Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Deduplicated

like 0

Hate-Speech website hosted in the USA, but targeting an audience overseas

A website promoting Nazism and Racial hatred is hosted in the USA, but targeting an audience overseas - specifically Australia. Does this break any obvious laws? EDIT: I strongly suspect that the persons generating and submitting the content for hosting are not US Citizens, but are citizens of Australia.

Hate Speech is not a crime in the United States. Rather, they have "Hate Crimes" which are charged only when the prosecution wishes to show that the crime was motivated by hatred of a protected class of people (I.E. the killer shouts a slur at his victim.). They cannot be charged in absence. Spoken word, advocacy for policies that favor one protected class over another, and other signs of hatred are not in and of themselves crimes. Unless a content provider is physically within Australia's borders, their is little legal recourse. The United States does not extradite anyone to a country to face charges for crimes that are not criminal offenses in the United States. Since the site promotes these ideas but has not used the ideas as a motivation to engage criminal activity, they would not extradite the accused individual(s).

May dogs run around without leash in Schleswig-Holstein?

A website tells me that a general leash force isn't legal: Entgegen landläufiger Meinungen ist eine generelle Leinenpflicht für Hunde in Deutschland nicht rechtmäßig (Beschluss OVG Lüneburg 27.01.05, Az. 11 KN 38/04). Shz writes that you may not let your dog run free in Schlewsig-Holstein. What is true? May my dog run free in the German forest? And what would the consequences be if I do it and it's forbidden?

The Shz article is outdated but doesn't state that you may not let your dog run free in Schleswig-Holstein. It merely outlines the specific legal situations when it is not allowed to let your dog run free. So, the generic legal rule is that you don't need to keep your dog on a leash until there is a legal provision requiring you to do so. There was a trend to have general restrictive legal rules for dogs that were presumed to be dangerous a few years ago but several courts rightly pointed out that all such rules must be proportional, so couldn't impose too strict generalized, abstract rules without taking into account if a specific dog is actually dangerous or not. In Schleswig-Holstein, a new dog act ("Gesetz über das Halten von Hunden (HundeG)" entered into force in January 2016. It contains differentiated rules, especially in its § 3, on when dogs are to be kept on a leash and when this isn't supposed to be required. In a nutshell, a leash is required in places where typically many people are, like public parks or pedestrian zones. This it not much away from the previous rules. For walking dogs in a forest, there is still a special rule (which has precedence because of the lex specialis principle ) in § 17 of the forest act of Schleswig-Holstein of 2004 ("Waldgesetz für das Land Schleswig-Holstein (Landeswaldgesetz - LWaldG)") according to which dogs in the forest are to be kept on a leash at all times. The reason behind this rule is probably that freely running dogs in a forest may easily hunt wild animals living in the forest. If you don't obey these rules, you are typically committing an administrative offense ("Ordnungswidrigkeit"), so you could end up with a fine.

GDPR Requiring consent to give up privacy

A website that I visited posted the following: “YOUR PRIVACY IS IMPORTANT TO US. New regulations in your country require you to agree to our terms of use agreement and privacy policy before you can continue using this website” The first sentence is an obvious lie (they only care about my data, not my privacy). But I would have thought GDPR required them to respect my privacy, not deny access. Is what they are doing (only allowing access in exchange for giving up privacy rights) legal under GDPR?

No, it is not legal. Regardless of their location, the only legal options for companies serving to EU residents are to either deny access altogether or to make consent truly optional 1 Recital 42 states (emphasis mine): Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given , specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement[...] Recital 43 states: Consent is presumed not to be freely given [...] or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance. 1 Of course, remember that consent is only one of several means that allow them to process data. For example, if you were getting a trial account for a limited time, it would be considered a legitimate business need to ensure that you are not just opening new trial accounts when the old ones expire. So, if they wanted some data from you to ensure that you are not a previous user and you refused to provide it, then they could deny giving you that trial account without breaking the GDPR.

Does a hyperlink to a privacy policy have to be available after the user agrees?

A website that deals with personal user data is legally bound by CCPA Privacy Rights and GDPR Data Protection Rights. The user must agree to the privacy policy before the website has consent to share personal information with any third parties. The user must have access to the privacy policy to agree to it. After that, I am not sure where on the website is legally required to provide a link to the privacy policy, if at all. Question: Is a website required to provide a link to the privacy policy after the user has agreed to it?

gdpr The obligation to provide a privacy policy stems from GDPR Articles 13 and 14. When the information has to be provided depends on when personal data is obtained. Information under Art 13 (data obtained directly from the data subject) must be provided at the time when the personal data is being obtained. Since most websites will obtain personal data pretty much continuously, they will likely have to keep this information available continuously as well. Information under Art 14 (data obtained from other sources) must be provided within a reasonable time after obtaining the information, but at the latest when the data subject is contacted. So this depends very much on when data is obtained, and whether personal data is obtained directly from the data subject. E.g. a website generally obtains some personal data directly from the data subject every time a user visits the page, thus it will likely have to keep a minimal privacy policy available all the time, for all visitors (whether registered or not). In contrast, for individual instances of personal data processing, it may be sufficient to provide the information only once. For example, if we ask a user to enter information to enter a raffle, the privacy policy regarding the raffle might only have to be shown in context of the form where the user can enter data. However, all such approaches stink. Doing the bare minimum that's explicitly required is an easy way to run afoul of more foundational GDPR principles, e.g. the Art 5(1)(a) requirement that all data processing must be transparent (compare also Art 12(1)), and the Art 5(2) accountability principle: the data controller must be able to demonstrate how what they're doing is compliant. The Art 13 and 14 time frames are the latest point in time at which this information has to be actively provided to the user (compare also the guidelines on transparency WP260 ). But it would be entirely possible for a court to argue that the transparency principle implies that all such information must be available to the user for the duration of all related processing activities, possibly both before and after the data subject was explicitly informed. The WP260 document also emphasizes that the data controller must take the reasonable expectations of the users into account, and most users expect a “privacy policy” link in the footer of every page. As a more general point, the GDPR never requires that data subjects agree to a privacy policy. A privacy policy is largely unidirectional information, not a contract. Under some circumstances, the data controller may rely on consent as a legal bases for processing, and will then have to obtain consent from the data subject. In the course of this, it is necessary to provide information about the specific processing activities for which consent is being asked. Usually, this is done by a short summary with key information, and a link to the privacy policy for the full details (a layered privacy notice, compare the WP260 document and the EDBP guidelines on consent 05/2020 ). But valid consent can only be obtained for specific processing activities, not for a bundle of processing activities or a privacy policy in its entirety.

Why can't states require gun owners to go though Basic Combat Training under the Second Amendment?

A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As mentioned in the title, that tells me in 2019 that someone who can squeak through Army Basic Combat Training (aka boot camp) must be allowed to own the small arms currently used by the military. What am I misunderstanding? (States with strict gun control laws should love this, because they could greatly raise the bar on gun ownership, while pointing to how well they're following it.)

The Supreme Court considered and rejected some related interpretations in District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The entire opinion, and the dissents, are well worth reading, if you wish to get a clearer understanding of how the Court has most recently interpreted the Second Amendment. A few specific comments: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia " (p. 1). The Court does not agree that "militia" should be understood as synonymous with "National Guard": The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. (p. 2) The Court, citing U.S. v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, holds that the weapons protected are "those in common use for lawful purposes". There is some discussion on pages 55-56, in which the majority seems to explicitly deny that the Second Amendment grants a specific right to possess military weapons. Instead, they reason that historically "the militia" would have reported for duty with the sort of firearms they normally had at home, whether or not those were the preferred weapons for fighting a war, and so therefore the Second Amendment protects the right to bear "household" weapons, not military weapons. They seem to agree that laws banning "dangerous and unusual weapons" are constitutional, even if those weapons are in military use. They specifically mention M-16 rifles as a type of weapon that can be banned.

Do corporations have the right to keep arms?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Does "the people" include corporations? Obviously, they can't bear arms, but can they "keep arms", which is generally owning and having them in possession of its agents?

There are no cases interpreting the Second Amendment to have that meaning at this time. Even when regulations on corporate gun dealers are held unconstitutional, this holding, thus far, has always been because the regulations burden the rights of natural persons who own guns to bear arms. But, while corporations do not have the right themselves, they do have standing to bring suit regarding regulations of their corporations that burden the Second Amendment rights of their customers in a way that allegedly violated the right.

How much from the trial is won/lost by the contract itself?

A while ago I heard in a YouTube clip (I think it was from Legal Eagle channel) something like "95% of the contract disputes are won/lost directly by the contract itself"; unfortunately I cannot find it again. Does anyone knows anything about the validity of such a statement? Are there studies? Or, is it like an obvious thing?

It is hard to tell what the statement in the OP that "95% of the contract disputes are won/lost directly by the contract itself" was intended to mean. It isn't literally true. A breach of contract claim requires a showing in every case of (1) the existence of a contract giving rise to a contractual duty, (2) an unjustified breach of one or more of its valid terms, and (3) to recover more than nominal damages, a showing of the amount of damages caused by the breach. In the simplest of breach of contract cases, say, a promissory note default case, proof of the existence of a signed original promissory note, and business records regarding the defendant's payment history establish all of these elements, and establish a prima facie case that the defendant is unable to seriously contest. One possible intended meaning of the statement that you are paraphrasing is that usually the existence or non-existence of acts allegedly giving rise to a breach of the contract are undisputed and that the litigation primarily boils down to what the contract required in the fact of undisputed extrinsic evidence of breach of contract. This is not my experience. The overwhelming majority of contract lawsuits are basically collection actions for non-payment of an invoice, for foreclosure of a lien, or for eviction for non-payment of rent, in very simple transactions, where the party with a payment obligation has undisputedly failed to perform and the performance by the party to whom payment is due is not seriously disputed either. Probably 90%+ of contract cases have this character and are resolved by default judgment. A majority of the remaining < 10% of contract cases settle with the plaintiff getting some payment or acknowledgment of debt from the defendant, usually with payment plans reached primarily based on considerations mostly related to ability to pay (which isn't legally relevant but is as a practical matter critical in the subsequent collection stage), even if there are minor or unlikely to succeed disputes over liability and damages issues on the merits. Somewhere on the order of about 0.4%-4% of contract lawsuits involve cases where there are bona fide dispute regarding whether payment was made, or whether there was a legally recognized justification for non-payment such as the failure of the party to whom payment is owed to fully perform their obligations under the contract. The interesting cases usually involve disputes over whether someone earned the amount that they sought or instead failed to perform as agreed in some manner other than payment. When there is a written contract, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the validity and terms of the written contract are undisputed, and efforts to argue that there were any side agreements or subsequent modifications of the original written contract are very challenging to prevail upon. Disputes over breach and justification for breach are more common than disputes over the terms or meaning of a written contract, even though these are certainly disputed sometimes. And, of course, there are frequently disputes over whether there was a contract, and if so, what its terms were, in the case of express oral contracts, and contracts that are implied-in-fact or inferred from the course of dealings of the parties. Another possible interpretation of the paraphrased sentiment is that usually the language of the contract determines what your rights are in a case. Certainly, the rights of the parties usually do boil down to what the language of the contracts requires. Some Statistics The Colorado state courts publish an annual report with statistical data every year. The annual report for the year 2017 was typical. In District Courts (the courts of general jurisdiction) there were 247 civil bench trials (about a quarter of which are tort cases), and 218 civil jury trials in civil cases (about three-quarters of which are tort cases), which consist mostly of contract cases, but with a minority of tort cases and property rights case and cases involving statutory rights (it excludes evidentiary hearings in domestic relations or mental health or probate cases, or pre-trial evidentiary hearings such as hearings on preliminary injunction requests, eviction hearings, non-judicial foreclosure summary hearings, and criminal or quasi-criminal trials, hearings and cases) out of 89,632 civil cases filed. About 12,000 of these are contract lawsuits (52,000 are pro forma tax lien filings). Thus, there are about 240 contract case trials out of about 12,000 contact lawsuits, with about 2% of contract cases going to trial (about three-quarters of the time before judges instead of juries) (this excludes a very small number of disputed contract claims adjudicated within probate cases each year). In County Courts (the courts of limited jurisdiction for claims under $15,000 in 2017), there were 801 civil bench trials, 14 civil jury trials, out of 140,462 civil cases filed (the vast majority of which are breach of contract cases and 98%+ of which are decided by judges usually in trials of one day or less, instead of juries), with about 0.6% of contract cases going to trial. This counts evictions as well as straight out contractual debt collection lawsuits as contract cases. There were and 1,657 small claims court trials (always before a judge rathe than a jury and limited to disputes of $7,500 or less with limitations on lawyer involvement) out of 7,118 small claims cases filed, but the mix of cases is very diverse so mapping that to resolution method isn't really workable, even though more than half would be contract cases. Essentially all of the small claims cases that don't go to trial are default judgments and day of trial settlements. By comparison, there were about 460 federal court contract cases filed in Colorado in 2016 (about 0.3% of all contract cases filed in Colorado in any given year). These cases go to trial at a rate similar to the 2% rate for state court of general jurisdiction contract cases (perhaps 7 bench trials and 2 jury trials a year) (this figure excludes bankruptcy court cases which each have multiple disputed or undisputed contract claims within them). Certainly, it would be safe to say that less than 1-2% of contract lawsuits filed in Colorado go to trial. In all cases that don't go to trial, there was a default judgment (most common), settlement (next most common), or resolution in pre-trial motion practice (least common but more common than contract cases going to trial, let alone a jury trial).

Denied Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) due to third-party information

A while ago I made a data subject access request (DSAR, asking for personal information which is stored about me) which was part of an ongoing complaint. In a nutshell, I did a complaint to a company of sharing my data without consent and I explicitly instructed them not to share my data, which was on a recorded phone conversation. I have made an access request to listen to those phone calls but that was denied due to third-party information. In essence, any third-party information that was discussed was about insurance policies, i.e. anything that we did discuss could be found on the internet as well in policy documents but I don't recall discussing sensitive information about any third-party. Is the company within their rights to deny my DSAR for any potential third-party policy documents that were discussed or under what circumstances can they deny a DSAR (i.e. what level of third-party information must be shared in a conversation so that they can withhold such a request)? If it makes a difference, this is under UK law.

The GDPR allows the right to access to be limited if this access would “adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others” (Art 15(4) GDPR). However, access to the recording would not give you more information than you've already received during the phone call , so this exemption is quite unlikely to apply in any case. UK data protection law also has a large list of additional exceptions, as summarized here by ICO guidance . These exemptions also cover some aspects of trade secrets, and even mention insurance examples. However, not such exemption is likely to apply in your case: the recording would not give you more information than you already have. If the data controller is concerned about some parts of the conversation, they should provide a redacted copy and explain why the redactions were performed. They should not reject the request outright. If the data controller wants to reject the request entirely, they must do so within the time frame for the DSAR (one month), must explain their reasons, and must inform you that you're allowed to lodge a complaint with your supervisory authority or to sue them. However, ICO guidance is flexible on how detailed the reason for refusal can be : Where an exemption applies, the reasons you give to an individual for not complying with a request may depend upon the particular case. For example, if telling an individual that you have applied a particular exemption would prejudice the purpose of that exemption, your response may be more general. However, where possible, you should be transparent about your reasons for withholding information. Here, I don't see any reason why full transparency would be a problem, so I would expect that the data controller can point to a specific exemption in UK data protection law. If you are unsatisfied with the data controller's response, please consider lodging a complaint with the supervisory authority. In the UK, this is the ICO. On the ICO complaints page , you can fill out the online form about “your personal information concerns”.

Someone used my bank account to do online fraud

A while ago I was contacted by an old friend who wished to borrow my bank account to do online transactions, which has online banking enabled, while theirs is not. They want to confirm payments before sending the digital goods, so the plan is: whenever a payment is made, I told them and transfer the money, then they release the goods. I agreed and there were several payments, which I promptly transferred to them as soon as I received them. All of this happens in just one day, and no payment made and no further contact, until a few weeks then, my account got frozen. It turned out that they seem were advertising selling tickets in Instagram, in which they provided my account number and told buyers to send the money there. The tickets were never sent, and the day after the money was sent the Instagram account was deleted. This was the day after I was contacted, so it matched out. This 'friend' denied the connection with the seller account. The complication was that I've never met in-person with them. I can prove the chat requesting the borrowing, via Messenger and Whatsapp. What should I do? Can I be prosecuted if the victim of the fraud reported this to the police? What are my options? This happened in Indonesia, but I'm interested if this happens in other countries.

I can’t speak for Indonesia but if you did this in Australia you would be a criminal. You either committed fraud or are an accessory to fraud. You would probably be considered an accessory at and after the fact which means you are subject to the same maximum penalty as if you had committed the fraud yourself - 10 years in jail. In addition, you are liable to repay the money taken, jointly and severally with your ‘friend’. However, if they can only find you, you cannot recover from your ‘friend’ as you were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. Scams such as you describe are distressingly common and many people fall for them. As such, assuming the court accepted your story (because you might actually be the fraudster and have just made it up) you would be unlikely to get close to the full sentence and if you caught the judge on a good day, might even escape jail. If you are lucky, the jury might acquit, even though, on the facts, they shouldn’t - juries do what juries do. If you’re really lucky the police might decide not to prosecute.

Legal Meaning of &quot;Embarrassing&quot;

A while ago on English.SE TimLymington posted : For what it's worth, embarrassing is a term of art in the British courts, meaning 'impossible to prove or disprove (and so having no place in a court of law)'. Is there a source for this statement?

It's not a direct quotation, hence the single not double quotation marks. I meant only that it is a term (like frivolous or vexatious ) with a legal meaning that is considerably more precise and circumscribed than the usual one, though still related. No longer having a legal library on tap, I can only offer the definition in Bullen and Leake (ed. Jacob LJ) that an embarrassing pleading is “one which is ambiguous or unintelligible or which states immaterial matter and raises irrelevant issues which may involve expenses, trouble and delay and thus will prejudice the fair trial of the action, and so is a pleading which contains unnecessary or irrelevant allegations.” Any more relevant evidence from others would be welcome.

Can I get in legal trouble for open sourcing an unofficial wrapper for an API? (EU Law)

A while ago, I programmed a very simple API-Wrapper for a search engine and made it Open Source (Licensed under MIT ). All it basically does, is using the very same REST-API the actual website uses as well ( no scraping ). So what I did was making a search query in my browser and checking in my network tab where the request went. Then I wrote a small library that uses those endpoints. Now I received a message, telling me that this is against the website's ToS and could result in legal actions. I'm aware that it might go against their ToS. But as far as I know, the only consequence would be a termination of the service, right? The paragraph in the ToS states: (I'm not sure if I should include the name of the company so I omitted it.) Unless explicitly agreed otherwise, no licence to use the (...) Application Programming Interfaces (API) is granted to the User for any use other than within the framework of the Services published by (...) . Consequently, no collection and no reproduction of search results is authorised other than the exceptions provided for and strictly limited by law. I'm not collecting, nor reproducing any search results. The library just queries the very same API. Is this against the law in the EU and should I take down the repository containing the source code?

Breach of contract is against the law It’s generally not a crime which will engage the organs of state power but the aggrieved party can take you to court for the damage they have suffered and/or to seek an injunction to get you to stop. If you don’t stop after getting an injunction, then it’s a crime. Jurisdictions vary over who pays for a court action. In some each pays their own costs, in others, the loser pays (part of) the winner’s costs as well. The amount of damages payable depend on the damage the aggrieved party has actually suffered, however, even if they have no actual losses, they can usually sue for nominal damages.

What does it mean when an obligation is &#39;waived&#39;?

A while ago, I received a LOD (Letter of Demand) for an amount of $380 with ABC-CO. I signed up for a service with ABC-CO 10 years ago and terminated the service 5 years ago. I have not received any payment reminders throughout the course of 5 years for this amount. I called ABC-CO and found out that it was due to the equipment charge that I have not returned after service termination(5 years ago). It is not a common industry practice to require the customer to return the equipment after 2 years of service so I am not aware of the need to return the equipment(provided 10 years ago) and there wasn't any reminders on their end to collect/return the equipment after the service was terminated(5 years ago). The equipment charge is $280. I remember on the day I wanted to terminate the service, I had a conversation with a sales person to waive a surcharge of $50 that was added to my account a month ago then. Since I wanted to terminate the service, I requested to waive that $50 surcharge. I then made my final bill payment and terminate the service. There has been no additional invoice or chasers from ABC-CO so I assumed the $50 is waived. Now, 5 years later, they sent me a demand letter for the amount of $380. I found out that the sales person I spoke to did not waive the surcharge 5 years ago. In addition to that, they billed me for a full month cycle despite my service was terminated a few days after the last invoice date. So another $50. In total, they claimed I owe $380. $280 for the equipment, $50 for the surcharge which was not waived, and the $50 for the final month. For the equipment charge, I checked through their terms and conditions on internet archive, they only added it in recent years. However, they insisted it was there since the beginning of the service but they couldn't provide me a copy of the service agreement that I signed 10 years ago to verify. I requested them to show me the chasers or reminders they have sent in these 5 years but they can't produce that to me. They said they were generated by the system and they don't have copies of it. Finally, I was billed for a full month cycle despite the service was terminated days after the invoice date. So I owe the last month which was unpaid and I was uninformed. After contacting ABC-CO, they volunteer to waive the amount. They said on one-time good will gesture they will waive the outstanding amount. However, do I really owe that amount? Does waive mean null?

You cannot waive an obligation you have; the person to whom you owe that obligation can waive their right to it A waiver is simply the relinquishing of some right or privilege. In this case, the company has the right to be paid $380 (probably) plus interest by you but they are choosing not to enforce that right.

Legality of Virtual Currency to Purchase Real World Items

A while ago, I saw a company called Listia which would permit users to sign up and attain some amount of Credits. These Credits could then be used to purchase real-world items on the site, such as clothes, computers, etc., and have them shipped to you. When you purchased an item, you would have to pay for shipping with United States Dollars. Additionally, the amount in credits of the item you bought would be deducted from you and added to the seller. It was a "virtual economy", in a way, permitting users to buy and sell items for free by using so-called Listia Credits. This currency was not a cryptocurrency. It could not be redeemed for cash or legal tender in any way. I'm wondering what the legality of building such a system is in the United States. According to Lexology.com , In 2013, FinCEN released guidance (the "Guidance") explaining its position on money transmission in the context of virtual currency. An individual or company involved in virtual currency transactions would be considered a money transmitter if (1) it acts as an "exchanger" or "administrator" in the transactions; (2) the virtual currency involved is a "convertible virtual currency" (CVC); and (3) the company facilitates the movement of funds between different persons or locations. Pertaining to exchanging/issuing: Importantly for app and game developers, an administrator is an entity that (1) issues a virtual currency and (2) has the authority to redeem the virtual currency. "Issuing" means putting a virtual currency into circulation, for example, by providing users virtual currency for free, in exchange for real currency, or as a promotion. Redeeming means withdrawing the virtual currency from circulation, whether in exchange for in-game/in-app items or features, real-world goods or services, or real currency, or otherwise. And more specifically, An administrator would be a money transmitter, however, only if the virtual currency it issues and redeems is a CVC. FinCEN defines a CVC as a virtual currency that either (1) has an equivalent value in real currency or (2) acts as a substitute for real currency. Based on that, would you say that a company like Listia would be considered a "Money Transmitter" and that they are required to implement a BSA/AML program? Would companies building a similar marketplace today be considered as such? Is the information provided in the quotes correct? Note that Listia now uses the cryptocurrency XNK, prior to this, however, they used Lista Credits, a virtual in-app only currency. Thank you.

This is a "how things are in practice" answer, not statutory. The ruling question is whether the virtual currencies are readily exchangeable for USD . For instance if there is a thriving, open currency exchange where I can convert 1000 World of Warcraft gold into 1 USD and back again anytime I please, then WoW gold takes on the character of a foreign currency, and Blizzard Entertainment finds themselves in the shoes of a money transmitter, and all that implies , including the need to prevent the platform from being used to launder or traffick money. That's a big part of why Blizzard works so hard to stop gold selling , and why features like "WoW Tokens" (buying game time with in-game gold) are so convoluted. Blizzard knows they can't enforce absolutely: gold-for-real-money does indeed happen, but by making a serious effort to stop third-party trading, they keep Treasury off their back. This is typical of how capricious this field is, and how "laws as written" provide little practical guidance. With in-game virtual currencies, game platform developers want USD to turn into those currencies, and not become USD again. This solves the "money transmitter" problem. (It also complies with the First Rule of Acquisition : Once you have their money, never give it back. ) It sounds like before, Listia was managing their program like a "credit card rewards program" or an "airline miles program". You could redeem for purchases but not USD. (The problem came if the purchases were easily fungible to cash, e.g. Krugerrands, Bally's casino chips, or Visa gift cards). Very often, this is scammish in that the "great values" are in fact cheap Chinese junk (if they sell iPads those are fairly fungible; selling unresaleable junk moves them even further away from being a money transmitter), and/or they charge you retail UPS shipping, and handling too, while they pay UPS's best volume discount rate. There is no substitute for having good legal advice and keeping up with the trends of what is happening in the in-game-currency field. People are always testing the limits; make sure you stay far away from that bleeding edge.

Is this an example of first amendment being violated in a public university in the US?

A while ago, a graduate school official in a public university in the US sent me this email message: Obtaining permissions and approvals - If you have co-authors or co-researchers you must ask their permission before publishing, and include their names. Please ask for Dr. X's approval before posting/publishing anything to the world-wide web. As a grad student at university you represent our institution, and it is important to have correct information that is error-free. We have to maintain the integrity and reputation of producing respected scholars. Therefore it is important to have your work reviewed and approved first. My focus is on the bolded part that basically says: I need to receive approval/permission before posting/publishing anything to the world-wide web. It doesn't say that approval or permission is just limited to publishing/posting academic materials and it seems it includes any material in the world-wide web. Why, I need to receive such a permission if I want to post something in the web from the university officials? I read the whole graduate manual in this particular public university, and it doesn't say anything about this situation. My question: Is this an infringement on first amendment rights in a public university in the US for a college student?

The matter is not clear-cut (and the university lawyers are presumably relying on that fact). The bold part and following overstates the situation, especially the unconstrained "publishing anything " edict. You can publish whatever you want that the university doesn't have a legal interest in. The clause that says "If you have co-authors or co-researchers you must ask their permission before publishing, and include their names" is true, and defines a limit on their control. If you don't have co-authors, it's none of their legal business. (There can be issues regarding publishing an affiliation, so let's put that on hold). They can, however, prohibit you from claiming an affiliation with Pod U, unless you submit your works to some internal vetting organization. This requirement should, however, be stated somewhere perhaps in the rules of the graduate school (not just the student handbook); or the other legally-enforceable rules. You should also pay attention to the exact words that they use. You must ask permission to publish work done with a co-author (that's a fact: it's a standard requirement in universities). It is important to be sure that the information you publish is correct (clearly that is not in dispute). They are allowed to ask you to get X's approval. The First Amendment does not prohibit them from urging you to follow a course of action.

Recieved bill for traffic tickets that I paid years ago

A while ago, something happened that resulted in my paying nearly $500 in traffic violations. That's fine—it happened, I paid, etc. Six years later, I got a bill for those same violations. This bill is preventing me from renewing my license. I don't have the receipt... ... but , these violations were issued in 2011. The license I have now was issued in 2015, and expired earlier this year. The only way I would have ever been able to get this license in 2015 is if I had paid the violations I recieved in 2011. Is this enough proof that I paid these things? I would really hate to have to pay that much money again because I didn't keep a receipt for nearly 7 years.

The fact that your license was renewed is not legal proof of payment. The usual pattern is that a court will notify the DMV/DOL in your state that you failed to appear or respond, and then under some law (e.g. Washington's RCW 46.20.289 ) your license may be suspended. In Washington, the law says "shall suspend"; in Florida there are multiple rules of the form "shall suspend" and "may suspend". Assuming that your state has mandatory suspension, it would be predicated on the court notifying the license department of the unpaid fines (the license department doesn't directly know that you have or have not paid a fine). While you would reasonably hope that the court would provide timely notice to the DOL of a failure to respond, it is unlikely that there is a law that absolutely compels the court to give notice within a certain time period. Even if there is an error on the part of the court (failing to give timely notice to licensing), that does not override the requirements of the law, unless there is a specific provision (e.g. "if the court fails to notify DOL of a failure to respond within 3 years, a license may not be suspended"). An error by the court is not proof of payment. Moreover, an error w.r.t. mandatory suspension could be due to the licensing department failing to revoke upon notice. You're trying to argue a particular fact, that you did pay the fine. You evidence is based on the premise that the court would without fail have notified licensing of the non-response, and that licensing would without fail have suspended your license upon notice. Neither of these premises enjoys much factual support (government agencies know that government agencies can fail to do what they are supposed to). Only proof of payment is proof of payment (and I assume there is no proof, in the form of a credit card payment or cancelled check). This does not mean that you can't plead to the judge that you did pay, but it's unlikely that the court would take the fact of a renewed license to prove that the fine was paid.

What can Thingiverse do with my Things according to their Terms?

A while back (It looks like 2012ish), I think before MakerBot bought Thingiverse, Thingiverse changed their Terms of Service/Use (ToS/ToU) and The Internets were up in arms about it, claiming that the owners wanted to steal the work from creators. It went so far that people were posting text explanations protesting in their projects in an attempt to raise awareness of the change. This link attempts to address the phenomenon , and is written by one of Thingiverse's lawyers. Their current ToS have the legalese on one aside, and an attempt at plain English on the right (A great idea). I'm not a lawyer, nor do I really have access to one. I would like to design and post things to share, much in the same manner as Thingiverse. I believe GrabCAD makes a point of saying that they will not try to steal or take your work from you in clear text when you sign up, as if it were a feature. What can Thingiverse do with my Things according to their Terms? Am I potentially signing away something I would probably regret if I decided to try to monetize on something later?

Makerbot's explanation of the Terms is accurate This is comparable with most other services that host and display User-created content - even with SaaS providers, as per Interpretation of content ownership/usage in service provider agreement . They are correct that they are asking for the lots of broad rights, but it's all qualified with (my emphasis): 3.2 License. You hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company and its affiliates and partners, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing, solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services . That is, if they use your User Content for a purpose other than including it in the Site and Services (and you have not agreed to this use), you may be entitled to relief in the form of an injunction or damages.

Can I use content I submitted to a website because they went out of business?

A while back I used to answer on WebAnswers and I was wondering since they are out of business, if I can go through the Archive and retrieve the content that I created and use it elsewhere. Their agreement which is listed here under section F Proprietary Rights states: You waive the confidential nature of any content posted by You to the Website. You further waive any exclusive use of any content posted to the Website by You and that materials or ideas You submit on the Website or to the Website administrator or any employee, officer or agent of WebAnswers, will not be considered confidential and may be used by WebAnswers, in its sole discretion, without any obligation to compensate You for its use and without any obligation to return any such materials. Based on these terms are we allowed to go on sites with a similar situation and grab our content? In this sentence: You further waive any exclusive use of any content posted to the Website Does that mean that the person lost it's content to the website and can't use it elsewhere? Perhaps I understood wrong in those lines. Any help interpreting those terms?

Let's take this one at a time: You further waive any exclusive use of any content posted to the Website by You. you surrender your exclusivity means that you're no longer the only person who can benefit from this content. The website also gains the right to use this content. Materials or ideas You submit on the Website or to the Website administrator or any employee, officer or agent of WebAnswers, will not be considered confidential. The website will not be required to keep these materials confidential - they can be made public, on their website or other materials they produce. May be used by WebAnswers, in its sole discretion, without any obligation to compensate You for its use and without any obligation to return any such materials. WebAnswers CAN use all your materials, as they wish. This means they can publish, modify and remix all your content at their discretion. Furthermore, if this content is used for marketing and business purposes, the website is not required to provide a share for you or license author rights from you. You are not entitled to any profit the website generates from these materials. You are also not entitled to moderate this content after publishing. You cannot request your content back or return any authorship rights after you submit the materials to the website. Great, so far, all of these terms regulate how the website can use all the content that you have submitted to them or any party related to them. While you can't claim the content back, there is NOTHING here that says that you CAN'T use this content for your own purposes. If nothing tells you using the content is forbidden, then, it is probably not forbidden. I'm not a lawyer. There are things that I'm missing, like an implied condition that I don't know of. HOWEVER, I'm a content writer and an SEO, I'll tell you some simple truths: The likelihood of a dead business to sue you over submitted answers in their platform is low. The fact that their terms and conditions sets NO rules that forbid you to use the content means their legal claim is weak at best. (Not a lawyer - double check.) At worst you will receive a "Cease and decist" letter, that tells you they are the rightful owner, and you have to stop using this content and take it off the Internet ASAP, and if you don't they will sue you. Which they probably wont, but they can.. I assume that you want to use this content to republish on the Internet, in which case: Google does not favour duplicate content. If this content is already indexed in Google (and the other seach engines) at WebAnswers, you will gain nothing in republishing it to a new website / platform. The safe way to reuse content across other websites is to paraphrase, add more to the topic and remix with other information to create a unique peace of content. The topic is the same, the quality of the information is increased, and the content is uniquely introduced to search engines. Use this information as you best decide, but the bottom line is, there are ways to do it smart and avoid any IP disputes. I have used and continue to use and reuse content that I've previously written, and created for other websites, or submitted to online platforms. I have received one complaint from 150+ articles published around the web and 200+ published on specific websites. It was about an image of The Guardian that I have no rights to use in my post. Most content writers just Google for an hour before writing a new article and surprise, surprise, the final product is just the same as the other 9 results on page one. It's how it works these days.

UK: What are my rights if i&#39;m woken by construction work, or roadworks at night?

A while back I was woken by some workmen repairing metal railings on the side the road next to my house. This occurred at around 1:30 am, I brashly asked the workmen to stop. To which they complied. If a similar incident occurs in the future, what are my rights when asking them to stop?

You are free to ask them to stop. If they do, great. If they don’t, you legal options depend on if they are legally able to make such noise at that time or not. I am not familiar with UK law but typical laws give wide powers to the owners of infrastructure to construct/repair it. Again, typically, permits may be required but exceptions exist for urgent work. If they have such a permit (or don’t need one) your legal options are nil. If they don’t you can go to court seeking an injunction to stop them until they do.

Are cheater plugs illegal in Ohio? If so, in what contexts?

A while back, I started a thread asking if cheater plugs (adapters allowing three-prong electronics to plug into two-prong outlets) are illegal in the USA: Are cheater plugs illegal in the USA? From this, it appears that the answer depends on the jurisdiction. When I've tried to find answers online, even information on the legality in general was scarce, let alone in specific jurisdictions. Most articles just discuss whether cheater plugs are safe, not whether they're legal. To use a specific jurisdiction, then, is it illegal to use cheater plugs in Ohio? If so, in which of the following contexts are they prohibited? Selling cheater plugs Using cheater plugs in a commercial business Using already-owned cheater plugs for personal use in a home Information from other jurisdictions is acceptable, but Ohio is the specific jurisdiction of this thread's focus.

Illegal is pretty wide-ranging. I doubt anyone would have any statute they could point to to arrest you for using one. However , if you use one to avoid grounding a device and the building burns down or a user gets electrocuted, a determined prosecutor just might decide to attempt to send you to prison via some type of negligence charge. Your insurance company might also decide to void your coverage, and if you have a business that has fire marshal inspections, expect to get dinged if they see one. It is also theoretically possible that an OSHA fine could come your way for such usage, but unless someone dies, highly unlikely, thanks @JonCuster. Clearly the sale of these items isn't restricted, and they are required in some older home wiring in the USA to allow grounding via a center-screw grounding that used to be a thing. They are known as grounding converters. US Homes were built with grounding outlets in the 1960s, homes I am familiar with that didn't have them were pre-war.

Asking for a payment to release funds

A while back, a friend of mine did a dumb: she gave her savings to some guy in return for a vague contract to invest it for high returns. This wasn't an Internet/email thing; she knew this guy in real life (before COVID-19). The guy led her to believe that he was registered financial advisor (though I didn't find anything to that effect in her contract or their message history). Then she had some bad luck: lost her job, wrecked her car, etc. So she wanted to dip into her savings. She contacted the guy, who agreed to start disbursements from her investments (which he claimed to have a value of several times the principal at that point; he gave an approximate dollar figure). He paid out a couple thousand, then started delaying, temporizing, and making excuses. After a while of this, she started asking for all of her funds to be returned. She continued regularly asking him for her money over the next number of months and this behaviour continued. No doubt about it: my friend's trust in this guy was unwise. But that's not the point here. The point here is that buried in their message history, after several months of requests from her for money and excuses from him, he asked for another $2,000 to cover "fees" and expedite the process of returning her money. (She didn't pay.) From my viewpoint, this appears to jump from some sort of confidence fraud straight into 419 scam territory. Is this a felony? Both parties here live in the US state of Washington.

Fraud may be a crime, or a tort (civil wrong): only criminal fraud can be a "felony". The Washington criminal laws about fraud are here , and they are all fairly specific, such as selling or destroying encumbered property (which is a misdemeanor anyhow), or conducting a mock auction. Most frauds are misdemeanors, though forgeries are in the felony category. It also includes identity thefts, again the emphasis being on false documents. Based on your description, this is not a crime, it is a civil wrong, meaning that she will have to sue the guy to get her money back. The Attorney General's office will not get involved unless there is a widespread state interest (for example, very many Washington residents being victimized), and then the involvement would be suing on behalf of the victims. That said, if the swindle was carried out by phone, then that is potentially a violation of a federal felony law, 18 USC 1343 . It would not matter if the parties are in the same state, because phone service counts as "interstate commerce". So the details of phone involvement matter. Saying that you "have to" charge for processing a refund is not per se fraudulent and texting someone that "I'll have to charge an extra $2,000" doesn't make this wire fraud. But there is some potential for a federal wire fraud angle.

What are the limits to &quot;cross examination?&quot;

A witness takes the stand, and answers a number of questions about the issue in controversy. Then the opposing side gets to "cross" examine him or her. To what extent is cross examination limited only to subjects brought up in direct examination? Can the cross examiner dig into a bunch of background issues in a witness' past to prove bad character or bias, for instance? Or is there an "intermediate" position whereby cross examination is limited to issues brought up on direct examination, plus certain specific "tangential" issues not brought up previously (e.g. "rape shield laws protect a victim from being asked certain questions).

In the United States, different jurisdictions have different rules about what topics may be addressed in cross examination. In the federal courts, Fed. R. Evid. 611 generally discourages cross examination on matters not addressed in the direct examination, although it also permits questions on "matters affecting the witness’s credibility." So if a witness is asked on direct examination only about whether A stopped at the intersection before B crashed into him, the cross examination probably shouldn't go into questions about how severe the injuries were, what the weather conditions were, etc. But the court should allow cross-examination on whether the witness is the plaintiff's sister, or whether the witness was previously convicted of perjury. (Despite the rule, the court has a great deal of latitude as to how to handle these questions, practically speaking.) In the state courts, the rules may be different. In Ohio, for instance, Rule 611 is roughly identical, except that it generally allows questions on "all relevant matters." So now the questions about the weather and injuries are fair game, along with the questions about the witness's credibility. In any event, the questions will remain subject to the other rules of evidence, so questions about sexual history might be excluded by the rape shield, and questions about irrelevant matters should be prohibited, as well.

Is it illegal to secretly record someone without their permission in UK?

A woman has me house sitting for her while she is on holiday at the minute, now I had to stay 1 night in the living room as she was still here but 2 days after she left I have found a recording device for video + audio in the living room, I just want to know is there anything I can do about this? I have gotten changed in this room and to find that she has been recording me the whole time without my permission live to her phone or laptop has really frightened me and I just want to know if I went to a solicitor about this would it stand in court. She has really invaded my privacy by doing this and I'm scared incase she has cameras in every room. I hope someone can answer my question please I just want to add, she never needed me to sleep in this room as she flew out Monday at 10pm, she told me she needed me to arrive early Sunday morning/afternoon as she flew out early Monday morning but then told me her real times when I arrived. She also offered to pay me if I came on Saturday to stay on the sofa bed and I have conversation proof. She wanted me over 2 weeks prior to her flying out to stay on this sofa bed without my knowledge and kept hassling me about have I booked flights until I pressured her on her dates and made an excuse that I was busy on the Saturday as i wasnt comfortable staying with a stranger for that long. I visited her 2 months ago to let her feel more comfortable with me in her home and she showed me around, this camera was never there. This device only holds footage for a period of 24 hours unless it is saved and it only records once motion is activated, it is all uploaded directly to her phone through the canary app so I can't question her about this until I have money to leave but she will delete any saved footage once questioned. I took pictures of the serial/model numbers to prove she bought this specifically for the intention of spying on me knowing well that this device would be recording me in my sleep as it is equipped with night vision. She is oblivious that I know about this, I have switched it off as I am only 20 on my own in London and this is really worrying me that she could have footage of me naked and sleeping, she is also on holiday with her husband so I dont know if they're both watching it. I've tried contacting solicitors but no one can give me a straight answer, with the added knowledge does anyone think this will work out if I take her to court? I don't have much money for it but I cant let her away with this, it has really worried my safety

What about Article 8 of the Europe Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)? Is the UK a signatory? Granted I believe that is just a treaty, whereas the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) are statutes. In most cases enforcement will be the issue here.

How many days do you have to live somewhere in Texas before you have residency in a home?

A woman has to move in with her parents because she fears becoming homeless while her husband is on probation for a felony DWI. Over 4 years of probation while living there the parents become extremely toxic and abusive to the woman (their daughter). Then the father passes away and the mother freaks out because she has no income anymore. Daughter offers mother money for rent (has been living there without paying any rent for years) but instead mother tries to force daughter into homelessness in order to move in another person (other daughter) and kick out daughter #1. Daughter and husband and kids move out for three weeks because mother threw a temper tantrum and left the house and daughter wants mom to be able to come back. In that amount of time, daughter gets kicked out of new place due to conduct of husband and mother in law. Daughter comes back to parents' house with a fake permission from mother in law who claims that she talked to the mom. During this time mother has not returned to the home but she has changed the locks despite telling daughter to come back and get the rest of her things out & clean up. Mother is now physically but not mentally incapacitated in a hospital and won't speak to daughter. Once daughter returns to the house if nobody tries to stop her from staying there is that consent to her coming back? How many days are needed to establish residency? State is Texas country is U.S. Is she trespassing? Does someone have to evict her to get her out or can they pop in at any time and say she is trespassing and have her arrested?

Residency under Texas law is determined by various individual laws for different purposes: probate (in case you die), divorce, in-state tuition, voting, fishing licenses. Your question is in the realm of landlord-tenant law , which does apply to one or more rooms uses as a permanent residence, but there is no requirement that the tenant be a "resident" in any legal sense. So that law is applicable no matter when you arrived in Texas.

Does interpreting a law differently violate equal protection?

A woman in South Africa was recently sentenced for yelling very racist slurs at four black police officers. According to a New York Times article , “Past racists who have come to court have been given very small fines and have been treated very leniently, and it didn’t serve any deterrence,” said Neeshan Balton, executive director of the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, an anti-racism group. “I think this will be a deterrent.” Although this happened in South Africa, what if it was in the US: a person charged much more severely than is usual. Would this violate the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Probably not. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from liability for their discretionary non-investigatory actions in criminal prosecutions (like deciding to prosecute and recommending sentences; they have qualified immunity for investigatory actions like preparing search warrants), and judges have absolute immunity from liability for their judicial action. Sentences are reviewed on appeal on two standards. They are void if they exceed the statutorily authorized maximum sentence for the crime, and are reviewed for abuse of discretion if they do not. Past sentencing decisions imposed by trial court judges under the statute are not precedents that bind future cases. Normally, a misdemeanor sentence that is less than the statutorily authorized maximum sentence for the crime will not be found to be an abuse of discretion by a judge unless a judge publicly states or strongly implies on the record that the reason for the sentence is an impermissible reason including one that would violate the 14th Amendment, such as race. (A judge who stated a reason on the records that was race would also face judicial discipline proceedings and might be removed from the bench, but that wouldn't make the person sentenced any better off.) I can imagine a case where a large statistical sample showed unequivocal racial basis where a class action lawsuit seeking to declare all or some portion of the entire criminal justice system in a state was unconstitutional as applied under the 14th Amendment, but even very strong statistical evidence of racial basis in death penalty sentencing has not prevailed in 14th Amendment litigation in the past, and those rulings are binding precedents. A case brought on that theory might not be frivolous and might get to trial, but probably wouldn't prevail on the merits. The 8th Amendment likewise has been interpreted to be a dead letter in all but the most extreme cases. Sentences to life in prison without possibility of parole for recidivist offenders have been upheld for shoplifting, and a case sentencing someone to decades in prison for writing a bad check as a non-recidivist was considered a close call. If the underlying conduct prohibited by the statue may constitutionally be punished as a crime, the likelihood of a misdemeanor sentence much more severe than is typical for that offense being overturned at all, let alone on constitutional grounds, is very low, even though it shows all of the trappings of unconstitutional racial discrimination in context.

Double Jeopardy?

A woman is thought to have been murdered (corrected this first sentence from a previous comment). A man is arrested for it. He is offered a plea bargain deal that will get him 15 years or he can take his chances in court but would get life if found guilty. All they have is circumstantial evidence but the arrested man is convinced by his lawyer to plea bargain due to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against him. (side-note: For this scenario, the man did NOT actually murder this woman as we find out later in this story but he just didn't want to take the chance of getting sentenced to life in prison). Man serves his 15 years and is released...no probation, he served his entire sentence. Knowing he did not murder this woman he looks for her after he is released and finds her. Ends up she wanted to disappear and start a new life and set this man up to be framed for her murder. He is obviously mad at this woman and after he finds her, he kills her for revenge of sending him to prison and losing 15 years of his life for something he didn't do. He is arrested again and admits to the police to killing her but does not worry about being charged for murder because he has already been convicted of her murder and served his sentence. Can he be charged, convicted and sent to prison again?

Yes, because the crimes are different instances. Let's remove the guilty plea and the fact that it is murder: can a person assault a person, be tried and imprisoned, then assault the same person later – and get off by declaring "Double jeopardy!". No, it's not the same crime. It's the same type of crime, and involves the same victim, but it is still a different crime. The same with your proposed scenario. (Incidentally, your first line is wrong: the woman wasn't murdered, she was thought to have been murdered).

Under what circumstances can a man avoid paying child support for his &quot;stepchildren?&quot;

A woman marries, has two children, and gets divorced. She is awarded child support but the first husband is a "deadbeat," and basically doesn't have enough income to pay reasonable child support. The woman remarries, then she and her second husband get divorced. My understanding is that if the second husband adopts the two children, he will be on the hook for child support. But suppose he doesn't. Is the second husband then liable for child support? Are there steps that he can take (e.g. a pre nuptial agreement) to avoid being tagged for child support? Feel free to answer for any state in the U.S., but my two states of greatest interest are New York and California.

My understanding is that if the second husband adopts the two children, he will be on the hook for child support. But suppose he doesn't. Is the second husband then liable for child support? No. The second husband is only liable for child support if he has adopted the children. (Also, many, but not all, states do not allow for stepparent adoption at all, unless the parental rights of a birth parent have been terminated. The question implies that there has not been a termination of parental rights in this case.) In theory, if he sought and been granted significant legally confirmed parenting time of the children (parenting time can be awarded to non-parents who have significant relationships with a child in many states), he could be awarded child support from his ex-wife and their father, but he wouldn't have to pay child support, even then. It is conceivable that the fact that his ex-wife is caring for minor children limits her earning capacity. Her earning capacity could be one factor among many used to determine if alimony will be awarded, and if so, how much, for how long. But, this impact on an alimony award does not mean that it is child support and does not differ in its relevance to an alimony award for many other factors that could impact her earning capacity (e.g. her education, her work experience, any disabilities she has, her age, etc.). It is also possible that temporary family support during the pendency of the divorce case could take into account the ex-wife's need for funds to support her children, even though they are not his children, but again, this is an alimony type decision, which in the temporary while a divorce case is pending category, is driven by actual need in the short term of each spouse while they are reworking their relative finances (much as it might be influenced by the cost an ex-wife incurs to maintain a horse or dog), rather than by the needs of the children in their own right. She might, for example, own the house but have only a small income, but adjusting the situation so that both spouses have sustainable finances after the divorce is what these court cases are all about.

Is sending the complains to the whole community instead of the Title IX office legal?

A woman received an unwanted "offensive" text message during an official college event from a man: "I am not sure if you are dressing like in a night-club". Although the text message seemed to be polite and did not involve protected characteristics, the woman felt offended, emotionally harmed and believed that the man is sexually harassing her. Since it happened only once, the woman thinks that the title IX allegation would have a slim chance to be successful (i.e. legally not harassing); and during the conversation, the woman responded with sexually offensive language, so the woman did not bother to bring the entire thing up to file a formal Title IX complain. Instead, the woman choose to distribute her version of the story among the community and write complains to the professors also in the event, referring the man as a "harasser". The man's daily research and study was severely harmed because many are no longer willing to work with him. Getting her messages, some others also write to the man harshly accusing him for the "misconduct". What legal troubles will the woman (and others who accused the man) be facing? Maybe Title IX allegation?

If the factual information contained in her statement (without regard to the spin or interpretation she places on those facts, which are a matter of opinion) are true, she has every legal right and privilege to continue what she is doing. If the factual information is false in some material respect that damages his reputation, it would be possible for the person who is the subject of the statements to bring a defamation against her seeking money damages, although it is unlikely to prevail and likely to give rise to only a nominal money damages award if he prevails.

Can the client of a Managed Service Company effectively make an MSC worker redundant for being off sick by terminating their specific role?

A worker in the UK is employed by a managed service company. They are going to lose their job because the MSC's client plans to remove that specific worker's role from the contract between the MSC and client. This, in effect, forces the MSC to make the worker redundant because the MSC has only one client and therefore have no work for the employee. The reason driving this change is so that this worker specifically will be terminated due to thier extended sickness. They have been out sick for 2 weeks and provided a sicknote for a further 4 weeks. This may well be right and legal but it feels wrong. A way to get around all the reasons someone might be protected against termination. Someone waves a hand and the work 'goes away' and THATs the reason they got the shove from their actual employer, even though the client pulling the strings effectively forced the dismissal because X, Y or Z. I'd like to know whether or not this is all legal and above board or how best to find out.

I'd like to know ... how best to find out. These links may assist: There are certain rights when someone is made redundant, one being: You must be selected for redundancy in a fair way, for example because of your level of experience or capability to do the job. And one can get advice from: Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) or Citizens Advice .

Can a contract &quot;Implied in Fact&quot; supersede a written contract?

A written contract states a given requirement for a service to be provided. But, in practice we ignore that requirement consistently and provide the service anyway. This goes on for many iterations, until at some point it doesn't. If our contract states we "require" XYZ in order to fulfill our service obligation but 95% of the time we fulfill it anyway, can someone potentially sue us for a violation of a contract in fact? Or, does contract in fact apply more in the situation where there is no written contract?

Yes, a contract implied in fact can supersede a written contract: if it both (1) arises after the parties have entered into their initial agreement and (2) if the subject matter of the agreement is not subject to the statutes of frauds (i.e. to a statutory requirement that agreements of this kind must always be in writing). A course of dealings before a written contract is signed if the contract states that it is the entire agreement of the parties, or appears from context to be the entire agreement of the parties, may not be considered pursuant to something known as the parole evidence rule (which is actually a rule of substantive law and not evidence, despite the name). An agreement that is required by statute to be modified in writing, something called a statute of frauds, might or might not be susceptible to being modified in this way. Sometimes, failure to comply with a statute of frauds is excused if the parties have partially performed the unwritten agreement, sometimes the statute is applied more strictly and cannot be overcome. Indeed, in Colorado, where I practice law most of the time, there is actually case law that specifically provides that even if a written contract states that it may only be modified in writing, that any oral or implied in fact agreement which could form a contract in the first place may supersede the written agreement. Proving that the course of dealings actually constituted an actual modification of the contractual obligation, may, in practice, be a challenging matter, however. In practice, there is probably a stronger argument on the available facts in the question, that there has been a waiver of the requirement for further provision of the service that may not be undone retroactively, but may be reasserted prospectively with fair notice to the other party, with the written contract remaining in force. The judge or jury would have to listen to the facts from the parties about their course of dealings and communications, about the nature of the "requirement", and about the pertinent terms of the written contract, and more generally, the larger context of the transaction, and then would decide which interpretation seemed closer to the truth, or if another explanation of what happened was more plausible. This dilemma and uncertainty is generically a problem any time that the parties course of dealings deviates significantly from a written instrument. These kinds of cases are never clear slam dunks for either party in the event of litigation.

Cell phone with zero usage sent to collections agency

A year ago I briefly had a phone plan in Alberta, Canada where I used absolutely zero data and no calling minutes. I called the phone company in order to cancel the plan on a Saturday, when they responded by saying that I should call them back on a weekday; however, by that point I had left the country to reside in the UK. I asked for two close family members to handle cancelling the plan, which they agreed to. Needless to say, they did nothing about it, and now a year later I receive an email notice that a collections agency wants over $300. So here are my questions: 1) Do I have any recourse, prior to the point where I might be sued, that can get me out of paying this amount, or reducing the amount owed? 2) If I were sued, what would being a Canadian citizen living in the United Kingdom change about the suit? 3) As a follow on to number 2, am I less likely to be sued for $300 than if I were still living in Canada? Thank you very much for you help.

1) Do I have any recourse, prior to the point where I might be sued, that can get me out of paying this amount, or reducing the amount owed? Probably not, on the theory that having the ability to make a call or use data if you want to, even if you never do it, is something that has value. Indeed, there are cell phone plans that contemplate that they will be used only on an emergency basis. Generally, contracts are upheld as they are written. This said, the facts might lead the collections agency or a judge to be merciful even if this isn't legally called for, because you got no actual benefit and tried in good faith to cancel. 2) If I were sued, what would being a Canadian citizen living in the United Kingdom change about the suit? It might make it harder to serve you with process in the Canadian lawsuit as a practical matter, but you still could be sued. It would also make it expensive for you to appear in court to fight a lawsuit, which the collection agency might use to its advantage. In the U.S., consumer services collection lawsuits have to be brought in the county where you reside at the time of the suit, but I don't think that this law extends to international cases under U.S. law, and as far as I know, Canada has no comparable statute with international application. 3) As a follow on to number 2, am I less likely to be sued for $300 than if I were still living in Canada? Probably. Even if they won, it would be expensive for them to collect their judgment from you in the U.K., so unless they thought you had Canadian assets available for them to seize or would in the next few years, they might decide that it wasn't worth the trouble to pursue this case.

statute of limitations on injuries in the workplace in israel?

A year ago I got hit by a metal bar on my leg. I didn't tell anyone because I have a speech problem and heavy shyness . It hurt me the first day and later the doctor told me it was not broken and gave me medicine. The pain stopped for a while but has returned now and again even after a year. So is there anything I do? Sadly I don't have a witness or anything

Statute of limitations is the least of your problems To answer your headline question is 7 years. However, the problem that you have is I hear (and your employer and the court will hear): "I say I suffered this injury at work but I didn't report it, no one saw it happen, I didn't tell anyone at the time and I didn't see a doctor until 'later'." What are you going to say when they ask you for evidence of your claim?

I agreed on 1 year rent term while signing for 3 years and now landlord wants me to leave

A year ago I started a room renting contract, where landlord asked me to stay there for 1 year maximum and I agreed. This was only accepted by my words and in written email but not signed. The written contract itself states that it lasts for 3 years, so legally I can live there for 2 more years I think. Now landlord is asking me to leave the room because we agreed on 1 year length (the reason being, every year he is legally allowed to increase a price by little bit). I actually kind of like the room and would love to stay for at least half more year, but I think it's unethical from my point of view, but again he gave me 3 year written contract, so that's what matters, or is it possible that my email confirmation on 1 year is more important? Would it be ethical/fine to keep living there? I know this isn't really finance related question, but I think it's fits this board most. It's in The Netherlands by the way.

If it were me, I would leave. Who wants to rent a room in a home where you are not wanted? However, there should be concessions. I would ask for 1.5 months rent refunded, but would happily settle for one month. I am sure there are many nice rooms, close by, where you are welcomed. Given additional information commented by the OP, the landlord is looking to increase his rents. Evidentially this municipality has strict rent controls. In this case, I would enter negotiations with the landlord. I would offer him a percentage of his anticipated rent increase and probably start at 50%. If the OP has been a good tenant (always paid on time, and low maintenance) the landlord might see this as a bargain. No need to find a new tenant and no need to vet one that might pay poorly. The better the tenant has been, and the more strict the renter protection laws the more appeal this offer will have to the landlord. The benefit for the OP is they don't have to move, or find a new place with its associated costs and inconvenience. If the landlord is just a mindless corporate drone with no decision making power, this will not work.

Paying back relocation money and resignation

A year ago I started working at a well known company and it turned out to be a lot worse than expected, so I'd like to leave ASAP since I already made plans for the future. As part of employment I was also given some money for relocation and other expenses. For it, there is a sentence in my contract (last part shortened): In the event that you choose to leave the company within 12 months of the start of your job responsibilities (start date for new hires or internal transfer date), all relocation cash allowances and money ... must be paid back. My question (it might be more of an English than law related), but does within 12 months mean if: The date when I stop working (my last work day) is within those 12 months, I make a decision within first 12 months (officially give my resignation in first 12 months, even if then by notice period obligation I still work 13th month), Something else :)? Thanks!

It is unclear whether the sentence means "you made your choice within 12 months" or "you are leaving within 12 months". If terms in a contract are unclear, they are usually interpreted in favour of the party that didn't decide the terms of the contract. Since you didn't decide on the terms in the contract, but the company did, the contract terms will be held against the company.

Can a juvenile be charged with theft by receiving if the property wasn&#39;t stolen?

A young adult entered a home where he used to rent a room in order to retrieve a piece of workout equipment. The home owner would not let him have the equipment until he paid past rent money so he entered the home when nobody was home. I might also note that he was forced to move out without being properly evicted. This young man was charged with theft and burglary and even though he has evidence that the equipment belonged to him, has since plead guilty. A 13 year old juvenile, who remained in the car the entire time while this young man entered the house, has been charged with trespass and theft by receiving. How in the world can this 13 year old be charged under these circumstances? Can the prosecution possibly have a case?

A young adult entered a home where he used to rent a room in order to retrieve a piece of workout equipment... This young man was charged with theft and burglary and even though he has evidence that the equipment belonged to him... This is your assessment of the situation, not the prosecutors' or courts'. Local or state laws may see this entry and property removal as trespassing and/or theft, even when there is a dispute over past rent or the past lease. I might also note that he was forced to move out without being properly evicted. That's a completely different situation and is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, and it does not typically give an evictee a right to trespass and remove property from the past residence. How in the world can this 13 year old be charged under these circumstances? The prosecutor with jurisdiction (city, county or state) makes the decision to prosecute on what they see as the strength of the evidence, the severity of the crime and the likelihood of conviction by a jury or judge. Since the subject of prosecution is a minor, other local laws may come into play regarding who in the judicial system has input into the decision to prosecute. If you feel like the prosecutor is overstepping, tell the 13 year old's parent or guardian to talk to their lawyer (court appointed, or privately hired) and consult with the prosecutor to drop or amend the charges. Can the prosecution possibly have a case? The prosecutor must feel they have a case; if the case goes to court, it's up to the judge and jury to weigh the evidence and convict if that evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt; or if the judge or jury feels that the evidence is not convincing, they acquit. Since the subject of prosecution is a minor, other local laws may come into play regarding if the court procedure must be a jury trial, a bench trial, or some form of mediation and/or restitution.

Contacting the opposition

A young lady (21) is connected to our family through friendship. Over the last year or so she has had a rough go of it. Central to these issues is a legal dispute with her step-father and the mother has sided with the step-father. While we do not know the complete details of the situation, the wife and I are pretty sure that it is sexual in nature. There is criminal prosecution against the step-father where the young lady is the key witness. Recently we found out that the step-father's attorney contacted this young lady. Hearing of the conversation second hand, it sounded like he was trying to manipulate her into dropping the charges. No real threats, but more of the promise of being one big happy family again, that kind of thing. Perhaps the implied threat of never being a family again if she proceeds. I believe that this sort of thing is clearly against the law and could be grounds for disbarment. It would seem to me, that it would be especially egregious if the case in question was sexual or violent in nature. Am I correct? If so how does this person proceed with bringing action or making a complaint against this lawyer?

I believe that this sort of thing is clearly against the law and could be grounds for disbarment. It would seem to me, that it would be especially egregious if the case in question was sexual or violent in nature. Am I correct? If so how does this person proceed with bringing action or making a complaint against this lawyer? You are incorrect. This kind of thing is legal and indeed a fairly common thing for an attorney for the stepfather in a situation like this one to do in a criminal case since the victim in a criminal case is not a "represented person." If she were bringing a civil case against the stepfather with her own attorney this would be unethical, because it would be contact with a represented person, to which any person with knowledge of the situation could file a grievance with state bar authorities. But, it would probably not be an offense considered so serious that it would result in disbarment. A public reprimand or a brief period of license suspension (perhaps a month) or an order to attend an ethics education course, would be more typical in that case.

What can the President of the United States do when a national emergency renders Congress unable to do its job?

A zombie virus is sweeping the nation! Every US Congressperson is either dead or in hiding. Either way, they're unreachable. Thankfully, we managed to keep the President and his Cabinet safe in underground bunkers. The judiciary is also safe. Unfortunately for us, some government watchdog is up our butts. They don't approve of the recently-enacted regulations and executive orders and will happily sue us the first chance they get to prove the executive is acting without authority from Congress. Which begs the question - until we can get a Congress assembled, what can the President do to restore peace and order?

It's not clear what the big deal is. Congress has already passed vast numbers of laws for POTUS to enforce, and has left the details of implementation up to the executive branch. The main limitation is that you need a Congress to fund any new federal government projects. The Constitution anticipates this problem, and there are clauses regarding filling vacancies (clearly applicable to the dead). Assuming that zombies are rioting in the streets, POTUS can invoke the National Emergencies Act , issuing an executive order to call out the National Guard.

What determines jurisdiction when two people litigate in federal court?

A, a resident of California, wants to sue B, who works in New York, for something that happened in New York, using the federal court system. Would this matter be litigated in California or New York? Would either A or B have a choice of venue? And how would it be decided which state's laws apply? Suppose they settled the matter with B agreeing to make installment payments to A. The two states have different rules regarding interest rates, default rates, start dates, etc. Which state's rules would apply, or would they negotiate?

Worldwide Volkswagen - If B has never been to CA and has no contacts with CA it will be tough for CA to get jurisdiction over B. The defendant must purposely avail himself of the laws of the forum state to satisfy the minimum contacts test. The point of Worldwide Volkswagen is that defendants should not be inconvenienced by being hailed to court in a state that they have no business in but also to respect state sovereignty. As the comments indicate, the laws of the state where the court is located are used to decide substantive issues. Federal law determines procedural issues. Some of that settlement stuff sounds procedural but really, at settlement, the parties will be negotiating.

How can the following conflict of interest situation be dealt with?

A, an individual, sues a large corporation, X. The action is acrimonious and goes on for several years. A junior associate at A's law firm leaves the firm and goes to work for the law department of Company X, which starts a countersuit or takes other action, using the associate's knowledge both of the case, and personal details of the individual. Does the above represent a conflict of interest for the associate and/or company X? If so, how might A deal with this? Through "estoppel" or other means?

Does the above represent a conflict of interest for the associate and/or company X? Yes. This is in violation of, for instance, rule 1.9 of Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). See also Ulrich v. Hearst Corp. , 809 F.Supp.229 (1192) . Commentary in MRPC regarding Lawyers moving between firms explains: there is a presumption that all confidences known by a partner in the first firm are known to all partners in the second firm. See also Audio Mpeg, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. , 219 F.Supp.3d 563, 574-575 (2016) : Though the attorney in question has not made an appearance in this case, he "could have" — and did — "obtain[ ] confidential information in the first representation that [is] relevant" here. [T]he surety that he received confidential information from Plaintiffs [...] weighs heavily in favor of W&S being disqualified even though he is not working on this case. [...] Moreover, the attorney possesses confidential information which could harm Plaintiffs if used by one of the W&S attorneys who has appeared in this case and works in his office. Your description reflects that, in his former employment, the junior associate has confidential information which can be used in a way materially adverse to the interests of the former client . The junior associate violated the aforementioned rule insofar as X already " start[ed] a countersuit or [took] another action " using the junior associate's knowledge. This warrants disqualification of X 's law firm as in Audio Mpeg . But disqualification might not suffice. X itself might already have become aware of the disclosure by the junior associate. That enables X to use that information even if it switches law firms. This might estop X from asserting counterclaims, at least those that otherwise would be covered by the tolling of the statute of limitations in this multi-year litigation.

Is it legal for the court to force administer ABA therapy on autistic patients?

ABA therapy is a controversial field of psychological therapy. It trains an autistic person to behave in a socially-acceptable manner. Such training is extremely onerous for some autistic individuals. The therapy is often used on the minors, or other disabled persons, who are often unable to indicate consent. There is a number of reports like this or this saying "Court ordered ABA" is a thing. I.e. the court may force impose ABA therapy. What legal regime gives courts the power to impose this controversial therapy on kids and disabled?

In the US, it stems from some statute, such as RCW Ch. 71.05 in Washington state, which starts by stating the rationale for the law, and which are to protect the health and safety of persons suffering from behavioral health disorders and to protect public safety, and prevent inappropriate commitment of persons living with behavioral disorders and to eliminate legal disabilities that arise from involuntary commitment etc. The various laws in this chapter make it possible to commit a person to a mental institute or to undergo involuntary therapy. There is a separate chapter, RCW 71.34 , applicable to minors. In general, this law calls for professional evaluation and treatment, without legislating science. The trigger is generally evidence of a tendency towards serious harm or grave disability, with a requirement that the action be requested by a certain kind of behavioral professional. There are not many hard-coded limits on what can be ordered: while RCW 71.05.215 "has a right to refuse antipsychotic medication", that right is overridden when "it is determined that the failure to medicate may result in a likelihood of serious harm or substantial deterioration or substantially prolong the length of involuntary commitment and there is no less intrusive course of treatment than medication in the best interest of that person". Along with the legislation cited, there are also regulations which don't require legislative action (they are "empowered" by the statutes), which could specifically forbid a treatment, but again choice of treatments are left to the professional. In some other jurisdiction, it's possible that a certain treatment would be explicitly outlawed.

Is there a bright line for witness, prosecutor &amp; judge intimidation?

ABC News reports: Trump on Friday afternoon had posted a message to his social media platform, Truth Social, saying, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" I am curious as to how the legal community will process the tweet. I'd like to understand if there is a "bright line" so as to determine if it has been crossed.

The only bright line regards the First Amendment. 18 USC 1512 articulates a line that is not to be crossed, but it is not clear where the line is as regards speech (subsection (a)(1) sets forth a bright line, viz "kills or attempts to kill", irrelevant to the present question). Otherwise, the remaining categories fall into three subtypes: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to.. (c) Whoever corruptly— (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from— These laws address communications addressed to witnesses, w.r.t. testimony. Case law e.g. US v. DiSalvo , US v. Murray all indicates that the forbidden threat must be addressed to an individual who might be a witness, whereas the above statement is not addressed, it is merely uttered (there is no clearly-intended recipient of the utterance). Similarly, 18 USC 1503 forbids "corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavor[ing] to influence, intimidate, or impede" a judicial officer, but this requires there to be a threat made to a specific judicial officer.

Texas SB8 Consequences

ABC news reports: The Supreme Court will take up the Texas abortion law on the merits next month in a rare highly-expedited case that could definitively resolve the fate of its six-week ban and unprecedented enforcement mechanism. SB8 will remain in effect for the near future until the Court issues its decision, which wouldn’t typically be expected for weeks to months after a case is argued. If SB8 is found to be unconstitutional, would impacted parties (women that were denied abortions, abortion providers,) be precluded from relief resulting from SB8?

There is no prospect for equitable relief in such an outcome. The Texas state government enjoys sovereign immunity, except as specified under the Tort Claims Act . Under that law, immunity is waived only in the case of damage caused by negligence of a state employee, and is limited primarily to vehicle accidents and physical injuries. So the state cannot be sued for passing a law found to be unconstitutional. An individual would not enjoy such immunity, but given the law, there is no identifiable defendant to seek relief from ( everybody is a potential defendant). An former abortion provider who now declines to perform an abortion can't be sued, because doctors in general have no obligation to perform particular medical procedures (most doctors in Texas won't perform an abortion, even before SB8), and the course will not render a judgment against a doctor on the grounds that they obeyed an existing law but should have known that it would be found unconstitutional.

Can &quot;Right to Repair&quot; laws (or other laws) require a company to open source their proprietary firmware?

AFAIK, there are no prohibitions here that require omission of specifics, so I will be specific . Over the years, I have invested a fair sum of money on products made by a company called Sonos. Fairly recently (2018 IIRC), Sonos "went public"; this is approximately the same time my issues with them commenced. Wikipedia REF on Sonos . My Sonos sound system began to experience various malfunctions - some were resolved by Sonos tech support, some were not. Various rumors and statements were circulated regarding limited support for Sonos' "legacy" products (ALL of my Sonos equipment was purchased prior to 2018). However, the situation is more serious than Sonos has admitted. Recently, I became aware of a Sonos product flaw that is potentially far more serious than failure to play music - a computer security flaw that significantly increases my risk exposure. An update to the firmware is needed to effect a repair, and eliminate the security flaw. Repairing this flaw will require a repair to the system firmware - an update that Sonos has chosen not to make available. Instead, Sonos' "solution" is to offer a small discount on the price of their new systems, and commit the old systems to the landfill. The security flaw (NTLM v1 & SMB v1) is in open-source software modules that Sonos elected to incorporate into their firmware. The flaws in the open source software were recognized and patched by its open source authors years ago, and are readily available. However, repair of the firmware requires that Sonos provide documentation on how to integrate the patched software into the binary blob of firmware that Sonos claims is proprietary. For those interested, here's a link to an online discussion of this issue at Sonos' website in which I participated. Despite a claim made in this discussion, Sonos has not released the source code, nor any details that would allow one to repair the network security defect they have ignored. Rather, Sonos has simply claimed that it "is not possible" to remedy this defect. If you read through the discussion, it seems apparent to me that most of the other participants in the discussion (customers, Sonos employees?) accept that claim, and are happy to continue doing business with Sonos. I'm not quite ready to admit defeat. I've read a wee bit about the "Right to Repair" laws being enacted in some states REF 1 , and it seems the Feds are pursuing enforcement also REF 2 . My question is whether or not this "Sonos Situation" is covered by these "Right to Repair" laws - or are there other laws that may be a better "fit" for these circumstances? Or - am I simply an unfortunate customer of a company that is pursuing its business interests in an entirely legal fashion, and has no liabilities here?

The Right to Repair generally talks about hardware, not firmware or software, and only to the point of restoring "original" functionality. For example, RTR would make it prohibited to have Apple require that they fix your phone battery for hundreds of dollars and make it impossible for you, or a third-party shop, to do the repair instead. In Sonos case, RTR would imply that if your speaker blew a fuse (or capacitor, etc), you should have the right to fix that yourself, and they should provide you with reasonable instructions and hardware to do so. That said, if you look at the Sonos OSS references , at least a few of the licenses suggest that you can't release derivatives under more restrictive languages. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any case law that establishes this would work, and it would be really expensive to try and find out. There's also the problem of Intellectual Property and Copyright that they could try to argue as reasons why they can't release the proprietary bits that make their hardware run. Any other options would be, unfortunately, illegal, in part because of the DMCA. Edit: Looking further into this, I found that there is H.R.4006 - Fair Repair Act , which, if passed, would require manufacturers of some hardware to offer diagnostic tools and public copies of firmware. In addition, there are also actions being taken by iFixit at the Copyright Office to allow an exception to DMCA violations for the purposes of patching firmware. Also, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order that, among other things, instructs the FTC to set rules against anticompetitive repair policies. Much of this has moved forward in just the last year, so it's relatively new to me, but it sounds like an even stronger indicator that Sonos is probably not going to have that defense much longer, unless they totally abandon their old hardware, in which case, it may become legal to hack your own firmware.

Can the Vice-President (of the US) violate classified information distribution rules?

AIUI, since the agencies that determine what government information is classified or not ultimately all work for the President, said President cannot violate classified disclosure laws by definition. If the President tells restricted information to someone normally not authorized to know, it’s not illegal for either participant. Is the Vice-President also considered ranked above the agencies, and could disclose restricted information? Of course if the President objects, the VP could be in trouble, so the VP probably shouldn’t outside of emergencies.

[the] President cannot violate classified disclosure laws by definition. If the President tells restricted information to someone normally not authorized to know, it’s not illegal for either participant. As the answer by user6726 makes clear, the above is incorrect. The President may be able to declassify classified documents. But until s/he has actually done so, their disclosure may still be criminal. Moreover, The Espionage_Act may well apply. This is completely separate from the classification system, and predates that system by some 35 years. 18 U.S. Code § 793 regulates the collection and distribution of "information respecting the national defense". Specifically subsection (d) provides that: (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; [commits a crime]. Neither the President nor the Vice-President is automatically exempt from this law, although the stated intent would need to be proved in any prosecution.

Is it legal to collect data on &quot;Every Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented... &quot; of Trump administration

AOC tweeted: Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future And some guy associated with https://www.trumpaccountability.net/ replied with(tweet is deleted/protected, but data is still in google search for term trumpaccproject ): Yes, we are. The Trump Accountability Project (@trumpaccproject) Every Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented them — everyone. One one hand it is perfectly fine to share information, on other hand it could be seen as political intimidation/harrasment... Are there any laws related to this? For purposes of this question assume that everything they collect is true, aka no false informations are presented about the people investigated, since I presume there are anti libel laws. Also I am only interested in legality of this, please keep political views out of this.

Yes. The right to gather information is a central component of First Amendment protection.

Is it legal for IEEE to sell Creative Commons content?

Aaron Swartz was working on a book before he committed suicide in 2013. The draft was later published under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA) license. It can be downloaded for free from tons of sites on the Internet. IEEE is charging $30 for a copy of it. Check it out: http://goo.gl/1EwdLn (click that big yellow Full Text button to see the price). Aaron was vehemently against sites like IEEE, Elsevier, and JSTOR. Putting aside for a moment the audacity of IEEE's choice to make money off his work, can a company choose to sell something that's licensed under CC or some other permissive license? And if so, where does that money go? And IEEE, at least for IEEE membership, is a nonprofit. Is this legal? I checked it out and there are other examples where they are charging for content that the authors released for free: Engineering a Safer World:Systems Thinking Applied to Safety written by Nancy Leveson They split that book into 25 individual chapters, each one costing $15, for a grand total of $375. And it's an extra $15 if you want the book cover/table of contents! http://goo.gl/QVmRvU ) Open Access by Peter Suber. See Suber's blog post from May 2014, "Don't buy the IEEE edition of my book." https://goo.gl/kO3lkB That's the same as the other book, split into chapters and sold for $15 each. There is no way an individual would fall for this. But libraries and universities may not be checking. I have seen tons of posts about publishers taking advantage of institutions. Is this another example to slip one past the librarian?

A document can be distributed under more than one license. Just because it has been made available under a CC license for free, doesn't mean that IEEE can't negotiate a different license with different terms that allow them to sell the content. (This is similar to the way that a software library can be available for free under a license that permits non-commercial use, but also be made available for a fee for commercial use.) If you want to know whether IEEE is legally selling Aaron Swartz's manuscript, you can contact Morgan & Claypool, the publisher that owns the copyright, and ask them whether this use by IEEE has been authorized by them. For the other documents you mention, contact MIT Press. Etc.

Does EU/US copyright law follow its citizens wherever they go?

Abby lives in the European Union or United States. Abby visits Ben in Country X, which has no copyright laws. Ben has a copy of a movie that is protected under the copyright laws of Abby's home country. Abby makes a copy of it and watches it. She then lets her friend Carl, who is also in Country X, make a third copy. Abby returns home with no copies of the movie. Is Abby liable for copyright infringment under the laws of her home country? And does it matter where the original copyright protected content is from ?

Eritrea, Turkmenistan and San Marino are the three countries without copyright laws. A handful of other countries are not party to any copyright treaties, such as Iran, Iraq and the Marshall Islands. There is no law against infringing non-Iranian copyright in Iran, so if you are in Iran and download non-Iranian content, you won't get sued in Iranian courts. This is true whether you are an Iranian citizen or a US citizen. The same holds for Eritrea, except that there it doesn't even matter if the work is Eritrean. If, being in the US (or Germany), you download US (or German) material from an Iranian pirate website, you will not be sued in Iranian court, but you can be sued in US (or German) court. That is, it doesn't matter where the website is, it matters where you are. If you infringe German copyright in the US, or vice versa, you can be sued. The basic protection that the various copyright treaties provide is that works of member states are given equal protection, thus German copyright law does not just protect German works. If you, being in Germany, infringe my copyright (I'm in the US), I will sue you in German court, which I can do because of various treaties. The other thing to bear in mind is that copyright protection is stated as a protection of a work, so there is no "exception" whereby only citizens of Germany have to obey German copyright law. A work created in Germany is protected for citizens and non-citizens alike. The difficulty that arises is that if a person isn't in Germany but is in Eritrea, you would have to either sue them in Eritrea (can't do that: no basis in Eritrean law), or have a German judgment enforced in Eritrea (can't do that, no treaty), or lure them to Germany and persuade them to stay (can't kidnap them). While you cannot be sued in German court for infringing Iranian copyright using an Eritrean piracy server, you can can be sued in Iranian court if you subsequently travel to Iran. If you copy US material while in Iran, you can be sued when you return to US jurisdiction. Again, the basis for the lawsuit is an act of copying, and not copying while in a particular country, or copying from a particular country.

Killing pregnant women vs murder

Abortion is not considered double murder, but killing a pregnant woman is. How is this contradiction resolved?

Murder is, by definition, an unlawful killing of a human. Since abortion is legal, it cannot be murder, so it cannot be a double murder. Since killing a pregnant woman is illegal and ends two human lives, it can be a double murder. The details can, of course, depend on the jurisdiction. If abortion is illegal, then it could be considered murder. If the law didn't consider a fetus a human life, then killing a pregnant woman might not be a double murder.

Is it legal for a disability accomodation to inconvenience able-bodied people?

About 10 people and I cycle to work and have to swipe a card on a post to get through the gates. Now, someone in a wheelchair has started working here too, and because the post's position was impossible for her to reach, the landlord has moved the sensor to make it easier for her to swipe her card, which is fixed to the side of her chair. It's now really awkward for us cyclists to reach, because it's down at nearly floor level. Just to be clear, no one has a problem with this at all, and all us cyclists are happy to oblige. The landlord is also going to install a second sensor high up for us. I just want to know if hypothetically, if making life easier for a disabled person makes a non-disabled person's life harder, is it legal?

Yes Being disabled is a protected class under the Equality Act. being a cyclist isn’t. The landlord has to make reasonable accomodations for her, he doesn’t have to for you.

Is Including a Watermark in Content a Form of Copyright Infringement?

About 10 years ago, I uploaded a video to Youtube that I presume was created with a presumably free video editor that left a Watermark in the video. I know a copyright claim being filed is unlikely, but I wanted to know for my soundness of mind if (and if specifics can't be given, then a general answer will suffice) this was a form of copyright infringement and if I'm technically at risk of losing access to/permission to use the multiple google/youtube accounts that I have and access due to copyright claims/ToS violation? Thank you.

I’m a bit confused here. Usually watermarks are used to reduce the commercial value of an image or video. It doesn’t affect copyright. It is unlikely that someone can claim adding a “do not copy” watermark to an image creates a derived work. And a “do not copy” watermark is likely not creative enough to have its own copyright. You may have permission to reproduce the video with watermark, but that depends. If not and if the video is copyrighted then it was copyright infringement. Damages may be lower because of the lower commercial value. PS. Since the video is your own: It happens that a free (no cost) video adds a watermark, so you can try it out, but cannot use it commercially. Like you wouldn’t want a watermark in your wedding video; if you pay for the editor the watermarks go away. As I said, it is unlikely that the creator of the watermark can claim copyright, because copyright requires a creative process and the watermark will have very little creativity. It is even less likely that the creator of the watermark takes you to court about it and wins, or sends a DMCA takedown notice. They are not interested in that. And others can’t accuse you of copyright infringement. If it is like an advert for the software, they most likely want you to make as many copies as possible. That would be in their best interest. You may have a license that actually allows you to duplicate the watermark.

Statutory rape statute of limitations

About 14 years ago I was using my ex's family computer and I came across a series of emails between my sister in law (middle school age) and her female middle school teacher in which they discussed their inappropriate relationship including sex.. The teacher mentioned she wanted to end the relationship. It was during that time the girl was visibly disturbed emotionally and psychologically. Everyone wondered why. I was shocked and told a few people but forgot about it. I was young and didn't think of telling police. It turns out the teacher is still teaching and nothing has happened to her. Is it too late for her to be charged with rape? Also the girl probably won't want to admit or press charges due to embarrassment. Took place in Florida.

The statute of limitations 775.15(13) extends the period, tolling from the victims 18th birthday per (a), or, without limitation under (c) If the offense is a violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 16 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before July 1, 2010. Subsection 2 states the general limitations, which are severity-related: (a) A prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within 4 years after it is committed. (b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed. (c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed. (d) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation must be commenced within 1 year after it is committed. A death-penalty or life-imprisonment offense has no time limit, and some forms of sexual battery do carry those penalties, but not the situation described. There is also a provision (16(a)) for prosecution at any time after the date on which the identity of the accused is established, or should have been established by the exercise of due diligence, through the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, if a sufficient portion of the evidence collected at the time of the original investigation and tested for DNA is preserved and available for testing by the accused which we may assume is not applicable in the instant case. We may assume from the description that the violation took place before 2003, and the longest limit (for a first degree felony) is 4 years i.e. 2006. However , subsection (b) states a different complicating factor: If the offense is a first degree felony violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before October 1, 2003. In other words, if it is a first degree felony, then it can be prosecuted anytime (given the presumption that the violation was not before about 1999, which seems to be what you're describing). The age of the parties at the time matters, so I assume the minor was under 16 but above 12, and the adult was over 24. Florida Code 794.011 subsumes all forms of sexual battery, and different sections assign punishments (including death) and degree of felony. Subsection (5) defines the possibly-applicable second-degree felony sexual battery charges, which either involve a victim 18 and over, or a perpetrator under 18, which we assume is not the case here. Under (5)(a): (a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age, without that person’s consent, and in the process does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115. It should be mentioned that a minor is legally deemed incapable of giving consent, thus the "without consent" part is true. There is a further wrinkle in the law: (8) Without regard to the willingness or consent of the victim, which is not a defense to prosecution under this subsection, a person who is in a position of familial or custodial authority to a person less than 18 years of age and who: ... (b) Engages in any act with that person while the person is 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age which constitutes sexual battery under paragraph (1)(h) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If a teacher is "in a position of custodial authority", then that also applies (and constitutes a life felony). This all said, the opinion of the internet seems to be that the limit is 4 years. Either I'm missing something else, or the specifics of the case matter: first degree violation, took place around 2001 which put it within the SOL on October 1, 2003.

Is there a criminal database for my city Calgary

About 15 years ago while my father was working 55 hour weeks being paid $8/hr, he completed his taxi license and started working more hours a week as a taxi driver. On the highway, one of his passengers struck him with a hammer on the back of his head landing him in the hospital for a few months for no apparent reason. My father, being an immigrant, did not understand the law or his rights so did not pursue the issue further, despite police catching the individual in question. I, his son, would like to look at this case and pursue it, despite my father's unwillingness to do so. Is there a way that I, independently, can figure out the identity of the criminal. The city in question is Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

You can't pursue it. Criminal charges are a matter for provincial prosecutors; if they have decided not to then that is the end of the matter. A civil claim would be barred by the statute of limitations. In any event, you have no standing is you have not suffered injury as a result of this man's actions.

Do I have to take someone&#39;s picture off the internet if they ask me to?

About 2 years ago I was working on an online game. I asked a friend if I could base it on him (use his picture for the character) and he said yes. Back to current, he is asking me to take the game down. I don't want to as it would require redeveloping the entire thing, losing it's fan base in the process. My argument is that he agreed for me to develop the game around him and has no right to demand it be taken down, especially after being fine with it for years. Where do I stand legally? Do I have to take it down? Edit: This issue has been resolved. He complained through our school who threatened me with suspension if I failed to remove it.

Such protection is widespread in the US, falling under the rubric "right of publicity", but as this article says, such protection is very limited in the UK. This assumes that you have permission of the copyright holder to distribute the picture (e.g. if you took the picture). One basis for preventing you from using the image would be if you were "passing off" the use of the image as an endorsement. Supposing that you took a picture of Graham Norton, you could not then sell a line of Graham Norton goods that implied an endorsement of your goods. However, this cause of action is about how you may have damaged a celebrity plaintiff's revenue stream, and can be easily overcome by saying "using the picture does not imply endorsement". Another theoretical line of attack for a plaintiff would be defamation, e.g. if the product implies that the subject is a murderer. There might be applicable EU laws based on the Human Rights Bill, but from what I can tell that limitation is on how a government can exploit you. Plus, who knows how long that will last.

Break lease after murder

About 5 minutes after I came home tonight two neighbors were shot and murdered in front of their apartment. My unit is close enough that it's within the evidence zone. My heart goes out to the families who must now deal with their loss. However I don't want to stay here anymore. I live in the state of Florida and would like to know if I can break my lease without penalty.

Generally no, although state legislative proposals to allow this as a ground to break a lease have been considered in a number of places. You would have to show that being in the evidence zone amounted to a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, of the apartment tenant's property which is almost never the case unless a very scientifically technical crime scene actually developed inside the apartment.

What kind of lawyer would our company need to file criminal charges against a customer?

About Us I work for a company and our company sells very popular electronic products to consumers in the automotive industry. Our Problem We have one particular customer that has ordered one of our products legitemately and about 30 other orders of the same product with stolen credit cards. While we have tracked down this customer and have all of his contact information and support details; no law enforcement agency has cooperated with us in terms of opening a case and helping us. We've tried local, FBI, Treasury, Secret Service. We are a very small business with very few employees and as a result are struggling. The Damages result to $10,000+ in products and $3000 in mitigation and recovery. Advise Us Is it possible to hire a lawyer to help us and what kind of lawyer would we seek out?

user6726's answer about civil action is good, as you appear to have lots of evidence that document-based in terms of bank records, etc. And media shaming would work; but you could be sued in retaliation, even if you're right. But try calling a prosecutor - such as a county attorney - rather than an arm of law enforcement. The police are always overworked and can be reluctant to try and put a case together for the local prosecutor. Contacting a county attorney is free and doesn't require you to get a lawyer, and it can be a surprisingly effective tactic against a criminal. A phone call or a detailed letter to the county attorney for the person's county of residence that explains the criminal activity may be the key to getting some movement in the situation. You have lots of hard evidence to hand the attorney about an individual who is committing fraud, and that evidence may make simply make the case for the attorney, as it is documented evidence they can immediately verify and use, either at the county level, or be passed to the district (state) prosecutor. A loss of $4000 is significant, and may be a felony in that state. But the "$6,000 in products that were not shipped" is intent on the criminals' part and is not a loss to you. If it is a county with a large population, the attorney will have many assistants who may have time to pursue the case. An attorney for a small county may be looking for an easy case. And who knows? The attorney's office may already know the person - if it's a county with a small population, or if that person already has a criminal history (which you could research yourself in that county's records) - and that makes the case even easier for the attorney.

Is begging a laid-off employee to stay an offer of employment?

About a month ago, I asked a question over on Workplace. TL;DR: I was informally told I was being laid off, but when I asked HR about rights and benefits, they were totally unaware of any layoff. Looks like I was right to be suspicious, because there was no layoff. Now my immediate supervisor is begging me to "extend" my employment. I've already given them an extra two weeks. (I guess I'll find out on the 19th whether I'm actually being paid...) Now I'm being asked for another "extension." I've already made financial and personal decisions with the understanding that I'm being laid off. My supervisor does not have unilateral authority to make job offers. Does being asked to "extend" after being "laid off" constitute a job offer for purposes of claiming unemployment? In other words, if I refuse to be jerked around like this, have I "quit"?

If you have already claimed unemployment, this might be considered a job offer. If you have not yet field a claim, then it doesn't matter, only offers after a claim is field affect unemployment benefits to the best of my understanding. You could ask for a job offer in writing. If one is not provided, that is pretty good evidence that there never was an offer. If one is provided, you will have a clearer notice of the offered terms and duration, and that the offer is authorized, and can better judge what to do.

On the Fair Use of an Image Offered as an Answer to a Stack Exchange Question

About a month ago, I posted this question on the TeX Stack Exhange: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/570484/how-to-draw-a-rose-in-latex In it, I asked for assistance in producing the image of a rose using LateX (a software system for document preparation.) I also indicated that the motivation for the question was to use such an image in a book in order to introduce new chapters. Two people posted answers. My two-part question is: (i) Am I free to use any of these LaTeX images in a book I hope to have published in the future? (ii) Am I free to modify the LaTeX code posted as an answer---in order to produce an alternative, but similar rose image to use in my anticipated publication? Thank you.

Copyright Issues There are several issues here. The Original Rose Image and its Derivatives The image was apparently first posted to Stack Exchange as part of this question by user "Ongky Denny Wijaya". That user did not say where the image came from. If that user created the image, whether by taking a photograph, or in an image drawing program (or in any other way), then s/he owns the copyright, and licensed it under the CC-BY-SA (4.0) free license by posting it to SE. However, if that user did not create the image but got it from somewhere else, it was quite probably protected by copyright and used without permission. If "Ongky Denny Wijaya" did not have the rights to the image, then s/he could not license them, and all uses on SE and deriving from SE are copyright infringements, and the copyright holder, whoever that is, could sue for damages. The first two answers to your SE question give LaTeX code for rose images only slightly resembling the original rose image. They are not derivatives of the original image. The third seems to be a transformation of the original, and so is a derivative work. It may not lawfully be used without the permission of the original copyright holder whoever that may be. Unless you can reliably determine who that is, and seek permission, you may not lawfully use that image, nor LaTeX code for it. Original SE Content When a user posts original contest to SE, it is automatically released under the CC-BY-SA (4.0) Creative Commons free license. That license allows anyone to reuse the content, and to create modified (derivative) versions of the content, but under some conditions. The most important of these are 1) that the content must be attributed properly to the copyright holder, and any copyright notice must be preserved. (That is the "BY" part.) And 2) the reused or modified work must be provided to others under exactly the same license. (That is the "SA" part.) The first part can be done by listing the user name of the original SE poster, and providing a link to the post. The second part is potentially trickier. If the modified work is "merged into" a new work, the entire new work must be released under CC-BY-SA, which would hinder any commercial publication. If the re-used or modified work is kept separate, at the very least it needs to have a separate license statement, making it clear that anyone can re-use or further modify the work, and making it clear just what is included in that release. That should be associated with the credit or attribution statement mentioned above. That would apply both to an image, and to LaTex code for generating the image. If this is not done, reuse of any such content is an infringement of copyright, and could be the subject of a lawsuit. Fair Use Use of the whole or the majority of an SE question or answer, or of the whole of an original image posted to SE, would probably not constitute fair use in the US, although that would depend on the rest of the facts. If such use did not qualify as fair use, that it must be used in accordance with the stated license, as described above.

Breaking a lease before move in amidst Coronavirus concerns

About a month ago, I signed a lease for an apartment (with two roommates who are renewing their lease) in North Carolina with a move-in date of May 15th. I'm a STEM graduate student, and with developing family finance concerns and the recent transition to remote everything both teaching and research related, I'm beginning to think it may not makes sense to drain so much of my income to stay near a closed university rather than move in with my brother. To my reading, the lease agreement states that breaking with more than 6 months remaining will incur a penalty of 2 months' rent. Were I to attempt to back out in the next few days (well before the move-in date), could I expect the current national or state declaration of a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic to impact my penalty? In particular, is there any legal reason to expect that, due to the state of emergency, I could avoid the penalty altogether?

In general, you are not freed of contractual obligations if your circumstances change, whether that is because of economic downturn / unemployment, weather, or disease. If there is a clause in the lease saying "this lease can be voided if tenant {becomes unemployed / contracts a disease....}" then that could cover your circumstances (I would be stunned if there were such a clause). There is a separate question, whether an exemption might arise if the government forbids you to move. The existence of a legal "state of emergency" has limited implications for legal rights and obligations – mostly, it empowers the government to restrict your rights. There is no effect on your responsibilities.

Minor Who Lied About Age Broke Contract and Stole $10,500 - What Can Be Done?

About a month ago, someone who I was friends with for 3 years and have done business with called me while he was down in Miami, telling me that he and some others were trying to rent a boat. However, he and the others did not have a credit card with a high enough credit limit to pay the boat and he called me asking if I would be willing to let him use my credit card. He told me that he was not paying for the boat, and informed me that his friend would be paying him the amount in cash the next day and that he would then be depositing that money and sending me a wire for it. The next day, he started coming up with excuses, and fast forward two months later I'm yet to receive a dollar for the boat, however he continues to tell me that he's going to pay me and even claims he has sent a wire that I've never seen arrive. These communications were made both over the phone and by text. I have two people who were there while he was on the phone with me and could vouch about exactly what happened, and two people witness him receiving the cash but never paying me. The situation is a bit complicated, however, as he lied to me about being 18 continuously and after the fact I ended up finding out that he was 17. I also have other people who can vouch for the fact that he told everyone he was 18, and I even have a plane ticket which he booked on my computer months ago in which he put his age as 18. What actions does the law permit a creditor to take in such circumstances? Edit In a comment (made after the answers) the poster says that an additional one thousand dollars was to be paid along with repayment of the borrowed sum.

Your friend, it seems, borrowed money from you in return for a promise to pay you back. That is a contract. The friend has now failed to make good on the promise. That is probably default on the contract. You could sue your friend asking for a judgement in the amount of the loan. You might well win, but if the money has been spent and this person does not have a similar amount of money, such a judgement might be uncollectable. Or you could sit on the debt, and try to collect at a later time when the person is more likely to have money. However, if you sit too long, the debt will be legally waived. That this person is a minor matters only in that a minor may, in many cases, disaffirm (cancel) a contract. But, as this page from a law firm says : If a minor voids the contract, he or she must disaffirm the entire contract. The minor cannot pick and choose the provisions of the contract that he or she likes or finds favorable. Additionally, the minor may be required to pay restitution for the benefit of the goods received. Additionally, the minor may be required to return the subject matter of the contract. This Investopedia page says: The person who disaffirms the contract must do so in its entirety. This means the party cannot pick and choose which parts of the contract they will disaffirm. Any property that has been transferred as a result of the contract can be recovered by the minor if they void the contract during a reasonable period of time. In this case, to disaffirm it seems that the other party would, in effect, have to pay up, so this doesn't really change things. If you don't sue and the other party does not fomally disaffirm within a reasonable time after s/he turns 18, the contract becomes fully binding.

Shooting victim taken off life support. What crime would be charged?

About a week ago a girl was shot in a Maryland school. Soon after that, a police officer shot and killed the gunman. The girl was critically injured, and on life support. After a few days, the family decided to take her off life support and she died soon after. Suppose the killer didn't die. What crime would the killer be charged with? The girl has died, but technically she would probably still be alive if her parents didn't take here off life support. I think in some cases, a jury could be convinced that it would be extremely unlikely that a victim would ever regain consciousness. Many would regard this as worse than attempted murder. Do some states have a crime that is appropriate for that situation?

It would be murder (assuming the facts surrounding her getting shot would support a murder charge, of course, and it wasn't something like an accidental discharge.) The fact that she was on life support for a time is irrelevant. Under Maryland law § 2-102 it doesn't matter how much time has elapsed: A prosecution may be instituted for murder, manslaughter, or unlawful homicide, whether at common law or under this title, regardless of the time that has elapsed between the act or omission that caused the death of the victim and the victim's death. It's a Wisconsin and not a Maryland case, but according to State v. Below, 799 NW 2d 95 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2011 , it doesn't even matter if life support was wrongly terminated; the defendant is still guilty: [E]ven if the Defendant can establish that the termination of Madison's life support was "wrongful" under Wisconsin Law, that wrongful act would not break the chain of causation between the Defendant's actions and Madison's subsequent death.

Is it legal to sell un-trippable circuit breakers?

About a week ago, the popular YouTuber bigclivedotcom uploaded this video , in which he showed a "circuit breaker", which on the outside seems marked appropriately, but is entirely non-functional; meaning that in the event of an overload or short-circuit, electricity would still flow, leading to potentially damaged electrical equipment, electrical fires, injury or death. Would it be legal to sell such a thing? What would the concequences be? Note: I am primarily interested in answers regarding the EU and the UK.

TLDR: it's illegal to BUY it. It's illegal to USE it. Know your suppliers. That's certainly an interesting question, in light of how the market has changed in recent years, particularly due to Amazon/eBay, but even moreso due to Amazon Fulfillment and competitors. Over on diy.se, this is a constant vexation, because we see people buy crud like this all the time, and they need help installing it. And we find it's illegal to install, not even safe, and needs to be sent back in lieu of listed product. The advanced nations do have a highly effective apparatus for screening and blocking dangerous goods. However, these protections are geared toward bricks-and-mortar retail . Can you count on something bought at Wickes, Redoute or Home Depot? By and large, yes. Is it legal to export it to you? Yes, for all practical purposes. The people selling it are in an unreachable bastion in a foreign country that would not cooperate with their extradition, and would interfere with investigation. The government knows perfectly well that the stuff is complete crud, and doing so aligns with its national policies of raising hard currency and building industrial capacity, while harming the capacity of other nations. Is it legal for the item to be listed on Amazon or eBay? Amazon and eBay say "Yes". Their position is that they are merely a platform which connects buyers and sellers. They surely have excellent lawyers. Amazon is more like eBay than you might realize. Amazon opened their retail site to third party sellers. Third parties can sign up as additional sellers of a particular SKU, or write their own product listings. Since Amazon's behavior has been unchallenged, the answer seems to be "yes". Is it legal for Amazon to bring it into their warehousing systems? Amazon also opened their warehousing system to third party use. That can be for companies that don't sell on Amazon... or it can be for companies that do both Amazon and off-Amazon sales; in the latter case you order elsewhere but Amazon fulfills (ships) the item. When a company both sells the item on Amazon and it ships from an Amazon warehouse, it qualifies for "Prime" shipping where Amazon offers that. Amazon also offers "Commingling" for established SKUs. The idea is that if you have widgets in the Madrid warehouse, and I have widgets in a Warsaw warehouse... and a Madrid customer buys mine - why not ship them yours since they are all the same ? I get credit for the sale and Amazon "owes you one". When you get a sale in Madrid, Amazon has one in Barcelona so they ship that one to your customer. Commingling is great, but what happens when I inject a pallet full of those SKUs - and they're counterfeits? Amazon doesn't know the difference, and your Warsaw customer gets my counterfeit. So do Amazon's Berlin and Wroclaw customers. Amazon ships them around the network to balance the warehouses, and now my counterfeit has contaminated the supply. I'm sitting in China. Whatcha gonna do about it? Again, Amazon has top lawyers, who have surely done their diligence. Still, the program is ambitious, and e-commerce giants break the law all the time with their ambitions. In the US, there's the "Express Shipment" rule, which allows small orders ($800 or less) with no duty and an informal entry process. So they ship to Mexican warehouses, and then bring the items over by the truckload. Wait, how can a truckload be less than $800? Because they don't bring it over until there's an end-user customer order, and they argue "these are for individual customers". This qualifies them to breeze through customs, bypassing the quality and safety controls that prevent Home Depot from doing the exact same thing with a truckload that hasn't found customers yet. Is it legal for you (as the end consumer) to import it? No. The rules for Conformité Européenne are that the importer is responsible. When you as an end customer buy mail-order from China, you are the importer . Under EU law, if you bring a CE-marked item into the EU, you are responsible for meeting the CE design standards, and doing in-house lab testing to affirm the performance of the product. By having the CE mark on the thing you imported, you are attesting to having done that. Further, the various nations may require that a certified independent testing lab verify your testing and claims. This was historically done by national testing labs like BSI, TUV, CSA or UL. However by treaty they are largely cross-recognized: US OSHA keeps a canonical list of "Nationally (by USA) Recognized Testing Labs" (NRTLs) that every other agency and many other countries defer to. Big Clive is probably fine, since Clive's purpose is public ridicule, not usage. Is it legal for you to install it in your house ? Oh, heck no. Every nation has rules as to what certifications equipment must meet to legally be installed in a building's electrical system. For instance North America's El NEC , widely adopted or copied, has 110.2: 110.2 Approval. The conductors [wires] and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved. "Approved" means by competent testing labs; i.e. OSHA's list of NRTLs. So no, you can't install non-approved equipment in any jurisdiction with a similar rule (and you pretty much need such a rule for inspections to have any teeth).

What is the legal status of publishing chess games played by real people? (update)

About a year ago I asked whether I can commercially publish a chess book containing chess positions that were played by real people . I got pretty convincing replies, which solved the question for me (i.e., that chess games including names and places and piece positions cannot be copyrighted, but annotations and collections can). So now I've finished my book, containing real life examples of chess games played by real people with my own annotations , and I was almost ready to publish it, when I learned that the Canadian Chess Federation had recently been sued for publishing (on their website) a chess game with their own annotations, but featuring real people. A link for the discussion is here , and here are some excerpts: And yet someone is trying to do so. We (the Chess Federation of Canada) are being sued in small claims court in Burlington, Ontario by someone alleging that they own the copyright to a game that was published on our website newsfeed. Perhaps more worrying is this: The names of the players are given on our newsfeed. Our editor included his own annotations including a brief quote of something Botvinnik said about one of the intermediate positions. There are no annotations from either of the original players. The litigant is trying to make new law. If he is successful we will probably no longer be able to post chess games on our website and will have to close down our email news magazine. So a major chess publisher/club is being sued for exactly the things I was told are not sue-able in my previous stack exchange post. The person concludes that: I believe a national Canadian and prominent NY paper are also being sued. So now I'm having second thoughts about publishing my book. This is obviously a hobby for me and I have a family, a day job to take care of and I don't want to waste time and money defending myself in court.

We cannot and will not try to answer "what should i do?" questions here. Nothing in the linked page makes me think that the views expressed in the previous question here are any less correct. They certainly have not changed the law on copyright. The linked page is an open forum. Many of the posts o9n that thread express ill-informed and incorrect views of how copyright works, and what it protects. Several google searchs find no trace of the suit described in the thread. Note that in US law no copyright claim may be heard in a small claims court, except for the federal copyright office's small claims tribunal. I am not sure if the same is true in Canada, but it might be that the suit was simply dismissed on such a basis. In any case small claims cases do not establish legal precedents in Canada or the US. Of course it is true that anyone can sue over almost anything, even when there is no valid legal basis for the suit. If the suit had been won by the claimant, or even settled that would be larger grounds for worry. A person seriously worried over publishing a book such as that described in the question might do well to consult a lawyer with relevant expertise. A single consultation plus an opinion letter might not cost very much. But 17 USC 102 (b) is very clear that copyright never protects facts, as are the copyright laws of other countries. Note that reports of the events of sports matches are not protected by copyright, although expressive language and analysis may be. 17 USC 102 (b) reads: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Article 2 paragraph (8) of the Berne Copyright Convention provides that: (8) The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information. There seems little room for copyright protection of the moves of chess games.

If I quit, can my employer claim back pay that was agreed to but not included in our written contract?

About a year ago I started a job, my contract for it says: Pay and Expenses The Employee will be paid £9/hr in arrears. Salary may be increased at the direction of The Employer subject to The Employee taking on additional responsibility which is agreed upon by both parties. Overpayments If the Employer makes an overpayment to the Employee to which she is not entitled, or which is more than that to which she is entitled, the Employer has the right to recover the overpayment by deductions from the Employee's salary or from other payments due to them. Any deductions will normally be made over the same period that the overpayment was made. Notice of termination The Employee is obliged to give the Employer 4 weeks notice to terminate their contract of employment. A couple of months into the job my employer thought I was planning to quit and as they didn't want me to I was able to negotiate a pay increase to £11/hr, and my employer asked that if he gave me a new contract with this pay increase would I agree to work there for 2 years . At the time I said yes however no written contract containing our agreement was produced, so the only documents I have are my original contract, my pay however did go up. Now however due to a change in circumstances I would like to quit and I'm wondering if my employer could reclaim all the additional pay they have given me over the months if I do.

I see that most (all up to this point) answers and comments are made around if a verbal contract is binding enough for the employer to "pursue back" the extra payment that you received... but as far as I can see, they don't even need to consider the verbal agreement. Your employer thought (and apparently was right) that you were going to resign, so they offered you a payment raise in exchange for you to stay for two more years. You verbally agreed but this agreement was never written down nor signed by any of the parts, yet your employer respected it and for X amount of time you received more money that what your initial, written, signed contract says. Now you want to quit; as mentioned above, you only have your original contract, a contract that says two things that are key for this "dilemma": The Employee will be paid £9/hr in arrears. Salary may be increased at the direction of The Employer subject to The Employee taking on additional responsibility which is agreed upon by both parties. If the Employer makes an overpayment to the Employee to which she is not entitled, or which is more than that to which she is entitled, the Employer has the right to recover the overpayment by deductions from the Employee's salary or from other payments due to them. You received payments for £11/hr, which is more that that to which you're entitled according to this (one and only) contract; so, your employer has the right to claim back those £2/hr that, officially, you were not entitled to. IF you want to argue that, as the 1st point says, both parties agreed to increase your salary for "additional responsibilities", YOU would also have to admit that you agreed to stay for two more years, agreement that you are not complying to; so, once again, it's a point in favour for your employer. All in all, it all boils down to how your employeer "feels" when you present your resign letter; maybe they will just agree and let you go without further issues, but if they want to claim back that payment raise, IMO they have both the right AND the arguments to do so.

How can a restaurant, Old Homestead Steakhouse, continue their false claims of selling Kobe beef?

About a year ago, Inside Edition reporters first revealed that two high-end restaurants in New York City, La Bernardin and Old Homestead Steakhouse, were serving beef that they claimed to be Kobe beef, which was untrue, given that there were only 9 certified Kobe beef locations in the United States, and neither of these restaurants are certified. When both restaurants were exposed on television and on YouTube, La Bernardin apologized to their customers and have since changed their menu back, stating that the beef was "Japanese wagyu". However, Old Homestead's owner became contentious with the reporters and felt no remorse for charging $350 dollars for fake Kobe beef. What's surprising to me is that is it still on their menu today, and still sells for $350 dollars. So my question is: how are they able to continue doing this, without facing hefty fines / being reprimanded for false advertising?

It isn't obvious that one must be certified to advertise your product as "Kobe Beef" in the United States. The designation " Kobe Beef ", in theory, is supposed to operate a lot like a trademark, but it is a geographic designation that presumably belongs to officials from the geographic area, rather than a true trademark that is owned by a private individual or corporation. It is one thing to state you have "certified Kobe Beef" when you don't and another to say merely that you have "Kobe Beef" in a place where no certification is required by law and the term is not well defined. The United States frequently does not honor foreign law procedures necessary to establish a geographic designation. As another example, the U.S. routinely tolerates the marketing of " champagne " in the sense of a generic term for sparkling wine, even though it is regulated as a geographic designation for sparkling wine made in a particular manner in a particular place within France when used in the European Union. The handful of geographic designations that are treated as enforceable under regimes like the ones for Kobe Beef and Champagne arise under U.S. specific laws. For example, federal law (strictly speaking a federal regulation promulgated pursuant to federal law) mandates that the term Bourbon whiskey refer to a product made at least 50% of distilled spirits made in a certain way in Kentucky. There are deceptive trade practices laws in many states that require designations of origin to be truthful and the Lanham Act also prohibits false advertising. But, to the extent that beef originates from the Kobe vicinity (i.e. Hyōgo Prefecture) in Japan but is not certified Kobe Beef under the Japanese geographic designation laws, this would not violate either of these laws because the geographic designation is accurate. Hyōgo Prefecture where certified Kobe Beef comes from is shown in red on this Wikipedia map. Alternatively, the sellers of Kobe Beef could argue, probably with a good chance of success, that in American English the term "Kobe Beef" refers not to "certified Kobe Beef" or even to beef actually produced in Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan as a geographic designation, but to beef with some important qualities of certified Kobe Beef, without regard to where it is actually made, for example, using the same breed of cow raised so that it has a similar level of fattiness. I would guess that hundreds of places in the U.S. sell "Kobe beef". In the same vein, "Kentucky Fried Chicken" does not mean chicken fried in Kentucky in American English, instead it means chicken fried in the style made famous in Kentucky, a Philadelphia Cheese Steak in American English means a sandwich made in the style of cheese steaks sold in Philadelphia and not a sandwich actually made in Philadelphia, and a Boston Cream Pie in American English means a cream pie made in the style of pies made in Boston and not a pie made with cream that is actually produced in Boston. U.S. law, in general, and American language conventions as well, are quite hostile to the notion that what other countries might consider a geographic designator does anything more than describe a style of making food as opposed to making a true statement regarding place of origin. In American English an unambiguous statement regarding place of origin would normally be made with a statement like "Made with beef imported from Kobe, Japan" as opposed to a mere product description of "Kobe Beef". The inference one makes that "Kobe Beef" is certified Kobe Beef from Kobe, Japan is probably an unreasonable assumption and certainly the question would be a disputed question of fact on falsity that a court could reasonably rule in favor of the restaurant upon. (Similarly, if you say you are headed to "my house" you aren't necessarily implying that I own the house, merely that it is associated with me in some way.) Also, to quantify damages, one would have to determine the difference between the fair market value of fine beef in a fancy restaurant that is not certified Kobe Beef and certified Kobe Beef as you would have to in order to prevail and win damages in a lawsuit like that one, is non-trivial and might determine that, for example, the alternative still charges $300, greatly reducing damages. And, the number of meals involved still probably isn't huge, perhaps in a thousand per year. So, maybe the damages if someone prevailed might be $150,000 for all meals sold in the period covered by the statute of limitations even if one could successfully prove that in a class action lawsuit. It is also possible that no one has decided to take any action to enforce what is a violation of the law, even to the extent that it is indeed a deceptive trade practice. It isn't economical to sue over a single $350 beef purchase, particularly when there are non-frivolous defenses of the type that I have identified. People who purchase this kind of meal aren't easy to identify in order to bring a class action that could lead to a more viable lawsuit, particular as the patrons might be spread all over the world. The New York State attorney general might decide that it has higher priorities than suing a business that is getting people to willingly and happily pay $350 for an entree at a single restaurant that mostly benefits the nine certified Kobe Beef restaurants. And those nine restaurants may likewise have decided that it wasn't worth suing under the Lanham Act because even if they prove false advertising which is causing patrons there to pay $50 more than they should per entree, it isn't at all obvious that this caused any damage to the restaurants in question that couldn't be solved with more advertising of their own.

Can &quot;Dumb Starbucks&quot; be legally considered Fair Use as satire or parody?

About a year ago, a new, familiar-looking coffee shop opened in LA. Their reasoning for this was, basically, that it's making fun of the popular coffeehouse chain and is thus fair use: Naturally, it attracted a lot of attention and was later revealed that it was really a publicity stunt created by a comedian, but he still made a statement that "as long as we're making fun of Starbucks, we're allowed to use their corporate identity" (as seen here ). Had Starbucks sued for trademark infringement (which they probably planned to do , but the thing was actually closed for operating without a valid public health permit ), would the whole parody as fair use thing hold in court (or at least have some relevance in the case)?

This is likely not fair use. At first blush it appeared similar to things one might see in The Onion (parody print and online newspaper) or other parody publications or shows (SNL, Key and Peele, etc.). In this case, the context would have likely been deemed transformative. However, since they are selling coffee called "Dumb Starbucks" while using their trademark, they would be be found liable if sued. You can parody a trademark brand, so long as the work is transformative such that the use of the brand goes from selling coffee to making a commentary in which the brand itself is relevant. Amendment I don't think this would pass the test as a parody/commentary. Originally, I failed to notice that they are actually selling coffee. This takes it out of fair use and they would almost certainly lose if sued. If they never sold the coffee, but just had it open as a performance art (like I had originally read this) giving the coffee away to complete the parody, I think they'd be fine. However, they are literally using the Starbucks logo, and selling the same product. This is clearly an infringement of their copyright and not fair use. Sorry for the confusion.

Can I make an auto shop pay for oil damage from a defective oil filter?

About ten days ago I had a flat tired replaced at a local shop and added an oil change to the work order. A day later I notice a huge oil stain (about 3 ft x 10 ft) that flowed over the pavers on my driveway. I went back to the car shop for an evaluation and was informed that the oil filter was defective. They replaced it and went on my way. I can’t get the oil off the driveway after multiple attempts with multiple suggestions. In California do I have legal recourse for repair or replacing the affected pavers?

You can sue the shop for defective installation, or you can sue the manufacturer for a defective part. You will have to prove that it is the fault of the person that you are suing, so the shop will probably argue that it was a defective part that they couldn't have known about, and the manufacturer will probably argue that it was due to defective installation. If you have competent third-party testimony that proves that the part itself was defective, you may prevail, though if you can get them to write up a technical report that supports your contention, the manufacturer may simplify things by compensating you, if you waive your right to sue for damages. However, this may not be an option unless the shop retained the filter and can point to a specific manufacturing defect.

Can cops cut airbags out of a car before anyone gets to see it?

About three years ago, a friend of mine was involved in an accident with a fatality. Now he finds out on his last report that the police “cut” the airbags out of the car to bring them as evidence. My question is, would that be tampering with evidence? My feelings were that he could’ve at least taken a picture of the deployed bags because there is no way now for them to know if they came from that car.

There is no way now for them to know if they came from that car No, not necessarily. Evidence needs to be introduced in an admissible form as dictated by the particular jurisdiction's procedural rules - usually by witness statements establishing where the item came from (its " provenance ") and a chronological account stating who had control of the item - and why if it's relevant - in what is often called the " chain of custody " or the " continuity of evidence ". Any and all of these witnesses can be challenged by the defence if there is any doubt that the airbags, for example, are not the ones from the accident. Would that be tampering with evidence? Again, not necessarily. The airbags may need to be removed for any number of legitimate reasons: forensic examination; physical inspection; to show if they were, or were not, deployed... Again, it's up to the defence to question the reasons behind their removal.

Someone copied and published content from my blog post - is this legal?

About two and a half years ago I wrote a technical article on Medium.com, which included some graphs. I recently came across a book that was published (which I bought to see the content) last year that copied my words and graphics as-is. I was wondering whether this is legal, and who owns the rights (if anyone) to the content of my post.

According to the current version of the TOS: You own the rights to the content you create and post on Medium. By posting content to Medium, you give us a nonexclusive license to publish it on Medium Services, including anything reasonably related to publishing it (like storing, displaying, reformatting, and distributing it). In consideration for Medium granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Medium may enable advertising on the Services, including in connection with the display of your content or other information. We may also use your content to promote Medium, including its products and content. We will never sell your content to third parties without your explicit permission. This explicitly says you own your content, although Medium has some rights to do some things. And they won't sell it without permission, so unless Medium itself is publishing this book, it would seem to be copyright infringement. (Of course, I don't know what the TOS said when you originally wrote the article.) If what was copied was not copyrightable (like a quote from the Constitution, or a simple uncreative graph of something obvious) then it wouldn't be infringement. But your article was probably more than that.

In 1970, how was Ted Cruz&#39;s citizenship determined?

Above answer explains issue using current law situation, but I am interested what exactly was law in 1970 when Ted Cruz was born. An article in Salon claims (which is possibly invalid claim): As late as 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1802 Naturalization Act only made a child born abroad a citizen if the father was a citizen. We know that only mother of Ted Cruz was US citizen; his father was a naturalized Canadian. "Possible duplicate" answer cites 8 U.S. Code § 1401(g) which says: A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years[.] My question is, when this current interpretation became law? Was it before 1970 when Cruz was born, or after? This also suggests that Salon article is wrong (which is entirely possible)? TL;DR: Salon's article would apply to person born before 1932, not to Cruz.

This is answered here . According to Wikipedia , birthright citizenship was extended to children with citizen mothers and noncitizen fathers in 1934; the text of that law seems to be found here . The 1961 Supreme Court ruling that Salon is referring to seems to be this one , but they are interpreting the law as it stood in 1906, not 1961. Petitioner, whose mother is a native-born United States citizen and whose father is a citizen of Italy (their marriage having been in the United States), was born in Italy in 1906 while his parents were temporarily residing there, and entered the United States with his mother later the same year.

Are there any legal doctrines like the absurdity doctrine that tend to correct legislative undersight or oversight?

Absurdity doctrine is a doctrine used by courts to ignore the plain meaning of a law in cases where the plain meaning would in the court's opinion lead to absurd results. Are there any similar doctrines that attempt to correct legislative flaws by either interpreting a law broadly or narrowly to include or exclude situations where such law can or cannot apply?

canada The Supreme Court of Canada has long been clear that "plain meaning alone is not determinative and a statutory interpretation analysis is incomplete without considering the context, purpose and relevant legal norms" ( R. v. Alex , 2017 SCC 37 at para. 31 ). Many factors would pull a court to interpret a statute more narrowly or broadly than an acontextual, isolated reading of the words would suggest. Generally, this includes the full text, context, and purpose of the statute. Courts will look to: the words of the provision the surrounding words and related provisions the words of the entire statute the entire statute book the legislative purpose as revealed through legislative history and the mischief the provision is meant to deal with the presumption of constitutionality etc. Basically every doctrine of statutory interpretation will pull towards either a narrow or broad reading of a provision. I would hesitate though to call these "corrections" of "legislative flaws" but rather an attempt to give effect to the legislative intent. Even the doctrine of absurdity that you mention is based in an assumption that the legislature does not intend absurd results. Instead of correcting "legislative flaws" this doctrine/canon is a way to avoid judicial error. However, after a full interpretation of a statute reveals that it is unconstitutional because it is over or under-inclusive, then a court may use the remedies of reading down or reading in (these are constitutional remedies not part of the ordinary act of interpretation). In such a circumstance, where it is a "safe assumption" that the Legislature would have enacted the "corrected" version, the court may declare the correction. See Schachter v. Canada , [1992] 2 SCR 679 .

How is a US political campaign supposed to verify that donors from abroad are US citizens?

According the US laws, only US citizens may contribute financially to political campaigns - especially presidential campaigns. Suppose you are running a campaign. How are you supposed to verify that donations from around the world are actually from US citizens? For example, take a look at Pete Buttigeg's page. He accepts donations from every country on Earth. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/pete-buttigieg-announcement-day How can he be sure that they are actually from Americans? (The question applies to donations from within the US too. There can be non-citizens in the US with US credit cards and addresses. How does a candidate ensure that they are actually citizens? To what extent is this required?)

See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ , the section on "Foreign Nationals". The Commission stated, in AO 1998-14, that the use of any surname on a contribution check (or similar instrument) would not, by itself, give any reason to inquire as to the person’s nationality. Nonetheless, the Commission advised the committee to take the following minimally intrusive steps to ensure that the contributions it received did not come from foreign nationals: Ensure that public political ads and solicitations directed to audiences outside the U.S. contain a summary of the foreign national prohibition of 52 U.S.C. § 30121. Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution postmarked from any non U.S. territory. Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution indicating that either the bank or the account owner has a foreign address. In all of the these instances, if the contribution is submitted along with credible evidence (for example, a copy of a valid U.S. passport) that the contributor is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or a permanent resident alien, no further inquiry need be made. However, if the committee has actual knowledge that the contributor is in fact a foreign national, it may not rely on these documents as a defense. So, if the donor has been informed of the rules and gives a US address, the campaign can assume that they are eligible to donate, unless the campaign has actual knowledge that they aren't. If they give a non-US address, the campaign is supposed to get some other proof of nationality. By the way, that page also explains that the first part of your question is slightly wrong. It isn't only US citizens who are allowed to donate - US nationals (a rather rare category consisting mostly of people from certain US territories) and permanent residents are also eligible.

Why is the Federal Reserve allowed to &quot;coin Money&quot; and define exchange rates?

According the to United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8 , The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ... But it is the Federal Reserve, not Congress, who is currently "coins Money" and defines exchange rates for foreign currencies. Why isn't it a constitutional violation?

It's not a violation because Congress created and gave the Federal Reserve the power to issue Federal Reserve Notes in the Federal Reserve Act which created the Federal Reserve. More here on the relationship between Congress and the Fed: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-27/how-congress-governs-the-federal-reserve .

What information must be removed from judicial decisions in France when made public?

According to (1), anyone in France may ask for a copy of a judicial decision. If one decides to make it available publicly, e.g. on a website, the National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL) demand to be de-identified (2). What information must be removed from judicial decisions in France when made public? I am looking for an exhaustive list, such as the list defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules in the United States that list all types of information that must be removed from a patient note before it can be shared publicly: (i) Names of patients and family members (ii) Addresses and their components (iii) Dates (month and day parts, unless the inclusion of the year part identities an individual to be older than 90 years old) (iv) Explicit mention of ages over 89 years old (v) Telephone and fax numbers (vi) Social Security numbers (vii) Medical record numbers (viii) Health plan beneficiary numbers (ix) Account numbers (x) Certificate or license numbers (xi) Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers (xii) Device identifers and serial numbers (xiii) Electronic mail addresses (xiv) Web universal resource locators (URLs) (xv) Internet protocol (IP) addresses (xvi) Biometric identifiers (xvii) Full face photographic images (xviii) Employers (xix) Any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code (1) http://www.precisement.org/blog/Se-procurer-la-copie-d-une-decision-de-justice-les-bases-legales-et-un-guide.html : Les tiers – personnes qui ne sont pas parties à la décision [7] – peuvent donc se faire délivrer copie des décisions qui ont été prononcées publiquement, ou plus exactement que l’on considère comme telles. Gtranslate: The third-parties, i.e. persons who are not parties to the decision, can therefore be given copies of the decisions that have been spoken publicly , or more precisely that we consider as such. (2) http://www.droit-technologie.org/actuality-498/la-publication-des-decisions-de-justice-sur-l-internet.html

For what it is worth, France is internationally know for having some of the most bare bones judicial decisions in the world that typically state the bare minimum to loosely suggest a reason for the decision and to convey the ultimate legal conclusion that the court reached. A case that would typically be resolved with a judicial opinion of thirty to fifty pages full of factual detail and legal reasoning in a court in Britain or the United States, would frequently be resolved when identical facts and legal issues are presented with a three to five page decision in France. So, often only monetary amounts, account numbers, and some proper names (at least of people other than parties to the case) would have to be redacted from a decision, and sometimes not even that.

What does &quot;actual knowledge&quot; mean in the context of DMCA safe harbors?

According to 17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online (emphasis mine): A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider— (A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge , is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; Is "actual knowledge" the same thing that's detailed in paragraph (3) "Elements of notification"? Or does it refer to something else? In either case, has the interpretation been tested in court?

The particulars of "actual knowledge" are addressed in Viacom v. YouTube . The ruling from the appeals court states (emphasis mine): Under § 512(c)(1)(A), knowledge or awareness alone does not disqualify the service provider; rather, the provider that gains knowledge or awareness of infringing activity retains safe-harbor protection if it “acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii). Thus, the nature of the removal obligation itself contemplates knowledge or awareness of specific infringing material , because expeditious removal is possible only if the service provider knows with particularity which items to remove ... Thus, actual knowledge must be knowledge that is specific enough to allow a service provider to take action against specific infringing content. "General" knowledge of infringement is not specific enough to be actionable, so it cannot qualify as "actual knowledge". (e.g., The general knowledge, "In the past, about 5% of the videos uploaded to our site were infringing, and we expect that trend continues into the present, so some of our videos right now are probably infringing," is not actionable to specific videos, so it does not quality as "actual knowledge".) That ruling also clarifies the distinction between (i) and (ii) , which are respectively termed the "actual knowledge" provision and "red flag" provision: In other words, the actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually or “subjectively” knew of specific infringement, while the red flag provision turns on whether the provider was subjectively aware of facts that would have made the specific infringement “objectively” obvious to a reasonable person. Actual knowledge is different from a notification, which the service operator must respond to according to section (c)(1)(C) (whereas your quote is from (c)(1)(A)): (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. Expeditious removal is required in either event: the operator has actual knowledge of infringement, per (c)(1)(A)(i), or the operator gets a notification, per (c)(1)(C). Actual knowledge and notifications are different, but they impose similar responsibilities for the operator.

Marital Rape as Defined by Indian Law

According to 1860 Indian Penal Code: "Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape." What are the possible exceptions to this law that would allow for a husband to be prosecuted for raping his wife?

The simple answer is: if the law says marital rape is not a crime, it is not punishable by the criminal justice system. If there were a loophole, one of the lawyers representing one of the many rape victims who have been seeking justice in India would have found it. There more than likely isn't one. Some Indian marital rape victims have tried prosecutions under the domestic violence laws, but as I understand it -- and I'm no expert -- those laws are fairly toothless. The solution is for India to pass better laws. The majority of Indian judges and legislators want marital rape to be allowed, and as long as that's the case, unfortunately, no clever workaround is going to fix anything.

Why can NTSB reports not be admitted as evidence?

According to 49 U.S. code § 1154, part (b), No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. That is to say, an NTSB report may not be used as evidence in a civil action for damages, resulting from an aviation incident. This is re-iterated at the end of most final NTSB reports. My question is what is the motivation and reasoning behind this legislation? While some of the elements of the report may be of a subjective nature, there is a specific section detailing factual information. Could the motivation be to force admittance of the original evidence, rather than the NTSB report which would potentially secondary source? A more interesting aside is also, can it be admitted into evidence if the civil action is not for damages from the incident in question? What if a report has tangential relevance in a potentially non-civil, say, criminal action?

"The purpose of the statute making the NTSB's reports of accidents inadmissible in actions arising out of such accidents is to exclude reports that express agency views as to the probable cause of the accident because that is a finding in the province of the jury or fact finder." Britton v. Dall. Airmotive, Inc. , No. 1:07-cv-00547-EJL, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163211, at *5-6 (D. Idaho May 20, 2011) (citations omitted). "The legislative history of this statute demonstrates that the purpose of this exclusionary rule is to prevent a usurpation of the jury's role as fact finder." McLeod v. ERA Aviation , No. 93-294, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3204, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 12, 1996) (citations omitted). "This limitation on the admissibility of the NTSB report, however, applies to the official conclusions of the NTSB, not to the factual accident reports of the investigators." Britton , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163211, at *6 (citation omitted); accord 49 C.F.R. § 835.2. By its terms, the statute applies only to civil actions, but the report would be subject to the ordinary hearsay rules if offered in a criminal case. See Fed. R. Evid. 801; United States v. PG&E , 178 F. Supp. 3d 927, 946 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

Does NY State have a cap of seven casinos?

According to Ars Technica's quote of the NY Constitution , it states in part: [E]xcept as hereinafter provided, no lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state..., except pari-mutuel betting on horse races..., and except casino gambling at no more than seven facilities... , shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state; and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section. However, I could not find the italicized text, nor even the word 'casino,' in the New York State Constitution as posted on the NY Department of State , "As Amended and in Force Since January 1, 2014." Is Ars Technica getting a constitutional quote wrong*, or is there basis for it? (*): Other than, possibly, the quoted spelling of parimutuel , which may be an error in the constitution. Even within the constitution as linked to, the title and text disagrees with the table of contents, so there seems to be at least one spelling error in there.

Note first that Ars Technica is quoting from a cease-and-desist letter sent by the Office of the Attorney General of New York State. So we really should hope that it's accurate. Indeed, the quote is correct, and the HTML New York Constitution on the NY Department of State site is out of date. The "seven facilities" clause was inserted as an amendment by the New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013) , passed by voters in November 2013. It also appears in the PDF version of the Constitution linked from the previously mentioned HTML page; it's in Article I, Section 9. Prior to this amendment, casino gambling was entirely prohibited in the state. The HTML version is dated January 1, 2014; the PDF version is dated January 1, 2015. I would have guessed that an amendment passed in November 2013 would have become effective on January 1, 2014, and so should already have been included in the 2014 edition; but perhaps I am wrong.

Are artificially generated personal data covered by the GDPR?

According to Article 2(1) GDPR: ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number , location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person; In my country, Poland, we have a national identification number called PESEL . It has 11 digits which encode date of birth, sex, ordinal number and one checksum digit. All combinations can be easily generated on todays computers. Article 87 GDPR states that: Member States may further determine the specific conditions for the processing of a national identification number or any other identifier of general application. In that case the national identification number or any other identifier of general application shall be used only under appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject pursuant to this Regulation. if I generate all 1,826,210,000 PESEL number combinations, do I become the holder of the personal database of all Polish people and (if I am a company) do the obligations arising from the GDPR begin to apply to me?

Generating a list of all possible numbers doesn't sound like it would constitute personal data any more than listing all dates for the last hundred years as a "possible date of birth" would. However, the moment anyone linked even one of the numbers with any other personal data - for example a name - they would be bound by GDPR and would need to show a Lawful Basis for processing the data. [If you linked your own name you could presumably argue Consent, but anyone else's would need to have an associated Lawful Basis.]

Does possesing BUT NOT processing a personal data make the organization their controller?

According to Article 4(7) of GDPR: ‘controller’ means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of such processing are determined by Union or Member State law, the controller or the specific criteria for its nomination may be provided for by Union or Member State law; What if the organization comes into possession of certain data, but never intended to acquire it, and therefore hasn't determined any purposes or means of processing them? For example, a certain company ABC rents rooms to other companies and one day in one of the rooms (no longer rented by anyone) finds a box full of documents. There are personal data. Company XYZ, which used this room earlier, claims that this data does not belong to it and that it is not the controller. Does ABC temporarily become their controller in the sense of the GDPR and is therefore obliged to take certain actions as described in GDPR to protect this data? Or maybe ABC is not the controller and the protection of these found data results from completely different legal acts?

A simple box full of documents might not be in scope of the GDPR, unless it can be considered (a part of) a filing system (for example because it is sorted). Just for the sake of argument, let's assume this box is in scope of the GDPR. If the company decides to store the box for a while, it is basically processing personal data, because storing is included in the definition in Art. 4(2) . So it looks to me at that moment the company becomes a controller. However, probably some exceptions would apply. In particular is the box contains personal data of many different people, Art. 14 does probably not apply, because it would involve a disproportionate effort to inform all data subjects. Finding such a box is a personal data breach. Although it is caused by the previous (unknown) controller, I think the company has to notify this personal data breach to a supervisory authority. If the company would decide to destruct the box and it's content, it would not change anything, because destruction of personal data is also processing. The destruction itself might even be a personal data breach, for example if there is no other copy of the documents. Note that similar responsibilities arise if something valuable which is not personal data is found. You need to take care of it, for example find the owner or bring it to a lost property office.

State Prosecutorial Power

According to Article 5 Section 21 of the Texas Constitution & Chapter 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says, "a "city attorney" is not a public officer; He is not granted "state prosecutorial power" & there should be no confusion, as for even the legislature CAN NOT delegate them the power, for it's a NON delegable power." Then why is the "city attorney" doing this in our municipal court?

The authorities cited mean that the city attorney can't prosecute cases arising under state criminal laws. Cases in municipal court are prosecuted under municipal ordinances rather than state criminal laws, in the name of the city, rather than the People of the State of Texas. Therefore, a city attorney may prosecute ordinance violations in municipal court.

Transfer of US Presidential power when both the President and the Vice President are incapacitated

According to Article II, section 1, clause 6 of the US Constitution, in the case of death, removal, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers of the office, both of the President and the Vice President, Congress may by law provide who will act as President (and it currently does in the Presidential Succession Act, with the Speaker of the House as first in line). I have a question about how this would work in a case where both the President and Vice President are incapacitated (i.e. alive but unable to perform any actions). The 25th Amendment, sections 3 and 4, provide the two ways in which the President can be determined to be unable to discharge the powers of his office. Under section 3, the President can declare himself unable to discharge the powers of the officer for a period of time, which he can't do when incapacitated. Under section 4, either the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet, or the Vice President and another body that Congress may by law provide, can declare the President to be unable to discharge the duties of his office. Since the Vice President is also incapacitated, this is not possible either. So in this case is there no way to declare the President (and the Vice President) unable to discharge their duties to have someone further down the line of succession act as President? (I guess one alternative would be for Congress to impeach both the President and Vice President, which would immediately make the next in line the Acting President, although it seems unreasonable to impeach them if they did not do anything wrong.)

Under article II, section 1 of the Constitution: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The 25th Amendment doesn't cover the case of the President and Vice-President becoming incapacitated simultaneously, so instead the original section of the Constitution can be consulted. And unlike the 25th Amendment, this is quite clear: Congress passes a law deciding who the acting President is. The current law is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 .

Can an American sue their own state directly in the federal Supreme Court?

According to Article III, Section 2 of the constitution, The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. This defines the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. For example, the federal judiciary has jurisdiction to hear cases where a citizen alleges that their own state is violating one of their rights granted by the federal constitution and seeks injunctive relief, since that falls under "arising under this Constitution". Furthermore, In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. My understanding of "original jurisdiction" is that it basically means "you can file this kind of case in this court". And since this is in the constitution, Congress can't take it away. However, as far as I can tell, it's not actually allowed for an American to sue their own state directly in the Supreme Court. They have to file in a federal district court and then appeal the decision if they don't like it. Legally speaking, why is that?

The Eleventh Amendment has generally been construed to bar suits against a state by citizens of that state in federal court. There are all sorts of caveats, though, and it's possible that the doctrine is still evolving. The text of the Amendment reads: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. It doesn't contain explicit language prohibiting the citizens of a state from suing it in federal court. That extension surfaced throughout the 1880s and was formalized in Hans v. Louisiana , 134 U.S. 1 (1890). Seminole Tribe v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44 (1996), lends support to Hans , albeit as a 5-4 decision. Cornell has a nice article on the current and historical view of sovereign immunity . It notes that the Supreme Court has left a number of important questions unanswered—including the nature of the states' immunity. It likewise tries to wrestle with the Article III question.

Collapse of a money lending company

According to Businessinsider, Nelnet is having massive layoffs and apparently is collapsing. If the actual company holding the debt has its own layoffs, and can't file lawsuits or do anything, does the debt run statute of limitations and disappear?

I find the "is collapsing" statement troubling. Companies grow, shrink, and restructure all the time. Nelnet might be coming apart, or somebody might be trying to generate clicks for a news story. The normal situation, when a company goes into bankrupcty proceedings, is that a trustee tries to recover as much of the assets as possible to pay out creditors. This would suggest an increased, not decreased, attempt to collect repayments.

Recourse for CAN-SPAM violation (impossible to unsubscribe)

According to CAN-SPAM, it should be possible to unsubscribe from a given vendor without much issue or fuss (emphasis added for the relevant part): https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business You can’t charge a fee, require the recipient to give you any personally identifying information beyond an email address, or make the recipient take any step other than sending a reply email or visiting a single page on an Internet website as a condition for honoring an opt-out request . I'm in Texas, I've tried unsubscribing from some list via their webpage, but it seems like the vendor's system isn't working properly, and I still continue receiving the emails past the 10 days. Moreover, these emails come with misleading and deceptive e-mail subject headers , which I personally find disturbing and would classify as the real "fake news". Do I have any recourse?

Assuming that the email has the requisite properties (is commercial advertising or promotion – not transactional or relationship) and that you submitted the request with 30 days of receipt, you can complain to the FTC, as described here . The online complain interface is here . If you are an internet service provider and have been adversely affected then under 15 USC 7706(g) you may sue the offender for damages. Texas has an analog of CAN-SPAM (which, the Texas AG points out , is superseded in some sections by federal law). There doesn't currently appear to be an active mechanism for complaining to the Texas AG, but maybe it just requires a phone call.

Does CC BY-SA permit denial of attribution if the requested pseudonym is political?

According to CC-BY-SA 4.0, § 3(a)(1) , "Attribution. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: [...] retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:" identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); Does this protect me if the pseudonym I wish to use is deemed to be political, but is otherwise protected speech in my jurisdiction? For example, would a site be able to deny attribution if my requested pseudonym was "Israel is an Apartheid State"?

I don't see how. Remember that a license is a contract where the author gives permission to copy (modify, redistribute, remix, etc) a copyrighted work, provided that the licensee fulfills the stated conditions. If the license is not in effect, then we revert to the default situation under copyright law, which is that the potential licensee has no rights to copy the work. (Not counting particular instances of copying which are permitted under fair use and similar exceptions - I presume that's not what you have in mind, or the whole question is moot.) In this case, the conditions include that the licensee must credit the author under their chosen pseudonym. The licensee can't get out of that obligation simply because they find it distasteful or objectionable for whatever reason. If they don't want to do it, then they should not accept the license in the first place, and so refrain from copying the work. (Of course, if the author is offering the CC license in hopes of encouraging reuse of the work, then this may not be a desirable outcome for the author, so they might want to think twice about their choice of pseudonym.) Even if the author's pseudonym were something that would actually be illegal to quote (say, because it is obscene), I don't think it lets the licensee off the hook. A contract with illegal terms is void, so legally it is as if there is no license at all, and we revert to the default in which there is no right to copy. A question was raised in comments about the word "reasonable". I don't know of case law where this has been tested, so I can only speculate: The context suggests that "reasonable" is intended to refer to the means of attribution (for instance, where the attribution should appear in a piece of source code or documentation), not to the pseudonym. There's a legal principle that the specific governs over the general , and the requirement to credit the author by a particular pseudonym is clearly more specific than the general requirement of "reasonableness". It seems clear that the author, who is the one offering these terms, didn't intend for the general term "reasonable" to render meaningless their request for the use of a specific pseudonym; if they had, why would they have bothered to put it in? On the flip side, there's the principle of contra proferentem , that ambiguities in a contract should be resolved in the favor of the party that didn't draft it - here, the licensee. But it's hard to argue that this is really ambiguous; it seems quite clear what the author wants. Of course, the author can circumvent the whole issue, if they're worried, by licensing the work instead under a modified version of the CC license in which the word "reasonable" is removed. After all, there is nothing particular magical about CC's language: the contract is whatever the author and the licensee agree to, and they're just using the pre-written CC license as a convenience to streamline their negotiations.

Is it legal in California to use lethal force to stop ANY felony from being committed?

According to California Penal Code Section 197 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, I thought that only a very few instances of grave personal threat justified lethal force. This section of law seems to say that it can be used to "resist" any felony. There are many felonies, but non-violent ones such as forgery I wouldn't think justified lethal force. Does this clause apply to nonviolent felonies? (Inspired by an uneducated reading of this question: Am I allowed to kill a person threatening me? CA, USA )

No. The language in question dates from when "felony" denoted a much more serious class of crimes than it does today; traditionally, "felony" essentially meant "capital crime." Since then, California courts have narrowed the clause's meaning through caselaw. Incidentally, the provision in question appears in multiple state penal codes (it was a traditional common-law rule), and they have all restricted its meaning. In 1961, a California appeals court considered this issue in People v. Jones ( 191 Call. App. 2d 478 ). The court ruled that It is true that Penal Code, section 197, subdivision 1, does provide that homicide is justifiable when resisting an attempt to commit a felony. But the section does no more than codify the common law and should be read in the light of it. Taken at face value, and without qualification, it represents an oversimplification of the law today. The authorities generally rely on Blackstone for the earliest expression of the rule. He rationalized it in terms of no killing being justified to prevent crime unless the offense was punishable by death. (4 Blackstone's Commentaries, pp. 180-182.) But in those days all felonies were capital offenses. Perhaps the leading American case on the point is Storey v. State, 71 Ala. 329, 336-341, where the early law is reviewed and rejected, and the application of the rule limited to the commission of felonies that involve a danger of great personal harm, or "some atrocious crime attempted to be committed by force." This limitation is today generally recognized. This case involved a violent felony (wife-beating), but it was a felony because the legislature wanted to punish what would otherwise be misdemeanor assault more seriously in a domestic setting. As such, The punishment provided by a statute is not necessarily an adequate test as to whether life may be taken for in some situations it is too artificial and unrealistic. We must look further into the character of the crime, and the manner of its perpetration (see Storey v. State, supra). When these do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm, as they could not if defendant apprehended only a misdemeanor assault, there is no cause for the exaction of a human life.

If a signal person in California tells me to kill someone, do I have to do so?

According to California sample written driving test (problem 6): You see a signal person at a road construction site ahead. You should obey his or her instructions: A. Only if you see orange cones on the road ahead. B. Unless they conflict with existing signs, signals, or laws. C. At all times. C is the correct answer and B is marked as incorrect. So could a signal person tell me to kill someone? If they did and I did so, would I still get in trouble? I am following their instructions, and the test explicitly states that I should follow their instructions even if they conflict with existing laws.

You are not reading a law book here and you should not interpret a driving test so literally. It's quite clear that the question implies you should follow all of their instructions regarding how to proceed through traffic. Sometimes those instructions do involve "breaking laws" such as driving on the wrong side of the road or proceeding through a traffic signal that was not turned off. The B option clearly does not mean they have the power to disobey all laws in existence, only those concerning traffic as evidenced by the examples given. You are not Sheldon Cooper and you should know how to interpret a vague question correctly. You are also not a gopher, and you can correctly deduce that crashing into another car or driving off the cliff into the water is not in your best interests, and that calling the police to report someone abusing their position is probably a good idea. If you're concerned by the wording, try contacting the California DMV to have them clarify the wording.

Is it illegal to wear a mask while on a public sidewalk in Florida?

According to Chapter 876 Section 12 ; Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way. —No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state. According to Chapter 876 Section 115 which I believe is how Section 12 applies; Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15. —The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device: (1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws; (2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law; (3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or (4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding. So if a person is standing silently on a sidewalk, wearing a mask, with a cellphone, recording Police. Are they within their legal right to do so (Wear the mask in public)?

In the situation you describe the person taking the pictures is not violating the mask law and should be acquitted at trial and possibly even before trial in a preliminary hearing, if charged with violating the mask law and if the finder of fact correctly ascertains the facts. But, the police might very well been upheld in making an arrest on the basis of the mask law, on the grounds that they had probable cause to believe that the mask law was being violated, even though, when all facts came out, they were wrong. This could happen legally if the police believed that it was probable that the actual intent of the person making the recording was to "to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person." In the same way, if the person recording was fifteen years old and had an improper intent, the police might have probable cause to make the arrest because they believed that it was probable that the person was sixteen years of age or older, even though they were mistaken.

Can the officers of a 501(c)(7) take salaries?

According to CharityWatch the Boys and Girls Club of America is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, whose CEO is salaried at over $800,000.00 . So clearly, it is legal for the CEOs/officers of a 501(c)(3) to take a salary. What about 501(c)(7) " social clubs "? Can their officers take salaries? Why or why not? If they can, how does this not "inure to their benefit"?

The legal standard for salaries from a 501(c)(7) organization is that "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder" is arguably slightly more permissive than the rule that applies to 501(c)(3) organizations, which is that "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual[.]" So, at a minimum, a 501(c)(7) organization may pay an officer of the organization an amount equal to the fair market value of those services in a comparable "for profit" organization. It isn't entirely clear to me without further detailed research if the omission of the "or individual" clause in 501(c)(7) actually has legal significance in the context of gift-like benefits to someone other than on account of being a member or owner of a club. It probably does allow some kinds of transactions of this type. If they can, how does this not "inure to their benefit"? The legal theory is that one is looking at "net benefit". If an officer does valuable work for which the officer receives compensation, the officer is making a barter of two things of equal value: the officer's valuable services for money. There is no net benefit to the officer who merely "breaks even" economically in a salary transaction. In contrast, a payment on account of a membership in or ownership of the club, or simply as a gift from the entity to an individual not directly incidental to its expressly permitted tax exempt purpose, involved the individual or private company receiving something without providing something substantially equivalent in return. So, this is a net benefit to the individual or private company that receives something from the 501(c) organization.

Enforcing academic integrity in light of Chegg&#39;s terms of service

According to Chegg's terms of service , No materials from the Services may be copied, reproduced, modified, republished, downloaded, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any form or by any means without Chegg's prior written permission or as expressly provided in these Terms of Use. Moreover, according to Chegg, these terms apply "regardless of whether you are a registered user or a guest". It seems to me that this forbids: a professor to discover answers to their questions on Chegg and alert a grading team to be alert for matching assignments. a professor to introduce answers downloaded from Chegg as evidence at an academic integrity proceeding. Does Chegg actually have the ability to forbid these actions?

Assuming Chegg own the copyright, then they can restrict the activities that copyright protects The statement you quote is no more or less than the rights granted to them by copyright law. Basically, it's their stuff, they get to decide how you can use it. However, that does not necessarily mean that the uses that you have nominated are prohibited. For that, we would have to look at the specific fair use or fair dealing exemptions to copyright protection where you are. It's likely that both of your usage scenarios would meet fair use and probably fair dealing (which is harder to meet). You may also find that, buried somewhere in those massive terms of use, is something that deals with this directly.

DMCA: How can ISP ever avoid liability, ISP always gets financial benefit from user content infringement

According to DMCA, to avoid liability the ISP must not financially benefited from the infringement. But ISP is always making money in one or many ways from infringement (ads display, subscription, marketing, publicity, traffic) Especially when the infringed content is popular, the revenue must be there more than usual. so how can ISP ever be innocent? Addition from comments: I think the key for this is DMCA does not specify indirect or direct benefit of ISP. So lawyers can always say that ISP gained "a benefit". Also most of shady file hosting sites their main purpose is obviously make money from illegal content in a short time until reported. When someone upload a popular illegal content on youtube, gets 1 million view in a day then deleted by google. Google already made big ads revenue, which is the main business model of the website. That is completely a direct benefit out of it. With full purpose and intention of Google.

The normal scenario is that a user illegally downloads a movie. The IP owner identifies that someone illegally downloaded a movie from some IP address assigned to the ISP. They send a notice to the ISP, the ISP sends it on to the person the IP address was assigned to. The ISP doesn't benefit directly from the infringement. The other scenario is that the ISP gives storage space to users. A user stores an illegal copy of a movie and shares it. The IP owner finds out people are downloading from this IP address, sends a notice to the ISP and the ISP forwards the notice to the user and may delete the infringing content. Again, the ISP doesn't benefit directly from the infringement. Now, if the ISP advertises itself as a place to download movies or becomes aware that infringing content is located on their servers and does nothing, then yes, they become eligible for liability. (Of course, since the DMCA is a US law, they have to be also in the US or a nation willing to help the US enforce the DMCA)

What&#39;s the difference between &#39;a free state&#39; and an &#39;independent state?&#39;

According to Daniel Parton, an associate professor of law at Boston University, in March 1946, the French Government recognised the Republic of Vietnam as 'a free state' but not as an independent one ... having its own 'government, it's parliament, it's army and it's finance.' Q. What was the difference between 'free state' and 'independent state' that he French government relying upon?

An Independent State is a: nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over its territory. Whereas a Free State is: occasionally used in the official titles of some states throughout the world with varying meanings depending on the context. In principle, the title asserts and emphasises a particular freedom of the state in question, but this is not always reflected in practice. Some states use the title to assert sovereignty or independence from foreign domination, while others have used it to assert autonomy within a larger nation-state. Sometimes "free state" is used as a synonym for "republic". One can only surmise without access to the contemporaneous records of the Gouvernement de la République Française but it seems that the reference to Vietnam (or French Indochina ) as being a Free State may have been way for France to announce to the world her military, political and/or commercial intentions in the area, and to give the Vietnamese people some degree of autonomy without France relinquishing overall control regained following the 1945 to 1946 War in Vietnam . For context : the geopolitical events in and around Indochina at the time were complex with changing loyalties, fragile allegiances and contested borders with the main events being the Japanese invasion in 1940, the 1945 coup d'état , the Japanese and Vichy French surrender at the end of the second world war, and the the First Indochina War in 1946, but a more detailed answer may be available at HistorySE or PoliticsSE .

The comparative degree and superlative degree: what to do when comparing uncertain number of things?

According to Do's, Don'ts, and Maybes: Legal Writing Grammar - Part II : Use the comparative degree to compare two persons or things. Use the superlative degree to compare more than two persons or things. But what if the number of persons or things is uncertain? EDIT: One of the concern is whether using the superlative degree implies the number of things to be more than 2. For example, in a contract, A promises to buy some trucks from B in some future date, but the number of trucks depends on some events in the future. B also promises to do add some additional equipments on the heaviest truck. If the contract reads B shall equip the heaviest truck with a GPS navigator. Does it imply the number of trucks is more than 2? If so, what can be done to remedy this?

Rather than trying to devise a rule to automatically follow, one should aim to understand what comparatives and superlatives mean. The comparative is used to identify an ordering of two things on a scale, and has to be interpreted relative to a context that has exactly two things. The superlative applies to any context, whether there is 1, 2 or 200 things to choose from: it does not mean that there have to be be at least 3 candidates, and "most" would be satisfied if there is only a single candidate. What is most important is being clear about that set of candidates, and this is accomplished by carefully specifying the set of possibilities. (Separate attention has to be paid to guaranteeing that there are any candidates, and if you want to specify that at least one truck must be provided, then you should say that, and not leave it to inference that "the heaviest truck" suggests that there should be at least one truck). Assume a contract where A transports goods from Paris to Rome, with an unknown number of routes that lead to Rome. The intent is to require taking the shortest route, since the customer pays by the mile. A shall transport goods by the shorter route from Paris to Rome A shall transport goods by the shortest route from Paris to Rome These clauses fail to specify a pool of routes to consider. Clause 2 implicitly says "out of all of the possible routes, pick the shortest", the main problem being that this is air transport (saving hundreds of miles compared to surface roads). This can be remedied by specifying a type of route (e.g. "via E-grade highways"). Once you've narrowed it down that way, it does not matter if there is only 1 such route, 2 of them, or 12 routes: A must pick the shortest. Clause 1 is open to the ludicrous interpretation that the route cannot be the longest possible route. The route via Hammerfest, Irkutsk, Phnom Penh, Madras, Capetown and Athens is shorter, compared to Hammerfest, Phnom Penh, Irkutsk, Athens, Capetown and Madras (in that order). Saying that the route must be "shorter than some other thing" is not what you want: you want "shorter than all other things". A comparative (with an indefinite article) can be sensible when the set of possibilities is already constrained, if you are stating an "exception" to a more general rule. If the set of routes is already limited to those which employ E-system highways for at least 75% of the distance, then you can "exceptionally" allow selecting a longer route: "A may take a longer route if that route reduces toll costs by at least 10%". This, incidentally, allows A to select a route via Irkutsk, if that reduces tolls, so you still need a superlative to select which of those longer routes may be taken. In other words, there is little reason to use a comparative, no reason to follow such a rule on word use, and every reason to pay attention to how the interpretation of clauses is affected by context.

Would it be illegal to withdraw a disclaimer that no &quot;National Security Letters&quot; requests have been made *today*?

According to EFF : By using NSLs, the FBI can directly order companies to turn over information about their customers and then gag the companies from telling anyone that they did so. Because the process is secret, and because even the companies can’t tell if specific NSLs violate the law, the process is ripe for abuse. Let's say a social media site decides to prominently display a disclaiming banner "No National Security Letters have been sent requesting any information about your account today" to every user when they log in. Would it be illegal for such a website to display such a banner? Would it be illegal to stop displaying it to users against whose personal data such a request has been made? If it is illegal, what's the relevant case law? I am only asking about websites created and hosted in the United States and users physically located in the United States.

What you describe is essentially a Warrant Canary , which is legally murky. From a functional point of view, it is breaking the non-disclosure requirements of the NSL by omission. Proponents of warrant canaries would point to case law such as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard to suggest that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment restricts the government from compelling speech. New York Times Co. v. United States could also be read to prevent the prior restraint unless the existence of the NSL was successfully argued to be "crucial military information".

EU refunds law for Play Store

According to EU refund law, if a person releases an app on the Google Play Store, does the person need to even give the payment he received back? Can one specify no refunds by putting it after the app name like "The App (nonrefundable irrefundable)"? How will a person determine whether a user's app download has begun? Does the download start as soon as purchase is completed? I've never bought an app, so I'm not sure. Can EU users buy everything, ask for refunds, then repeat again and again? Is blocking EU users sufficient? Do such laws apply in other countries? Assume the app works as described.

In the EU, the rules for selling apps to consumers fall under the "distance selling" rules. That means that consumers have a legal right to get a refund, as you already discovered. As is usual for EU consumer protection, it's not possible to wish this protection away. No amount of words from your side is going to alter the law. "nonrefundable" does nothing. However, you're not obliged to sell to customers. As far as the EU is concerned, you can blacklist customers from buying again from you. That doesn't mean that Google will facilitate that, though. Things get interesting if the same user tries a second refund for the exact same product - I don't know if there's case law on that yet.

Micro businesses in EU selling electronic goods, how to comply with EU VAT regulations?

According to EUVATACTION Key Facts the business is among other things required to: store personal data securely for 10+ years calculate taxes for every EU country based on client's location as determined by 2 distinct and non-contradictory pieces of evidence Points 1 and 2 mean that a small/micro business can not do this alone. Period. Thankfully, there are services like Taxamo which claim to be able to do it for you, but: nobody really knows what the exact EU VAT rates are for every country, region, time of year, product, ... There is no central EU authority at the moment which supplies "official" information on EU level and Taxamo and others don't have a crystal ball that the EC doesn't have the technical aspects of the integration enable you to get the transaction counts "99.9% right" simply knowing a tax rate doesn't really help you apply the tax rate all the time - in Croatia for example you need to pay the tax when you issue the invoice, not when funds get billed to your account, for example you are liable, not the service provider, if something is calculated badly in some EU countries like Croatia your business will get a huge fine if it's just 2-3 euros off So... Here's the little chain question :) is there any way to comply with these rules 100%? if not, how much bad stuff can happen if you don't comply with the regulation 100%? But 99.9% for example :D (simply because of technical limitations some transactions will not be presented or calculated properly) Does the bad stuff depend on your country, the country of the buyer or combination of both? if the bad stuff is bad, and if there's no way of complying technically are there ways for a subscription based service selling an online service (using recurring credit card charges) to avoid being subject to this VAT scheme? (i.e. presenting the product in a different way or restricting yourself just to B2B transactions) if there's no way to avoid the VAT scheme does it make sense to open a company outside of the EU to handle payments if the said country does not acknowledge jurisdiction of EU law over its businesses, and if so, where? :) Or in short :D What would Google do? :D

I think you vastly exaggerate the difficulty. Basically: when a user registers, ask for their address, including country, as well as a phone number (including country code, which you may validate via SMS for instance). This should give you the 2 pieces of information that help you determine the country In the case of the UK, HMRC says : Support for MOSS registered micro-businesses UK micro-businesses, that are below the current UK VAT registration threshold and are registered for the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS), may use best judgment and base their ‘customer location’ VAT taxation and accounting decisions on a single piece of information, such as the billing address provided by the customer or information provided to them by their payment service provider. based on the country, use the standard VAT rate for that country. The difficulty here is to track when those rates change, but your accountant should be able to keep up with that. There is very little chance any special reduced rate would apply to such services, and in any case, no tax authority will complain if you apply the standard rate instead of the reduced one! then declare everything online to your local MOSS (you don't need to register with each tax authority! You can, but you don't need to). In the case of a micro-business, this should be more than enough to comply with the rules.

Where are the duties of a sovereign stipulated in international law?

According to Emmerich de Vattel, in his The Law of Nations or The Principles of Natural Law , first published in 1758, he writes: It is a much discussed question whether a sovereign must observe the ordinary laws of war in dealing with rebellious subjects who have openly taken up arms against him. A flatterer at court or a cruel tyrant will immediately answer that the laws of war is not made for rebels who deserve only death. To which he replies: In order to understand clearly what conduct a sovereign should observe we must first of all recall that the rights of the sovereign are derived wholly [and not in part] from the rights of the State itself or of civil society, from the duties entrusted to him, and from the obligation he is to watch over the welfare of the nation, to procure its greatest happiness and to maintain order, peace and justice in the country. Q. Is this stipulated in any convention of International law in more or less this form? I don't expect the exact wording to be followed, but a very similar sentiment and thought.

No. De Vatel is waxing philosophical. In fact, the sovereign essentially is the state, and any duty the state has toward its subjects is a matter of national law.

How &quot;infectious&quot; is Unreal Engine 4 license? What is the scope of &quot;product&quot; definition?

According to Epic's EULA for Publishers , they want 5% of any gross revenue you might make out of using software built with their engine, including in-app purchases and advertising, before tax deduction. However, if the actual game (built with Unreal Engine) is free-to-play, does not contain anything related to in-app purchases, but all game-altering purchases are instead done on game's website, so they are not technically "in-app" anymore. Would be any revenue obtained this way still subject to 5% fee from Epic?

It seems relatively clear that you owe them 5%... Royalty You agree to pay Epic a royalty equal to 5% of all worldwide gross revenue actually attributable to each Product, regardless of whether that revenue is received by you or any other person or legal entity, as follows: a. Gross revenue resulting from any and all sales of a Product to end users through any and all media, including but not limited to digital and retail; b. Gross revenue resulting from any and all in-app purchases, downloadable content, microtransactions, subscriptions, sale, transfer, or exchange of content created by end users for use with a Product, or redemption of virtual currency, either within a Product or made externally but which directly affect the operation of the Product ; The first line of the agreement seems egregious though, lets say you make a moddable game that you release for free. Somebody makes a mod and charges $100 for the mod and they get the revenue. It seems like this is saying that you, the developer, owe $5 for each sale of that mod. I don't see that as enforceable.

Recording Phone Calls in Florida and Obtaining All-Party Consent

According to FL Statute 934.03 (outside of limited exceptions), you are required to gain all-party consent to record communications deemed to have an expectation of privacy. It seems this includes when a customer calls a business although I would argue in 2021 no one would be shocked to find out calls to a business are recorded. I digress. The standard notification we are used to is the recording on connection: This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes. I'm not sure this is necessarily gaining explicit consent but it may be implied if a caller continues. I digress. I'm curious about the other ways of gaining consent, implied or otherwise. Could I include in all of my customer contracts that "Calls made to the Company are recorded for quality assurance purposes and, further, calling the Company implies your consent to being recorded." What if this plays only once per unique phone number calling per month. Does that provide consent to recording all calls?

When one party to a conversation notifies then other that a telephone call )or other communication) is being or may be recorded, and the second party continues the conversation, that constitutes consent. I do not think that notifications on previous occasions constitutes consent, but I am not sure of this.

In Florida, do you need to physically hand over your licence to Police?

According to Florida Statues 322.15 , It states; License to be carried and exhibited on demand; fingerprint to be imprinted upon a citation. Does this mean you only need to present the drivers license not hand it over?

Headings are not the statute. The wording there is for information only, and is all but guaranteed to sacrifice nuance for the sake of brevity. The actual requirements are in the contents of the statute. And subsection (1) states: (1) Every licensee shall have his or her driver license...in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall present or submit the same upon the demand of a law enforcement officer or an authorized representative of the department. A licensee may present or submit a digital proof of driver license as provided in s. 322.032 in lieu of a physical driver license. A police officer is allowed to demand that you present or submit your license to him. "Present" and "submit" can both mean "give" in every dictionary i've yet checked. So absent a definition in Florida law, it looks like you have to hand it over.

DSGVO: Saving adress data

According to GDPR (DSGVO in germany), would it be allowed to save an adress without a name of the person? Would it also be allowed to do the same with a hash of the persons name? The name of the person can not be created with the hash but if someone tells me a name, I can recreate the hash and check if it was the same person that I have the adress from.

The GDPR does not put specific limits on what information can be saved, or what it must be associated with. But an address can fairly easily be related to a particular natural person, and so it is PI, and probably PII. Therefor, under article 6, there must be a lawful basis for saving it, and there must be a purpose (or purposes) for saving and processing it. The basis might be consent, or one of the other permitted lawful bases. It would be improper to use it beyond the original purpose without properly notifying the Data Subject, and in many cases obtaining consent to the revised purpose. A one-way hash created with a good hashing function, that cannot be associated back to the address (or name or whatever PI) is not normally PI, and the GDPR does not put limits on its processing, unless there is a way to associate it with a natural person, or the data is already associated (such as by being part of the same DB record) (PI is "Personally Information, PII is "Personally Identifiable In formation.)