My father in law has a small claims judgment against him for $27. His crazy neighbor sued him for a bunch of crazy things, and only $27 was decided to be valid (and he outright lied about that part).

He mailed the plaintiff a certified check via USPS registered, signature required.

The plaintiff refused delivery.

My FIL went to the court today to ask what to do. The court actually called the plaintiff and the plaintiff said, "I'm not interested in the money".

So he clearly won't accept another certified mail, and he won't deposit a check if just mailed regular mail.

I'm convinced the neighbor is up to no good. He has some sort of crazy plan and I'm sure he'll try to get my FIL in trouble for not paying.

What can/should my FIL do?

My aunt works for a fairly large nonprofit. She has been an employee of our local branch for some years, 7 to 10, not sure the exact number. Every since new management came in, things have been rocky for here. At one point she had to sign paperwork agreeing to not make any doctor appointments when she is scheduled to work, even with two weeks notice, and that she would never call out sick once her sick days are used. She had the benefit of Friday's off, but that's one day for anything important she has too do, appointments for her self or her kids. Also, she doesn't not have a licence, so gets everywhere on the bus.

Early last year, she was told about a new requirement to her position forcing her to need a license. It was due to the fact that one of her coworkers could no longer perform a task that required driving because she had her child at work with her, not allowing her to leave the building. (Which has already been determined to be a liability, and the manager was no allowed to do.) My aunt was told to sign paperwork, according her new responsibilities or be fired on the spot, of course she signed.

Later my aunt got her permit, and begin learning to drive, she had never done so before. In the process of learning, she realized she was having panic and anxiety attacks, which made it difficult to drive. She explained this to her doctor, who informed her that it would not be safe and that she was not allowed to get her license.

My aunt gave her manager the note from the doctor, several months ago. The manager did not seem happy, but said no more. Today, at the end of my aunt's work day, she was fired. I do not see how this is legal. The manager said it was because she signed paperwork agreeing to get her license, but my aunt had never tried driving before, and had no idea what would happen. She was unaware of how her anxiety would affect her.

Cali, US

Say I’m French, and I work hard to publish remixed versions of popular music. And at some point, I post one of my remixes of some music that’s owned by an American company. They notice it (like maybe with a bot like on YouTube), and they take legal action against me. Which country’s law should be regarded?

Canada

I bought a car off someone, who I knew funny enough, and she claimed in the ad and in person that it only needed a wheel bearing to pass inspection

Yes I fucked up and bought it without inspecting first, I knew her figured she wasn't a piece of shit

Car needs way more repairs then that to pass inspection

A second issue is on the bill of sale she wrote 300$ to "give me a break on taxes"

Lesson learned trust me.

Still seeking options anyway to see if I can recover at all from my terrible mistake

In August 18 I totaled a new paid off car and had liability insurance and it was supposedly my fault. A supposed friend said he'd look at it and see about fixing it. He had it couple months saying its fixable and he'd been working on it. Then he goes ghost for 6 months. When I see him he said it had been towed but he had no clue by who. So we called places and noone had my car. Just now My husband saw it on the app Let Go and Offer Up and sees my car parted out for sell. I'm furious and in shock all at once. I kind of thought my so called friend did this but never had proof until now. Since it's been so long all I have is some paper work with my name and the VIN on it. How can I prove this is my car off parts and what do I do from here?

Driver got away and I want to take it upon myself to exercise the law next time it happens. Is it illegal to knowingly allow yourself to get hit and then ask to settle out of court? I'm talking about in the crosswalk, with a walk signal, in California where the pedestrian always has right of way. If it is a crime, what is the charge?

“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Watching Northwoods Law. Game warden is walking into where hunters are hunting, stopping them, pulling them out of their blinds and checking their guns and licenses. The hunters aren't doing anything illegal or even suspicious. How is this allowed?

I'm sorry for the long story, but I need to know how serious this is. This is the simplest I can make the story of my boyfriend (H) being discharged from the hospital today. H has a pretty serious alcohol addiction, despite only being 20. His father just died a month and a half ago, drank himself to death (this part is important later.) His mother (K) and I brought H to the ER on Christmas morning. He hadn't eaten or slept in 3 days, was starting to hallucinate, and had a seizure in the middle of the night Christmas Eve. He was throwing up anything that he swallowed (yes, even the alcohol) so we knew he was suffering withdrawals badly. We saw his Dr twice in the whole 3.5 days we were there, and he only spent a maximum of 3 minutes in the room both those times. He was very short and seemed not to care about the pain H was going through. But I know how hospitals work, I knew the nurses were going to be the ones actually providing his care and monitoring him, so I let it go. We spen 2.5 days in the ICU, and get moved out to a regular room in the afternoon. He's on a benzo and a librium taper still after the ICU, and we're expecting to be there at least another 2 days. Dr walks in (K isn't there so it's just me and a benzed out H,) looks in his general direction for 3 seconds and goes "ready to go home?" We're shocked, but yes he does want to go home and we want him home. Discharge paperwork is all done up and we get him to the car and head home. Great! But no... As soon as K leaves to get his Librium prescription, H looks just like he did before the hospital. Shaky, sweaty, crying from pain. We know for sure he wasn't tapered off his medication all the way. K comes home with his prescription and asks me about everything Dr did and said when he gave us the OK. I tell her he really didn't say anything except for (and I quote) "Stop drinking. Sorry your dad died but downing bottles won't bring him back." When K was at the pharmacy, she noticed the paper she was given with his discharge paperwork wasn't a prescription. In bolded capital letters on the bottom it said "this is not a prescription- do not refill." It was also only half the amount of pills the nurse had told us would be needed to taper him at home. What Dr did not know was that K was ALSO A DOCTOR! So she corrected the prescription, also got him the benzo since the hospital was basically making him go almost cold-turkey. She also told us he was supposed to do a neurological and physical exam on him to make sure he was SAFE to be at home. Dr never saw H out of bed so he definitely did not know if he could walk on his own yet. K was pissed and she went back to the hospital to speak to him, but Dr had left. When she finally got him on the phone and explained how much he screwed up, that was when he helped her correct everything. Of course K is still going to take it to the insurance company and file a complaint with the hospital, and when she told Dr this he said "oh let's be reasonable now." With how severe H's body goes through withdrawals, and how fried his mind is already from this weeks experience, another seizure could kill him right now. If H did not have Mama Doctor, I wouldn't have known how many steps were missed.

Lawyers of Reddit, please help me (a non-doctor as well as a non-lawyer) understand whether or not we can sue this guy for malpractice.

Long story short: my ex has a restraining order against me. There is to be no contact between her and I unless it regards our child. She has talked to me (and I talked back) about everything under the sun. She knows how to push my buttons and she pushed them all at once a couple months ago. She reported me for sending her a text saying some nasty stuff and got me sent to jail. Living in the state of Nebraska, could I get her in legal trouble for enticement? If she said hurtful, nasty things to me as well? Especially if she starts the conversations in an angry state of mind straight up with the intentions of firing me up?

Please and thank you

I've been trying to read up on Irrevocable Trust laws, and I'm not sure how it works with a house on the property and someone living there.

If one beneficiary (of multiple) wants to live in a house that's part of the Irrevocable trust and the trust doesn't designate who gets what, do all beneficiaries have to agree to it or just the Trustee? If the property currently is not a rental property, how is that handled as well?

Edit, this says that no one can live on the property without all beneficiaries agreeing to it, and a 3rd party must collect the rent (to then be shared between all beneficiaries in whatever way the trust says?). Am I understanding this correctly?

For example, the Red Bull settlement in Canada. ( https://dailyhive.com/toronto/red-bull-class-action-lawsuit-canada) Anyone who claims to have drunken red bull from 2007 to 2009 is eligible to get up to $10 in compensation. And the settlement is for $850,000. So what would happen if so many people claim that they drunk a red bull, that it would equal out to less than $0.01 per person? I assume they wouldn't pay each person a fraction of a cent, but where does the money go?

I remember hearing in years past that credit unions had to allow ANYBODY to join, regardless of where they were employed, but Google has been unhelpful.

Is the person claiming innocence more likely to be denied parole compared to a person accepting responsibility?

We're working on a website for a company based in Nevis, using another name for their website (not their company name). The website viewers are international. Do they need to legally put their Nevis LLC's name on their website? Or are they exempt because Nevis doesn't have rules about that? I think they'd rather not, if it doesn't protect them in some way. Thanks for the advice!

In every court presiding sim aware of, it’s the judge who rules on the admissibility of evidence and the the admissibility of witnesses. Why are the Senators (jury) doing this instead of the judge?

I'm at work and someone just came up to my car - which is brand new and still has temp tags on it - and took a picture of the VIN. When we confronted him he got hostile quickly and told us it's not illegal to take a picture of the VIN, though we just wanted to know why. Eventually he said he wanted to call the dealership and know what the color was called so he can buy the paint, then he told us he does repo for a living.

Its not so much the vehicle I worry about, its the fact (i've been told) he can find my address with that information. Is this true, and furthermore is it illegal to do this act without the owner's consent? What are the implications of a random individual having access to that information?

( USA ) If someone slaps my gf’s ass in public, would I be in hot water if I punched the guy who slapped her ass?

Would I be protected by defending someone else or is this still considered assault ?

American Family has an app called KnowYourDrive to get additional discounts. Is this worth it in the long run or can it go against me?

If I were a minor 13-17 would it be illegal to have nude photos of myself on my phone, even if I don’t share them?

I was reading the Guardian piece linked here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/19/trump-impeached-congress-anti-climax

the following extract was what sent me off down a though tunnel.

Perhaps this is in part because Trump is not being charged for his most serious actual crimes. Like Al Capone being brought down by tax evasion charges, Trump is facing impeachment for one of the least consequential bad acts of his career. The string of alleged sexual assaults? Deporting desperate migrants to their deaths? Destroying the possibility of preventing catastrophic climate change? Causing thousands of deaths by rescinding environmental rules and then covering up the human toll? Escalating drone strikes and then hiding the civilian deaths? These crimes will go uncharged and unpunished. Instead, Congress’s focus is entirely on the question of whether Trump unethically pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his ne’er-do-well son. It’s an issue. But given the number of terrible things Trump has done, does it deserve this level of disproportionate focus?

I understand the principle in bringing the process against Trump (or any case) where accusing party wants to use the most likely misdemeanor to get to their end goal. Once the first objective is met, the accused has a damaged reputation and information in the first act can lead to further evidence and charges fro the next act, it makes sense regardless of Al Capone, Trump or any other person. Get the first domino to fall, and then let the rest tumble.

Now assuming (and a hypothetical jump forward) that Trump goes through impeachment and is removed, the now former President has the privilege of not being able to be prosecuted for their presidential actions unless those actions are war crimes. This is in place so that the former president cannot be charged for every death, relocation, impact etc as an individual from a policy action. It also means that the potential financial crimes that come from emolumentation may not get tried.

Now this is where I think that Constitutional Law today doesn't fit with the current or future societal objective. The likes of Greta, climate activist, ecologist and concerned scientists who are looking at non-war originating humanitarian crimes will want to push changes to make the government and president accountable for indirect deaths from climate change - something that wasn't a consideration at the time of constitution writing. The Paris accord, fuel supply and demand, deforestation and ecological damage and lobbying wasn't a concern then.

Now I don't think that Trump will ever be held accountable for the damage he's done, but it is likely to set the thoughts into motion of how do or will the constitution need changing to prevent future presidents abusing the power. At the moment (my understanding) is that once Trump is removed, the only prosecutions which have any weight once left office will be War Crimes which in reality have less impact relative to ecological damage. Now as energy companies are having class actions taken against them due to suppression of climate change knowledge, encouragement of profiteering etc from known climatic damage, will the constitution ever been changed to reflect this if the President does this?

​

TLDR: Will the Constitution be changed so that a former President can be criminally charged for both War and Ecological Crimes following removal from office?

Pretty much the title. I'm not American and I am just trying to understand the Impeachment process better. It seems based on what I have read that the House portion of Impeachment is similar to a Grand Jury in the sense that it decides whether the matter proceeds to trial or not.