No, she's definitely not a trespasser. In this case, she's supposed to be paying for her room and board (rent) by being a nanny. That makes her a legal tenant, at least in Cali and Oregon. Her failure to perform such duties makes her delinquent on paying said rent.
random-person
random-person-00
She's a tenant. To try and reduce the abuse in the system. It's hard to spontaneously evict a tenant. You can't evict if they're currently sueing you.
Your charge has very little to do with the warrant issued. The warrant could have been something like "we have reason to be a child is in danger" and then they're issued a warrant to inspect the premises and the child. The charges would then be based on what they're found.
The police got a credible tip that an infant's life was in danger. They wrote a request for a warrant and were granted one. It's not that hard when things are so cut and dry.
While that would be a solution, unfortunately those lots are either A expensive, or B way the hell out of the way. That certainly doesn't put a large percentage of these women in a better position.
Not necessarily. The zoning rules haven't had issues that I'm aware of (think Supreme Court, Whitehouse etc). I think the ruling was laid out because it too specifically banned a particular group.
I posted to each commenter separately, because most people won't see the answer unless it's specifically replied to them. Half the time with Kinja you only see the top comment, maybe the one following it.
I just get tired of people posting here when there's really nothing the others can be done. Did you mean to use the word condone? I'm not sure that's the word you were looking for...
Because IP bans are useless. He's gone now, but for the future, use http://help.gawker.com/customer/porta…
He's been taken care of, but for the future, if you want results you need the tech team.
No problem. Usually he's down within a half hour of me sending an email through thtat portal.
That's not what I said. I said the police need to intervene. I'm sorry if you don't like the law, but rather than bitch at the Supreme Court for doing it's legally obligated duty, you should be yelling at Congress for not taking action like it should have years ago.
Very true, but a lot of people are complaining about the replies to themselves...
Did you read my post? Did you understand it? Harassment is illegal. Has been for a while, and continues to be so. They're not saying running up to someone and forcing them into a conversation is legal.
It's not really an opinion... It's a pretty clear cut factual issue. It is not legal to arbitrarily ban someone from protesting on publicly owned sidewalks. The Supreme Court Justices don't really have a lot of say in the matter.
Ugh, sorry but you're wrong. The violent part is still, and has always been illegal. Protesting however is perfectly legal. What the opinion said was, you cannot ban people from the sidewalk.