Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

What counts as a medical facility?

A certain POA for medical document gives an adult son the right to move his parent to medical facility. Would a assisted living place count as a medical facility? Is there a precise legal definition of a medical facility?

This is a logical thing to ask but somewhat misses the point as described below, because a POA doesn't really give the adult son " the right to move his parent to medical facility" in the ordinary sense of that word. Is there a precise legal definition of a medical facility? Not usually, in the context of interpreting a power of attorney, unless the document itself defines it. Would a assisted living place count as a medical facility? This could go either way but often it doesn't matter much because it is mitigated by the next point, and because there is usually also a non-medical durable power of attorney put in place at the same time that would give the agent or a different agent the authority to take steps necessary to move the principal (the parent in this case) to a non-medical facility like a new apartment or home. A certain POA for medical document gives an adult son the right to move his parent to medical facility. This somewhat overstates what a POA does. A POA gives an agent under the POA (the adult son in this case) the authority to take action to make something happen. But a POA does not give the agent the authority for make the parent do anything if the principal (the parent in this case) is conscious and capable of expressing a contrary opinion and a POA also does not give the agent the power to prohibit the principal from doing anything. Only a guardian of the person who is suffering from some condition has the authority to act over the objections of that person. Action with a POA requires the non-objection of the principal because the principal is silent or incapable of communicating any objections. Normally, someone well enough to be placed in an assisted living facility has enough capacity to object to the placement and override the agent if that person is unhappy with a decision that the agent is making under the POA. This can be done on a case by case basis, or by revoking the POA entirely.

What counts as a medical facility?

A certain POA for medical document gives an adult son the right to move his parent to medical facility. Would a assisted living place count as a medical facility? Is there a precise legal definition of a medical facility?

At the federal level, the Public Health Service Act 42 CFR 5.2 states: Medical facility means a facility for the delivery of health services and includes: (1) A community health center, public health center, outpatient medical facility, or community mental health center; (2) a hospital, State mental hospital, facility for long-term care, or rehabilitation facility; (3) a migrant health center or an Indian Health service facility; (4) a facility for delivery of health services to inmates in a U.S. penal or correctional institution (under section 323 of the Act) or a State correctional institution; (5) a Public Health Service medical facility (used in connection with the delivery of health services under section 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, or 326 of the Act); or (6) any other Federal medical facility At the state level, N.J. Stat. § 26:2H-2 : a. "Health care facility" means the facility or institution, whether public or private, that is engaged principally in providing services for health maintenance organizations, diagnosis, or treatment of human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or physical condition, including, but not limited to, a general hospital, special hospital, mental hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, home health care agency, residential health care facility, dementia care home, and bioanalytical laboratory (except as specifically excluded hereunder), or central services facility serving one or more such institutions but excluding institutions that provide healing solely by prayer and excluding such bioanalytical laboratories as are independently owned and operated, and are not owned, operated, managed, or controlled, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly by any one or more health care facilities, and the predominant source of business of which is not by contract with health care facilities within the State of New Jersey and which solicit or accept specimens and operate predominantly in interstate commerce.

Home Self Defense: Sweden

So I am reading a fictional book, that takes place in Sweden, and there is a situation presented that strike me as implausible. A female character is being "stalked" by another character, and received emails suggesting violence and also had her property damaged. Also she had proof that someone entered her home when she was not home and stole things. Presumably the stalker. In response, this character then sought to arm herself, in her home, with golf clubs in various parts of the house. The thought was in case of another forced entry she could bash the guy over the head with a golf club. Instead she was encouraged to have armed security because if she killed the intruder, under Swedish law, she could very well be charged with manslaughter, and possibly murder if it could be proved that she placed the golf clubs around the house ahead of time. Is this true in Sweden? Can a person be convicted of manslaughter or murder if they kill an intruder that they suspect of ill intent? The situation seemed implausible to me, and that the author kind of flubbed this one.

There are problems with the claims. In summary: someone that in Sweden acts to defend themselves while "in peril" when subjected to — or are in imminent risk of — a criminal attack, will not the convicted, unless the act is "blatantly unjustifiable". Context We have a problem here in Sweden with people being ill-informed about the right to self-defence, and this is compounded by people with opinions spreading myths about it. Often these myths err on the side of claiming you have less rights than you really have. So, two things before we go on... The characters may have been unreliable. Do not ever assume that just because a character says something in a work of fiction, that the character is meant to know what they are talking about. And even if they are meant to know what they are talking about... The author may have been unreliable, and done their homework poorly. Keep this in mind... That said, the right to self-defence is not infinite. The law According to the Swedish Criminal Code (Brottsbalk, 1962:700), Chapter 3, §§ 1-2 and 6... If you intentionally kill someone, you get convicted of "murder" If you intentionally kill someone, but there were mitigating circumstances, you get convicted of "manslaughter" If you act in reckless disregard for the risk your actions are causing, and this leads to the death of someone, you get convicted of "causing the death of another", or what we here can call "reckless killing" And Swedish Criminal Code (Brottsbalk, 1962:700), Chapter 24, § 1 states that an act performed in "peril" shall only lead to a conviction if the act was "blatantly unjustifiable". "Peril" is enumerated to exist in cases of... A commenced or imminent criminal attack on person or property A person has gained or trying to gain unauthorized access to a room, house, yard or ship A person refuses to leave a domicile after being told to If — when caught red-handed — a person uses violence or threats of violence to resist stolen property from being retaken When judging whether an act is "blatantly unjustifiable", the prosecutor must look at... the nature of the attack that caused the peril the significance of that which the attack was aimed at (such as a human life) other significant circumstances That last bit is interesting because it takes human psychology into consideration, and let the defendant's assessment of the peril be the standard by which the act is judged. The claim Let us start with the easy bit first... "if she killed the intruder, under Swedish law, she could very well be charged with manslaughter, and possibly murder if it could be proved that she placed the golf clubs around the house ahead of time." Murder? No. According to the Swedish Criminal Code (Brottsbalk, 1962:700), Chapter 3, §§ 1-2, a person that kills an intruder in their home could at the most be charged with manslaughter, because there are mitigating circumstances , i.e. the person felt threatened and there was a home invasion in progress. In order for this to become murder, she would more or less have to have invited the assailant or in any other way drawn them in with the intent to kill them. Yes, she prepared to defend herself or a potential intrusion, but without knowing for certain that the assailant would come at certain time or at least a certain day, any kind of premeditation towards killing is more or less impossible to prove. With this, murder is off the table. That claim is simply wrong. Whether it is the author or the character that is erring, I cannot say. So, manslaughter then, or the even lesser degree, called "causing the death of another", or reckless killing. Manslaughter would come up of she — when whacking them with the club — did so with the intent of killing them. The operative word here being intent. The prosecutor has to prove that intent. Sure, we can dream up scenarios where this is the case; the classic reason for why people do get convicted even acting in peril is when they keep harming the assailant after the danger has passed. But — again — just preparing for a potential intrusion is not enough to prove that intent. Finally, reckless killing. This is where such cases usually ends up. And — again — this usually happens because the defendant did something when the danger has obviously passed; the criminal attack was no longer imminent but passed . Conclusion Unless the protagonist in question had set up lethal traps ; unless they had foreknowledge of an attack; unless they invited the assailant in with the intent to kill them; unless they fend off the attack and gets themselves into a perfectly safe situation and then proceeds to beat the assailant to death; and unless all of this can be proved, then it cannot become murder. Manslaughter or reckless killing, yes, there will be an investigation for that, but from the description of the situation — the protagonist fearing the assailant is dangerous and means them harm — preparing a home defence with strategically placed golf clubs does not in any way preclude the prosecution being dismissed as justifiable self-defence. Only(!) if the home invasion was obviously harmless, and/or the protagonist keeps harming the assailant after the home invasion has been staved off / neutralised, can a conviction for manslaughter or reckless killing become a possibility. Summary Yes, in Sweden a prosecutor will look at the case when you kill someone. But — no — in the situation described, a home invasion by someone perceived as wanting to cause harm, this is very unlikely to become "murder", for lack of premeditation. The remaining possible charges — manslaughter or reckless killing — will only result in a conviction if the situation was obviously and provably harmless in the eyes of the defendant, and they still killed the assailant.

Home Self Defense: Sweden

So I am reading a fictional book, that takes place in Sweden, and there is a situation presented that strike me as implausible. A female character is being "stalked" by another character, and received emails suggesting violence and also had her property damaged. Also she had proof that someone entered her home when she was not home and stole things. Presumably the stalker. In response, this character then sought to arm herself, in her home, with golf clubs in various parts of the house. The thought was in case of another forced entry she could bash the guy over the head with a golf club. Instead she was encouraged to have armed security because if she killed the intruder, under Swedish law, she could very well be charged with manslaughter, and possibly murder if it could be proved that she placed the golf clubs around the house ahead of time. Is this true in Sweden? Can a person be convicted of manslaughter or murder if they kill an intruder that they suspect of ill intent? The situation seemed implausible to me, and that the author kind of flubbed this one.

It certainly makes a claim of self-defence harder to justify. In Sweden, the law of self-defense (Swedish: nödvärn) allows a person attacked to excuse or justify a proportionate use of violence in defense of the person or property. The criteria is if the force used was "blatantly unjustifiable". By placing golf clubs the stalking victim is preparing to respond with violence to a threat which is not immanent. There are other things she could do instead. Like, engaging a security guard. Or putting screens on the windows and deadlocks on the doors. Or having a friend stay over, Or telling the police. She is certainly at risk of invalidating a self-defense claim. Putting the golf clubs around the house indicates that she is planning to use (potentially deadly) violence in response to an attack rather than reacting with violence proportionate to the threat in the moment. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a break-in or a theft - only to protect a life.

Home Self Defense: Sweden

So I am reading a fictional book, that takes place in Sweden, and there is a situation presented that strike me as implausible. A female character is being "stalked" by another character, and received emails suggesting violence and also had her property damaged. Also she had proof that someone entered her home when she was not home and stole things. Presumably the stalker. In response, this character then sought to arm herself, in her home, with golf clubs in various parts of the house. The thought was in case of another forced entry she could bash the guy over the head with a golf club. Instead she was encouraged to have armed security because if she killed the intruder, under Swedish law, she could very well be charged with manslaughter, and possibly murder if it could be proved that she placed the golf clubs around the house ahead of time. Is this true in Sweden? Can a person be convicted of manslaughter or murder if they kill an intruder that they suspect of ill intent? The situation seemed implausible to me, and that the author kind of flubbed this one.

as someone that lives in Sweden even tho i am not very knowledgeable about the law outside of the common scenes and such but i do know that planning on violence will not be the problem but rather using excessive violence than necessary, ex you can punch someone unconscious but continue will cause you to be charged to, hitting them wont be the problem but rather hitting them before they hit you or hitting them when you know they wont/cant attack back will be on your hands. maybe a little bit late but hope this helps ps sorry for my english

Does the guilt of the victim affect the validity of a crime of passion

I just watched the movie 'A Time To Kill'. If you don't know it, it is about the trial of a man who kills the 2 men that violently raped and assulted his daughter. In the end, he was found innocent by reason of temporary insanity. My question is, in an almost identical case, where the same circumstances apply and the perpetrator is proven to have experienced a moment of temporary insanity due sheer rage and extreme emotional distress; would the outcome of the trial be affected if in the course of the trial it was proven that the person killed was not in fact the one that commited this rape? Or would it only matter that the perpetrator believed he did?

I assume you mean to ask whether the guilt of the victim affects the validity of a crime-of-passion defence . canada In Canada, the only crime-of-passion type defence is provocation, today codified at s. 232 of the Criminal Code . Provocation is only relevant to a count of murder. If the person who committed what would otherwise be murder "did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation," then the conviction is reduced to manslaughter. Current codified defence: victim must have done something that would be an indictable offence punishable by five or more years of imprisonment One of the statutory requirements for a successful provocation defence is that the victim must have conducted themselves in a way that "would constitute an indictable offence under this Act that is punishable by five or more years of imprisonment." This is an objective element of the defence, not dependent on the perception of the accused . One court has found this limitation to the defence to be unconstitutional ( R. v Simard , 2019 BCSC 531 ). However that court would still require that the " conduct of the victim [to be] of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control..." The common law and the previous codified defence also required provocative conduct by the victim Both the common law and the pre-2015 codification of the provcation defence required that the victim's provocative conduct be "of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control" ( R. v. Cairney , 2013 SCC 55 at paragraphs 24-35 ). Burdens for establishing this defence The provocation defence is an "air of reality" defence ( R. v. Cinous , 2002 SCC 29, paragraph 57 ). This means that there is an initial evidential burden on the accused. There must be evidence on the record that, if believed, could lead a reasonable properly instructed jury to acquit (or, in the case of provocation, to convict of manslaughter instead of murder). Once the accused meets this burden, then the defence is properly in play and will be successful unless the Crown disproves any element of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does the guilt of the victim affect the validity of a crime of passion

I just watched the movie 'A Time To Kill'. If you don't know it, it is about the trial of a man who kills the 2 men that violently raped and assulted his daughter. In the end, he was found innocent by reason of temporary insanity. My question is, in an almost identical case, where the same circumstances apply and the perpetrator is proven to have experienced a moment of temporary insanity due sheer rage and extreme emotional distress; would the outcome of the trial be affected if in the course of the trial it was proven that the person killed was not in fact the one that commited this rape? Or would it only matter that the perpetrator believed he did?

The provocation must have come from the deceased new-south-wales Under s23 of the Crimes Act 1900, extreme provocation is a partial defence for murder resulting in a manslaughter conviction instead. It requires: The accused to act on the conduct of the deceased The deceased’s conduct to be a serious indictable offence The conduct of the deceased causing loss of control by the accused The deceased’s conduct to be such that it could cause an ordinary person to lose control. The deceased is key to this - if the deceased didn’t do these things, the defence is not available.

Does the guilt of the victim affect the validity of a crime of passion

I just watched the movie 'A Time To Kill'. If you don't know it, it is about the trial of a man who kills the 2 men that violently raped and assulted his daughter. In the end, he was found innocent by reason of temporary insanity. My question is, in an almost identical case, where the same circumstances apply and the perpetrator is proven to have experienced a moment of temporary insanity due sheer rage and extreme emotional distress; would the outcome of the trial be affected if in the course of the trial it was proven that the person killed was not in fact the one that commited this rape? Or would it only matter that the perpetrator believed he did?

In most U.S. jurisdictions, there is a "crime of passion" defense which is an incomplete defense to a murder charge that reduced the charged crime of murder to a lesser offense if the defense is successful. The crime of passion defense is based upon the effect of what the killer has seen the person killed doing on the person committing the offense. For example, the classic crime of passion defense reduces from murder to manslaughter a killing done in the immediate passion of catching a man and the perpetrator's wife in the act of committing adultery. But, this defense would not be defeated in this classic case, if, for example, the killer believed that the man was committing adultery with his wife when in fact he was having consensual sex with another women who looked similar to his wife and he couldn't tell the different due to darkness and generally poor visibility, and the mistake of fact about what was happening was reasonable under the circumstances. For example, a mistake of fact might be reasonable for this purpose if the killer has circumstantial, but incorrect, evidence that led him to believe that the person he killed was committing adultery with his wife, which made his misperception of who the woman was seem reasonable and the woman was quite similar in appearance to his wife in a place where his wife and not another woman was expected to be, like his own bedroom. So, the crime of passion defense could still be applied in a case involving a victim who was not actually doing what the factually mistaken perpetrator believed the victim to be doing in most U.S. jurisdictions. My question is, in an almost identical case, where the same circumstances apply and the perpetrator is proven to have experienced a moment of temporary insanity due sheer rage and extreme emotional distress; would the outcome of the trial be affected if in the course of the trial it was proven that the person killed was not in fact the one that commited this rape? Or would it only matter that the perpetrator believed he did? The heat of passion defense is only available when when in provoked or incited by something you immediately see without time for reflection afterwards. Vigilante justice that does not involve a victim in the act of committing what appears to be provocation, is not eligible for the heat of passion defense and almost never constitutes "temporary insanity." Indeed, usually vigilante justice will usually constitute first degree murder since it is premeditated. Temporary insanity, when it applies, would generally involve, for example, an act committed while involuntarily (and sometimes unknowingly) intoxicated with a hallucinogenic substance, or an equivalent effect from a curable infection (e.g. acute Lyme disease can have this effect before it is treated), in circumstances that prevented someone from realizing that their conduct was wrong. For example, if some gives someone LSD unknowingly and as a result the person who has been drugged perceives someone at their door to be an armed killer preparing to shoot, when the victim is actually a child delivering their newspaper, that would be temporary insanity. Mercy given to a killer who was morally justified in punishing a criminal but did not catch the person in the act, is the sole province of the prosecutor in deciding what charges to pursue, and of the person with commutation or pardon power in the jurisdiction, not the judge or jury in the guilt or innocence phase of a criminal trial. A judge in a criminal trial after a guilty verdict is imposed could, however, consider these kinds of facts when imposing a sentence within the range allowed by statute for the offense in question as mitigating factors. See, e.g. , the case of Pieper Lewis who was convicted of murder but given a probation sentence. For example, there have been a number of recent cases of women who killed men who were raping them or holding them in sexual servitude, not in the "heat of passion" and not using self-defense in that given moment from an assault on these women that was in progress, who were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms for murder, who then had their sentences commuted based upon these considerations (typically after having already served many years in prison). See, e.g. , the cases of Cyntoia Brown (life sentence commuted after 15 years) and Sarah Gonzales-McLinn (clemency not granted). One could also make a bogus and legally insufficient to win (but sufficiently supported by the evidence to argue) claim in a jury trial that also demonstrates that justifying circumstances in the hope that the jury, while not actually believing the bogus defense, will engage in jury nullification and acquit the defendant because they think a conviction would be inappropriate in these circumstances, despite what the law in the jury instructions says. This is perhaps the best way to explain the verdict in A Time to Kill .

Is there a definition/test for "lack of merit" (legal arguments)?

Say in Bob v Rob there is a legal argument about how the law applies to a certain factual situation. Bob interprets/applies the applicable law one way. Rob — a different way. Both sound reasonably serious and well-thought, not frivolous. Both require analysis to accept or reject. The judge has to make a choice and makes it, accepting Bob's interpretation and rejecting Rob's. Does that make up an objective ground to label Rob's argument meritless? Can the finding of lack of merit in situations like this be objective in principle? Or does "lack or merit" refer to something clearly fallacious i.e. straightforwardly identifiable as not holding water without analysis?

In england-and-wales , an illuminating judgement of the Court of Appeal explores the relationship between such terms as "bound to fail", "not arguable", "no rational basis", "unfounded", "misconcieved", "hopeless", "totally without merit", and "no realistic prospect of success"; Wasif v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 . This arose in the context of a judicial review application, where procedural rules allow some claims to be rejected at an early stage, rather than proceeding to a full hearing. The normal course is that the claimant (the person who objects to a decision the government has made) will file papers with the court describing their claim. If the judge deems their case "arguable", then it can carry on, ultimately with the judge deciding who is right. If not, then there can be a "renewal hearing", where the applicant can explain their case orally, in the hope of persuading the judge that their case is arguable after all. But if the judge says the case, on the basis of the written material, is "totally without merit", then there is no renewal hearing, and we are done. The claimant could file a fresh case, if the judge's reasons for denial gave them enough clues about what might be arguable instead, or can appeal the finding. Evidently, then, some points can be not arguable, but also not totally without merit. In Wasif , the court differentiated between (paras 15ff): Cases where the judge "can see no rational basis on which the claim could succeed" are certainly bound to fail, and a hearing would be pointless; they are totally without merit. Cases which contain a rational argument, but the judge "is confident that, even taking the case at its highest, it is wrong". Notwithstanding the judge's confidence, it is possible that his mind could be changed if an oral hearing took place, so these should not be deemed to be totally without merit. They are described as "not arguable" at this stage, but the claimant gets to argue that they are arguable. The decision is one involving, well, judgement , and is not totally precise, but the experienced judges in Wasif felt that it was a realistic distinction in practice. The court points out (17(3) and (5)) that a hearing gives the claimant the chance to address specific issues the judge has noted, especially when they are self-represented and their documents are not well-prepared. In those instances, the judge might be able to spot an actual arguable claim lurking in the material, and "the correct course" could be to refuse permission but allow an oral hearing so that the real issue can be drawn out. What we can see from this is that a point might be "not arguable" (the judge thinks it is plainly wrong), but still have some level of merit at that stage (the judge is willing to let the claimant address his objections). When the judge comes to deliver his opinion at the very end, he might still say that a particular point is without merit (he has heard all about it and thinks it is completely wrong) even if he'd conceded earlier that the claimant deserved a chance to present it. Not all arguments that fail are described as "without merit". If Bob prevails in Bob v Rob it does not follow that all of Rob's points were hopeless. Judges can deploy colourful opprobrium but are just as likely to recognize that some arguments are strong, even when the opposing argument was stronger. Equally, a judge might decide that neither Bob nor Rob is completely correct, and the real answer is some other position - even when they both presented reasonable arguments that were worth hearing.

Is there a definition/test for "lack of merit" (legal arguments)?

Say in Bob v Rob there is a legal argument about how the law applies to a certain factual situation. Bob interprets/applies the applicable law one way. Rob — a different way. Both sound reasonably serious and well-thought, not frivolous. Both require analysis to accept or reject. The judge has to make a choice and makes it, accepting Bob's interpretation and rejecting Rob's. Does that make up an objective ground to label Rob's argument meritless? Can the finding of lack of merit in situations like this be objective in principle? Or does "lack or merit" refer to something clearly fallacious i.e. straightforwardly identifiable as not holding water without analysis?

canada Saying that a case had a "lack of merit" does not have an unambiguously clear meaning. It can be used in different contexts with different meanings: Colloquially, it could just mean that a party ultimately lost the case A judge might say this after their analysis to announce that they are rejecting an argument Courts of Appeal often look to whether an appeal has merit when deciding whether to grant an extension of time ("An assessment of the merits of the appeal is relevant to a decision about whether to grant an extension of time ... the relevance is confined to the question of whether the appeal is bound to fail just as it is on the question of striking out an appeal as being vexatious, frivolous, or entirely without merit": Davies v. C.I.B.C. (1987), 15 B.C.L.R. (2d) 256 (B.C.C.A.) ) It might be used to describe a claim that is summarily dismissed or a successful motion to strike ("assuming that the facts as stated in the statement of claim can be proved, is it 'plain and obvious' that the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action?": Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc , [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 ) It might be used to describe vexatious litigation ("where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious": Grosz v. Guo , 2019 BCSC 1545 ) (I have tried to list those in increasing order of "severity," but that is just my own ordering, and the latter three are very similar.)

Is there a definition/test for "lack of merit" (legal arguments)?

Say in Bob v Rob there is a legal argument about how the law applies to a certain factual situation. Bob interprets/applies the applicable law one way. Rob — a different way. Both sound reasonably serious and well-thought, not frivolous. Both require analysis to accept or reject. The judge has to make a choice and makes it, accepting Bob's interpretation and rejecting Rob's. Does that make up an objective ground to label Rob's argument meritless? Can the finding of lack of merit in situations like this be objective in principle? Or does "lack or merit" refer to something clearly fallacious i.e. straightforwardly identifiable as not holding water without analysis?

"Lack of merit" means that someone is concluding that the argument shouldn't win. "Frivolous" is the word for a legal argument that has no basis in law or in a reasonable argument for an extension of or change to the case law interpreting the applicable law.

Can a trial court create precedent?

It has been said that " trial courts do not create precedent ." Can a trial court create precedent?

canada Yes, trial courts can set precedent on questions of law. See generally R. v. Sullivan , 2022 SCC 19 and Re Hansard Spruce Mills , [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590 (B.C.S.C.) . Trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction are bound by the ordinary principles of horizontal stare decisis to follow prior judgments made by other trial judges of the same court (subject to limited exceptions). See Sullivan , paragraphs 44 and 75 : [44] A superior court judge in first instance [i.e. a trial court] should follow prior decisions made by their own court on all questions of law, including questions of constitutional law, unless one or more of the exceptions in Spruce Mills are met. [75] The principle of judicial comity — that judges treat fellow judges’ decisions with courtesy and consideration — as well as the rule of law principles supporting stare decisis mean that prior decisions should be followed unless the Spruce Mills criteria are met. Correctly stated and applied, the Spruce Mills criteria strike the appropriate balance between the competing demands of certainty, correctness and the even-handed development of the law. Trial courts should only depart from binding decisions issued by a court of coordinate jurisdiction in three narrow circumstances: The rationale of an earlier decision has been undermined by subsequent appellate decisions; The earlier decision was reached per incuriam (“through carelessness” or “by inadvertence”); or The earlier decision was not fully considered, e.g. taken in exigent circumstances.

Can a trial court create precedent?

It has been said that " trial courts do not create precedent ." Can a trial court create precedent?

united-states Generally speaking, a trial court ruling does not create a legally binding precedent in the United States. A court's rulings are only binding on courts that appeal their decisions to that court. Unlike Canada, court in the United States do not generally observe "horizontal stare decisis ". It isn't uncommon in the U.S. (in both the state and in the federal court systems) for different judges in the same trial court to rule differently on a legal issue upon which there is no binding appellate precedent. This said, a well reasoned unofficially reported order of a trial court, usually, but not always, a federal court, reported in West's Federal Supplement Reporter, can be a persuasive precedent that informs another court's ruling on the strength of its reasoning and analysis from a presumptively impartial person, rather than because the principle of stare decisis (which is the rule that courts must follow precedents when they apply) binds or limits the court. Trial court rulings are particularly commonly referred to in interlocutory matters like discovery disputes or bankruptcy procedures that are difficult or impossible to obtain appellate review of, to provide guidance for reasonableness in matters reviewed for abuse of discretion (like attorney fees awards), and to gain insight into rarely litigated statutes, and to gain insight into newly enacted legislation for which not enough time has passed for any binding appellate authority to exist. Also, while it is not precedent, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (a.k.a. "claim preclusion" and "issue preclusion") prevent re-litigation of disputes and legal issues between parties to a previous case in which they are someone legally related to them was involved. For example, if NATIONAL CORPORATION loses a products liability lawsuit in a case against INJURED CONSUMER, in a case that is reduced to a "final judgment" on the grounds that the product they made had a defective design, the defective design ruling is binding against NATIONAL CORPORATION in a lawsuit against SECOND INJURED CONSUMER who must still, of course, prove that the defective design caused their particular injury. This could make the case of SECOND INJURED CONSUMER much easier to win.

What is the Maximum Sentence for Contempt of Court? (USA)

Is there a maximum sentence that a New Jersey Superior Court Judge can impose on someone for contempt of court? I understand that there are different types of contempt of court, so here's a made-up example to illustrate the question. Suppose person X (New Jersey resident) is ordered via subpoena to produce the key to a safe. (Suppose here that the safe is otherwise impenetrable without a key.) X admits that he has a key, but refuses to produce it. The judge threatens X with jail time until X produces the key. X continues to refuse. X is arrested and thrown in jail. At this point, would there be any limit on how long the judge could keep X in jail? I have looked through the NJ Statutes as well as other Stack Exchange questions, but I haven't found an answer on my own. In particular, this question is similar but isn't specific to New Jersey; it also isn't clear to me whether my example is one of civil, or criminal, contempt of court.

It's a maximum of 18 months imprisonment for disobeying a court order. Contempt of court is defined by the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice at section 2C:29-9.a , which includes: A person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if the person purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order... The sentencing for which may be found at section 2C:43-6.4 : In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

What is the Maximum Sentence for Contempt of Court? (USA)

Is there a maximum sentence that a New Jersey Superior Court Judge can impose on someone for contempt of court? I understand that there are different types of contempt of court, so here's a made-up example to illustrate the question. Suppose person X (New Jersey resident) is ordered via subpoena to produce the key to a safe. (Suppose here that the safe is otherwise impenetrable without a key.) X admits that he has a key, but refuses to produce it. The judge threatens X with jail time until X produces the key. X continues to refuse. X is arrested and thrown in jail. At this point, would there be any limit on how long the judge could keep X in jail? I have looked through the NJ Statutes as well as other Stack Exchange questions, but I haven't found an answer on my own. In particular, this question is similar but isn't specific to New Jersey; it also isn't clear to me whether my example is one of civil, or criminal, contempt of court.

The answer from Rick isn't wrong but also isn't complete. There are three kinds of contempt of court: direct punitive contempt of court (which applies to misconduct in the presence of the judge in the courtroom), indirect punitive contempt of court (which punishes violation of a court order outside the courtroom), and indirect remedial contempt of court (which creates an incentive to obey a court order that is currently being disobeyed outside the courtroom, which the person held in contempt has the present power to comply with). Direct contempt of court is typically a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey, which carries up to 6 months in the county jail and a $1,000 fine. Direct punitive contempt of court is imposed summarily by the presiding judge without a trial other than giving the person punished an opportunity to explain themselves on the spot. The eighteen month limitation on incarceration for contempt of court applies only to indirect punitive contempt of court, which are criminal offenses with special procedures attached to them, and to violations of restraining orders a.k.a. protection orders, discussed below in the footnote. Indirect punitive contempt of court is imposed following a process ending with a collateral hearing in the case where it arises, often with the plaintiff in a civil case deputized to serve as a prosecutor for the charges. Not all states have statutory limitations on punitive contempt of court sanctions that do not involve a protection order violation. In one case in Illinois, a twenty year incarceration sentence was imposed in a direct punitive contempt of court case that was reduced to ten years on appeal, for refusing to testify. See People v. Geiger , 2015 IL App (3d) 130457 (Aprils) & People v. Perez-Gonzalez , 2014 IL App (2d) 120946 (June) (both summarized here ). There is no limitation on the length of incarceration imposed or fine which may be imposed in indirect remedial contempt of court, which is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. The theory behind this is that the person incarcerated holds the key to their release by complying with the order which can be done at any time. Indirect remedial contempt of court, unlike punitive contempt of court, in compensatory, remedial, and civil in nature, rather than being quasi-criminal or having an object to punish a violator. The goal of remedial contempt is to secure compliance not to punish the person incarcerated. Typically, indirect remedial contempt of court is used for matters like failure to turn over assets in foreign accounts or password protected crypto that the person sanctioned controls, to force the turnover of cash or valuables at a location only known to the person incarcerated, or to compel someone's testimony on non-privileged matters in a court case or deposition or in response to judgment creditor issued interrogatories demanding that the location of the judgment debtor's assets be revealed. If someone simply fails to sign a document despite being ordered to do so, remedial contempt of court could be used, but it is more common to have the court involuntarily appoint the court clerk as the agent of the person who refuses to sign for the narrow purpose of signing a particular document or set of documents (e.g. a real estate contract) on behalf of the recalcitrant party. No fixed term of incarceration or maximum fine is set in a remedial contempt of court order. Incarceration for indirect remedial contempt of court can continue until the matter to be compelled is moot, or until the person incarcerated no longer has the capacity to obey the court order. There are cases of people being incarcerated for indirect remedial contempt of court for more than a decade. A law review article critical of this practice can be found here . The longest case of incarceration for remedial contempt of court is described by Wikipedia as follows: H. Beatty Chadwick (born 1936) is the current American record holder for the longest time being held in civil contempt of court. In 1995, a judge ruled that Chadwick hid millions of U.S. dollars in overseas bank accounts so that he would not have to pay the sums to his ex-wife during their divorce. He was incarcerated until such time as he could present $2.5 million to the Delaware County Court in Pennsylvania. Chadwick maintains that the money was lost in bad investments and therefore he cannot surrender money he does not possess. Although never charged with a crime, H. Beatty Chadwick spent fourteen years of his life in prison. On July 10, 2009, Chadwick was ordered released from prison by Delaware County Judge Joseph Cronin, who determined his continued incarceration had lost its coercive effect and would not result in him surrendering the money. See also this news report on the same case. Legal commentary on that case can be found here . Footnote Re Protection Orders Most if not all states issue protection orders typically ordering someone who has harassed, stalked, or threatened violence against someone to stay away from one or more persons or places, often in a domestic violence or toxic fan situation. These orders, unlike almost all other civil court orders, can be enforced directly by law enforcement without a contempt of court process, and it is a crime other than contempt of court to violate such an order. In the case of all other civil court orders for injunctive relief, contempt of court is the only or primary remedy.

What is the Maximum Sentence for Contempt of Court? (USA)

Is there a maximum sentence that a New Jersey Superior Court Judge can impose on someone for contempt of court? I understand that there are different types of contempt of court, so here's a made-up example to illustrate the question. Suppose person X (New Jersey resident) is ordered via subpoena to produce the key to a safe. (Suppose here that the safe is otherwise impenetrable without a key.) X admits that he has a key, but refuses to produce it. The judge threatens X with jail time until X produces the key. X continues to refuse. X is arrested and thrown in jail. At this point, would there be any limit on how long the judge could keep X in jail? I have looked through the NJ Statutes as well as other Stack Exchange questions, but I haven't found an answer on my own. In particular, this question is similar but isn't specific to New Jersey; it also isn't clear to me whether my example is one of civil, or criminal, contempt of court.

england-and-wales In English law the maximum penalty for a single offence of contempt is two years of imprisonment, a fine of £2500, or both. In any case where a court has power to commit a person to prison for contempt of court and (apart from this provision) no limitation applies to the period of committal, the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term, and that term shall not on any occasion exceed two years in the case of committal by a superior court, or one month in the case of committal by an inferior court. In any case where an inferior court has power to fine a person for contempt of court and (apart from this provision) no limit applies to the amount of the fine, the fine shall not on any occasion exceed £2,500. Contempt of Court Act (1981) Note that if the person continues to demonstrate contempt, that would class as a new offence and could trigger a new sentence.

GDPR and Storing Non-EU Citizen Data as an EU-based company

I work for an EU company based in the UK and often work with clients in China and Africa (and some other non-EU countries). In the future, it may arise that we will be storing some personal information on citizens from these countries and was wondering what the GDPR laws were with reference to an EU company storing non-EU citizen data? I thought GDPR was to protect the data/information of EU citizens (from Wikipedia): General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 ("GDPR") is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). but wasn't sure if personal information outside of the EU was also protected. Short version: are there any GDPR considerations that must be in place when an EU company stores personal information from citizens outside of the EU?

are there any GDPR considerations that must be in place when an EU company stores personal information from citizens outside of the EU? Absolutely. The territorial scope of the GDPR is specified at Article 3: Article 3 Territorial scope This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law. As specified in point 1, the regulation applies to controllers and processors located in the EU. There is no exemption of personal data based on the data subject's nationality or location. In fact, GDPR Recitals 2 and 14 explicitly mention that nationality or residence shall not be a factor: The protection afforded by this Regulation should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of their personal data. […]

Our company is based in the UK. We have users who are located in the USA, are these users protected by GDPR?

Our company is based in the UK. We have users who are located in the USA, are these users protected by GDPR? Any help on this questions would be much appreciated!

Yes When personal data is processed in the context of an EU/EEA/UK establishment (for example, by a company with offices in the UK), then all these processing activities must fully comply with the GDPR, regardless of where the data subjects are located. For the UK GDPR : This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the United Kingdom or not. For the EU GDPR : The GDPR applies to: a company or entity which processes personal data as part of the activities of one of its branches established in the EU, regardless of where the data is processed; or …

Is free willing protected rights? What if Artificial Intelligence agent have self conscious, is it protected from human editing its willing?

Say it is now some years later, we have created an artificial intelligence (AI) agent with self conscious and capable of thinking in a loop of thought under bounded rationality just like humans do... As human can inject information in its loop by program, we are manipulating the free willing of AI. What will happen in this case? Human juries and the AI judge will judge AI based on the law of human?

The question is not entirely clear, but it seems not to be whether free will is a protected right, but whether AI enjoys the rights that humans do. The answer is no. Unless otherwise specified, legal rights typically can only be enjoyed by a person or a group of people. AI may have similarities to actual people that cause us to empathize with them, but it isn't a person; similarly, Mario has similarities to actual people that cause us to empathize with him, but he isn't a person. Because neither of them is actually a person, AI and Mario have essentially the same human rights, which is to say "none."

Is free willing protected rights? What if Artificial Intelligence agent have self conscious, is it protected from human editing its willing?

Say it is now some years later, we have created an artificial intelligence (AI) agent with self conscious and capable of thinking in a loop of thought under bounded rationality just like humans do... As human can inject information in its loop by program, we are manipulating the free willing of AI. What will happen in this case? Human juries and the AI judge will judge AI based on the law of human?

Washington state law entails that only a person can be a judge. Under the provisions for initially appointing judges , only a person can be appointed. Generally, judges are elected, and only a person can file as a candidate for office . This also precludes electing a dog to be a judge. Pursuant to various sci-fi scenarios, an aggrieved party might attempt to file a lawsuit to be judicially deemed a "person". If, for example, SCOTUS rules that ChatGPT is legally and without reservation a person then at that point, ChatGPT would enjoy the legal rights of a person, but that is a big if.

Are online file converters legal?

Online file converter: Web-based tool or service that allows you to convert files from one format to another through the internet. Users upload a file in a specific format, it is converted on the site's server into a different format of their choice, without the need to install any software or applications on their device. Online file converters support a wide range of file types, including documents, images, videos, audio files, and more. Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that we're talking about ethical online converters that don't collect/sell/share any information about the files uploaded by the users, so the file really makes a private round trip. I'm wondering about the legal responsibility of these online converters, as they're essentially redistributing derivative work of pretty much anything you give them, whether or not you're allowed to modify them in the first place. The derivative work is downloaded from their servers at some point in time. This question is a bit related to the issue of uploading copyrighted material to social media (with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act in the USA), except that the files here are only supposed to be downloaded by the same person who uploaded them (a private link is created and will expire quickly). Additional assumptions (bonus): What if a website detects that a lot of users upload the same files and implements a cache? The converted files would then be stored in the medium-long term, but still only privately accessible only by people who have the original file (and site owners). That would probably already be illegal in the UK but I don't know about EU or USA. What if we have a cache and the files are encrypted with a hash of the source file, rendering their access practically impossible without the original, even for site owners?

Online file converters are legal: there is no law that prohibits a person from making a program available and executing online, including creating output in the form of a file. It is possible that some person may illegally copy copyright-protected material then use a website to modify that material, in which case the question of vicarious liability for copyright infringement could arise, so we appeal to the DMCA safe harbor provisions to see what the website must do. First, the owner of copyright must submit a properly constructed takedown notice to the website. Crucially, the notice must contain sufficient information that the website operator can find and take down the item(s) in question. Assuming that the complainant can supply the "where is it" information, then there is a notice and counter-notice routine where the uploader is informed and can deny the accusation – the website operator doesn't evaluate the merits of the claim, he only sees that the formalities were observed. If the operator follows the rules, he cannot be held vicariously liable. If the link does not expire and if it is somehow promulgated, the technical potential for being a contributor to copyright infringement becomes very real, but it puts the operator in no worse a legal position than Youtube. So the question is not just related to OCILLA, it is entirely covered by that law. Questions of how users or website owners are "supposed to" act don't figure into this. If the website owner does not comply with those provisions, they have no access to the safe harbor provisions, and they can be sued. However, the website itself remains legally "permitted" (there never was a prohibition of such a website).

Do parents have a right to obtain a copy of all worksheets (non-tests) their child will receive for the year in a public school via e-mail?

Do parents have a right to obtain a copy of all worksheets (non-tests) their child will receive for the year in a public school electronically to assess/audit it? If not, how can they point out bad things such as your movement from one concept to another is too slow, you're not moving at all or this curriculum is too repetitive? If a school doesn't e-mail that to a parent, there's absolutely no way to be accountable. If they hand it in person, it would be hearsay and non-ownership. How can education be public if it's just handed to students, and when a parent complains this is too slow being taught, the teacher could say, yours is hearsay. What evidence do you have I assigned that worksheet for homework?

At the federal level under FERPA, parents have the right to inspect and review education records . I don't know what you mean by "worksheet", so it may or may not be an education record. Under any reasonable interpretation of the term it is a "record", but to be an "education record" it must be directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution, for example "the answers of a student". It excludes records that are kept in the sole possession of the maker, are used only as a personal memory aid, and are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a temporary substitute for the maker of the record, and also excludes grades on peer-graded papers before they are collected and recorded by a teacher. In my youth we would receive sheets with math problems that we had to solve and hand in, which may have been retained – as long as the sheets were retained by someone in the school system other than the teacher, they would be "education records" (had the law existed at the time). The actual purpose of this law is to allow students and their parents to inspect the basis for grading, and to allow access to the infamous "permanent record". It is not related to the political purpose of criticizing lesson plans, but one can of course use such information in that manner. Whether or not parents, or anyone, has a legal right to access lesson plans for some public commentary purpose is a matter of local school policy. The legal remedy for dissatifaction with educational policies is to write to your legislature and run for the school board.

Do parents have a right to obtain a copy of all worksheets (non-tests) their child will receive for the year in a public school via e-mail?

Do parents have a right to obtain a copy of all worksheets (non-tests) their child will receive for the year in a public school electronically to assess/audit it? If not, how can they point out bad things such as your movement from one concept to another is too slow, you're not moving at all or this curriculum is too repetitive? If a school doesn't e-mail that to a parent, there's absolutely no way to be accountable. If they hand it in person, it would be hearsay and non-ownership. How can education be public if it's just handed to students, and when a parent complains this is too slow being taught, the teacher could say, yours is hearsay. What evidence do you have I assigned that worksheet for homework?

Parents do not have a right to inspect all educational materials because parents do not have the right to direct the education of their child. Parents who wish to do this should homeschool their children or pay for their education directly themselves. Public education means education financed by public tax dollars. It does not mean anarchy of education by making the entire curriculum public and subject to scrutiny by every parent. As to your standards of evidence... Hearsay , in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies. Hearsay means more or less trying to testify that someone told you something versus knowing the thing directly, not that you didn't have copies of documents in advance.

Disclosing records no longer maintained, FERPA

Are professors able to discuss a student’s academic misconduct with others after the disciplinary file is no longer maintained after a set amount of years after the student has graduated? Even if the original academic records (eg. plagiarized exams) are still ‘maintained’ by the professor?

I assume there was an official hearing on misconduct, but the record was deleted from the university's holdings (following deletion policy). The disciplinary board had copies of the exam, complaint, and minutes from the hearing – and these were later deleted by policy. The instructor might still have the exam, and perhaps his own notes from the hearing. By the federal definition of education record , (b) The term does not include: (1) Records that are kept in the sole possession of the maker, are used only as a personal memory aid, and are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a temporary substitute for the maker of the record. The exam itself is made by the student, and is not in the sole possession of the maker: the exam does not fall within the purview of this "not a record" exception. The faculty member's notes on the hearing were made by the faculty member, and they are covered by the "not a record" provision, as long as they are are not accessible or revealed to any other person . What this provision is about is that students have the right to access education records, but they do not have the right to access the faculty member's own personal notes about the hearing. Disclosing those personal notes makes them a record, meaning that consent is required. The faculty member is probably in violation of university policy, for keeping a record past the destroy date. As an example, the final 3 pages of this records retention schedule indicate that a record is to be destroyed within 3 years of the student no longer being enrolled, at the maximum. Coursework materials are to be destroyed 2 terms after the term of enrollment. In reading this document, the wording is a bit vague: who is this addressed to? Faculty? This helpful (and authoritative) source suggests that it is directed to faculty, as does this .

Is it possible for there to be no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's own home (bought , not rented)?

In privacy invasion torts, the act of privacy invasion needs to be carried out in a place where the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it's often said by people that privacy invasion by someone outside one's house would always be a violation of law. Is this true ?

The assessment of a reasonable expectation of privacy is based on the totality of the circumstances. This applies in both the context of unreasonable searches and in the context of the tort of invasion of privacy. See generally: Heckert v. 5470 Investments Ltd. , 2008 BCSC 1298 at para. 81-82 (a lower court decision, but summarizing Canada Supreme Court jurisprudence). One might have a reasonable expectation of privacy at a restaurant and one might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a personal residence. When an insurance company was conducting surveillance from the street into a home via open windows, it was found in those circumstances that the privacy interest was low: Although her expectation of privacy may legitimately be higher while in her house, on the night in question the blinds were open and the lights were on. Therefore, anyone could have seen her helping her daughter while just passing by the house. Further, Ms. Milner ought to have reasonably known that Manulife was investigating her claim and that it was possible that video surveillance would be used. Thus, her entitlement to privacy on the evening in question was low. Milner v Manufacturers Life Insurance Company , 2005 BCSC 1661 (CanLII), at para 83, https://canlii.ca/t/1m4qx#par83 , retrieved on 2023-04-12 On the other hand, when a neighbor installed cameras angled so as to capture surveillance of the interior of another neighbor's home, the surveilled neighbor had a high privacy interest: the Halls ... did, at all times, have a reasonable expectation of privacy when inside their own home. Unlike, the investigator in the Milner case, the dispute with Mr. Wasserman did not entitle him to any information that might be obtained as a result of surveillance of activities inside the Hall residence. Accordingly, the Halls’ expectation of privacy inside their home was very high throughout the entirety of the dispute. Wasserman v. Hall , 2009 BCSC 1318 (CanLII), at para 77, https://canlii.ca/t/25tgf#par77 , retrieved on 2023-04-12

Is it possible for there to be no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's own home (bought , not rented)?

In privacy invasion torts, the act of privacy invasion needs to be carried out in a place where the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it's often said by people that privacy invasion by someone outside one's house would always be a violation of law. Is this true ?

france There are two related principles at play: droit à l’image (right to image) et droit au respect de la vie privée (right to privacy). The former refers to the distribution of someone's image against their wish, whereas the latter refers to intruding in private matters. The difference is illustrated by Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 2, du 10 mars 2004, 01-15.322 . A tabloid published pictures of two celebrities showing public displays of affection toward each other, one of them sued. The court ruled that the right to privacy was not infringed because the images were taken in a public place; however, the right to image was infringed. Focusing on the right to privacy, the statutory basis in civil law is Code Civil, article 9 : Chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée. One is entitled to the respect of one’s private life. That is rather short on details. Case law established that basically anything nonpublic is subject to privacy. Consider for instance Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre sociale, 7 novembre 2018, 17-16.799 . An employer was contesting some employees' eligibility for positions of "employee representative". During the legal proceedings, the employer produced pay slips of those employees. Those pay slips included private information (age, wage, address, bank account number, days of sick leave) that were not needed to establish the facts in dispute, and were communicated to other parties to the proceedings (unions that contested the employer’s determination of eligibility). The employer was condemned for infringing the privacy of those employees, because that information could have been blacked-out before sending the documents. Note that there is no question that the employer lawfully collected that information (it is necessary for payroll purposes); they disclosed it to a rather small number of persons (parties to the lawsuit and the judge); they did not obtain or expect to obtain any monetary benefit from that disclosure; and they did so out of carelessness rather than malice (the employer’s counsel promptly asked opposing counsel to delete the documents and corrected the record when the problem was brought to their attention). There are also criminal penalties for infringing on privacy. The statutory basis is Code Pénal, article 226-1 : Est puni (...) le fait, au moyen d'un procédé quelconque, volontairement de porter atteinte à l'intimité de la vie privée d'autrui : 1° En captant, enregistrant ou transmettant, sans le consentement de leur auteur, des paroles prononcées à titre privé ou confidentiel ; 2° En fixant, enregistrant ou transmettant, sans le consentement de celle-ci, l'image d'une personne se trouvant dans un lieu privé. 3° En captant, enregistrant ou transmettant, par quelque moyen que ce soit, la localisation en temps réel ou en différé d'une personne sans le consentement de celle-ci. Lorsque les actes mentionnés aux 1° et 2° du présent article ont été accomplis au vu et au su des intéressés sans qu'ils s'y soient opposés, alors qu'ils étaient en mesure de le faire, le consentement de ceux-ci est présumé. (...) Lorsque les actes mentionnés au présent article ont été accomplis sur la personne d'un mineur, le consentement doit émaner des titulaires de l'autorité parentale. Voluntarily infringing on one’s privacy, by any technical means, is punished by (...): By recording or transmitting speech given in private or in confidence, without their author’s consent; By recording or transmitting the image of someone present in a private place, without their consent; By recording or transmitting by any means the location of another person without their consent, whether in real time or delayed. When actions described at 1) and 2) were done openly in front of the interested persons, and they did not oppose them when they had the ability to do so, their consent is presumed. (...) When actions mentioned here target a minor, consent must come from a legal guardian. There is no test of "expectation of privacy" or similar - the test is whether the recording was done in a private place, which is usually an objective and obvious test. It does not discriminate between your home, someone else’s, etc. The more fuzzy part is "infringing on one’s privacy". Suppose I am babysitting my five-year-old niece, and she is running in my garden (a private place, but visible from the street). As she is a minor and her parents are absent, it is not possible to obtain consent to film her. Still, it would be socially acceptable for me to film her; a majority of people would even approve of me posting the film on Facebook without consulting with the parents first. (The parents could ask me to not do that for image right considerations, though.) On the other hand, if the filming is done by some random passer-by leaning over the fence, that would be considered an invasion of privacy by most people. I suspect, but could not find a case on point, that courts would follow the general appreciation that the former situation is not an invasion of privacy but the latter is.

Onlyfans account leaked to my family

I have an OnlyFans account which for obvious reasons I kept secret from everyone. But somehow someone has leaked its content (perhaps a friend or an ex-partner who wanted to take a revenge on me). He/she sent an anonymous email to my family with a link to my page. My family was shocked, my father almost had a heart attack. I went to the police (I live in the UK) and asked what could be done to investigate and potentially sue the person behind the mail. But they told me that since the link is public no law has been infringed. Is this really the case? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

What you do in public is public There is no crime in effectively saying to another person “Hey, look at this.”

Are legislators ever asked to explain their intent in Supreme Court cases?

I recently started to listen to recordings of arguments before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer so I don't completely follow everything, but I noticed right away that a lot of arguments deal with the intent of this or that law. Given that this is such an important focus, have arguments before the Supreme Court ever involved testimony of some sort from legislators who drafted the laws being debated, explaining what they really intended the law to mean? I noticed that attorneys even bring up how a certain word in a law is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Wouldn't it make more sense just to ask those who wrote a law to explain what was meant (assuming they are still alive)?

Many jurists do accept that it is appropriate to attempt to ascertain the "legislative intent" as part of the exercise of statutory interpretation, but legislative intent is not an aggregate of the subjective intentions of individual legislators. I am not aware of any question of statutory interpretation that was informed by testimony from staffers or legislators who drafted, debated, or enacted a law. For some rationale, see Judge Easterbrook 's foreward to Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner 's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts : Legislative intent is a fiction, a back-formation from other and often undisclosed sources. Every legislat or has an intent, which usually cannot be discovered, since most say nothing before voting on most bills; and the legislat ure is a collective body that does not have a mind; it "intends" only that the text be adopted, and statutory texts usually are compromises that match no one's first preference. If some legislators say one thing and others say something else... how does the interpreter choose which path to follow? canada Even evidence of what was said in Parliamentary debate is treated cautiously ( R. v. Heywood , [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761 ): First, the intent of particular members of Parliament is not the same as the intent of the Parliament as a whole. Thus, it may be said that the corporate will of the legislature is only found in the text of provisions which are passed into law. Second, the political nature of Parliamentary debates brings into question the reliability of the statements made. Different members of the legislature may have different purposes in putting forward their positions. That is to say the statements of a member made in the heat of debate or in committee hearings may not reflect even that member's position at the time of the final vote on the legislation. Legislative intent is determined by looking at the words, the scheme, and the object of the provision ( R. v. Hutchinson , 2014 SCC 19, paragraph 16 ).

Are legislators ever asked to explain their intent in Supreme Court cases?

I recently started to listen to recordings of arguments before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer so I don't completely follow everything, but I noticed right away that a lot of arguments deal with the intent of this or that law. Given that this is such an important focus, have arguments before the Supreme Court ever involved testimony of some sort from legislators who drafted the laws being debated, explaining what they really intended the law to mean? I noticed that attorneys even bring up how a certain word in a law is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Wouldn't it make more sense just to ask those who wrote a law to explain what was meant (assuming they are still alive)?

One impediment to such explanations is that when hearing an appeal (as opposed to a case where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction), there are no witnesses testifying. An attorney for a party may argue, but a legislator or witness cannot testify. Information (of various kinds) enters into the stream via amicus briefs, which may indeed affect the outcome, but rarely do the justices indicate in their opinions where they get their information, even when it's not about something that they personally know. Scalia in Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System p. 107 mentions an exchange within the Senate regarding "legislative intent" in the course of the case Hirschey v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n , 777 F.2d 1 where he refers to "the legislative history" contained in 128 Cong. Rec. 16918-19, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. . This is a transcript of actual words uttered on the floor of the Senate, from which one might attempt to arrive at an understanding of "legislative intent". Your idea is to ask "the person who wrote the bill" what they intended, however, there may well be no identifiable individual, since bills frequently have multiple sponsors, and legislators don't write laws (they have staff who do the writing). Appellate courts do look at the objective record regarding the creation of laws, as informed by amicus briefs, but they do not interrogate witnesses to the creation of law, and they avoid subjective perspectives like "I wanted to bring about social justice". Even in a trial, it's the lawyers who ask the questions.

Are legislators ever asked to explain their intent in Supreme Court cases?

I recently started to listen to recordings of arguments before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer so I don't completely follow everything, but I noticed right away that a lot of arguments deal with the intent of this or that law. Given that this is such an important focus, have arguments before the Supreme Court ever involved testimony of some sort from legislators who drafted the laws being debated, explaining what they really intended the law to mean? I noticed that attorneys even bring up how a certain word in a law is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Wouldn't it make more sense just to ask those who wrote a law to explain what was meant (assuming they are still alive)?

switzerland Not explicitly. The court isn't (as far as I'm aware) going to ask the lawmakers for a statement during a trial. This would be quite difficult, because typically the law is drafted by some government employee, finalized by the federal council and then debated, changed and amended by the parliament (whose members typically have very different goals and opinions). So who are you going to ask? But what is common is that the court takes the reasoning presented to the parliament into consideration. The government writes, together with a proposed law, a lengthy report on why it thinks that law is needed. That might help the court to understand the intended meaning. Additionally, since in Switzerland laws are officially provided in three languages, the court can take another language into consideration, which might be less ambiguous in a certain point.

Are legislators ever asked to explain their intent in Supreme Court cases?

I recently started to listen to recordings of arguments before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer so I don't completely follow everything, but I noticed right away that a lot of arguments deal with the intent of this or that law. Given that this is such an important focus, have arguments before the Supreme Court ever involved testimony of some sort from legislators who drafted the laws being debated, explaining what they really intended the law to mean? I noticed that attorneys even bring up how a certain word in a law is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Wouldn't it make more sense just to ask those who wrote a law to explain what was meant (assuming they are still alive)?

hungary Maybe an interesting detail, bills in Hungary are drafted together with an explanatory memorandum that is supposed to describe the societal, economical and legal reasons, intentions and justification, as well as the expected outcome and the aims it is set to reach. This is not just a kind of preamble of a few sentences but usually as long as the bill itself, or longer, enumerating section after section. When done properly, not just as a formal description of merely repeating the individual sections of the bill without adding real details, this can help both the parliament during the debates and later, when the bill is enacted, to document the original intentions of the legislation in sufficient detail.

Are legislators ever asked to explain their intent in Supreme Court cases?

I recently started to listen to recordings of arguments before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer so I don't completely follow everything, but I noticed right away that a lot of arguments deal with the intent of this or that law. Given that this is such an important focus, have arguments before the Supreme Court ever involved testimony of some sort from legislators who drafted the laws being debated, explaining what they really intended the law to mean? I noticed that attorneys even bring up how a certain word in a law is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Wouldn't it make more sense just to ask those who wrote a law to explain what was meant (assuming they are still alive)?

No, it would clearly breach of the separation of powers doctrine Government in the Western tradition requires a clear separation of the roles of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This may be explicitly in a written constitution (e.g. USA, France) or it may be a convention having constitutional force (e.g. UK). Broadly speaking, the legislature writes the law, the executive administers the law, and the judiciary interprets the law. Legislators testifying as to how the law should be interpreted clearly breaks these roles. There are practical difficulties too The US has 535 legislators, are you going to get them all to testify as to what they meant? If not, which ones do you choose? If the law was passed in 2006, will you get that Congress to testify or the current one? What if it was in 1892 when everyone involved is long dead?

Are legislators ever asked to explain their intent in Supreme Court cases?

I recently started to listen to recordings of arguments before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer so I don't completely follow everything, but I noticed right away that a lot of arguments deal with the intent of this or that law. Given that this is such an important focus, have arguments before the Supreme Court ever involved testimony of some sort from legislators who drafted the laws being debated, explaining what they really intended the law to mean? I noticed that attorneys even bring up how a certain word in a law is defined in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Wouldn't it make more sense just to ask those who wrote a law to explain what was meant (assuming they are still alive)?

This happens in Germany; when a law is unclear, the Federal Court of Justice can request action by the legislature.

Why did this US prosecutor keep asking whether documents would refresh a witness's memory?

Background I served on a jury during a criminal trial in the United States several years ago. There was a strangely formal interaction that repeated itself a few times during the trial. The prosecutor, while holding some document, would ask a question which required the witness to recall some specific detail. The witness would reply "I don't remember." The prosecutor would then ask "Would looking at [some document] refresh your memory?", to which the witness would answer "Yes." The prosecutor would then hand the document to the witness, who would look at it and then answer the question. It's obvious that the prosecutor already knew the question wouldn't be answerable without reference to the report or document - that's why they were holding it. But then why perform the dance of "do you recall" / "no" / "would this refresh your memory" / "yes"? The Question It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? Disclaimer ( it may be that this was simply this prosecutor's way of phrasing questions, rather than a feature of the United States criminal judicial system. If that's the case this question won't be answerable, since it calls for knowing the mindset of a specific individual. If so, let me know and I'll delete it ) Further information In the real-life situation I found myself in, the witness was for the prosecution. However, I'm equally interested in answers ( such as hszmv's ) that explain why the adversarial lawyer might also use this technique, if relevant.

united-states Witnesses are generally confined to giving testimony from their own personal memory; most of the time, they can't read a statement into the record or just tell the jury to go look at some other piece of evidence. But this creates problems when a witness knows an important fact but doesn't remember it when she takes the stand. Maybe she counted exactly how much money she stuffed in the robber's bag as she was doing it, and she wrote it down as soon as he fled, but a year later, she can't remember that it was $93,736.45. But the prosecutor isn't allowed to just give the witness a stack of evidence and let her go hunting through the documents to answer each question. Instead,he goes through the "Do you remember" colloquy to lay the necessary foundation to refresh the witness's memory, as contemplated by Rule 612 , which then also triggers certain rights for the opposing party with respect to the document used to refresh the witness's memory.

Why did this US prosecutor keep asking whether documents would refresh a witness's memory?

Background I served on a jury during a criminal trial in the United States several years ago. There was a strangely formal interaction that repeated itself a few times during the trial. The prosecutor, while holding some document, would ask a question which required the witness to recall some specific detail. The witness would reply "I don't remember." The prosecutor would then ask "Would looking at [some document] refresh your memory?", to which the witness would answer "Yes." The prosecutor would then hand the document to the witness, who would look at it and then answer the question. It's obvious that the prosecutor already knew the question wouldn't be answerable without reference to the report or document - that's why they were holding it. But then why perform the dance of "do you recall" / "no" / "would this refresh your memory" / "yes"? The Question It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? Disclaimer ( it may be that this was simply this prosecutor's way of phrasing questions, rather than a feature of the United States criminal judicial system. If that's the case this question won't be answerable, since it calls for knowing the mindset of a specific individual. If so, let me know and I'll delete it ) Further information In the real-life situation I found myself in, the witness was for the prosecution. However, I'm equally interested in answers ( such as hszmv's ) that explain why the adversarial lawyer might also use this technique, if relevant.

Witnesses cannot refer to documents or notes australia That’s because witness testimony is supposed to be what the witness remembers, not what they are prompted to remember. This is covered by s32 of the Uniform Evidence Acts in those jurisdictions that have adopted it, but it only a codification of a long-standing common law rule. Exemptions apply to expert witnesses and police officers and with the permission of the court. The process the prosecutor is going through is to allow the defence to raise an objection and (implicitly) to get the court’s permission.

Why did this US prosecutor keep asking whether documents would refresh a witness's memory?

Background I served on a jury during a criminal trial in the United States several years ago. There was a strangely formal interaction that repeated itself a few times during the trial. The prosecutor, while holding some document, would ask a question which required the witness to recall some specific detail. The witness would reply "I don't remember." The prosecutor would then ask "Would looking at [some document] refresh your memory?", to which the witness would answer "Yes." The prosecutor would then hand the document to the witness, who would look at it and then answer the question. It's obvious that the prosecutor already knew the question wouldn't be answerable without reference to the report or document - that's why they were holding it. But then why perform the dance of "do you recall" / "no" / "would this refresh your memory" / "yes"? The Question It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? Disclaimer ( it may be that this was simply this prosecutor's way of phrasing questions, rather than a feature of the United States criminal judicial system. If that's the case this question won't be answerable, since it calls for knowing the mindset of a specific individual. If so, let me know and I'll delete it ) Further information In the real-life situation I found myself in, the witness was for the prosecution. However, I'm equally interested in answers ( such as hszmv's ) that explain why the adversarial lawyer might also use this technique, if relevant.

It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? In a court room, most actions taken by the attorney are for one reason and one reason only: To convince the Jury to give them a favorable ruling. The example you cited is likely part of an attempt by the attorney to impeach a witness during cross examination (it should be noted that impeach here means something different than the commonly understood meaning of the term. Here, it's an informal process of convincing the jury to discount the testimony of the witness by demonstrating that they're testimony is unreliable. Because U.S. courts are adversarial, the opposing attorney will try to poke holes in the testimony of the witness during cross-examination.). As to why the Lawyer even asked the question in the first place if he knew the answer, especially during cross-examination, it's to get the witness to contradict themselves out loud before they introduce the evidence. But then, the fact that you spotted one instance of a lawyer knowing what the answer is before they ask the question, that's their big secret... a good attorney knows the answer to every question they ask in court before they ask it. As a juror, you didn't see the work the lawyers on both sides did... each one took statements from their witnesses, and formed questions with them and coached them on the proper way to respond (this isn't necessarily what to say... but how to say and who to say it to... if you are ever called as a witness, the attorney who coaches you will make sure to tell you when you answer a question on the stand, look at the Jury (or Judge in a bench trial) when you respond and not the attorney who asked the question... because people tend to believe that when someone doesn't look at them they are lying) to the questions and what to say on cross to avoid legal trouble. And then, they get to interview the witnesses the other side is bringing in to testify (in fact, if a witness for the opposing side refuses to talk to your lawyers prior to trial, that fact can be introduced in court to show the witness is not to be trusted, since the discovery phase of the trial has some broad rules that allow both sides to investigate the others case.). In this particular case, the witness being question testifies they do not know ("I don't know/recall" or similar statements are frequently used to avoid perjuring one's self when contradictory evidence is introduced... while it could be a lie, it's hard for a prosecutor to prove if you were faking the lack of knowledge or if you really forgot. If you say no and it turns out that you should have known that no was the wrong answer, it's easier to get perjury charges.). Upon this, the cross-examining attorney, knowing the answer, has the document ready to go and can point to the line and have the witness read the answer for the court (or as I was taught by an attorney coach on my mock trial team, the better way is for the attorney to hand a copy of the doc to the witness and say "Please read along as I read out loud..." and then read the part of the document that is relevant. This is so the witness can't try to recover by reading it in a favorable tone or read parts you might not want read.). In criminal law, this is important for both sides. If the Defense can make you believe a prosecution attorney is unreliable... then what does that say about other elements of the case? If in doubt, you must acquit. For the prosecution, if the defense witnesses look reliable, there is doubt to the veracity of your case... and in order for you to win, the jury must not have any doubt you got it right.

Why did this US prosecutor keep asking whether documents would refresh a witness's memory?

Background I served on a jury during a criminal trial in the United States several years ago. There was a strangely formal interaction that repeated itself a few times during the trial. The prosecutor, while holding some document, would ask a question which required the witness to recall some specific detail. The witness would reply "I don't remember." The prosecutor would then ask "Would looking at [some document] refresh your memory?", to which the witness would answer "Yes." The prosecutor would then hand the document to the witness, who would look at it and then answer the question. It's obvious that the prosecutor already knew the question wouldn't be answerable without reference to the report or document - that's why they were holding it. But then why perform the dance of "do you recall" / "no" / "would this refresh your memory" / "yes"? The Question It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? Disclaimer ( it may be that this was simply this prosecutor's way of phrasing questions, rather than a feature of the United States criminal judicial system. If that's the case this question won't be answerable, since it calls for knowing the mindset of a specific individual. If so, let me know and I'll delete it ) Further information In the real-life situation I found myself in, the witness was for the prosecution. However, I'm equally interested in answers ( such as hszmv's ) that explain why the adversarial lawyer might also use this technique, if relevant.

Often, if documents are disclosed by a certain date, or are offered into evidence as business records, but the court disagrees that they constitute business records, those documents are inadmissible into evidence (either for non-disclosure or under the hearsay rule). But, a document can be used to refresh the recollection of a witness even if the document itself isn't admitted into evidence. There is a good chance that in this case the documents weren't admissible into evidence for some reason that the allowed use of inadmissible documents to refresh recollection was used as a work around for this problem.

Still be questioned without a solicitor?

In the United Kingdom, England and Wales jurisdiction, when someone is arrested they are read a caution. If at that moment, the person declines to give a statement, and then asks for a solicitor, can the police continue asking questions? Would they be allowed to use the suspects 'no comment' answers, as they have not yet spoken to a solicitor, against them? The above scenario applies before they reach the police station and are provided with legal advice by a solicitor.

england-and-wales Re: If at that moment, the person declines to give a statement, and then asks for a solicitor, can the police continue asking questions? It doesn't work that way. The caution given on arrest does not ask for, nor require, the suspect "to give a statement" at that time. It says: You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Unless there is a genuine and urgent necessity (see below), there is to be no questioning about the suspected offence until they are booked in to Custody, which when they are informed of their rights; including their entitlement to free and independent legal advice (FILA) under s.58(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). That said, there are two occasions when someone under arrest can be (lawfully) asked questions before being booked in to Custody: The first is when an Urgent Interview is necessary. See Paragraph 11.1 PACE Code C: 11.1 Following a decision to arrest a suspect, they must not be interviewed about the relevant offence except at a police station or other authorised place of detention, unless the consequent delay would be likely to: (a) lead to: interference with, or harm to, evidence connected with an offence; interference with, or physical harm to, other people; or serious loss of, or damage to, property; (b) lead to alerting other people suspected of committing an offence but not yet arrested for it; or (c) hinder the recovery of property obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence. Interviewing in any of these circumstances shall cease once the relevant risk has been averted or the necessary questions have been put in order to attempt to avert that risk. The other is incidental questions that are not about the suspected offence. e.g. for public safety or officer welfare, or to facilitate a proportionate search - " Before I search you, do you have any weapons or needles on you? " Or " Which is your bedroom? " Any questioning outside of these could be ruled as a significant or substantial breach of PACE so may be excluded following a defence application under s.78 of PACE , and the officer would undoubtedly have to answer for their actions at e.g. a misconduct hearing.

What does in between them mean?

An applicant seeking registration to act as a trustee shall have in its employment a minimum of two persons who, between them , have atleast five years experience in activities related to securitisation and atleast one among them shall have a professional qualification in law from any university or institution recognised by the Central Government or any State Government or a foreign university. What does in between them mean in the above statement do both the employee should have 5 years experience each or the experience jointly be of 5 years.

What it means is that when you add together the total experience of both employees, it must be equal to or greater than 5 years. So Employee A and B can have experience such that one has 1 year and the other has 4 or one has 2 and the other 3 or one has Zero and the other has 5 (debatable... if both employees need experience this might be out of the question). They could work the same calendar years and count them as separate years of experience.

Do not stop before reaching the crosswalk lines

The link says "drivers should not stop in a 'no stopping zone' because they may interfere with other vehicles that are turning from one roadway to another. This is usually where large vehicles need extra room to turn." Is the link suggesting that there is no need to stop before reaching the crosswalk lines? But isn't it dangerous for the pedestrians in this case? I have attached an image in that link to clarify my question.

Both rules apply. You must as always stop before the crosswalk, and additionally you must not stop inside the no stopping zone. Therefore, in order to comply with both, you have to stop behind the no stopping zone. Another way to look at it is that it is equivalent to having a stop line that is further back from the intersection than usual. The large X in between just provides a visual indication that this is the stop line for the intersection and that you should not go past it until you have the right of way to proceed. In this aerial photo of 2 St SW and 17 Ave SW in Calgary , you can see that the back line of the no stopping zone is wider, apparently the same width as the stop line in the adjacent lane, which is another signal that the back line serves as a stop line.

Is Google legal?

Google is indexing other people's websites across the planet. To some extents, the images on Google images search are also taken from websites contents. And all of that happens without owner's consent or any sort of agreement. (I saw some of my website content on google search image). So my questions is: To which extent someone can use other people's web content? What rules are regulating search engines?

The images and text are copyright (if they are). What Google does with them is fair use/dealing. It works like this: if Google's bot can find them then you (the owner) have put them on the World Wide Web presumably because you want people to see them, effectively you have put them on public display. Google is assisting you in that endeavour by enabling people who are looking for what you are displaying to find it. Their use of your material enhances its value to you which is a rock solid defence. If you don't want your stuff on public display then a) don't put it on a public part of the web - there are plenty of private cloud storage facilities or B) stick a file in your website that tells bots not to index it.

Copyrighted Music, Personal Use, and not-for-profit Video Games?

I am creating a video game that is open-source and will be distributed for free (i.e. not-for-profit) on itch.io. I would like to use a copyrighted song as part of the background music. My question is, because I am not making any income from the distribution of the game, would the use of the copyrighted music fall under Personal Use? I am located in Australia, and itch.io operates out of the USA. Thanks.

My question is, because I am not making any income from the distribution of the game, would the use of the copyrighted music fall under Personal Use? There are some "private use" exemptions in Australian copyright law but they have some fairly narrow conditions. These exemptions are fairly narrow because the point of copyright law is not to prevent you from making money with someone else's intellectual property but to protect the other person's ability to make money with it. If Alice writes a song and Bob distributes it free of charge, Alice loses revenue. Similarly, it is Alice's right to decide whether that song should be included in a freely available open-source software product, and her right to decide whether to allow that use without charge or in exchange for a license fee.

Copyrighted Music, Personal Use, and not-for-profit Video Games?

I am creating a video game that is open-source and will be distributed for free (i.e. not-for-profit) on itch.io. I would like to use a copyrighted song as part of the background music. My question is, because I am not making any income from the distribution of the game, would the use of the copyrighted music fall under Personal Use? I am located in Australia, and itch.io operates out of the USA. Thanks.

You are distributing the music to other people, so this doesn’t look like personal use at all. You can find music that is sold for exactly this purpose cheaply. (Similar to stock images that can be quite cheap). The seller probably knows how to combine this with open source. Or you can modify your code so that it lets the user choose music on their computer, assuming that they have the right to play that music. But also to keep in mind: If you create software including proprietary music, and manage to do this legally (fair use, private use, no profit or whatever arguments to use the music), and distribute everything under an "open source" license, then you give everyone permission to copy this as long as they follow the open source license. With the GPL license for example you claim that you give ME the right to copy everything, turn it into a commercial product, and sell it for $100 a copy, as long as I follow the GPL license. But whatever legal excuses you had to copy the music don't apply to me, so we have a legal problem.

Copyrighted Music, Personal Use, and not-for-profit Video Games?

I am creating a video game that is open-source and will be distributed for free (i.e. not-for-profit) on itch.io. I would like to use a copyrighted song as part of the background music. My question is, because I am not making any income from the distribution of the game, would the use of the copyrighted music fall under Personal Use? I am located in Australia, and itch.io operates out of the USA. Thanks.

As gnasher729 says, it's clearly not personal use. I'd like to consider the idea that it's not-for-profit. If you're using itch.io, there seems to be no way to ensure you would not be paid for the game. Itch.io's website tells us : On itch.io, any price you set is the minimum price. Even if you're giving your content away for free, downloaders will still have the opportunity to send you money before they download. Even if there was a way to ensure you received nothing, itch.io is a commercial entity, so their making games available would count as commercial activity irrespective of whether any payment was made to the individual developers.

Can i request a religious forum to delete my posts for GDPR compliance?

It's a forum discussing religious stances and personal practice. Is it possible to request posts to be removed along with the account registry? As i understand it, forums in general don't have to delete the content and so i wonder if forums dedicated to religion are treated in the same way.

The GDPR means that people can process and store your data only on a legal basis, and that they have to document their processes and their compliance within the rules. They can process data based on your (informed and revocable) consent, in accordance with a contract with you, if required by law, to safeguard the vital interests of others (likely not applicable), as a government agency (almost certainly not applicable), and finally in a balance of legitimate interests. The first bullet point is the easiest for them and for you, until you ask them to delete. Then they have to use another justification. A forum may argue that keeping discussion threads intact outweighs the desire to have them deleted. Here it may matter that data about religious beliefs is one of the specially protected categories. This might shift the balance of interests.

Can i request a religious forum to delete my posts for GDPR compliance?

It's a forum discussing religious stances and personal practice. Is it possible to request posts to be removed along with the account registry? As i understand it, forums in general don't have to delete the content and so i wonder if forums dedicated to religion are treated in the same way.

Religious forums are not special There are no special rules for a forum that deals in religious speech. If a normal forum may retain your posts, then a religious forum may too. They have to remove all identification of you if you exercise your right to be forgotten, but can do so by anonymizing your posts.

Who owns the copyright in this case?

As a layman interested in the law, I'm facing a bit of a conundrum posed by my cousin. Here are the facts: A records company, M Ltd, has created (e.g. written code for, trained etc.) an AI that can generate music. The AI generates music when it is prompted. It can be prompted by either uttering a few random words into a microphone, or by verbally providing it with a cluster of notes (they could be random or have a deliberate structure). Person YT, an employee of M Ltd, wishes to try the AI out. He has consented to M Ltd's IP policy, which takes the position of the law on who holds the copyright to any copyrightable work created (i.e. the employer holds the copyright over the copyrightable work its employees create). Person YT utters a few random words and provides the AI with a random arrangement of notes. The AI generates a song. I have two questions: With the fact pattern I have presented, can either the AI or M Ltd hold the copyright to the song the AI has generated? If Person YT only uttered random words, or only provided the AI with random notes, would it make a difference? I am mostly indifferent as to jurisdiction. I only have a slight preference for either the EU, UK or US. Thanks in advance.

Nobody in the united-states The AI generaged the music and the contribution of the human does not qualify for authirship, therefore it is uncopyrightable . II. The Human Authorship Requirement In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans. The Office's registration policies and regulations reflect statutory and judicial guidance on this issue. [...] III. The Office's Application of the Human Authorship Requirement It begins by asking “whether the `work' is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” [23] In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” [24] [....] When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. [31] As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application. [32] Since there is no copyright, the question who owns it is moot.

what are the provisions related to IT act 2000 confiscation?

The IT Act (2000) §76 states that any person liable for an offence under the IT Act (2000) shall suffer confiscation of the IT device on which the confiscation has been made. Are there any provisions for how long a confiscation can or cannot last? I researched the act(including drafts) and couldn't find anything regarding this. Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which any provision of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder has been or is being contravened, shall be liable to confiscation: Provided that where it is established to the satisfaction of the court adjudicating the confiscation that the person in whose possession, power or control of any such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories relating thereto is found is not responsible for the contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder, the court may, instead of making an order for confiscation of such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, make such other order authorised by this Act against the person contravening of the provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder as it may think fit. source It's one of the few laws where confiscation is a punishment.

Confiscation Confiscation comes from Latin "confiscatio" (“to declare property of the fiscus” - To declare the property of the public treasury) is the act of the government seizing an item permanently under its direct meaning. Seizure A property that is seized is taken by the government to do something with it, such as taking the car with the broken window while investigating a crime, temporarily parking the trucks for highway construction, or actually building the highway on. The seized item or land can become government property by forfeiture, court order (at which point it is confiscated), or might be returned at some point if it isn't confiscated. If compensation is required, usually money is returned instead of the item. In the examples, the outcome of the two latter is somewhat easy to deduce: the land for parking is returned, and the owner of the land under the highway instead gets payment for his land that becomes government property. The car with the smashed window would be generally returned to its real owner if he was not involved in the crime. Correct Order Of Operations So technically, the Police first seize an item, then the court rules the item to be confiscated, which means it becomes government property. Forfeiture? Forfeiture is only different from Confiscation in the process of how it happens. Forfeiture and Confiscation both have the same outcome but at times different means. In older legal texts, the two words always come together: Confiscation and Forfeiture. In modern parlance, Confiscation is usually used when the seizure of an illegal thing happens, such as drugs, where Forfeiture is used when a legal thing is demanded by the government, such as land. See also, in the US, Civil Asset Forfeiture and Criminal Asset Forfeiture. India & Confiscation In India, there are actually many more laws that confiscate or forfeit items or land to the government, as this article elaborates . The most relevant one seems to be the Criminal Procedure Code (1973), which deals with property in general , when criminal charges are dealt with: Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.—(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal , by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence This paragraph puts the court in charge of determining if, how, and when the property is returned to anyone or if the government owns a shiny new thing or has to put it into a crusher. In the case of the specific paragraph in the IT Act (2000), the court is granted an additional option besides confiscation: If the judge is satisfied that the person charged was not the culprit for the illegal software, the court may grant other orders enumerated besides seizing the item.

What happens if an insurance company does not mention a critical clause of a policy during a telephone purchase?

Suppose one phones an insurance company and arrange and pays for car insurance. One then receives the documentation and there is an additional clause that was not mentioned that invalidates the insurance. Is this clause valid? The story that prompts this question is real, but I am not asking for advice as I have solved the problem with communication. I just wonder what would have happened had I said nothing. I just phoned my insurance company to arrange my car insurance for next year. We went through all the details and I was about to accept the offer when I mentioned that my brother was visiting from the US. At that point the salesperson informed me that the insurance would not cover my brother, as they must be resident in the UK. At no point prior to this had they mentioned such a requirement. I therefore declined their offer. I have done this many times before an it has not been an issue. However had I not mentioned this I would have accepted the offer. They may well have sent me a verbose contract with that term in there, but I may not have read it and my brother would have driven the car assuming they were insured. If this had occurred would my brother have been insured? From answers it seems it may be relevant how frequent such a clause is. I have two old car insurance contracts and neither mention such a residence requirement. I have found many more "Certificate of Insurance" with my brother as a named driver and they make no mention of the requirement. It is those that must be shown to the police on request to prove one has insurance. I have found a policy document online that does not appear to mention such a requirement .

In any sane jurisdiction, the clause would hold. By and large, the legal fiction is that one has read and agreed to execute the entirety of the contracts they signed. If it was otherwise, no contract of substantial length would ever be enforceable upon individuals; yet such contracts are routinely offered and enforced (look at the terms&conditions of any internet website that sells stuff). It is absolutely normal that a phone sale would gloss other minor details of the contract, and implicitly refer to the written text for the finer points. If the specific point had been raised in the phone call, and the salesperson erroneously told you X when in fact the contract read Y, you might have a case, but even then it is not necessarily a strong one (you signed the contract after having called; you might have changed your mind when reading the actual text, and you paying the insurance monthly bill is evidence that you agreed with the contract as-formed). There are some exceptions to that general principle: General conditions of validity of a contract. For instance, in france , a contract must have a "definite and legitimate content" . If we sign a contract for "a few apples against a few euros", and then I give you five apples, you owe me zero euros because the contract was not specific enough to be enforceable. If the whole contract is unenforceable, the clause falls with it. General conditions of a validity of a clause. Specific clauses can be invalidated without bringing down the whole contract (for instance, "in case X fails to perform their obligations under clause 70Z, Y is allowed to take a pound of flesh from X"). Specific conditions on certain clauses. Consumer laws in some jurisdictions make certain clauses of certain contracts either invalid entirely, or only valid if they were read aloud to the prospective buyer, or only valid in certain forms. (For instance, in France, a sale of real estate between individuals must be notarized.) I would be extremely surprised if the rule in the OP’s example (residence condition to bring another driver on the insurance policy) would fail under any of those.

What happens if an insurance company does not mention a critical clause of a policy during a telephone purchase?

Suppose one phones an insurance company and arrange and pays for car insurance. One then receives the documentation and there is an additional clause that was not mentioned that invalidates the insurance. Is this clause valid? The story that prompts this question is real, but I am not asking for advice as I have solved the problem with communication. I just wonder what would have happened had I said nothing. I just phoned my insurance company to arrange my car insurance for next year. We went through all the details and I was about to accept the offer when I mentioned that my brother was visiting from the US. At that point the salesperson informed me that the insurance would not cover my brother, as they must be resident in the UK. At no point prior to this had they mentioned such a requirement. I therefore declined their offer. I have done this many times before an it has not been an issue. However had I not mentioned this I would have accepted the offer. They may well have sent me a verbose contract with that term in there, but I may not have read it and my brother would have driven the car assuming they were insured. If this had occurred would my brother have been insured? From answers it seems it may be relevant how frequent such a clause is. I have two old car insurance contracts and neither mention such a residence requirement. I have found many more "Certificate of Insurance" with my brother as a named driver and they make no mention of the requirement. It is those that must be shown to the police on request to prove one has insurance. I have found a policy document online that does not appear to mention such a requirement .

Aside from what others have mentioned, there are a few more barriers to you making a successful claim due to not having been able to read the contract yet . First is what is reasonable and customary in the market. If the "no non-residents" clause is boilerplate language found in virtually any auto insurance contract, then you would have no standing to say that as a consumer you were reasonable to presume it would be in this contract. Second, you had a question in your mind about a non-resident visitor being insured if you drove the car. Why didn't you ask the agent about that when you were on the telephone? Here you are likely to face a "reasonable person" test: would a reasonable person in your shoes think it prudent to ask? And conversely to the first two, if the insurer had an unusual term/condition contrary to a reasonable insurance buyer's presumption (e.g. only insures EVs), the onus would be on the insurer to make this clear. Third, there's the question of whether you could have searched the answer on your own, and here the Internet puts you at disadvantage. For instance it's difficult to make the argument that "the claim happened in between when I signed up for the policy and when I finally received a paper copy" when they'll cheerfully deliver you a copy on request via Internet the moment you hang up. Indeed UK gives you a 14 day "cooling off period" to collect your copy of the policy by mail if needed, read it, and cancel without consequence. Such things are a double edged sword: it creates a presumption that on day 15 you have read everything you need to, and agree to the contract as written. If a claim arises in that 14 days? Well, that's the case where the insurer is going to raise those three points I mentioned.

What happens if an insurance company does not mention a critical clause of a policy during a telephone purchase?

Suppose one phones an insurance company and arrange and pays for car insurance. One then receives the documentation and there is an additional clause that was not mentioned that invalidates the insurance. Is this clause valid? The story that prompts this question is real, but I am not asking for advice as I have solved the problem with communication. I just wonder what would have happened had I said nothing. I just phoned my insurance company to arrange my car insurance for next year. We went through all the details and I was about to accept the offer when I mentioned that my brother was visiting from the US. At that point the salesperson informed me that the insurance would not cover my brother, as they must be resident in the UK. At no point prior to this had they mentioned such a requirement. I therefore declined their offer. I have done this many times before an it has not been an issue. However had I not mentioned this I would have accepted the offer. They may well have sent me a verbose contract with that term in there, but I may not have read it and my brother would have driven the car assuming they were insured. If this had occurred would my brother have been insured? From answers it seems it may be relevant how frequent such a clause is. I have two old car insurance contracts and neither mention such a residence requirement. I have found many more "Certificate of Insurance" with my brother as a named driver and they make no mention of the requirement. It is those that must be shown to the police on request to prove one has insurance. I have found a policy document online that does not appear to mention such a requirement .

washington The nature of your insurance contract is spelled out in the written policy which you will by law receive in a timely fashion. There is no specific burden on the insurance company to recite specifics of the contract during a phone sale, other than those necessary to determine what is being insured (vehicle; liability without comprehensive; statutory minimum on liability). Therefore, until you receive and read the insurance policy, you do not know exactly what is covered, and you are sort of buying a pig in a poke. Liability insurance is somewhat different in that it is mandatory by law and more-highly regulated, and you can easily know in advance what is covered (they don't construct ad hoc contracts, you pick from a standard form). You are expected to know of any relevant limitations on coverage. For example, personal vehicle liability insurance does not cover for-hire livery service, you would need a separate policy. If you fail to mention this need when talking on the phone to the agent, you would not be covered if you then got in an accident. Verbose contracts are ubiquitous: verbosity does not invalidate the provisions of a contract.

Constitutional Race-Conscious Policies

In 2021, the Biden administration created a loan forgiveness program that excluded white farmers. It was ruled unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection. ( Wynn v. Vilsack et al ) Washington (state) recently passed a law that gives low interest loans but bars applicants of certain races. (HB 1474) How did Washington try to change this law to avoid being struck down? Presumably Washington legislators are aware of the previous ruling and have modified the new law accordingly. Ideas: Reduction of loan principle v. loan interest? Federal law v. state law? Farm loans v. home loans? They seem to be aware that there is likely to be a constitutional challenge, since Sec 14-15 specify what to do in the case when it is held unconstitutional (it disperses the money without regard to race). EDIT: The law is explicit that it applies to anyone of a certain "race, national origin, or sex". The races, national origins, and sexes will be determined by a committee. Is there precedent for racial testing? Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ and Coral Construction Co. v. King County (1991) limit historical arguments about past discrimination to discrimination by the government in the recent past. Covenants were private and ceased in 1968. EDIT: Still haven't seen an answer that answers how this is consistent with Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ and Coral Construction Co. v. King County (1991) . Can the government impose race tests based on claims on non-governmental action in the distant past?

Washington's HB 1474 actually does not give low interest loans to all but white borrowers. It initiates the process of creating a bureaucracy that will eventually provide loans for down payment and closing cost assistance for first-time home buyers (a loan that must be repaid when the house is sold). There are various qualifications that a program participant must meet, such as below-average income, being a resident, and also they must be a state resident before April 11, 1968 or a descendant of someone who was, and was or would have been excluded from homeownership in Washington state by a racially restrictive real estate covenant on or before April 11,28 1968 The "would have" part refers to the fact that a person may have been interested in buying a particular house but gave up when they were told that there is a racially restrictive covenant associated with the property. It is then the duty of the covenant homeownership program commission to determine what such covenants may have existed, and also to what extent existing programs and race-neutral approaches have been insufficient to remedy this discrimination and its impacts The law simply states that eligibility is based on a recorded covenant or deed restriction that includes or included racial restrictions on property ownership or use against protected classes that are unlawful under RCW 49.60.224 which would include any covenants against sale to Irish or any other anciently discriminated-against Europeans, if such are found to exist. Referring to Wynn v. Vilsack , it was noted that A strong basis in evidence cannot rest on an amorphous claim of societal discrimination, on simple legislative assurances of good intention, or on congressional findings of discrimination in the national economy. However, a governmental entity can justify affirmative action by demonstrating gross statistical disparities between the proportion of minorities hired and the proportion of minorities willing and able to do the work. Analogous reasoning would apply to government action that deprived individuals of the opportunity to purchase a home based on their race. If (when) this new law is challenged, one of the central questions would be what remedial actions the government(s) took to correct this past discrimination. While it is clear that such discrimination was ended in 1968, it is far from clear that there was any remedial action taken by the state. Of course there is always the possibility that SCOTUS will discover new law that changes the landscape, but as it stands, such corrective actions are legal.

How can I legally abandon property in Texas

I inherited an empty lot in a residential neighborhood in Kingsville, Texas from my grandfather when he died several years ago. I have been paying taxes on this property since then, but I would like to stop paying taxes on this property and abandon it. Is there a legal way to go about this? The city has recently been sending me notices telling me that I need to have the yard maintained. They are threatening to fine me if I don't do this. I tried to sell this lot a few years ago, and that is when I discovered that the title on the property is not clear. My grandfather apparently paid cash for it when he bought it twenty years ago, and he didn't bother have the title transferred over in a legal way. The original owner has since died and his three children now have some claim on this property. The county lists me as the owner, so I'm responsible for upkeep and taxes, and yet I can't sell it because the title is not clear. I have consulted a real estate lawyer, and he wants to charge me more money to try to fix things than the property is worth, and without any guarantees that he can clear the title. Is there anyone versed in real estate law that can offer advice? Why can't I just abandon this lot? What can the county do to me if I just stop paying taxes? What can the city do to me if don't maintenance the yard and end up getting fines? I don't live anywhere near this town -- I'm 250 miles away in Houston. My poor grandfather thought he was doing me a favor, but it's ended up being a curse.

Sometimes you can't. In Washington, for example, it is possible to disclaim property , because RCW 11.86.021 says (1) A beneficiary may disclaim an interest in whole or in part, or with reference to specific parts, shares or assets, in the manner provided in RCW 11.86.031. and there is a procedure for writing up and filing that disclaimer. However, there is a time limit that you have to do it by nine months after the latest of: (a) The date the beneficiary attains the age of twenty-one years; (b) The date of the transfer; (c) The date that the beneficiary is finally ascertained and the beneficiary's interest is indefeasibly vested; or (d) December 17, 2010, if the date of the transfer is the date of the death of the creator of the interest and the creator dies after December 31, 2009, and before December 18, 2010 and RCW 11.86.051 gives a list of reasons why you cannot disclaim an interest. "Indefeasible" means "you can't get out of it". If you fail to pay taxes on real estate, it can be seized and sold by the county to satisfy the tax delinquency. The county will then attempt to sell the property, perhaps for exactly the amount of taxes owed. That sale "clears" the title so that the purchaser does not have to worry about a could over the title (Sec. 34.01.(n) of the Texas tax code). The city can also separately assess you for violation of whatever ordinance they are concerned with: there will be some procedure for the abatement of the nuisance (weeds, usually), an assessment which is made against the property. Notice is given to the owner (or, the person they think is the owner), but the "risk" is shouldered by the property.

In Texas is it legal for my employer to pay two separate wages

I've been trying to find this answer for a minute, my question is in Texas is it illegal for my employer to pay two separate wages on the same stub? Example I have a CDL Class A they're giving me one wage while driving the CDL Vehicles then ask me to work another day not on the required CDL license truck and pay me a lower wage driving the other vehicle. Is that legal or illegal in Texas

First, Texas law requires the employer to give a written earnings statement to any employee which reports the rate of pay, the total amount of pay, deductions, and hours worked if the job is paid at an hourly rate. The law also says that an earnings statement may be in any form determined by the employer. Second, there is no law requiring there to be a single earnings statement or a combined statement, in case a person is paid at different rates, the requirement is simply that the information must be provided. It is legal to hire a person to work at different rates, as long as they have some mechanism for tracking what a person is doing. It is required that they pay you a different rate for working more than a certain number of hours, which will therefore be reflected in the earnings statement.

Can a person *choose* to be a citizen?

As a layman, it appears to me that citizenship is thrust upon an individual. This may happen by accident of birth, or choice. Can a person relinquish citizenship without becoming a citizen/permanent resident of another nation? What, if any, global legislation/accord makes it mandatory for an individual to be a citizen of atleast one nation? The bottom line is what forms the title of this question - Can a person be a citizen by choice?

@DaleM isn't wrong, but some elaboration is in order. You (almost always) gain your citizenship (or nationality) in the first instance, at birth, without the agreement or assent of you or your parents. It is thrust upon you. Usually, your country of citizenship must consent to end your citizenship (or authorize you to do so unilaterally) under that country's laws. Once you have citizenship or nationality, in practice, in most countries, you can generally only renounce your citizenship if you contemporaneously or already have a citizenship somewhere else. You are at a minimum strongly dissuaded from doing so and are not a sympathetic candidate for relief under laws related to statelessness if you willfully put yourself in this position knowing the consequences. This is a feature of the citizenship laws of most countries in order to implement international treaties designed to prevent statelessness which are widely adopted. When an adult is naturalized as a citizen of a new country, usually, their old citizenship is revoked by operation of law under the laws of their old country. In many countries, including the U.S., there are high fees and tax consequences for renouncing your citizenship. Any potential tax liabilities in the future that were not yet due under U.S. law (e.g. capital gains taxes an appreciated assets not yet sold, and estate taxes that would be due if the person renouncing their citizenship had died on that date) are owed immediately upon applying to renounce your citizenship. A stateless person is, subject to quite narrow exceptions, still subject to all of the laws of the place where they are located, including almost all of its criminal laws (except treason) and its tax laws (at least on income earned in that country). A stateless person lacks many rights. They can't travel internationally (there are exceptions under treaty in some cases, but obtaining those rights is cumbersome at a minimum). They can't vote. They typically aren't entitled to domestic welfare state benefits like national health insurance, disability payments, unemployment benefits, subsidized housing, old age or retirement benefits, etc. They can't work in a licensed or regulated profession. They may not even be able to sign a lease. They may not be allowed to own a company or serve as an officer or director of a company or as a trustee of a trust. They aren't entitled to diplomatic assistance. There are many fraudulent legal movements such as the "sovereign citizen movement" (and the Moorish Sovereign Citizens ) that assert that citizenship is voluntary and that just by disavowing it in some official feeling way, they can be exempt from taxes, court jurisdiction, and/or other laws. This is false and people who act on this fraudulent misinformation often suffer serious legal consequences as a result.

Can a person *choose* to be a citizen?

As a layman, it appears to me that citizenship is thrust upon an individual. This may happen by accident of birth, or choice. Can a person relinquish citizenship without becoming a citizen/permanent resident of another nation? What, if any, global legislation/accord makes it mandatory for an individual to be a citizen of atleast one nation? The bottom line is what forms the title of this question - Can a person be a citizen by choice?

Yes, sometimes Citizenship laws are unique to each country, however, with respect to any given country a person may: be a citizen, be a national but not a citizen, be eligible to become a citizen by taking some active step(s) - a choice if you will, be neither a citizen nor eligible to become one. Similarly, each country has its own rules on: if citizenship (or nationality) can be revoked by the government, and if it can, how it can, including if there are protections to prevent statelessness , if citizenship (or nationality) can be relinquished by the individual (a choice), and if it can, how it can, including if there are protections to prevent statelessness .

Can a person *choose* to be a citizen?

As a layman, it appears to me that citizenship is thrust upon an individual. This may happen by accident of birth, or choice. Can a person relinquish citizenship without becoming a citizen/permanent resident of another nation? What, if any, global legislation/accord makes it mandatory for an individual to be a citizen of atleast one nation? The bottom line is what forms the title of this question - Can a person be a citizen by choice?

It depends on what you exactly mean by “choose”. For example, many EU citizens living in the UK have the right to apply for Uk citizenship and most of them would receive it (unless you are a serious criminal, for example). So this is quite close to “choosing” to become a Uk citizen.

Can a person *choose* to be a citizen?

As a layman, it appears to me that citizenship is thrust upon an individual. This may happen by accident of birth, or choice. Can a person relinquish citizenship without becoming a citizen/permanent resident of another nation? What, if any, global legislation/accord makes it mandatory for an individual to be a citizen of atleast one nation? The bottom line is what forms the title of this question - Can a person be a citizen by choice?

germany Germany used to operate on the ius sanguinis principle, citizenship by descent. It is partially transitioning to the ius soli principle, and there are some people born in Germany who received German citizenship in addition to another citizenship and who get asked after turning adult which one they want to keep .

Does the GDPR's "right to be forgotten" extend to Google's search results?

I have recently "googled" my own full name and found out that some comments I made during my teens have been indexed by Google. Back then I have used my full name as a user-name on that website. I have deleted those comments from the indexed website successfully and they have now disappeared from the website entirely. However, they still show up on google searches, although if one accesses that website, none of my entries are there anymore, so the way I see it, the website did its job and respected my right to be forgotten. I wonder if the indexed entry will ever disappear from Google now. This is very concerning for me as I feel that my right to be forgotten is blatantly violated as that Google search entry is still there, even though that entry does not exist anymore.

Yes. The GDPR's right to be forgotten is even modeled after case law that was developed around Google search results. Thus, you may have a right – depending on your individual circumstances – to order Google to stop showing search results in Europe, where those results relate to you. Note that this only affects search results in Europe, not searches from other regions. (See CJEU case C-131/12) In your particular case, there's nothing to do but to wait. Google regularly checks and updates the pages that it has crawled and indexed. This can easily take multiple weeks. But once Google sees that the page no longer contains the information in question, the information will no longer appear in search results. Any process you'd try to accelerate this will probably take longer than just waiting. Other sites may be keeping archives of the old version of the page, e.g. the Wayback Machine ( https://web.archive.org ) or https://archive.is . These will not typically be deleted automatically, and due to the way how these sites operate they might not be subject to GDPR. Details on the RTBF: The GDPR enshrines a Right to Erasure / RTBF in Art 17. This right only applies under certain circumstances, for example if the personal data was collected based on a “legitimate interest” and you successfully “objected” to further processing. Such an objection would have to override the legitimate interests, and depends on your particular situation – why you want this data to be gone. Sometimes, there might be very good reason to keep the information, for example politicians should not be able to use this mechanism to censor reports of past misconduct. More relevant in this context is Art 17(3): when the website on which the information was published fulfilled your request to erasure, then, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, [it] shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform [other] controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data. This is legalese for: if someone removed personal data from their public website, they're supposed to tell Google that the information is gone and should be deleted from Google's indexes. This is possible e.g. by providing a sitemap.xml with accurate last-modified times, or by providing appropriate HTTP status codes like “410 Gone” when an entire URL is deleted.

Legal implications of unsecure bluetooth device

I have recently learned about a high-tech premium bed base that incorporates Bluetooth speakers, plus massage actuators and other features controllable via a smartphone app. Like many insecure Bluetooth speakers, the ones in the bed base will pair with any Bluetooth device without any form of authentication, not even a pairing button. This basically allows anyone with a smartphone to: Walk within Bluetooth range of the device (for example from the street) Open their phone and notice the device advertising itself on Bluetooth Click on it to select it as audio output device Play any kind of audio file on it There is no microphone, so it is not possible to remotely record audio. This is not like insecure Bluetooth headsets which allow anyone within range to connect and use the microphone to record. Neither hacking nor password is necessary to perform this feat, as the device advertises itself as available for connection, and simply accepts all incoming pairing requests. It may even be possible to control the bed position and massage features remotely. Now I'm wondering what the legal implications are: For someone who does not own the device, yet connects to it (perhaps by mistake) and plays audio on it without the owner's consent, or manages to remotely control the motors... For the manufacturer: is it legal to even sell this? Can the buyers sue the manufacturer after the neighbor's kids decide to make the bed speakers play heavy metal at 4AM every night, rendering the bed base features unusable? For the owner: I know if someone hosts an insecure WiFi and someone else connects to it and uses it for nefarious purposes, the owner of the insecure WiFi can face consequences. In this case the device uses Bluetooth not WiFi, and it is not connected to the internet, so this should not apply... unless maybe? I'm definitely not planning to buy one of these (nor prank it) anyway, so I'm not focusing on any particular jurisdiction.

It is legal for a manufacturer to sell a device which is capable of being misused. For example, a wifi-capable router can be sold even if it is "open" by default. A Bluetooth device has a shorter range than wifi, but in principle can connect to any other device. An owner's legal liability is not different given wifi vs. Bluetooth. Whether or not there is criminal liability for a third person who connects to the device also does not specifically depend on whether the device uses Bluetooth technology, as opposed to some other technology. 18 USC 1030 is the general federal law prohibiting "unauthorized access". In the case of a bed, two legal question arise: is it a "computer" , and is it "protected" ? It is an electronic high speed data processing device which performs logical, arithmetic, storage and communications facilities, i.e. it is a computer (in the legal sense). It probably is not protected, because it is not "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication", that is, it is not connected to the internet (unless it is). State laws tend to be broader, not having the "interstate commerce" limitation, so accessing the bed would violate Washington's analog of the federal law. However, under Washington law, the access is probably not "without authorization". That term is defined as knowingly circumvent technological access barriers to a data system in order to obtain information without the express or implied permission of the owner, where such technological access measures are specifically designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining such information, but does not include white hat security research or circumventing a technological measure that does not effectively control access to a computer. The term "without the express or implied permission" does not include access in violation of a duty, agreement, or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an internet service provider, internet website, or employer. The term "circumvent technological access barriers" may include unauthorized elevation of privileges, such as allowing a normal user to execute code as administrator, or allowing a remote person without any privileges to run code. One question is whether there is any technological access barrier that the user circumvents (I don't know if it is possible to circumvent "hidden mode"). Since the term "may include ... allowing a remote person without any privileges to run code", and since playing music on speakers involves running code, then the remote user may be criminally liable. On the third hand, the language of that paragraph ("technological access measures are specifically designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining such information, but does not include ... circumventing a technological measure that does not effectively control access to a computer") clearly indicates a legislative intent to address deliberately overcoming active access barriers and not accidentally connecting to an unprotected, open system. Plus, the law also says that you are accessing the computer "in order to obtain information", but that is not the purpose of transmitting sound to speakers.

Is there a reason not to use liability insurance?

I was recently hit by a car while riding my bike home from work, and the police determined that the driver was at fault and wrote her a ticket. She is insured, and presumably has enough liability coverage to take care of my damages (mainly bike repair/damaged clothing, etc. and no serious injuries). However, she has insisted that she will just write me a check for the damages and doesn't want to go through insurance. Her exact quote from our email exchange was "I am not reporting to insurance. Long story." I'm conflicted about this because on the one hand, I'm getting reimbursed either way, but on the other, she seems to just want this problem to go away and may be affecting generosity to avoid higher premiums. Is there a legal, or at least ethical, obligation to report this to her insurance company?

She damaged you - your beef is with her. If she has insurance, the choice of is she wants to claim or not is up to her. She is not obliged to make a claim and probably not obliged to tell her insurer about it. Perhaps she has a $20,000 excess. Perhaps she is a person not covered by the policy (too young or otherwise excluded) Perhaps she is (legitimately) concerned that making claims will increase her premium. Now, her contract may have a clause requiring her to disclose all accidents either ongoing or on renewal. However, the doctrine of privity of contract means that whether she does or not is no one’s business but hers and her insurer.

Is there a reason not to use liability insurance?

I was recently hit by a car while riding my bike home from work, and the police determined that the driver was at fault and wrote her a ticket. She is insured, and presumably has enough liability coverage to take care of my damages (mainly bike repair/damaged clothing, etc. and no serious injuries). However, she has insisted that she will just write me a check for the damages and doesn't want to go through insurance. Her exact quote from our email exchange was "I am not reporting to insurance. Long story." I'm conflicted about this because on the one hand, I'm getting reimbursed either way, but on the other, she seems to just want this problem to go away and may be affecting generosity to avoid higher premiums. Is there a legal, or at least ethical, obligation to report this to her insurance company?

There is no legal requirement for either party to report a loss to their insurance company: the only legal obligation is to report an injury or property damage above a certain dollar amount to the police. Especially when a person is demonstrably at fault, making a liability claim against an insurance policy is likely to have negative repercussions (either raising of rates or even cancelling of policy). Since ultimately her obligation is to you, her insurance company only indemnifies her against her loss – if she wants to be indemnified.

Is there a reason not to use liability insurance?

I was recently hit by a car while riding my bike home from work, and the police determined that the driver was at fault and wrote her a ticket. She is insured, and presumably has enough liability coverage to take care of my damages (mainly bike repair/damaged clothing, etc. and no serious injuries). However, she has insisted that she will just write me a check for the damages and doesn't want to go through insurance. Her exact quote from our email exchange was "I am not reporting to insurance. Long story." I'm conflicted about this because on the one hand, I'm getting reimbursed either way, but on the other, she seems to just want this problem to go away and may be affecting generosity to avoid higher premiums. Is there a legal, or at least ethical, obligation to report this to her insurance company?

Yes, two possible reasons off the top of my head. She is possibly afraid that having the insurance company cover it, would be uneconomical. This could easily be the case if she has a high deductible, the amount she is going to pay you could easily be in less than her deductible, in which case reporting it does nothing but increase her risk of having her rates increased. Even if it is greater than the deductible, it may not be greater than the deductible and the feared change in her premiums. Alternatively, her insurance may not be her insurance but something someone else pays for, and she may not, for whatever reason, want them to know about the accident and considers the payment worthwhile in order to keep the accident from them. Note that regardless of the reason, you are not doing anything illegal or immoral, someone damaged you and they are quite properly making good on that. Her dealings with other parties does not involve you and are not your concern as long as you are adequately compensated for your damages.

What was the basis/reasoning for Pennsylvania's Supreme Court decision to declare the state old-age assistance program unconstitutional in the 1920s?

I read that From 1918 to 1927 [Abe] Epstein served as research director of the Pennyslvania Commission on Old Age Pensions. In that capacity, he was instrumental in having the State adopt an old-age assistance law in 1923. The law, however, was declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. What was the basis/reasoning invoked by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in finding that law unconstitutional?

The case is Busser v. Snyder, 282 Pa. 440, 128 A. 80 (Pa. 1925) . The law is cited as the "Old Age Assistance Act of May 10, 1923, P. L. 189", but I could not find the text of the act. The court case explains that it established a pension of up to one dollar per day for residents over the age of seventy having annual income below $365 and assets below $3000. The provision of the [Pennsylvania] Constitution under which the act was declared void [by the lower court] reads as follows: "No appropriations, except for pensions or gratuities for military services, shall be made for charitable, educational or benevolent purposes, to any person or community, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution, corporation or association." And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. They also distinguished it from other laws that remained constitutional: Laws to assist the poor and indigent were still constitutional. The state argued that the Old Age Assistance Act fell in that category, but the court held that the income and property limits were not a reasonable definition of "poor", especially since the law would pay pensions to people even if they were able to work. The state apparently had a retirement pension system for public employees. This was also held to be different in that it was delayed compensation for employees, in exchange for the service they performed, and thus not charitable or benevolent.

Can one make a Subject Access Request of a telephone Communications Provider?

I have received a suspected scam telephone call. Searching the internet for the number I found that "phone block 247520 is operated by DIDWW Ireland Limited". Searching this I came across the Ofcom response to a very similar incident that makes no mention of the possibility of using the GDPR to require the Communications Provider to identify the source. It seems to me that the Communications Provider would be a data processor, as they are routing the call to my number, with is personal information. Would a subject access request set to the GDPR contact email on their web site be valid, in that they would be legally required to sent it to the relevant data controller?

I don't see this getting you anywhere, an SAR to the telecoms provider will put them in the position of having to give you the PII they have of yours, but I doubt they would be giving you anyone else's. So you might get the what you already know: that you received a call at the date and time. DDIW are just a SIP/VoIP provider, they aren't the ones that called you and they aren't going to be giving you the customer's identity who did.

Is it legal to store gold at home in the USA?

Is it legal to store physical gold at home in the US? If so, what taxes may be applied on the gold held at home, in form of both jewelry or raw gold?

Private ownership of gold has been legal in the US since the passage of Pub. L 93-373 , which repealed the prohibition of private ownership of gold . You may therefore store it wherever you want. There is no tax on gold, kept as gold, though if you sell it there may be capital gains tax owed on the profits (just as there would be for many other things).

Can I be subjected to physical punishment by the police in the US as long as it is outside criminal proceeding?

In Ingraham v. Wright , the US Federal Supreme Court ruled that it had "limited the application of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual language to criminal punishment". Can I be subjected to a "cruel and unusual" punishment by the police, as long as it is done outside of a criminal proceeding? For example, suppose I jaywalk. A police officer catches me. Suppose the punishment is a result of a bargain. Suppose that me and the police officer agrees that the police officer will give me a slap in the hand, and in return the police officer will not press charges against me. Can we make out such a bargain? If yes to (1), suppose that after that I change my mind and sue the officer on Eight Amendment grounds. Can the officer defend himself/herself by saying that the punishment doesn't violate the Eight Amendment because this amendment only applies to " criminal punishment" ( Ingraham v. Wright ) and this was not a " criminal punishment", because it was outside of a criminal proceeding? After all, charges were never pressed and so I was not convicted of any crime How does the answer to number (1) change if the punishment is imposed against my will?

No. Police are not permitted to impose any punishment whatsoever. Their role in the American justice system is to prevent and investigate criminal offenses. What you're describing is a punishment for a criminal offense, even though it is imposed outside the criminal justice system. The same principles that prevent an officer from punching a suspect in the face or demanding a cash payment to not write a ticket prohibit a police officer from imposing a punishment of his own design, with or without your consent.

Can I be subjected to physical punishment by the police in the US as long as it is outside criminal proceeding?

In Ingraham v. Wright , the US Federal Supreme Court ruled that it had "limited the application of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual language to criminal punishment". Can I be subjected to a "cruel and unusual" punishment by the police, as long as it is done outside of a criminal proceeding? For example, suppose I jaywalk. A police officer catches me. Suppose the punishment is a result of a bargain. Suppose that me and the police officer agrees that the police officer will give me a slap in the hand, and in return the police officer will not press charges against me. Can we make out such a bargain? If yes to (1), suppose that after that I change my mind and sue the officer on Eight Amendment grounds. Can the officer defend himself/herself by saying that the punishment doesn't violate the Eight Amendment because this amendment only applies to " criminal punishment" ( Ingraham v. Wright ) and this was not a " criminal punishment", because it was outside of a criminal proceeding? After all, charges were never pressed and so I was not convicted of any crime How does the answer to number (1) change if the punishment is imposed against my will?

If the government are not punishing you as part of a criminal offense, then under what guise are they subjecting you to physical punishment? (Separating the "police" out of this, as it's really "the government" more broadly here.) If they subject you to physical punishment not part of a criminal proceeding, and in a venue not otherwise covered by due process, then they are violating your civil rights - see the 14th Amendment: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law In the cited case, this "due process" was covered in Florida law by explicitly prohibiting excessive use of force, and thus the victims could and should apply for protection under those statutes (and more generally, under the standards of tort law). (I assume they did and did not receive a satisfactory outcome, but can't find the case trivially). I will note that I wonder if this case would have a different outcome now; note (from the Oyez summary): While acknowledging the general abandonment of corporal punishment as a means of punishing criminals, Justice Powell looked to the common law history of similar punishment in schools and discerned no trend towards its elimination. Rather, common law suggested that teachers could legally impose reasonable, non-excessive force on their students. That's certainly no longer the case, and so (politics aside) it's possible this specifically would have a different outcome. Schools are somewhat of a special case, acting in loco parentis , which was generally the rationale behind the use of corporal punishment - parents also during that period of time typically used corporal punishment; even now, the majority of (U.S.) General Social Survey respondents believe spanking is sometimes appropriate , though most likely the majority don't use it as a matter of course, and the majority of states explicitly prohibit it in schools. So perhaps the "common law" rationale might not apply; but either way, it's likely a special case that schools are permitted to act in this way, and would not apply more broadly.

Can I be subjected to physical punishment by the police in the US as long as it is outside criminal proceeding?

In Ingraham v. Wright , the US Federal Supreme Court ruled that it had "limited the application of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual language to criminal punishment". Can I be subjected to a "cruel and unusual" punishment by the police, as long as it is done outside of a criminal proceeding? For example, suppose I jaywalk. A police officer catches me. Suppose the punishment is a result of a bargain. Suppose that me and the police officer agrees that the police officer will give me a slap in the hand, and in return the police officer will not press charges against me. Can we make out such a bargain? If yes to (1), suppose that after that I change my mind and sue the officer on Eight Amendment grounds. Can the officer defend himself/herself by saying that the punishment doesn't violate the Eight Amendment because this amendment only applies to " criminal punishment" ( Ingraham v. Wright ) and this was not a " criminal punishment", because it was outside of a criminal proceeding? After all, charges were never pressed and so I was not convicted of any crime How does the answer to number (1) change if the punishment is imposed against my will?

The 8th Amendment is much stronger in prohibiting types of punishment than in prohibiting disproportionate punishments. Corporal punishment such as a slap on the hand, is per se prohibited under the 8th Amendment as punishment for a criminal offense, whether or not the consent of the person upon whom it is imposed is obtained (subject to narrow exceptions like the death penalty not applicable here). Also, a non-judicial bargain to accept a corporal punishment, or any punishment, would usually constitute a punishment imposed in violation of various 5th and 6th and 14th Amendment rights and would provide a basis for a civil rights lawsuit under § 1983 for violation of a clearly established constitutional right against the officer who did so. It would also probably constitute a simple assault by the officer because no exception to the simple assault statute that prohibits a person from slapping another person would apply because no statute would authorize the officer to enter into or accept such a bargain. It is a criminal matter because it is punishment for violation of a criminal or quasi-criminal statute prohibiting jay walking. An officer attempting to raise this defense would surely lose. The officer's better defense, although not a tenable one in a world where the true facts and intent are known to be as set forth in the question, would be that the officer engaged in a reasonable use of force to apprehend the defendant and then exercised in unilateral discretion to not cite the person slapped. Another defense that might hold up under these facts would be that the "punishment" was so de minimis that it does not justify any legal action against him and does not really amount to a "punishment" any more than a verbal warning, which is not considered to be a punishment, would.

Can I be subjected to physical punishment by the police in the US as long as it is outside criminal proceeding?

In Ingraham v. Wright , the US Federal Supreme Court ruled that it had "limited the application of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual language to criminal punishment". Can I be subjected to a "cruel and unusual" punishment by the police, as long as it is done outside of a criminal proceeding? For example, suppose I jaywalk. A police officer catches me. Suppose the punishment is a result of a bargain. Suppose that me and the police officer agrees that the police officer will give me a slap in the hand, and in return the police officer will not press charges against me. Can we make out such a bargain? If yes to (1), suppose that after that I change my mind and sue the officer on Eight Amendment grounds. Can the officer defend himself/herself by saying that the punishment doesn't violate the Eight Amendment because this amendment only applies to " criminal punishment" ( Ingraham v. Wright ) and this was not a " criminal punishment", because it was outside of a criminal proceeding? After all, charges were never pressed and so I was not convicted of any crime How does the answer to number (1) change if the punishment is imposed against my will?

In the first place, the police cannot legally impose any punishment: that is the prerogative of the judicial branch and the people. They can decline to arrest, but any physical compensation could be considered bribery which would make both of you guilty of a much more serious crime than jaywalking. So, to answer your first question, you cannot enter into such an agreement legally because the officer would be guilty of accepting a bribe and you would be guilty of paying a bribe. Secondly, if you did enter into such an illegal agreement, in order to have 8th Amendment grounds, the officer would have to be acting per policy not simply as an individual actor. Since as an individual actor the officer doesn’t have any right to inflict punishment, any such “punishment”, would have to be considered either (a) bribery, (b) consensual behavior between adults, (c) assault. How it got treated would depend upon the exact circumstances, but it wouldn’t be considered a violation of your rights under the 8th Amendment. If it was official policy, then it would more likely fall afoul of the 5th.

Is it a crime to take out a loan with no intention to repay?

This question on Money.SE concerned a person who had taken out a number of loans. He didn't intend to repay these loans in full, planning instead to default and leave the country. Several posters on Money.SE claimed that such actions would constitute fraud or theft or some similar crime. Would they? For the purposes of this question, let us assume: The borrower received a single unsecured loan in the amount of $10,000. The borrower did not misrepresent any facts (such as income, assets, etc) on his loan application. At the time of applying for the loan, the borrower had already made up his mind that he would not fully repay the loan; and there is evidence to establish this. (Perhaps he wrote a diary entry to that effect, or bragged about it to someone.) The borrower has sufficient assets and/or income that he could make the payments without undue burden, if he wanted to. The jurisdiction is California, USA (though if other jurisdictions are different, that would also be interesting). Followup: Suppose instead that at the time of applying for and receiving the loan, the borrower did sincerely intend to make his best efforts to repay it in full, but at some later time he changed his mind and decided that, although he had sufficient available funds to make the payments, he wasn't going to do so anymore; and did in fact stop paying. Would that constitute a crime of any kind? Obviously the borrower could be sued in civil court and have his assets seized, etc, - but the question here is whether he could be subject to criminal sanctions.

If, at the time of application for the loan, the borrower has no intention of repaying, it appears that it is a crime. From California Penal Code section 532 : (a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained. The false representation in this case is that you falsely represent your intention to repay the loan. Variations of your scenario invoke other sections of the law. If the false representation is instead about the ability to pay, then section 532a applies. If it's with regards to a secured loan, it's section 532f Deciding not to repay the loan after the fact appears to be a purely civil matter: nothing in Chapter 8 (false personation and cheats) looks like it applies.

Is it a crime to take out a loan with no intention to repay?

This question on Money.SE concerned a person who had taken out a number of loans. He didn't intend to repay these loans in full, planning instead to default and leave the country. Several posters on Money.SE claimed that such actions would constitute fraud or theft or some similar crime. Would they? For the purposes of this question, let us assume: The borrower received a single unsecured loan in the amount of $10,000. The borrower did not misrepresent any facts (such as income, assets, etc) on his loan application. At the time of applying for the loan, the borrower had already made up his mind that he would not fully repay the loan; and there is evidence to establish this. (Perhaps he wrote a diary entry to that effect, or bragged about it to someone.) The borrower has sufficient assets and/or income that he could make the payments without undue burden, if he wanted to. The jurisdiction is California, USA (though if other jurisdictions are different, that would also be interesting). Followup: Suppose instead that at the time of applying for and receiving the loan, the borrower did sincerely intend to make his best efforts to repay it in full, but at some later time he changed his mind and decided that, although he had sufficient available funds to make the payments, he wasn't going to do so anymore; and did in fact stop paying. Would that constitute a crime of any kind? Obviously the borrower could be sued in civil court and have his assets seized, etc, - but the question here is whether he could be subject to criminal sanctions.

The crime of fraud or theft will probably have a specific definition in the California Criminal Code. At common law, a person steals if without the consent of the owner, that person fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith takes and caries away anything capable of being stolen belonging to another with the intent at the time of taking to permanently deprive the owner of it. The person you described: Does not have the owner's consent for his proposed actions (i.e. taking the money and not repaying it) Has obtained the money by deception; he has not revealed his intention to not repay (i.e. fraudulently) Does not have a right to the money, nor does he believe, in good faith, that he does; Has taken it away; in cash or by putting it into his own bank account Money; which is something capable of being stolen With the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. This is common law theft (and probably meets whatever statute definition is applied) and is a crime punishable by the state.

Is lying in an application for a job at a private company, signed under penalty of perjury, prosecutable as perjury?

A person applies for a job at the XYZ company. The XYZ company is a private company. As part of applying he fills out an application and signs it under penalty of perjury. The application has several lies in it. Can he be criminal prosecuted for perjury? If his signature had been notarized after he signed it, would that effect the answer?

united-states A "penalty of perjury" statement includes not just the warning about penalty of perjury, the person signing avows that the statements are true to the best of their knowledge. If you lie on such a statement, and if the "penalty of perjury" statement is legally allowed (typically, mandated), then the person can be prosecuted. However, XYZ cannot arbitrarily inject the risk of perjury, that requires some legal authorization. An example would be if XYZ is employing the person under a Defense Department contract that requires a sworn statement. The federal perjury statute characterises this as being when "a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered". The only effect of notarization is that it decreases the probability that the person could effectively argue "I never even signed this statement, that's a forgery".

Is lying in an application for a job at a private company, signed under penalty of perjury, prosecutable as perjury?

A person applies for a job at the XYZ company. The XYZ company is a private company. As part of applying he fills out an application and signs it under penalty of perjury. The application has several lies in it. Can he be criminal prosecuted for perjury? If his signature had been notarized after he signed it, would that effect the answer?

england-and-wales It won't be perjury, but (with or without the "under penalty of perjury" phrase) it will be fraud.

Is lying in an application for a job at a private company, signed under penalty of perjury, prosecutable as perjury?

A person applies for a job at the XYZ company. The XYZ company is a private company. As part of applying he fills out an application and signs it under penalty of perjury. The application has several lies in it. Can he be criminal prosecuted for perjury? If his signature had been notarized after he signed it, would that effect the answer?

No australia Perjury is making a false statement in connection with a judicial proceeding. You could be asked to sign a Statutory Declaration Anyone can ask you to sign one of those although it will usually be a state one rather than the Federal one linked to. Lying on one of those is a criminal offence that carries serious gaol time. Of course, lying on a job application is technically fraud Whether you get prosecuted depends on how big the lie is. Run of the mill padding is unlikely to get you in trouble. Saying you’re a surgeon when you aren’t likely will (it has happened).

Is lying in an application for a job at a private company, signed under penalty of perjury, prosecutable as perjury?

A person applies for a job at the XYZ company. The XYZ company is a private company. As part of applying he fills out an application and signs it under penalty of perjury. The application has several lies in it. Can he be criminal prosecuted for perjury? If his signature had been notarized after he signed it, would that effect the answer?

england-and-wales In Engilsh law, the term 'Perjury' holds a very specific meaning, to wit lying in a legal proceeding where you are under oath to tell the truth. Perjury Act (1911) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury ... The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath. So no, your actions do not meet the legal requirement for perjury unless your individual has been lawfully sworn as a witness.

Neighbor trees' shade impact solar panel production?

Is there any case law or precedent or? regarding a neighbor's trees whose shadow covers another's roof for a good part of the day and thus block solar panels from working as efficiently as they might. The trees were there first if that makes a difference.

It isn't precisely clear which jurisdiction you are located in (recall that this website handles matters from everywhere in the world). But, generally speaking, in the United States, you have no right to limit someone's existing tree on their property merely because it casts a shadow on your solar panels. The installer should have known better. A minority of U.S. states, including California, consider new construction that blocks the view of existing structures a form of "nuisance" that can be abated if it unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the existing property. But, that protects existing structures, rather than new ones. In Japan, there are building code requirements designed to insure that key portions of every home get natural sunlight daily. Again, this only applies to the construction of new buildings. I know of no law that gives someone who newly installs a solar panel a right to remove or trim a neighbor's tree simply by virtue of doing so. And, without knowing whose law is involved it would be impossible to determine with any reliability. The property with the solar panel could seek to buy the right to an unobstructed view from the property with the tree, in what would probably be called a "view easement", but that would only happen if the terms were such that both consented and it was written up in a legal document to that effect.

Is there any branch of the law, where a foetus is given legal personality separate to that of the mother?

If the rights or wrongs of abortion are a judicial matter rather than political, central to it would seem to be the question of what defines a "person". Critical to the idea that abortion should be illegal seems to be that a foetus is defined as a person, and is entitled to all the rights etc as such. Civil law (including commercial law, in the United States and all English-speaking jurisdictions) has its own definitions of persona which is in some ways more extensive and in others less so than in criminal law. For example legally constituted companies, or governmental bodies etc have legal personality and can sue or be sued. But is there ANY branch of the law, in any country of which subscribers may be aware - where a foetus is given legal personality separate to that of the mother? For example, I could leave money in my will to my 5 year-old granddaughter, and, should she not survive me, - to "any of her ( currently unborn) issue". That would not mean that the unborn issue at the time of writing the will had legal personality - but they would acquire it at birth. But is there any country where they might acquire it at e.g. conception? The question is not as irrelevant as it might sound, since if a foetus, for example, inherited money, but did not survive birth - would the money in question become part of a separate estate in their name, and dealt with appropriately, under laws of intestacy. Does anyone know of any country where that, for example, might be the case?

The law isn’t just concerned with people Animal welfare laws, for example, impose obligations on people to do or refrain from doing things for the benefit of animals who are clearly not people. Pro- or anti-abortion law could be made with or without recognising a foetus as a person. Example of laws that give legal status to a foetus In queensland you can murder a foetus.

Is there any branch of the law, where a foetus is given legal personality separate to that of the mother?

If the rights or wrongs of abortion are a judicial matter rather than political, central to it would seem to be the question of what defines a "person". Critical to the idea that abortion should be illegal seems to be that a foetus is defined as a person, and is entitled to all the rights etc as such. Civil law (including commercial law, in the United States and all English-speaking jurisdictions) has its own definitions of persona which is in some ways more extensive and in others less so than in criminal law. For example legally constituted companies, or governmental bodies etc have legal personality and can sue or be sued. But is there ANY branch of the law, in any country of which subscribers may be aware - where a foetus is given legal personality separate to that of the mother? For example, I could leave money in my will to my 5 year-old granddaughter, and, should she not survive me, - to "any of her ( currently unborn) issue". That would not mean that the unborn issue at the time of writing the will had legal personality - but they would acquire it at birth. But is there any country where they might acquire it at e.g. conception? The question is not as irrelevant as it might sound, since if a foetus, for example, inherited money, but did not survive birth - would the money in question become part of a separate estate in their name, and dealt with appropriately, under laws of intestacy. Does anyone know of any country where that, for example, might be the case?

The American Convention on Human Rights Art. 4(1) says that Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. States also have distinct "fetal murder" statutes such as Washington's RCW 9A.32.060 which prohibits intentionally and unlawfully kill[ing] an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child. While the law does not declare a fetus to be a person, it treats a fetus as more person-like than for example a dog (dogslaughter is a civil matter). Under Texas Penal Code 19.03(8) , capital murder includes murdering an individual under 10 years of age, where "individual" is defined in Penal Code §1.07(26) as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth". The word "person" is not used, instead "individual" is substituted (and also includes people who are already born). Art. 6 para 2 of the Norwegian Constitution (pertaining to royal succession) states that An unborn child shall also be included among those entitled to the succession and shall immediately take her or his proper place in the line of succession as soon as she or he is born into the world however this proviso does not say "person" (which is the Norwegian word for 'person', but I can't swear that in legal contexts the word is used the same as it is in). This page gathers together pertinent instances of legal person-like treatment of fetuses. The difficulty lies in concluding that a particular advantageous position of a fetus is because of their "person" status. There are a number of conjectured future developments of the idea of fetal personhood discussed here which also refers to has treatments of a fetus as a person in light of child-endangerment laws.

Does Romeo & Juliet (1968) constitue Child Porn?

In Romeo and Juliet (1968), the actress playing Juliet (age 15 at the time), had her bare chest exposed for a bit after sleeping with Romeo. Romeo's actor (who was also underage) had his naked bottom exposed in the same scene. Basically, two underage actors were shown nude after a (presumed) sexual encounter. Would this make the film constitute child porn, and would possession of it be cause for arrest? It is a fairly celebrated film that's still openly on sale, so I'd imagine it isn't regarded as CP. I'm just not sure what the relevant standard is for why it wouldn't (or would) be considered CP.

From the justice.gov site Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). So no, the mere showing of a naked chest or bare bottom does not constitute child pornography.

Does Romeo & Juliet (1968) constitue Child Porn?

In Romeo and Juliet (1968), the actress playing Juliet (age 15 at the time), had her bare chest exposed for a bit after sleeping with Romeo. Romeo's actor (who was also underage) had his naked bottom exposed in the same scene. Basically, two underage actors were shown nude after a (presumed) sexual encounter. Would this make the film constitute child porn, and would possession of it be cause for arrest? It is a fairly celebrated film that's still openly on sale, so I'd imagine it isn't regarded as CP. I'm just not sure what the relevant standard is for why it wouldn't (or would) be considered CP.

Child pornography laws vary between the federal and state government, and then from state to state, as well. At the federal level, the 1968 version would not constitute child pornography. Under 18 USC 2256 , child pornography only includes depictions of minors (under the age of 18) engaged in actual or simulated "sexually explicit conduct," which is defined to include only: (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person; I don't see a good argument that the film meets any of those criteria. I'd call it unlikely that the film meets the criteria for child pornography under any state law. I don't believe I've ever seen such a law that both (1) goes beyond prohibiting depictions of sexual conduct to mere depictions of nudity; and (2) contains no exceptions for material with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in hopes of avoiding First Amendment problems. This is not to say that such a law does not exist or that such a law would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , a defendant who sold videos depicting young boys masturbating was convicted under New York's child-pornography laws, which imposed felony penalties on anyone who "produces, directs or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age." New York's appellate courts overturned his conviction, holding that even if Ferber's videos were not protected by the First Amendment, the entire child pornography law was unconstitutional because it would not protect materials that "deal with adolescent sex in a realistic but nonobscene manner." But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction, rejecting Ferber's argument that the First Amendment required such accommodations: While some States may find that this approach properly accommodates its interests, it does not follow that the First Amendment prohibits a State from going further. [This] standard, like all general definitions of what may be banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual exploitation of children. Thus, the question ... of whether a work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of the average person bears no connection to the issue of whether a child has been physically or psychologically harmed in the production of the work. Similarly, a sexually explicit depiction need not be "patently offensive" in order to have required the sexual exploitation of a child for its production. One might therefore write a law broadly enough to include the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet within the definition of child pornography. For instance: "It is illegal to create, possess, or distribute child pornography. "Child pornography" means any visual depiction of (1) a minor engaged in sexual conduct; or (b) a minor's breasts, genitals, or buttocks." There would still be plenty of room to argue about whether it was constitutional, primarily because the state's interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation is less obviously implicated by a film depicting minors kissing or walking around naked than by a film depicting them engaged in actual sexual conduct. But if that law did survive a First Amendment challenge, Romeo and Juliet would likely become illegal. Virtually all of the objections raised in the various comments throughout this post would be legally irrelevant, as it would not matter where the film was made, when it was made, whether the children were above the age of consent, whether the actors lied about their ages, that the actors were only partially nude, that the film doesn't meet the standard for obscenity, that the film has serious artistic value, or that the actors suffered no actual injury from participating. The only things that would matter would (1) whether the film depicts a minor's breasts, genitals, buttocks, or sexual activity; and (2) whether you have created, possessed, or distributed that film.

Does Romeo & Juliet (1968) constitue Child Porn?

In Romeo and Juliet (1968), the actress playing Juliet (age 15 at the time), had her bare chest exposed for a bit after sleeping with Romeo. Romeo's actor (who was also underage) had his naked bottom exposed in the same scene. Basically, two underage actors were shown nude after a (presumed) sexual encounter. Would this make the film constitute child porn, and would possession of it be cause for arrest? It is a fairly celebrated film that's still openly on sale, so I'd imagine it isn't regarded as CP. I'm just not sure what the relevant standard is for why it wouldn't (or would) be considered CP.

Would this make the film constitute as child porn, and would possession of it be cause for arrest? Since the film was made in Italy, Italian law would apply. The Italian Penal Code, for Articles 528 and 529 contains the word Obscene in conection of shows/activities. It is not clear which Articles covers softcore porn in Italy. Minors cannot give their consent on their own, so it would be a matter of the parents to deside. In Romeo and Juliet (1968), the actress playing Juliet (age 16 at the time iirc), had her bare chest exposed for a bit after sleeping with Romeo. Romeo's actor (who was also underage) had his naked bottom exposed in the same scene. It is unlikely that a judge would come to the conclusion that the scene was Obscene , if anything softcore porn would be more likely. Since, it is claimed that the producers had the parents written consent, it is unlikely that anything would come about in this case if it were held in Italy. Pornography in Italy Legal status - Wikipedia Articles 528, 529, and 725 of the Italian Penal Code, which respectively sanction as felonies " Obscene publications and shows", " Obscene activities and objects", and "Commerce of publications, images or other objects offending public decency ". Minors cannot give legal consent to appear in pornographic productions of any kind, even though the age of consent in Italy varies from 14 to 16 years. 2023-01-06: Franco Zeffirelli’s son criticises Romeo and Juliet actors for nudity lawsuit | Franco Zeffirelli | The Guardian Zeffirelli [son of Franco Zeffirelli] pointed out that Hussey went on to work in Franco Zeffirelli’s miniseries Jesus of Nazareth, and that Whiting attended his funeral. Zeffirelli said he believed the film’s two producers, John Brabourne and Anthony Havelock-Allan, had consent forms from the actors’ parents . UPDATE : 2023-05-26: BBC News - Actors lose Romeo & Juliet nude scene lawsuit A Los Angeles judge says she will dismiss a child sex abuse lawsuit brought by the stars of the 1968 film Romeo and Juliet. Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting alleged the film's director coerced them into filming nude while underage. A Superior Court judge found the scene wasn't "sufficiently sexually suggestive" to overrule First Amendment protections. Hussey was 15 at the time of filming and Whiting 16. In a tentative ruling issued on Thursday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alison Mackenzie said the plaintiffs "cherry picked" which statutes applied to their case. She also said the lawsuit did not meet the requirements for suspending the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. ... I see this as a confirmation of my opinion.

Is it legal to file two insurance claims for the same loss?

Say my car started a fire and the fire caused damage to my house, resulting in a loss of $1000. Is it legal/ethical for me to file a claim with my car insurance while at the same time filing a claim with my house insurance? If yes, will I get $1000 (possibly minus any deductibles) from each insurance policy? If no, which insurance company should I file a claim from?

Assuming that both policies actually cover the loss, this is called “double insurance.” Generally speaking, you can claim against both insurers, but you can only recover the loss once. See my answer to another question about double recovery for more about the general principles that apply when a plaintiff attempts to recover the same loss from multiple defendants. In the specific context of insurance, there will normally be terms in the insurance contract as well as local statutes which require the claimant to notify the insurers of one another’s existence, and determine the extent to which the insurer who paid can recover contribution from the insurer who didn’t. This issue is particularly complex in the United States where insurance is separately regulated in each state. Some of the complexities that arise are reviewed in Russ, The double insurance problem – a proposal (1961) 13(2) Hastings Law Journal 183, although this is now rather outdated. In the context of health insurance, the adjustment of liability for doubly-insured risks is referred to as coordination of benefits and may be regulated by model laws promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissions. I am not aware of any model law or legal principles applicable throughout the United States that would determine the outcome in the case you describe of home and car insurance.

Is it legal to file two insurance claims for the same loss?

Say my car started a fire and the fire caused damage to my house, resulting in a loss of $1000. Is it legal/ethical for me to file a claim with my car insurance while at the same time filing a claim with my house insurance? If yes, will I get $1000 (possibly minus any deductibles) from each insurance policy? If no, which insurance company should I file a claim from?

You don't get to profit off an insurance claim. The aim of insurance is merely to return you to a previous financial position after some sort of disaster or unseen circumstance. Generally, the only insurance you can have as much of as you like is life insurance. In your case if you double insure your house there will be assessment of the damages and each insurer will pay half. If you take the full amount of damages from more than one insurer then you are committing plain old insurance fraud. Depending on the amount of money involved, you can get into a lot of trouble for doing that. If you pay for 100K worth of coverage on the same event happening to the same thing, from two insurers you will not have 200K coverage: you will have 100K coverage with payouts split by two insurers. That makes the second policy redundant. It is also worth noting that some insurance is illegal to be doubled (in my jurisdiction at least). Medical insurance (Medical Aid) is illegal to have double. Although there are certain top up policies you can have for serious illness like cancer, these are just additional cover and not a full medical aid.

Is it legal to file two insurance claims for the same loss?

Say my car started a fire and the fire caused damage to my house, resulting in a loss of $1000. Is it legal/ethical for me to file a claim with my car insurance while at the same time filing a claim with my house insurance? If yes, will I get $1000 (possibly minus any deductibles) from each insurance policy? If no, which insurance company should I file a claim from?

I have been through a house fire and went through a few intricacies with the 2 insurance companies involved. A few issues are relevant here. A booster seat for the car was stored in the attic. The car was not damaged but the Insurance company insisted that I file a separate claim for the car as the seat belonged to the car. This way they could claim two lots of excesses. I refused, and they eventually settled. As mentioned by others, generally Only one insurance policy applies if you have two policies with the same company. You can't benefit from the insurance claim If the total damage is $1000 and you claim under two policies, that would be $500 each. If your excess is $500 each, you won't get a cent. (1) I had an interesting scenario. The house policy and the contents policy each paid 3 months of rent while the house was getting rebuilt. My argument with them was that they knew it would take a year to rebuild, so they should have offered me options. So they re-interpreted their policy (supposedly "just for me"). Once the first policy had paid out for 3 months, it no longer applied, so then they paid me for 3 months from the other policy. (2) I had 2000 books, many of which were damaged. I could have purchased newer ones on Amazon. But then I would have benefited. Instead, they made me buy a similar, second-hand one for each damaged book. I had to track each book down. And in each case, it was more expensive than buying newer ones. But I did not benefit

What standard of evidence is used for a subpoena of documents in a criminal case? How does it compare to probable cause?

A Website I use received subpoenas from the US Department of Justice for data related to certain specified usernames. What standard of evidence must that subpoena have met and how does it compare to the probable cause required for a search warrant?

Probable cause is not required to issue a subpoena. But, a recipient of a subpoena (or a party to a case in which a subpoena is issued, or a person whose records a subpoenaed), may file a motion to quash the subpoena in the court that issued it, before the information is disclosed pursuant to the subpoena. A claim that the subpoenaed material is privileged is always a legitimate reason to quash a subpoena. A subpoena can also be quashed on the grounds that the materials sought are unrelated to the matter for which it is issued, or that it is unduly burdensome in a manner unrelated to a legitimate interest in obtaining the information sought (this list of objections is not exhaustive). You can see an example of a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum from a federal grand jury, together with the subpoena itself attached to the motion at the end of the linked file as an exhibit, at this link . The federal court rule governing subpoenas in federal criminal cases is Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 . In federal court civil cases, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 applies. Short of actually quashing the subpoena, the court issuing it could also modify the obligation by imposing a protective order on the materials to be disclosed (e.g. trade secrets or private financial information). This would prevent the materials disclosed from being shared with people other than the recipient. Incidentally, the penalty for failing to respond to a subpoena is for the person to whom it is directed to hold the person in contempt of court, punishable by incarceration or a fine (often a fixed amount per day). Often, if testimony is part of what is required, a warrant for the arrest of the person who fails to appear is summarily issued by the court. Footnote regarding terminology Strictly speaking, the word "subpoena" unmodified, refers to a subpoena directing the person to whom it is addressed to testify under oath at a certain place and time, sometimes a grand jury, sometimes a trial in a court, sometimes a deposition, sometimes an arbitration, and sometimes an interview with a government official. When a subpoena is asking for the turnover of records or things or data it is strictly speaking called a "subpoena duces tecum" (from the Latin duces tecum , meaning "you shall bring with you"). Historically, in response to the subpoena duces tecum, the custodian of the records would appear personally at a deposition or grand jury proceeding or trial with the records or things and would testify under oath briefly at that time to authenticate them. These days, the federal rules of evidence and most state rules of evidence provide that the custodian of records can sign an affidavit, or a declaration (i.e. a statement made under penalty of perjury which is not notarized), regarding the authenticity of the records (and their status as "business records" or "public records" where appropriate). Then, this affidavit or declaration is delivered along with the records by a courier or mail, in lieu of actually providing live testimony regarding the authenticity and business records status of the records. Delivery of documents by courier or mail or electronically, accompanied by an affidavit or declaration is what is usually done these days, except in exceptional cases where the authenticity and/or business records status of the records is genuinely in dispute and complicated in some way. For example, in person testimony of the custodian of records might be required in a case where there are allegations of forgery of documents or that digital files were hacked.

Can you double press charges on a person?

Okay, let's just use Person A and B for the question. Person A gets harassed by Person B. Then Person B takes all Person A's belongings and money, and he dumps it. Then Person A goes crazy red angry, then starts attacking Person B by punching, kicking, hair pulling, and then making Person B fall. Person B responds, but repeating it harder, until the point that it makes Person A call the police. Person A was so mad he wants to press charges for assault, 2 times. So, can you press charges two times (double press charges)?

canada See Criminal Code , s. 581(1): Each count in an indictment shall in general apply to a single transaction and shall contain in substance a statement that the accused or defendant committed an offence therein specified. If there were two assaults, not as part of a continuing transaction, these should be indicted as two separate counts.

What provisions existed in UK law for handling a tied Brexit vote?

The UK left the European Union because of a public referendum where 51.8% of the votes were in favour in leaving the EU . Suppose it had resulted in an tie, i.e. 50% in favour of leaving the EU, 50% against leaving the EU. What legal framework existed at the time for handling such a tie? Would the government have been required to run the referendum a second time? Would they have settled it with a coin flip? Or was there no law about this possibility at all?

You can see the whole regulations on www.legislation.gov.uk . It is a referendum. There does not need to be a "winner". A referendum is meant to understand what the general populace wants . And "they are split exactly 50/50 between X and Y" is a valid result in that frame. The point that made this referendum special was that the ruling party had promised, that they would actually do what the referendums outcome would suggest, even if they were not legally bound by it and were not even in favor of it as a political party. So what the ruling party would have done when confronted by an absolute exact tie (not only percentages, but actual votes) is anybodies guess. I don't think anybody had a backup plan for what happens if the 33,577,342 votes came out exactly 16,788,671 to 16,788,671. The chance of that... was not real. You prepare for that about as much as for an alien invasion on election day.

Oregon decriminalized possession of certain drugs. Is the act of buying still illegal?

Oregon decriminalized "the possession" of certain drugs. But the act of manufacturing and selling drugs is still illegal, according to this article: https://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/04/oregon-measure-110-decriminalize-drugs/ My question is: is the act of "purchasing" these legal drugs still an offense? The measure says: A "yes" vote supported making personal non-commercial possession of a controlled substance no more than a Class E violation (max fine of $100 fine) and establishing a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded in part by the state's marijuana tax revenue and state prison savings. It says "possession" is now a minor violation. But what if you get caught in the act of "purchasing" it? Is that still a crime? I couldn't find any mention of it.

It's still illegal to sell most drugs like that in Oregon Oregon did not pass the law to make the state a haven for drug users. It’s still illegal to purchase, carry, and consume illicit substances in the state of Oregon. Measure 110 will change the laws around the possession of decriminalized substances. Under the new law, carrying small amounts of any of these drugs is a civil violation that is punishable by a fine. Before, having any quantity of illicit drugs was a misdemeanor and was automatically punishable by jail time. It is, however, legal to grow and sell marijuana, provided the seller is licensed to do so .

Oregon decriminalized possession of certain drugs. Is the act of buying still illegal?

Oregon decriminalized "the possession" of certain drugs. But the act of manufacturing and selling drugs is still illegal, according to this article: https://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/04/oregon-measure-110-decriminalize-drugs/ My question is: is the act of "purchasing" these legal drugs still an offense? The measure says: A "yes" vote supported making personal non-commercial possession of a controlled substance no more than a Class E violation (max fine of $100 fine) and establishing a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded in part by the state's marijuana tax revenue and state prison savings. It says "possession" is now a minor violation. But what if you get caught in the act of "purchasing" it? Is that still a crime? I couldn't find any mention of it.

In addition, many of these substances are still illegal to posses under Federal Law, which means the DEA can still prosecute you for drug offenses even when Oregan does not. All that said, unless you are a major player in trafficking illegal drugs, you're likely not going to have to worry about Hank Schrader and pals knocking on your door. As with most crime in the U.S., the state is more likely to prosecute than the Federal Government.

Are global user account systems now illegal following the EU's May 2023 fine of Meta?

The fine: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/22/facebook-fined-mishandling-user-information-ireland-eu-meta Like any website, we have an account system where people log in to access their orders and activate their software. So we have usernames, passwords, real names, recent IP addresses (for abuse protection), as well as the data of people's orders. This is stored in the AWS East-1 datacenter in N. Virginia. Our users are mainly EU and US, and being in N. Virginia gives users the best overall latency. We're about to incorporate in Europe, and I seem unable to interpret the recent rulings in any other way than that having a single account system is illegal, unless the account system in its entirety is hosted in the EU. The engineering challenge is unfathomable, and it seems it would be for any business from a WordPress blog to a Google account system. If an EU user has a Google login, and the account system contains their first name, and Google's account system is global, how is this not just as illegal? Aren't all account systems illegal now?

I assume this refers to the case covered here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/22/facebook-fined-mishandling-user-information-ireland-eu-meta The gist is: Under GDPR you can only transfer personal data from inside the European Union to the outside if you have procedures in place that ensures it is still protected to European standards. Facebook was found to have failed in that regards, specifically when it came to access by US spy agencies. It seems indeed quite plausible that it is not possible to transfer personal data from the EU to the US in a way that is compatible with both EU and US law. The EU and the US are in negotiations to find a way to make this legally possible. But until then, it seems that if you do have a European subsidary and want to keep all of your account data in the same place, it needs to be a place with robust privacy protections. That doesn't require it to be in the EU, but something like US, Russia or China would be illegal.

Are global user account systems now illegal following the EU's May 2023 fine of Meta?

The fine: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/22/facebook-fined-mishandling-user-information-ireland-eu-meta Like any website, we have an account system where people log in to access their orders and activate their software. So we have usernames, passwords, real names, recent IP addresses (for abuse protection), as well as the data of people's orders. This is stored in the AWS East-1 datacenter in N. Virginia. Our users are mainly EU and US, and being in N. Virginia gives users the best overall latency. We're about to incorporate in Europe, and I seem unable to interpret the recent rulings in any other way than that having a single account system is illegal, unless the account system in its entirety is hosted in the EU. The engineering challenge is unfathomable, and it seems it would be for any business from a WordPress blog to a Google account system. If an EU user has a Google login, and the account system contains their first name, and Google's account system is global, how is this not just as illegal? Aren't all account systems illegal now?

Basically yes, but It is not really since the fine, but since the ruling in 2020 that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield fails to protect Europeans' rights to data privacy when companies are transferring those data to the U.S. You can still do it, but you have to be really careful. What this fine does is demonstrate that Meta has failed in doing this. One could take that as evidence that it is a hard problem to solve and it would be easier to move your data to the EU. The best summary I have come across is this from the International Association of Privacy Professionals which says: The CJEU reaffirmed the validity of SCCs but stated that companies must verify, on a case-by-case basis, whether the law in the recipient country ensures adequate protection, under EU law, for personal data transferred under SCCs and, where it doesn’t, that companies must provide additional safeguards or suspend transfers. The ruling placed the same requirement on EU data protection authorities to suspend such transfers on a case-by-case basis where equivalent protection can not be ensured. This is where it gets tricky, particularly in the U.S. context. The CJEU itself assessed the sufficiency of protections with regard to U.S. government access to data and found them lacking. The question regulators and companies now face is whether the concerns raised by the court are applicable in the context of particular transfers and can be remedied through additional protections — again, not only in the U.S., but also in all countries without an adequacy determination. Privacy professionals may need to consider whether relevant surveillance programs and authorities apply in particular contexts. If they do, they could then assess whether those authorities include proportional limitations in the given context, as well as whether effective judicial remedies exist. Alternatively, they might consider ways to limit the context itself through additional safeguards. Encryption, for instance, might be a consideration.

What is the idea behind German courts having both professional judges and lay judges?

In this wiki , it is mentioned that in trial courts there are both professional judges and lay judges involved. What is the basis behind this set up?

Lay Judges? The lay judges in Germany are called Schöffen. I will refer to them as such in the following because just calling them lay judges as a German feels kind of wrong, as they carry the full power of the court. Tracing the origin... The origin of the Schöffe goes back to the high medieval time, when a Schöffe, Schöppe or Schöpfe was a person tasked with judging and executing law on the lowest level. Before the Schöffen, all men of a region had to convene to make judgments. As a member of those, the word appears in 8th century. Under Charlemagne, the law was changed from all men to a group of 7, and Schöffen was the name applied to that group. The same edict also made them crown officers. They were to assist the judge (who could be a noble) by answering direct questions, for example by determining guilt. This institution then branched. Over time, in England this institution (traveling in the baggage of a certain William the Bastard) they would become the jurors. In Germany, the path was somewhat different. In the free cities, Schöffengerichte would appear in the high medieval time, going totally without a judge and staffed just with (wealthy) laymen that handled the whole law. However, when the 15th century came around, the common law was started to be replaced by Roman Law and recorded other laws, so pretty much a shift to written laws. In the wake, many Schöffenkammern were fully replaced by studied judges. For example, the Reichskammergericht was established in 1495 and only allowed people that had studied law to judge or even speak on behalf of a party. By the time of the neighboring French Revolution and Napoleon and the total disruption of the Roman Law tradition he brought in his wake, Schöffen as laymen giving judgments on their own were phased out but for the absolute lowest layers, such as the resolution of cases in villages. Then... Germany... took quite a few decades to re-invent itself between Napoleon's defeat in 1814 and the founding of the German Empire in 1871. First as a loose alliance with self-proclaimed enlightened rulers, then as a tighter alliance under Prussian hegemony, and finally as the German Empire under Prussian hegemony. With those re-inventions of themselves came sweeping re-constructions of the legal body over and over again, and with each step nobility was robbed of some influence. In effect, by the late 19th century, Germany finally had formed its own interpretation that was based in part on the French Code Civil - or rather Code Napoléon , bits and pieces of Roman Law and canonized laws from the Holy Roman Empire, the various legal codes from the lower layers that made up the German Empire and over that a very Prussian onlook, but in general, it was meant to be enlightened . In this environment, the Schöffen (and jurors) were meant as a means to limit the nobility's influence on court judgments and in part to bring a pragmatic non-jurist's view on problematic cases into the courts. Origin of the modern Schöffen: The Weimar Republic! Between 1879 and 1924 technically Jurors also existed in the Schwurgerichtskammer which had 12 Jurors and 3 professional Judges and was operating very similar to a common law court in that jurors decided on guilt and judges on punishment. This setup was created during the German Empire and just kept when the First World War ended with the loss of all nobility. In the so-called Weimar Republic times or the Interwar period, this part of the German judiciary was not touched for 6 years, as there were far more pressing matters. However, in 1924 a wide-sweeping justice reform took place. Erich Emminger, the German justice minister, is often blamed for this "Emminger-Novelle", or rather the Verordnung über Gerichtsverfassung und Strafrechtspflege . As a result, the Jurors were entirely removed and replaced with 6 layman judges - now called Schöffen - that had to assist the professional judges. Modern Schöffen - and where to find them After a few smaller reforms since the Emminger-Novelle, today a German Schwurgerichtskammer (or Große Strafkammer) is comprised of 3 professional judges and 2 Schöffen. In a similar fashion, the Landgerichte - or rather the chamber of appeals of the Landgericht - is comprised of one professional judge and 2 Schöffen, forming the Kleine Strafkammer, which is doing criminal appeals cases of the Amtsgericht. Both types are prescribed in § 76 (1) GVG . Amtsgerichte, the layer below the Landgericht, has specific matters that are to be given to the Schöffengericht under § 28 GVG and is set up with one professional judge as well as 2 Schöffen under § 29 GVG . The court may decide to double up the professional judges, if the prosecution (Staatsanwaltschaft) requests this and the court finds the case to be complicated enough. In that case, an appeal to the Kleine Strafkammer also doubles up the judges automatically. The general rule if a case gets to the Schöffengericht or a Straftrichter is based on the type of case and the estimated punishment: All civil cases in the first instance get you to just a professional judge in the shape of an Einzelrichter - which is the term §22 GVG uses to demark a professional judge. No way to get a Schöffen there. Civil cases in appeals or revision get seen by (up to) 3 professional judges and there are no Schöffen involved. In a criminal case that would commonly end in less than 2 years if guilty goes to just a professional judge in the shape of an Einzelrichter, who acts as the Strafrichter. He can however sentence up to 4 years, even without Schöffen. For a criminal case between 2 years and 4 years of estimated punishment, if the case ends with guilty, the Schöffengericht is to be consulted, set up of one professional Judge and two Schöffen. If the case brings up evidence that more than 4 years are warranted, the Amtsgericht gives the case to the Landesgericht. Criminal cases that have an estimated punishment of 4 years or more, the case will be handled by the Landesgericht in the first place. There are no Schöffen in any of the layers of Oberlandesgericht, which among others handles appeals cases of the Landgericht as well as revision cases of both Amtsgericht and Landgericht. How do Schöffen influence judgments? The Schöffen are deemed to have not only the same weight but also the same influence on the court case. Since Germany is an inquisitorial system, they can ask questions to witnesses and others during trial just as much as the professional judge and they get the same case file. However, there is a fine limit: Unlike judges, they are not allowed to request visitation to the crime scene and may not do further investigations outside of the courtroom. Besides this point, they are equal in all questions - or rather: the court speaks with a single voice that is made up of all the judges, professionals and Schöffen together. To decide on guilt, a 2/3 majority of the chamber is needed, so in the normal first-instance chamber, the Schöffen could decide on guilt alone, while an enlarged chamber allows them to block a conviction against their will. In mere procedural questions, a simple majority is sufficient, but it is often customary for the Schöffen to follow the opinion of the professional Judge in those administrative matters. Schöffen are called upon for 5 years for as many trials as needed

How would one protect one self from a suit while skiing?

I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent?

united-states I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Use reasonable care to avoid harming others, and follow all applicable rules of the ski area. Keep your equipment in good repair. Don't ski when you are drunk or high or in circumstances you can't handle. Try not to collide with people. If you do collide with someone do what you can to mitigate their injuries, identify ways to document facts favorable to you, and promptly contact your insurance company. Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent? For this, you need liability insurance. In the United States, liability insurance is typically included in homeowner's or renter's insurance. These kinds of liability insurance typically cover the cost of a legal defense of a covered claim and any damages awarded or paid in a settlement of those claims (up to the policy limits). These kinds of liability insurance would typically cover liability arising from a skiing accident and most other claims for negligence, but would typically not cover claims related to intentional acts or a criminal prosecution. A homeowner's or renter's insurance policy would also not typically cover vehicle accidents (e.g. your liability while operating a snowmobile), claims related to a business or an occupation, or claims related to contractual liability.

How would one protect one self from a suit while skiing?

I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent?

This is what liability insurance is for: It covers you if you accidentally cause damage to someone else. My understanding is that liability insurance would typically handle the entire legal process for you.

How would one protect one self from a suit while skiing?

I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent?

germany Not really a "law" question, but anyway: The liability insurance you want is called "Privathaftpflicht" (private liability). It is offered by all major insurance providers. It is ridiculously cheap for what it covers. The first Google hit says 3.17€ a month, and that is just the sponsored first hit, not the cheapest. So expect almost everybody in Germany to have one. It covers damages to things and people you cause, by anything but intent. So negligence and even gross negligence. It does not cover damages caused to your own things (so if drop your friends expensive camera and it shatters your glass table, it will pay the for the damage to the camera, it will not pay for the damage to your own table) or damages that animals you own cause (that is an extra insurance). Also, most motor vehicles (cars, trucks etc.) are legally required to have liability insurance to drive them on public roads - this is checked during vehicle registration. One prominent example of what such an insurance covers is: When crossing the street, you overlook a cyclist. While swerving, the cyclist falls onto the curb and breaks his thigh. Damage: approx. 75,000 euros Private liability covers hospital and household costs as well as compensation for pain and suffering. That is basically a reskinned ski accident. It will also cover all lawyer costs if you didn't actually do it. Which is basically in their own interest, because if found guilty, they would have to pay it anyway. As always, read all the fine print on any contract, what I wrote here is the normal default, your specific contract may vary.

How would one protect one self from a suit while skiing?

I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent?

canada In Canada, many home or renter insurance products include coverage for property damage or bodily injury caused by your negligence, no matter whether happening in your residence or elsewhere. This portion of the product is called "liability coverage" or something similar.

How would one protect one self from a suit while skiing?

I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent?

united-states As others have pointed out, liability insurance derived from your homeowner's or renter's insurance can give you protection. If you have significant assets in addition to your home , you can add an "Umbrella" policy for additional liability coverage in excess of your home's value. It's not very expensive to add coverage for an additional million or more dollars. Also, you might take a chapter from the car driver's playbook. Some drivers install a dash cam to provide a video record of the events leading up to a crash. This can save your bacon if the other driver has no compunction against lying about an accident and there are no witnesses. Skiers can wear a harness or helmet mount to hold a GoPro or other video recorder. In the event of an accident where you injure someone, the video record can prove that you were following the rules and not hot dogging. But remember, video evidence can be used against you too, so be sure this is a prudent liability safeguard for your skiing style.

How would one protect one self from a suit while skiing?

I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent?

It's similar to driving on the road: Be well trained and get plenty of practice in a safe area. Be aware of your surroundings (other people, objects, type of snow and weather). Be in a fit condition to ski. Consider a helmet-mounted crash or go-pro type camera, minding privacy laws in your area. Consider relevant insurance (minding exactly what you're covered for and the excess, etc.): Travel (this is the usual one, covering equipment damage/loss and injury to yourself and others), Health (for you), Liability (more for hosted activities), Property insurance might cover such (not usually).

Small claims when insurance refuses to pay

If a delivery driver damages property when making a delivery and the company's insurance refuses to pay, can I sue the driver directly? Can I sue the company and/or the owner of the company directly? If insurance is only willing to pay part of an estimated repair bill, can I sue the driver, company and company owner for the remainder? ie. The estimated repair costs are $1400 but the insurance company says they will only pay $600. They have given no rational on how they came up with $600 and have not had anyone come out to provide an alternate estimate. They just somehow decided it looked like $600 in damages based on photographs and aren't going to pay more than that. Since the amount is relatively small, could these be handled in small-claims court?

Generally speaking, if someone does damage to you, you can sue for the extent of the damage. There will be arguments about what the actual dollar figure is, and jury (judge) will determine that number is correct. The defendant's insurance company plays a relatively minor (?) role in this process since they may (usually must) provide the lawyer arguing the defendant's side – the insurance company does not have veto power. If you accept a partial payment, you might have waived your right to sue for the rest, but you can hire an attorney to read over everything that you sign so that you don't unwittingly agree to accept a lowball figure. Since this is a small amount (not a 32 Million dollar class action suit), you can sue in small claims court, which simplifies matters. You have to submit the correct form and sue the right person, and the courts do not tell you who that is. Your attorney will know the answer, and you might be able to find out what the answer is here .