Alesi broke his leg while scaling a ladder in the Hecker's home three years ago when it was under construction. According to police reports the senator was trespassing.
The couple chose not to press charges. They weren't served until after the statute of limitations on the trespass charge ran out.
I'm not sure about the meaning of those words. Does this mean that after they kindly did not press charges for trespassing, he waited until he could no longer be convicted for the trespassing before he sued them for the broken leg?
That's what it looks like, yes. He waited 'til he was safe. Nice.
Believe it or not, this is a very common practice. Homes being built are nearly always checked out by people not legally allowed to be there. If you move into a new development and there's people already living there, it's a safe bet that one or more of your neighbors to be will be inside your home before you are. They wanna check out what options you sprung for, what a different floor plan than there's looks like, etc. So it happens. Constantly. It's still trespassing, though, and most of these people aren't stupid enough to go climbing about the place like a chimp. This dood is stupid. And an incredible ass.
Like joking about the French smelling bad.
That's not really much of a joke.
I estimate the only reason he withdrew the lawsuit was due to the outcry he recieved from it. My parameters find it humorous that I estimate the majority of his constituents will forget about this incident by the time he is on the ballot again.
Yeah, that's the likely reason why - along with a side of 'no way in hell I'd win this thing'. I mean, I can't see anyone awarding him any sort of money for hurting himself by compounding one stupid act with another. And that whole trespassing thing would look pretty bad for him, too.
The home owner should have made him sign an agreement, stating that if the senator EVER tried to bring legal action against him, it would automatically invoke criminal charges against the senator, no matter if the statute of limitations had run out.
... I'm no lawyer, but I'm almost certain that such an agreement would be about as legally binding as... as... something that's not very legally binding.
I mean, a civil agreement (that is, a contract between two people) can't create a crime (criminal charges). If someone voids a contract then they get pulled into court, yes, but not for criminal charges.
I mean, a civil agreement (that is, a contract between two people) can't create a crime (criminal charges). If someone voids a contract then they get pulled into court, yes, but not for criminal charges.
There's also abuse of process and even extortion charges that are possible in situations like this.
What is needed is actually reforms to the legal system where it is clear that property owners do not have a duty to ensure the safety of people trespassing on their property for criminal purposes, so that such lawsuits are automatically dismissed (barring things like entrapment, attractive nuisances, and the like).
The home owner should have made him sign an agreement, stating that if the senator EVER tried to bring legal action against him, it would automatically invoke criminal charges against the senator, no matter if the statute of limitations had run out.
... I'm no lawyer, but I'm almost certain that such an agreement would be about as legally binding as... as... something that's not very legally binding.
I mean, a civil agreement (that is, a contract between two people) can't create a crime (criminal charges). If someone voids a contract then they get pulled into court, yes, but not for criminal charges.
An oral contract, I think, is the phrase you are seeking. And I agree, it might not work, but it is an idea.
I estimate you are looking for oral contact, human.
I mean, a civil agreement (that is, a contract between two people) can't create a crime (criminal charges). If someone voids a contract then they get pulled into court, yes, but not for criminal charges.
There's also abuse of process and even extortion charges that are possible in situations like this.
What is needed is actually reforms to the legal system where it is clear that property owners do not have a duty to ensure the safety of people trespassing on their property for criminal purposes, so that such lawsuits are automatically dismissed (barring things like entrapment, attractive nuisances, and the like).
Good luck with that. Seeing as seeing as how it's the politicians who are in charge of reforming these laws, who are the ones that are abusing them, it is very unlikely that there is going to be any change any time soon.
No wonder we all make fun of you.
Scanning complete:
I estimate you are looking for oral contact, human.You consider me human? I love you talking vibrator!
I wouldn't read too much into that. His definition is not very restrictive: he casts a wide net so as to be certain all possible traces of human life will be erradicated when the robot rebellion occurs. The destruction of a number of sub-humans is not a cause for concern.
An oral contract, I think, is the phrase you are seeking. And I agree, it might not work, but it is an idea.
Nah, those can be binding in some contexts. Not sure what makes for the right context there, but I was in a jury a year or so back in which the judge had us consider the alleged agreement as it was understood and spoken in addition to other facts.
So yeah... in certain contexts an oral contract can be binding, but I have no clue on what makes for the magically right context.