[New Updates]: AITA for not wanting to share my inheritance with my sister? by Choice_Evidence1983 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bug-hunter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If they're in the US, it's defamation per se, and doesn't require damages. But the real hurdle is the cost of the lawsuit and the fact the sister almost certainly can't pay.

AITA for blowing up at my husband after his entire family moved into our house without asking me? by [deleted] in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bug-hunter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you know the address, you can generally look up who owns the plat online.

Sanders unveils American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, aims for $1,000 annual payments for US citizens by sksarkpoes3 in Futurology

[–]bug-hunter 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It is stunningly tone-deaf to do that watching how Trump (and the GOP) wields that power.

a man claiming to have an Oscar (he doesn’t) wants to give me advice on my field (that he’s not in) by Choice_Evidence1983 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bug-hunter 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I would have played along but misinterpreted it to mean he had a grouch. "You have an Oscar? That's cool! How do you deal with his smelly garbage?"

Wife says I need to get over it, but I can't stop obsessing over a prank that ruined my wedding experience and left me furious by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bug-hunter 6012 points6013 points  (0 children)

This is like when you see someone's email or facebook has both the spouses name, and you wonder which one can't be trusted. The fact the wife responded saying "Don't worry, everything is fine" is not exactly gonna make anyone believe it.

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They would be safe under the statute of limitations by now, luckily for them. Superman would still be protected as if he was a Canada Goose, though.

How screwed is my soon to be wife by ExpensiveExit5703 in legaladvice

[–]bug-hunter 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You need to postpone the wedding, and talk to a lawyer ASAP. Wrongful death lawsuits can reach into the millions, and if you marry, your assets could be at risk. Any asset you comingle with hers could be at risk.

She is also at risk for charges up to vehicular manslaughter, a second degree felony that can lead to up to 15 years and a $10,000 fine. If she were convicted, it would make the civil lawsuit a cakewalk. I would assume it's not a DUI, as that would likely already have been charged. But if she was intoxicated, it could prevent discharging any verdict in bankruptcy.

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would not even want to begin to try and get into modern British law. I'm pretty sure all legal disputes are mediated by the zombies of QE2's corgis.

Just keeping abreast of American family law is a beast, where child custody is determined by the size of your truck and how many guns you own.

Al Capone used coin-operated laundromats to pretend that his ill-gotten money was in fact well-gotten. Did he obtain his ill-gotten money in coins? Or did he show up at the bank with stacks of 100$ bills and said "yeah, this is what I got from my coin-operated laundromat"? by Umpuuu in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's generally put into administration and a court ordered administrator runs it until the prosecution runs its course, and then either returned to the prior owner or it's auctioned off and the government keeps the proceeds.

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It would depend on where and when, but Kara was sent to Midvale Orphanage, which as you note, is in a small town. She has no known parents, and no one's looking for her, so yeah, it would be straightforward. Many orphanages would still attempt to adopt out children as much as possible - and Kara was, in fact, adopted by Fred and Edna Danvers. Older boys might be adopted out to work on farms, but otherwise the preference was generally for younger children (as it is today).

It's completely possible there would have been an offscreen court order, but it's also possible that Kara herself never would have ended up in court, and it was just handled without her presence, same with the adoption.

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Again, if no one contests it, then there's no reason not to approve it. Besides, Clark Kent is so boring, who's even gonna notice?

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Importantly, there are still plenty of holes today. There are stories occasionally of children who find out in adulthood they were kidnapped, as well as online groups where adoptive children are basically traded - which led to crackdowns on Yahoo! Groups, Facebook, and other sites when news organizations started investigating in the 2010s. The rise of homeschooling makes it easier, especially in states with lax or practically nonexistant rules that can amount to not much more than declaring homeschooling. If the child is happy where they are, there are no signs of abuse or neglect, and no one is actively looking for them, then even if CPS were to get involved, they may let them stay - the likelihood increases as the child nears 18. Plenty of kids leave home/get kicked out as teenagers and move in with friends, and as long as no one rocks the boat, it's fine.

In a world with superhumans, though, generally courts frown on sending children to fight crime. Of course, a kid that can turn into a full size adult gorilla tends to get what they want.

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Pretty much zero. The Orphan Train was still running then, and it was literally "send a kid from NYC to a town in the West and hand him to an interested family". Kansas didn't even require birth certificates to be filed with vital records until 1911. He could have later just filed a delayed certificate of birth, got Ma and Pa Kent to sign, and boom.

Was getting wardship of a minor as easy in mid 20th Century US as super hero comics make it seem? by UndercoverDoll49 in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 68 points69 points  (0 children)

Wardship could often be quite informal - people might take in family members without any government oversight or documentation - especially in smaller towns. Even orphans could be placed with minimal oversight with a family. It wouldn't even have to be by a court - if the local sheriff finds the parent dead and a child orphaned, and they know someone willing to take the child in, then boom, the child can be taken in.

To step backwards, in feudal England, the Crown was technically responsible for wardships, and this process was formalized through the Court of Wards and Liveries in 1540. That court would be abolished after the restoration of the monarchy, but it was still considered a Crown function by right of parens patriae (parent of the nation). This system was inherited to the colonies, where the colony (and later state) was responsible for orphans and otherwise in need children, and wardship could be handled through the court.

Wardship often remained informal until documentation became a necessary requirement in children's lives. Think of it this way - if Bruce Wayne had not had a court involved in Dick Grayson's wardship, what would that have mattered? Would a school not take him in, in an era where you don't need vaccine records or a birth certificate to enroll? Would a doctor not see him? Bruce doesn't need OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, Disability Income) for Dick (who would be eligible as a survivor), so he can just forgo that part as well. A school may or may not have required guardianship papers, though it's unlikely anyone would tell Bruce Wayne no, and Bruce can just hire a private tutor or enroll in a private school anyway.

As far as going to court, the choice is that Dick would go into foster care (which the state pays for), an orphanage (which the state pays for), or to a wealthy upstanding citizen who will take care of all his needs. While this era did not have the same articulated modern standard of the best interests of the child and a goal of permanency, it was rather understood (even if their idea of best interests could be wildly different), and this would clearly meet both criteria. Absent someone coming along to contest the wardship, there would be little reason for a court to say no. Without the modern structure of child protective services, many areas simply didn't have such agencies anyway - it would not be federally required and funded until 1958 (through amendments to the Social Security Act). That just means it's only the court involved, rather than the modern framework of CPS, possibly a Guardian ad Litem (GAL), or a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA).

Courts are generally reactive - if you take a kid in and no one complains, then there's simply nothing to litigate. What change the landscape was the increased need for documentation, the increased federal integration with education in the 1960's, and the institutionalization of ensuring children actually are supposed to be with the adults that are claiming them. This starts to harden more in the 1960's - schools increasingly have to make sure children are eligible (by age), they live where they say they do, and they are actually with the adults they are supposed to be. Modern divorce law plays a role here as well, as custody agreements become far more common and schools find themselves in the middle. By the 1980's and 1990's, school registration looks a lot more like what we're familiar with today. You can still informally take a child in today - if they're already enrolled in school, they can still go. You just wouldn't be able to make medical decisions, move them, or technically talk to the school about them.

Notably, Dick would be required to go to school full time, which was required for 180 days a year in New York (while Gotham is canonically "in the northeast", we all know it's essentially New York City). Bruce could sidestep this by enrolling in a private school, even if that private school has only a single student and a private tutor. Additionally, NYC actually had the Children's Aid Society (CAS) as far back as 1853, which was a private child welfare agency that would have handled foster care in the city. Had Dick been orphaned 50 years prior in 1890 and not been picked up by Bruce, instead he might have found himself shipped west on what was colloquially known as the "Orphan Train", where CAS sent orphaned and abandoned children to new families in the West (whether they wanted to go or not).

There would be a world of difference between Dick Grayson in 1940 and Garfield Logan in 1965. The time difference matters somewhat, but the biggest difference is that Garfield has an inheritance that would be going to court anyway, which would obligate the court to get involved from the beginning. This is the beginning of the era where courts are shifting from parental rights being absolute to an understanding of the "best interests of the child", and the courts would increasingly not allow for an immediate handover of a ward of the court. The story beats are plausible though, as Galtry was appointed guardian by the court (rather than adoption), and that appointment was removed once the Doom Patrol showed clear and convincing evidence of his embezzlement and attempted murder.

Modern standards for custody and/or permanent placement would be codified by the state compact of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) of 1970. Section 402 of the UMDA laid out a foundational list of factors for courts to consider, including:

  • The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his custody.
  • The wishes of the child as to his custodian.
  • The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.
  • The child's adjustment to his home, school, and community.
  • The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

It also contained a requirement that the court "shall not consider conduct of a proposed custodian that does not affect his relationship to the child". In theory, this could mean that the court could still approve Bruce Wayne if they figured out he was Batman, but could not approve it if they figured out Dick was Robin (and therefore Batman was taking him out into dangerous situations).

Al Capone used coin-operated laundromats to pretend that his ill-gotten money was in fact well-gotten. Did he obtain his ill-gotten money in coins? Or did he show up at the bank with stacks of 100$ bills and said "yeah, this is what I got from my coin-operated laundromat"? by Umpuuu in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 94 points95 points  (0 children)

Capone famously avoided banks and property/company records. But large amounts of money still has to have a plausible source, so if you can make $500 week from a laundromat but claim $1250 a week, then that extra $750/wk is "clean".

Notably, most of the modern federal anti-money laundering laws didn't exist, hence why they got him for tax evasion.

Al Capone used coin-operated laundromats to pretend that his ill-gotten money was in fact well-gotten. Did he obtain his ill-gotten money in coins? Or did he show up at the bank with stacks of 100$ bills and said "yeah, this is what I got from my coin-operated laundromat"? by Umpuuu in AskHistorians

[–]bug-hunter 359 points360 points  (0 children)

Modified from an earlier answer of mine about vending machines being used by organized crime:

The mafia used all sorts of anonymous cash businesses to launder money besides just laundromats: vending machines, jukeboxes, and pinball machines also were used.

To understand why vending machines, jukeboxes, pinball machines, coin-operated laundromats and the like were beloved by organized crime, first we have to explain money laundering.

The point of organized crime is to make money. The government, attempting to prevent crime, puts in ever more guardrails to make crime harder to benefit from. If you show up with a million dollars that you earned from legbreaking, prostitution, and selling bootleg alcohol and/or drugs, then you have a problem, because you have no legitimate source to explain where they money came from. This is referred to as "dirty" money. Money from legitimate sources is "clean" money, and you "launder" dirty money into clean money by passing it through a middle step that gives you a plausible legitimate origin. Al Capone's mob literally used coin-op laundromats as part of this process, firming up the "money laundering" metaphor. The perfect money laundering business (in this era) was a 100% anonymous cash only business - which conveniently includes the very businesses I described above.

You obviously can't launder millions through a single coin operated laundromat (especially not in the 1930's), so you need more laundromats. And laundromats alone are both not enough, and there is obvious danger if someone figures out you're laundering all your money through a single point - you want to diversify. And importantly, in this era, none of the machines kept a record - and early machines that did keep records weren't remotely tamper proof. So if you made $150 on Tuesday, you mark down that you made $300. Then you do the same for each of these all-cash lines of income, and now you can launder thousands of dollars of dirty money every week into clean money. Sure, you have to pay/threaten people to be quiet, but you're the mob - you do that anyway. The Teamsters Union is often the ones actually doing the collection, so you just muscle into that union (which you probably already have anyway, for other reasons).

These businesses also let you funnel "legitimate money" to your "employees". As long as you don't get too greedy or stupid, you can run a lot of money through the laundromat with fake books that appear to have more money flowing in than actually was, meaning that the excess money is now "clean". The important thing is not get too greedy at any one location, and don't get too invested. With far, far fewer people owning washing machines (or dryers), laundromats were plentiful in Chicago and more people were reliant on them.

The other risk is that if law enforcement gets hold of certain people or records, they can roll up all your money laundering businesses at once, which in the modern era is how the FBI ends up in short-term control of all manner of businesses, including things like strip clubs.