SpindriftRascal

SpindriftRascal t1_j2jwepj wrote

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.”

2

SpindriftRascal t1_j2jvzzu wrote

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.

3

SpindriftRascal t1_j2jvhz1 wrote

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.

6

SpindriftRascal t1_j2cm4rt wrote

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.

https://www.mass.gov/consumer-protection-with-the-courts

6

SpindriftRascal t1_j28jzxg wrote

“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.

1

SpindriftRascal t1_j27gcne wrote

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.

2

SpindriftRascal t1_j197kji wrote

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.

4

SpindriftRascal t1_j18y3ab wrote

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.

7

SpindriftRascal t1_j18wz7u wrote

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.

4