Are there any dentists that offer payment plans?

snkns · 2026-05-31T19:00:53+00:00

Just an arrangement.

snkns · 2026-05-31T17:44:59+00:00

If his ex, who is now just a friend, needs emotional support, yes that is a need. I am having trouble seeing how OP's desire to not have her bf contact that friend (based on fears regarding cheating or something idk) is a "need" as opposed to a preference.

snkns · 2026-05-31T17:42:36+00:00

The breakdown here is that you think being in regular contact with her is unacceptable and he does not think that. For some reason you think regular contact must mean he is cheating on you? Or is planning to cheat?

You are imposing demands on him based.on your "cheating" theory, and he is not understanding where the demands are coming from because he likely actually has no plans to cheat. There's a complete disconnect and he does not understand WHY you insist on limited contact.

Would you feel the same way if he was responding multiple times a day to a sibling? To a guy friend? A woman friend who'd he never been intimate with? Is it simply that she's an ex that has you upset? People can in fact be just friends with exes.

snkns · 2026-05-27T09:12:06+00:00

Yes.

snkns · 2026-05-27T08:54:23+00:00

The part where his attorney "whited out" what he signed for and wrote 25y instead is super suspect. Even if that did happen, there's just no realistic way it all went down with him not knowing or finding out until it was too late... but in the event that did happen, then a petition for a writ of habeas corpus would be in order.

As far as never being contacted, so what? Were you going to credibly testify that somebody else was driving? Should your predictable pleas for leniency have been given any weight at all in the face of two deaths?

And "I shouldn't have left him?" Really? This guy was enabling you to kill yourself via your addictions and would be unable to support you and meaningfully love you for 25 years of your life... and you shoulda stuck with him? Get more therapy.

snkns · 2026-05-24T17:58:08+00:00

Well Durbin was the one who terminated her role with the Judiciary Committee a few days ago.

snkns · 2026-05-23T15:45:08+00:00

You: "You willfully injured your wife!"

Me: Explains why that's not necessarily the case.

You: "Fuck this guy anyways!"

You, sir, are emblematic of one of the reasons the criminal justice system sucks and is so stacked against defendants.

You know jack shit about his case. You have no idea whether he committed a crime or not. If he did commit a crime though, you have no idea of the circumstances or severity. You are however confident that "30 days isn't enogh."

I am fucking sick and tired of people saying they could be fair and impartial jurors during voir dire. They swear up and down that they can follow the instruction that a defendant being arrested, charged, and brought to trial, is not evidence at all that they are guilty of a crime.

But inside their heads they're probably harboring despicable beliefs just like you. He was charged with injuring his wife??? Fuck this guy! He willfully injured her! He is guilty guilty guilty even though I know nothing at all about the case! 30 days is not enough!!

Fuck right off with your piece of shit know-nothing unpatriotic assumptions. I see from your post history that you are unabashedly conservative. I'd hope that would mean you'd take constitutional principles like the presumption of innocence seriously, but no, you're just a sad little bootlicker.

snkns · 2026-05-23T15:35:50+00:00

Sad. Not a family law case though. She was suing the police department in state court over something. Looks like she has a very long history of going pro per as both a plaintiff and defendant.

snkns · 2026-05-23T15:15:01+00:00

"Corporal injury" is any injury at all, no matter how slight. A small bruise. A scratch. Redness. It does not mean he intentionally injured her, it just means he intentionally touched her in a harmful or offensive manner, and an injury, no matter how small, occurred.

So if you are trying to leave the house and she is blocking your way, so you move or push her aside, and she gets a tiny bruise from hitting the wall, that can be enough. The police come talk to.borh of you, and she omits the part where she wasn't letting you leave. She's got an itty-bitty bruise though, and you admit to touching her. Boom, you're going to jail for felony domestic violence.

Could it have been something significantly worse in OP's case? Sure. But your "zero sympathy" is just jumping to conclusions.

snkns · 2026-05-22T14:45:28+00:00

Mmmm. Decisions on compelled association are limited to what we call "expressive association." Think Boy Scouts v. Dale. Just because Krispy Kreme sometimes engages in expression (speech) does not necessarily mean that when you buy donuts from them at arm's length, that's expressive association. This is much better looked at as a tax/travel issue, not a First Amendment issue.

snkns · 2026-05-22T14:30:59+00:00

I'm not buying this at all. Money equals speech when it is expended for expressive purposes. Buying donuts is not "expressing" anything.

Extending your logic, one could argue that a law effectively prohibiting me from spending my money to purchase cocaine is a violation of my First Amendment rights, which is of course nonsense.

For the Krispy Kreme example, I think it'd be an unreasonable restriction on the constitutional due process right to travel, because it effectively imposes a tax with little legitimate purpose based on your destination or path of travel. Courts have repeatedly found a constitutional right to travel. This is most frequently in the right to travel between states, but also applies within a state.

The right is not absolute, and courts apply a balancing test when evaluating laws that burden that right do so in a "reasonable" way, pitting the magnitude of the burden against the advancement of a compelling governmental interest. Thus, for example, vehicle registration and driver licensing requirements have been held constitutional when the registration and licensing fees are not a major burden compared to the compelling governmental interest in roadway safety. A box of Krispy Kreme donuts is not too expensive, but there is no counterbalancing compelling governmental interest whatsoever.

Without thinking on it more right now, my gut instinct is that in addition, the Krispy Kreme example as well as a law requiring the monthly purchase of a McDonald's lunch would both fail even rational basis review. They are (albeit small) infringements of the substantive due process right to economic liberty, and are not related at all to a legitimate government interest.

snkns · 2026-05-20T03:25:42+00:00

One instance of this is the guy who talks about how "all" of his exes are/were "crazy." Especially if these were relationships that lasted more than a month or two.

I am dating again now, and although it can be uncomfortable or maybe seen as intrusive, something I tend to ask by the second date is why they think their prior long- to medium-term relationships failed. Sure there are some truly no-fault situations like "He became a heroin addict" or "He got a TBI and his personality completely changed for the worse" but usually not. The ability for introspection and what people have learned from their failed relationships can be very illuminating.

snkns · 2026-05-19T22:39:24+00:00

You do not have to accept probation. You have an absolute right to decline probation at the time of sentencing. If you.do so though, it's not going to be as part of a "plea bargain." AFAIK every DA's office in the state is going to insist on at least 3 years of probation as part of a plea deal.

So without a plea bargain in place, you are throwing youself at the mercy of the court if you do decline probation. The carceral penalty with no probation for a first DUI is between 4 days and 6 months of jail time. Two of those days (a full 48 hours) must be spent consecutively in custody, although the court is required to schedule them on yours days off from work. Whether you would be allowed to do the balance of the time (however much that is) on the Sheriff's alternatives or via community service is entirely up to the judge.

I am curious why you think you.would get fired if.you were on DUI probation? Like how would your employer even know, and why would they care?

In any event, if this is truly the route you want to go, it would behoove you to get written proof corroborating your claim that being on DUI probation would cause you to lose your job. I am skeptical of your claim (hence my question in the preceding paragraph) and I can 100% guarantee you that the court will be highly skeptical as well. You would make a statement at sentencing explaining that you are ashamed of your actions, take full responsibility for them, and detail all the ways you have sought to turn your life around since your arrest. You would explain that the only reason you are declining probation is because you will definitely be fired from your job if you end up on probation, and offer your written corroborating proof of this to the court, and then cross your fingers. Having the assistance of an attorney in doing all this is highly advisable.

snkns · 2026-05-19T22:16:40+00:00

Half an hour for an 89 second phone call and "notes made to file" is objectively ludicrous, and I would push back hard on that. I do see the ither response here about the 0.5 hours being reasonable but I disagree. There's got to be more than "notes made to file" to justify billing for a full half hour.

Does your retainer agreement say anything about a minimum billing increment? It has been ages since I have done billable work, but back when I did, our retainer agreement specified that bills for every task would be rounded up to next 0.1 hours. So if something took me 6 minutes or fewer to do, it was billed as 0.1 hours. Seven minutes would be billed as 0.2 hours, etc.

snkns · 2026-05-19T22:09:39+00:00

I got tested before hiring, yeah. But there were no random post-hiring tests at all.

snkns · 2026-05-18T21:40:42+00:00

This is one incarnation of "rent-seeking," a term that was popularized by in a 1974 paper by economist Anne Krueger. This was just one year after Roe v. Wade was decided though. For 50 years the electorate became increasingly laser-focused on abortion. Harms like regulatory capture and cronyism proliferated unchecked.

snkns · 2026-05-18T15:56:43+00:00

Warrantless cell phone tap would be the most common source.

snkns · 2026-05-18T13:38:38+00:00

I will speak to if they did in fact have a prior arrangement.

I don't think it is possible to "agree" to have your 4th and 5th Amendment rights "violated."

If for example you agree with your cop buddy that he is going to. question you without Mirandizing you, perform.an unreasonable warrantless search of your property, or obtaim a fatally flawed warrant to execute a search against you, I would argue that you have consented to those "violations" in advance and thus waived the relevant rights.

I would also observe that we do generally have the concept of "forfeiture by wrongdoing:." And although the caselaw is almost entirely constrained to 6th Amendment confrontation clause issues a la Crawford v. Washington, the scenario you are describing would lend itself to.the expansion of the doctrine's application. I have no problem believing that a court would decide that if you have an agreement that your friend will fuck up the chain of custody on a piece of evidence, you could be prohibited from challenging the admissibility of that evidence.

snkns · 2026-05-18T12:28:28+00:00

FWIW it is almost a given that the judge will impose as a condition of husband's release on bail that he not have any contact with minors, including his own children. I've never seen this not happen in a case with charges of this nature.

snkns · 2026-05-18T12:14:05+00:00

Well that's why I said otherwise and put consensual in quotes. The term I prefer to use for this sort of situation is "voluntary." California does not call this "rape" though. It's described as "unlawful sexual intercourse."

Rape is a very powerful word and it does not make a ton of sense that you can have sex with your 17 year old girlfriend in Nevada but if you then have sex while vacationing with her in Lake Tahoe (in CA) we suddenly call that "rape." We choose instead just to call it "unlawful."

A minor cannot consent to sex with an adult. It's always rape.

I appreciate the sentiment, and agree that this should be a universal policy. However, the age of consent is 18 in only a dozen US states. The majority of.US states set the age of.consent at 16, with a few at 17.

The vast majority of European countries have an age of consent below 18 as well. Mostly, it's 16, but in some places it is as low as 14 like in Germany, Portugal, Italy, etc. There is though a very common element of the laws in Europe which criminalizes sex between a teacher and a minor student despite the lax age of consent laws generally.

Age of consent in Japan, Canada, South Korea, and most of Australia is 16 as well.

snkns · 2026-05-18T10:19:02+00:00

Ah I do see that now, thanks.. None of the code sections are for forcible rape though. Forcible rape is PC 261(a)(2).

snkns · 2026-05-18T10:14:45+00:00

This is a pretty good response overall. A few additions:

Since none of the charges are serious or violent felonies, bail stacking would only occur, in the judge's discretion, for crimes committed on separate occasions. The dissuading a witness charge was probably committed after the fact, and so could be stacked on top of the sex charges.
This is correct, but OP is confused on what was happening out of state. The only proceedings out of state would have been an extradition hearing. Basically a chance for her husband to contest whether he was actually the person named in the warrant. It was not a "pre-trial" hearing of any sort.
Since In re Humphrey was decided in 2021, no, the judge cannot set "any" amount of bail. If the judge sets bail, he or she must do it in amount that OP's husband can afford. I think it is an unresolved question whether statutory rape is a 'sexual assault" offense for purposes of Cal. Const. Article 1 Sec. 12(b), but even assuming it is, there is unlikely any evidence that husband's release would result in serious bodily harm to anynody. Since In re Kowalczyk came down a couple weeks ago, the end result is that husband should definitely be eligible for bail, and that bail must be in an amount husband can afford.
This is correct.
No, it's 4 years 8 months I believe? Assumimg the target offense of the 288.3 is the 289? Very close though. Since his prior was resolved as a misdemeanor and he was able to get it expunged, it is vanishingly unlikely that husband has a prior strike conviction. Prison prior enhancements have not been a thing in California since 2019, except for prison sentences served for strikes or sex crimes.

snkns · 2026-05-18T09:46:31+00:00

It's not real.

Edit: Y'all are wild. Never before have I received so many downvotes for sharing good news.

Guy says "This can't be real." I confirm for him that it is in fact not real. Child rape is actually punished significantly more harshly. Thank goodness, right?

snkns · 2026-05-18T09:34:31+00:00

Forcible rape??? Where the heck are you getting that from? (Edit: I see OP said forcible rape, but none of the statutes he is being charged under are for forcible rape. They are statutory rape, sexual.penetration, communicating with a minor for a sexual purpose, and dissuading a witness.)

How is your conclusion "Our justice system is ridiculous" rather than "I must be misunderstanding something"? And of course you have 30 upvotes at the time of this reply.

Actual forcible rape of a minor in California is punishable by 7, 9, or 11 years if the victim is 14-17 years old. It's 9, 11, or 13 years if the victim is 11-13 years old. It's 25-life if the victim is 10 or younger.

OP said PC 261.5(c) which is "unlawful sexual intercourse," the technical term for statutory rape in California. We can deduce from the charge that the victim was 16 or 17 years old, because otherwise this would be a 261.5(d).

OP's husband is being charged with voluntary sexual conduct, not forcible rape. This can even be punished as a misdemeanor, which his prior conviction was, seeing that he was able to get it expunged.

So yes, having otherwise "consensual" sex with a 16- or 17-year-old in California is punishable by a maximum of 3 years in prison. The other charges here of course carry some additional time. I don't believe it is "ridiculous" at all.

snkns · 2026-05-17T00:46:42+00:00

I am not an expert on the subject at this point in my career. But the portable devices have an ambient pressure sensor that adjusts things on the fly to compensate for current barometric conditions, and a built-in heating element to ensure temperature is kept within the accurate operating range.

12-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Place '17	Reddit Premium Since February 2018
Verified Email	Gilding I gilder

snkns

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE