SpindriftRascal
SpindriftRascal t1_j2jvzzu wrote
Reply to comment by pro_auto_advisors in Homeless with a 3 year old by ItalianMama95
No; the story is the same. The federal statute criminalizing international parental kidnapping treats custody the same “whether arising by operation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement of the parties.”
OP - do not take legal advice from Reddit. Not even from lawyers on Reddit. They’re often wrong.
SpindriftRascal t1_j2jvhz1 wrote
Reply to comment by LackingUtility in Homeless with a 3 year old by ItalianMama95
On the given facts, OP is not wrong about the possibility of a kidnapping charge. See 18 USC 1204.
Of course, we have no way of predicting whether the father would file a complaint, or whether it would actually lead to an IPK charge, but it’s certainly possible. OP’s mention of kidnapping suggests to me that it has come up as a topic and she is wise to aware of the possibility.
SpindriftRascal t1_j2cm72q wrote
Reply to comment by Public_Substance451 in Rent Return/Housing Question by voicesofreasons
You mean uninhabitable.
SpindriftRascal t1_j2cm4rt wrote
Reply to comment by voicesofreasons in Rent Return/Housing Question by voicesofreasons
If you paid through June 30, but she terminated June 20, she owes you at least that ten days of rent. (She may also owe you the other days between the fire and the termination, if the apartment was not usable.)
Whether she pays or not is a different question. If you’ve tried to discuss it, but she declines to offer a solution, you could try sending her a 93A demand letter setting out exactly what the problem is and what you’re looking for as a resolution.
SpindriftRascal t1_j29r5oz wrote
Reply to comment by j_parkour in this parking spot is SAVED by alanboston
Some of us don’t really care what Jesus might have thought about, well, anything.
SpindriftRascal t1_j29ex42 wrote
Reply to comment by DeffNotTom in How do we feel about dogs in coffee shops? by korkvid
I think people shouldn’t victimize each other. I think this means if someone victimizes a disabled person, it’s reasonable to make them pay for it. I think it is unreasonable to make random unassociated businesses pay for it, because that turns them into the victim.
SpindriftRascal t1_j28v57o wrote
Reply to comment by DeffNotTom in How do we feel about dogs in coffee shops? by korkvid
No, you don’t. I’m talking about people who don’t even try to use the business. They just go around as self-appointed ADA inspectors. They haven’t been victimized. They’re just assholes, rent-seeking.
SpindriftRascal t1_j28sb28 wrote
Reply to comment by DeffNotTom in How do we feel about dogs in coffee shops? by korkvid
It’s not that simple. There are people who make careers out of looking for ADA violations and suing. If they really cared about the issue itself, they’d discuss it first and try to get it remedied. Anyone who doesn’t try that is an asshole.
SpindriftRascal t1_j28jzxg wrote
Reply to comment by DeffNotTom in How do we feel about dogs in coffee shops? by korkvid
“A business owner could lose their whole livelihood….”
Only if the person with the dog overreacts, like those people who randomly go around suing over ADA compliance even when they have no intention of ever using the business. Being disabled doesn’t mean you have to be an asshole.
SpindriftRascal t1_j28j8r3 wrote
Reply to How do we feel about dogs in coffee shops? by korkvid
Dogs should not be in restaurants. We all love dogs, but they shouldn’t just go everywhere with their owners. Establishment managers should be polite about this, but also firm.
SpindriftRascal t1_j27gcne wrote
Reply to comment by Stronkowski in Where to stay for family vacation Back Bay or Downtown by TheBlueStare
Well I was speaking generally about things one does with kids, but actually the library is right there; the Freedom Trail kicks off at the Common, which is a short stroll; the Science Museum is on the green line; and even the aquarium is easy when you green line to GC and walk a bit. With the shops and Comm Ave and close to Fenway and Beacon Hill and the green line running right through, I think it’s the best place to stay. YMMV.
SpindriftRascal t1_j2711jc wrote
Back Bay is just as accessible as Downtown, and will feel more welcoming, more family-oriented, and more fun. Back Bay by a mile. April is a wonderful time in Boston, and Back Bay puts you in the heart of the stuff you want to see and do.
SpindriftRascal t1_j21x2ai wrote
Reply to comment by iheartconcentrates in Globe Editorial Board: Boston police union needs to accept new realities of policing by GlobeOpinion
If you judge a paper solely by its opinion columnists, you’re listening to too much talk radio. In other words, you’re an idiot.
SpindriftRascal t1_j21282j wrote
Reply to comment by Yak_Rodeo in Globe Editorial Board: Boston police union needs to accept new realities of policing by GlobeOpinion
That’s an easy thing to say, but it’s wrong. Journalism is difficult. It’s also expensive. Declining ad revenues make it very hard for any paper to survive. The Boston Globe remains a real newspaper doing real journalism - the only major daily in Boston doing so, actually.
SpindriftRascal t1_j1wlvyz wrote
If you’re interested in pursuing this, one way to ID person might be through the Charlie Card. You’d have to make an official report of the finding, which state law requires anyway. Perhaps go to the MBTA Police.
SpindriftRascal t1_j1wa6xz wrote
What lens is that? I’ve never seen Boston from Provincetown. I’m a bit skeptical. (Except maybe from the monument.)
SpindriftRascal t1_j1qorcu wrote
Historically, such methods have been turned against their proponents. One can only hope.
SpindriftRascal t1_j197kji wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
No, that’s a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding vaccine requirements precisely because the First Amendment is not absolute. It articulates at least two variously applicable standards for review of a burden on constitutional rights, neatly proving my point, thank you very much.
SpindriftRascal t1_j193yha wrote
Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
It’s not an opinion; it’s the law in the United States.
SpindriftRascal t1_j18y5os wrote
Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
That is not now, and never has been, the law in the United States.
SpindriftRascal t1_j18y3ab wrote
Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
This isn’t persecution. It’s a neutrally-applied reasonable job requirement that does not lend itself to religious accommodation. Religious freedom is powerful right in our system; it is not absolute.
Also, I think you just called me a Nazi. My only response to that is fuck you too.
SpindriftRascal t1_j18wz7u wrote
Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
I don’t, and it’s an ironic comment coming from the person who accused me of evidence-free conclusion drawing.
No First Amendment right is absolute. In this case, because police have lawful authority to detain and confine others in their presence, members of the public cannot simply choose not to interact with police. For that and other reasons, it is the police who must conform themselves to the standards of public safety. There are all sorts of health and fitness standards for the MSP; this should be one of them. I’ll also note that I believe cops who don’t care enough about the public health to take a vaccine are people who shouldn’t be cops anyway.
SpindriftRascal t1_j18ttx7 wrote
Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
I mentioned the Christian Scientists. You’re right about the Jehovah’s Witnesses; I forgot them. So I stick with my initial comment edited to include the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m still going with: fuck you, get another job.
SpindriftRascal t1_j18sq3a wrote
Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_
Nice use of giant font. Seriously, though, what’s the religious argument? I’ve never heard one that isn’t “Jesus doesn’t want me taking your lefty medicine.”
SpindriftRascal t1_j2jwepj wrote
Reply to comment by LackingUtility in Homeless with a 3 year old by ItalianMama95
Sure, I’d make that argument. But she doesn’t want to be in position to have to argue that, does she? I’m not opining on what she should do. I’m just pointing out that an IPK charge is certainly possible in this situation.
Edit: correcting omission of the word “in.”