Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

Fake video from saab

https://web.archive.org/web/20230715091936/https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/fake-gripen-video/599765 See above. Saab released a video falsely claiming the gripen turned 9g. It was actually a 4g turn. Do the customers of the gripen have the right to sue the company for false advertising?

No. There is no reason for anyone to believe that a country's Air Force would purchase a military jet fighter in reliance upon a comment made by the company in a promotional video intended for the general public. And, even if it did, generally "buyer beware" applies to international purchases of military equipment. It would not be reasonable for the UAE to rely on the video in question as authoritative. And, I very much doubt that the specifications of the jet fighter provided by the seller to the UAE military said the same thing.

Can the lender of a collateralised loan take more than the collateral upon default?

Recently, Park Hotels & Resorts has pulled out of the San Francisco market, but - assuming I've understood correctly - instead of selling their properties there for pennies and taking the loss on the mortgages(?) on them, they have chosen to default on the debt and leave it to the lender. “This past week we made the very difficult, but necessary decision to stop debt service payments on our San Francisco CMBS loan,” June 05, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (“Park” or the “Company”) (NYSE:PK) today announced that, starting in June, it ceased making payments toward the $725 million non-recourse CMBS loan which is scheduled to mature in November 2023, and is secured by two of its San Francisco hotels—the 1,921-room Hilton San Francisco Union Square and the 1,024-room Parc 55 San Francisco. The Company intends to work in good faith with the loan’s servicers to determine the most effective path forward, which is expected to result in ultimate removal of these hotels from its portfolio. -- Globe Newswire - https://archive.ph/M4yl6 In a discussion on social media which I won't source for reasons of good taste, I read the following: I'm pretty sure the bank could go after the owner for any difference between the unpaid loan balance and what they're able to sell it for. The question is, would something like this force them to write down on their GAAP financials the value of any other loans they've extended. Meaning maybe they won't. I don't know what the second and third sentences mean, but the first one gave me the title question - in the case where a loan is taken out like a mortgage, whereby the collateral is the property, and there are big red letters on the offer contract stating "your home may be repossessed if you fail to make payments", can the lender upon selling the repossessed property at a loss still hold that debt against you and get the money off you somehow? My initial thoughts are "no, they can't, the reason for the loan being collateralised was specifically to cover delinquency, it's their dang fault for making a bad bet on the market," but that's directly contravened by the above social media post. Upon reading this answer, it appears the terms I'm looking for are "recourse" and "non-recourse", but I'm still unclear: The default rule is that security interests in assets other than real property is a recourse debt [...] In the case of secured debts in real property, most states mirror the personal property rule (which is very close to Uniform since every state, territory and district in the U.S. had adopted Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code governing security interests in property other than real estate). But in a few states (including California), security interests in owner occupied residential real estate (a.k.a. mortgages, liens, encumbrances, or deeds of trust) are truly, or in practice are, effectively non-recourse. Which I may be misreading, but it sounds like California (of interest here) would be expected to be a special case for some reason. EDIT: I read the social media thread further and found the following from the same poster: I was wrong. Virtually all big commercial loans of the scale we're talking here are "nonrecourse," meaning the lender takes the building but has no further right of action action against the borrower. This is unlike home mortgages , or even most small business loans. From this it sounds like the poster is mistaken, as home mortgages are also non-recourse according to the above linked LSE post... But maybe I'm getting confused with jurisdictions and it's different because Park are headquartered in Washington DC... This exact situation involves a large corporation headquartered in Washington DC, a lender headquartered in Florida, property in California, and the question is being asked by some dingus in England with nothing more than a passing interest in America and no line of credit larger than a small house in the countryside, so answers relating to all jurisdictions would be fascinating, especially those of England.

I'm pretty sure the bank could go after the owner for any difference between the unpaid loan balance and what they're able to sell it for. Incorrect. The news report states "it ceased making payments toward the $725 million non-recourse CMBS loan". The term "non-recourse" means that the bank can't go after the owner and is limited to recovering its debt from the collateral. The term "recourse" means that the bank can go after the owner in a lawsuit for amounts still owed after the collateral is applied to the debt. The question is, would something like this force them to write down on their GAAP financials the value of any other loans they've extended. The bank extended the loan, so if the real property is worth less than the amount of the debt, the bank has to write off the balance of the debt on this secured loan. If the bank writes off the loan, it gets a tax deduction in the amount of the write off, however. The written off debt is also taxable income to Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. to the extent that the company as a whole is not insolvent. In California, the "default rule" is that the owner occupied residential mortgages are non-recourse loans, but that loans secured by personal property and other mortgages are recourse loans. Unlike California and about four other states, owner occupied residential mortgages in other U.S. states are also recourse by default. A non-recourse loan on a mortgage of a hotel is not the default rule (even in California) and is contrary to usual commercial practice. Park Hotels & Resorts Inc., in this case, obtained an extraordinarily favorable deal with CMBS (normally it would be a recourse loan with personal guarantees from all related companies and from multiple top executives and investors of the borrower), perhaps in exchange for a higher interest rate than it might otherwise have secured. answers relating to all jurisdictions would be fascinating, especially those of England. The way that real estate in financed in England is so profoundly different from U.S. practice that it isn't really possible to even analogize to this situation in California. For reasons related to tax laws, the structure of English mortgage laws, English insolvency laws, and the way that customary commercial real estate financial deals have evolved over time in England, the kind of deal that was struck between Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. and CMBS in this case would have been structured completely differently if it had been done in England. It might be legal to do the same deal in England, but that isn't what firms trying to achieve the same objectives would actually have done. I know only enough about how real estate finance in handled in England in deals like this to know that it is completely different from how it is handled in the U.S. I am not familiar enough with real estate finance practices there to know how it would actually be done there.

Can one be bound by a rental contract even if one finds a replacement to take it over?

Bob rents a property from Alfred, signs a contract of one year. Perhaps the contract allows Bob to be released early if he is able to find a replacement for himself. Or perhaps the contract explicitly prohibits this, or it stays silent on the matter. Let us suppose that the contract is one of the latter two scenarios. What is the position of the contract is silent? And, if the contract specifically precludes such, is that type of provision in the contract enforceable?

See Shelter, " Assignment of assured and assured shorthold tenancies ": Periodic assured and assured shorthold tenants Periodic assured and assured shorthold tenants whose tenancy agreement says nothing about assignment cannot assign their tenancies unless their landlord consents. In this case, landlords may withhold consent for any reason, whether reasonable or not. A tenant who assigns the tenancy without consent leaves the assignee in a vulnerable position as this is a breach of a term of the tenancy and is a discretionary ground for possession. The exception to this is where a premium has been paid for the grant of tenancy, for example a tenancy deposit that is greater than one-sixth of the annual rent is a premium. Otherwise, where the tenancy agreement: allows assignment freely and without consent, assignment is allowed expressly makes provision for the tenant to assign with the landlord's consent, the tenant will be able to assign with consent and such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld forbids assignment, an assignment would be a breach of the tenancy agreement and could be subject to possession action Fixed-term tenants The rights of assured and assured shorthold tenants with fixed-term tenancies to assign their tenancies are governed by their tenancy agreements.

Are there any legal provisions that concern males entering various types of business establishments without a shirt?

Bob entered a grocery store without a shirt. Charles entered a restaurant. Are there any laws that make either of these either absolutely or conditionally a problem?

england-and-wales There's no law specifying that shirts must be worn by people visiting shops or restaurants. As the owner or tenant of the property the business can set the rules for who is allowed entry and service, provided it does not discriminate based on a ' protected characteristic ' in the Equality Act. The business can set a 'dress code' and refuse entry to people who are not dressed to code. If a rule says "no topless people" that's OK. If a rule says "men must not be topless" then on the face of it that's unlawful discrimination. If a rule requires smart footwear that's OK. If a rule says "women must wear high heels" then on the face of it that's unlawful discrimination. Generally the business can refuse to serve a person and require the person to leave the premises. If the person refuses to leave then they commit the civil tort of trespass. If the person then obstructs the lawful activity of the business or damages its property then they commit the criminal offence of aggravated trespass.

Are there any legal provisions that concern males entering various types of business establishments without a shirt?

Bob entered a grocery store without a shirt. Charles entered a restaurant. Are there any laws that make either of these either absolutely or conditionally a problem?

In the U.S. there is frequent signage on store and restaurant fronts that amounts to a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" message. This would likely fall under a pre-emptive "Trespass" warning as the store owner can refuse to allow a sale transaction to go through and ask the offender to leave if they do not comply. At this point, if the offender refuses to comply and leave, they could be charged with trespassing.

Are there any legal provisions that concern males entering various types of business establishments without a shirt?

Bob entered a grocery store without a shirt. Charles entered a restaurant. Are there any laws that make either of these either absolutely or conditionally a problem?

spain This has been in the UK news (WalesOnline, which is where I happened to read it) recently - in some areas of Spain there are laws, and not just about inside certain establishments: In hotspots such as Barcelona and Majorca, topless men and women wearing bikinis face fines of up to €300 (£253) if they’re spotted walking around away from the beach. This can also include adjacent streets - so keep your shirts and cover-ups on until you hit the sand. Or in the words of the UK Foreign Office In some parts of Spain it’s against the law to be in the street wearing only a bikini or swimming shorts. Being bare-chested is also illegal in some areas in Spain. You may be fined if you’re caught wearing swimwear on the seafront promenade or adjacent streets.

What if someone serving time in prison gets elected president?

What if someone serving time in a state prison gets elected president? Can he order himself to be released (be it via a pardon or on the grounds of national security)? Assuming he could not do this, would his vice president take over for the duration of the term, or while the president is incarcerated? Would the answer be different if it's a federal prison?

A Presidential Pardon does not affect the States at all A president clearly can not pardon himself for a state crime, because the president does not have that as an enumerated power. Presidential pardons are limited in the Constitution, Article II Section 2 Clause 1. The President... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States , except in Cases of Impeachment. A person convicted of a state crime is not convicted of an offense against the United States, and thus, the conviction does not become moot by a presidential pardon. He stays incarcerated, as he is still convicted in the state prison and not pardoned of the state crime. It takes a pardon from the state's governor to pardon a crime on the state level. It's unclear if a president can pardon themselves Ohwilleke's excellent answer covers the problem of a person being president trying to pardon themselves of a federal crime.

Details despite NDA for selling company (California)

This question says that it may be possible that an NDA can exist such that if someone were to sell their company, can they can have an NDA that prevents them from speaking about their company name, the buying company's name, and details about what their company does. Would it be possible to find out any of these details as a third party despite the NDA? For example, I've heard that one can look up if an LLC existed for 3 years beyond the LLC's closure.

If the seller of a company signed an NDA, that NDA would make it illegal for them to tell you whatever the NDA covers (except there may be legal requirements that would override an NDA). That doesn't mean you cannot find out in any other legal way. For example, the company's accountant most likely knows a lot of things, and if they didn't sign an NDA, they may be free to tell you. Obviously the government will know things, as you said, the company had to be registered, the sale had to be registered, and you can't just close a company down and make it disappear. Especially since any obligations of the company will continue to exist for many years. Say the company in question bought office furniture from you and was supposed to pay in 60 monthly installments. Selling the company doesn't stop that, closing the company down won't stop that, signing an NDA won't stop that. You will still be able to find the company and make them pay.

If you are holding a mobile phone while driving and you are not looking at it nor are you texting are you still deemed as using it?

The concept of dualism which exists throughout the universe. Every word, phrase, object and thing in the universe there is a positive and a negative state. For example - up/down, in/out, black/white, left/right, holding/not holding, using/not using. Now, in the case of holding a mobile phone; the holder decides if they are using it or not. The observer, on the other hand, does not have the right to say that the holder is using it or not using it. The observer can only observe that the holder is holding the phone and can't determine if they are using it or not. This is my opinion of the matter. Thus, in a democratic society, the holder of a phone decides if he/she is using it or not. In a dictatorship, on the other hand, the rights of the individual are negated and the dictator determines that dualism doesn't exist and that the holder must be using the phone, just because they are holding it. Thus, the dictator has negated logic, laws of physics, rules of grammar in order to justify an enforced and language limiting opinion/law. The law states in Australia - 2014 -reg 300 The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while vehicle is moving, or is stationary. "use" in relation to mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver, (a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in a vehicle. "held" includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver's body. but does not include held in a pocket of the driver's clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver.

YES in germany §23 StVO (1a) Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf ein elektronisches Gerät, das der Kommunikation, Information oder Organisation dient oder zu dienen bestimmt ist, nur benutzen, wenn hierfür das Gerät weder aufgenommen noch gehalten wird und [...] (1a) Whoever is driving a vehicle may only use an electrical device that is serving communication, information, or organization or destined to be used for this if... 1. they don't pick the device up or hold it and [...] That is plenty clear: holding the device is banned in any way, and implies using it under German legal precedent.

If you are holding a mobile phone while driving and you are not looking at it nor are you texting are you still deemed as using it?

The concept of dualism which exists throughout the universe. Every word, phrase, object and thing in the universe there is a positive and a negative state. For example - up/down, in/out, black/white, left/right, holding/not holding, using/not using. Now, in the case of holding a mobile phone; the holder decides if they are using it or not. The observer, on the other hand, does not have the right to say that the holder is using it or not using it. The observer can only observe that the holder is holding the phone and can't determine if they are using it or not. This is my opinion of the matter. Thus, in a democratic society, the holder of a phone decides if he/she is using it or not. In a dictatorship, on the other hand, the rights of the individual are negated and the dictator determines that dualism doesn't exist and that the holder must be using the phone, just because they are holding it. Thus, the dictator has negated logic, laws of physics, rules of grammar in order to justify an enforced and language limiting opinion/law. The law states in Australia - 2014 -reg 300 The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while vehicle is moving, or is stationary. "use" in relation to mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver, (a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in a vehicle. "held" includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver's body. but does not include held in a pocket of the driver's clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver.

"The observer can only observe that the holder is holding the phone and can't determine if they are using it or not. This is my opinion of the matter. Thus, in a democratic society, the holder of a phone decides if he/she is using it or not." Your opinion is irrelevant. It's why the United Kingdom has tightened up the law. Holding a phone while driving, even when stationary, is an offence except in a few limited circumstances. The Solicitors Regulation Authority says Laws have changed for driving and using a mobile phone Driving whilst using a mobile phone for texting or calling has been illegal since 2003. However, the law did not cover holding a mobile phone which allowed using social media or playing a game. As of 2022, it is illegal to hold a mobile phone whilst driving. Breaking this law could lead to a £200 fine and 6 points on your licence. Anyway, if you are holding a phone you are not in proper control of the vehicle. The UK's Highway Code rule 160 states drive or ride with both hands on the wheel or handlebars where possible. This will help you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times. This means unless you are operating the gear lever, or auxiliary controls, with the other hand. You must be in proper control of the vehicle at all times.

If you are holding a mobile phone while driving and you are not looking at it nor are you texting are you still deemed as using it?

The concept of dualism which exists throughout the universe. Every word, phrase, object and thing in the universe there is a positive and a negative state. For example - up/down, in/out, black/white, left/right, holding/not holding, using/not using. Now, in the case of holding a mobile phone; the holder decides if they are using it or not. The observer, on the other hand, does not have the right to say that the holder is using it or not using it. The observer can only observe that the holder is holding the phone and can't determine if they are using it or not. This is my opinion of the matter. Thus, in a democratic society, the holder of a phone decides if he/she is using it or not. In a dictatorship, on the other hand, the rights of the individual are negated and the dictator determines that dualism doesn't exist and that the holder must be using the phone, just because they are holding it. Thus, the dictator has negated logic, laws of physics, rules of grammar in order to justify an enforced and language limiting opinion/law. The law states in Australia - 2014 -reg 300 The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while vehicle is moving, or is stationary. "use" in relation to mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver, (a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in a vehicle. "held" includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver's body. but does not include held in a pocket of the driver's clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver.

It depends on the statute being interpreted. For example, in british-columbia , s. 214.2(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act prohibits "holding [an electronic device] in a position in which it may be used." Under such a statute, it doesn't matter whether it is actually in use, but only whether it may be used. And in R. v. Tannhauser , 2020 BCCA 155 the Court of Appeal held that even when the phone is turned off, it is still an "electronic device" within the meaning of the prohibition: [52] ... a cellphone that is turned off can be turned on; a cellphone with a dead battery can be plugged in (see R. v. Jahani , 2017 BCSC 745 , where a ticket was upheld for a person who did just that); a cellphone with software limiting its functionality can, potentially, be used to disable that software. [53] Importantly, the legislature’s intention to promote road safety supports this reading. All of the above actions have the potential to distract the driver. The purpose of public protection is served by understanding that this form of distracted behaviour is indeed prohibited. Statutes can redefine or deem words to have particular meanings , including by deeming the word "use" to include things that would not be typically considered "use." This is not an attempt to alter the metaphysical reality. It is simply constructing legal meaning.

If you are holding a mobile phone while driving and you are not looking at it nor are you texting are you still deemed as using it?

The concept of dualism which exists throughout the universe. Every word, phrase, object and thing in the universe there is a positive and a negative state. For example - up/down, in/out, black/white, left/right, holding/not holding, using/not using. Now, in the case of holding a mobile phone; the holder decides if they are using it or not. The observer, on the other hand, does not have the right to say that the holder is using it or not using it. The observer can only observe that the holder is holding the phone and can't determine if they are using it or not. This is my opinion of the matter. Thus, in a democratic society, the holder of a phone decides if he/she is using it or not. In a dictatorship, on the other hand, the rights of the individual are negated and the dictator determines that dualism doesn't exist and that the holder must be using the phone, just because they are holding it. Thus, the dictator has negated logic, laws of physics, rules of grammar in order to justify an enforced and language limiting opinion/law. The law states in Australia - 2014 -reg 300 The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while vehicle is moving, or is stationary. "use" in relation to mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver, (a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in a vehicle. "held" includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver's body. but does not include held in a pocket of the driver's clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver.

why would that matter? Lawmakers are not stupid, that’s why in every jurisdiction I know of, the offence is holding the phone.

Comparison of Biden and Evanston Race-Conscious Policies

In 2021, the Biden administration created a loan forgiveness program that excluded white farmers, on the argument that Black people had suffered historical damages. It was ruled unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection. (Wynn v. Vilsack et al) In 2023, Evanston, IL created a mortgage assistance program that excluded white, Asian, Hispanic, and other homeowners on the argument on the argument that Black homeowners had suffered historical damages. Notably, the program excludes not just Asian and Hispanic homeowners, but also LGBTQIA2S+, Catholic, Muslim, and many other people who were excluded based on the same housing policies. What is the difference? I'm only looking for a comparison of the laws. This is not a duplicate of a straightforward analysis because I'm not looking for a full constitutional analysis, only an explanation of difference. Helpful information: full text of decision . I anticipated that the wording would include all racial groups that suffered discrimination, but I was surprised that the racial test is "having origins in any of the Black racial and ethnic groups of Africa". (Page 2, "Participant Eligibility")

The situations cannot reasonably be compared legally. In Wynn v. Vilsack , a motion for preliminary injunction was granted (and the program was not ruled unconstitutional). In the ruling, the court found that the evidence "does not support a finding that USDA continues to be a participant, passive or active, in discrimination", and does find that there were past successful remediation efforts, thus "the Court expresses serious concerns over whether the Government will be able to establish a strong basis in evidence warranting the implementation of Section 1005's race-based remedial action", moreover "Plaintiff has convincingly shown that the relief provided by Section 1005 is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest". The court finds that there is a good-enough case that the law fails strict scrutiny. Incidentally, Congress repealed that law. On the other hand, in Evanston, we have no facts or concrete legal allegations (e.g. drafts of a legal complaint). The cited memorandum is a recommendation, not a law. There does exist at least one available council action from 2019 which says that The Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized to divert all adult use cannabis funds received by the Illinois Department of Revenue for sales of adult use cannabis to a separate fund in a City account for local reparations. SECTION 3: The City may receive donations to this fund from separate organizations, corporations, and individuals established herein by the City Council. The city also has a page referring to Ordinance 102-O-20 (not available) indicating that "The Committee will work with residents, City staff and experts to explore and identify programs and opportunities to be supported by the Reparations Fund". The Program Guidelines §3 indicates that a person may be eligible for money if they are an ancestor, direct descendant, or "other" who has suffered from a "City ordinance, policy, or procedure that served to discriminate against the Applicant in the area of housing". It thus does not exclude Asian and Hispanic homeowners, LGBTQIA2S+, Catholic, Muslims or anyone else, except insofar as a Catholic was not demonstrably the victim of such discrimination. The city also provides an extensive historical study of past government discrimination in housing. You may be able to eke out more concrete information on what they have done here , at the reparations committee website. In terms of potential differentia between the USDA program and the Evanston program, the most obvious difference would be in terms of prior remediation efforts. If you sue Evanston for their program, they could defend the program as providing the remediation that justifies the program – which had already been provided in the USDA program.

Legal definition of a "child" in the United States

I notice that in several criminal cases women who are clearly post-pubescent teenagers are being legally characterized as "children", so I am wondering about the terminology here. For example, in one case I read of man being prosecuted for "rape of a child", however the the alleged "child" was 16 years old: clearly past the age of puberty. So, normally in the English language, a "child" is a pre-pubescent person--in other words someone not sexually capable of procreating, which would mean 13 years old at the latest. However, apparently in legal sphere and the press there is a tendency to describe teenagers who are clearly sexually capable as "children" and this is obviously being done to demonize those who commit sex crimes against teenagers and increase the severity of the crime. I searched for the legal definition of a "child" under Massachusetts law and could not find any definition. So, is it just ambiguous what the word "child" means in Massachusetts? What about US Federal law. Is there a legal standard of what constitutes a "child"?

canada The term "child" is expressly defined for various offences. For example, for s. 172 : child means a person who is or appears to be under the age of eighteen years. The offence of " child pornography " is expressly defined to relate to "a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years." The offence of " child luring " has several variants, for luring those who are or who the accused believes to be under the age of 18, 16, or 14. They are all called "child luring." Other sections criminalize conduct in relation to a child without defining the term. See e.g. s. 243 : Every person who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty... For s. 243, courts had to conduct statutory interpretation in order to determine the meaning of the word "child." The Supreme Court of Canada held that "child" in this offence includes children born alive and fetuses that were likely to have been born alive. See R. v. Levkovic , 2013 SCC 25 . I know this is Canadian law, rather than Massachusetts law, but one thing you can take away from this is that terms can take on distinct legal meanings from one provision to another. And where a term is not expressly defined in statute, its meaning will be enunciated by a court. These meanings need not line up with the definitions you find in a dictionary. But, for a general description from a specialized dictionary, see Black's Law Dictionary , 10th ed. (2014): child . 1 . An unemancipated person under the age of majority. 2 . Hist . At common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14. 3 . A boy or girl; a young person. 4 . A son or daughter. 5 . A baby or fetus.

Legal definition of a "child" in the United States

I notice that in several criminal cases women who are clearly post-pubescent teenagers are being legally characterized as "children", so I am wondering about the terminology here. For example, in one case I read of man being prosecuted for "rape of a child", however the the alleged "child" was 16 years old: clearly past the age of puberty. So, normally in the English language, a "child" is a pre-pubescent person--in other words someone not sexually capable of procreating, which would mean 13 years old at the latest. However, apparently in legal sphere and the press there is a tendency to describe teenagers who are clearly sexually capable as "children" and this is obviously being done to demonize those who commit sex crimes against teenagers and increase the severity of the crime. I searched for the legal definition of a "child" under Massachusetts law and could not find any definition. So, is it just ambiguous what the word "child" means in Massachusetts? What about US Federal law. Is there a legal standard of what constitutes a "child"?

"Child" in the US typically means a minor, someone who is not yet 18. Someone would be either a child or an adult. Your belief in coded language for some reason is not part of this legal definition. Child can also mean offspring, say in the use of wills. If different definitions are used, they would be defined in the applicable law. Black's Legal dictionary

Legal definition of a "child" in the United States

I notice that in several criminal cases women who are clearly post-pubescent teenagers are being legally characterized as "children", so I am wondering about the terminology here. For example, in one case I read of man being prosecuted for "rape of a child", however the the alleged "child" was 16 years old: clearly past the age of puberty. So, normally in the English language, a "child" is a pre-pubescent person--in other words someone not sexually capable of procreating, which would mean 13 years old at the latest. However, apparently in legal sphere and the press there is a tendency to describe teenagers who are clearly sexually capable as "children" and this is obviously being done to demonize those who commit sex crimes against teenagers and increase the severity of the crime. I searched for the legal definition of a "child" under Massachusetts law and could not find any definition. So, is it just ambiguous what the word "child" means in Massachusetts? What about US Federal law. Is there a legal standard of what constitutes a "child"?

In the case of Massachusetts (Mass.) the definition of "child" means different things depending on the laws in question. Generally, a "child" for the purposes of the legal age of criminal prosecution is defined as any child younger than 12 years old at the time of the crime (Mass. has the highest age of criminal prosecution in the United States.) Federally, this age is any child younger than 11 years of age. In terms of Age of Consent (the legal age in which a person may give consent to a sexual relationship) is 16 years and over. Federally, this is 18 years or older. Legally speaking, 18 is the age at which a person is considered a legal adult (although I know few 18 year olds who have adult sensibilities... but I also know a few 60+ year olds who have no adult sensibilities... you're only young once but you can be immature forever as they say.). This means that you can legally vote, smoke, screw (if you're one of the prudish states that has 18 as the age of legal consent... like California.), and die for your nation (but you can't drown your sorrows until you're 21.). Additionally, unless you are legally emancipated, your rights can be restricted by a legal guardian (parents or other parental substitute). All people above the age of criminal liability but below the age of legal adulthood are also handled through a juvenile court system in the U.S. (I don't think this applies to federal courts as they don't have one, but they so rarely prosecute crimes compared to the state... let alone juvie crimes) although judges may grant exception for legal juviniles to be tried in adult court if the crime is serious enough (or they're close to legal adulthood either). Juvie Courts are less open than adult court and any juvenile record is sealed after the offender turns 18 (meaning that if you were a 13-year-old busted for taking the neighbor's car on a joy ride, it won't follow you to adulthood in the legal system. The public memory will not always forget). In your particular scenario, one of a few things could have happened. Either she was 16 at the time of the rape and did not consent, OR she was 15 at the time of the rape (which even if she did give consent, it doesn't matter as the law says she's not able to give it no matter what.) and has since had a 16th birthday while the trial makes its way through the courts. Another possibility is that the relationship involved someone who was traveling from out of state OR she traveled out of state to meet him, which makes this a crime that could involve the Federal Government, in which case, she is not yet 18 and thus it was a statutory rape (even if she was consenting to the encounter). Finally, the article or speaker who called her a child might not be using a legal sense of the word, but a more colloquial sense, in which case, the range is considerably broader (As a general rule, among the uninformed, child has a broad range. While she is a teenager, she is still young enough that she would be living with her parents and not yet ready to "leave the nest" as an adult would. Biologically speaking, humans have a long adolescent period compared to most animals, with a biological maturity taking as long as 25 years by some estimates.) and it's not uncommon for our language to reflect that. As such, the claim might not be one of legal childhood, but a frame of reference to remind adults that she's still got a lot of growing up to do and the accused rapist ignored that when he had sex with her. Remember, he's going to be judged by a jury of his peers... the prosecution wants them to use there vernacular understanding of her age, not their legal understanding.

Legal definition of a "child" in the United States

I notice that in several criminal cases women who are clearly post-pubescent teenagers are being legally characterized as "children", so I am wondering about the terminology here. For example, in one case I read of man being prosecuted for "rape of a child", however the the alleged "child" was 16 years old: clearly past the age of puberty. So, normally in the English language, a "child" is a pre-pubescent person--in other words someone not sexually capable of procreating, which would mean 13 years old at the latest. However, apparently in legal sphere and the press there is a tendency to describe teenagers who are clearly sexually capable as "children" and this is obviously being done to demonize those who commit sex crimes against teenagers and increase the severity of the crime. I searched for the legal definition of a "child" under Massachusetts law and could not find any definition. So, is it just ambiguous what the word "child" means in Massachusetts? What about US Federal law. Is there a legal standard of what constitutes a "child"?

I searched for the legal definition of a "child" under Massachusetts law and could not find any definition. The definitions are right there in the criminal statutes. The relevant MA statutes are quite clear and different ages apply to different offenses. See, e.g. , the following: § 22A. Rape of child; punishment Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a child under 16, and compels such child to submit by force and against his will or compels such child to submit by threat of bodily injury, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years. . . . Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 22A. § 22B. Rape of a child during commission of certain offenses or by use of force; penalties Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a child under 16, and compels such child to submit by force and against his will or compels such child to submit by threat of bodily injury and: . . . Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 22B. § 22C. Rape of a child through use of force by certain previously convicted offenders; penalties Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a child under 16, and compels such child to submit by force and against his will or compels such child to submit by threat of bodily injury, and has been previously convicted of or adjudicated delinquent or as a youthful offender for: indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 as set forth in section 13B; aggravated indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 as set forth in section 13B ½; indecent assault and battery on a person 14 or older as set forth in section 13H; assault of a child with intent to commit rape as set forth in section 24B; rape of a child with force as set forth in section 22A; aggravated rape of a child with force as set forth in section 22B; rape and abuse of a child as set forth in section 23; aggravated rape and abuse of a child as set forth in section 23A; rape as set forth in section 22; or a like violation of the laws of another state, the United States or a military, territorial or Indian tribal authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than 20 years. . . . Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 22C. See generally Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, §§ 13b to 27a.

Does Missouri Revised Statute 578.018 imply that a law enforcement officer must get a warrant to enter private property to check on an animal?

Missouri Revised Statute 578.018 vaguely states that a law enforcement officer and other officials "MAY" seek a warrant to enter onto private property to check., inspect or impound an animal etc. and must be preceded by an affidavit of probable cause I believe per my recollection. This is also stated by the fourth amendment concerning illegal search and seizure But of course with every Constitutional right and "for the good of the people" law, there are many loopholes used against the citizens such as, with reference to the 4th amendment, curtilage access, exigent circumstances, emergencies, protection of evidence,wellness checks to name a few. Section 578. Is an animal related statute rather than people. So is a public official required to have a warrant to enter posted private property for an animal neglect call when the property and animals are visible from the road or not? Additionally and specifically Barry county Missouri has no animal control laws or leash laws and it is not illegal to cage dogs for example. The 578 statute has been challenged for being unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary which was overruled but that was serious abuse case. The definition "Adequate care" is vague as well. So warrant needed or not? and if so, what legal action can be taken for trespass, rights violations under color of law etc. if any?

The general rule is that a warrant is required to enter private property (absent constitutional case law exceptions to the warrant requirement such as exigent circumstances and consent), and that a warrant is available only when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. Whether the neglect or abuse of an animal constitutes a crime within the meaning of this 4th Amendment requirement could potentially be seen as a gray area, since historically, in the absence of statutory authority in early common law, an owner of an animal had absolute authority to deal with his or her property (the animal) as the owner of the animal saw fit. The purpose of the statute is to clarify that this conduct by an animal owner constitutes a crime for 4th Amendment search and seizure purposes by making a state law determination that it is a crime, which states can do, even though they can't change the constitutional requirement under the 4th Amendment. Also, just because a state can authorize law enforcement to get a warrant for any search authorized by the U.S. Constitution, that doesn't mean it has to allow law enforcement to do so in every case where it is constitutional for the state to do so. The duty to get a warrant for law enforcement to enter onto private property at all arises not only from other state statutes, but also from the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as incorporated to apply against state and local governments though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). But, the constitutional requirement has case law exceptions, so it isn't required in all circumstances. In particular, exigent circumstances, and the consent to entry exceptions, which are allowed by constitutional criminal procedure case law, could apply to the requirement to get a warrant in the first place. But, law enforcement needs to have the authority to search at all with a warrant under state law, for an exception to the warrant requirement to be relevant. This statute appears to carry out that purpose by authorizing searches for this particular purpose. For what it is worth, it is not the best drafted possible statute to achieve this objective, and it could have been written to be more clear, but it still gets the job done. So, in answer to the top-line question, no, I wouldn't read this statute as requiring a warrant in every possible circumstance in order to go onto private property to check on an animal, although a warrant would be required in every case where an exception to the warrant requirement under 4th Amendment case law does not apply. Section 578. Is an animal related statute rather than people. The people involved are the property owners. The property owner's rights in their real property are potentially infringed if there is a warrantless entry. The human beings owning the animals are potentially violating a law which the State of Missouri wants law enforcement officers to be able to enforce (the relevant laws are the state animal cruelty and agricultural laws expressly referenced in the statute , so, it is irrelevant that "Barry County Missouri has no animal control laws or leash laws"). Among other things these statutes make it a crime if a person "Has custody or ownership of an animal and fails to provide adequate care[.]" As the question claims that: "The definition "Adequate care" is vague as well." But the question also notes that: "The 578 statute has been challenged for being unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary which was overruled but that was serious abuse case." The state has a right to decide what is and is not illegal. It is not prohibited from banning treatment of animals that is not serious abuse. The state has every right to make it a crime to fail to provide adequate care for an animal, even if that failure to provide adequate car does not constitute severe abuse. Also, keep in mind that a lawful search requires only probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and a good faith belief that an exception to the warrant requirement is present. If the law enforcement officer has a good faith belief that the animal will die or seriously suffer or be hidden by the owner in the time that the law enforcement officer reasonably thinks that it will take to get a warrant, the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies. The fact that the lawful search later reveals that a crime was no committed does not mean that the search was improper. A mere belief that an animal was abused or neglected and that exigent circumstance were present with a reasonable factual basis (e.g. a tip from a neighbor who seems credible and claims to have personal knowledge of the facts) will usually suffice to establish probable cause. So warrant needed or not? and if so, what legal action can be taken for trespass, rights violations under color of law etc. if any? If there is a search without a warrant or probable cause was not present, and an exception to the warrant requirement does not apply, and the property owner believes that their 4th Amendment rights were intentionally violated by law enforcement in the warrantless search in violation of clearly established law to the contrary, a civil lawsuit against the law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be brought in state or federal court. The employer of the law enforcement officer can be sued as well, under the same statute, if the warrantless search in violation of the clearly established constitutional right was made pursuant to an express policy of the law enforcement officer's employer. But the fact that the law enforcement officer violated someone's rights does not automatically make the law enforcement officer's employer civilly liable for the wrong. In most U.S. states, law enforcement officers are protected by state law governmental immunity from common law trespass lawsuits for their conduct while carrying out their official duties, but I haven't checked specifically to see if that is the case in Missouri. A claim of a 4th Amendment violation can also be a ground for suppressing evidence obtained with an unlawful search when defending a prosecution under some ordinance or statute that relies upon that evidence.

What responsibility does a museum have to a protestor who glues themself to the wall

Can the museum leave the protestor glued there and leave for the night? Edit: it appears that 4 days after I posted this questions, a Porsche showroom locked the protestors inside after turning off the lights for the evening.

In the UK, in general, they would have to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety. A museum has to ensure the safety of legitimate visitors, and also trespassers if it can reasonably foresee a hazard that a trespasser would encounter. However gluing oneself to a wall is not a normal hazard of museums, and anything that followed from that act (e.g. injuring yourself when you collapsed due to lack of sleep) would fall under the " author of own misfortune " doctrine. I'm not aware of any specific precedents on point, but the principles above would seem to suggest that once someone has done such a thing, leaving them there would be a legal course of action, although the museum couldn't let them suffer from hunger or thirst (e.g. by leaving them there over a day when the museum is closed, or by preventing friends from bringing food or drink). Also the museum would have to let them try to free themselves, and allow anyone who might help to do so. They would probably have to permit any necessary damage to the property the protester was glued to as well, on the grounds that the protester is more important than the property (although civil and possibly criminal liability for the damage would follow).

Understanding laws about medical and mental health advice/treatment

Can you help me understand which of these are legal and which are illegal in the U.S., and briefly why? (If the answers vary by state, assume state with "medium strictness", or just answer for the state you are familiar with.) (A) I write and publish a book called "Cure your brain tumor by eating carrots!" in which I explain in detail how you can (and should) cure your brain tumor with carrots. I state clearly at the start of the book that I have no medical training. (B) I write and publish a book called "Cure your depression by eating carrots!" in which I explain in detail how you can (and should) cure your depression with carrots. I state clearly at the start of the book that I have no psychological training. (C) I meet with an individual who has a brain tumor and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state clearly at the start of the session that I have no medical training. They pay me $100 for the session. (D) I meet with an individual who has depression and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state clearly at the start of the session that I have no psychological training. They pay me $100 for the session. (E) I meet with an individual who has a brain tumor and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have an MD from an American institution, but that I am not a licensed physician in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session. (F) I meet with an individual who has depression and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have a masters degree in psychology from an American institution, but that I am not a licensed mental health provider in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session. (G) I meet online with an individual who has a brain tumor and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have a medical degree from another country (from which I'm video calling) and am licensed to practice medicine in that country, but that I am not a licensed physician in the U.S., in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session. (H) I meet online with an individual who has depression and I advise them to eat carrots to cure it. I state (truthfully) at the start of the session that I have a masters degree in psychology from another country (from which I'm video calling) and am licensed to practice as a therapist in that country, but that I am not a licensed mental health provider in the U.S., in their state or in any state. They pay me $100 for the session.

The two primary factors that govern the outcome are laws on "unapproved devices" and "practicing without a license". Carrots are only subject to ordinary food safety regulations in the US, and the outcome would not change by substituting broccoli, mustard, filet mignon, or "lots of water". Drugs that are introduced on the market have to be approved by the FDA, but legacy foods do not. We are in the realm that requires no FDA approval of carrots. The line, for product-purveyors, is drawn by 21 USC 321(g)(1) , and here is an FDA warning letter to an Ayurvedic medical treatment maker / seller. There are ample law concerning "practice of medicine", and there is the First Amendment which erects a strong barrier against laws which aim to prohibit people from disseminating an officially-unapproved viewpoint (to simplify matters, I presume – contrary to fact – that no medical authority has endorsed the specific efficacy of carrots). The government cannot punish you for taking approach A or B. If you have a license to practice medicine (of the relevant kind), you may be subject to state licensing-board sanctions for making unapproved claims (one of the factors that overrides the First Amendment). If you have no license, then the question is whether your activity falls within the realm of "practicing medicine" in the state. In Washington, the line is drawn via RCW 18.71.011 A person is practicing medicine if he or she does one or more of the following: (1) Offers or undertakes to diagnose, cure, advise, or prescribe for any human disease, ailment, injury, infirmity, deformity, pain or other condition, physical or mental, real or imaginary, by any means or instrumentality... Technically, you cannot advise a person to take an aspirin if they have a headache. However, this law is within the scope of business regulations, so part of the line not directly encoded in that definition (related to the requirement to have a license) is that you are doing this as a business. A person must have a state license in Washington to be a "common school" (K-12) teacher. Your gym teacher can tell you to eat carrots to cure your depression or whatever, and there is some (miniscule) chance that the teacher will get punished for giving such advice. A person does not have to have a license to be a university professor, therefore telling a student to eat carrots will lead to no government sanctions, though the employer may fire or reassign you, depending on circumstances. The crucial question is not whether you are advocating eating carrots, but what business you are engaged in, whereby in the course of that business you give advice. A person with a medical degree and license who is a greeter at Walmart is not subject to government sanctions for advising "Eat carrots to cure your tumor / depression".

Purchased merchandise stolen from customer before taken off retailer’s premises

Bob purchases an item from ACME stores Ltd but it was stolen from him before he left the store. Bob would like to request a replacement or refund. Whose loss is this? Whose property was stolen (presumably by another visitor to the shop), and if Bob’s, is ACME liable due to it taking place on their property?

When Bob buys a thing, it becomes his, and it ceases to be the property of the seller. By "buy", we understand that to mean "pays for and receives physical control of". At that point, Bob is responsible to control of his new property. His ownership of the property is not contingent on him leaving the store. You might assign blame to the shop if they were negligent in some way, for example if they hire a thief to do the exit-check and the door guard takes Bob's property. Obviously, the thief is ultimately liable, but the store might under special circumstances be liable if they indirectly caused his loss. A store does not have an obligation to guarantee that a customer immediately and securely exits the store after making a purchase, so they are not liable for failing to immediately eject him from the store after buying the goods.

Purchased merchandise stolen from customer before taken off retailer’s premises

Bob purchases an item from ACME stores Ltd but it was stolen from him before he left the store. Bob would like to request a replacement or refund. Whose loss is this? Whose property was stolen (presumably by another visitor to the shop), and if Bob’s, is ACME liable due to it taking place on their property?

Bob’s loss Unless there is a term in the contract where the seller maintains risk in the item until it leaves the premises. Such terms are not uncommon in contracts where a product is to be shipped but generally wouldn’t apply in a brick and mortar establishment. There is a case on point in australia where a bank was not liable for money stolen from customers during a robbery in which the fly-up screens were activated - anything outside the screens, including a just made withdrawal that the customer had not touched was held to be at the customer’s risk. From memory, the bank may have covered the losses as a PR gesture even though they were not liable.

What is meant by "make declaration of brain stem death mandatory for every hospital"?

I am an activist working for organ donation popularization in India, a country with a dismally low rate (0.5 per million). Apart from working for deceased donation, I had also offered my own organs as a living donor, but the donation couldn't go through due to unfortunate legal hurdles in unrelated living donation in India. While reading a recent paper on the challenges, I found the following: Sensitization of doctors regarding brain stem death declaration is one of the biggest challenges encountered by the transplant programme in India. A major change in the transplant laws can significantly increase the deceased donor pool if declaration of brain stem death is made mandatory for every hospital. Could the experts here please elaborate, in some detail, what is meant here? How are the brain stem deaths dealt with now, in the absence of such a law? Is it not reported/communicated? Are only the authorities not informed? Or is the family also not informed? Why is a separate law needed? How is it legal to not inform a death? In other words, my question is what exactly is lacking today and why? Thank you so much for this community. Your answer will guide my activist group's efforts.

The law presently doesn't define “dead” Therefore each doctor must decide on the basis of their own knowledge and experience when someone is dead. In those circumstances, it is common for doctors to be unwilling to call a brain dead individual who still has respiratory and circulatory function “dead”, even if those functions require a machine. Contrast this with new-south-wales , a jurisdiction where the type of law reform proposed has already happened: Human Tissue Act 1983 s33 : 33 When death occurs For the purposes of the law of New South Wales, a person has died when there has occurred-- (a) irreversible cessation of all function of the person's brain, or (b) irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the person's body.

What is meant by "make declaration of brain stem death mandatory for every hospital"?

I am an activist working for organ donation popularization in India, a country with a dismally low rate (0.5 per million). Apart from working for deceased donation, I had also offered my own organs as a living donor, but the donation couldn't go through due to unfortunate legal hurdles in unrelated living donation in India. While reading a recent paper on the challenges, I found the following: Sensitization of doctors regarding brain stem death declaration is one of the biggest challenges encountered by the transplant programme in India. A major change in the transplant laws can significantly increase the deceased donor pool if declaration of brain stem death is made mandatory for every hospital. Could the experts here please elaborate, in some detail, what is meant here? How are the brain stem deaths dealt with now, in the absence of such a law? Is it not reported/communicated? Are only the authorities not informed? Or is the family also not informed? Why is a separate law needed? How is it legal to not inform a death? In other words, my question is what exactly is lacking today and why? Thank you so much for this community. Your answer will guide my activist group's efforts.

The details are fleshed out in this article . Outside of India, jurisdictions differ as to whether they accept whole-brain-death vs. brain-stem death as "death". The article points out that there is not widespread awareness of the relevant medical concepts in India (which impacts the laws that are enacted). Brain-stem death was "legalized" by The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 . The act sort of defines the term: “brain-stem death” means the stage at which all functions of the brain-stem have permanently and irreversibly ceased and is so certified under sub-section (6) of section 3 but this is, apparently, insufficiently clear to practicing physicians, and there are or have been doubts about the legal procedure of certifying brain-death. Under the act, it is allowed to take organs if "it appears to be a case of brain-stem death, [and] that such death has been certified under sub-section (6)". Sub-section (6) allows but does not require a certification of brain-stem death, though one state, Maharashtra, passed a resolution making such a declaration mandatory. The article points out that there is little literature on the actual practices of brain-death determination, "no sufficient evidence to determine the minimally acceptable observation period between clinical exams", and other medical issues which are discussed in the article. This means that physicians do face or have faced significant uncertainty as to when it is legal to remove organs for transplant. As a general rule, when there is considerable risk of personal liability associated with one's decisions and since great liability attaches to removing organs from a non-dead person, removing physician option (w.r.t. certification of brain-stem death) reduces physician probability of liability, therefore may increase the supply of available organs.

What are the implications of requesting someone sign a document with false information?

I have been asked by multiple different companies on different occasions to sign documents, with my signature certifying that all information in the document is true and correct. These documents have had factual errors, and further, when I request a correction, the companies always insist that I sign the document anyway. Is this inherently illegal, and if I were to sign as instructed, does their action affect the validity of contracts derived from this information or the validity of my signature, at all?

In general, signing means you cannot deny the accuracy of the information in the future In general, there is no prohibition on knowingly stating falsehoods under the law. That is, it is not illegal to lie. Exceptions include when you are under penalty of perjury (e.g. on oath in court), when you are making certain declarations to government (e.g. your tax return), you are acting dishonestly to cause gain or harm others (e.g. fraud), etc. However, by signing the document, you may create a legal fact that is independent of the real-world facts. For example, if you sign a receipt for $1,000 then you create a legal presumption that you received $1,000 even if there was actually only $500 in the envelope. You would need some pretty spectacular evidence to overcome that presumption. Now, I don’t know what you are signing that has factual errors in it but, if they are material errors, don’t. Just don’t.

What are the implications of requesting someone sign a document with false information?

I have been asked by multiple different companies on different occasions to sign documents, with my signature certifying that all information in the document is true and correct. These documents have had factual errors, and further, when I request a correction, the companies always insist that I sign the document anyway. Is this inherently illegal, and if I were to sign as instructed, does their action affect the validity of contracts derived from this information or the validity of my signature, at all?

Signing a document does not inherently mean anything, but it might commit you to something (a contract), or might constitute a sworn statement (an affidavit that you have never eaten pork). It is illegal (perjury) to knowingly make a false sworn statement, but it is not illegal to agree to something that you won't want to agree to (paying $100 per month rather than $10). If you e.g. affirm, as shown by your signature with an associated declaration that "everything contained in this document is true to the best of my knowledge", that you intend to do X or that you have never done X but that is false, you can easily be sued, because you committed fraud. It could even be criminal perjury, in cases where the company asks questions that pertain to security clearances or things about bank accounts which often require swearing to facts, as required by law. It doesn't affect the validity of the contract, it bears on the punishment that you will receive for making false statements.

Can the police tell you not to have house guests or you will be arrested?

My friend is being harassed by our local pd. They come to her house excessively and have even told her if she has house guests they will arrest her. Can they really do that?

They come to her house excessively and have even told her if she has house guests they will arrest her. Can they really do that? Absent special circumstances such as those discussed below, however, having house guests is not a crime, and some laws that purport to prohibit this are unconstitutional. But, there are a variety of proper and improper reasons that this could be happening, as well as some that are in a legal gray area. Clearly, the police are doing this for some reason, proper or improper, because it is a sustained pattern of conduct that seems to be singling out one person. But, without more of a factual context it is hard to tell what that reason is so that it is possible to determine whether or not their threat has a legal basis. Like most legal questions, the answer cannot be provided in a vacuum and a full factual context is necessary to know if the police conduct is illegal or not. Valid Reasons Part of A Pattern Of Evidence Showing A Suspected Vice Offense One possible subtext is that the police believe that the premises is a de facto house of prostitution, or that she is dealing drugs out of the house, even though they don't yet have the evidence to arrest her on those suspicions. The police could be implying in their threat to arrest her that the presence of "house guests" would give them probable cause to arrest her on suspicion of a vice offense such as prostitution or drug dealing. Municipal Ordinance Violations Many valid reasons involve municipal ordinances, almost all of which can be punished by arrest and incarceration just like a misdemeanor criminal offense, even when the ordinance does not describe conduct that would usually be considered to be criminal in nature. For example, municipal codes usually authorize law enforcement to arrest someone for a zoning violation, even though it would be very unusual to arrest someone for violating a zoning law. There are often municipal ordinances which limit how many house guests you can have at any one time in a single family house or apartment, such as fire codes and laws designed to prevent loitering and gang activity, and there are often rules that prohibit certain kinds of activities like loud and disorderly parties (especially where alcohol is served or available). But, these ordinances almost never prohibit all house guests. The police could think that she is operating a short term leasing operation (i.e. Air B-n-B) or hotel, in a place where this use of the property is banned by municipal ordinance, and it appears that her "house guests" fit this description. Many municipal ordinances impose curfews on minors, and someone could be arrested for having a party at which minor house guests are present after curfew under some of those municipal ordinances. Some municipal ordinances (or even sometimes state laws), which are not always constitutional or valid under federal housing laws, prohibit unrelated people from cohabiting, either because the cohabitation amounts to de facto polygamy, or because zoning laws prohibit more than a certain number of unrelated people from living at a residence. Valid Reasons Particular To Certain Individuals If someone is on probation or parole or house arrest or out on bail pending criminal charges, the conditions of that criminal sentence or bail condition could also limit the ability of someone to have house guests. For example, if someone had previously been convicted of disorderly conduct and noise violations and contributing to the delinquency of minors, with a wild party, a probation condition for that person might prohibit them from having house guests during the duration of the probation sentence. Similarly, many probation, parole and bail conditions, prohibit the person released in the community from associating with known felons or gang members. Civil or criminal protection orders can also prohibit particular people (e.g. ex-spouses) from being at a particular location. Many states impose restrictions on where sex offenders can reside that could be implicated in this case. A few states also have a criminal sanction of "exile" on the books that prohibits certain people from being in certain jurisdictions following their conviction. Gray Area Reasons It is also entirely possible that the police are asserting rights to do things that they don't actually have the right to do. And, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., it is not categorically unconstitutional for law enforcement officers to lie to members of the public about their authority or other matters, in order to achieve a law enforcement purpose, even if they would be violating the law if they followed through on their lies about what they are permitted to do. Improper Reasons There could also be clearly improper reasons for this conduct. For example: perhaps a police officer wants men to say away from his ex-spouse or daughter, even though he has no right to do so and his colleagues are backing him up, or perhaps the police think that her house guests are disreputable and are taking matters into their own hands without legal authority to keep "bad people" out of territory in their "beat", or perhaps they suspect but can't prove that she deals drugs or conducts some other sort of illegal activity at her residence, or perhaps she is one of the few black residents of the neighborhood (or her house guests are black) and the police want to harass her to cause her to leave the neighborhood, and they don't think that she will be able to punish them for their misconduct effectively though legal channels before getting fed up and moving away. For example, if they make an arrest and can articulate some kind of alleged probable cause even if it doesn't hold up in court, they may be able to dramatically inconvenience this women with impunity, particularly if the local trial court judges that would consider the arrest decide to side with the police even when misconduct would be clear to a neutral observer.

Can the police tell you not to have house guests or you will be arrested?

My friend is being harassed by our local pd. They come to her house excessively and have even told her if she has house guests they will arrest her. Can they really do that?

The police legally cannot arrest a person for having guests. They can come to the house to talk to the owner, or others who are there. They can arrest a person if they have probable cause that a crime was committed or is being committed, such as murder or disturbing the peace. Suppose that owner A habitually invites over guests who disturb the peace. Someone could file a complaint requesting that A be enjoined from having more that 3 guests, or something like that, aimed at stopping the noise that accompanies these visits. The court might then issue a temporary restraining order or a permanent injunction for some cause. Were there such an injunction, violating it is a crime, and A could be arrested. The police cannot, however, "take the law into their hands" and issue an injunction – that comes from a court. Supposing that there is no such court order, and supposing that the police simply have it in for A, A can try to sue the city for harassment, including a federal civil rights lawsuit . Whether or not A will succeed depends on what the actual facts are.

Can a church legally initiate formal discipline against a member who has officially withdrawn/resigned from the church?

Suppose Jane is a member of a fundamentalist Evangelical church. She violates church doctrine and submits her resignation. At this point, church doctrine calls for her to be shunned by the church congregation and this indeed happens, but the worst thing to happen is that the congregation stops interacting with Jane. Is this sufficient cause for a court to rule against Jane's former church?

You don't have to interact with people if you don't want to If you don't want to talk or otherwise interact with somebody in a personal capacity, you don't have to. Your reasons for doing so are your reasons. Some of the congregation may have roles that require them to interact with Jane in what I will loosely call an "official" capacity. For example, if one of the congregants is a government employee and government business requires the interaction, they would have to do so. It gets a little tricky when there is not a clear legal duty to interact. For example, if a congregant is an employee of a company with which Jane has business and who would normally be the person to interact with Jane, they might reasonably claim that they have a religious belief that prevents them from doing so. Anti-discrimination law may require the employer to make reasonable accommodations for that belief, for example, by getting a different employee to interact with Jane.

Can a church legally initiate formal discipline against a member who has officially withdrawn/resigned from the church?

Suppose Jane is a member of a fundamentalist Evangelical church. She violates church doctrine and submits her resignation. At this point, church doctrine calls for her to be shunned by the church congregation and this indeed happens, but the worst thing to happen is that the congregation stops interacting with Jane. Is this sufficient cause for a court to rule against Jane's former church?

canada See Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga , 2021 SCC 22 . In that case, two members of a religious organization were expelled. The Court held that any remedy would have to be found in legal rights such as "rights in property, contract, tort or unjust enrichment ⸺ and statutory causes of action." In many circumstances, "there [is] no legal right attached to the plaintiff’s membership in his religious congregation" and therefore the courts will have "no jurisdiction to determine whether [they were] properly expelled." In sum, courts can only intervene in the affairs of a voluntary association to vindicate a legal right, such as a right in property or contract. Membership in a voluntary association is not automatically contractual. Even a written constitution does not suffice. Membership is contractual only where the conditions for contract formation are met, including an objective intention to create legal relations. Such an intention is more likely to exist where property or employment are at stake. It is less likely to exist in religious contexts, where individuals may intend for their mutual obligations to be spiritually but not legally binding. A voluntary association will be constituted by a web of contracts among the members only where the conditions for contract formation are met.

Can a church legally initiate formal discipline against a member who has officially withdrawn/resigned from the church?

Suppose Jane is a member of a fundamentalist Evangelical church. She violates church doctrine and submits her resignation. At this point, church doctrine calls for her to be shunned by the church congregation and this indeed happens, but the worst thing to happen is that the congregation stops interacting with Jane. Is this sufficient cause for a court to rule against Jane's former church?

usa You have a constitutional right to associate with whom you please The Supreme court has long held that the 1st amendment right to free speech, assembly, and petition also includes the freedom of association. This right to association can be on cultural, religious and/or political grounds and the religious grounds are established. This would ostensibly also include the right to not associate with people who have religious, political or cultural ideals you find abhorrent. How Free Speech Rights Protect the Freedom to Associate Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny. It appears from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, although it has at times been referred to as an independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association. source - 1 source - 2

Can a church legally initiate formal discipline against a member who has officially withdrawn/resigned from the church?

Suppose Jane is a member of a fundamentalist Evangelical church. She violates church doctrine and submits her resignation. At this point, church doctrine calls for her to be shunned by the church congregation and this indeed happens, but the worst thing to happen is that the congregation stops interacting with Jane. Is this sufficient cause for a court to rule against Jane's former church?

usa Any law enabling such a tort would violate at least 3 Constitutionally-protected rights in the U.S. The government is explicitly forbidden by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. The circumstances under which the government can prohibit either an individual person or a religious organization from exercising the tenets of their religion are quite narrow and this does not approach such a circumstance. Next up is freedom of expression. This emanates from the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Expression also can only be limited by the government under exceptionally narrow circumstances. Even holding an openly neo-Nazi demonstration through a heavily-Jewish town is considered protected free speech. While there are a few exceptions (for example, slander or incitement,) a church expressing disagreement with a former member's actions by not associating with them doesn't come remotely close to any exception to freedom of expression. And that 'associating' part brings us to the third reason such a ruling could not be legal: freedom of association. While, unlike freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice, freedom of association isn't explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, courts have ruled that the right to associate or to not associate with others is protected by the U.S. Constitution, especially when that association (or non-association) is expressive in nature. It's also worth noting that Jane herself is exercising exactly these three rights in deciding to cease certain religious practices, no longer associate with her former church, and express her disagreement with their views. She would literally be suing them for doing the same things that she herself is doing.

NDA for selling company

Hypothetically, if someone were to say they sold their company, can they have an NDA that prevents them from speaking about their company name, the buying company's name, and details about what their company does or is this not possible?

An NDA is a contract between parties, hence the "A" which stands for "agreement". If the buyer asks for an NDA with those terms as a part of the deal and the seller agrees to it, then yes, it's possible. If the seller does not agree to the NDA terms, then further negotiations may lead to an agreement. Otherwise the buyer may choose to not complete the purchase.

Can a non-human legal entity own copyright?

Can non-human legal entities (for example, corporations) own copyright?

Yes. For example, corporations can own copyright. They may own copyright after assignment (this is true across much of the commonwealth and in the U.S.). In some jurisdictions, when a work is made for hire, the employer may be deemed the author and initial owner (e.g. U.S.) or just the initial owner (e.g. Canada).

If website uses cookies only after users login, can I ask for cookie consent during account creation instead of website launch?

I have a website that uses cookies only if the user logs in. Is it necessary to show a cookie popup banner at website launch or can I ask for consent when user is creating an account (the standard I agree to the website conditions checkbox)?

Under European rules (GDPR, ePrivacy), you only need consent here if you both access or store information on the user's device (such as cookies), and this access/storage is not strictly necessary for a service explicitly requested by the user. A session cookie is strictly necessary for providing a log-in functionality, so such cookies are unlikely to require consent. In contrast, cookies for measuring ad impressions are not strictly necessary for showing the website content. Necessity must always be thought from the user's perspective, not from the provider's economic needs. If you use one cookie for multiple purposes, you should analyze each purpose separately. Maybe setting a cookie does not require consent under one purpose, but accessing the same information for a different purpose could require consent. If you have to ask for consent, this consent must be in line with the GDPR's requirements in Art 7. Consent must be freely given, i.e. there must actually be a way to decline the consent without suffering detriment. Consent must be informed, i.e. the user must be told directly for what consent is being sought, without having to click through to a long privacy policy. Consent must be specific, so it must be possible to consent for one purpose while declining consent for another. An "I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy" checkbox cannot constitute valid GDPR consent because it fails all these criteria: I cannot use the service without agreeing, I'm not told essential information up front (you cannot expect users to actually read long privacy policies), and this is an all-or-nothing bundle that does not allow specific choices. If you do not have to ask for consent, you should still be transparent about your use of cookies, for example by providing a paragraph on this topic in your privacy notice. I think showing a cookie banner would be a bad idea in that scenario, since it could be confused with an invalid consent banner (no way to decline the cookies).

failure to ID in the state of Texas

I was pulled over and the cop said that the reason was that when he ran the tags he couldn't find insurance on the car. A former officer told me that, that is not a reason to pull someone over. He said if someone is speeding, ran a red light, made a wrong turn etc. those are reasons to pull someone over and THEN if it comes up that you don’t have insurance or they can’t find it I'm their system, that's when they can add that on as no proof of insurance. But he said simply pulling someone over because he doesn’t see insurance is an illegal stop. Was that a legal stop? Then he asked for drivers license and proof of insurance. The car was not mine so I told him I didn’t have proof of insurance and I didn’t have my license on me. So he gave me a pen and pad to write down the name. I write down my sisters name assuming because it's her car he’d be able to find it's registered to her and he'd find the insurance I didn't know it was my first time ever ever stopped. Another office came and he asked for MY name in specific so I gave it to him and he said is that the same name you gave to the other officer I said no I gave home my sisters name because that's who's car this is. In the end the original cop told me to step out, he searched the car (didn't find anything) and then arrested me for failure to ID and false information. Should I have been taken to jail if I didn’t intentionally give him a wrong name? I told him I didn't intentionally give him a wrong name and in the end he still had my full name, address and date of birth.

The legality of the stop may be somewhat up in the air, but it would seem that the vehicle is not in the Texassure database, so it is reasonable to think that the person driving is not insured, and therefore is breaking the law. And that is all that is required: that the suspicion is reasonable. Until someone makes a sufficiently persuasive legal stink about this, it is probably a legal stop. This article gives some legal discussion. One applicable case is US v. Broca-Martinez , a Texas case where a person was pulled over for being "unconfirmed" w.r.t. the insurance database: the court held that this was a reasonable suspicion. Thereafter, a charitable interpretation is that you misunderstood the request in providing your sister's information when he asked for your license and insurance: but you are expected to understand that when they request your license and proofs of insurance, they mean you the driver, and not the car owner. That they is even more suspicious, although I understand your confusion. At your hearing you cane explain why you didn't comply with the first officer's request, and the judge may they chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding rather than intentional deception. The problem is that you are expected to know – whether or not you've ever been pulled over before – that you have to provide license, registration, and proof of insurance. You will have a hard time making it believable that you didn't understand what the officer told you and what the law requires.

failure to ID in the state of Texas

I was pulled over and the cop said that the reason was that when he ran the tags he couldn't find insurance on the car. A former officer told me that, that is not a reason to pull someone over. He said if someone is speeding, ran a red light, made a wrong turn etc. those are reasons to pull someone over and THEN if it comes up that you don’t have insurance or they can’t find it I'm their system, that's when they can add that on as no proof of insurance. But he said simply pulling someone over because he doesn’t see insurance is an illegal stop. Was that a legal stop? Then he asked for drivers license and proof of insurance. The car was not mine so I told him I didn’t have proof of insurance and I didn’t have my license on me. So he gave me a pen and pad to write down the name. I write down my sisters name assuming because it's her car he’d be able to find it's registered to her and he'd find the insurance I didn't know it was my first time ever ever stopped. Another office came and he asked for MY name in specific so I gave it to him and he said is that the same name you gave to the other officer I said no I gave home my sisters name because that's who's car this is. In the end the original cop told me to step out, he searched the car (didn't find anything) and then arrested me for failure to ID and false information. Should I have been taken to jail if I didn’t intentionally give him a wrong name? I told him I didn't intentionally give him a wrong name and in the end he still had my full name, address and date of birth.

The stop is legal. The plates are and are required to be publicly displayed and the police car’s computer is probably scanning all the plates around it and raising flags for things like no insurance or other reasons to stop a car. Police officers make arrests when they have reason to believe the arrestee has committed an offence. They don’t have to be right – indeed they quite often aren’t. So, yes, your arrest was justifiable.

Does implied consent protect an organization's ability to discipline former members?

Somewhat inspired by this question , I found this website . To summarize, they imply that they would be legally protected from civil suits from former members who are being disciplined. Would this actually work? My first thought is that it doesn't make sense that a person who leaves cannot revoke their consent, especially since this wasn't a binding contract of any sort.

In Guinn v. Church of Christ , plaintiff withdrew from the church after an internal investigation of her conduct. The church apparently held as a matter of religious doctrine that she must repent of her sins, also that withdrawing from the church is doctrinally impossible. The transgressions were widely publicized within the church; a lawsuit over outrage and invasion of privacy ensued. The upshot of the appeal is that the church can be held liable for post-withdrawal actions, but before that, the church has a privilege to communicate such transgressions (the church is not subject to secular judicature of its actions w.r.t. its members). Contract law is not relevant here, what matters is that a person can knowingly and intelligently waive their right to litigate against a party, and while one is a member of the church which has such a waiver as part of their disciplinary doctrine, one cannot sue the church for its doctrinary actions as long as the actions do not constitute a threat to public safety which would justify state interference. Although the church argued that church membership is irrevocable, the court found that "Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one's religious allegiance". Given that plaintiff had withdrawn consent yet the church subsequently announced the transgressions without her consent, the church was thus found to be liable. In Stepek v. Doe , the court similarly affirmed that a church enjoys a privilege against charges of defamation, when the plaintiff continues to operate within the church, not having left the church. So it can "work", to some extent. The person can always withdraw consent; the person has no legal recourse in case consent has not been withdrawn. The article is correct as far as it goes, which is not far enough: it errs in not stating what the legal consequences of of the transgressor leaving the church are.

Is paying a police officer to do something legal that is in theory part of their job, but isn't being done, illegal?

Let's say you live in a house and have a neighbor who is a nuisance. The neighbor does various illegal things on a regular basis (car is extremely noisy above and beyond what is allowed in the law, loud music in the middle of the night that can be heard from the inside of neighbors homes, pool on roof seemingly without sanitation controls, burning trash on the sidewalk, etc, etc). Basically, a neighbor who all the other neighbors despise, but no one does anything because the nuisance neighbor would probably only increase his disrespectful behavior. I was discussing the issue with a friend, and I suggested that since police enforcement is very weak in the neighborhood, if it would be a possibility to just put a price on the "job of enforcing the law". Essentially, you walk up to a random police officer and say: "I'll give you 10k USD to do your job. That is, to go to this particular place, and observe the infractions occurring due to this nuisance neighbor, and do whatever the law prescribes you to do when you catch someone doing something illegal". Is offering the officer 10k to "do his job" an illegal act? Is this conceptually equivalent to offering an officer money to not do his job (a bribe)? Is offering the officer the money to perform his job considered a bribe? As another example. If your house is being robbed this very instant, and you know it, is it illegal to go to a police officer and say: "my house is being robbed, I'll pay you 10k USD to go to my house and do your job"? Is it immoral or unethical from either party (the payer or the police officer taking the payment)?

It depends on the jurisdiction, and what you hire the officer to do. It is generally legal to hire an off-duty police officer, and here is what Seattle says about that. They are held to the same standards as when they are on duty; they have to be off duty (and not on sick leave). They do have to submit an approval form that describes what they will do. While in uniform, the work has to be of a law enforcement or traffic enforcement nature (thus not bill-collecting or vehicle repo), also you can't work in an alcohol or marijuana sales establishment. Some of your interests would probably not be covered, since zoning-type infractions (pool) are not within the purview of the police, but burning trash on the sidewalk would be. Because of the requirement for approval, you probably can't pay to get a response to a robbery (still takes 24 hours to get "short notice" approval). It is not clearly illegal to offer an officer money to "do his job", but it is also not clearly legal. It is illegal ( bribery ), if you With the intent to secure a particular result in a particular matter involving the exercise of the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action in his or her official capacity, he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon such public servant It is not obvious whether a peace officer is a public servant, as defined under the law. A "public servant" is any person other than a witness who presently occupies the position of or has been elected, appointed, or designated to become any officer or employee of government, including a legislator, judge, judicial officer, juror, and any person participating as an advisor, consultant, or otherwise in performing a governmental function and a "peace officer" is a duly appointed city, county, or state law enforcement officer By statutory stipulation, a LEO is "appointed", and they are an employee of the government. Then when you hire them to do something, do you do so "with the intent to secure a particular result in a matter involving the exercise of the public servant's exercise of discretion in his or her official capacity"? If so, it is bribery (a crime). Since LEOs can legally be hired to enforce the law when off duty, the legality of that hiring must depend on the "particularity" of the job. If an officer has the discretion to arrest Smith for a criminal act, but declines to do so, then you cannot pay him to act otherwise. Officers generally have the discretion to arrest (or not) anyone committing a crime, so hiring an officer to "control traffic" or "work security" is not influencing the officer to exercise a particular form of discretion. The crucial question would be, why didn't they enforce the law in the first place?

Is paying a police officer to do something legal that is in theory part of their job, but isn't being done, illegal?

Let's say you live in a house and have a neighbor who is a nuisance. The neighbor does various illegal things on a regular basis (car is extremely noisy above and beyond what is allowed in the law, loud music in the middle of the night that can be heard from the inside of neighbors homes, pool on roof seemingly without sanitation controls, burning trash on the sidewalk, etc, etc). Basically, a neighbor who all the other neighbors despise, but no one does anything because the nuisance neighbor would probably only increase his disrespectful behavior. I was discussing the issue with a friend, and I suggested that since police enforcement is very weak in the neighborhood, if it would be a possibility to just put a price on the "job of enforcing the law". Essentially, you walk up to a random police officer and say: "I'll give you 10k USD to do your job. That is, to go to this particular place, and observe the infractions occurring due to this nuisance neighbor, and do whatever the law prescribes you to do when you catch someone doing something illegal". Is offering the officer 10k to "do his job" an illegal act? Is this conceptually equivalent to offering an officer money to not do his job (a bribe)? Is offering the officer the money to perform his job considered a bribe? As another example. If your house is being robbed this very instant, and you know it, is it illegal to go to a police officer and say: "my house is being robbed, I'll pay you 10k USD to go to my house and do your job"? Is it immoral or unethical from either party (the payer or the police officer taking the payment)?

Yes, it’s the illegal act of corruption new-south-wales s249B of the Crimes Act criminalises an agent (the police officer in your case) from corruptly receiving an inducement or reward to do or not do something or to show favour or disfavour to a person. It’s also a crime to offer or make such an inducement or reward. Both punishable by 7 years.

Is paying a police officer to do something legal that is in theory part of their job, but isn't being done, illegal?

Let's say you live in a house and have a neighbor who is a nuisance. The neighbor does various illegal things on a regular basis (car is extremely noisy above and beyond what is allowed in the law, loud music in the middle of the night that can be heard from the inside of neighbors homes, pool on roof seemingly without sanitation controls, burning trash on the sidewalk, etc, etc). Basically, a neighbor who all the other neighbors despise, but no one does anything because the nuisance neighbor would probably only increase his disrespectful behavior. I was discussing the issue with a friend, and I suggested that since police enforcement is very weak in the neighborhood, if it would be a possibility to just put a price on the "job of enforcing the law". Essentially, you walk up to a random police officer and say: "I'll give you 10k USD to do your job. That is, to go to this particular place, and observe the infractions occurring due to this nuisance neighbor, and do whatever the law prescribes you to do when you catch someone doing something illegal". Is offering the officer 10k to "do his job" an illegal act? Is this conceptually equivalent to offering an officer money to not do his job (a bribe)? Is offering the officer the money to perform his job considered a bribe? As another example. If your house is being robbed this very instant, and you know it, is it illegal to go to a police officer and say: "my house is being robbed, I'll pay you 10k USD to go to my house and do your job"? Is it immoral or unethical from either party (the payer or the police officer taking the payment)?

england-and-wales Payments to someone to do a job that they're already obliged to do are referred to as ' Facilitation Payments ' and are explicity illegal. Facilitation payments are bribes under the Act just as they are under the old law ... Facilitation payments, which are payments to induce officials to perform routine functions they are otherwise obligated to perform, are bribes. There was no exemption for such payments under the previous law nor is there under the Bribery Act. The Bribery Act 2010 - A Quick Start Guide Paying a policeman to investigate a criminal or arrest someone that was breaking the law would be almost the textbook example of this crime.

Is paying a police officer to do something legal that is in theory part of their job, but isn't being done, illegal?

Let's say you live in a house and have a neighbor who is a nuisance. The neighbor does various illegal things on a regular basis (car is extremely noisy above and beyond what is allowed in the law, loud music in the middle of the night that can be heard from the inside of neighbors homes, pool on roof seemingly without sanitation controls, burning trash on the sidewalk, etc, etc). Basically, a neighbor who all the other neighbors despise, but no one does anything because the nuisance neighbor would probably only increase his disrespectful behavior. I was discussing the issue with a friend, and I suggested that since police enforcement is very weak in the neighborhood, if it would be a possibility to just put a price on the "job of enforcing the law". Essentially, you walk up to a random police officer and say: "I'll give you 10k USD to do your job. That is, to go to this particular place, and observe the infractions occurring due to this nuisance neighbor, and do whatever the law prescribes you to do when you catch someone doing something illegal". Is offering the officer 10k to "do his job" an illegal act? Is this conceptually equivalent to offering an officer money to not do his job (a bribe)? Is offering the officer the money to perform his job considered a bribe? As another example. If your house is being robbed this very instant, and you know it, is it illegal to go to a police officer and say: "my house is being robbed, I'll pay you 10k USD to go to my house and do your job"? Is it immoral or unethical from either party (the payer or the police officer taking the payment)?

Since there is no country... In Germany, it is legal to offer or give money to a police officer for having done his duty - let's say police officers return your kidnapped daughter unharmed, and you are very happy about it. It is illegal for the police officers to take the money, or to ask for the money. And it is obviously illegal to pay or to try to pay a police officer for not doing his duty, both for you and the police officer. (The rest of the answer would be quite irrelevant in the USA, because even this case where it is very understandable to offer money, it's illegal in the USA). But I have the impression you are not offering the money to do his duty - you are offering money for the police officer to act in a certain way. Let's say you suspect your neighbour to be a thief. The police officer has the same suspicion, but the evidence is just enough to make it a judgement call for the officer to pay your neighbour a visit or not. In this case, if the police officer acted because you paid him, I wouldn't say he is doing his duty. His duty is to think about the situation and do what he thinks is the most suitable action which may or may not result in him questioning your neighbour. His duty is not to question your neighbour. So even if paying a police officer to do his duty was legal for you (it's not legal even in Germany for the police officer), that's not what you would be doing.

Is this is an appropriate way of distinguishing cases?

I was researching how lawyers, courts distinguish cases and I came across this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/index.html#PreLayDowRul . It says that cases can be distinguished by a later court based on the following constraints: (1) in formulating the ratio of the later case, the factors in the ratio of the earlier case must be retained, and (2) the ruling in the later case must be such that it would still support the result reached in the precedent case. It also says that cases can be distinguished "even though those facts do not feature in the ratio of the earlier case." This article also points out that "this power is not merely given to courts of the same level of authority as the one laying down the precedent (as is the case with overruling), but is given to every court lower in the judicial hierarchy." Is this reasoning valid? Doesn't this go against the doctrine of stare decisis? Kmiec, Keenan. The Origin and Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism", California Law Review (2004): Some instances of disregarding precedent are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare showing of unity in a Supreme Court opinion discussing judicial activism, Justice Stevens wrote that a circuit court "engaged in an indefensible brand of judicial activism" when it "refused to follow" a "controlling precedent" of the Supreme Court. The rule that lower courts should abide by controlling precedent, sometimes called "vertical precedent," can safely be called settled law. It appears to be equally well accepted that the act of disregarding vertical precedent qualifies as one kind of judicial activism. "Horizontal precedent," the doctrine requiring a court "to follow its own prior decisions in similar cases," is a more complicated and debatable matter.... Does the below from the article: this power is not merely given to courts of the same level of authority as the one laying down the precedent (as is the case with overruling), but is given to every court lower in the judicial hierarchy. conflict with what stare decisis is? How can lower courts avoid a controlling precedent and not follow settled law as pointed out by Justice Stevens? Am I interpreting what the author is saying correctly? Can the lower courts add factors to the ratio of the earlier decision such that the result would be the same as in the earlier case and then distinguish seemingly like cases?

Distinguishing a case which was decided by a higher court does not violate the doctrine of stare decisis . If the case can be distinguished, then it is not a controlling precedent. The term "controlling" indicates not only that the decision is binding on lower courts, but also that it applies to (or cannot be distinguished from) the facts of the specific case in question. Whether a precedent is "controlling" or not, in a particular case, could itself be a question for an appellate court. So if a lower court distinguishes a previous decision and therefore declines to follow it, the appellate court could say that was an error, and set aside the lower court's decision for not following a controlling precedent.

How can Standard Contractual Clauses overcome Schrems II?

My understanding of Schrems II was that it essentially said the US did not provide adequate data protection because of the potential access intelligence agencies there have and the lack of legal recourse non-US citizens have, and consequently agreements such as Privacy Shield and Standard Contractual Clauses were invalid for making data transfers legal. However, it seems multiple SaaS products still transfer data there under amended Standard Contractual Clauses, e.g: Figma : Figma relies on Standard Contractual Clauses for the transfer of personal data out of the EU and has implemented certain supplementary measures for EU to US data transfers based on the Schrems II decision I'm confused as to what supplementary measures Figma has/could even have added to a contract to change that? Is this likely to hold up, or also probably invalid and just not enforced/tested in court yet? How is it possible for Contractual Clauses to mitigate privacy risks enshrined by law in the US?

The Schrems II decision (C-311/18) primarily discussed the "Privacy Shield" adequacy decision, but also covered SCCs. The CJEU confirmed that SCCs are generally valid. However, the CJEU also pointed out that the data exporter must first consider whether SCCs can actually be used in their specific context. From paragraph 141 of the judgment: It follows that Clause 4(a) and Clause 5(a) and (b) in that annex oblige the controller established in the European Union and the recipient of personal data to satisfy themselves that the legislation of the third country of destination enables the recipient to comply with the standard data protection clauses in the annex to the SCC Decision, before transferring personal data to that third country. […] Translated to normal English: the SCC terms require the data exporter and data importer to check that the legal environment in the destination country actually allows the importer to comply with the terms of the SCCs. Since Schrems-II, it is common to prepare a "transfer impact assessment (TIA)" that contains such analysis. Options for valid SCC-based international transfers A Schrems-II compliant data transfer based on SCCs could work in the following scenarios: there are no problematic laws in the destination country while there might be problematic laws, they do not apply to the data importer even if the data importer is subject to problematic laws, supplemental safeguards such as end-to-end encryption prevent the personal data from falling into unauthorized hands (unofficial theory:) even if the data importer is subject to problematic laws, the risk of these laws being invoked is negligible in practice Let's analyze these options for the case of EU to US transfers: The Schrems II case seems to deny the first option, since it explicitly found that the lack of legal redress means that the US do not provide an "adequate" level of data protection. After the judgment, some such as the US government argued that this was based on outdated laws (cases take a long long time), and that the current legal environment is perfectly fine. After additional changes to US government policy, the EU Commission later joined this argument and issued a new "Data Privacy Framework" adequacy decision in 2023. I occasionally saw US companies arguing that they are not subject to problematic laws like FISA 702 because they are not a communications provider. If true, that may have been a valid argument. The EDPB published recommendations on implementing supplemental measures such as pseudonymization or encryption to protect the GDPR-covered personal data even when it is processed in the US. However, these supplemental measures have to operate with an extreme threat model: successfully defending against access by US government three-letter agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA). In practice, these recommendations ruled out any use of US-based cloud or SaaS services, and did not provide a reasonable option for continuing EU→US data transfers. But since claims about supplemental measures are easier to make than to verify (and since most data protection authorities did not actively seek out potential data transfer violations), this was a very common choice. Supervisory authorities note that details about the supplementary measures should be provided to data subjects on request, but this has been rare. Where I have seen details about such measures, they were usually techniques like transport encryption (like HTTPS) and encryption at rest, which fall clearly short of the EDPB recommendations. Sometimes, I've seen attempts at anonymization, but usually implemented for an US-centric view of "PII" that ignores the nuances of the GDPR's "personal data" concept. Techniques that could actually work – like homomorphic encryption – have been largely absent in this space, but that unsurprising given the novelty and overhead of such technologies. The EU's CJEU did not permit a risk-based approach to TIAs, but it has found blessing in the UK, and it has been widely practiced by industry. In B2B, the customers might be on the hook In a B2B context, there is another aspect: Who is the data controller who is primarily responsible for GDPR compliance? Often, we have a US SaaS provider who offers a pre-formulated DPA/SCC, and an EU-based customer company. In many cases, the EU-based customer will be the data controller, and responsible for the international data transfer. The SaaS provider would typically be a "data processor", who has no direct GDPR obligations and is only responsible for fulfilling their contract with their customers. In such constellations, the US-based providers often advertise themselves as 100% GDPR-compliant, even though the real question is whether the customers can use that service in a GDPR-compliant manner. Figma's policies In the case of Figma, this means that most of the risk of having potentially invalid SCCs is not shouldered by Figma, but by their EU-based customers. FYI, the Figma GDPR FAQ you linked in turn links to their full DPA ( permalink ), which lists supposed supplementary measures in Exhibit C (in addition to the security measures in Exhibit B). These supplementary measures are of a solely organizational nature, such as consulting with expert legal counsel, nicely asking the government to contact the customer directly, and publishing an annual transparency report. The DPA also includes a transparency report, noting that between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2022, zero US government requests were received, and that no court found Figma to be subject to FISA 702. While I have my doubts about the suitability of such measures to prevent government access, a transparency report is useful for making risk-based arguments. I tried looking for their updated report which should be due this month, but realized that "Figma Transparency" is impossible to search for online :)

Is it legal to change user agent?

Assume (hypothetically), I'm using jsoup to download certain news website in my public android app. When I don't change user-agent in jsoup it redirects me to another website. Is it legal to change the user agent of my public app, so the user of the app will get the correct news article? Does it matter that the website is scraped a little after downloading it?

Read the ToS of the website News websites implement such measures because unscrupulous people infringe on the copyright of their articles. Typically, such websites also have terms os service that explicitly makes usage of the website contingent on not scraping the website. For example, the New York Times say: PROHIBITED USE OF THE SERVICES You may not access or use, or attempt to access or use, the Services to take any action that could harm us or a third party. You may not use the Services in violation of applicable laws or in violation of our or any third party’s intellectual property or other proprietary or legal rights. You further agree that you shall not attempt (or encourage or support anyone else's attempt) to circumvent, reverse engineer, decrypt, or otherwise alter or interfere with the Services, or any content thereof, or make any unauthorized use thereof. Without NYT’s prior written consent, you shall not: (i) access any part of the Services, Content, data or information you do not have permission or authorization to access or for which NYT has revoked your access; (ii) use robots, spiders, scripts, service, software or any manual or automatic device, tool, or process designed to data mine or scrape the Content, data or information from the Services, or otherwise access or collect the Content, data or information from the Services using automated means; Violating the Terms of Service means, you are in breach of contract and got no license to access any of the data. This allows claims starting with breach of contract and going up to intruding into the servers and violating various computer crime laws. However, do note that having a possible charge does not mean that it will result in a trial or even conviction.

Is it legal to change user agent?

Assume (hypothetically), I'm using jsoup to download certain news website in my public android app. When I don't change user-agent in jsoup it redirects me to another website. Is it legal to change the user agent of my public app, so the user of the app will get the correct news article? Does it matter that the website is scraped a little after downloading it?

It is hard to prove a negative (there is no comprehensive list of things that are legal). However a specific user agent name is not mandated by any law, so there can hardly be a law against changing it [*] (think of it this way, instead of using jsoup you could write your own crawler/parser - there is no government agency that would knock at your door and ask you to use a specific name for your software). Here in germany there is a law against circumventing effective protective measures to get access to a computer system, but it is doubtful that a website would be considered a computer system in the meaning of the law, and relying on the user agent would not be effective protective measures. A site might try to ban scraping via their terms of service, but that would not always be enforceable, and would not depend on your user agent name. I still would not recommend to rely on data that a company does not want you to scrape, because even without legal measures they have ways to make this infeasible as a business model (and there might be legal issue such as copyright that still apply). But as far as UA names go, knock yourself out. [*] If it is a configurable property of your software. The software itself might have terms of service that prevent you from changing its properties, but I take it this is not what you are asking about.

Why is a jury trial more often used in criminal, rather than civil trials, in many countries?

This is the case in most common law countries. What is the commonly cited justification for this? Are jury trials shown to be more accurate than bench trials (particularly for criminal cases)?

Jury trials in common law jurisdictions are simply a fact, and don't need or get justification. Jury trials are ancient. In England the Scandinavians had an assembly, the þing ("thing") for deciding matters, such as guilt. Under Norman rule this became systematized, to the point that the Magna Carta Art. 39 states the law that No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land There was a period subsequently where the King gained more power and trials were more arbitrary and oppressive through the Star Chamber, leading to various reforms such as the birth of the US. The right to a jury trial is for reasons of historical precedent part of the US constitution. Because of the legal right to a jury (especially in criminal cases), the only question that can reasonably come up is for a defendant to ask if they will have better chances with a bench trial versus a jury trial. All it takes is one person on a jury to not be convinced to avoid a conviction, so superficially you'd think an accused person would prefer a jury trial to increase their odds of not being convicted. This is encouraged by a mind-set "the state versus the citizen", where the prosecution and the judge are both agents of the government. On the other hand, the average citizen is more likely to misunderstand the import of evidence, and be less able to disregard statements made during the trial that were held inadmissible.

Why is a jury trial more often used in criminal, rather than civil trials, in many countries?

This is the case in most common law countries. What is the commonly cited justification for this? Are jury trials shown to be more accurate than bench trials (particularly for criminal cases)?

Civil and criminal trials are fundamentally different, at least as far as the idealized versions go: in a civil trial, you have a disagreement between two "regular citizens" who are equal . There is no imbalance of power. In a criminal trial, you have a regular citizen vs the entire government and society as a whole . There is a substantial imbalance of power, and almost all of the rules and procedures for criminal trials are there to make sure this imbalance of power cannot be abused or even accidentally disadvantage the defendant. The idea of "a jury of your peers" ties into that as well: its intent is to make sure that the people determining the defendant's guilt are "regular citizens" as well, that they have similar life experiences, similar education, similar background, etc. It could be argued, for example, that the subset of people who go to law school and become judges and prosecutors are not a representative sample of society, especially when you look at lower income neighborhoods. In the US, for example, the percentage of judges who are people of color is significantly lower than in the entire population, whereas the percentage of defendants of color is significantly higher. Of course, the idealized versions may not necessarily be congruent with reality. For example, civil suits between a consumer and a mega corporation are most definitely not a disagreement between equals, and when you look at a criminal trial against some well-connected billionaire with friends in very high places, you have to ask yourself which direction the imbalance of power is actually pointing in reality. It also gets more complicated when the government is one of the two parties in a civil suit, or even different parts of the government are suing each other. But at its core, these assumptions: "a disagreement between equals" vs. "the entire society against one person", underly a lot of the differences between civil and criminal trials.

Why is a jury trial more often used in criminal, rather than civil trials, in many countries?

This is the case in most common law countries. What is the commonly cited justification for this? Are jury trials shown to be more accurate than bench trials (particularly for criminal cases)?

The underlying justification for the jury trial is essentially to maintain the popular legitimacy of the justice system. It should be noted that in its original incarnation, the jury were expected to know the defendant and the victim, so as to better judge their overall characters. In very early times, juries were also expected to do the legwork of investigation for themselves, rather than simply listening to evidence submitted in court under the supervision of a judge. In the case of aristocratic defendants tried by aristocratic peers, it is of course an obvious point that a jury of aristocrats would tend to know an aristocratic defendant. Defendants drawn from the common masses tended to be tried by a jury of reputable figures drawn from the local community - in that sense not necessarily what true criminals and vagabonds would consider their peers, but certainly the jury would be drawn from the lowest ranks of local people who would be regarded as having some stake in the social order and were embedded in local life. There are notorious examples in history of the judicial process being operated despotically, such as the Star Chamber, and of terrible consequences following indirectly for the despot (in that case, the beheading of Charles Stuart). Accumulated experience persuaded those at the highest levels that the principle of deferring to the judgment of the multitude on matters of justice, was the safest guarantee against tyrannies, and a guarantee against judicial proceedings triggering popular rebellions. It is only later, perhaps as late as Victorian times (although I can't be sure offhand of the exact era), that juries were expected to be strangers to the defendant and victim, and to reach a verdict only on the evidence adduced in court. Investigation was increasingly handled by professional law officers and police forces. At least some of the impetus for this was because growing populations and migrations meant juries could not always be expected to know both defendant and victim, and because more cases occurred in which a jury knowing one or more of the parties would lead to bias. So the "accuracy" of the jury system - in the technocratic sense of delivering verdicts that correctly apply the existing law to the facts - is of only secondary concern. A primary concern is that accountability for the verdict is passed to the jury, to redirect potential grievance away from the judiciary when correct verdicts cause grievance amongst at least some of the local populace. It also acts to relieve steam from the system when a judge may undoubtedly have convicted a defendant, but for whatever reason a jury (as representatives of broader community opinion) do not think a conviction is consistent with a just outcome, or have a different systematic perception of the evidence than a judge would. Notably in recent times, when Kenny Noye was infamously acquitted in 1985 for stabbing a policeman to death, it acted as the strongest possible signal of the public's loss of trust and confidence in the police (in contrast to the professional judiciary who habitually took the word of the police as gospel), and confirmed the need for the police reforms (which were already underway at the time, but followed a period of significant lawlessness and corruption amongst police officers in the 1970s). Noye was later jailed for an unconnected knife murder, if that bears on the likely "accuracy" of the jury's verdict on him in 1985. But many serious convictions dating from the 1970s and 80s were later reversed following eventual acceptance amongst the judiciary that the police had often been liars, and jury cases like that of Noye essentially helped to shock the system non-destructively, and served to stem the further accumulation of miscarriages generally.

Why is a jury trial more often used in criminal, rather than civil trials, in many countries?

This is the case in most common law countries. What is the commonly cited justification for this? Are jury trials shown to be more accurate than bench trials (particularly for criminal cases)?

This is more political than legal, but... I believe the rationale is not “accuracy”, it is actually just reverse. Jury trials, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio is all about the state proving that the accused is guilty, and not just executing someone because a single person said so, whether that person be a lord or a judge or whatever. Jury trials ensure that guilty people go free. They also reduce the chances of innocent people being punished, possibly fatally. They also ensure that there are innocent people, because if nobody is ever found not guilty there’s no reason to bother, and the accused become guilty simply by being accused. Watch some of the 1st Amendment auditors on YouTube and see cops saying that people are engaged in suspicious behavior and need to show they evidence (typically in the form of a government issued I’d) that they are not engaged in criminal activity and if they don’t comply they will be arrested. Sometimes they even are arrested and charged with hindering an investigation to determine what crimes they have committed. Typically such arrest gets tossed out and occasionally result in law suits and settlements. Imagine if they weren’t, if a cop just saying you didn’t help him determine what crimes you had committed was enough to get you years in jail? Jury trials, and jury nullification, is one way society tries to reign in government overreach.

GDPR Privacy Policy - how to handle non standard cases without much budget

I want to market a little side hustle of mine and due to GDPR need to create some data privacy policy. Since as any reasonable developer I try to leverage the power of frameworks like Firebase, Stripe, DallE2, other Google Services etc it seems like at the free privacy policy generates are not applicable. I checked and found IT lawyers to charge 200 - 450 EUR a single hour which is simple unreasonable and unacceptable. I mean I really don't try to screw anyone but the hurdles I see here seem insane. Options I see: hire someone from fiverr to create that for me that is not a lawyer but has good reviews? Not sure how much of a risk reduction that really is. Seems a bit like a gamble. Alternatively I could create a 1 EUR company that in case of being sued I essentially close and have no liability with my private money open the company remote in a coutnry that doesn't care about such in my eyes overkill nonsense I really wonder how to approach this without spending thousands of EUR on legal services or is that basically not possible in the EU anymore? Cheers Tom

If you want some boilerplate text to just drop in and have done, you are going to be disappointed. But you don't need a lawyer either. Treat it as a coding job. First, list all the ways you are going to store and process identifiable user data. If someone is going to process it on your behalf, identify them too. Draw a chart showing the paths that user data is going to take. (Storage is a form of processing) Then look at the 6 bases for processing user data and figure out which ones apply to each step. E.g. if the user asks you to do something then that is one basis under which you can process their data. See how much coverage you can get without asking for consent. For each third party (e.g. Google) figure out what data is to be sent to them, and where they will be. Google has data centres in the EU specifically so you can get them to process user data without sending it outside the EU. Check the third party contracts for these services, including the confidentiality clauses. Link that to the processing they will do for you. Finally, pull all this together into a single summary of what you are going to do with the data and the bases under which you will do it.

GDPR Privacy Policy - how to handle non standard cases without much budget

I want to market a little side hustle of mine and due to GDPR need to create some data privacy policy. Since as any reasonable developer I try to leverage the power of frameworks like Firebase, Stripe, DallE2, other Google Services etc it seems like at the free privacy policy generates are not applicable. I checked and found IT lawyers to charge 200 - 450 EUR a single hour which is simple unreasonable and unacceptable. I mean I really don't try to screw anyone but the hurdles I see here seem insane. Options I see: hire someone from fiverr to create that for me that is not a lawyer but has good reviews? Not sure how much of a risk reduction that really is. Seems a bit like a gamble. Alternatively I could create a 1 EUR company that in case of being sued I essentially close and have no liability with my private money open the company remote in a coutnry that doesn't care about such in my eyes overkill nonsense I really wonder how to approach this without spending thousands of EUR on legal services or is that basically not possible in the EU anymore? Cheers Tom

No one is forcing you to run a business If you choose to do so, you are obliged to comply with the law. Complying with the GDPR (among many other things) is simply a cost of doing business. If that costs so much that the business is unviable, don’t run the business.

GDPR Privacy Policy - how to handle non standard cases without much budget

I want to market a little side hustle of mine and due to GDPR need to create some data privacy policy. Since as any reasonable developer I try to leverage the power of frameworks like Firebase, Stripe, DallE2, other Google Services etc it seems like at the free privacy policy generates are not applicable. I checked and found IT lawyers to charge 200 - 450 EUR a single hour which is simple unreasonable and unacceptable. I mean I really don't try to screw anyone but the hurdles I see here seem insane. Options I see: hire someone from fiverr to create that for me that is not a lawyer but has good reviews? Not sure how much of a risk reduction that really is. Seems a bit like a gamble. Alternatively I could create a 1 EUR company that in case of being sued I essentially close and have no liability with my private money open the company remote in a coutnry that doesn't care about such in my eyes overkill nonsense I really wonder how to approach this without spending thousands of EUR on legal services or is that basically not possible in the EU anymore? Cheers Tom

I have seen many people on this platform, utterly clueless about the practical parts of the GDPR. I guess they deal in law theoretically, not in actually bringing an App to market. And that is fine, that is what this site is about. So please, do not write that up yourself. Either get educated about the GDPR beforehand. Which you should already be, if you were an App developer through your day job. Because those trainings are mandatory, company wide, in many juristictions where it applies, how else would the company comply with laws? Or, get a lawyer. Serious companies do both . A lawyer is not as expensive as you think. Per hour, they don't cost much more than a senior developer. Just for starters, to comply with the GDPR you need to show terms of service, saving which version which user agreed to, showing and prompting for agreement if the latest hasn't been signed, allowing the user to self-delete their account allowing the user to know which data has been saved on them by you. All of this has to be automated, if you don't want to be hit by a lawsuit later. Because there are legal deadlines, and you don't want your side hustle to be something that you cannot leave unattended for a weekend. So assuming a senior developer at roughly the same rate as a junior lawyer actually implements just the neccessary minimum, you are looking at 20, maybe 30 hours of work if done well. Obviously you can always do a shitty job in less, but lets assume you do it looking good in the UI, well tested and reasonably bug free and secure. After investing 30 hours just into the GDPRs practical implementation, hiring someone for a few more hours to write up the terms of service, seems pretty reasonable. I strongly advise you to educate yourself on this topic. Because there are details that a lawyer knows , but since they don't code or look at your source, will never be able to warn you about properly. As an example, if you use Google fonts from a CDN, you have already breached the GDPR. And you have not even programmed the first screen yet. Obviously the fonts will be loaded from the CDN before the user can agree to any terms, displaying the text of the terms needs the font. So before the user has had even the chance to consent to anything, you have already leaked their IP address to a third party. Because that is what technically happens, the CDN gets to know the user's IP address, because your app made it available by calling it from the users device. To comply with the GDPR, the font has to be packaged with your app or loaded from your own backend server, not loaded from a CDN. A lawyer could tell you that, if you ask them. But they cannot review your source code and tell you that you did that . That is not their job or expertise. So, you will need both, just like any other company: you need to educate yourself so you know to program in compliance with the law and you need a lawyer for that one page of paperwork.

Why is the Crown Court called the Crown Court?

The Crown Court in England handles the graver charges known as indictments. Less severe criminal proceedings are heard in magistrates' court. Why is the Crown Court named Crown Court? Does it have some sort of closer association with the Crown than does a magistrates' court?

Because prosecutions on indictment are commenced in the name of the Crown (“R”) in respect of crimes which were historically regarded as offences against the monarch. The law relating to these crimes is ancient and was described in works like Hale’s Pleas of the Crown (1736) and Foster’s Crown Law (1762). In contrast, summary criminal procedure is a more recent development which has its origin in civil proceedings between subjects. These prosecutions were commenced in the name of an individual police officer or other informant, in inferior courts which were subject to review by the “ royal courts .” Thus, when the assizes and quarter sessions were abolished and replaced with a single court which would hear all “ Crown cases ” (and not summary prosecutions), it was natural to call it the Crown Court.

Why is the Crown Court called the Crown Court?

The Crown Court in England handles the graver charges known as indictments. Less severe criminal proceedings are heard in magistrates' court. Why is the Crown Court named Crown Court? Does it have some sort of closer association with the Crown than does a magistrates' court?

The legislative reason The Crown Court is a single, unified court, first established by the Courts Act 1971 , s. 4: There shall be a Crown Court in England and Wales which shall be a superior court of record. This has been superseded by the Senior Courts Act 1981 , but the name remains the same. Historical context The Crown Court replaced the previous Courts of Quarter Session and Courts of Assize. There were also two experimental crown courts previously set up in Manchester and Liverpool in 1956 that had also fused the assize and quarter sessions jurisdiction. The Royal Commission's reasons for recommending this name The Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions (the Beeching Report) explains the choice of "Crown Court" as the name to be used (I would link, but I only found a print edition): [W]e propose that the new court be called the Crown Court and, from now on, we refer to it as such. Not all of us feel that this name is ideal, and the lay members in particular would prefer one which gave a clear indication of the kind of business dealt with by the court. The logical answer would be to have a Civil High Court and a Criminal High Court, but the majority of us feel that it would be anomalous to have a High Court sitting at a number of centres which will normally be presided over by Circuit judges only. Also, only a small proportion of the work of the new court will in fact be dealt with by High Court judges. An alternative of "the Criminal Court", when contrasted with the High Court dealing with civil work, seems to most of us to suggest a lower level of court for criminal cases than for civil. We are conscious that our own solution carries with it the anomaly that High Court judges who, with the nomenclature we propose, will take their title from a court with civil jurisdiction, will be sitting in a criminal court, but we see no way round this and in the end have decided to adopt the title of "Crown Court", as representing the best solution.

Can restaurants "force" a minimun 15% tip for delivery service in California?

Found that some restaurants promote "free" delivery when total over 60 dollars, as customers we can choose leave no tips, or any amount we want. When the order total is 59.9, it charges 15% as tips as default, and we can increase it. Is that legal in California?

By definition, a tip is at the discretion of the customer, so what you have is a service charge – a service charge is legal. It is legal to offer free delivery for orders over a stated amount, and to charge a percentage as delivery charge for lesser amounts. There is no specific law requiring a business to use the term "service charge" and no law forbidding them to separate the mandatory from the voluntary parts of the service charge / tip. However, if the amount charged is called a tip, it must go to the employee, whereas a "service charge" can go to the business. Therefore, it would be illegal to call it a tip but treat it as a service charge.

Consumer rights

I’ve recently purchased a part for my washing machine it did say product out of stock and usually takes up to 10 days but 16 days on still nothing go to tracking and it shows no info available. When I have contacted them I received the following response. What is an acceptable time to wait and can they give me an indefinite time scale? We are really sorry for the delay with your order. The part you ordered is not currently in stock. We are a company who are very dependent on our suppliers, we would need to wait for new stock to arrive until we're able to dispatch your order. We understand you are dependent on us for this item, likewise as advised above we are very dependent on our suppliers. However the estimated delivery dates are subject to change depending on availability. At this time they are unable to give an estimated delivery date for your order. Please be assured that as soon as your order becomes available it will be dispatched to you as soon as possible to avoid any further inconvenience. Once again, we apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience.

Consumer goods are to be delivered in a reasonable time: 30 days. This assumes (as implied by the question) that the contract has no specific date of delivery. The law says Unless there is an agreed time or period, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods— (a)without undue delay, and (b)in any event, not more than 30 days after the day on which the contract is entered into.

Mens rea in hypothetical "illegal" abortion

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. I recognise that it very likely to never occur, but I am interested more in the technical implications than in any actual possibility. Additionally, while the ethical questions involved are certainly interesting, I am specifically asking about the actual legal issues involved, not about the ethics of the situation (except so far as they might apply to the legal outcome). A clause is added to the constitution declaring unambiguously that all unborn foetuses fitting a certain set of criteria are human beings with all the attendant basic rights etc. A pregnant woman, whose unborn child matches the set of criteria exactly, but who absolutely, unequivocally and unambiguously believes that her unborn foetus is not a human being , procures an abortion. Is the woman legally guilty of murder (or, if not, any form of homicide)? I'm interested in any and all reasons for the answer being yes or no, but my main concern is the following: The act of procuring an abortion, as I understand it, would satisfy the actus reus of murder, that is, the deliberate ending of a human life. However, if someone is genuinely convinced that they are not killing a human being (which includes the circumstance that what they are killing is not a human being), it would seem that they do not satisfy the requirement for mens rea for a murder conviction. One might draw a parallel with a woman with postpartum psychosis who, while hallucinating that her six-month-old son is a monster, throws him from the balcony of an apartment building, killing him. In both cases, the woman involved causes the death of her child, but is totally convinced that she is not killing a human being.

Yes the woman is guilty of murder (under the law OP described) The issue of common law mens rea (the guilty conscience) is moot as it is no longer a component of the crime, see here . Almost all jurisdictions today have codified crimes so the common law mens rea is not relevant, for example, in Texas a person commits murder if they "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual"; feeling guilty about it or knowing it was wrong is not an issue. In the facts you describe the person "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual"; the fact that she did not consider the victim to be a person is immaterial. As described, she would have a hard time with an insanity plea in the same way that a white supremacist murderer would for classifying members of other races as "non-persons". You can see why the common law usage would no longer work.

Mens rea in hypothetical "illegal" abortion

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. I recognise that it very likely to never occur, but I am interested more in the technical implications than in any actual possibility. Additionally, while the ethical questions involved are certainly interesting, I am specifically asking about the actual legal issues involved, not about the ethics of the situation (except so far as they might apply to the legal outcome). A clause is added to the constitution declaring unambiguously that all unborn foetuses fitting a certain set of criteria are human beings with all the attendant basic rights etc. A pregnant woman, whose unborn child matches the set of criteria exactly, but who absolutely, unequivocally and unambiguously believes that her unborn foetus is not a human being , procures an abortion. Is the woman legally guilty of murder (or, if not, any form of homicide)? I'm interested in any and all reasons for the answer being yes or no, but my main concern is the following: The act of procuring an abortion, as I understand it, would satisfy the actus reus of murder, that is, the deliberate ending of a human life. However, if someone is genuinely convinced that they are not killing a human being (which includes the circumstance that what they are killing is not a human being), it would seem that they do not satisfy the requirement for mens rea for a murder conviction. One might draw a parallel with a woman with postpartum psychosis who, while hallucinating that her six-month-old son is a monster, throws him from the balcony of an apartment building, killing him. In both cases, the woman involved causes the death of her child, but is totally convinced that she is not killing a human being.

A clause is added to the constitution declaring unambiguously that all unborn foetuses fitting a certain set of criteria are human beings with all the attendant basic rights etc. A pregnant woman, whose unborn child matches the set of criteria exactly, but who absolutely, unequivocally and unambiguously believes that her unborn foetus is not a human being, procures an abortion. Under those circumstances, the woman would be guilty. Although mistake of fact is a defense for most crimes, this is actually a mistake of law , which is not a defense. There was a somewhat ridiculed case in which a court decided that a bee was legally a fish for the purposes of a particular law. But the court wasn't wrong; the law literally defined invertebrates as fish. Honestly believing that bees are not fish would not save you if you violated such a law in regards to a bee. It doesn't even matter that you are correct that a bee is not really a fish; you're still guilty. The law is allowed to have ridiculous definitions, and you still have to abide by those definitions. The definition (from that case) in question reads: “ ‘[f]ish’ means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” (Stats. 2015, ch. 154, § 5.) So, it doesn't matter that the woman honestly believes that the unborn is not a human being. She knows (or should know) that the law unambiguously considers it to be a human being. If the woman believed that what she was destroying was not only not a human being but not an unborn foetus , however, that would be a mistake of fact and she likely would not have the required intent. (For example, if the doctors lied and told her that it was a tumor, and she believed them, she wouldn't be criminally liable for having it removed.)

What happens to an individual who is deported to a country of which they are not a citizen?

It seems that a person who is deported will normally be deported to the country of their citizenship, but this is not a requirement, particularly if the person is stateless. In such cases the person may be deported to a country of which they used to be a citizen. For example, according to http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status. What happens to such people after being deported, if their country of former citizenship does not automatically reinstate citizenship upon request? Are they typically admitted as temporary visitors or as permanent residents? Or, perhaps, in a legal status similar to that of an illegal immigrant, possibly unable to work or apply for most public assistance?

Statelessness is a very serious condition. It is quite likely that a person such as you describe may be required to board an aeroplane to that country but will not be permitted to pass through immigration on arrival - Mehran Karimi Nasseri lived in Charles de Gaulle airport for 18 years in this condition. There are many people in the world who are stateless and this may or may not affect their lives. Citizenship is generally only an issue when crossing international borders or in employment situations, the latter is significant in advanced countries but less of an issue in countries with less-developed economies.

What happens to an individual who is deported to a country of which they are not a citizen?

It seems that a person who is deported will normally be deported to the country of their citizenship, but this is not a requirement, particularly if the person is stateless. In such cases the person may be deported to a country of which they used to be a citizen. For example, according to http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status. What happens to such people after being deported, if their country of former citizenship does not automatically reinstate citizenship upon request? Are they typically admitted as temporary visitors or as permanent residents? Or, perhaps, in a legal status similar to that of an illegal immigrant, possibly unable to work or apply for most public assistance?

Generalities To determine whether it's possible to be deported in this situation, it would first be necessary to distinguish between various types of removals, e.g. removal at port when you have been denied entry right out of the plane/at the border, removal for some immigration violation, or deportation after a criminal conviction. Many other details can also matter. Also, the exact procedure will vary somewhat from one country to the next, as it depends on local law. What you found is a generic warning from the perspective of the receiving country but it does not mean that most countries can or do deport stateless people. I think it's mostly intended to scare people off renouncing their citizenship, especially if they naively think this would be an easy way to avoid being removed from a country where they are staying illegally. But in any case, removing someone typically involves the country where you want to send them to, especially if the person to be removed has no valid travel document. Even if you are in fact a citizen, if you ditched your passport, the deporting state will contact the relevant consulate to obtain permission to deport you to that country. But the world is a vast place and there have been cases of countries taking some liberties with these principles or of consulates accepting people who had no link with them. What happens after that will also vary. If you somehow managed to reach the territory of a country and are found to have no right to be there, you can typically be detained. If the country can't find a way to remove you, you could be detained indefinitely or simply released after some time. Being caught at the border or only later also makes a difference in terms of the applicable procedure. An example Now, to be a little more specific, I can tell you how it's supposed to work in France (I only chose France because that's the country I am most familiar with). If you land in France and you are refused entry, the carrier that brought you there generally has to bring you back to your point of departure, your country of citizenship or any place that will admit you (but this provision does not apply if you have been removed to France by another country, to avoid “bouncing” people back-and-forth between two countries). In the meantime, you can in any case be detained for up to four days, during which you can appeal the decision to refuse you entry, lodge an asylum application, ask your consulate or the person you wanted to visit to be informed of your situation or ask to see a lawyer or advisor (there are pro bono legal advisors employed by state-funded charities who work in those detention centres) or a medical doctor. You can also leave at any time if it's to go elsewhere than France. This 4-day delay can be extended several times by a judge, up to 20 days in total, if the authorities can prove they have a good chance to find a place to send you but need the extra delay. At the end of this period, if they haven't found any solution (and you haven't filed for asylum), you are released with an 8-day visa and officially “invited” to leave the country before the end of this period. Obviously, everybody knows that there is a great chance you will abscond and simply remain in the country illegally but that's the way used to deal with this in a legally plausible manner. After that, if you are still in France, you are in the same situation as thousands of undocumented migrants (or “ sans-papiers ”). If you get caught for some reason (random police check, raid on a place where you work illegally, etc.), the authorities can detain you again (for 5 days at first, extendable by a judge, now up to 90 days in total) and get a shot at deporting you. If they still cannot (no consulate will recognise you, you come from a dangerous country, etc.), you will be released again. In practice, the authorities (police, etc.) try to avoid wasting resources on people they will ultimately have to release so if they know you cannot be forcibly removed (because of your personal situation, because your country is at war, etc.), they will often simply let you go. The actual conditions are pretty harsh (and deteriorating) but legally, this detention is not a punishment and should only happen to the extent that it facilitates your removal. That's why people should in principle be released as soon as it becomes clear that timely removal will be impossible. I have heard before of people being released en masse following a coup in their country of origin, as judges would deem the situation too unstable to expect a removal in the next 90 days. Depending on your personal situation, you might eventually find a way to qualify for some sort of residence permit (but having stayed illegally in the past basically disqualifies you for naturalisation, even decades down the line). Obviously you cannot work legally and if you are also stateless and have no ID, many other things are extremely complicated. Most of this should be pretty typical, at least for European countries, even if there are occasionally a few surprising differences. How long (or even whether) you can be detained varies a lot for example, all the way to indefinite or prison detention in some places.

Can the people who let their animals roam on the road be punished?

The problem of stray animals roaming on the road in India is difficult to solve mainly due to religious and political reasons. However, not all animals are claimed but animals such as goats are left to roam on the road during the day and kept inside the house/farm at night. It's a road safety issue as these animals often get hit by vehicles and the animal owners ask for the monetary compensation. What are the laws to deal with the stray animals and can the animal owners be punished in the aforementioned condition?

There's nothing that I can find that specifically refers to any offence for allowing one's goats to roam free, but there are at least two national, and probably more at state / municipal level, laws that deal with obstructing the highway - therefore potentially making the goat owner liable for any injury or damage shown to be caused by their (in)action: Section 8B , National Highways Act: Punishment for mischief by injury to national highway.-- Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any national highway referred to in sub-section (1) of section 8A impassable or less safe for traveling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both. Section 283 , Indian Penal Code (IPC): Whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished, with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. There are also animal-welfare related laws to consider, such as: Section 289 IPC: Negligent conduct with respect to animal. Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 3 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: Duties of persons having charge of animals. It shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Can the people who let their animals roam on the road be punished?

The problem of stray animals roaming on the road in India is difficult to solve mainly due to religious and political reasons. However, not all animals are claimed but animals such as goats are left to roam on the road during the day and kept inside the house/farm at night. It's a road safety issue as these animals often get hit by vehicles and the animal owners ask for the monetary compensation. What are the laws to deal with the stray animals and can the animal owners be punished in the aforementioned condition?

United Kingdom In UK there are many areas where 'owned' grazing animals roam freely: the New Forest, moorland, mountain roads etc. If you hit one, it's not the fault of the person who owns it, although someone with the animal(s) must take proper control of them. Compare this with hitting a wild creature such as a deer - who are you going to sue? Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that if the animal is a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog the driver must stop and provide their identity, details of insurance, etc. to any involved party. If you can't do that, you must report the accident at a police station. For that list of animals, the requirements are the same as causing damage to a person, to another vehicle or to property.

Is it illegal for websites to host children fighting with the purpose of humiliation

A video recently came to my attention that involved two children ages approximately 5,and 6, or so and the video consisted of the boy and girl wrestling - but not in a fair competition, but to humiliate the little boy. He was called a sissy and similar derogatory terms, and it was posted on a website that hosts some adult/pornographic content as well as discussion groups/forums. There was no question about the intent of the video because the voice-overs flat out said it was to show the little boy what a worthless sissy he was. Obviously, this can be emotionally dangerous to a first or even second grade child who is just realizing the reality of societal definitions of masculinity/femininity. And I have another aspect to consider. What can happen legally to the promoters/parents for promoting and distributing on the internet

In the US, derogatory speech is protected under the First Amendment. There have been a number of attempts to limit internet speech that is deemed to be "harmful to minors" which have not been successful, and at that the laws have based the characterization of harm as "being obscene" pursuant to the Miller test . Moreover the law were limited to commercial dissemination to children, whereas your scenario is about children. It is possible that a parent of a participant would get into child-welfare type legal trouble for encouraging their child to assault another child, but that would not include encouraging a child to use unkind words against another child.

Does receiving an email informing me of a change in policy mean I automatically agree with it, unless I object?

Several years ago I bought a domain name. I have never really used it, and have been wanting to get rid of it for quite some time now, but every year the hosting service finds another trick to make me pay for another year. (I admit: I'm playing a bit into their hand by being forgetful from time to time) This year I again get an invoice. I thought I cancelled through email or their ticketing system last year, but I can't find anything that confirms my memory. However, I did find something else. I found an email in which they said that up until now, their service is always prepaid. They will only extend the domain name after you pay the invoice. However, starting from that will change. From then on, their service will be subscription based. Which means that they will automatically extend the domain name, even without your approval, to avoid losing it. And honestly, I kinda get their change. I understand why many people would be happy with this, and I don't have a hard time believing that they made this change with the best intentions. And normally I wouldn't want to abuse this. But in this case, due to other unethical things they do and did in the past, I would like to get rid of them ASAP. So I wonder... does merely receiving this email mean that I am bound by their new policy? Or can I expect to still be under the old regime, where the service was prepaid? Note that this is (imho) different from services such as e.g. Facebook, where you actively use the service, so you agree to their ToS every time you log in. With domain names, you only use it passively. And in my case I didn't use it at all. The domain name hasn't been in use for years, and I haven't logged in on the webpage since last time I got an invoice. Jurisdiction: The company is situated in The Netherlands, while I myself live in Belgium.

What does the contract say? If it says that they have the right to unilaterally alter the terms by providing you with notice by email, then they have the right to unilaterally alter the terms by providing you with notice by email. These types of service contracts typically have such terms.

Are there examples of companies suing regulators for selective enforcement?

My hypothetical scenario is roughly like this: Company A has product X in circulation The relevant regulator, after scrutinizing X, issues a ban and/or fines company A for their product X Company A claims that their competitor, company B, has a product Y that is very similar to their own product X, which (Y) has nevertheless not gone into any scrutiny by the regulator, and it remains in circulation Hence, company A sues the regulator for unfair selective enforcement against their competitor, company B Are there any such examples, or even legal provisions for such cases? I am particularly interested in the US, but any examples or legal provisions from a state with a market-based economy (G7, EU, Australia, New Zealand etc) would suffice.

united-states Generally speaking, selective enforcement by a regulator is not actionable in U.S. law, nor is it a defense to a prosecution. A regulatory agency has no legally enforceable duty to enforce the law in the same way against every possible violator of the law. See, e.g., Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York 336 U.S. 106 (1949) (It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.) It is fundamental that selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws is subject to constitutional constraints. Nevertheless, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation so long as the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard . . . . [t]here is a presumption that prosecution for violation of the criminal law is in good faith. United States v. Amon , 669 F.2d 1351, 1355-56 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982) (citations and some punctuation marks omitted). To support a defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution, a defendant bears the heavy burden of establishing, at least prima facie, (1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for prosecution, and (2) that the government’s discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights. United States v. Berrios , 501 F.2d 1207, 1211 (2d Cir. 1974). A review of challenges to selective enforcement of statutes raised as a defense to a selective prosecution in the tax area, with related case law, can be found here . There is such a thing as "group of one" discrimination under the equal protection clause, but it requires a showing a personal animus unrelated to any regulatory purpose and a singling out of someone for enforcement that is literally enforced against no one else. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (The Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a "class of one" when the plaintiff does not allege membership in a class or group, but alleges that they have been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for such treatment.) The typical "group of one" equal protection clause case involves a local government enforcing a zombie law against someone that a local official has a grudge against for some unrelated reason like the regulatory target's son being unfaithful to the local regulator's daughter.

Are emojis acceptable in contracts?

If I ✍️ a 📄 using emojis instead of words, does that affect the validity of the 📄? Example: Mary will only use the 🔑 to open the front 🚪 of John's 🏡 in order to feed his 🐈. Mary will feed the 🐈 three times every day for one 🗓️. John will pay Mary 💯💲. What if an emoji is ambiguous? A contract to sell a 🔫 could involve a firearm or a water gun, depending on fonts. Of course, this isn't a good idea.

Yes Written contracts do not have to be written in any particular language or character set. Purely visual contracts are used and are legally binding. If a pictorial term is ambiguous it is resolved by the court the same way as a textual term would be.

Are emojis acceptable in contracts?

If I ✍️ a 📄 using emojis instead of words, does that affect the validity of the 📄? Example: Mary will only use the 🔑 to open the front 🚪 of John's 🏡 in order to feed his 🐈. Mary will feed the 🐈 three times every day for one 🗓️. John will pay Mary 💯💲. What if an emoji is ambiguous? A contract to sell a 🔫 could involve a firearm or a water gun, depending on fonts. Of course, this isn't a good idea.

Thumbs up emojis are equivalent to signatures in Canada. Recently, a Canadian judge ruled that a thumbs-up emotional was legally equivalent to a signature. This court readily acknowledges that a 👍 emoji is a non-traditional means to ‘sign’ a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature’,” he wrote. Keene also dismissed defence concerns that allowing the thumbs up emoji to signify acceptance “would open up the flood gates” to new interpretations of other emojis, including the ‘fist bump’ and ‘hand shake’. In finding that the thumbs-up can be used to enter into contracts, Keene said the court “cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage” of emojis. “This appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.” It also appears that other emojis thst convey acceptance of a deal such as the fist bump or handshake would also qualify as being equivalent to a signature.

Form L-8 and Death in New Jersey

Consider the following hypothetical case. A parent dies, in 2023, leaving all his money to his daughter in the state of New Jersey. His sole assets are two brokerage account worth 2 million dollars each. Here are my claims: There is no estate tax or inheritance tax due to New Jersey on the estate. Two copies of form L-8 needed to be filled out. One for each brokerage account. Who is required by law to file out form L-8? Is it the broker? If the assets are inside a living revocable trust would that get rid of the requirement to file form L-8?

Per https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/other_forms/inheritance/itl8.pdf The forms may be filed by the executor of the estate, the Administrator of the estate/brokerage accounts, or a Class A beneficiary (spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, etc.) Unless the broker is also managing the estate (unlikely), they are not responsible for filing L-8. Either the executor of the estate or the daughter's attorney needs to complete the form and file it with the state. If the daughter is 18 or older, "Assets that are owned by or in the name of a trust do not require a waiver or L-8, but must still be reported on any return filed." In that case, the daughter's attorney should file a return with the Inheritance Tax Branch. However, if the daughter is under 18 and the trust is structured such that she will not receive some or all of the money until she is an adult, the daughter's attorney does need to file L-8 in addition to the return.

What is an “estate,” as in a “housing estate” or “council estate”?

Also, how does this sense of the word differ from those used in other jurisdictions, and how are any of the senses of the term derived from one another if at all?

What is an “estate,” as in a “housing estate” or “council estate”? See Oxford English Dictionary : "housing, n.1 " : housing estate n. British a residential area in which the houses, streets, etc., have all been planned and built at the same time. And see "council, n. : council estate , n. (also council housing estate ) a group of houses erected by a council

Is it legal for a brick and mortar establishment in France to reject cash as payment?

Alice’s Restaurant or Bob’s corner shop in Paris or anywhere else in France wishes to go “card only”. Is this legally allowed?

France: No CashEssentials writes French Authorities Remind Merchants that Accepting Cash is Obligatory France practices what is sometimes referred to as a hard version of legal tender. That means that the acceptance of cash is compulsory by law. According to article R642-3 of the penal code , the refusal to accept coins and banknotes which are legal tender is punished by a second-class fine, which is currently set at €150. Edit: another source of information is in Can shops in France refuse to take payments in cash? Some exceptions remain There are some circumstances, however, where shops are not legally required to accept cash payments. If coins or banknotes are in poor condition, shops can refuse to take them If you try to use more than 50 coins to make a single payment If a shop does not have the correct money to give you change Finally, some shops are authorised not to accept cash payments for safety reasons (such as shops that open late at night). This extends to objects, such as parking meters, which are allowed to be fully cashless to limit cases of vandalism. Canada: Yes CBC News writes Is it legal for a store to refuse my cash? The Bank of Canada says it's up to sellers to determine what kinds of payment they will accept for transactions, and there is "no law" that would require anyone to accept bank notes or any other form of payment for a commercial transaction. However, in certain circumstances, refusing to take cash in a store may actually violate provincial human rights codes. UK: Yes The UK Parliament reports on a petition that they debated Make it unlawful for shops to refuse cash payments. Make it illegal for retailers and services to decline cash payments. The government does not plan to mandate cash acceptance. While the government recognises the ability to transact in cash remains important to millions of people across the UK, particularly those in vulnerable groups, it remains the choice of individual businesses as to whether to accept or decline any form of payment, including cash or card. This may be based on factors such as customer preference and cost.

is uncensorship in japanese porn illegal

According to some laws in japan censorship is a must for adult films but why does uncensored porn in JAPANESE ADULT VIDEOS ,PORNHUB,ETC exist is that legal? of not what charges they could be facing?

Article 175 of the Criminal Code says: A person who distributes, sells or displays in public an obscene document, drawing or other objects shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 2 years, a fine of not more than 2,500,000 yen or a petty fine. The same shall apply to a person who possesses the same for the purpose of sale. This has been interpreted to require pixelization, blurring, censorship bars, or other means of obscuring genitalia. See the 2013 guilty plea by publishers of Core Magazine for an example prosecution under art. 175 for insufficient censorship. The law apparently does not reach material that is produced and edited and sold outside of Japan (even if filmed in Japan). See e.g. the discussion of Realm (1976) in Kirsten Fischer, The Art of Censorship in Postwar Japan , p. 198-199: [the film] was not prosecutable because of Ōshima’s innovative production strategy ... He had imported the film stock from France, shot the film in Kyoto, and then exported the undeveloped film back to France, where he developed and edited it and finally distributed it internationally, including importing it back to Japan. A "heavily cut form [was] eventually screened in Japan."

Capital Gains: If I loan Bitcoin to my LLC, can the LLC sell it to pay for expenses, and later repay the loan in USD tax free? (USA Law)

I understand that taking a credit line against Bitcoin collateral is not capital gains event because there is no sale. However, If a party, such as a company, is lent Bitcoin (BTC), sell it to pay expenses, and then pays back the loan in USD would that be a taxable event for the lender? If so is there any way to avoid that-- perhaps by paying back the loan back equivalent amount of Bitcoin? Is a Bitcoin denominated capital contribution ever not a taxable event?

No, a loan is not taxable to the borrower and the repayment of principal is not taxable to the lender. Interest paid is a deductible expense for a business borrower and interest received is income to the lender. The form of the lent property and repaid property is irrelevant; each will be valued at fair market value. (Quirks are possible if amounts borrowed and repaid don't actually match.) If it's a capital contribution to a partnership, it's not taxable.

Capital Gains: If I loan Bitcoin to my LLC, can the LLC sell it to pay for expenses, and later repay the loan in USD tax free? (USA Law)

I understand that taking a credit line against Bitcoin collateral is not capital gains event because there is no sale. However, If a party, such as a company, is lent Bitcoin (BTC), sell it to pay expenses, and then pays back the loan in USD would that be a taxable event for the lender? If so is there any way to avoid that-- perhaps by paying back the loan back equivalent amount of Bitcoin? Is a Bitcoin denominated capital contribution ever not a taxable event?

If a party, such as a company, is lent Bitcoin (BTC), sell it to pay expenses, and then pays back the loan in USD would that be a taxable event for the lender? Yes. If so is there any way to avoid that-- perhaps by paying back the loan back equivalent amount of Bitcoin? No. Is a Bitcoin denominated capital contribution ever not a taxable event? A capital contribution (i.e. a transfer of property, in kind, to a company in exchange for equity in the company) of Bitcoin is usually not a taxable event until the Bitcoin is sold. The sale is income to the company, although most closely held companies have pass through taxation, so it is taxed to the owners of the company on a pass through basis. In a C-corporation, however, the conversion of Bitcoin to anything else would be a taxable sale of the C-corporation to which the Bitcoin was contributed upon which corporate entity level income taxes would be due. In general, the answer for Bitcoin is generally going to be the same as the answer would be for pork bellies or bushels of wheat or barrels of oil.

ABRA Powers violative of human rights act

Parliament tomorrow passes the Arbitrary Bullocks Removal Act 2023, entitling (but crucially not obliging; in other words, bestowing a power though not a duty) the minister of Justice to arbitrarily select individuals to be castrated at his will. In order to do so he must sign a warrant of a certain prescribed form, and upon the act taking effect minister of Justice Alex Avery exercises his power to condemn citizen Bob Bolger to removal of his bollocks. He does everything exactly to the letter of ABRA 2023, but in exercising the power created and granted to him by ABRA, he is clearly violating several of Bob’s human rights, not least Articles 3&6. (Note that HRA 1998 is a constitutional act.) Is there not some doctrine which suggests that Minister Avery as a government official must not act in ways which contravene citizens’ human rights? Bob applies thus for judicial review of Minister Avery’s decision to issue the ABRA warrant for his arbitrary castration, on grounds that his decision to exercise the power given to him by ABRA has the effect of violating Bob’s human rights. Yet, one may also perhaps quite easily argue that the power bestowed on the government by ABRA inherently violates, and cannot but violate, its subjects’ human rights, and so it cannot be exercised without violating subject citizens’ human rights. Perhaps, as per a different answer by Dale M., the UK judiciary may not nullify ABRA itself, but can it reverse any particular decisions by relevant government ministers to actually exercise the powers bestowed to them by the Act’s provisions?

Human rights are not inviolate Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises this in Article 29. This is obviously true when you think about it: there will be circumstances where the human rights of two individuals are in conflict - one of them must lose. Ongoing debates in the USA on abortion are an example of this. Accepting that the proposed law is hyperbolic (in the current political climate - many laws passed in Nazi Germany were equally hyperbolic), there is no conflict with the Human Rights Act. s6 deals with this head on: (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. So, we start from the happy place that the Minister can’t have Bob’s balls. However it continues: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if— So, it looks like Bob’s balls might still be on the block. (a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or Fortunately for Bob, the ABRA primary legislation gave the Minister discretion so he could have acted differently. (b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions. Assuming the court accepts that the provisions “ cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights” which seems to be the case: you can’t remove an unwilling person’s testicles without violating their rights, the court must accept that the Minister “ was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.” Too bad for Bob. You seem to be struggling under the misapprehension that human rights can never be violated by the government. This is not the case. Even in nations with Constitutional protection of rights, the law allows for the government to restrict or limit them where appropriate. For example, even in the USA, my freedom of expression does not extend to sharing top secret information with a journalist.

is it legal for a body shop to waive my deductible

I'm in Colorado (USA)... in case it varies by state, which I suspect it does. Long story short is that I have 2 options for repairing the hail damage done to my car in a recent storm, for which I have filed a claim on my comprehensive insurance. One shop is telling me they'll waive my $750 deductible, saying that it's completely legit because they're just absorbing the cost and are free to do so at their discretion and the other is telling me that by definition, the deductible is the 1st amount paid to the garage before insurance makes any payment to them and that any savings incurred (such as the garage reducing my bill by $750) belongs to the insurance company. They both make a little sense to me, and I'm not really convinced that 1 shop is lying while the other is being truthful. i'd like to think 1 is just less informed... or that it's not a black and white answer, but maybe not. I know the true answer probably lies with my insurance company and policy, but I don't trust them not to be misleading (without actually lying) any more than I do a business. BEFORE i listen to wha anyone else has to say, I'd like to know the actual law, then read through my policy and see what seems like the right answer to me AND THEN run it by both garages AND my insurance company to see what each has to say. Anyone with any knowledge in this realm or who can help me find where in the books this thing is covered would be greatly appreciated.

Suppose the shop bills you $2000 and you have a $750 deductible. You pay them $750, your insurance company pays $1250. Now suppose instead that the shop purports to waive the deductible. In order to get the insurance company to pay $1250 they still have to bill $2000. Then they don't collect the $750 from you. Presumably they write it off as bad debt. It smells like insurance fraud to me, on two counts: first, the shop expects to receive $1250 for a service but they produce a bill of $2000 for the insurance company's benefit and then do not seek payment from the insured party for any balance purportedly due beyond $1250. Second, the insured party has a contract with the insurer undertaking to pay the first $750 of the claim but has conspired with the shop to avoid paying that amount through deception. Had the shop played by the rules, they would have billed $1250 and the insurer would have paid $500. The shop isn't waiving your deductible; it's getting it out of the insurance company by fraud, with your collusion. Another way of handling this is that the auto body shop submits an estimate for the cost necessary to restore the car to a certain degree but then restores the car to a lesser degree. If everyone is aware that this is happening then it might be acceptable, depending on the terms of the insurance policy.

is it legal for a body shop to waive my deductible

I'm in Colorado (USA)... in case it varies by state, which I suspect it does. Long story short is that I have 2 options for repairing the hail damage done to my car in a recent storm, for which I have filed a claim on my comprehensive insurance. One shop is telling me they'll waive my $750 deductible, saying that it's completely legit because they're just absorbing the cost and are free to do so at their discretion and the other is telling me that by definition, the deductible is the 1st amount paid to the garage before insurance makes any payment to them and that any savings incurred (such as the garage reducing my bill by $750) belongs to the insurance company. They both make a little sense to me, and I'm not really convinced that 1 shop is lying while the other is being truthful. i'd like to think 1 is just less informed... or that it's not a black and white answer, but maybe not. I know the true answer probably lies with my insurance company and policy, but I don't trust them not to be misleading (without actually lying) any more than I do a business. BEFORE i listen to wha anyone else has to say, I'd like to know the actual law, then read through my policy and see what seems like the right answer to me AND THEN run it by both garages AND my insurance company to see what each has to say. Anyone with any knowledge in this realm or who can help me find where in the books this thing is covered would be greatly appreciated.

This is legitimate because the insurance company is unilaterally determining the value of the repair. What happened when you got into an accident? You reported the claim and the adjuster inspected your vehicle. The adjuster then used parts price lists, standardized labor guides and a locale-specific labor rate to come up with a value of the repair and hence loss. You may dispute the insurer's assessment, but note that no body shop has become involved yet. You then took the insurance estimate to a body shop. A body shop, barring specific "one-stop" contracts with the insurer, has no obligation to accept the estimate and repair work. I could open a shop that charged $1000/labor hour, which would blow past any insurance. More realistically, this occurs when an owner wants factory parts and the insurer is only willing to pay for aftermarket parts, so the owner is billed the difference. Conversely, they could charge less than what the insurer estimates, which is what happened here. For example, a shop could use aftermarket or junkyard parts. In fact, if you completely own the car, you may choose to spend the money on a vacation instead of repairing the car. Or perhaps you may choose to sell the car as-is or junk it and use the money towards a new one. Another option that people take is to repair the car themselves and keep the difference. In this case, you get the same check.

is it legal for a body shop to waive my deductible

I'm in Colorado (USA)... in case it varies by state, which I suspect it does. Long story short is that I have 2 options for repairing the hail damage done to my car in a recent storm, for which I have filed a claim on my comprehensive insurance. One shop is telling me they'll waive my $750 deductible, saying that it's completely legit because they're just absorbing the cost and are free to do so at their discretion and the other is telling me that by definition, the deductible is the 1st amount paid to the garage before insurance makes any payment to them and that any savings incurred (such as the garage reducing my bill by $750) belongs to the insurance company. They both make a little sense to me, and I'm not really convinced that 1 shop is lying while the other is being truthful. i'd like to think 1 is just less informed... or that it's not a black and white answer, but maybe not. I know the true answer probably lies with my insurance company and policy, but I don't trust them not to be misleading (without actually lying) any more than I do a business. BEFORE i listen to wha anyone else has to say, I'd like to know the actual law, then read through my policy and see what seems like the right answer to me AND THEN run it by both garages AND my insurance company to see what each has to say. Anyone with any knowledge in this realm or who can help me find where in the books this thing is covered would be greatly appreciated.

This doesn’t directly answer the question for Colorado, or address specific claim procedures your policy may require, but every time I have made an insurance claim, (in Washington state) my insurance company, (USAA) has paid me, not the repair shop. Each time they have asked me to submit 3 written estimates, determined a fair payment amount, and cut me a check minus the deductible. I believe that early claims in decades past the amount was an average, while the last claim I submitted they paid me the full amount of the most expensive estimate. I was then free to negotiate with whichever shop I chose to do the work, make the repair myself, or choose to not repair the vehicle. I have exercised all three options at various times and never had a reason to question whether or not this was legal.

is it legal for a body shop to waive my deductible

I'm in Colorado (USA)... in case it varies by state, which I suspect it does. Long story short is that I have 2 options for repairing the hail damage done to my car in a recent storm, for which I have filed a claim on my comprehensive insurance. One shop is telling me they'll waive my $750 deductible, saying that it's completely legit because they're just absorbing the cost and are free to do so at their discretion and the other is telling me that by definition, the deductible is the 1st amount paid to the garage before insurance makes any payment to them and that any savings incurred (such as the garage reducing my bill by $750) belongs to the insurance company. They both make a little sense to me, and I'm not really convinced that 1 shop is lying while the other is being truthful. i'd like to think 1 is just less informed... or that it's not a black and white answer, but maybe not. I know the true answer probably lies with my insurance company and policy, but I don't trust them not to be misleading (without actually lying) any more than I do a business. BEFORE i listen to wha anyone else has to say, I'd like to know the actual law, then read through my policy and see what seems like the right answer to me AND THEN run it by both garages AND my insurance company to see what each has to say. Anyone with any knowledge in this realm or who can help me find where in the books this thing is covered would be greatly appreciated.

Although this is expressly prohibited in the case of hail-caused roof damage , Colorado has not enacted any such prohibition w.r.t. car repairs. A shop might have a direct contractual relation with an insurance company and their contract might preclude waiving the deductible, so if they did it would be breech of contract on their part (illegal). If they have no direct relation with the insurance company, then they can do as they see fit, except fraud is not legal. The repair shop can submit a damage analysis estimating that the cost to restore will be $2,000, and the insurance company will pay them $1,250. Whether or not the insurance company requires the customer to pay $750 is up to the repair shop. There is no fraud if they do not demand the $750, since $2,000 was the true, actual and honest cost of repair. The customer has no contractual obligation with the insurance company to pay $750, the only potential obligation is with the repair shop, for the particular level of repair done on the car. It would be fraud if the insurance company falsely claimed that the cost of repair would be $2,750. The repair shop's statement is simply "this is how much it costs to restore the vehicle to pre-damage condition", so the insured can get a cheaper repair job and not be fully-restored – that is their right. This analysis may be useful to understanding the legal issues.

UK GDPR Transcribing calls

I'd like to understand the rules around automated transcribing calls in the UK, from a B2B perspective. GDPR seems quite clear that if you are recording calls, video and/or audio, you must get consent. However, what about just transcribing, and not recording? I can't seem to find any resources on this, so any advice on how to find more out would be great. Many thanks

GDPR seems quite clear that if you are recording calls, video and/or audio, you must get consent. Wrong. The GDPR requires that your have a legal basis for processing personal data. Consent is a legal basis but there are others. With respect to note taking, the GDPR only applies to “personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.” So, if they notes are not about an individual (and many B2B phone calls will not be) or are neither automated nor filed, the GDPR does not apply. If they are captured by the GDPR, you need to have a legal basis for the notes. Again, consent is one but it is not the only one.

Selling a house inside an estate

The XYZ person dies and the will says that all the assets of XYZ goes into a trust. The estate of the XYZ person includes a house. Under what circumstances, if any, can the executor of the XYZ estate sell the house?

In accordance with the terms of the trust deed Those terms of the will that are related to the trust will become the trust deed in the absence of one included for the purpose. The trustee(s) can administer the trust on behalf of the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms. Unless the deed expressly prohibits the sale (either in total or subject to conditions) the trustee(s) can do what they think proper.

Can't find an attorney to represent us

I've literally called over 300 plus attorneys and know for fact my wife and I have multiple that will pay out huge, one being Walmart, the other being a municipality for the corruption and malicious prosecution,and the other being a s.o. that told me on camera it was a landlords right to tell me he would kill me and my wife the day before we had eviction court.

If 'literally 300' attorneys declined your case on the basis of a phone call, without looking into the details, I can see three options: You are unable to communicate the nature of your case clearly. In this posting, you mentioned complaints against a company, a municipality, and a landlord, plus being evicted. Focus on explaining one case. If you think you 'know for a fact' that you have several big payouts coming, there is the first problem. Nobody knows what a jury will decide. An attorney might hesitate to work for a client who does not understand this. Litigation is always a risk. All your cases actually lack merit, a lawyer sees this and you do not. Not knowing the cases, I cannot tell. (And no, you should not explain them in detail on the web. If they do have merit, posting your strategy hurts the cases.) Your state has a vexatious litigant list and you are on it. That would not prevent an attorney from taking your case, but it might make them hesitate.

legality behind the copyright of adagio in g minor

sources claim it is still under copyright yet Artists continue to simply borrow from it or copy the piece. Does this mean that the fragment stolen by giazotto is copyright free? is it safe to cover giazotto's work without getting sued for it? I am composing a piece that uses this but I refuse to continue because that last thing I want is some guy in India try to sue me because they managed to buy the rights to adagio in g minor

Does this mean that the fragment stolen by giazotto is copyright free? No. If people are using the work, they may be paying a license fee for the privilege, or they may be violating the copyright. The behavior of others is not a good way of judging how you should behave. For example, in many cities in Europe you can see people boarding trams or buses without buying tickets, but that doesn't mean that public transportation is free of charge. Some of those people are breaking the law, but most of them bought a ticket on the previous tram or hold a monthly pass. If there was in fact a fragment, it wasn't "stolen," and even if the piece was based on a fragment, whether that fragment was in the public domain or not, and whether Giazotto used it legally or not, that would not allow others to use the work without permission. The parts that he composed are protected by his copyright even if the fragment is in the public domain. But if the fragment were more recent and therefore also under copyright, well then you would risk infringing two copyrights instead of just one. is it safe to cover Giazotto's work without getting sued for it? Assuming you mean "without obtaining a license," it depends on what you do with the cover. If you only play it for your closest friends without giving them a copy, it's probably safe. I am composing a piece that uses this but I refuse to continue because that last thing I want is some guy in India try to sue me because they managed to buy the rights to adagio in g minor You have a couple of other options. You can find out who actually owns the rights and ask them for permission, or you can hire a lawyer in the hope of determining that your proposed composition does not actually require a license.

legality behind the copyright of adagio in g minor

sources claim it is still under copyright yet Artists continue to simply borrow from it or copy the piece. Does this mean that the fragment stolen by giazotto is copyright free? is it safe to cover giazotto's work without getting sued for it? I am composing a piece that uses this but I refuse to continue because that last thing I want is some guy in India try to sue me because they managed to buy the rights to adagio in g minor

The work is under copyright Giazotto died in 1998 so copyright will last until 31 December 2068. Giazotto originally claimed that he transcribed and arranged a work by Albinoni - an 18th century composer whose work would have been in the public domain. However, this is what is legally known as a “lie” and the work is, in fact, an original work by Giazotto; as he subsequently admitted.

I am being threatened for defamation for sharing an article about an alleged scammer which was published in local news site

There is an alleged scammer in my community. An article about him was published by our local news site. As I have a lot of contacts, I shared the article to all my contacts and it became viral. He is now threatening to sue me for defamation. He is well versed in legal matters and have taken people to court several times. The article about him is definitely true, but obviously he can deny them all in court. Should I be concerned? Thank you for all the answers. I am in Australia. To be precise, I said 'Please be aware of this alleged scammer' + link to the article. It was published by www.theaustralian.com.au , a top news outlet. I was careful to not indict. He has only threatened me.

Repeating a defamatory statement is itself defamatory This is known as the repetition rule and is illustrated in Brown v Bower & Another [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB) . In essence, the "local news site" is responsible for the reputational damage suffered by their publication and you are responsible for the damage caused by your amplification of that publication. So if the local news article was seen by a few dozen people locally, the damages might be relatively modest. If your publication caused it to be seen by millions of people and caused nationwide or worldwide damage to the person's reputation so that they are at risk of losing income or opportunities in the future, the damages can be vast. How you shared it is important. If you endorsed it, which includes forwarding it without commentary, then it is likely defamatory. If you were more circumspect and said something that shows an open mind to the allegations like "This is an interesting story, I can't wait to see how it plays out", then it's likely not defamatory. Of course, if the allegations are true then you have nothing to worry about; truth is a complete defence to defamation. You can prove that they are true, right? I mean with real evidence like a conviction for fraud. Or, at the very least, pending or actual charges from the police. Or, failing that you have good evidence that you yourself have been scammed specifically by this person. Or that you have had people who have been scammed tell you personally exactly how it happened? No? Well, I wouldn't count on a truth defence if I were you.

I am being threatened for defamation for sharing an article about an alleged scammer which was published in local news site

There is an alleged scammer in my community. An article about him was published by our local news site. As I have a lot of contacts, I shared the article to all my contacts and it became viral. He is now threatening to sue me for defamation. He is well versed in legal matters and have taken people to court several times. The article about him is definitely true, but obviously he can deny them all in court. Should I be concerned? Thank you for all the answers. I am in Australia. To be precise, I said 'Please be aware of this alleged scammer' + link to the article. It was published by www.theaustralian.com.au , a top news outlet. I was careful to not indict. He has only threatened me.

Should I be concerned? Thats not a question about the law, and this site is off topic for actual legal advice questions, but there is an answer which is on-topic, not legal advice and worth saying. The person you have described is litigious in nature - they use the courts for their own ends, perhaps even for bullying. Should you be concerned? Yes - not that the person has any case against you, but because they can cost you time, money and reputation even without a case. All they have to do is make it costly for you to fight a case against them - they can draw out the legal process so you have to retain legal assistance for longer, they can make disparaging remarks and claims about you, and they can withdraw the case at a later date with little negative outcome unless you sue them back. Get a lawyer, now, and see what you can do to head this off.

I am being threatened for defamation for sharing an article about an alleged scammer which was published in local news site

There is an alleged scammer in my community. An article about him was published by our local news site. As I have a lot of contacts, I shared the article to all my contacts and it became viral. He is now threatening to sue me for defamation. He is well versed in legal matters and have taken people to court several times. The article about him is definitely true, but obviously he can deny them all in court. Should I be concerned? Thank you for all the answers. I am in Australia. To be precise, I said 'Please be aware of this alleged scammer' + link to the article. It was published by www.theaustralian.com.au , a top news outlet. I was careful to not indict. He has only threatened me.

If the article on the "local news site" was false, or cannot be proved true and if it harmed, or was likely to harm, the reputation of the alleged scammer, it was probably defamatory. Repeating a defamatory statement can itself be defamation. Whether it is in fact defamation depends on whether the repetition was done in a way likely to be seen as endorsing the original story, or in a way that contests it, or in a way that neutrally analyzes it without either endorsing or contesting the original story. Posting a link to a news story is less likely to be held to be defamation than would repeating the whole story, or its defamatory statements. However, if the link was so distributed that it significantly spread defamatory statements, it might itself constitute defamation. In any case, even if the statements can be proved true, or the poster has another clear defense to an accusation of defamation, defending a suit can be costly and troublesome. In some jurisdictions there are so-called "anti-SLAPP" laws. These can be invoked when a defamation suit is used to unduly burden speech that is of public value, sch a news reporting or comments on current public issues. (SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation".) Such laws can be used to have an improper suit dismissed at an early stage, before undue burdens are imposed. Exactly how and when such laws may be invoked varies depending on the jurisdiction, and they do not exist at all in some jurisdictions. One would be wise to consult a lawyer knowledgeable in defamation law to see if a anti-SLAPP law, or some other tactic, could avoid a burdensome suit. A threat to sue from a person noted from having sued others with some frequency would usually be grounds for concern.

I am being threatened for defamation for sharing an article about an alleged scammer which was published in local news site

There is an alleged scammer in my community. An article about him was published by our local news site. As I have a lot of contacts, I shared the article to all my contacts and it became viral. He is now threatening to sue me for defamation. He is well versed in legal matters and have taken people to court several times. The article about him is definitely true, but obviously he can deny them all in court. Should I be concerned? Thank you for all the answers. I am in Australia. To be precise, I said 'Please be aware of this alleged scammer' + link to the article. It was published by www.theaustralian.com.au , a top news outlet. I was careful to not indict. He has only threatened me.

Jurisdiction: england-and-wales I'm posting this to add to the other answers, so I won't go into details on the defence of truth other than to say that in England and Wales this can be found in section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 . However, that is not the only defence. There are also the honest opinion and public interest defences. Either of those could be applicable in this case depending on the facts. It may also be helpful for you to be aware of the limitation period in your jurisdiction for defamation. In England and Wales it is much shorter than for most other causes of action (which is most commonly 6 years). While not helpful if the claimant issues a claim in time, it can relieve the pressure somewhat once the period has expired. A claim must be brought within 1 year of the date on which the defamation ocurred, pursuant to section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 . This is subject to the court's discretion to permit defamation cases to proceed outside the limitation period pursuant to section 32A . In cases of re-publishing, the clock starts running on the date of the first publication as provided for in section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 , unless the re-publication is "materially different", including the level of prominence and extent of the re-publication. So any gap in time between the first publication and your re-publication may work to your advantage.

Termination of a contract due to breach

If I understand correctly, when a party to a contract breaches the terms in a material way (i.e., repudiation), the non-breaching party can, at its discretion, terminate it, cease performance under it and seek damages, if desired. If the innocent party expressly acknowledges the breach and considers the contract terminated (but hasn’t, yet, sought damages), and the breaching party files a petition in pursuit of a contractual right which they forfeit by breaching the contract, would the outcome, likely, turn on whether or not the innocent party expressly communicated their decision to terminate the contract to the breaching party (or their failure to seek damages, assuming no “affirmation” had occurred)? Would there, likely, be any bearing upon the outcome if that decision was communicated, and damages were sought, after their petition was filed? Would a motion to dismiss or stay the action, for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” or a motion to dismiss or stay the action, along with motion for declaratory relief be appropriate, in lieu of filing a response/answer? Would the right to seek damages for the breach still be preserved if not sought concurrently? Could filing an answer be considered an “affirmation” of the contract or create issues that would have, otherwise, been avoidable if any of the above listed action, or a different course of action was taken instead?

Termination is a matter of fact That is, it has either happened, or it hasn’t. Whether it has or hasn’t depends on a multitude of factors including the terms of the contract, the actions of the parties, and communication between them. These factors are so case specific that it is impossible to generalise. Further, within a given case, reasonable parties may differ on if a contract has been terminated, which party initiated the termination, and if that termination was lawful. Usually, these cases involve mutual allegations of repudiation by the other party and rightful termination in response by our side. These issues are likely to be the major ones that the court or tribunal will have to determine. A claim for damages would need to be pursued as part of the overall case but the deadline for raising them is a procedural matter for the court or tribunal. Failing to raise them as an issue in pre-litigation correspondence would not be a bar to raising them in a claim or counter-claim. However, failing to raise them at the earliest opportunity denies the offending party the opportunity to mitigate the damage and, if they can show that there were actions they could have reasonably taken to mitigate but couldn’t because they weren’t informed, then that may reduce or eliminate the damages payable.

What is the story with declarations of incompatibility and the otherwise ostensible binding Ness of the human rights act?

My understanding was always the governments couldn’t actact contrarily to HRA rights. On the other hand there is this regime of judicial so called “declarations of incompatibility” which are albeit apparently non-binding. But suppose the rights violations act 2023 grants government minister X a power to undertake a certain procedure against people that clearly violates their rights. Like for example summarily and arbitrarily summon them for immediate maiming or castration. The law grants a power to the government which is clearly in contradiction with individuals’ HRA rights, yet, it was passed into law by an act of Parliament. Suppose that Minister Alex exercises this power against citizen Bob and selects him to report to the Wapping Docks at dawn tomorrow for unanaesthetised castration. Usually it seems that Bob can apply for judicial review against such conduct of government officials, and it seems to me that usually in such cases the judicial result would be binding. So where does the conversely non-binding regime of declarations of incompatibility figure into this mix?

The UK has parliamentary sovereignty , not separation of powers Unlike, say, the United States, where the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive have co-equal power in their respective spheres, in the UK, the judiciary and the executive are subordinate to Parliament. The courts have no power to nullify an Act of Parliament for being unconstitutional like they do in jurisdictions where a written constitution gives them such a power like the USA, Canada, or Australia. The purpose of the Declaration of Incompatibility is to advise Parliament that the law they have passed contradicts the HRA and they should think about that and decide if that’s what they really wanted to do. That means that the UK Parliament could pass the Arbitrary Bollock Removal Act 2023 (ABRA) tomorrow and it would be valid law. The courts can still provide judicial review of the actions of the executive under ABRA but they cannot declare the law a nullity. That is, the Minister’s actions can be scrutinised to ensure they followed the ABRA and other established principles such as procedural fairness and, if they didn’t, declare the executive actions void. However, if they did follow the law, off come your nuts.

Can I sue the producer and/or the state TV for not acknowledging me?

When I was a child I turned on the TV and decided to watch cartoons. I found out Pat and Mat has not been on the conductor for a while. So I called the call center of the state broadcast. I didn't know the name of the animation series at those times, except for an old name, That's it . So I told the operator: "Please broadcast "That's it". It is a beautiful cartoon with two foolish characters." Also I gave my name and last name to him. The operator didn't understand which cartoon I'm talking about. So he replied to me: "I'm telling this to higher staff. They will show it for you to watch." Then he said bye and hung up the phone. Some months later, I was watching the TV and the children's program presenter said: "There will be a new children's TV series called "That's it". It is now being produced and will come soon." However, the first episode of the series got aired. But I didn't see my name nor in the opening neither the closing theme as the person who got the idea of making it. My question : Now that about 20 years have been passed can I sue the producer of the series an/or the state TV for not acknowledging me?

No Let’s assume the most generous interpretation: you came up with a fully fleshed-out idea for a television show - name, characters, plot, scene-setting - the lot. You told this idea over the phone to someone else who made this show incorporating every single part of your idea. Here’s the rub: nobody owns ideas . Unless you had them sign a non-disclosure agreement before you told them (which you didn’t), they are free to use your ideas however they like.

Does Volenti non fit injuria work?

There is Volenti non fit injuria . I'm confused whether if there is app where users can offend each other (what is illegal), but it requires user consent while registering that he accepts all things that can be done here to him (hate etc.), then can that app work legally? Could offending in such an application be legal and without consequences?

Some people seem to believe that just because something happens 'in the internet' it is somehow outside normal jurisdictions. Wrong. In may be harder to investigate and prosecute crimes in the internet, but the laws apply all the same. There are some problems when it is unclear 'where in the world' something did happen -- in the jurisdiction of the perpetrator, the victim, or the service provider? But problems of jurisdiction apply e.g. to international fraud cases in the non-web-world as well. In many jurisdictions, the informed and voluntary consent makes some things legal which would otherwise be illegal. For instance, if two boxers get into the ring, it is understood that each of them did consent to be hit by the other. But usually two fighters could not legally agree to a fight to the death, because even if there are laws on assisted suicide, they do not apply to a fight. Insults, libel, and slander are not on the same level as homicide. There are jurisdictions where they are not prosecuted without the request of the victim. But an insult might also violate other laws, e.g. disturbing the peace. So don't bet on such an app unless you know for sure which jurisdictions are involved.

Superceding CC-BY-NC as CC-BY by terms of license agreement

I'm using a dataset of imagery that is provided by Open Aerial Map. Their license terms are: All imagery is publicly licensed and made available through the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team's Open Imagery Network (OIN) Node. All imagery contained in OIN is licensed CC-BY 4.0, with attribution as contributors of Open Imagery Network. All imagery is available to be traced in OpenStreetMap. By submitting imagery to OpenAerialMap, you agree to place your imagery into the Open Imagery Network (OIN) through OpenAerialMap. The original copyright remains with the original source or holder of the imagery but you grant OAM to license the imagery as CC-BY 4.0, with attribution as contributors of Open Imagery Network. All imagery is available to be traced in OpenStreetMap. Each image, as provided to Open Aerial Map, also comes with its additional licensing metadata which varies between CC-BY, CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA. Here's an example of such a conflict: https://api.openaerialmap.org/meta/5ce4b726acfb8e0006396f98 (top level metadata says CC-BY 4.0, while the image is CC-BY-NC). { "meta": { "provided_by": "OpenAerialMap", "license": "CC-BY 4.0", "website": "http://beta.openaerialmap.org", "page": 1, "limit": 100, "found": 12614 }, "results": { "_id": "5ce4b726acfb8e0006396f98", "acquisition_end": "2019-05-15T16:00:00.000Z", "acquisition_start": "2019-05-15T15:00:00.000Z", "contact": "-", "platform": "uav", "provider": "-", "properties": { "license": "CC BY-NC 4.0", "sensor": "RGB", "crs": "EPSG:3100", "dimensions": [ 26451, 41263 ], ... Are these licenses effectively converted to CC-BY 4.0 by the terms of submission? Edit: I contacted OAM with no response. See also the upload form, where this is explained to users:

No CC is set up in a way, that you can not put any item acquired under one license under a more permissive license set in any way without breaching the license terms. A work that is CC-BY-NC can not become just CC-BY under the terms of the CC-BY-NC, as the -NC does not allow that part to be dropped as the CC-BY-NC license text demands you can't license the new work in any fashion that allows commercial use. It's only allowed to transmit into a more restrictive license scheme (e.g. adding -NC, -ND, or -SA), and never possible to drop a -NC, -ND or -SA. There is one exception: if something is already under a Share Alike license, you can not tack on any limitations either! A ...-SA license can not be changed to any other license type at all , not CC-BY-NC-SA, not more permissive, not less permissive, not even an equivalent license scheme. The license terms on such a work is permanently fixed if you get it under that license. Which license applies? It is unsure if the author or someone that received the work under a more permissive license than CC-BY-SA/CC-BY-NC did grant just OAM a license under CC-BY. In case there is a claim against OAM, it would be the duty of OAM to prove that they had received the work under this license and thus could grant it under CC-BY. The diligent thing for someone receiving the work down the line from OAM would be to presume the work to be under the most restrictive license that can be found in the metadata. In case those are incompatible with the proposed use, then the item can't be used.

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice’s crime like video footage or the like. Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then? ——— Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events “this person hit me at the place and this time,” and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?

One might be enough, 10,000 might not be enough In some cases, no eyewitnesses may be enough. The trier of fact (the jury if there is one, the judge if there isn’t) decides what weight to give to the evidence or any part of it (including the testimony of any given eyewitness) and decide if that is enough to meet the prosecution’s burden of beyond reasonable doubt on each of the elements to be proven. From the outset, however, you should understand that you are the sole judges of the facts. In respect of all disputes about matters of fact in this case, it will be you and not I who will have to resolve them. In part, that means that it is entirely up to you to decide what evidence is to be accepted and what evidence is to be rejected. For that reason you need to pay careful attention to each witness as their evidence is given. You should not only listen to what the witnesses say but also watch them as they give their evidence. How a witness presents to you and how he or she responds to questioning, especially in cross-examination, may assist you in deciding whether or not you accept what that witness was saying as truthful and reliable. You are entitled to accept part of what a witness says and reject other parts of the evidence. Recommended instruction to the jury from the NSW Criminal Trial Bench Book

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice’s crime like video footage or the like. Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then? ——— Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events “this person hit me at the place and this time,” and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?

Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? Usually yes unless his is discredited or found unreliable. He may be discredited if he has history of being dishonest, especially if convicted for it. He may be found unreliable if he is inconsistent about details of what he saw (e.g. tells different stories at different times), if he has had some conflicts with Alice, if he is on Bob's payroll and so on. All those are just factors that the trier of fact may/will consider. There can't be an unequivocal yes or no.

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice’s crime like video footage or the like. Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then? ——— Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events “this person hit me at the place and this time,” and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?

The number of witnesses does not mathematically add up to reasonable doubt or not. It all depends on what the jury finds credible. Dozens of witnesses who hated Alice would not be so credible as one witness who hated David, another suspect, and loved Alice but said that Alice had done it. This is because what is required is to convince the jury. Toronto Defense Lawyers explains it: The judge/jury does not need to be “absolutely certain” that the defendant is guilty to satisfy the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution need not prove guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever. Moreover, the judge/jury cannot acquit based on an imaginary or frivolous doubt. However, the reasonable doubt standard requires more than simply that the jury be convinced that the defendant “probably” committed the crime or “likely” committed the crime. Just as you would probably believe some things on few witnesses and disbelieve others with more witnesses because you find them less credible, so too with the jurors.

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice’s crime like video footage or the like. Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then? ——— Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events “this person hit me at the place and this time,” and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?

How many witnesses’ testimony constitute or transcend reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt is assessed based on the totality of the evidence ( R. v. McClure , 2001 SCC 14, para. 60 ). There is no formula . See R. v. Lifchus , [1997] 3 SCR 320, para. 36 : the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence; the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused; a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice; rather, it is based upon reason and common sense; it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence; it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ‑‑ a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit. As part of that analysis, it is up to the trier of fact (judge or jury, depending on the trial) to assess each witness's credibility .

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice’s crime like video footage or the like. Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then? ——— Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events “this person hit me at the place and this time,” and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?

You would need some things to add up for “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. First, did the police see Bob lying on the ground, stabbed in the back, in a way that he couldn’t do himself and that couldn’t be an accident? Without an injured Bob, there is reasonable doubt that a crime happened at all. Could Charles by mistaken? If Alice is one of 100 customers to enter Bobs store that day, then it could easily be a person who looks similar to Alice. If Bob, Alice and Charles have been coworkers for years, it is most likely no mistake. Unless Alice has an identical twin. Could Charles be lying? With your story, I’d have the very reasonable doubt that Charles might be the attacker, and trying to put the blame on Alice. So your facts wouldn’t be enough. Now another witness who saw what happened from a distance and could see it was a person with long hair like Alice and not a bald person like Charles, even though they can’t identify Alice, that would make a difference. In the end a jury decides. It is not necessary that there is no other possibility than Alice being the attacker, but just finding it likely or highly probable that she is the attacker is not enough.

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice’s crime like video footage or the like. Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles’s word enough to convict Alice of a crime? What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then? ——— Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events “this person hit me at the place and this time,” and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?

0 direct witnesses can be enough It is upon the trier of fact to evaluate what happened. A case can be held entirely based on evidence with 0 witnesses that actually saw the act to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, all those analysts and investigators, and other experts are to be called to explain the evidence and their significance... as witnesses. Not calling them as ( indirect ) witnesses means, the evidence should not come in under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) . Any number of witnesses - be they experts, investigators or direct eyewitness - that can make the finder of fact believe that it is beyond a reasonable doubt is enough. Any number can be 0 eyewitnesses, 0 experts, and the one 1 investigator saying "I met Alice an hour after the incident and she was acting strange when I told her Bob is dead." A million people agreeing (based on hearsay) might not be Since you need to convince the finder of fact that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you could have millions of people that all claim Alice did it, maybe because of the news reports, but because nobody of them has more information than the news reporter, who invented half his story, all of their testimony is hearsay and worth nothing. They can not testify. Not even the investigator can testify about things told to them, as established by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) , overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) .

What was the substantive issue in Halborg V Apple?

The case has become overshadowed by a procedural issue about solicitors’ agency which was prominently appealed with the result that I cannot find anything describing the original substantive dispute in search results. Procedural appeal: https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/media/no2bbwlr/f4qz598c-halborg-v-apple-approved-judgment-3-5-22.pdf

According to the linked judgment dated 3 May 2022, the underlying small claim was listed for 30 May that year. The issue is described in paragraph 3 as: The underlying claim is in relation to a mobile phone which Mr Halborg purchased from the Second Defendant and which he alleges was defective. (the Second Defendant is O2) As a small claim, we would not expect there to be a published judgment or any media coverage, which accounts for the lack of information on search results. As a non-party to the case it is possible to request certain details from the court, including the statement of claim and the text of any orders. There is also the possibility of obtaining a transcript of the proceedings, since there apparently was a hearing and these are routinely recorded. Note that although the linked document says a hearing was meant to happen on 30 May, it's also possible that this was abandoned, rescheduled, etc. It would probably be more effective - certainly faster and cheaper - to contact the claimant directly and ask about it, if you are really curious.