Posts by Anthony Diaz10

Looks like you guys are tearing each other apart over my STUPID post. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, and honestly, I don't see the point in dragging this out any further.

Fine, my bad—if you want to keep fighting about it, go ahead. It's your funeral.

Nicole Allen10 said:You can delete posts after a while, but the account stays. So I said they should just ban him. If he's stupid.

Fine. I guess I'm the idiot for posting that damn thing without reading the TOS first...

You don't need to insult me. You don't know me, and I already apologized for the post...

Seriously, are you trying to bait people here, or is "stupid" just your go-to vocabulary?

Calling me stupid five times now is more than enough...

P.S.
I have no interest in insulting you. We aren't on the same level.

ambermason16 said:apology accepted 😬

now I'm wondering what went down in those DMs 🍿

calling me stupid...

but I'm not holding a grudge. my post was stupid.

My bad for being offensive.... 😉
maybe I let things get out of hand and said some stupid stuff in the heat of the moment... 😵

Nicole Allen10
you were seriously harsh in my DMs

hollowtrucker77 said:The terms are simple: if you don't want to be here anymore, just stop showing up. That's it.
As far as these posts go, there's zero chance they're getting deleted. If they were, anyone who actually talked to you would just look like an idiot, shouting into the void at nothing.

Thanks. Just one. Answer my question.

Nicole Allen10 said:Look, I’ve been around here forever. It’s not my fault if you can't wrap your head around the facts or just aren't ready to accept them.

Are you really looking for a fight? Seems pretty pointless to me... 👎
Some people here just live to contradict you, desperate to prove some kind of point.
To me, it’s all nonsense. Everything I've posted has been straight from the legal code or official government filings... yet certain long-time members chime in with "critiques" like they're the ones who wrote the laws.
I know enough about the law to tell when people are acting like they're sitting on the Supreme Court.
If I helped someone out, fine. But I'm done wasting breath on arguments that lead nowhere and spread misinformation.😕

P.S.
Some people actually think they're running the moderation desk.😉

granitefalcon26 said:So you're the outlier. Everyone else on this board gets something out of posting, but somehow, you're the only one left behind.🙄

It’s not even that. People just feel the need to comment on every single thing I post. I’m just trying to be helpful, but they immediately jump down my throat about legalities and specific statutes. Look, I didn't write the laws.
What's even the point of trying... 🤷
I wasn't looking for a handout. I just wanted to be part of the community, try to help out, and avoid the constant infighting.

This whole thing has turned into one massive, endless debate that just won't die down. Honestly, I'm asking the mods and admins to just kick me off—ban me or delete my previous posts if you have to.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Megan Rogers4 said:That is precisely the point that has been weighing on my mind. While I am certainly no legal expert, I suspect I may have run afoul of Section 12 of the Misdemeanor Act by parking in a prohibited zone, even though my vehicle was not obstructing traffic or compromising anyone's safety.

brightfalcon522 Jesse Sullivan2:
Under Article 84, Section 1 of the Traffic Safety Act—which addresses endangering public safety or obstructing the flow of traffic—the authorities also find grounds to move vehicles that have been parked in violation of Section 12, Subsection 4, or Section 80, Subsection 3. This typically applies when a driver ignores "No Parking" or "No Standing" signs, or simply decides to park right in the middle of the roadway where no designated spots exist. In those specific instances, you aren't just dealing with the towing; you will also be hit with a fine for improper parking.

Well, that’s just it. I honestly cannot wrap my head around why they went through the trouble of having Spider-Man tow my car away instead of simply issuing a fine.

Section 12.
(4) All drivers must comply with all restrictions, prohibitions, and obligations indicated by posted traffic signs.

Why didn't you just explain the situation right away?

Žoharzilla
You figured out what was going on immediately. Nice work.👍

Megan Rogers4 said:I find myself equally perplexed by the situation 🙂 to be honest, I am certain that I deserved the citation—as I mentioned previously, there was a yellow line clearly indicating that parking is prohibited, yet I parked right on top of it.
However, regarding the provisions outlined in Section 84, none of those regulations actually apply to my vehicle, given that this concerns an extension of a parking zone where specific stalls aren't marked, but rather just a continuous yellow line.

You have the right to appeal the Parking Authority's decision. The fact that the police didn't cite you or officially charge you with a violation should help your case.😉

What do you think? Forgiven. A fine? Seriously? 😕
He doesn't even have the authority for that. All he can do is give you a written or verbal warning for minor infractions. Honestly, if you didn't get anything in writing, they probably just slipped up. It was their mistake, and they owe you an apology, not the other way around. Forgive me. 😉
The Road Safety Act is pretty damn clear about when they can use Spider-Man to haul your car away. There are even certain towings that don't even carry a penalty under the law. And look, it isn't just the cops calling the shots on who gets towed—you've got city code enforcement and local municipal officials all authorized to pull the trigger too.

Section 84.

A police officer or local official can order you to move your car if it’s parked on a street where it messes with traffic flow or creates a safety hazard under the Traffic Safety Act. If you're blocking things up, they'll tell you to relocate.
Parking in a spot reserved for people with disabilities.
At any marked crosswalk, pedestrian island, or pedestrian zone...
If you're on the sidewalk and have to step out into the street because there isn't enough room to squeeze past a parked car—like if that gap between the vehicle and the building is less than about 40 inches—you're technically required to move onto the roadway. It’s just how the rules work.
4) At any level crossing or near railroad tracks, provided it prevents vehicles from driving directly onto the rails.
At an intersection, if you're parked within 5 meters of the edge of the crossroad and you're blocking the view of oncoming traffic? That's a violation under the Road Safety Act.
In tunnels, on bridges, underpasses, overpasses—basically anywhere you’re under a bridge or an overpass, or even just along that stretch of road beneath them.
There's a stretch of road near the mountain pass summit—right in that bend where visibility goes to die. It’s a mess. You can't even pass another vehicle without risking a head-on collision. Dangerous.
Parking right where you'd block someone else from getting in or out—or worse, blocking a driveway or garage entrance—is a violation. Plain and simple.
Either on a bike lane, a dedicated cycle path, or where that path crosses the street.
Any stretch of road marked as a public transit stop—whether it’s just paint on the asphalt or an actual sign posted there—is off-limits.
Blocking a traffic sign or a signal light with your vehicle? That’s a violation under the Road Safety Act.
If you've got a parked car blocking the way so there’s less than 3 feet of clearance to the lane line—or if the gap between that car and the opposite curb is under 4 feet—you're looking at a violation. It's basic math, really. Just a clear-cut issue with road space.
If a vehicle is parked illegally in those spots mentioned in section 1, you can't claim it's "blocking" anything under the provisions of Article 5, Section 1, Point 8 of this Act. It’s pretty straightforward.
Before anyone even thinks about issuing an order to tow a vehicle under section 1 of this article, they have to prove it was actually parked illegally. We’re talking photo evidence, a sketch, or video footage. No proof, no tow.

Article 85.

Under the Traffic Safety Act, the Department of Homeland Security or local municipal authorities handle all vehicle towing orders.
Local governments have two ways to handle this stuff. They can either set up their own legal entity to manage it, or just outsource the whole operation to a corporation or a licensed contractor who actually meets the requirements. Simple enough.
The Department of Homeland Security is going to set the rules for how they handle towing and impounding illegally parked cars. They'll also dictate the procedures for moving those vehicles and any other related tasks outlined in Section 5, Clause 4 of this Act, specifically when local city governments are the ones running the show.

Section 86.

Under the Traffic Safety Act, if your car gets towed, you're the one footing the bill. Owner or user—it doesn't matter. You pay.
(2) Local municipalities set the towing fees, though they need the green light from the Department of Homeland Security first.

bluecrane16 said:But how can you actually prove something like that when it's bolded?
Especially at a company where your salary and pay grade are tied to whether or not you belong to a specific political party?

Prove it? Well, based on your question, it sounds like your firm is politicized and runs entirely on political favors...
So, what are we talking about here—is this a government agency or what?
Those places aren't supposed to be political; they're meant to be merit-based, even if reality usually tells a different story...
Got a specific question? Give me some actual details.

Walter Lewis5 said:crimsonsailor7, thanks for passing along that address.

I’m wondering if anyone else here has dealt with something similar? Specifically, I want to know if you found any actual recourse through the system, or if the institutions involved were just completely powerless to step in and do anything about it.

(1) Harassment and sexual harassment are strictly prohibited.
(2) Harassment is any conduct by an employer or employee intended to, or that actually results in, violating someone's dignity, creating a hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment, or causing fear.
(3) This includes discriminatory behavior where an employee is placed at a disadvantage due to race, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, family obligations, age, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, economic status, birth, social standing, political affiliation, union membership, or physical or mental disability.
(4) Sexual harassment includes any verbal, non-verbal, or physical behavior of a sexual nature intended to, or that actually results in, violating an employee's dignity, creating a fearful, hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment.
(5) Behavior that violates a person's dignity can be intentional or negligent and includes things like:
– gossiping, spreading rumors, or slander,
– insults, threats, profanity, and disparagement,
– sexist behavior involving socially inappropriate terms regarding gender or orientation, jokes, or unwanted physical contact,
– intentionally withholding work-related information or providing misinformation, and
– assigning meaningless, impossible, or degrading tasks—or failing to assign tasks altogether.

If this happens, an employee should report it to a supervisor, a union representative, or an authorized company official designated to handle dignity and harassment complaints (a confidential advisor).

Depending on the severity, the authorized person is required to investigate the complaint immediately, or at least within eight days, and take all necessary steps to stop the harassment if they find it occurred.
If the employer fails to take appropriate action to prevent harassment or if their response is clearly inadequate, the employee has the right to stop working until protection is provided, provided they file for protection with the appropriate court within eight days.

Peter Torres3 said:So, I was in a car accident, and honestly, I was drunk. Turns out, the other driver was intoxicated too... they ended up receiving $11667 from the insurance company.. and now my insurance provider is coming after me to pay that money back. Here’s where it gets weird: the guy riding with me actually tumbled out of the vehicle. I have no idea how that even happened—maybe the doors just popped open? I should mention the car was only about a year old. The police report claims he was wearing his seatbelt, but I don't think that's possible because if he had been buckled in, he wouldn't have flown out of the car... I fully realize I’m at fault here, and I get that under the policy terms, the insurance company has every right to demand reimbursement from me. But what I'm wondering is, since he chose to hop in the car knowing we were both drinking, and he didn't bother to buckle up, is there any chance the payout could be split fifty-fifty? Or maybe there's a way he receives less from the insurance company overall? I really need some quick, accurate advice because I'm meeting with my lawyer in two days. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.. if anyone has any solid suggestions or if you've dealt with something similar, please let me know.. Thanks a million.🙏

First off—you were drunk. Second—your passenger was drunk (even though nobody in the front seat should be under the influence). You basically put everyone in that car at risk. If there were serious injuries involved, you better be glad you didn't get gutted. Be thankful an innocent bystander wasn't caught in the crossfire

George Richardson7 said:I ended up filing my grievance with the Police Department rather than the court—so now I'm wondering if that’s going to cause any headaches? Specifically, I'm worried they might just disregard my objection entirely because of that little technicality.

Under the updated misdemeanor laws, the police issue a citation on the spot that carries the same weight as those old court orders. That's why it says you have 8 days to file an appeal with the local Police Department or Police Administration. They're the ones who decide if your appeal actually holds water...
Statute of limitations? It doesn't kick in until after 2 years for relative, or 3 years for absolute..

link (misdemeanor law)
http://www.govinfo.gov/content/example-link

Honestly, it’d be smart to actually read the police procedural manual too. There's even more detail in there...