Frequentflier

A guy that hasn't been reviewed on this site by a reputable member, is comparatively very good looking and wants many hundreds of dollars up front. Help me out with this, how often do these circumstances work out well?

A guy that hasn't been reviewed on this site by a reputable member, is comparatively very good looking and wants many hundreds of dollars up front. Help me out with this, how often do these circumstances work out well?

I think six months in jail is insufficient. What he'll find very difficult is a lifetime as a registered sex offender and finding a good job with three felony convictions related to sexual assault. Or maybe his family is rich.

No! Completely unacceptable and reprehensible. Rape is not acceptable under any circumstances.

I think six months in jail is insufficient. What he'll find very difficult is a lifetime as a registered sex offender and finding a good job with three felony convictions related to sexual assault. Or maybe his family is rich.

No! Completely unacceptable and reprehensible. Rape is not acceptable under any circumstances.

I think you meant to start with "WHEN I make it to 86". You can do it. More fun, less stressing out about too many things and one glass of red wine per day. Never smoke tobacco.

Safety first - wear a seat belt when reading AdamSmith's posts.

Sorry but the "legal scholar" at your school has more to learn or he/she should just admit they aren't much of a scholar. Hastert is guilty of lying to Federal Law Enforcement Officers and structuring cash withdrawals to avoid reporting. Facing up to six months. Had he not agreed to plea there are likely other charges with more potential years (otherwise people have no incentive to plea). He didn't get convicted of just taking his own money out of the bank as the "legal scholar" claims. If he was trusted enough by voters & members of the House to become third in line to the presidency he should have been smart enough to not obstruct reporting Congress put into law and not to lie to Federal agents. Don't want to answer their questions, fine, that's your right. But if you answer it needs to be the truth. Stupid is as stupid does. Its true we don't officially know why he was paying someone $3.5 million in cash. Maybe there is more to come. There are tax consequences for giving someone $3.5 million so I hope gift or other taxes are paid by someone.
 
When Hastert pled guility he admitted the wrongdoing (and that he knew what he was doing was wrong) to the Federal judge.
 
There is a part of the article (linked below) which states "Federal officials told ABC News Hastert's alleged wrongdoing involved the sexual abuse of a male student while Hastert was serving as a high school teacher and wrestling coach decades ago."
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-hastert-file-guilty-plea/story?id=34788127

Sorry but the "legal scholar" at your school has more to learn or he/she should just admit they aren't much of a scholar. Hastert is guilty of lying to Federal Law Enforcement Officers and structuring cash withdrawals to avoid reporting. Facing up to six months. Had he not agreed to plea there are likely other charges with more potential years (otherwise people have no incentive to plea). He didn't get convicted of just taking his own money out of the bank as the "legal scholar" claims. If he was trusted enough by voters & members of the House to become third in line to the presidency he should have been smart enough to not obstruct reporting Congress put into law and not to lie to Federal agents. Don't want to answer their questions, fine, that's your right. But if you answer it needs to be the truth. Stupid is as stupid does. Its true we don't officially know why he was paying someone $3.5 million in cash. Maybe there is more to come. There are tax consequences for giving someone $3.5 million so I hope gift or other taxes are paid by someone.
 
When Hastert pled guility he admitted the wrongdoing (and that he knew what he was doing was wrong) to the Federal judge.
 
There is a part of the article (linked below) which states "Federal officials told ABC News Hastert's alleged wrongdoing involved the sexual abuse of a male student while Hastert was serving as a high school teacher and wrestling coach decades ago."
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-hastert-file-guilty-plea/story?id=34788127

Sorry but the "legal scholar" at your school has more to learn or he/she should just admit they aren't much of a scholar. Hastert is guilty of lying to Federal Law Enforcement Officers and structuring cash withdrawals to avoid reporting. Facing up to six months. Had he not agreed to plea there are likely other charges with more potential years (otherwise people have no incentive to plea). He didn't get convicted of just taking his own money out of the bank as the "legal scholar" claims. If he was trusted enough by voters & members of the House to become third in line to the presidency he should have been smart enough to not obstruct reporting Congress put into law and not to lie to Federal agents. Don't want to answer their questions, fine, that's your right. But if you answer it needs to be the truth. Stupid is as stupid does. Its true we don't officially know why he was paying someone $3.5 million in cash. Maybe there is more to come. There are tax consequences for giving someone $3.5 million so I hope gift or other taxes are paid by someone.
 
When Hastert pled guility he admitted the wrongdoing (and that he knew what he was doing was wrong) to the Federal judge.
 
There is a part of the article (linked below) which states "Federal officials told ABC News Hastert's alleged wrongdoing involved the sexual abuse of a male student while Hastert was serving as a high school teacher and wrestling coach decades ago."
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-hastert-file-guilty-plea/story?id=34788127

I own a few condos as investments. My leases are a minimum of one year. Every one of the HOAs has a rental policy and AIRBNB wouldn't be allowed (some have minimum rental periods of 6 months or one year). Those policies have been reviewed by local attorneys.
 
I think its completely inappropriate if an escort uses someone's property through AIRBNB to meet clients, unless (unlikely) the owner agreed to it. I don't even allow my tenants to smoke 420 in states where its legal for recreational use - and yes a landlord can prohibit it (as he/she can smoking) in particular because its still illegal at the Federal level. My leases make it very clear that any illegal activity is prohibited and grounds for eviction - something any property owner wants to be able to point to in case their tenant is busted as a way to defend against the government seizing property (which some/many overzealous prosecutors like to do).

1. I don't think it's in Uber's best interests to publicize possible net earnings of drivers as those numbers won't be as enticing as the gross figures and without drivers, well, you know..
2. I've never used Uber.
3. I think Uber filled a need - cleaner vehicles, drivers that are presentable/courteous/customer service driven. None of those qualities are out of the reach of taxi companies if they really wanted market share back.
4. I think Uber drivers should be treated like employees, covered by insurance, FICA taxes paid/withheld, etc.
5. I think it's unfair, as an example, taxi owners in NYC paid millions for medallions (their loans packaged into investments bought by others) because that was the government requirement for the service they wanted to provide and then faced unregulated competition. Should probably be a phase out period. Yes, # 3 issues applies to those taxis.

1. I don't think it's in Uber's best interests to publicize possible net earnings of drivers as those numbers won't be as enticing as the gross figures and without drivers, well, you know..
2. I've never used Uber.
3. I think Uber filled a need - cleaner vehicles, drivers that are presentable/courteous/customer service driven. None of those qualities are out of the reach of taxi companies if they really wanted market share back.
4. I think Uber drivers should be treated like employees, covered by insurance, FICA taxes paid/withheld, etc.
5. I think it's unfair, as an example, taxi owners in NYC paid millions for medallions (their loans packaged into investments bought by others) because that was the government requirement for the service they wanted to provide and then faced unregulated competition. Should probably be a phase out period. Yes, # 3 issues applies to those taxis.

Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty in America some say? May be technically true but its more complicated. In America when you're arrested there is the perp walk, sometimes press releases and/press conferences along with front page headlines with your full name/photo/sordid assumed to be facts to support guilt. If you're rich (whether guilty or not) you're more likely to get off (found not guilty or hung jury with no retrial) and that outcome is likely on the last page of the paper and not under a big bold headline. If you are poor (as compared to the government which has unlimited money and resources), you're likely toast. Even if you are found not guilty, unless you have big money to fund your life, you're going to have problems getting employed after an employer searches your name (and nearly all do).
 
In America though you can get away with murder, literally. Get a job as a cop and shoot someone - anyone will do. Then utter the words you were taught in the academy or by your peers. "I was afraid for my life" or "He was going for my gun". And of course unless someone wants to/can prove intent then no crime. And video recordings help but juries and judges have found cops not guilty even after seeing video evidence a crime was committed because of no intent or they were afraid.
 
Sure, justice in America is wonderful.

Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty in America some say? May be technically true but its more complicated. In America when you're arrested there is the perp walk, sometimes press releases and/press conferences along with front page headlines with your full name/photo/sordid assumed to be facts to support guilt. If you're rich (whether guilty or not) you're more likely to get off (found not guilty or hung jury with no retrial) and that outcome is likely on the last page of the paper and not under a big bold headline. If you are poor (as compared to the government which has unlimited money and resources), you're likely toast. Even if you are found not guilty, unless you have big money to fund your life, you're going to have problems getting employed after an employer searches your name (and nearly all do).
 
In America though you can get away with murder, literally. Get a job as a cop and shoot someone - anyone will do. Then utter the words you were taught in the academy or by your peers. "I was afraid for my life" or "He was going for my gun". And of course unless someone wants to/can prove intent then no crime. And video recordings help but juries and judges have found cops not guilty even after seeing video evidence a crime was committed because of no intent or they were afraid.
 
Sure, justice in America is wonderful.

That attitude is crap. Any company that trains their employees to be that way, I hope, is on the roadway to bankruptcy. I also think that good people react appropriately and don't need training on everything. It's like bad cops, no amount of training or rules will fix the deficiency in their DNA.

Colleges & universities are too expensive because of too high wages, benefits and (in too many cases) expensive campuses and building programs. The fact loving parents and other relatives will save for decades and then with students borrow to what seems like no limit allows colleges & universities to raise tuition, room/board and fees to absorb the aforementioned savings and loan proceeds plus government grant money. I don't think there is a shortage of government spending, grants, loan programs or loan forgiveness programs. More government/taxpayer support isn't the answer. Less government money and less loan forgiveness may drive students and their families to choose less expensive colleges/universities and perhaps when schools don't "sell out" and have vacancies they might swap their fire hose spending of cash for a garden hose. If you can't get a loan to buy a $100 k car, you'll buy a less costly vehicle that still provides you the necessary benefits. I had loan payments for 10 years and paid off 100%. Can't pay back, don't borrow. New programs that allow students to better evaluate their choice of colleges before deciding is a good thing - how have previous graduates with different types of degrees done after graduation. And we should, like home ownership, stop telling people they will not realize their full potential without a four year degree. To many, a two year or no year advanced degree might be just fine for them. I can hire a college graduate easier and faster for my business than I can find a good, reliable and fairly priced electrician or plumber.

The HOAs I own in just made sure the rental policy (that all owners have to abide by) includes a minimum term. By doing that they felt it covered the issue whether its Airbnb or VRBO or another business that may not exist today but for which you want your policy to apply. May not hurt to mention Airbnb as an example (the HOAs I'm a part of didn't specifically mention Airbnb or VRBO.

I own a few condos as investments. My leases are a minimum of one year. Every one of the HOAs has a rental policy and AIRBNB wouldn't be allowed (some have minimum rental periods of 6 months or one year). Those policies have been reviewed by local attorneys.
 
I think its completely inappropriate if an escort uses someone's property through AIRBNB to meet clients, unless (unlikely) the owner agreed to it. I don't even allow my tenants to smoke 420 in states where its legal for recreational use - and yes a landlord can prohibit it (as he/she can smoking) in particular because its still illegal at the Federal level. My leases make it very clear that any illegal activity is prohibited and grounds for eviction - something any property owner wants to be able to point to in case their tenant is busted as a way to defend against the government seizing property (which some/many overzealous prosecutors like to do).

I own a few condos as investments. My leases are a minimum of one year. Every one of the HOAs has a rental policy and AIRBNB wouldn't be allowed (some have minimum rental periods of 6 months or one year). Those policies have been reviewed by local attorneys.
 
I think its completely inappropriate if an escort uses someone's property through AIRBNB to meet clients, unless (unlikely) the owner agreed to it. I don't even allow my tenants to smoke 420 in states where its legal for recreational use - and yes a landlord can prohibit it (as he/she can smoking) in particular because its still illegal at the Federal level. My leases make it very clear that any illegal activity is prohibited and grounds for eviction - something any property owner wants to be able to point to in case their tenant is busted as a way to defend against the government seizing property (which some/many overzealous prosecutors like to do).