blown away by how much people are asking, even for TINY rooms resembling a closet, and with sharing a bathroom with the TWO people in the "mid-size" room (two more in the master br)! When I went to go see it, I was literally waiting for them to say, "SIKE!" LOL.

That was obviously an extreme case, but a similar trend is found when shopping around. A few were priced reasonably, but I was either too late or not a good match for them (I have a cat). Meanwhile, I was searching prices for the respective apartments, just to compare it with their asking price(s). Sure enough, I didn't find hardly any that I'd consider "fair." The best "deals" were something like a 2 br /2 ba split right down the middle (incl. rent, utils, internet, etc.) but they get the master br, and in at least one case, with 2 people (I didn't ask the others, but I'd imagine there's a good chance their bf/gf stays there often).

So, I got to thinking, the market (in theory) simply caters to demand. If people are willing to pay it (and they definitely are, judging from the times I was "too late"), then I can't knock anyone for capitalizing on said market.

Then, the wheels in my head started to turn (though in a creaking manner), and I realized that they may very well be inheriting lots of risk. Boarders often don't have good credit (or even okay credit, if any at all), which alone totally justifies the higher asking prices. I'd imagine they protect themselves the best they can by requiring 1st and last month's rent with a deposit. However, I fail to see how this alone could fail to protect them, any ideas?

So long as you don't get swindled by false promises to make rent (thereby prompting you to initiate an eviction ASAP, once their last month's rent takes effect), I don't see much of a risk, unless they vindictively thrash the place beyond the value of their deposit (which can lead to a criminal matter, no?) Am I missing something?

I ask because I have "good" credit (but not "excellent"), so I may as well rent the place myself and rent out the extra room, no? Any caveats /warnings /pointers /links? I appreciate it, thanks!

Specifically, the ones initiated by clicking on the "email <user X>" button in their profile, for example. I get the messages in my actual email, but I can't remember what I said previously (yes, my brain is broken). I seriously looked VERY HARD, but I can't find it for the life of me! <pi$$ed indeed>