Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

How similar do trademarks have to be to be infringement?

I received a marketing email from Lenovo with the slogan "Different is better." This seems quite similar to Apple's "Think different," to the point that had I seen the slogan out of context, I would have thought it was Apple's; however, I'm sure Lenovo cleared it with their legal department. How similar do two slogans have to be for trademark infringement?

They have to be substantially identical or deceptively similar australia Substantially identical is a side-by-side comparison noting the similarities and differences. If they are not substantially identical, then the deceptively similar test is “ between, on the one hand, the impression based on recollection of one mark that a person of ordinary intelligence and memory would have and, on the other hand, the impressions that such a person would get from looking at the second mark.” Are they substantially identical? No. Are they deceptively similar? Maybe.

Does 2 party consent apply if the data is anonymized?

If I have a text conversation between myself and another party, both of whom reside in 2 party consent states in the US, if I remove all reasonably identifying information, do I still need consent from the other person to use the data? Does this change if I am using it to fine-tune an LLM for public use?

Consent only applies to audio recordings Written communication (and, usually soundless video recording) is not covered.

Does this definition of harassment have any legal basis?

Does the following definition of harassment have any legal basis? The gym’s dignity and inclusion policy states: “Harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination. It is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which includes sex, gender reassignment (or transgender status), race (which includes colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins), disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity and age. This unwanted conduct either has the purpose of, or is reasonably considered by the person on the receiving end to have the effect of violating their dignity or otherwise creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” Is this definition consistent with the legal definition of harassment, and what is the basis in law?

Almost. Under section 26 Equity Act 2010, the offence of harassment does not include discrimination based on " marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity ": Harassment (1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if— (a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i)violating B's dignity, or (ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. (2)A also harasses B if— (a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b). (3)A also harasses B if— (a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex, (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and (c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct. (4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a)the perception of B; (b)the other circumstances of the case; (c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. (5) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. However... There is also the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which, at section 1 and section 2 creates the offence without a requirement to show any discrimination based on protected characteristics.

Does this definition of harassment have any legal basis?

Does the following definition of harassment have any legal basis? The gym’s dignity and inclusion policy states: “Harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination. It is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which includes sex, gender reassignment (or transgender status), race (which includes colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins), disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity and age. This unwanted conduct either has the purpose of, or is reasonably considered by the person on the receiving end to have the effect of violating their dignity or otherwise creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” Is this definition consistent with the legal definition of harassment, and what is the basis in law?

canada Harassment is a form of discrimination prohibited by the B.C. Human Rights Code . See British Columbia, " Human Rights in British Columbia: What You Need to Know ": Harassment is a form of discrimination. It can be words or actions that ofend or humiliate you. It is harassment when someone repeatedly says or does things to you that are insulting and offensive. The Code protects you when harassment is based on a protected characteristic listed under “How am I protected”. There are many types of harassment. See also Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7) , 2019 BCHRT 58, para. 52 (citations omitted): speech which adversely impacts a person in connection with a characteri[s]tic protected by the Code is prohibited in all the social areas which the Code regulates. Sexual and racial harassment are the most obvious examples of this. Whenever people use words in a way that substantively attacks and undermines a person's dignity in connection with their work, housing, or access to public services, because of personal characteristics protected by the Code, they run afoul of human rights law.

Does a person on probation have to legally identify themselves to police officers without reasonable articulable suspicion of a criminal offense

Is there a New Hampshire RSA regarding persons on probation having to by law identify themselves as being on probation and provide their name and identification to an officer, when stopped even if it’s only for civil infraction

New Hampshire has published restrictions for persons on probation: https://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/victim/pandp_offender.html These restriction include agreeing to searches by the Probation-Parole Officer ("PPO"), but do not mention identification to a general peace officer. New Hampshire law allows the police to request the identity of person the officer has reason to suspect is committing or may be about to commit a crime (this is less of a standard than probable cause). Failure to identify is a crime, and a subsequent arrest would require notification of the PPO, though the requirements above state that the PPO must be notified of even mere questioning by a law enforcement officer. The identification requirement applies to everyone. I can find no requirement that the identification requires the person to mention that they are on probation.

Is there a law that regulates charging an online account to which the owner has no access?

Is it legal for an online service to charge an account holder credit card for services that are contingent on the account holder being able to manage their account if the account holder's access has been restricted?

Depends on what terms of service the account holder signed up to. For instance, one could run a website at a cloud provider, configure it so that it automatically scales up when the traffic grows, and then mishandle the credentials so that one cannot shut it down quickly. By the time access is restored, there might be quite some bill. As it recently made the news, when a business deliberately makes it easier to sign up than to cancel , the FTC may step in. But that was an extreme case.

What does Enurement mean in a contract?

Example: Enurement: This Agreement will enure to the benefit of and be binding on the Parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators and permitted successors and assigns. I do not get what any of this means. Can someone give a simple example when this may come into play?

What does Enurement mean in a contract? Black's Law Dictionary defines enure as " To operate or take effect. To serve to the use, benefit, or advantage of a person ". The clause in your contract means that both entitlements and duties as provided in the agreement affect the parties but may be transfered to their heirs, successors, etc. In other words, that the death of a party does not extinguish the provisions in the contract.

What does Enurement mean in a contract?

Example: Enurement: This Agreement will enure to the benefit of and be binding on the Parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators and permitted successors and assigns. I do not get what any of this means. Can someone give a simple example when this may come into play?

Remember there are usually two parties to an employment contract, an employer and employee. An enurement clause in the contract also protects the employee if their employer merges with another entity, a corporation winds up, etc.

Does attorney-client privilege apply when lawyers are fraudulent about credentials?

If a person goes to another person for legal advice and the person is deceitful in some way about being a lawyer, does attorney-client privilege still apply? For instance, maybe the person does not quite know what a real diploma from Harvard Law School looks like, or that the piece of paper on the office wall saying the person passed the New York Bar Exam is not actual New York Bar correspondence. I'm specifically wondering whether the person who is not a real lawyer can be compelled to give testimony on matters that his client thought were confidential, and would have been confidential if not for the deceit.

united-states A similar issue came up in my answer to Can a private person deceive a defendant to obtain evidence? . I don't think the question itself is a duplicate, so instead I'll just copy the relevant section from my answer with minor edits. The short answer is yes, the privilege applies. The case of US v. Tyler, 745 F. Supp. 423 (W.D. Mich. 1990) matches your hypothetical almost exactly. The defendant, James Tyler, shared a prison cell with Melvin Deutsch, who said that he was a lawyer, had what appeared to be a law school diploma on the wall of his cell, and was addressed as "counselor" by other inmates; but in fact was not a lawyer. Nevertheless, correspondence between Tyler and Deutsch regarding Tyler's legal issues was held to be privileged and inadmissible. Tyler was held to have had a reasonable belief that Deutsch was a lawyer, despite that Deutsch had never been licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction, and that the law school diploma was (presumably) fake. Tyler evidently didn't check on either of those things, and the court did not seem to think that he reasonably should have. Also, Tyler apparently did not know the seemingly obvious fact that a convicted felon cannot practice law, let alone while actually in prison. However, this was not felt by the court to be "ingenuous": "To expect a layperson to be familiar with the internal discipline procedures of the Bar is unreasonable." There is also a discussion of such situations in the following article: Grace M. Giesel, Upjohn Warnings, The Attorney-client Privilege, And Principles Of Lawyer Ethics: Achieving Harmony , 65 U. Miami L. Rev. 109 (2015). Available at this link See Section IV.D.2 on page 140: In addition to applying the honest-and-reasonable-belief analysis in the attorney-client privilege setting to the question of representational relationship, courts have also applied the analysis when the person consulted is not, in fact, a lawyer. The courts addressing this issue have stated that the privilege applies to a communication even if the person consulted is not admitted to any bar and has enjoyed no legal training. If the putative client honestly and reasonably believes that the person consulted is a lawyer, and if the other requirements of the privilege are satisfied, the privilege applies even though the person consulted is, in fact, not a lawyer. See the article for additional citations. The article also mentions that certain states make this principle explicit by statute. For instance, the Kentucky Rules of Evidence , Rule 503(a)(3): "Lawyer" means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized to engage in the practice of law in any state or nation.

Does attorney-client privilege apply when lawyers are fraudulent about credentials?

If a person goes to another person for legal advice and the person is deceitful in some way about being a lawyer, does attorney-client privilege still apply? For instance, maybe the person does not quite know what a real diploma from Harvard Law School looks like, or that the piece of paper on the office wall saying the person passed the New York Bar Exam is not actual New York Bar correspondence. I'm specifically wondering whether the person who is not a real lawyer can be compelled to give testimony on matters that his client thought were confidential, and would have been confidential if not for the deceit.

Yes, it does, in any reasonable jurisdiction. The argument is as follows. I sometimes find it helps me understand the legal reasoning if I reverse the actual practice. So let's suppose that attorney client privilege doesn't apply with a fake lawyer. John Doe is arrested, he doesn't have a lawyer, until someone enters his cell and offers to represent him. After an interviewer, it turns out that the "lawyer" is actually a fake, could use who was put up to the job by dodgy police. They debrief their stooge, and now have information that they could use against Mr. Doe...

Is it legal for a business to deny me access to their store on the basis of how I look?

Is it legal for a business to use discriminatory (and notoriously false-positive) fingerprinting algorithms that prevent me from loading their website purely on the basis of how I look (as opposed to how I act )? Some time ago I opened an account on a website. For security reasons , I used Tor Browser. I loaded money onto my account and purchased their services. I used their services several times without issue. Recently I tried to log-into my account, but I got stuck in an infinite loop on CloudFlare , so I could never access their website. It should go without saying that I'm not doing anything malicious, but I'll say it: this is reproducible when launching a fresh version of TAILS, opening the browser, typing the naked domain into the address bar and pressing <enter> . I'm never allowed into the store. So it appears to me that this website is denying me access to their business services, my account, and the funds on my account for one reason: because they don't like the way I look. Is this legal for them to do to their customers? I'm also curious if the same thing would be legal in the IRL analog, for example: Would it be legal for a brick-and-mortar store to deny me from entering their shop purely on the basis of the way that I look? Would it be legal for a bank (with whom I already have an open account in good-standing) to prevent me from accessing my safety deposit box because they don't like the way that I look? Or, perhaps for a closer analogy: Would it be legal for a brick-and-mortar store to deny me from entering their shop because their SaaS CCTV facial recognition software (falsely) said that I "look" like a shoplifter? Would it be legal for a bank (with whom I already have an open account in good-standing) to prevent me from accessing my safety deposit box because I'm wearing the same T-Shirt from JC Penny that someone else wore who robbed their bank yesterday (and they do not permit me to attempt to prove my identity)? I'm primarily interested in US and EU law, but I would be interested in any countries with strong consumer and data protection laws that would provide consumer protection from discrimination on the basis of "looks" on the Internet.

You are mistaken: they deny you on your act When you use Tor, your browser is not sending a lot of information. That makes Tor browsers hilariously easy to detect: nobody knows where the real browser is, but it is hilariously easy to block all Tor users for using Tor, or at least those that the server knows are Tor IPs. Using Tor is an action, not how you look. The closest Brick and mortar equivalent would be "Show me your ID please" and you show them a paper cutout of something that has Sample stamped over it. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" in the united-states Yes, most places can deny service based on how you dress or your state of hygine. These two would in most cases not extend to the protections under the Civil Rights Act , which protects some characteristics like race and sex, but not visual factors like "being dressed" or "smelling of cow". There can be a fine line where religious dress code is concerned, but in general and broad strokes, the restaurant can deny you for wearing the wrong clothes. Actually, the slogan is much broader than it appears: as long as an establishment's dress code is not violating discrimination law (like the CRA), they can enforce it under their freedom to contract.

Is it legal for a business to deny me access to their store on the basis of how I look?

Is it legal for a business to use discriminatory (and notoriously false-positive) fingerprinting algorithms that prevent me from loading their website purely on the basis of how I look (as opposed to how I act )? Some time ago I opened an account on a website. For security reasons , I used Tor Browser. I loaded money onto my account and purchased their services. I used their services several times without issue. Recently I tried to log-into my account, but I got stuck in an infinite loop on CloudFlare , so I could never access their website. It should go without saying that I'm not doing anything malicious, but I'll say it: this is reproducible when launching a fresh version of TAILS, opening the browser, typing the naked domain into the address bar and pressing <enter> . I'm never allowed into the store. So it appears to me that this website is denying me access to their business services, my account, and the funds on my account for one reason: because they don't like the way I look. Is this legal for them to do to their customers? I'm also curious if the same thing would be legal in the IRL analog, for example: Would it be legal for a brick-and-mortar store to deny me from entering their shop purely on the basis of the way that I look? Would it be legal for a bank (with whom I already have an open account in good-standing) to prevent me from accessing my safety deposit box because they don't like the way that I look? Or, perhaps for a closer analogy: Would it be legal for a brick-and-mortar store to deny me from entering their shop because their SaaS CCTV facial recognition software (falsely) said that I "look" like a shoplifter? Would it be legal for a bank (with whom I already have an open account in good-standing) to prevent me from accessing my safety deposit box because I'm wearing the same T-Shirt from JC Penny that someone else wore who robbed their bank yesterday (and they do not permit me to attempt to prove my identity)? I'm primarily interested in US and EU law, but I would be interested in any countries with strong consumer and data protection laws that would provide consumer protection from discrimination on the basis of "looks" on the Internet.

canada "Looks" are not a protected characteristic in any anti-discrimination regime in Canada. It is not a violation of any provincial or federal Human Rights Code to deny services on the basis of looks per se . Only when this serves to discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic would this discrimination be prohibited. For example, under the Canadian Human Rights Act , these are: "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered." Under the B.C. Human Rights Code , in relation to services, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are: "Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age." Of course, if the way one is being discriminated on the basis of "looks" is to actually result in discrimination on the basis of "race" or "colour," for example, this would be prohibited discrimination. These codes apply no matter whether the prohibited discrimination is due solely to the actions of a person, or mediated by the operation of an algorithm. They are written and applied in a technologically neutral manner.

Can Disney claim Florida has passed and is pursuing Bills of Attainder?

The State of Florida seems to be in a protracted battle with Disney. The state has legislated in the direction of Disney, and continues to do so ( https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/desantis-speaking-at-reedy-creek-administration-building/ ). Despite the fact that there might be real arguments that such legislation is for the well-being of the state, the dialog surrounding Reedy Creek issues, including statements coming out of the State, seems to provide a solid argument that the motivation for such legislation is to punish Disney for voicing objection to recent policy decisions in the State. Assuming that as a given, for the moment (though that's, at the least, arguable), doesn't that provide Disney with the argument that these are Bills of Attainder?

Legislatures are free to declare illegal whatever they want (within Constitutional limitations, obviously). A bill of attainder declares a defendant guilty without trial. Targeting a company with laws isn't particularly noteworthy, this is done all the time, usually to the company's benefit. Nothing Florida is doing would be considered a bill of attainder. Special conditions that have been set by the state are always available to be re-legislated.

Can Disney claim Florida has passed and is pursuing Bills of Attainder?

The State of Florida seems to be in a protracted battle with Disney. The state has legislated in the direction of Disney, and continues to do so ( https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/desantis-speaking-at-reedy-creek-administration-building/ ). Despite the fact that there might be real arguments that such legislation is for the well-being of the state, the dialog surrounding Reedy Creek issues, including statements coming out of the State, seems to provide a solid argument that the motivation for such legislation is to punish Disney for voicing objection to recent policy decisions in the State. Assuming that as a given, for the moment (though that's, at the least, arguable), doesn't that provide Disney with the argument that these are Bills of Attainder?

At question here is whether Disney was punished by an act of the Florida Legislature. Lets look at basically how this happened. At first the legislature voted to strip Reedy Creek of its special designation. Once they realized that this would shift the burden of bond payment to the local counties to the tune of billions, they repealed the law that stripped Reedy Creek of its special designation. They then passed a law dissolving the Reedy Creek Board that was appointed by Disney. Before that board was seated, Disney held public meetings in accordance with Florida transparency laws and changed their by-laws as to what power the board would have. Again this was done above board just no one seemed to notice. This was signed off on by the former board which was still legally the board for Reedy Creek. Now that we know this, did the legislature make all the boards of special tax districts submit to a board appointed by the Governor to make business decisions? No, just Disney. Also, the Governors own words show that this was a retaliatory action. Disney has an incredibly strong case here and if I had to chose which one to represent...it would easily be Disney.

Roommate accusing me of theft in Germany

my stuff kept going missing and when I asked my roommate they denied but later I looked through their bags and found out it that they were stealing my stuff and hiding it in their bag. I took a picture of my stuff that I found in the bags. then I packed my things and left cause I was scared from them. when they called me I confronted them and they denied and accused me of putting my stuff in their bag to falsely accuse them of stealing from me, but now I am suspecting that they are gonna call the police accusing me of stealing their stuff can they do that? and what will the police do? how does the police system in Germany works in such situations?

germany Anybody can call the police and file charges. The police will probably ask both sides to make statements for the record. If you are potentially accused of a crime, they will inform you of your right not to testify, which can be scary if you are not familiar with the legal language. You can file charges against the other side at this point, too. Police are familiar with situations where two sides accuse each other. Having collected evidence and statements, the police decide if there is enough of a case to present it to the prosecutor's office. That's not yet a determination of guilt, it merely means that they will look into it further. The prosecutor decides if there is enough of a case to bring it to court. (The prosecutor must see a likelihood of success.) If the case goes to trial, there will probably be a single judge, no jury. You are not required to have a defense attorney, but you might want to if there are language problems. However, in the German system, the judge is not merely the 'referee' between the prosecution and defense. The judge is supposed to question witnesses to understand what happened, and in many cases the judge will ask the same questions a defender would have asked. For minor crimes, there is a procedure called Strafbefehl , which is important to understand. It is a letter with the offer of a sort of 'plea bargain,' which goes into effect unless you refuse it quickly and demand a trial. Doing nothing means you accept.

Is it possible to refuse an offered license?

Sometimes, things that are made of legal fiction are held to operate as normal even when someone attempts to disobey them. For example, I can browse a web site and agree to its terms, or I can not browse the web site, but it seems I can't browse the web site but not form the TOS contract, even if I am willing to accept the consequences of not having permission. Does this same principle apply to copyright law? If a license is attached to something saying that anyone may copy it provided that they pay a fee much larger than the damages for copyright infringement, and I copy it, can the licensor declare that I agreed to the license and therefore owe the fee? Or can I say I rejected the license and am only responsible for the damages? Or similarly, can source code that is distributed to you and contains GPL code be considered to have automatically been licensed to you under the GPL? Or is it possible to receive code that should have been but still is not actually licensed to you under the GPL, because the distributor rejected the GPL and chose to commit copyright infringement instead?

Whether a contract relates to copyright vs traditional property rights is a red herring. As explained in two existing Q&As (very similar to your question, these were about whether one can chose to trespass instead of accepting a parking-lot contract, or an entrance fee): Overriding offered contract acceptance methods with express written declaration Legal bindingness/validity of implicit/presumptively entered contracts for occupancy fees and this Q&A about the objective rather than subjective analysis of contract formation: Does contract formation require subjective "meeting of the minds"? , what matters is whether you've done the thing that constitutes acceptance of the contract, and whether in the circumstances, the conduct that the offeror has deemed to be acceptance is the kind of conduct that can objectively convey acceptance. You can refuse contractual obligations by not doing the act that the offeror has said would constitute acceptance.

Is it possible to refuse an offered license?

Sometimes, things that are made of legal fiction are held to operate as normal even when someone attempts to disobey them. For example, I can browse a web site and agree to its terms, or I can not browse the web site, but it seems I can't browse the web site but not form the TOS contract, even if I am willing to accept the consequences of not having permission. Does this same principle apply to copyright law? If a license is attached to something saying that anyone may copy it provided that they pay a fee much larger than the damages for copyright infringement, and I copy it, can the licensor declare that I agreed to the license and therefore owe the fee? Or can I say I rejected the license and am only responsible for the damages? Or similarly, can source code that is distributed to you and contains GPL code be considered to have automatically been licensed to you under the GPL? Or is it possible to receive code that should have been but still is not actually licensed to you under the GPL, because the distributor rejected the GPL and chose to commit copyright infringement instead?

is it possible to receive code that should have been but still is not actually licensed to you under the GPL This is definitely possible, but in this scenario your question is moot. It doesn't matter to you whether the person who provided the code to you (a) agreed to the GPL and then violated its terms (breach of contract) or (b) made copies without agreeing to the GPL (infringement of copyright). In neither case was a license under GPL offered to you. You cannot enforce the offender to offer you a license, because you are not a party to the contract requiring them to do so.

Is a thumbs-up emoji considered as legally binding agreement in the United States?

I read that a thumbs-up emoji considered as legally binding agreement in Canada. Is a thumbs-up emoji considered as legally binding agreement in the United States? If state-specific, I am mostly interested in California and Washington state.

canada 1 The judgment you have read about is South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land , 2023 SKKB 116 . The judge did not hold that "👍" is categorically considered to be binding agreement . The judge applied the modern approach to contractual interpretation outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. , 2014 SCC 53 and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga , 2021 SCC 22 . This requires judges to interpret the text of the contract and indicators of acceptance in light of the surrounding circumstances. Regarding interpretation, see Sattva : a decision-maker must read the contract as a whole, giving the words used their ordinary and grammatical meaning, consistent with the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of formation of the contract. Consideration of the surrounding circumstances recognizes that ascertaining contractual intention can be difficult when looking at words on their own, because words alone do not have an immutable or absolute meaning Regarding formation, see Aga (internal citations removed): [36] For present purposes, it will suffice to focus on the requirement of intention to create legal relations. As G. H. L. Fridman explains, “the test of agreement for legal purposes is whether parties have indicated to the outside world, in the form of the objective reasonable bystander, their intention to contract and the terms of such contract”. This requirement can be understood as an aspect of valid offer and acceptance, in the sense that a valid offer and acceptance must objectively manifest an intention to be legally bound. [37] The test for an intention to create legal relations is objective. The question is not what the parties subjectively had in mind but whether their conduct was such that a reasonable person would conclude that they intended to be bound. In answering this question, courts are not limited to the four corners of the purported agreement, but may consider the surrounding circumstances. See also Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3905 v. Crystal Square Parking Corp. , 2020 SCC 29, para. 37 : the offer, acceptance, consideration and terms may be inferred from the parties’ conduct and from the surrounding circumstances The conclusion about the 👍 emoji was case-specific. See paras. 62-63 : [62] ... Again, based on the facts in this case – the texting of a contract and then the seeking and receipt of approval was consistent with the previous process between SWT and Achter to enter into grain contracts. [63] 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” – to identify the signator (Chris using his unique cell phone number) and as I have found above – to convey Achter’s acceptance of the flax contract. 1." Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions – while it might not answer your question directly, your question will be here for others who may be from those jurisdictions. "

Is a thumbs-up emoji considered as legally binding agreement in the United States?

I read that a thumbs-up emoji considered as legally binding agreement in Canada. Is a thumbs-up emoji considered as legally binding agreement in the United States? If state-specific, I am mostly interested in California and Washington state.

The meaning of a thumbs-up emoji would be evaluated on a case by case basis in the context of the discussion purported to be creating a binding agreement. I suspect that this is also the true statement of Canadian law. More generally, body language and gestures and images together with actual words can be considered by a court, in the overall context of an interaction, to determine what was communicated by the parties with each other in order to form a contract. Similarly, slang or non-literal uses of words could form a contract if their meaning is consistent with agreement in the context of the overall discussion. These foundational concepts of contract interpretation and formation are shared by essentially all common law countries.

What should I know and consider before deciding whether or not to go to law school?

I'm thinking about enrolling in law school, but I haven't taken the LSAT yet or done any serious research regarding schools, career tracks, etc. My question is: what are some resources I should be looking into? It's worth noting I'm 29 years old and not currently enrolled in college, though I do have a bachelor's and master's.

The first thing you need to know is that if you go to law school, you will hate your life for at least those three years. Law school is not like other graduate school programs. If you do reasonably well, it will almost certainly consume your life. Law school students (and lawyers) experience substantially higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and depression. And student debt, of course. The second thing you need to know is that the legal jobs that most people seem to dream of are in very short supply. I haven't looked at the latest market research, but I'd be comfortable betting that the vast majority of work that is available is in criminal law and defending businesses. Upon graduation, you will probably not be: a lawyer at a large firm, a lawyer at a firm that will pay you more than $100,000, a constitutional lawyer or an environmental lawyer. There are great odds that you will never argue before the Supreme Court, or even your state supreme court. There are really good odds that you will argue in front of a jury no more than six times in your life. So don't go in blind. Resource 1: Students at nearby law schools. My experience is that a powerful majority of law school students go in for the wrong reasons, hate law school, and graduate with more regrets and debt than anything else. I think this is because they usually go in for the wrong reasons: they didn't know what else to do, their mom was a lawyer, they like to argue, their uncle said they should. There is only one reason that anyone should go to law school, and that is because they enjoy doing legal work. "Legal work" means two things: research and writing. It does not mean arguing. If you don't like research and writing, you will not like law school, and you will not be a successful lawyer. So the first resource you should be looking into is students of nearby law schools. Ask them why they went, if they're glad they did, and what their career prospects are like as a result. If their pre-law experiences and motivations sound like yours, consider whether their law-school and career experiences might be the same, as well. If they don't talk you out of this, move on to... Resource 2: The career offices at nearby law schools Ask for an appointment to talk about where the legal market is headed, how their schools prepare people for it, and how their graduates are doing. If the market is headed in directions that you don't like, think about whether law school is really a smart decision, at least at this point. You are already entering later than other people, but there's also still time to wait. I went in at 34. Ask them to put you in touch with recent graduates, as well. They can give you a better idea of what it's like to find a job as an attorney and what it's like to spend three years in law school. If they don't talk you out of this, move on to... Resource 3: The cesspool of the online pre-law websites You'll get more good (and bad) information from the ugly, ugly world of pre-law chat. If you want more information about specific law schools, the admissions process, the implications of any criminal, civil, or academic misconduct on your candidacy, or almost anything else, you should take a look at: Top-Law-Schools.com Above the Law Reddit School of Law Law School Numbers There's more out there. It's all awful. If they don't talk you out of it... Resource 4: Your LSAT score Do not take your LSAT without preparing. Take a formal LSAT prep course. They can be expensive, but they are worth it. I spent roughly $1,000 on mine and went from the 50th percentile to the 90th. Given my terrible GPA, that was the difference between being rejected by everyone and $120,000 in scholarship funds. If you prepare for the LSAT and get a low score (under the 50th percentile) anyway, DO NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL. There are law schools that will take you, but there are decent odds that they are basically not real law schools. The ABA is currently targeting law schools admitting underqualified candidates and revoking their certification. If you get a decent score, and you have a decent undergraduate GPA, the odds are good that you'll get into a decent school and perform reasonably well. That does not, however, mean that you'll enjoy yourself. So I recommend that throughout all of this, you also take advantage of.... Resource 5: Reading about the law To get a feel for whether law school will be an enjoyable experience or a painful slog, I recommend starting to read the law now. Start getting a feel for whether the people you'd be spending your education and career with are doing anything you find remotely interesting. Do you enjoy reading Supreme Court decisions ? Do you get off on the idea of writing a really good contract ? Maybe you can find an area where you might like to carve a niche. But maybe you'd rather carve your eyes out with a spoon. Take a look around to find out: SCOTUSblog Law.com Law360 ABA Journal The Volokh Conspiracy Balkinization FedSoc blog ACLU blog ACS blog Lawfare Popehat PrawfsBlawg Bad resources: You should not base your decision to go to law school on: 1L , by Scott Turow Legally Blonde The Paper Chase My Cousin Vinny Law & Order If you decide to go to law school, however, you should familiarize with all of these, as they are subcultural touchstones. A final word If this sounds like I'm trying to talk you out of it, it's because I'm guessing that you're a lot like the vast majority of the law students and lawyers I have ever known, and I've known a lot. But there is a small group of people who enjoy law school and enjoy the law. I enjoyed the first year of law school, if not the last two, and I really love the legal work that I do. But I came to law school only after about 10 years in a job doing work that was already pretty intensively law-related and having really committed to the idea for reasons that were purely internal and had nothing to do with making anyone happy other than myself. If you can get to that point, I'd say go for it. If you can't, I promise you that you can find a more fulfilling way to spend three years of your life.

What should I know and consider before deciding whether or not to go to law school?

I'm thinking about enrolling in law school, but I haven't taken the LSAT yet or done any serious research regarding schools, career tracks, etc. My question is: what are some resources I should be looking into? It's worth noting I'm 29 years old and not currently enrolled in college, though I do have a bachelor's and master's.

Deciding whether to go to law school is a personal choice that depends on your interests, career goals, and financial situation. Law school can provide you with a solid foundation in legal knowledge and critical thinking skills, opening up various career opportunities in the legal field. However, it is essential to consider the time commitment and financial investment required for law school. Research the job market and speak with practicing lawyers to gain insights into the profession. This article from the American Bar Association (ABA) provides valuable information to help you make an informed decision: Should I Go to Law School ?, Also you can check Law Student Resources from Law Info Advice.

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend? Not the whole book, but a section or whatever the friend needs. What about if the book is out of print? If it is illegal, then what's the difference between this and lending the friend the book? If the person lends the book and the friend does his own personal scanning with it, is that a different scenario, and if so what is the legality of it? I live in the UK, but knowing the international side of this is probably important too. Could a person in the UK scan pages for a friend in another country, for example? Can we generalise? If it's black and white, what about in practice? Would a friend copying for a friend as a one off for no malicious intents or purposes be something many publishers would allow? Is it common for single authors to allow this? Or is this never allowed and either gets generally overlooked, gets prosecuted regularly? I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.

It should not surprise you that copyright protects the right to (among other things) make copies. There are limited exceptions that are considered "fair use", like if you reproduce a limited amount of text for educational, reporting, or review purposes. Giving your friend a copy of a large portion of the text just because they want it would almost certainly violate copyright. Whether the book is available or out-of-print has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who holds the copyright or whether your actions violate it. This is very different from giving your friend the book itself. The book itself is covered under the "first sale doctrine", meaning that by buying a copy of the book, you buy the right to sell, transfer, or dispose of that particular copy , but it doesn't give you the right to make more copies. I will note that in practice, it is vanishingly unlikely that the copyright holder would ever learn of your isolated instance of limited infringement in the first place (especially since it's out of print), much less bring legal action against you for making a single copy that did not affect their bottom line.

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend? Not the whole book, but a section or whatever the friend needs. What about if the book is out of print? If it is illegal, then what's the difference between this and lending the friend the book? If the person lends the book and the friend does his own personal scanning with it, is that a different scenario, and if so what is the legality of it? I live in the UK, but knowing the international side of this is probably important too. Could a person in the UK scan pages for a friend in another country, for example? Can we generalise? If it's black and white, what about in practice? Would a friend copying for a friend as a one off for no malicious intents or purposes be something many publishers would allow? Is it common for single authors to allow this? Or is this never allowed and either gets generally overlooked, gets prosecuted regularly? I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.

It depends on the use your friend will make of the copy Any amount of copying is prima facie copyright infringement. UK law allows fair dealing copying for specific use cases. You don’t tell us why your friend wants a copy so we can’t tell if it fits one of the exemptions. If it does, the copying must still be fair - a small portion of the work and not the total work, for example. Lending your friend the book is not a problem because there is no copying involved. If they make copes while they have it - see above.

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend? Not the whole book, but a section or whatever the friend needs. What about if the book is out of print? If it is illegal, then what's the difference between this and lending the friend the book? If the person lends the book and the friend does his own personal scanning with it, is that a different scenario, and if so what is the legality of it? I live in the UK, but knowing the international side of this is probably important too. Could a person in the UK scan pages for a friend in another country, for example? Can we generalise? If it's black and white, what about in practice? Would a friend copying for a friend as a one off for no malicious intents or purposes be something many publishers would allow? Is it common for single authors to allow this? Or is this never allowed and either gets generally overlooked, gets prosecuted regularly? I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.

Copyright law generally reserves to the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to copy the material: United States . 17 U.S.C. § 106 : "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following... (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies..." Canada . Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 3 "copyright... means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work..." These are just two examples of domestic legislation giving effect to the countries' commitments as parties to the Berne Convention to ensure that "[a]uthors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form" (art. 9). Many countries also provide a fair-use exception or fair-dealing right, consistent with art. 9(2) of the Berne Convention. For example, see: In the US, when is fair use a defense to copyright infringement?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend? Not the whole book, but a section or whatever the friend needs. What about if the book is out of print? If it is illegal, then what's the difference between this and lending the friend the book? If the person lends the book and the friend does his own personal scanning with it, is that a different scenario, and if so what is the legality of it? I live in the UK, but knowing the international side of this is probably important too. Could a person in the UK scan pages for a friend in another country, for example? Can we generalise? If it's black and white, what about in practice? Would a friend copying for a friend as a one off for no malicious intents or purposes be something many publishers would allow? Is it common for single authors to allow this? Or is this never allowed and either gets generally overlooked, gets prosecuted regularly? I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.

germany § 53 of the German copyright law got you and your friend covered. Specifically, the first subparagraph says: Zulässig sind einzelne Vervielfältigungen eines Werkes durch eine natürliche Person zum privaten Gebrauch auf beliebigen Trägern, sofern sie weder unmittelbar noch mittelbar Erwerbszwecken dienen, soweit nicht zur Vervielfältigung eine offensichtlich rechtswidrig hergestellte oder öffentlich zugänglich gemachte Vorlage verwendet wird. Der zur Vervielfältigung Befugte darf die Vervielfältigungsstücke auch durch einen anderen herstellen lassen, sofern dies unentgeltlich geschieht oder es sich um Vervielfältigungen auf Papier oder einem ähnlichen Träger mittels beliebiger photomechanischer Verfahren oder anderer Verfahren mit ähnlicher Wirkung handelt. Individual reproductions of a work by a natural person for private use on any medium are permitted, provided they are not used directly or indirectly for commercial purposes, unless a template that was obviously illegally produced or made publicly accessible is used for the reproduction. The person authorized to make copies may also have the copies made by someone else, provided this is done free of charge or the copies are made on paper or a similar medium using any photomechanical process or other process with a similar effect. You presumably obtained the book legally. Therefore, you're not violating " unless a template that was obviously illegally produced or made publicly accessible". If you're making copies on paper, your friend can even pay you for it. If you're scanning the pages, your friend must not pay you for your trouble or scan the pages themselves. There is no strict definition for what "for private use" means. I learned in law classes that you should stay in the single digits for the number of friends you make copies for.

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend? Not the whole book, but a section or whatever the friend needs. What about if the book is out of print? If it is illegal, then what's the difference between this and lending the friend the book? If the person lends the book and the friend does his own personal scanning with it, is that a different scenario, and if so what is the legality of it? I live in the UK, but knowing the international side of this is probably important too. Could a person in the UK scan pages for a friend in another country, for example? Can we generalise? If it's black and white, what about in practice? Would a friend copying for a friend as a one off for no malicious intents or purposes be something many publishers would allow? Is it common for single authors to allow this? Or is this never allowed and either gets generally overlooked, gets prosecuted regularly? I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.

Any copying, which includes photographing, xeroxing, scanning or retyping is copyright infringement. Copyright protection exists for books that are out of print. Infringement exists with any amount of copying, though in the US there is the "fair use" defense, which is marginally applicable. The difference between you scanning the book, versus lending (or giving) the book to the friend and having the friend do the scanning is that in the former case you violate the law and in the latter case your friend violates the law. There is a third case where nobody violates the law and you lend the friend a copy of the book. Also, borrowing a book from a library (governmental or otherwise) does not change the outcome, because the law prohibits anyone making any unauthorized copy, regardless of the ownership status of the physical original. Generally speaking, wherever you are you cannot infringe copyright. Eritrea and Iran are hard cases, since Iran does not enforce copyright from other cases though there is Iran-internal protection of Iranian material; and Eritrea simply does not have any copyright protection.

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?

What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend? Not the whole book, but a section or whatever the friend needs. What about if the book is out of print? If it is illegal, then what's the difference between this and lending the friend the book? If the person lends the book and the friend does his own personal scanning with it, is that a different scenario, and if so what is the legality of it? I live in the UK, but knowing the international side of this is probably important too. Could a person in the UK scan pages for a friend in another country, for example? Can we generalise? If it's black and white, what about in practice? Would a friend copying for a friend as a one off for no malicious intents or purposes be something many publishers would allow? Is it common for single authors to allow this? Or is this never allowed and either gets generally overlooked, gets prosecuted regularly? I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.

switzerland Published works may be freely shared among "people closely connected to each other, such as relatives or friends". Copyright owners are compensated collectively through a tax levied on devices and media capable of facilitating such copies. This exemption from copyright is stipulated in the Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, article 19, which writes : Published works may be used for private use. Private use means: a. any personal use of a work or use within a circle of persons closely connected to each other, such as relatives or friends; [...] This Article does not apply to computer programs. ("use" encompasses any use of the work, including making copies for those people)

May putting others at peril worsen the sentence?

Bob the Burglar specializes in fencing of stolen safety equipment (fire extinguishers, AEDs, etc.). One night, he breaks into a factory and steals the fire extinguishers and a fire hose. The theft is not immediately discovered. The next day, during ordinary work hours, a small fire breaks out that could normally have been put out easily, but because there's nothing to do so, the factory burns to the ground and several workers die. Could Bob get a charge (or even conviction) for manslaughter? Clearly he didn't intend to really harm anybody. What if nothing more had happened? Could he be convicted for attempted manslaughter just because he put the workers in peril with his theft?

us uk australia Yes, this can be charged as a type of negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter. The degree of culpability might be greater than negligence, since the initial act was a premeditated crime. There is no intent to kill The act is criminal and malicious The consequences are reasonably foreseeable The offense would be a type of constructive manslaughter , where a crime not intended to kill or cause bodily harm results in death. In the UK this is also known as an unlawful act manslaughter . The perpetrator of a premeditated crime is held responsible not only for the intended consequences, but also for foreseeable incidental ones, albeit at a reduced degree of culpability . This doctrine is established in both civil and common law, and will apply in broadly similar ways, with different local names, usually variations on unintended homicide, in most civil law jurisdictions as well. us Medical or fire-fighting equipment being among the stolen items is, in many jurisdictions, by itself sufficient to raise the charge to grand theft , which is a felony in common law. If Bob actually specializes in this, and a death did occur, the prosecution might charge them with second-degree felony murder, if applicable in their state. That rule is generally applied when the base offense presents danger to human life, but there have been cases that stretch it . Burglary is sufficient to apply this rule. Such a charge is less certain to stand up in court and is usually traded down in a plea bargain.

May putting others at peril worsen the sentence?

Bob the Burglar specializes in fencing of stolen safety equipment (fire extinguishers, AEDs, etc.). One night, he breaks into a factory and steals the fire extinguishers and a fire hose. The theft is not immediately discovered. The next day, during ordinary work hours, a small fire breaks out that could normally have been put out easily, but because there's nothing to do so, the factory burns to the ground and several workers die. Could Bob get a charge (or even conviction) for manslaughter? Clearly he didn't intend to really harm anybody. What if nothing more had happened? Could he be convicted for attempted manslaughter just because he put the workers in peril with his theft?

france Yes, because it changes the charge Bob's conduct falls under article 221-6 du Code Pénal : Le fait de causer, dans les conditions et selon les distinctions prévues à l'article 121-3, par maladresse, imprudence, inattention, négligence ou manquement à une obligation de prudence ou de sécurité imposée par la loi ou le règlement, la mort d'autrui constitue un homicide involontaire puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d'amende. Causing the death of another under the conditions of article 121-3 by carelessness, imprudence, negligence, or failing to obey a duty of prudence or safety given by the law or local regulation, is involuntary homicide punished by [a maximum of] three years in jail and €45 000 fine. The theft charge itself and its sentence should not be affected (but that’s likely to be small change compared to the sentence for involuntary homicide anyway). There is a reference to article 121-3 . That article establishes the general principle of mens rea (no crime without the intention to commit it), but it also introduces narrow exceptions that apply here (basically, strict liability for "reckless endangerement"-type charges). Bob is also civilly liable He had faulty conduct (committed a crime), others suffered damage (deaths by fire, material damage to the factory), and there is a clear causal link between the two. Bob’s lawyer might argue to reduce the fraction of damages that Bob is responsible for. After all, the damages only occurred because there was a fire, of which Bob is not responsible. Carol the worker, who started the fire, is responsible at least in part (either as a representative of the company if she acted within her work duties, or personally if she failed to comply with her employer’s safety instructions). Dave the director potentially failed to promptly call the firemen (or establish safety procedures that would have allowed to do so), or skimped on fire retardant materials. If any of those can be criminally charged, there would usually be a joint trial, and the court will decide on a split of responsibility.

In which states can an out of state company be sued in small claims court?

In the U.S., where can a company be sued in small claims court for a breach of contract and fraudulent billing, when the plaintiff resides in one U.S. state, the company's headquarters and place of organization is in another U.S. state, and the conduct giving rise to the claim took place in a third U.S. state? The amount in controversy is less than $75,000 and the claims do not arise under federal law, so the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the case.

united-states Short Answer Generally speaking, you can sue in some court in the state where the company has its headquarters or its organized, or in the state where the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred (or in any other state to which the defendant fails to object in a timely manner). There is an exception to the general rule when the conduct that forms the basis of the lawsuit was targeted at the plaintiff in the state where the plaintiff now resides. Whether you can sue in a true small claims court particularly varies a lot from state to state. Often true small claims courts are not allowed under state law to consider all cases that other courts in the state could consider (e.g. cases against defendants who are not headquartered in that county). Even if you can sue in true small claims court in a state where you do not reside, it often makes more sense to sue in a limited jurisdiction court rather than a small claims court in those cases, with or without a lawyer. Long Answer Preface On Federal v. State Claims And Removal To Federal Court In the U.S. claims for a breach of contract and fraudulent billing usually arise solely under state law, although sometimes federal law may apply in specific circumstances. This answer assumes that no federal law claims are filed. But the states in which federal law claims could be brought in a federal U.S. District Court, would be the same as the states in which state law claims could be brought in state court. The federal courts do not have a small claims court division or limited jurisdiction court division. Federal claims can be brought in state court, but the defendant can remove the case to federal court in the same state if this is done, which would make a small claims court forum unavailable. If the Plaintiff files only state law claims in state court, the defendant cannot remove the case to federal court on the grounds that the defendant has asserted federal law defenses to the claim or has asserted a counterclaim arising under federal law. But, the defendant could remove the case to federal court if the Plaintiff and Defendant reside in different states and the Defendant shows in good faith that the amount in controversy between them exceeds $75,000. Issues Presented There are two issues presented. Do any courts of a particular state have (personal) jurisdiction over the case? Does a small claims court in a state that does have jurisdiction have jurisdiction over the case? Do any courts of a particular state have jurisdiction over the case? General Jurisdiction Where The Defendant Resides A company can always be sued over its conduct anywhere in the world in some court of the state where a company is organized and has its headquarters. This concept is called "general jurisdiction" and while the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the number of states where courts have general jurisdiction over a company, this heartland of the concept remains effective. This is usually the state where it is easiest to collect a money judgment in a lawsuit if the person suing wins the case, because the company usually has assets in the state where it has its headquarters. Under a case called International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945) until just a few years ago, a state had "general jurisdiction" over a company in every state where it had a regular employee or a brick and mortar place of business. But this rule was narrowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2014 case Daimler AG v. Bauman , to give a state general jurisdiction over a company only in the state where its headquarters (ignoring any headquarters of any subsidiary of the company) are located or under whose law the company was organized. Before this ruling, this narrow scope of general jurisdiction only applied to national banks, and then, only as a result of a Congressionally enacted statute to that effect. Just this summer, however, the U.S. Supreme Court created an except to an exception to Daimler AG v. Bauman , in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co . , ___ U.S. ___ (2023), holding that in states where a company is registered to do business, if the state has a statute (like the one in Pennsylvania) allowing its residents to sue the business on any claim against a company registered there arising anywhere in the world, that the state has jurisdiction over the case. (There is also another case creating a partial exception to the Daimler AG v. Bauman rule in cases that involve fact patterns very different from those in the question, such as product liability lawsuits against car makers.) Specific Jurisdiction Where The Claim Arises A company can also always be sued in the state where all of the important events that provide a basis for the lawsuit took place. This concept is called "specific jurisdiction" which is also known as "long arm jurisdiction". This is usually the state where it is easiest to prove the case because usually witnesses and evidence are more available in this state. Usually A State Doesn't Have Jurisdiction Because The Plaintiff Resides There Usually, under U.S. law, unless a specific statute says otherwise, a lawsuit against a company cannot be brought where the person bringing the lawsuit (who is called "the Plaintiff") resides, unless that state has some other connection to the lawsuit. This would be the most convenient state to sue in for the Plaintiff, especially if the Plaintiff is not hiring a lawyer and will have to appear in person as if often the case in small claims court, and the other relevant states are far away. However, if fraud is "targeted" at someone in a particular state, then the courts of the state state at which the conduct is targeted has jurisdiction over the claims that were targeted at that state. Tag Jurisdiction Over Natural Persons Another way that a state can have jurisdiction over a defendant is called "tag jurisdiction" which is obtained by physically handing a summons and complaint to the defendant in person in the state as allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of Burnham v. Superior Court . This is allowed for natural persons (i.e. human beings) who are defendants, but it isn't allowed as a way to give a state jurisdiction over a defendant who is a company. Waiver Of In Personam Jurisdiction Defenses Also, if a Plaintiff sues in a state where the Defendant has a right to object to state's jurisdiction, but the Defendant does not object to the state's jurisdiction in the first substantive document file in that court (usually either an "answer" or a "motion to dismiss") then any objection to the jurisdiction of that state over the case is automatically waived. So, if the state where the Plaintiff lives doesn't have jurisdiction, but the Plaintiff sues the company there anyway, and that company sued doesn't immediately object, then the court has jurisdiction to proceed because the company's objections to filing the lawsuit in the wrong state are waived. Another component of jurisdiction called "subject-matter" jurisdiction, which can't be waived, involves whether a particular court can handle a particular kind of case without regard to whether the case was filed in the right state and isn't an issue in this question. Subject-matter jurisdiction can't be waived involves questions like whether a limited jurisdiction court takes on a case in excess of the dollar amount it is allowed to consider, or grants a kind of judgment it doesn't have the authority to grant, or grants relief in a case brought by someone who hasn't suffered any legal injury which is called lacking "standing" to sue. Some waivers of personal jurisdiction defenses are intentional litigation strategy decisions and others are a result of simple carelessness or malpractice by the lawyer involved. Does a small claims court in a state that does have jurisdiction have jurisdiction over the case? What is small claims court? The term "small claims court" has both a strict and a more general meaning. In the strict sense of the word, a small claims court is a state court or division of a state court which can adjudicate only claims up to a specific dollar amount that uses a very simplified procedure and is designed to be used by non-lawyers bringing lawsuit (and often only allows non-lawyers to bring lawsuit in this forum). The maximum dollar amount that can be claimed in small claims court varies. In some states it can be as low as $3,000. In some states it can be as much as $10,000 (maybe more, I haven't checked recently and the dollar amounts get adjusted from time to time for inflation). Not every state has a separate small claims court or small claims court division, but most do. In states that have "justices of the peace", the small claims court is the justices of the peace court (often presided over by non-lawyer judges). In the rest of this answer I will call these "true small claims courts" The dollar limit on small claims court jurisdiction is typically lower than the dollar limit on limited jurisdiction court claims discussed below. Usually, small claims court has low filing fees. Typically in a true small claims court, all proceedings other than the initial summons and complaint (and sometimes a written answer) must be conducted orally, with both the person suing and the person being sued (or a representative of a company) appearing in person in the courtroom. COVID changed this in some states, but probably only a minority of them and in most cases only temporarily. In the broader sense of the word, "small claims court" means a court of limited jurisdiction that can only handle claims up to a certain dollar amount (typically somewhere in the range of $10,000 to $50,000), that is used by lawyers and non-lawyers alike to bring lawsuits and has a more formal process than the small claims court in the strict sense discussed above, but has a simpler and faster process than courts of general jurisdiction that handle cases of unlimited dollar amounts. In the rest of this answer I will call these "limited jurisdiction courts." More of the court process can be conducted by filing documents in limited jurisdiction courts than in small claims court, lawyers can appear in person at trials instead of parties in most cases in limited jurisdiction courts, and limited jurisdiction courts more often, although not always, will allow parties or other witnesses to testify by telephone or videoconferencing. Usually the filing fees in limited jurisdiction courts is higher than in small claims court but lower than in a general jurisdiction court. Where Can Lawsuits Be Filed In Limited Jurisdiction Courts? A lawsuit can be commenced in a limited jurisdiction court in any state over which some courts of the state have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction, as long as the amount in dispute is less than the dollar limit of the jurisdiction of the court. Where Can Lawsuits Be Filed In True Small Claims Courts? States vary a great deal over what kind of cases can be commenced in small claims courts. Some states allow small claims court cases to be brought in any case up to the dollar amount limit for the court that a limited jurisdiction court could handle. But other states impose one or more of the following additional restrictions on bringing cases in small claims court: Some states only allow small claims court cases to be brought against defendants (i.e. persons or companies that are being sued) that reside or are headquartered in the county where the small claims court is located. Some states only allow small claims court cases to be brought in cases where both the person bringing the lawsuit and the person being sued reside or have headquarters in the same county. Some states only allow small claims court cases to be brought in cases where the events giving rise to the case occurred in the county where the small claims court is located. Remedies Available Both small claims courts and limited jurisdiction courts are also typically limited to awarding money judgments for damages, rather than any other kind of remedies - like reforming a contract or entering a declaratory judgment or adjudicating real property title or entering an injunction. Usually only "general jurisdiction courts" are allowed to provide that kind of relief to a party bringing a lawsuit. If you win a money judgment in small claims court or in a limited jurisdiction court and you get a judgment. Usually the technical legal process for collecting the judgment is the same as the technical legal process for doing that in general jurisdiction courts. If the company sued doesn't have assets in the state where it is sued, and you win in a lawsuit against that company, the judgment entered in the state where you win has to be "domesticated" to the state where the company's assets are located after the judgment is entered (which can be in a state that didn't have jurisdiction to try the case in the first place). This process is basically automatic (you file a certified copy of the judgment with a court of the state where the assets are located) but filing fee has to be paid in the state where the assets are located in which the money judgment is domesticated, and you may have to send a notice to the defendant/judgment debtor by mail that the judgment has been domesticated to that state. Then you have to use the technical court process to collect the judgment in the state where the assets are located. Appeals Limited jurisdiction courts are usually "courts of record" which means that a verbatim record of the testimony in trials is kept either with a court reporter or an audiotape, and appeals from a limited jurisdiction court are usually just like appeals from a general jurisdiction court, except that you normally appeal to a single judge of the general jurisdiction court, instead of to a three judge panel of a court of appeals or to state supreme court in a state that doesn't have an intermediate court of appeals. These appeals are usually a little less expensive (due to smaller filing fees) and a little faster, than appeals from a general jurisdiction court to an appellate court. A minority of true small claims courts are courts of record and the same appeal process as an appeal from a limited jurisdiction court is used, except that lots of procedural issues like failure to follow the rules of evidence which you are allowed to appeal from in limited jurisdiction courts are not valid grounds for an appeal from a small claims court ruling. Most true small claims claims courts, however, are courts not of record. In courts not of record, there is no court reporter or tape recording of the proceedings. In these courts, if either party appeals that do the trial over from scratch in the limited jurisdiction court of record (using small claims court procedures and rules) in what is called a trial de novo , rather than considering what happened in the original true small claims court trial. So, this can end up being slower and more expensive and time consuming if the other side is very litigious and is likely to appeal any unfavorable ruling.

In which states can an out of state company be sued in small claims court?

In the U.S., where can a company be sued in small claims court for a breach of contract and fraudulent billing, when the plaintiff resides in one U.S. state, the company's headquarters and place of organization is in another U.S. state, and the conduct giving rise to the claim took place in a third U.S. state? The amount in controversy is less than $75,000 and the claims do not arise under federal law, so the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the case.

Any of the three states plus the Commonwealth potentially have jurisdiction australia Federal jurisdiction is engaged whenever a civil case arises under a Commonwealth statute or the claim or defense engages a Commonwealth matter. The Australian Consumer Law is Commonwealth legislation and probably applies to Your circumstances. Both Federal and state courts have jurisdiction over Federal matters. The most appropriate state court is the one where the event occurred. There are arguments that this is any or all of the three involved states: the registered office of the company, your residence, or where the locus of the contract is. As the plaintiff, you get to choose where to bring your action. A small claims court is unlikely to be interested in technical jurisdictional arguments if they prima facie have jurisdiction.

Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?

In the United States, accepting a pardon is an admission to the crime. In Burdick_v._United_States , the majority opinion stated that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." The United States has dual sovereignty . Each state and the federal government makes and prosecutes its own laws. A federal pardon does not grant immunity to state laws, and vice versa. A person pardoned in one jurisdiction can still be prosecuted for the same crime (e.g. tax evasion) in another jurisdiction. Could the acceptance of the pardon then have any bearing on the case in the other jurisdiction? Can the admission of guilt be used in the new case? Can it be used as "reasonable cause" for various actions? Does the defendant lose their right to refuse to testify in the new case?

Could the acceptance of the pardon then have any bearing on the case in the other jurisdiction? Possibly, but not much. There is very, very little case law on this point since: (1) pardons are rare (especially federal ones), (2) people who are pardoned generally do so because everyone in the criminal justice process in the prior case agrees that the person is reformed and they are usually correct, (3) the statute of limitations has often run on a new prosecution, and (4) many cases where these issues arise, are probably not appealed (either because the neither parties attempts to, or because a defendant is acquitted and there is no appeal), but an appeal is necessary to give rise to binding precedents. Can the admission of guilt be used in the new case? The criminal collateral estoppel effects of a pardon flow from the adjudication on the merits which is vacated. Also, comity between sovereigns and public policy mitigate such a rule. The pardon power would not be very interesting if it routinely resulted in a new prosecution that was conducted on a summary basis via a preclusion doctrine such as collateral estoppel. In many cases, the statute of limitations will have run on the original crime or there will be no parallel state law crime, but this is not always the case. Also, I would disagree with the statement that a pardon always implies an admission of guilt to the crime for which a pardon was granted, even though that statement is often used rhetorically. For example, one important use of the pardon power is to commute the sentence of someone who asserts that they are factually innocent but have been convicted of a crime, potentially in a manner that is not subject to further judicial review, and treating that as an admission of guilt doesn't make sense. As the Wikipedia entry on Burdick notes in the pertinent part: Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick [ ed. about admission of guilt] is meaningful or merely dicta . President Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974. However, said reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders. I would read this as dicta , as this portion of the holding was not necessary for the court to reach its conclusion and the fact pattern in Burdick was a typical fact pattern where guilt was not disputed. It didn't raise the concerns present when a pardon is requested based upon a claim of innocence, and granted following a conviction. Instead, the holding of Burdick was that there was no pardon because the pardon was rejected (in a manner very similar to a common law disclaimer of a gift), so its holding didn't need to reach the effect of a pardon that is accepted to resolve the case. Can it be used as "reasonable cause" for various actions? This is a bit too vague to know what you are getting at. I suppose that a pardon could constitute reasonable cause for some things favorable to a defendant who is pardoned (e.g., potentially in a motion seeking to reopen a termination of parental rights entered on the basis of the conviction). I suppose it could also be used in a manner potentially unfavorable to a defendant (e.g. showing a pattern of past conduct that demonstrates modus operandi in connection with a prosecution for a new crime). I don't think it could be used as grounds to deny an occupational or business license for bad character. Still, without more clear context it is harder to know what you are really looking for in this regard and I'm not confident that my examples address that. Does the defendant lose their right to refuse to testify in the new case? I haven't reviewed the case law, but my intuition is that if it has never been waived before, it wouldn't be waived by the pardon, but that if it was waived in a previous proceeding resulting in a conviction that was then pardoned, that the prior sworn testimony might be admissible evidence in the new action since it is not hearsay and isn't itself evidence of a prior conviction. The context of the prior testimony might have to be concealed from the jury. As noted by @Putvi, the defendant could not claim risk of conviction for the federal crime as a ground for invoking the 5th Amendment if a pardon is accepted (something that is implied in Burdick ), but if there was an overlapping state law crime, risk of conviction for the state crime could constitute a grounds upon which to invoke the 5th Amendment. Burdick does stand for the proposition that a pardon not solicited by the defendant, that is rejected, cannot provide a basis for removing the 5th Amendment protection with respect to a risk of conviction for federal crime. I would also be inclined to think that matters disclosed in an application for a pardon might be admissible evidence as a non-hearsay statement of a party-opponent, if the statement was stripped of the pardon application context (which would be unduly prejudicial since it would imply a prior conviction which otherwise wouldn't be admissible).

Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?

In the United States, accepting a pardon is an admission to the crime. In Burdick_v._United_States , the majority opinion stated that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." The United States has dual sovereignty . Each state and the federal government makes and prosecutes its own laws. A federal pardon does not grant immunity to state laws, and vice versa. A person pardoned in one jurisdiction can still be prosecuted for the same crime (e.g. tax evasion) in another jurisdiction. Could the acceptance of the pardon then have any bearing on the case in the other jurisdiction? Can the admission of guilt be used in the new case? Can it be used as "reasonable cause" for various actions? Does the defendant lose their right to refuse to testify in the new case?

The reason a person can be compelled to testify after receiving a pardon is that they are no longer in jeopardy of incriminating themselves. http://time.com/4868418/donald-trump-presidential-pardons-backfire/ It would depend on the specific situation, but if you were in jeopardy of incriminating yourself in the state trial, you could plead the fifth, just like the Time.com article's hypothetical about testifying before congress. You could bring up the pardon in the state court, if the judge allowed it, but that doesn't mean you are guilty just because you accept a pardon. But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-pardons-presidential-trump-nixon-ford-kardashian-0608-story.html Whether it made a difference would be up to the jury, in that they would have to decide if it was relevant evidence that aided their deliberations.

Can a private party shoot down an aircraft in self defense or in defense of others?

If someone who is not associated with the police or military is certain that an aircraft is being used as a weapon for a violent crime (maybe someone is flying a small plane directly toward an occupied house), and that person legally possesses a weapon that is capable of shooting down the aircraft, is it legal to do so? ETA: The pilot/attacker is the only person in the plane.

canada The defences of "self-defence" and "defence of another" are available defences to any act that would otherwise constitute "an offence" in Canada. Section 34 simply says: "A person is not guilty of an offence if... [and then goes on to list the elements of the defence]." Your question seems to ask about the scope of actions that might be justified or excused by the defence. If it wasn't clear before 2012, amendments in 2012 to the self-defence laws in Canada made it absolutely clear that any offence may be justified or excused by self-defence or defence of another. As the Supreme Court describes in R. v. Khill , 2021 SCC 37 : The accused’s response under the new law is also no longer limited to a defensive use of force. It can apply to other classes of offences, including acts that tread upon the rights of innocent third parties, such as theft, breaking and entering or dangerous driving. The substantive elements of self-defence and defence of another are described two other Q&As, so I will only state them briefly: (a) reasonable belief of a threat of force; (b) the act constituting the offence is for the purpose of protection; (c) the act committed is reasonable. For details see: Is it legal to use force against a person who is trying to stop you from rescuing another person? Is self-defense allowed when there are objectively reasonable grounds but it is actually done subjectively for improper reasons?

Can a private party shoot down an aircraft in self defense or in defense of others?

If someone who is not associated with the police or military is certain that an aircraft is being used as a weapon for a violent crime (maybe someone is flying a small plane directly toward an occupied house), and that person legally possesses a weapon that is capable of shooting down the aircraft, is it legal to do so? ETA: The pilot/attacker is the only person in the plane.

"Shooting down the plane" is unlikely to fall under Notwehr in germany In Germany, the fact pattern as described is impossible to achieve and still grant Notwehr. Notwehr is not the same as self defense under common law, but that is the best translation. In contrast to the wide latitude given in for example US law, it is incredibly tightly defined in Germany. In Notwehr, one may under no condition risk the harm or death of any person besides the pilot, even if they find a way to somehow kill the pilot in self-defense, and you only may use proportional force to the threat. That excessive risk by the wreck of the airplane or killing the passengers can all be treated as separate charges of reckless endangerment or murder (as death was taken willingly into account). In Germany, self-defense does not allow Bob to harm or kill those others, and threatening them with his illegal backyard stinger, in turn, allows anybody to defend the passengers by shooting Bob first. This hinges on a particularity of the law: You only are allowed to use the least forceful means that are effective to stop the crime, and shooting the pilot or plane is most likely not an effective means to stop the plane from crashing into the building (as proffered by OP) in the first place. Or to stop any other crime that could be conducted with a plane. Also, you are only allowed to use lethal force after having given a warning of some sort - which is clearly lacking in this case. As a result, it might be an extreme case of Notwehrexcess (excessive self-defense) to shoot down the plane, especially without warning. Shooting down a plane simply lacks Gebotenheit under German law, which is a crucial part of an analysis of Notwehr. Note that while Gebotenheit can be translated with necessity, that is not a good translation at all, even a worse one than to translate Notwehr as self-defense: Gebotenheit does not just cover the need for a specific action, that it is proportional to the danger and that it is is able to have success . Shooting a person armed with a rubber chicken is not geboten as it is neither required nor proportional, and shooting a plane down is unlikely to be geboten as it is unlikely to have the intended success while endangering others. To stay with the example of OP: No means of shooting a plane "down" will stop a plane from crashing into a building once it becomes apparent that the pilot can no longer avoid crashing into the building, and likely doing so is a case of Extensiver Notwehrexzess (extensive excessive self-defense). Shooting the plane "down" before it is clear that the plane will crash into the building is an unlawful killing and clearly Extensiver Notwehrexcess , possibly even Mord of the pilot. This is because a pilot might avert a plane to not crash into the occupied building until about two seconds before the catastrophe - and so there was no situation that required Notwehr at all, and you had no right to apply it in the first place. Shooting the plane after that point, where the crash has become inevitable and Notwehr would start, doing so does not stop the debris to follow Newton's Laws and crash into the building, and thus shooting the plane "down" is clearly not an effective means to stop the death of people in the building. The act isn't covered by Gebotenheit. However, that might only be Intensiver Notwehrexcess, and the shooting of the plane thus might not be punished. However , that would not excuse any other violations of law that needed to happen to shoot the plane in this way, such as illegal possession of a firearm that is able to destroy the fuselage (most of which are illegal to possess under the Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz (War Weapons Control Act) in the first place) But even the military is not allowed to shoot down a plane: The first organization that for a short time was deemed able to decide to shoot down a plane in Germany was the Einsatzführungskommando der Bundeswehr according to the 2005 of § 14 (3) LuftSiG. But that was declared void in 2006 , which led to a new version in 2009, which was then deemed valid in 2013 under BVerfGE v. 20.3.2013 I 1118 - 2 BvF 1/05 . This current version of §14 (1) LuftSiG does not permit to actually shooting down a plane at all: (1) Zur Verhinderung des Eintritts eines besonders schweren Unglücksfalles dürfen die Streitkräfte im Luftraum Luftfahrzeuge abdrängen, zur Landung zwingen, den Einsatz von Waffengewalt androhen oder Warnschüsse abgeben. In English: To prevent an aircraft disaster, the armed forces may force an aircraft out of German territorial airspace, force it to land, threaten the use weapons or give warning shots. Note that this law does only handle civilian aircraft, not military enemy incursions in case of war - those are handled as enemy combatants and are fair game to shoot down for the armed forces.

Can a private party shoot down an aircraft in self defense or in defense of others?

If someone who is not associated with the police or military is certain that an aircraft is being used as a weapon for a violent crime (maybe someone is flying a small plane directly toward an occupied house), and that person legally possesses a weapon that is capable of shooting down the aircraft, is it legal to do so? ETA: The pilot/attacker is the only person in the plane.

france Yes, but the factual pattern is unlikely to ever happen. Self-defense Article 122-5 du Code Pénal : N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, devant une atteinte injustifiée envers elle-même ou autrui, accomplit, dans le même temps, un acte commandé par la nécessité de la légitime défense d'elle-même ou d'autrui, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens de défense employés et la gravité de l'atteinte. N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l'exécution d'un crime ou d'un délit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de défense, autre qu'un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement nécessaire au but poursuivi dès lors que les moyens employés sont proportionnés à la gravité de l'infraction. A person has no criminal liability when he or she is faced by an unjustified attack against himself or herself or another, accomplishes at the same time an act out of the need of legitimate defense or himself, herself or another, unless there is a disproportion between the means of defense and the severity of the attack. A person has no criminal liability when he or she accomplishes an act of defense other than voluntary homicide, in order to interrupt a crime or felony against goods, when the act is strictly necessary to the aim of defense and when the means of the act are proportionate to the gravity of the attack. It’s a bit complicated but it all checks out: unjustified attack: check, assuming the prospective defender knows that the plane pilot intends to crash it into their house towards persons: check (if the house is occupied) action taken "in the heat of the moment": check (you don’t shoot the plane pilot after the plane has crashed) necessary act: check? (see below) proportionate: check (there is no way to stop the plane other than shooting it down) The factual pattern is dubious In the above, the person shooting down the plane has the knowledge that the plane is coming for an unjustified attack (how do you know the plane will aim at the house? that it is voluntary and not a distress landing?) has enough time to do something weapon-y about it (shooting down planes is, you know, hard)... ...but not enough time to evacuate the house of its occupants (or ask the police or army to shoot down the plane, or any other means) has the necessary material at hand to shoot down the plane. That is almost certainly a violation of some arm control provision. Contrary to popular belief, you can legally have weapons in France and the permit is decently easy to get; but you don’t shoot down a plane with a hunting rifle.

Legality of DUI blood tests

I was reading a bit about this subject and was wondering about the specific status of the medical professionals involved. If I am pulled over for a DUI and the cops take me back to the police station and subject me to a blood test, presumably a trained medical professional such as a nurse or a phlebotomist does the needle stick and draws the blood. I wonder though what are the legal and ethical considerations for that medical professional? A medical professional's job is to provide care and support for their patients -- "first do no harm". But plainly their actions in this case can at best do nothing and at worst get them in a lot of legal trouble, or perhaps at worst damage the blood vessel or give them an infection -- though obviously that is VERY rare. Given that you are innocent until proven guilty the only purpose of the test is to prove you guilty, and so the person administering the test is doing so with the intent of doing you harm. Are medical personnel required to draw blood in support of police investigations even when the patient/suspect is unable to provide consent?

We can look at Missouri law as an example. Missouri Statutes §577.029 says A licensed physician, registered nurse, phlebotomist, or trained medical technician, acting at the request and direction of the law enforcement officer under section 577.020, shall, with the consent of the patient or a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of the blood, unless such medical personnel, in his or her good faith medical judgment, believes such procedure would endanger the life or health of the person in custody. Blood may be withdrawn only by such medical personnel, but such restriction shall not apply to the taking of a breath test, a saliva specimen, or a urine specimen. In withdrawing blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol content thereof, only a previously unused and sterile needle and sterile vessel shall be utilized and the withdrawal shall otherwise be in strict accord with accepted medical practices. Upon the request of the person who is tested, full information concerning the test taken at the direction of the law enforcement officer shall be made available to him or her. "Shall" means "must" – if there is a warrant (we assume there is no consent). Then the question is, what happens if the phlebotomist (etc) refuses? First, §577.031 immunizes the medical-person from legal liability when they act in compliance with a request from a LEO (a simple request, not necessarily accompanied by a warrant). §577.033 says that being dead, unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing does not constitute withdrawal of consent (which is implied, by law). No specific penalty is prescribed for refusal to administer a court-ordered blood draw. There is no penalty for complying, there is no prescribed criminal penalty for refusing to comply with a court order (there is the possibility of a finding of contempt of court). Not every state is Missouri: I understand that Utah is different.

Legality of DUI blood tests

I was reading a bit about this subject and was wondering about the specific status of the medical professionals involved. If I am pulled over for a DUI and the cops take me back to the police station and subject me to a blood test, presumably a trained medical professional such as a nurse or a phlebotomist does the needle stick and draws the blood. I wonder though what are the legal and ethical considerations for that medical professional? A medical professional's job is to provide care and support for their patients -- "first do no harm". But plainly their actions in this case can at best do nothing and at worst get them in a lot of legal trouble, or perhaps at worst damage the blood vessel or give them an infection -- though obviously that is VERY rare. Given that you are innocent until proven guilty the only purpose of the test is to prove you guilty, and so the person administering the test is doing so with the intent of doing you harm. Are medical personnel required to draw blood in support of police investigations even when the patient/suspect is unable to provide consent?

As discussed in the article linked in comments by @Michael Hall the nurse in question informs the police officer that they hospital policy is to not draw blood without consent, unless there is a warrant signed by a judge, or the police have arrested the patient in question. As such, when the police bring a DUI suspect in for a blood test for alcohol content, they have made already made an arrest for DUI. Typically, the suspect has already blown a failing score on the breathalyzer and failed field sobriety tests which are grounds enough to affect the arrest and the officer is getting the blood test for additional evidence at this point (while grounds for an arrest are met, the grounds for conviction may not be satisfied. The BAC from a blood test will aide in adding further evidence against the drunk driver) Additionally, the DUI does not always mean the driver is under the influence of Alcohol, and certain drug tests look for chemicals that are byproducts of use and may not be as timely as a blood test. For example, any drug test that requires a hair sample and tests positive for the drugs tested means that you took the drug sometime in a period of months, which fails to show what the breathalyzer does which is recent immediate use. Another reason to get the blood test done is that the breathalyzer can give a false positive if you have been using certain products (For example, Mouth Wash uses a strong alcohol to kill germs, but you're not supposed to swallow it. It will still read higher on the breathalyzer test if you blow shortly after using mouthwash correctly. A defense attorney can argue that the breathalyzer will point to this which is enough doubt to let the suspect walk, where as a blood test will show how much alcohol is in the your blood real if done quickly). In this case, the nurse drawling the blood might actually be doing good as if you blew a false positive on your breathalyzer, this could spare you from having to pay an attorney at all.

Can a landlord add fees not included in lease

In October of last year, I toured an apartment complex in Oklahoma with my daughter and her friends because they wanted to live off-campus the next school year. I went with them b/c they wanted a parent who knew which questions to ask, and this would be the first time any of them would be in an apartment on their own. During the tour, I asked if the furniture would be provided to the residents, or if they’d be responsible for it themselves. The manager told us that the apartments came fully furnished, and that furniture was included in rent, along with cable, water, trash, sewer, gas, and internet. The only utility the girls would be responsible for is electric. The girls signed their leases a week later, which stated what each of their monthly rent would be, the term of the lease, which utilities were included and which one the girls were responsible for, that the girls would need $100,000 of liability insurance, which cost $14/month, and additional pet fees. Fast forward to last week, when my daughter received an email from the apartment complex, stating that on August 1st, she’d have to pay first months rent, the insurance, and $34 furniture rental! I contacted the apartment manager, and questioned this, told them what was said during the tour, and mentioned it wasn’t in the lease. The manager said “The current staff wasn’t here last fall, but it sounds like you were misinformed. Furniture is not included in rent.” When I asked why it’s not listed as a fee on the lease, he said he didn’t know, but this is how it’s always been done. Does this sound right?

You say that "furniture included" was mentioned during the tour, but the verbal representations made during a tour are probably not binding. If there is contemporary record of the representations made on the tour (perhaps an audio recording, a note made the the same day, or an information flyer) then perhaps it carries weight. But, in general, unprovable chit-chat during a tour is not part of the contract. Next you say that "it wasn't mentioned in the lease". I encourage you to read the entire lease closely. Does it ever say that the lease is for an "unfurnished apartment"? or say "as shown"? or make vague reference to "other items at additional cost"? The Lease really should have described the apartment in some way, even if it isn't explicitly about furniture at first glance. If the lease really didn't mention furniture and/or additional costs in any way, then I think you got the apartment in move-in condition (with furniture) for no additional costs. You may well want to talk to neighbors/other tenants, and mention the surprise fees. See if other tenants also encountered this, and if/how it was addressed by them. But remember: if you annoy the landlords, they will very likely opt to not-renew the lease when its up, and you'll be looking for a new place again, possibly with a negative recommendation from this landlord. Even when you're in the right, consider carefully how much you want to pursue relatively small issues.

Who decides the regulatory designation of various flags?

From a recent answer: Subject to compliance with the standard conditions, there are 3 categories of flag: (a) flags which can be flown without consent of the local planning authority (b) flags which do not need consent provided they comply with further restrictions (referred to as “deemed consent” in the Regulations) (c) flags which require consent (“express consent”) ... (b) Flags which do not require consent provided they comply with certain restrictions [include for example] ... the Rainbow flag (6 horizontal equal stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet). ... The regulations governing the flying of flags in England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 (as amended in 2012 and in 2021). These regulations, including relevant amendments to flying of flags, can be viewed on the government legislation website: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 ... User Michael Hall points out this begs the question of who (and I would add how and on what considerations) will decide which flags fall into which category.

In summary, At the time of writing, Michael Gove has overall ministerial responsibility for making planning regulations, with a good part of the role delegated to Rachel Maclean as Minister of State for Housing. The detail of regulatory verbiage is the work of civil service lawyers, based on policy formed within the department as a result of the general political process. There are various rules for how these functions arise and get transferred around government, described below. The Secretary of State can make regulations about flag display These pieces of secondary legislation, as their names suggest, are made under the authority of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 . Several sections of the Act empower regulations to be made by "the Secretary of State", e.g. in s.220(1) we read Regulations under this Act shall make provision for restricting or regulating the display of advertisements so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety. and the full Parliamentary procedure for making them is spelled out in s.333 . This comports with the regulatory preambles, e.g. for the 2007 regulations , saying: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 220, 221, 223(1), 224(3) and 333(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes the following Regulations "The Secretary of State" means a specific Secretary chosen by the Prime Minister Note that the Act just said "the Secretary of State", whereas we have just read about a specific Secretary. What's going on here is that primary legislation just wants to say "whoever in Cabinet has a job that is most relevant", since functions get transferred around, departments created or abolished, etc., and nobody really wants to update a zillion Acts every time that happens. Instead, there is a framework pattern where powers will be given to "the Secretary of State" generally, but will be executed by a specific one according to the division of responsibilities in the government of the day. That will sometimes be just a matter of agreement within Cabinet, but at other times be encoded in secondary legislation - a "Transfer of Functions Order". Those Orders are also needed to handle special situations like - transferring property and legal obligations when departments are created, merged, split or abolished making amendments to legislation which did happen to mention a specific minister ministers who are not a "Secretary of State" as such, but hold another ministerial title, such as "Lord Privy Seal" These Orders are made under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 , and are in the form of orders of the King on the advice of the Privy Council - which is to say, that the Prime Minister decides who does which jobs. Historically, this is something of an accident, since the number of Secretaries of State has increased along with the scope of government, and it was convenient to appoint lots of people to the same formal office rather than invent fresh jobs - especially in the days before ministers were paid. In any case, flag decisions would currently be made under the authority of the minister responsible for planning affairs, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove . That comes from a 2021 order when that position was created, inheriting all functions from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those in turn derive from a 2018 order taking them from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and so on back in time. SoS authority can be exercised by other people who work for him Additionally, the SoS can delegate functions to junior ministers; for example, the 2021 regulations state that they are Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Christopher Pincher Minister of State Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Intra-departmental delegation of functions also requires the agreement of the Prime Minister, although some functions must be performed by the Secretary of State personally. That relates to the so-called "Carltona doctrine", named for a 1943 court case Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560, which establishes that a minister is generally responsible for his whole department, and that when some function is conferred on the Secretary of State, it usually doesn't mean that he has to do it himself. Most administrative functions are like that, although the actual laying of secondary legislation before Parliament has to be done by a member of Parliament, i.e. a member of the ministerial team. Following the downfall of Mr Pincher , the junior minister responsible for planning is currently Rachel Maclean, so she would be likely to be taking lead responsibility for putting through planning regulations. So all this doesn't mean that Mr Gove personally decides which flags fall into which category, although observers of his career know that we can't rule that out. But he is responsible for the actions of his department, and the secondary legislation would be laid before Parliament in his name and on his instructions. On the making of flags and sausages Regarding "how and on what considerations" these decisions are made, I have no specific knowledge for flag-related policy. But in general, the secondary legislation is written by civil service lawyers on the basis of government policy, and then approved (or at least not disapproved) by Parliament. For example, after Brexit, the EU flag was removed from the list. The mechanism would be that various people who had never heard of the Town and Country Planning Act became upset about flying of the EU flag, and either wrote to ministers or were Cabinet ministers already. Internally to the department, there would have been a mandate to stop the flag being flown, civil servants would figure out the legal steps, and draft the statutory instrument. In the end we get a regulation saying In Class H in Schedule 1, in paragraph (b) of column (1) omit the words "the European Union,". even though only planning experts would know or care about "Class H in Schedule 1". Similar remarks apply to the companion regulation giving prominence to the Union flag over the Scottish flag, which was a political reaction in Westminster to the SNP-led government in Scotland. Someone who is upset about a regulation, or just wants it to be different, may be able to challenge it through the political process in the same sort of way. There are also avenues for judicial review, if regulations have been made in a way which is irrational, or exceeding the scope of what the original Act allowed, or other similar reasons - but these are difficult to pursue in court. For example, it is more than three months since the 2021 regulations were made, so it is now too late to mount a judicial challenge.

Legality of Using Unofficial API

I have discovered a mobile app's backend API through reverse engineering. The public can access this API and it does not require specific authorization, however, it is not documented and it is not an official API that the public is meant to access. It was made solely for the purpose of that app. The app does not have a ToS. Is it legal for me to use this API to get data for my own purposes? By "my own purposes" I mean collecting data from the API, storing it on a database, and displaying it to users on my own website which was not built to make a profit.

If the app (and the service accessed from the app) truly doesn't have any EULA, ToS, or license agreement, to include restrictions on reverse engineering, you can probably create an alternate front end, so long as you aren't using their logos, etc. However, their data may be a different beast, depending on the nature of it. For example, extracting data from Twitter would potentially violate Twitter's license on the original text copyright held by the authors in question. Wikipedia explicitly includes redistribution in their license agreement with authors/content creators. If all you are extracting and storing is the temperature at a particular weather station, you might have less of a concern. Anything beyond merely factual runs the risk of a copyright infringement as you store the data in your own database.

Legality of Using Unofficial API

I have discovered a mobile app's backend API through reverse engineering. The public can access this API and it does not require specific authorization, however, it is not documented and it is not an official API that the public is meant to access. It was made solely for the purpose of that app. The app does not have a ToS. Is it legal for me to use this API to get data for my own purposes? By "my own purposes" I mean collecting data from the API, storing it on a database, and displaying it to users on my own website which was not built to make a profit.

england-and-wales If you know you have no authorisation to access the API then on the face of it this seems to be contrary to s1 Computer Misuse Act 1990 (and possibly s3 Unauthorised acts ... with recklessness as to impairing ... etc , depending). Unauthorised access to computer material. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if— (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured; (b) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. Crown Prosecution Service Guidance for Computer Misuse Act . (If the data is "personal data" then there is the offence of the deliberate or reckless obtaining, disclosing, procuring and retention of personal data without the consent of the data controller contrary to s170 Data Protection Act 2018 .) [edit] There is some discussion in comments about what is authorisation or tantamount to it, implied authorisation, passwords, etc. s17 Computer Misuse Act - Interpretation (5)Access of any kind by any person to any program or data held in a computer is unauthorised if— (a)he is not himself entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data; and (b)he does not have consent to access by him of the kind in question to the program or data from any person who is so entitled [F2but this subsection is subject to section 10.] Judgments -- Regina v. Bow Street Magistrates Court and Allison (A.P.) Ex Parte Government of the United States of America (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division) : Section 17 is an interpretation section. Subsection (2) defines what is meant by access and securing access to any programme or data. It lists four ways in which this may occur or be achieved. Its purpose is clearly to give a specific meaning to the phrase "to secure access". Subsection (5) is to be read with subsection (2). It deals with the relationship between the widened definition of securing access and the scope of the authority which the relevant person may hold. That is why the subsection refers to "access of any kind" and "access of the kind in question". Authority to view data may not extend to authority to copy or alter that data. The refinement of the concept of access requires a refinement of the concept of authorisation. The authorisation must be authority to secure access of the kind in question. As part of this refinement, the subsection lays down two cumulative requirements of lack of authority. The first is the requirement that the relevant person be not the person entitled to control the relevant kind of access. The word "control" in this context clearly means authorise and forbid. If the relevant person is so entitled, then it would be unrealistic to treat his access as being unauthorised. The second is that the relevant person does not have the consent to secure the relevant kind of access from a person entitled to control, ie authorise, that access. Subsection (5) therefore has a plain meaning subsidiary to the other provisions of the Act. It simply identifies the two ways in which authority may be acquired--by being oneself the person entitled to authorise and by being a person who has been authorised by a person entitled to authorise. It also makes clear that the authority must relate not simply to the data or programme but also to the actual kind of access secured. Similarly, it is plain that it is not using the word "control" in a physical sense of the ability to operate or manipulate the computer and that it is not derogating from the requirement that for access to be authorised it must be authorised to the relevant data or relevant programme or part of a programme. It does not introduce any concept that authority to access one piece of data should be treated as authority to access other pieces of data "of the same kind" notwithstanding that the relevant person did not in fact have authority to access that piece of data. Section 1 refers to the intent to secure unauthorised access to any programme or data. These plain words leave no room for any suggestion that the relevant person may say: "Yes, I know that I was not authorised to access that data but I was authorised to access other data of the same kind.** The questioner states that "I have discovered a mobile app's backend API through reverse engineering. ... it is not an official API that the public is meant to access. It was made solely for the purpose of that app." It seems to me the questioner knows they are not authorised to access it for their purposes.

Legality of Using Unofficial API

I have discovered a mobile app's backend API through reverse engineering. The public can access this API and it does not require specific authorization, however, it is not documented and it is not an official API that the public is meant to access. It was made solely for the purpose of that app. The app does not have a ToS. Is it legal for me to use this API to get data for my own purposes? By "my own purposes" I mean collecting data from the API, storing it on a database, and displaying it to users on my own website which was not built to make a profit.

In the US, the relevant law is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , which makes it a federal crime to access a protected computer system without proper authorization or to exceed the scope of your authorization. So the questions here are Is the API sufficiently protected to count as a "protected computer" By building an alternate frontend, are you accessing it without authorization. From the Justice Department memo I linked, A CFAA prosecution may not be brought on the theory that a defendant exceeds authorized access solely by violating an access restriction contained in a contractual agreement or term of service with an Internet service provider or web service available to the general public—including public websites (such as social-media services) that allow for free or paid registration without human intervention. So you're probably fine under the CFAA.

False discrimination

Most countries have some law that makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because they are a member of some protected class. But what happens if A believes wrongly that B belongs to some protected class and discriminates against B? For example: Say in the USA the new owner of a company fires all male gay employees. He also fires Bob, who he thinks is gay, but who actually isn't. Would Bob be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

29 CFR 1601.34 states "These rules and regulations shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose and provisions of title VII, the ADA, and GINA" (by contrast 29 CFR 1606.4 says "The exception stated in section 703(e) of title VII, that national origin may be a bona fide occupational qualification, shall be strictly construed". A "liberal construal" of the rules would include as many instances as one could interpret as being prohibited, given the purpose of the underlying legislation. The purpose of title VII is to prevent people from using certain considerations as a basis for employment, so a liberal construal of the act would extend to "because of a belief that X is the case", as well as "because of the fact that X is the case". In addition, 29 CFR 1607.3 says The use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines, or the provisions of section 6 below are satisfied. Firing on the basis of belief that a set of individuals has a protected characteristic obviously has an adverse impact on the protected class, and is accordingly prohibited, even when one or more individuals is not in the protected class. Switching to state law, in Cowher v. Carson & Roberts the relevant question is whether there had been religious discrimination against plaintiff, who was not Jewish. The decision rests in part on the finding Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, 132 N.J. 587 that "it is the harassing conduct that must be severe or pervasive, not its effect on the plaintiff or on the work environment" – this basically isolates the particulars of the discriminee from the actions of the discriminator. In Cowher, the lower court held that "plaintiff could not meet the first prong of the Lehmann test because he was not Jewish, and that the allegation that he was perceived to be Jewish was insufficient". The higher court disagreed. Drawing on case law pertaining to handicaps as a basis of discrimination, the court stated Distinguishing between actual handicaps and perceived handicaps makes no sense. For example, in the case of racial and religious discrimination, the Law Against Discrimination cannot reasonably be read to prohibit a landlord from refusing to rent to a member of a racial or religious minority, but to allow a landlord to refuse to rent to a person who is only perceived by the landlord to be such a member. The general principle identified by the court is that there is no reasoned basis to hold that the LAD protects those who are perceived to be members of one class of persons enumerated by the Act and does not protect those who are perceived to be members of a different class, as to which the LAD offers its protections in equal measure

False discrimination

Most countries have some law that makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because they are a member of some protected class. But what happens if A believes wrongly that B belongs to some protected class and discriminates against B? For example: Say in the USA the new owner of a company fires all male gay employees. He also fires Bob, who he thinks is gay, but who actually isn't. Would Bob be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

Would Bob be protected by anti-discrimination laws? england-and-wales Yes If the employer fires Bob on the basis of him being gay, then the employer would commit direct discrimination even though they are mistaken about Bob's actual sexual orientation. Section 4 Equity Act 2010 establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic, and section 13 creates the offence of direct discrimination: (1) A person (A) [ employer ] discriminates against another (B) [ Bob ] if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. ... There is no requirement for victims to have the relevant protected characteristic to be unlawfully discriminated against - it's the motivation behind the discrimination that makes it unlawful. The supporting Explanatory Notes to section 13 states that: This definition is broad enough to cover cases where the less favourable treatment is because .... the victim is wrongly thought to have [a protected characteristic]. ... The Notes then go on to offer an example of a similar scenario to the OP: If an employer rejects a job application form from a white man who he wrongly thinks is black, because the applicant has an African-sounding name, this would constitute direct race discrimination based on the employer’s mistaken perception.

False discrimination

Most countries have some law that makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because they are a member of some protected class. But what happens if A believes wrongly that B belongs to some protected class and discriminates against B? For example: Say in the USA the new owner of a company fires all male gay employees. He also fires Bob, who he thinks is gay, but who actually isn't. Would Bob be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

In the U.S. most hate crime laws will include the phrase "actual or perceived" when discussing protected classes. As such, the hate crime occurs when someone is victimized in criminal manner because of the offender's belief (whether correct or not) that the victim is a member of a protected class of people and they are committing the crime because of the victim's status as a member of a protected class. While the scenario is not an example of a hate crime, in a scenario where Bob was a victim of a crime due to his perceived status as a gay man when he is in fact a straight man, than his attackers would still be guilty of a hate crime since they perceived Bob to be gay and were motivated by homophobia to attack Bob. For a real example, there was a marked rise in hate crimes against members of the Sikh community in the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks. In the Sikh religion, men are forbidden from cutting their hair, which means that many Sikh men have long thick beards and will wear turbans to keep their long head hair in check (I believe it's also done for modesty purposes). This makes them look like a stereotypical Arabic/Mid-East/Muslim stereotype to Americans who are ignorant of the difference, resulting in many Sikh's being the target of hate crimes for the mistaken belief that they were Arabic or Muslim. These crimes were charged as hate crimes when prosecuted despite the fact that they believed their victims were Muslim and/or Arabic, despite the fact that most Sikhs in the U.S. are of Indian decent and the religion is Dharmic and not remotely related to the Abrahamic faiths, let alone to Islam (and in fact, has historically been persecuted during the Mughal Empire period of Indian History, which was Muslim in nature.).

What is the consequence of failing to allow the water company to install a meter?

Under the water industry act 1991 water providers must have a plan to manage the demand for water in certain areas. If they choose to install compulsory water meters but aren’t allowed to because a resident fails to contact them, what is the consequence for the resident?

If the residence falls within one of the categories for which a water company can insist on a water meter, then the resident cannot refuse. See House of Commons, " Water meters: the rights of customers and water companies ". That brief says that a water company can insist on installing a meter if the customer: uses an automatic watering device (such as a garden sprinkler); automatically fills a swimming pool or pond; has a large bath; uses a reverse osmosis softening unit; has a power shower; is the new occupier of a property (provided an unmetered bill has not already been sent to that occupier); or lives in an area which has been determined by the Secretary of State to be an area of serious water stress and subject to a metering programme as part of a plan to maintain secure water supplies. See also Tom Haynes and Ruth Emery, " What a water meter could do to your bills – and why you may be forced to have one ", The Telegraph (1 June 2023): If your water supplier has been granted legal powers to fit compulsory water meters, you don't have any right to refuse one. As Andy White, of the Consumer Council for Water, puts it: “It's not possible for a customer to refuse where a water company has approval for compulsory metering from Defra.” If a water company has the statutory right to install a meter, and the customer has no right to refuse, this could be enforced by injunction.

Are amateur radio transmissions in the public domain?

I've heard from many non-authoritative sources that all US amateur radio transmissions (except copyright-infringing ones, of course) are automatically released into the public domain, but I have never seen a citation either to copyright law or to FCC rules, and Part 97 does not contain the words "domain" or "copyright." Is it true that transmitting something over amateur radio in the United States constitutes a release of the material into the public domain? I'm asking here rather than on Amateur Radio SE because this question is about copyright law, not just Part 97.

No* in the united-states Waht falls under copyright in the US is described in 17 USC §102 , and the whole question hinges on the bolded part: (a) Copyright protection subsists , in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, [...] The radio transmission itself thus does not fall under copyright, as it is not fixed in a tangible medium while it travels through the air, and it is not a sound recording under 17 USC 102 (a)7 either. As such, normal discussions on the bands like Alice talking to Bob, does not even create a copyright in the first place. That is not regulated in FCC rules, it falls directly from the copyright law: because the material is not fixed, it is not copyrighted in the first place. That is, if nobody fixed or fixes the transmission, nobody owns them. That doesn't mean the contents are public domain: However the contents of the transmission can be under copyright anyway and transmitting them might be copyright infringement (aka "Radio Piracy" or "Pirate Radio" ): you could play a recording of a song via amateur radio, which is under copyright, or you could read a book which is under copyright, and that would violate the author's copyrights if you don't have license to do so. But even if you have a license, transmitting does not put the materials into the public domain: it is a fixed expression (replayed on amateur band) and thus copyrighted. Nothing in copyright law would turn a transmitted copyrighted material into the public domain - that requires an express release into it. But it's complicated... Now, it gets really complicated if we introduce simultaneously fixing the material. Now, the same rules apply as they do when you record a visiting speaker. Or rather, the same setup as a studio and the musicians using it. Alice creates copyrighted material at home If Alice loops her signal through a recording box somewhere on her side, the material gets fixed while she is sending. That means it is copyrighted material, and Alice has the copyrights in the original recording, as she both creates the material and records it. Alice also might own the copyright in the script or notes she used, but that's beside the point. Bob creates copyrighted material from afar Let's assume Alice never thought about recording and just airs her material into the night without infringing on other people's copyrights. But now let's assume Bob, 3 counties over, is also recording Alice signal, and thus fixing the material. Bob had no creative input besides the recording, but the material is now fixed. Bob had some technical and arguably creative input into that recording by choosing the filter settings on his radio setup, antenna placement, and such. Bob for sure does own a copyright in the recording itself, especially in the alterations he made. However, he would not gain copyright over the material that Alice introduced, which now became fixed by Bob's action. In a strange fashion, Bob turned Alice's speech into a copyrighted tangible expression, and the recording is in a very strange place: Bob owns the " Master " itself, and the technical changes that he did. Alice owns the contents of the recording, as in her voice input and choice of words. Distribution of this recording would require both Bob's and Alice's consent now, or Fair Use. Alice clawing back the rights! But Alice can circumvent Bob's copyright at any time by simply re-recording her show, and Bob can not claim copyright on that different recording - that was exactly what Taylor Swift did in 2019.

Is a foreign indepedent contractor allowed to receive payment into a US bank account?

Suppose that I do work for a US company as an independent contractor, and I'm neither in the US, a US citizen or a US resident. As such, I would fill in a W-8BEN form for tax purposes. Would I then be allowed to receive payment for my services into a US bank account in my name? Such a bank account could for instance be the one offered by TransferWise , which is easy to open for someone living, say, in the UK. I'm not asking whether it is technically possible, but whether it would be legal under US tax law. Online search suggests this is an option, however I'm aware of a specific business (whose name I won't disclose) which claims to be unable to pay foreign independent contractors in a US bank account.

Yes, it is legal under US tax law. US tax law is concerned with collecting tax. The questions that tax law asks are Must the income be declared to the IRS? Is the income taxable? How much tax is due? Whether US tax law requires the income to be declared or considers it taxable does not depend on whether it is paid to a US or foreign bank account. This also has no effect on the rate of taxation. US tax law is not concerned with the specific route the money takes to get from your client to you. If the income is in fact taxable, and you declare it and pay tax accordingly, you will not have violated any US tax law.

Does the First Amendment apply to amateur radio?

Is speech over amateur radio constitutionally protected? Could I theoretically sue the FCC for the right to broadcast music on 20 meters, and have a chance of winning on free speech grounds? If the FCC made a rule, at the direction of Congress, prohibiting political speech over amateur radio, would that be enforceable? What if the rule allowed promotion of party X but not party Y?

Is speech over amateur radio constitutionally protected? Of course. Could I theoretically sue the FCC for the right to broadcast music on 20 meters, and have a chance of winning on free speech grounds? You can certainly sue. I don't know enough about existing jurisprudence to comment on the likelihood of success. If the FCC made a rule, at the direction of Congress, prohibiting political speech over amateur radio, would that be enforceable? What if the rule allowed promotion of party X but not party Y? Of course not. The entire concept of regulation of telecommunications is in some tension with the first amendment, but the fact that the judiciary has upheld such regulation does not imply that telecommunications are beyond the reach of the first amendment. Instead, it means that the first amendment permits the regulation. Other regulation could still be found impermissible under the first amendment, as regulation prohibiting political speech or likely would and regulation giving preferential treatment to certain political parties certainly would.

How (and how effectively) is complete corporate self-ownership prevented?

Corporations are not supposed to be able to have no ultimate beneficial owners. If A Inc. holds 100% of B Group, B Group is not supposed to be able to own 100% of A Inc. How effectively are these dead-end loops in corporate ownership prevented, especially when the involved entities are in different jurisdictions that might not communicate? If such a loop is discovered to have occurred, how is it usually unwound, and by whom? Who ends up with the assets? This isn't about whether or not the arrangement is allowed, it is about what is done about it if it manages to arise or how it is prevented from arising.

Usually, the only reason to set up an "ownerless" corporation is to set up a non-profit. Non-profit corporations can have self-perpetuating boards and are very similar to charitable trusts. If it ends up without any board members and has a self-perpetuating board, any person affected by the corporation or a suitable government representative (in the U.S., usually a state attorney general in the place of incorporation) can apply to a court to have new board members appointed. In a "for profit" context, this generally doesn't happen because the people investing in the company want to be able to profit from it and/or obtain a return of their investment. So, the question is largely hypothetical in that case.

Is the usage of an OCR service causing copyright issues when a photo of a book page is analyzed?

Here's the scenario A user takes a photo using an app from a book, which might have be copyrighted . The app then uploads the photo to a cloud service in order to analyze it using OCR The app receives the OCR result and extracts 100 (most used) words from it in order to process the result within the app According to the cloud provider the data gets deleted on call of the app or within 24 hours. The data is only accessible by the app once. Neither is more than an excerpt extracted nor is the photo accessible once it has been send to that server. Also there is no way the result contains a whole sentence of the page (only single words). My major questions in my head for that case would be: Does making a photo of copyrighted material equals to making an illegal copy? Does sending that photo to a server to process count as distribution?

If there is a copyright violation then it is by the user; the service would presumably work the same, and be as useful, for text where the user owns the copyright or has a license to do this. As long as the service doesn't actively encourage copyright violation then it is in the clear. The user might be able to claim fair use or fair dealing (depending on the country). The rules vary between countries and are too fact-specific to analyse here; it would depend on things like whether the end user is making money out of it and if the result is used in scholarship. However the fact that only the 100 most-used words are retained would generally count in favour of fair use.

Are attorneys legally or ethically bound to share evidence in civil cases before complaints are filed?

Are attorneys legally or ethically bound to share evidence or discovery materials in civil matters before actual complaints are filed? Let's say Person A (a non-public figure) suspects Person B (a non-public figure) of a civil tort, such as defamation. Person A gets Lawyer A to send a cease and desist letter to Person B. Person B shows the letter to their Lawyer (B). Lawyer B asks Person B if they have indeed defamed Person A. Person B says they have and outlines the incidents. Lawyer B determines there is enough evidence that the defamation did damage the reputation of Person A and more than likely resulted in monetarily loses in business for Person A. Is Lawyer B obligated in any legal or ethical sense to inform Lawyer A of what Person B said before a complaint is filed? Or only after a complaint is filed? And only when discovery takes place? Or would Lawyer B inform Lawyer A out of common and/or professional courtesy?

england-and-wales There are two issues here: B's "confession" to their lawyer would fall within the definition of legal professional privilege, specifically litigation privilege : Litigation privilege protects communications between lawyers or their clients and any third party for the purpose of obtaining advice or information in connection with existing or reasonably contemplated litigation . So unless B gives their permission, this cannot be disclosed. A party's duty for disclosure, under Part 31 Civil Procedure Rules, begins once proceedings have started by a claim being issued under Rule 7.2(1) unless Rule 31.16 applies as section 33 Supreme Court Act 1981 1 permits disclosure before proceedings have started. So unless A makes, and is successful with, a section 33 application there is no legal obligation on B for disclosure that is not protected by legal professionalprivilege. 1 Defamation is dealt with as a "media and communications claim" under Rule 53.1(3) in the High Court so the other method of pre-proceedings disclosure at section 52 County Courts Act 1984 does not apply here. Although tagged united-states , I have answered as per the Help Centre : " we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag] "

Are attorneys legally or ethically bound to share evidence in civil cases before complaints are filed?

Are attorneys legally or ethically bound to share evidence or discovery materials in civil matters before actual complaints are filed? Let's say Person A (a non-public figure) suspects Person B (a non-public figure) of a civil tort, such as defamation. Person A gets Lawyer A to send a cease and desist letter to Person B. Person B shows the letter to their Lawyer (B). Lawyer B asks Person B if they have indeed defamed Person A. Person B says they have and outlines the incidents. Lawyer B determines there is enough evidence that the defamation did damage the reputation of Person A and more than likely resulted in monetarily loses in business for Person A. Is Lawyer B obligated in any legal or ethical sense to inform Lawyer A of what Person B said before a complaint is filed? Or only after a complaint is filed? And only when discovery takes place? Or would Lawyer B inform Lawyer A out of common and/or professional courtesy?

Client B's confession is a privileged communication. In the absence of special circumstances, Lawyer B is legally and ethically obligated to never share it with Lawyer A.

Why do Pride flags fly over British police stations, prisons and other government buildings?

Insofar as this question may have a legal answer, by what provisions or instruments are they flown or allowed to be flown? Who would have the power to decide what flags are flown over such institutions? For example, the Daniel Quasar “progress pride” flag flies over HMP Pentonville. What provisions might govern such a practise?

Google england law flying flags First result Flying flags: a plain English guide - GOV.UK ... Some flags require formal consent (permission) from the local planning authority, whereas others like the Union Flag do not. The detailed controls over flag flying are set out in detailed regulations (see links below). ... All flag flying is subject to some standard conditions ... Subject to compliance with the standard conditions, there are 3 categories of flag: (a) flags which can be flown without consent of the local planning authority (b) flags which do not need consent provided they comply with further restrictions (referred to as “deemed consent” in the Regulations) (c) flags which require consent (“express consent”) ... (b) Flags which do not require consent provided they comply with certain restrictions [include for example] ... the Rainbow flag (6 horizontal equal stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet). ... The regulations governing the flying of flags in England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 (as amended in 2012 and in 2021). These regulations, including relevant amendments to flying of flags, can be viewed on the government legislation website: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 ...

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

germany §53 StPO (1) 1. allows clerics to refuse to testify about things they were told during spiritual care. This does not require the setting to be exactly the Catholic sacrament of confession: it would be enough if a troubled person seeks the cleric to talk to because the cleric is a cleric. Sections 2. to 5. list other groups with or without restrictions. Lawyers, notaries, tax advisors, physicians, pharmacists, midwives, drug abuse counselors and similar people, members of parliament, and journalists can refuse to testify about some or all they learned in the course of their protected profession . For many of them, including physicians, the subject can waive the right to secrecy, then they cannot avoid testimony any more. The same applies to professional assistants of these people, e.g. the sexton who allows someone in or the clerk who makes an appointment.

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

In the united-states , that privilege exists, but its availability and parameters vary from one jurisdiction to the next. See , e.g. , Totten, Administrator, v. United States , 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875) (“Suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional.”).

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

In wisconsin statute 905.06 says: Communications to members of the clergy. (1)  Definitions. As used in this section: (a) A “member of the clergy" is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting the individual. (b) A communication is “confidential" if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication. (2)  General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in the member's professional character as a spiritual adviser. (3)  Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person's guardian or conservator, or by the person's personal representative if the person is deceased. The member of the clergy may claim the privilege on behalf of the person. The member of the clergy's authority so to do is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (4)  Exceptions. There is no privilege under this section concerning observations or information that a member of the clergy, as defined in s. 48.981 (1) (cx), is required to report as suspected or threatened child abuse under s. 48.981 (2) (bm) or as a threat of violence in or targeted at a school under s. 175.32. The exceptions turn out not to be exceptions, however, if a confession is involved. According to 48.981(2)(bm)(3): A member of the clergy is not required to report child abuse information under subd. 1. or 2. that he or she receives solely through confidential communications made to him or her privately or in a confessional setting if he or she is authorized to hear or is accustomed to hearing such communications and, under the disciplines, tenets, or traditions of his or her religion, has a duty or is expected to keep those communications secret. Those disciplines, tenets, or traditions need not be in writing. 175.32(2)(c)(2) has similar language. So, in Wisconsin, the answer is yes. A confession to a past murder, or any other crime, would be legally privileged by statute. A "confession" to a future murder runs into the problem that this would not be considered a valid confession by the Catholic Church - you can't ask to be absolved from a sin you haven't committed yet; if you were truly repentant you wouldn't still be planning to do it. This would likely release the priest from the religious obligation to not tell, and that in turn could at least result in it not being covered by the exceptions to 48.981 and 175.32 (since there's no longer a religious duty to keep it confidential.)

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

england-and-wales Per Wikipedia , confession to a priest isn't legally privileged. The doctrine of priest–penitent privilege does not appear to apply in English law. The orthodox view is that under the law of England and Wales privileged communication exists only in the context of legal advice obtained from a professional adviser. A statement of the law on priest–penitent privilege is contained in the nineteenth century case of Wheeler v. Le Marchant : In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. ... There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. ... Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected. — Sir George Jessel MR, Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881) 17 Ch.D 681[3]

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

Yes, but … new-south-wales s127 of the uniform Evidence Act allows a member of the clergy to refuse to reveal the contents of or existence of a confession. However, unlike a lawyer’s privilege, if the cleric chooses to testify, the evidence is admissible.

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

canada The common law only provides privilege to religious communications on a case-by-case basis At common law, there is no categorical privilege for religious communications. Instead, each claim to privilege for a religious communication is dealt with on a case-by-case basis under the "Wigmore test" (from John Henry Wigmore). See R. v. Gruenke , [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263 : The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation. In recognition of the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2 of the Charter and the interpretive statement in s. 27 of the Charter that the Charter is to be interpreted "in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians": "all of the relevant circumstances must be considered and the Wigmore criteria applied in a manner which is sensitive to the fact of Canada's multicultural heritage" ( Gruenke , p. 291 ). Two provincial jurisdictions provide statutory privilege The province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Québec both provide a statutory clergy privilege. See Newfoundland and Labrador's Evidence Act , R.S.N.L. 1990, c. E-16, s. 8 : A member of the clergy or a priest shall not be compellable to give evidence as to a confession made to him or her in his or her professional capacity. And see Québec's Charter of human rights and freedoms , L.Q., c. c-12, art. 9 : Every person has a right to non-disclosure of confidential information. No person bound to professional secrecy by law and no priest or other minister of religion may, even in judicial proceedings, disclose confidential information revealed to him by reason of his position or profession, unless he is authorized to do so by the person who confided such information to him or by an express provision of law. The tribunal must, exofficio, ensure that professional secrecy is respected.

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

In sweden , yes, it's privileged as priests have a particularly strong confidentiality, often called "absolute confidentiality". The information received by a priest during a confession or an individual pastoral conversation may not, at all, be used in any other process. The priest may not be called to testify in a trial and is exempt from mandatory reporting laws. This is by the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure , where Chapter 36, section 5 prohibits calling priests as witnesses. Before 2000, this would not have applied to Catholic confession as the confidentiality was limited to the Church of Sweden, a Lutheran church that was then the official state church and the confidentiality was stipulated in the Church Law that applied to the Church of Sweden. The restriction is no longer there because Sweden fully separated church and state in 2000. The confidentiality is currently not limited to Christian priests either, the law refers to "a priest in a religious organization or a person of equivalent standing in such an organization" so the confidentiality would apply to priest-equivalent members of registered religious organizations.

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

Confession in a seal of secrecy is much older than much current law The practice of regular or devotional confession and absolute confidentiality was confirmed and codified from the 13th century in Europe. More recent developments in mandatory reporting and legislation intended to prevent abuse seem to conflict with the 'seal of confession'. Confession is unbounded in terms of the scope of the sins that can be confessed and absolved Here is an example statement about confession from the document cited below: Provided always, That if any Man confess his secret and hidden Sins to the Minister for the unburdening of his Conscience, and to receive spiritual Consolation and Ease of Mind from him: We do not any way bind the said Minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him [...], that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any Person whatsoever, any Crime or Offence so committed to his Trust and Secrecy (except they be such Crimes as by the Laws of this Realm, his own Life may be called into question for concealing the same)25 under pain of Irregularity... European law and practice varies From the Ecumenical Summary of the Ecclesiastical Law Society's Report of its Working Party on the Seal of Confession : In Germany while there is a criminal law duty to report planned crimes an exception is made for those engaged in pastoral care. In the Nordic and Baltic Churches there are similarities with the Church of England. Denmark has an older law imposing secrecy but also a modern law duty to report. In Finland there is a duty to encourage self-reporting and (as in Germany) a duty to alert the authorities of potential future crimes yet maintaining confidentiality. For the Roman Catholic Church, having a universal Canon Law, no Bishops’ Conference has the authority to change the absolute seal of confession. Nevertheless, there are continuing official discussions in the Vatican covering all aspects of safeguarding questions and the sacrament of reconciliation. These include the necessity of far more effective training of priests, especially on the question of how to help either a penitent or victim/survivor to move from the confidentiality of their confession to God to seeking professional help and disclosure to the authorities where appropriate. The same report furnishes the practice of the Church of England, which operates under Canon Law, which carries legal privileges in England: The Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy [...] begins by referring to the ministry of reconciliation and then proceed[s] via the formal ministry of absolution to deal with the inviolability of the Seal. It sets out the restrictions upon which and where ministers may exercise the ministry [...] It draws the distinction between on the one hand pastoral conversations and on the other hand confessions in the context of this ministry. It states the absolute inviolability of the Seal even after the death of the penitent. It states that if a penitent discloses serious crime (such as abuse) the priest must require the penitent to report that conduct to the police or other statutory authority and if the penitent refuses to do so absolution should be withheld. It makes clear that any disclosure outside the confessional should be dealt with by following established procedures of reporting.

Is religious confession legally privileged?

I'm referring to Catholic confession to a priest. I'm sure, like attorney-client privilege, that if you disclose a future crime you are planning to commit then they can and will tell the police. I'm wondering, is the secrecy of confession an actual legal privilege? If you confessed to a previous murder, would they legally be able to report it? Is the secrecy of confession just a rule within the religion to encourage people to confess their most often non criminal sins?

england The Canons of the Church of England, which are part of statute law, protect sacramental confessions within the Church of England: Provided always, that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not in any way bind the said minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity. The effect of that proviso has actually been widened over time, as the perils to the priest's own life have been diminished. There are now no crimes for which the death penalty applies. This protection only applies to clergy of the Church of England.

Can someone get protection under Double Jeopardy for a crime by arranging to be put on trial with fake evidence that is then disproven?

Lets say I just killed Bob (I'm doing a lot of that today). The police suspect me but currently have little evidence that I killed Bob. However, I haven't hidden the murder weapon and body well and can't move them now, so it's just a matter of time before someone finds them and provides the police with enough evidence to convict me. To avoid jail time when the body is found, I try to protect myself with a claim of double jeopardy. I have two friends claim to have witnessed my killing Bob and I leave a suspicious weapon that looks like it could be the murder weapon somewhere the police will find it. With all this evidence, the police decide to press charges and have me arrested. Only after my trial starts do I reveal my pre-planned proof that the evidence is false. My friends fly back to their home in some country without an extradition treaty before calling the judge and telling them that they made up the story about seeing me kill Bob. I present proof that the suspected murder weapon was purchased after Bob disappeared and a better explanation for why it looked so suspicious, etc. With my being able to disprove all the central pieces of evidence, the jury finds me not guilty of Bob's murder. Not long afterwards, Bob's body, and the actual murder weapon, are found. This new evidence is damning and with it, they likely could convict me, but I claim double jeopardy when they try to charge me. Of key importance, I argue that the last trial was for the same murder. My friends were claiming to witness me murder Bob at the very time and place that the actual murder took place (maybe they even did watch the murder). The police had already suspected me of murdering Bob at this time as well, and had presented some, less effective, evidence at the first trial that they possessed due to the fact that I had actually murdered Bob. Can I get away with murder? Does the answer change if the police can prove I planted the original fake evidence which I used to inspire the first murder trial?

The double jeopardy clause would prevent you from being retried by the government that tried you for murder (probably a U.S. state). But, you could be tried for fraud and obstruction of justice at the state level, and you could be tried for murder if an appropriate federal offense were located, at the federal level. Often conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights is used as a federal offense when there is a state level acquittal, and it isn't impossible to imagine that happening in this case as the victim had a right to the protection of the laws, and the state had a right to enforce the criminal laws, which was deprived in a manner that could be called "under color of state law.'

Can someone get protection under Double Jeopardy for a crime by arranging to be put on trial with fake evidence that is then disproven?

Lets say I just killed Bob (I'm doing a lot of that today). The police suspect me but currently have little evidence that I killed Bob. However, I haven't hidden the murder weapon and body well and can't move them now, so it's just a matter of time before someone finds them and provides the police with enough evidence to convict me. To avoid jail time when the body is found, I try to protect myself with a claim of double jeopardy. I have two friends claim to have witnessed my killing Bob and I leave a suspicious weapon that looks like it could be the murder weapon somewhere the police will find it. With all this evidence, the police decide to press charges and have me arrested. Only after my trial starts do I reveal my pre-planned proof that the evidence is false. My friends fly back to their home in some country without an extradition treaty before calling the judge and telling them that they made up the story about seeing me kill Bob. I present proof that the suspected murder weapon was purchased after Bob disappeared and a better explanation for why it looked so suspicious, etc. With my being able to disprove all the central pieces of evidence, the jury finds me not guilty of Bob's murder. Not long afterwards, Bob's body, and the actual murder weapon, are found. This new evidence is damning and with it, they likely could convict me, but I claim double jeopardy when they try to charge me. Of key importance, I argue that the last trial was for the same murder. My friends were claiming to witness me murder Bob at the very time and place that the actual murder took place (maybe they even did watch the murder). The police had already suspected me of murdering Bob at this time as well, and had presented some, less effective, evidence at the first trial that they possessed due to the fact that I had actually murdered Bob. Can I get away with murder? Does the answer change if the police can prove I planted the original fake evidence which I used to inspire the first murder trial?

Chicago mobster Harry Aleman was acquitted of a murder in his first bench trial because the judge had been paid off. An appeals court later ruled that he could be retried. Double jeopardy did not apply because the first trial was fixed, so he was not in jeopardy. Wikipedia doesn't say so, but I believe part of what led to that ruling was proof that Aleman knew the judge had been bribed.

Can someone get protection under Double Jeopardy for a crime by arranging to be put on trial with fake evidence that is then disproven?

Lets say I just killed Bob (I'm doing a lot of that today). The police suspect me but currently have little evidence that I killed Bob. However, I haven't hidden the murder weapon and body well and can't move them now, so it's just a matter of time before someone finds them and provides the police with enough evidence to convict me. To avoid jail time when the body is found, I try to protect myself with a claim of double jeopardy. I have two friends claim to have witnessed my killing Bob and I leave a suspicious weapon that looks like it could be the murder weapon somewhere the police will find it. With all this evidence, the police decide to press charges and have me arrested. Only after my trial starts do I reveal my pre-planned proof that the evidence is false. My friends fly back to their home in some country without an extradition treaty before calling the judge and telling them that they made up the story about seeing me kill Bob. I present proof that the suspected murder weapon was purchased after Bob disappeared and a better explanation for why it looked so suspicious, etc. With my being able to disprove all the central pieces of evidence, the jury finds me not guilty of Bob's murder. Not long afterwards, Bob's body, and the actual murder weapon, are found. This new evidence is damning and with it, they likely could convict me, but I claim double jeopardy when they try to charge me. Of key importance, I argue that the last trial was for the same murder. My friends were claiming to witness me murder Bob at the very time and place that the actual murder took place (maybe they even did watch the murder). The police had already suspected me of murdering Bob at this time as well, and had presented some, less effective, evidence at the first trial that they possessed due to the fact that I had actually murdered Bob. Can I get away with murder? Does the answer change if the police can prove I planted the original fake evidence which I used to inspire the first murder trial?

Well, I think it could work. I don't think perjured testimony would be enough to make jeopardy not attach in the same way that bribing a judge would. But it's not the best plan, either. So your friends testify that you did it, take a plane ride, and call the judge. What effect do you expect that to have? The jury will never hear about that phone call; it's just hearsay unless your friends come back and testify under oath again (and thus subject themselves to a perjury charge.) So you're stuck with the jury only hearing the original testimony that you did it. Two eyewitnesses could be enough to convict you all by themselves even if there's problems with the physical evidence. And if your plan rests on the police not finding badly-hidden evidence, that may be a problem since even if you invoke the right to a speedy trial it will likely be months between your arrest and your trial. If you're acquitted, then once this comes to light, the prosecution is going to look for every possible crime which could apply that they're still allowed to charge you with. Oh, you hid the body (or conspired with your friends to do so)? That's separate from the murder; they're still allowed to go after you for that. In my state that has a maximum sentence of 12 years 6 months. Two counts of conspiracy to commit perjury? Distinct from the murder; up to 6 years each. Placing false evidence? That's another 10 years. Etc. You may not get life like you would with the murder, but you're going away for a long time, unless you've already fled the country. In general, I'd say that if you have multiple people willing to lie under oath for you, it's not surprising that you have a nonzero chance of getting away with stuff. It might be better to use such people to just lie and say you have an alibi, or that someone else did it, instead of this convoluted plan.

Using Sentry in an app targeting children below 13 years

We have created a children game using Unity and therein we use SentrySDK for automatic bug reporting. Since our app is targeting children under 13 years, we need to comply with COPPA GDPR Google's Familiy Policy We use sentry like this. If an error occurs in the app, the app sends a message with the stacktrace and an anonymous user id to the Sentry Cloud. Is this legal or do I need user consent for this? And if so, does it have to be "opt-in" or "opt-out"?

Are you collecting personal information? A user id, assuming that it is the same per user across time, is personally identifiable information for both COPPA and GDPR, and would need to meet Google’s requirements as well. This is true even if there is no obvious way of linking this back to an identifiable person. If the id is instead a session id that is never used more than once, then it is not personal information.

Using Sentry in an app targeting children below 13 years

We have created a children game using Unity and therein we use SentrySDK for automatic bug reporting. Since our app is targeting children under 13 years, we need to comply with COPPA GDPR Google's Familiy Policy We use sentry like this. If an error occurs in the app, the app sends a message with the stacktrace and an anonymous user id to the Sentry Cloud. Is this legal or do I need user consent for this? And if so, does it have to be "opt-in" or "opt-out"?

If an error occurs in the app, the app sends a message with the stacktrace and an anonymous user id to the Sentry Cloud. There is no such thing as an "an anonymous user id". It either identifies a user, then it is personal data, or it doesn't, then it's just random byte garbage. Since your app is contacting this cloud service directly , not via your servers as a proxy, you also exposing the customers IP address to a third party. Is this legal or do I need user consent for this? An IP address is PII, exposing it to a third part needs consent. Given that your app would be perfectly usable if this feature did not exist, you cannot claim it is absolutely neccessary for the operation (like sending the IP address to your own servers, which is simply how the internet works). If you would send all that to your own servers, strip the user id and ip address and send just the stacktrace devoid of any personal information to a third party, I would say you are safe. But the user id and ip address are PII that you need consent for, before sending them to a third party. Normally, this is done in the fine print of the terms of use one has to accept before being able to sign up for an account in the app. If you don't have an app with accounts, you could simply let the user chose to do this (or not) at the first app start. That is more user friendly and it established explicit consent to either do it, or not.

Using Sentry in an app targeting children below 13 years

We have created a children game using Unity and therein we use SentrySDK for automatic bug reporting. Since our app is targeting children under 13 years, we need to comply with COPPA GDPR Google's Familiy Policy We use sentry like this. If an error occurs in the app, the app sends a message with the stacktrace and an anonymous user id to the Sentry Cloud. Is this legal or do I need user consent for this? And if so, does it have to be "opt-in" or "opt-out"?

By default, our SDKs are configured not to send any PII data, see: https://docs.sentry.io/platforms/unity/configuration/options/#send-default-pii So if you, the developer, don't explicitly turn it on or add other data to the events sent to Sentry, you should be safe.

What happens if a witness that has been subpoenaed refuses to speak to the opposing party&#39;s lawyers?

I'm not a lawyer, and this is a hypothetical situation that I thought about while watching a trial. If a prosecutor issues a subpoena for someone to testify at a trial, it's my understanding that the prosecutor needs to tell the defense about it by providing them the list of possible witnesses. If so, the defense generally has the ability to speak to each of the witnesses, correct? What if a witness refuses to speak to the defense lawyers? For example, if they witnessed a crime and dislike the defendant because of it, so they don't want to speak to his lawyers. Or, what if a defendant is (stupidly) representing himself and the witness doesn't want to speak to the defendant? I believe the subpoena requires the witness to testify at trial , but does it also require them to speak to the lawyers if the lawyers reach out to them to get their story prior to the trial? Or maybe is the prosecution required to provide the defense team the information that the witness will testify to in the trial anyway, so this is irrelevant? Can this come up in pre-trial hearings, and can a judge require information to be shared prior to trial if deemed appropriate? I'm also assuming that the information has to be shared in some way, but maybe that's incorrect as well.

the defense generally has the ability to speak to each of the witnesses, correct? No. The defense is only entitled to see what evidence the witnesses have provided so far, and what they are intending to give at the trial. The prosecutor must pass that info to the defense. This is called discovery (or disclosure).

employee contract methods for working in multiple countries

What are legal methods of writing an employee contract so that an employee of one company can work in multiple coutries? Eg one week in country A, one week in country B, one week in country C, etc.

Nothing special other than saying it is required in the contract. For example, such contracts are typical for airplane pilots and flight attendants. The hard questions are not what a contract has to say to do it. The hard questions, instead, are whether what the contract provides for is allowed by the immigration laws of the countries where the employee is to work, what tax implications the employment relationship has for the employee and the employer, and what choice of law decisions arise from this with regard to labor law (when the law of the company's headquarters applies, and when the laws of a particular place of work applies).

Am I liable for a school zone speeding ticket in New York State when blinking lights don&#39;t have a notice sign?

Long story short, I have received six citations for speeding in a school zone posted 15 MPH. I received my first citation in the mail two weeks after the event occurred, thus, I racked up six tickets before realizing I was doing so. The school zone speeding sign looks like the attached image. I apologize for it being blurry, but the sign reads: "School Speed Limit 15: 7AM - 4PM School Days" It is also attached with lights that flash. New York State Vehicle Traffic Law (NY Veh & Traf L § 1180 (2014)) states: ...no person shall drive in excess of such maximum school speed limits during: 1.) school days at times indicated on the school zone speed limit sign, provided, however, that such times shall be between the hours of seven o'clock A.M. and six o'clock P.M. or alternative times within such hours; or 2.) a period when the beacons attached to the school zone speed limit sign are flashing and such sign is equipped with a notice that indicates that the school zone speed limit is in effect when such beacons are flashing, provided, however, that such beacons shall only flash during student activities at the school and up to thirty minutes immediately before and up to thirty minutes immediately after such student activities. It seems to me that this sign doesn't fit either criterion. The flashing beacons do not have the attached sign, but the flashing beacons are still there and operating. I am trying to question whether or not the lights were flashing when I was flashed by the ticketing camera, and I'm wondering if this is a reasonable thing to question based on the law I attached and the image. Various links to the NYS Laws are here and here .

This clearly meets the first criterion: 1.) school days at times indicated on the school zone speed limit sign, provided, however, that such times shall be between the hours of seven o'clock A.M. and six o'clock P.M... The times are clearly listed on the sign and are within the allowed times (assuming the sign isn't blurry in real-lfe of course). Whether the lights were blinking or not is moot.

Am I liable for a school zone speeding ticket in New York State when blinking lights don&#39;t have a notice sign?

Long story short, I have received six citations for speeding in a school zone posted 15 MPH. I received my first citation in the mail two weeks after the event occurred, thus, I racked up six tickets before realizing I was doing so. The school zone speeding sign looks like the attached image. I apologize for it being blurry, but the sign reads: "School Speed Limit 15: 7AM - 4PM School Days" It is also attached with lights that flash. New York State Vehicle Traffic Law (NY Veh & Traf L § 1180 (2014)) states: ...no person shall drive in excess of such maximum school speed limits during: 1.) school days at times indicated on the school zone speed limit sign, provided, however, that such times shall be between the hours of seven o'clock A.M. and six o'clock P.M. or alternative times within such hours; or 2.) a period when the beacons attached to the school zone speed limit sign are flashing and such sign is equipped with a notice that indicates that the school zone speed limit is in effect when such beacons are flashing, provided, however, that such beacons shall only flash during student activities at the school and up to thirty minutes immediately before and up to thirty minutes immediately after such student activities. It seems to me that this sign doesn't fit either criterion. The flashing beacons do not have the attached sign, but the flashing beacons are still there and operating. I am trying to question whether or not the lights were flashing when I was flashed by the ticketing camera, and I'm wondering if this is a reasonable thing to question based on the law I attached and the image. Various links to the NYS Laws are here and here .

The lights do not need to be flashing from 7 am - 4 pm Part 2 says beacons are for "student activities at the school" and implies outside the regular hours, because if it is within the regular hours then part 1 covers it. Say there is a dance or game at 6:30 pm, they can have the public safety authorities activate the lights. You are correct that if you got the ticket outside the posted hours (7a-4p), but when the lights were flashing that you would have a beef- because this particular sign does not have a notice that says speed limit is in effect when the lights are flashing. If it had such notice and the lights were flashing, then you would be out of luck based on part 2. It is always in effect 7-4 on school days, lights or no lights, based on part 1 and the sign that states the hours (which are within the hours listed in the law). You don't need to memorize the school calendar, just assume it is Monday-Friday but not obvious days like Dec. 25.

Were any crimes committed in The Duck Song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q Let's take the song in a different direction: TL;DR version A duck repeatedly visits a lemonade stand, asking for grapes. Each time the proprietor says he has no grapes. After many repetitions the proprietor says "If you come back, duck, I'll glue you to a tree and leave you all day, stuck!" The duck reports this exchange to the police as an illegal threat. The proprietor claims that the duck harassed him. Is the proprietor guilty of some crime? Is the duck guilty of some crime? Assume that the duck is considered a person. Long version 🎶 A duck walked up to a lemonade stand, and he said to the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" The man said, "no," and the duck did go; he just waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], When the duck came back to the lemonade stand, and again asked the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" He still heard a "no," and again he did go; he just waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], He kept coming back to the lemonade stand, kept asking the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" This went on for days, he just wouldn't part ways, though he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], The duck came back to the lemonade stand, again asked the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" The man'd had enough, this was getting to tough, and he said to the duck who came to his stand, "If you come back, duck, I'll glue you to a tree and leave you all day, stuck!" After this louder no, the duck decided to go; he just waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], When the duck walked up to the city police, and he said to the cop at the city PD, "Hey, [bum bum bum], is this an illegal threat?" The man went to court, accused of assault, and he looked at the judge, wanting the trial to halt; he said, "I plead not guilty! This duck harassed me!" The judge asked the duck, "So what did you do? Was the lemonade man harassed by you?" The duck answered back, "Well, in part it is true. I wanted some grapes, but he had not even two. I went back every day, until the threat yesterday. Then I waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], I waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], I waddled away [waddle waddle waddle] and I told the DA." Now I'd like to know what this judge will say. Did the duck harass the man, coming every day? Did the man commit a crime, or is he OK this time? 🎶

Ducks are ducks, not people. It might surprise you, but even a hypothetical duck that could talk is a type of bird and is considered a waterfowl and wild game but not a person or human. As such, you can not commit any crime such as assault against it. In fact, provided that the lemonade stand owner has a hunting license and this is not in a zone where you can not hunt, such as inside a town, he could have shot the bird without repercussions - because a duck can be hunted. Threatening game birds is not covered by any law. Only would the lemonade stand owner have glued the bird to a tree he would have committed a crime, because gluing birds somewhere would be considered animal cruelty in most jurisdictions. As the duck is a bird and not a person, it can not commit any crimes, such as harassment. If a duck is a person... Assuming that there is such a place where duck is a slang term for a person, or where ducks are considered people, then the pattern is different: Such as duck would indeed perform a repeated action that is very much aimed at annoying the lemonade stand owner. But that is not necessarily legally harassment: In Germany, § 238 StGB is aimed at stalking and requires the aim of inciting fear, § 185 StGB is for insulting speech, including harassing speech, § 186 StGB is for defamation, and § 240 StGB for coercion through harassment. A charge under those would be tedious. In the United Kingdom, the English Protection from Harassment Act 1997, does not define harassment as any specific pattern. Scotland's variant reads a little simpler, and makes harassment for harassment's sake illegal. These laws might be applied to the duck. Many of the United States federal laws will simply not apply to the situation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is about sexual harassment in the workplace, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is for schools, and the Fair Housing Act does deal with home purchases and renting. All seem inapplicable. If the threat of gluing someone to a tree is a real threat under the law depends very much again. In Germany, it might be interpreted as too hilarious to be considered a true threat, but humiliating enough to constitute one of the insult laws, but the lyrics do not offer enough facts to make a proper analysis for this part.

Were any crimes committed in The Duck Song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q Let's take the song in a different direction: TL;DR version A duck repeatedly visits a lemonade stand, asking for grapes. Each time the proprietor says he has no grapes. After many repetitions the proprietor says "If you come back, duck, I'll glue you to a tree and leave you all day, stuck!" The duck reports this exchange to the police as an illegal threat. The proprietor claims that the duck harassed him. Is the proprietor guilty of some crime? Is the duck guilty of some crime? Assume that the duck is considered a person. Long version 🎶 A duck walked up to a lemonade stand, and he said to the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" The man said, "no," and the duck did go; he just waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], When the duck came back to the lemonade stand, and again asked the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" He still heard a "no," and again he did go; he just waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], He kept coming back to the lemonade stand, kept asking the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" This went on for days, he just wouldn't part ways, though he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], The duck came back to the lemonade stand, again asked the man running the stand, "Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?" The man'd had enough, this was getting to tough, and he said to the duck who came to his stand, "If you come back, duck, I'll glue you to a tree and leave you all day, stuck!" After this louder no, the duck decided to go; he just waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], he waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], till the very next day [bum bum bum bum bum bum babum], When the duck walked up to the city police, and he said to the cop at the city PD, "Hey, [bum bum bum], is this an illegal threat?" The man went to court, accused of assault, and he looked at the judge, wanting the trial to halt; he said, "I plead not guilty! This duck harassed me!" The judge asked the duck, "So what did you do? Was the lemonade man harassed by you?" The duck answered back, "Well, in part it is true. I wanted some grapes, but he had not even two. I went back every day, until the threat yesterday. Then I waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], I waddled away [waddle waddle waddle], I waddled away [waddle waddle waddle] and I told the DA." Now I'd like to know what this judge will say. Did the duck harass the man, coming every day? Did the man commit a crime, or is he OK this time? 🎶

The song question is a variation of a joke with the punchline being about the proprietor's inability to follow through on the threat made and the duck calling the bluff. In the U.S., generally when one has no ability to follow through with a threat and the threat is so outlandish, most courts would not consider it to constitute a legal threat and would assume the proprietor was being hyperbolic in nature. What's more, the duck returning to clarify the lack of resources to carry out the threat as a sign that not even the duck took it as a threat and he is merely trying to use the legal system to further his harassment of the lemonade stand owner, which most judges in the U.S. do not take kindly to at all (This is called Abuse of Process and generally refers to a pattern of behavior in which one uses the court system to further vex a target and not to actually resolve a legal dispute in a just and equitable manner.). On the other side, it would be hard to enforce a harassment charge against the duck, as the business is a lemonade stand and clearly mobile in it's depiction. As such, the proprietor does not own the property where he does business nor does the duck, so he cannot trespass the duck. His legal options are to move to another area (if the duck still follows, the owner would have a stronger case for harassment, as the owner is trying to avoid the unwelcomed behavior) or, failing that, secure a restraining order or injunction (depending on the jurisdiction) against the duck, which requires the duck to not come within a certain distance of the lemonade stand owner or his business or employees. Considering the nature of the business, we should also consider the age of the owner, as traditionally the average age of lemonade stand owners is such that the owner might not be above the age of criminal liability (that is, the law prevents the owner from being charged with a crime at all because he is two young.). Typically, in the U.S., the Age of Criminal Liability depends on the jurisdiction. North Carolina has the youngest age, which children 6 years old or older can be charged, and Massachusetts has the highest, with only children 12 years and older being liable for crimes. Federally, this age is 11 years old. 28 states have no statutory age of criminal liability, but this might mean case law in the state would provide an age. So depending on the age of the lemonade stand owner and the location of the state, the cops would be unable to affect an arrest. In this case, the cops would likely remand the owner to the custody of his legal guardian with a recommendation of some time in the time-out chair and/or loss of video game privileges (because that's the corrupting media influence these days, right?) at best.

Is it illegal to honk at a police officer in the USA?

Suppose a police car is stopped at a green light and not moving. Is it illegal for me to honk at him? What if I can't drive around him? What if it happens to be a civilian vehicle and a plainclothes officer? Is it illegal in this case? I see several videos of uniformed and plainclothes officers stopping cars for honking at them. As a context I'm giving a link to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAl2UBSgCZU I find this video shocking behavior behavior from the police. But I want to know legally what's allowed and not allowed. Is the police legally allowed to stop at a yield sign for police related business which is a phone call?

england-and-wales In England, the use of a horn when stationary is restricted solely to advise other road users of your presence " at times of danger ". Not spotting that the light has gone green would certainly not fit that description. Use of audible warning instruments 99.—(1) Subject to the following paragraphs, no person shall sound, or cause or permit to be sounded, any horn, gong, bell or siren fitted to or carried on a vehicle which is— (a) stationary on a road, at any time, other than at times of danger due to another moving vehicle on or near the road... The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 The policeman would be well within his rights and duties to provide you with a fixed penalty notice of £30.

Is it illegal to honk at a police officer in the USA?

Suppose a police car is stopped at a green light and not moving. Is it illegal for me to honk at him? What if I can't drive around him? What if it happens to be a civilian vehicle and a plainclothes officer? Is it illegal in this case? I see several videos of uniformed and plainclothes officers stopping cars for honking at them. As a context I'm giving a link to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAl2UBSgCZU I find this video shocking behavior behavior from the police. But I want to know legally what's allowed and not allowed. Is the police legally allowed to stop at a yield sign for police related business which is a phone call?

germany In Germany, the horn can only be used for two reasons: As a signal for overtaking outside of city limits only . As a warning signal for imminent danger. So, in the situation described in the question, it would be illegal to honk at the police officer, but the fact that they are a police officer is actually irrelevant – it would be illegal to honk in that situation, period .

Is it illegal to honk at a police officer in the USA?

Suppose a police car is stopped at a green light and not moving. Is it illegal for me to honk at him? What if I can't drive around him? What if it happens to be a civilian vehicle and a plainclothes officer? Is it illegal in this case? I see several videos of uniformed and plainclothes officers stopping cars for honking at them. As a context I'm giving a link to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAl2UBSgCZU I find this video shocking behavior behavior from the police. But I want to know legally what's allowed and not allowed. Is the police legally allowed to stop at a yield sign for police related business which is a phone call?

france : Yes, unless you are outside a city it is daytime you can convince the cop or the judge that doing so is a "necessary warning for other road users". Not my specialty, but barring extraordinary circumstances, I expect that defense to fail. Code de la Route, articles R416-1 and R416-2 : Hors agglomération, l'usage des avertisseurs sonores n'est autorisé que pour donner les avertissements nécessaires aux autres usagers de la route. En agglomération, l'usage de l'avertisseur sonore n'est autorisé qu'en cas de danger immédiat. (...) De nuit, les avertissements doivent être donnés par l'allumage intermittent soit des feux de croisement, soit des feux de route, les signaux sonores ne devant être utilisés qu'en cas d'absolue nécessité. Outside city limits, klaxon may be used solely to give necessary warning to other road users. [For instance, when driving around a mountainous road, you are supposed to honk when approaching a curve without visibility, so as to warn drivers coming ahead.] Within city limits, klaxon may be used only in case of immediate danger. (...) At night, signals must be given by flashing headlights, klaxons must only be used in case of absolute necessity. Failing to respect those rules is a second-class contravention (currently set at €35). Technically, those apply to any vehicle, including bikes (even if bike klaxons are much less noisy than car klaxons). While in theory it is irrelevant whether there is a cop in the car in front, behind, or sideways of you... I imagine less than 0.1% of wrong klaxon uses are penalized, and all of those occur when a cop was on-site.

What are the consequences of being party to a OFAC prohibited transaction?

The US Treasury has sanctioned Tornado Cash which is a tool for mixing Cryptocurrency. Since the sanctions don't actually stop this tool from working someone has used it to send small amounts of funds to various celebrities . In my understanding these qualify as prohibited transactions as defined by the US treasury which US persons are forbidden from engaging in. For those recipients that are US persons, what are the consequences? Do they have to report those funds? Could they get in any trouble if they just ignore this? Or if they spend those funds?

Could they get in any trouble if they just ignore this? Generally, a gift is not complete until both the donor and the recipient consent to it. If someone purports to give crypto-currency to someone they have no relationship with, and the recipient does not accept the gift, the transaction is not completed and the recipient is not exposed to civil or criminal liability. A person who completely ignored a purported transfer of crypto-currency to them would not have taken acts sufficient to count as acceptance of the gift. Or if they spend those funds? Most sanctions and crimes require the person sanctioned to have some knowledge of the facts that make their actions crimes or subject to sanction. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if the person receiving a small amount of crypto-currency has no knowledge<1> of the facts that would make the transaction a prohibited transaction, this won't generally give rise to sanctions or criminal penalties. <1> Note that, in some circumstances, if there are facts that don't give you actual knowledge of the relevant facts that would let you know that conduct was illegal, but do alert you to the fact that the transaction is suspicious, if a further reasonable investigation of the facts would have revealed that the transaction was illegal, you have "inquiry notice" of the facts. When you have inquiry notice of the facts, you are treated as if you knew what you would have discovered if you'd follow up to investigate the suspicious circumstances. On the other hand, if someone received crypto-currency and spent it, and then didn't check the box on their tax return asking if they had engaged in any crypto-currency transactions, they would be guilty of intentionally filing an inaccurate tax return and could be sanctioned for that. Of course, if the person who received the funds was aware of the entire Tornado Cash situation and knew the facts that would make accepting it and spending it a prohibited transaction (before spending it), then they could be sanctioned.

Can an urgent marriage take place outside under UK law?

UK law has changed in recent years to allow outdoor marriage / civil partnership ceremonies , as long as the land is at a venue approved for the purpose. There is also provision for urgent marriages / civil partnership ceremonies to be at any location at short notice 1 in circumstances where one of the parties is seriously ill, not expected to recover and cannot be moved to a place where a marriage / civil partnership could normally take place. This is known as a marriage by Registrar Generals Licence . Given the other law changes allowing outdoor solemnizations, can such a marriage/civil partnership ceremony take place outside, for example in the garden of the housebound person's home, or the outdoor grounds of the hospice where the sick partner is receiving medical care? 1. These are sometimes collquially called "emergency marriages". See Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals ("...speaking of emergency marriages in hospital..."); Shropshire Council Fee Schedule ("Emergency Marriage/Civil Partnerships by Registrar Generals Licence/Special Procedure"); Oxford University Hospitals—Learning from Feedback ("...asking if I can arrange an emergency marriage for a patient who has only days to live...").

There's nothing in the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 about the location of urgent marriages, other than that you need to satisfy the registrar that you can't make it to a church or civil office . A simple guide would be; If you're talking about simply moving the death-bed outside of the hospice (for example into a hospital garden), then that would be fine. If you're talking about transporting the person in an ambulance to a secondary location such as a park, then that wouldn't be fine. The Registrar General shall not issue any licence for the solemnising of a marriage as is mentioned in subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that one of the persons to be married is seriously ill and is not expected to recover and cannot be moved to a place at which under the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949 (hereinafter called the “principal Act”) the marriage could be solemnised [snip] Any marriage to be solemnised on the authority of the Registrar General’s licence shall be solemnised at the wish of the persons to be married either— (a) according to such form or ceremony, not being the rites or ceremonies of the Church of England or the Church in Wales, as the persons to be married shall see fit to adopt

Can an urgent marriage take place outside under UK law?

UK law has changed in recent years to allow outdoor marriage / civil partnership ceremonies , as long as the land is at a venue approved for the purpose. There is also provision for urgent marriages / civil partnership ceremonies to be at any location at short notice 1 in circumstances where one of the parties is seriously ill, not expected to recover and cannot be moved to a place where a marriage / civil partnership could normally take place. This is known as a marriage by Registrar Generals Licence . Given the other law changes allowing outdoor solemnizations, can such a marriage/civil partnership ceremony take place outside, for example in the garden of the housebound person's home, or the outdoor grounds of the hospice where the sick partner is receiving medical care? 1. These are sometimes collquially called "emergency marriages". See Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals ("...speaking of emergency marriages in hospital..."); Shropshire Council Fee Schedule ("Emergency Marriage/Civil Partnerships by Registrar Generals Licence/Special Procedure"); Oxford University Hospitals—Learning from Feedback ("...asking if I can arrange an emergency marriage for a patient who has only days to live...").

england-and-wales 1 Yes The " emergency marriage ceremony " provisions at section 1 Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 expressly remove the requirement for it to be conducted at an Approved Premises : (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) below, any marriage which may be solemnised on the authority of a marriage schedule may be solemnised on the authority of the Registrar General’s licence elsewhere than at a registered building, the office of a superintendent registrar or approved premises : Provided that any such marriage shall not be solemnised according to the rites of the Church of England or the Church in Wales. (2) The Registrar General shall not issue any licence for the solemnising of a marriage as is mentioned in subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that one of the persons to be married is seriously ill and is not expected to recover and cannot be moved to a place at which under the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949 (hereinafter called the “principal Act”) the marriage could be solemnised ... ... The only requirements (relevant to the question) are for a notice of marriage to be given to the appropriate superintendent registrar, and for the notice to comply with section 9 of the Act: A marriage on the authority of the Registrar General’s licence shall be solemnised in the place stated in the notice of marriage. 1 Although the question asks about the procedures in the united-kingdom , the 1970 Act only extends to england-and-wales . See section 20(3) : This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Can an urgent marriage take place outside under UK law?

UK law has changed in recent years to allow outdoor marriage / civil partnership ceremonies , as long as the land is at a venue approved for the purpose. There is also provision for urgent marriages / civil partnership ceremonies to be at any location at short notice 1 in circumstances where one of the parties is seriously ill, not expected to recover and cannot be moved to a place where a marriage / civil partnership could normally take place. This is known as a marriage by Registrar Generals Licence . Given the other law changes allowing outdoor solemnizations, can such a marriage/civil partnership ceremony take place outside, for example in the garden of the housebound person's home, or the outdoor grounds of the hospice where the sick partner is receiving medical care? 1. These are sometimes collquially called "emergency marriages". See Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals ("...speaking of emergency marriages in hospital..."); Shropshire Council Fee Schedule ("Emergency Marriage/Civil Partnerships by Registrar Generals Licence/Special Procedure"); Oxford University Hospitals—Learning from Feedback ("...asking if I can arrange an emergency marriage for a patient who has only days to live...").

In scotland , which is part of the UK, a marriage can take place outdoors (assuming no other impediment to the location). An emergency marriage is the same. Certain religious bodies may have more specific rules of their own, but the requirements of the law itself are minimal. The Scottish process, whether for a religious or civil marriage, always entails the issue of a Marriage Schedule by the district registrar, which gives permission for the ceremony to take place between the named people, at the given place and time. Normally, the proposed marriage must be publicly advertised for 28 days, to give time for any objections to be registered, but this can be shortened at the discretion of the Registrar General for Scotland - see the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, s.6(4)-(4A) . So an emergency marriage is on the same footing as any other, rather than having a separate procedure. The only difference is convincing the registrars to expedite the request. It is also possible for the registrar to alter the date and location on an existing Schedule, if there are new justifying circumstances, such as a change in someone's medical condition. As far as location, there is a difference between civil and religious marriages. Civil marriages must take place at an "appropriate place", agreed by the parties to the marriage together with the local authority (the council), or else in the registrar's office. This can be indoors, outdoors, on a ship, etc. It can be your own home or garden, but it can't be a church or similar religious building. Each council will have its own policies on what they think is appropriate, which becomes relevant if the desired place isn't commonly used for weddings, but a hospice garden should present no problem in terms of dignity or safety. The government imposes no rules on religious marriages as far as location, but leaves it to the discretion of the celebrant. The idea is that the state has decided some particular religious body is generally trusted to perform marriages in an appropriate way, and so its ministers are able to get on with it. The religion in question might have its own rules which would affect whether a minister/priest/etc. will agree to perform the ceremony. For example, while the Church of Scotland permits its ministers to celebrate marriages anywhere, at their discretion, the Catholic Church does not (but it does have well-established procedures for marriage when one of the couple is terminally ill, including dispensation from normal rules about the ceremony). Jewish ceremonies can happen outdoors - again, if the rabbi agrees - but likely under a chuppah; Sikh wedding logistics regarding the Guru Granth Sahib can be complicated even if the outdoors is possible in principle. Further, the location on the Marriage Schedule is in the nature of a street address rather than anything more specific. A planned outdoor wedding can be moved indoors because of the weather without causing any problem with the paperwork. Similarly, as long as the registrar or celebrant is happy to do so, the marriage ceremony can take place anywhere at the agreed location, including outside. And if the location of the wedding is other than what was specified, that does not affect the validity of the marriage (per a reform in 1980 , extending an original exemption so that all merely procedural defects are now covered). The celebrant may get in trouble for breaking rules - either with the state or with their religious authorities - but in terms of civil law, the couple are in the clear.

In what jurisdictions is trespassing a criminal matter?

In England trespass in itself is an entirely civil matter, but in the US it is apparently a crime. What other jurisdictions treat the fact of having improperly tread on another’s property as a crime?

canada The Criminal Code makes it a summary offence to trespass at night ( s. 177 ) Every person who, without lawful excuse, loiters or prowls at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. And various provincial statutes make it a "regulatory" or "public-welfare" offence to trespass (e.g. Trespass Act , R.S.B.C. 2018, c. 3 , s. 2; Protection of Property Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 363 , s. 3(1)).

In what jurisdictions is trespassing a criminal matter?

In England trespass in itself is an entirely civil matter, but in the US it is apparently a crime. What other jurisdictions treat the fact of having improperly tread on another’s property as a crime?

In England trespass in itself is an entirely civil matter. This has exceptions. This site by claims.co.uk says Criminal trespass Since 2012, it is a criminal offence to trespass in residential property, effectively criminalising squatting. Under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 it is an offence for someone to be in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered as a trespasser; and that person knows or ought to know that they are a trespasser; and they are living in the building or intend to live there for any period. The police have powers to permit forced entry and arrest for this offence. On conviction, an individual may be jailed for up to 51 weeks, or receive a fine up to level 5. As for the 'travelling community' setting up on public or private land, this article in the UK House of Common Library states: Section 61 of the CJPO Act enables senior officers to direct those in an unauthorised encampment to leave land if they are in an encampment that consists of six or more vehicles... ... Failure to comply with a police direction to leave is an offence. This is why most trespassing encampments rarely consist of more than 5 caravans.

In what jurisdictions is trespassing a criminal matter?

In England trespass in itself is an entirely civil matter, but in the US it is apparently a crime. What other jurisdictions treat the fact of having improperly tread on another’s property as a crime?

Trespass is indeed a criminal offense in every U.S. jurisdiction of which I am aware, in addition to being a tort that can be enforced in a lawsuit without involving the criminal justice process. For example, in Colorado, which is typical, trespass can be: first-degree trespassing (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-502), second-degree trespassing (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-503), or third-degree trespassing (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-504). As noted in the final link above: Colorado Revised Statute § 18-4-504 defines third-degree trespass as unlawfully entering or remaining on another’s property that is not enclosed or fenced. Third-degree trespass is typically a Colorado petty offense, carrying up to 10 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $300. First and second degree trespass involves different kinds of property and aggravating factors. Many countries in Europe have a " right to roam " which legalizes, and immunizes people doing it from civil and criminal liability, what is called "third-degree trespassing" in Colorado, but not trespassing in buildings or fenced or enclosed areas. But, in Colorado, the right to roam is limited to travel on rivers and streams and lakes when you do not touch the steam bed or lake bed (i.e. the " right to float ") established in the state constitution. As Wikipedia explains at this link: In Scotland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Austria, the Czech Republic and Switzerland, the freedom to roam takes the form of general public rights which are sometimes codified in law. The access is ancient in parts of Northern Europe and has been regarded as sufficiently fundamental that it was not formalised in law until modern times. However, the right usually does not include any substantial economic exploitation, such as hunting or logging, or disruptive activities, such as making fires and driving offroad vehicles. In the Western United States, the lack of a right to roam is mitigated by the fact that a very large percentage of all land is publicly owned. A majority of land is federal land in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, and Oregon. None federal public lands probably tip this over to a majority in Wyoming and California as well. For example, a large share of cattle grazing is done on public lands for which ranchers rent grazing rights, rather than on private lands, so it is not trespassing to enter onto that land. The map below shows the percentage of federal land in each state, but omits state and local and Indian Reservation public lands. ( Source ) There is very little public land, in contrast, in all but a few states in the Eastern United States.

Is it legal to intentionally wait before filing a copyright lawsuit to maximize profits?

Let's say someone uses my intellectual property without my consent and uses it for commercial purposes. Can I wait until they've made many millions of dollars off of my work, so that I can sue and take a large portion of or all of that money? This takes place in the United States

Equitable remedies such as disgorgement (recovery of profits) are typically subject to equitable bars to recovery such as laches . Laches reflects the maxim that "equity aids the vigilant and not the idolent" ( Snell's Equity , § 5). The doctrine of laches gives a court discretion to bar a claim when the plaintiff unreasonably delays bringing a claim. It is certainly "legal" for a plaintiff to sit on a potential claim for any amount of time before actually filing suit, but I take it you are asking whether such behaviour would limit the amount recoverable by disgorgement of profits under the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court answered this in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. , 572 U.S. 663 (2014). The Court said that given the statutory three-year limitations period in the Copyright Act, laches typically play no role . The concerns about delays normally handled by laches were considered by Congress and reflected in the three-year limitations period ( p. 685 ): That regime leaves "little place" for a doctrine that would further limit the timeliness of a copyright owner's suit. However, in extraordinary circumstances , laches may still play a role . The Court gave two examples: Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc. , 474 F. 3d 227 (CA6 2007): defendants were alleged to be using architectural designs without permission, in violation of the plaintiffs' copyright; the plaintiffs were aware of the building projects but took "no steps to halt the housing development until more than 168 units were built"; the Court of Appeals found that the order sought by the plaintiffs that the houses be destroyed was barred by laches, even though the lawsuit was brought within the three-year limitation period. New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co. , 873 F. 2d 576, 584–585 (CA2 1989): plaintiffs were aware for two years of a book being published in violation of their copyright; the Court of Appeals held that laches barred the injunctive relief of destruction, but allowed a damages remedy. The Court distinguished the remedy sought by Petrella from that sought in Chirco and New Era . In Chirco and New Era , the plaintiffs were seeking destruction of the works. The plaintiff Petrella was seeking only disgorgement. The Court said ( p. 687 ): the circumstances here may or may not (we need not decide) warrant limiting relief at the remedial stage, but they are not sufficiently extraordinary to justify threshold dismissal. Should Petrella ultimately prevail on the merits, the District Court, in determining the appropriate injunctive relief and assessing profits, may take account of her delay in commencing suit. In doing so, however, that court should closely examine MGM's alleged reliance on Petrella's delay. This examination should take account of MGM's early knowledge of Petrella's claims, the protection MGM might have achieved through pursuit of a declaratory judgment action, the extent to which MGM's investment was protected by the separate-accrual rule, the court's authority to order injunctive relief “on such terms as it may deem reasonable,” § 502(a), and any other considerations that would justify adjusting injunctive relief or profits. That paragraph emphasizes that in equity, remedies and defences are discretionary and flexible. My reading is that: it would have to be quite extraordinary for a disgorgement remedy under the Copyright Act to be completely barred due to laches; and if the court came to believe that the delay was intentional and with the purpose of trying to run up the disgorgement amount, it may exercise its discretion to reduce the amount that is recoverable.

How is derivative text material copyrighted within an older manuscript?

This is an addendum to to a previous question: How is the copyright of the derivative work dated? For example; an author writes a book in 2009 and in 2020, re-edits the book with new material. Does this new material benefit from the earlier copyright? What if the author is suspected of infringement with this new material only, in 2021, by a second author who published his work in 2015? Is the first author accountable to the second? How can it be proven if all the old copies have been removed from the shelves?

united-states The author of a derivative work only gets a copyright on content that is original to the derivative work. There is no new copyright on content from the source work. The author of a revised edition only gets a new copyright on new content in the revised edition (provided that it is original). This used to be more important when a copyright term was calculated from the year of publication. Now it is important only in edge cases, such as when it is claimed that the new content was copied from another work, and is infringing. The date of publication is now less important because the copyright in most things that a specific author writes expires at the same time: 70 years after he or she dies (works published anonymously and works made for hire are exceptions to this rule). The relevant US law is 17 USC 103 , which provides that: (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. If Author A writes and has published a book in 2009, A owns the copyright on it (unless A sells or transfers it). Let us suppose that Author B writes a different book on a related subject in 2015, and then A publishes a revised edition of the 2009 book in 2020. In 2021 B accuses A of having copied content from the 2015 book without permission, and incorporating such infringing content into the 2020 edition. A claims that this content was already present in the 2009 edition. How can A prove this defense? Commercial publishers pretty much always retain a few copies of every edition, even if a newer edition is the only one offered for sale. In any case, a commercially published US book will essentially always be registered with the Copyright office, whch means that a copy will have been sent to the Library of Congress, and that copy can be checked. Moreover, B is not likely to even file such a suit unless B's lawyers have a copy of the 2009 edition and can show that the copied content was not found in it. If it were proved to the satisfaction of a court that A had, in the 2020 edition, copied from B's 2015 book, A would be liable for damages to B, the amount determined by the court, and B could also get an injunction stopping distribution of the 2020 edition. Laws in other countries on these points are generally similar.

Does being overturned on appeal have consequences for the careers of trial judges?

Would a 95% rate of being overturned on appeal have any effect on a judge's career?

canada The mere fact of being frequently overturned on appeal would only have reputational consequences and secondary effects on career advancement (not suggesting these are minor effects). But being overturned at a rate of 95% suggests that the judge might not be conducting themselves with integrity or not being diligent in the performance of their judicial duties. These are two core ethical principles set out by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). (However, the CJC is clear that these principles "do not set out standards for defining judicial misconduct.") Depending on what is leading the judge to such a high rate of appellate intervention, the underlying cause may warrant removal. The possible reasons that the CJC can recommend a judge to be removed are listed at s. 65(2)(a) to (d) of the Judges Act : Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of (a) age or infirmity, (b) having been guilty of misconduct, (c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or (d) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office, the Council, in its report to the Minister under subsection (1), may recommend that the judge be removed from office. For some examples where the CJC recommended removal of a judge, see: the Report to the Minister of Justice re: Paul Cosgrove (2009) (in which the CJC declined to consider whether serious incompetence could be a ground for removal; instead basing the recommendation for removal on serious misconduct that was damaging to the administration of jusice and the public's confidence in the judiciary); the Report to the Minister of Justice re: Robin Camp (2017) .

Does being overturned on appeal have consequences for the careers of trial judges?

Would a 95% rate of being overturned on appeal have any effect on a judge's career?

united-states Does being overturned on appeal have consequences for the careers of trial judges? In general no. Indeed, federal judges serve for life. And, judges in some state courts serve for life, or serve until a majority of voters vote to not allow them to serve another term, or they are impeached or reach a mandatory retirement age. Merely making lots of incorrect decisions that are reversed on appeal isn't even a ground for impeaching a judge, although an impeachment decision of the legislature (which is exceedingly rare) is not subject to judicial review. Would a 95% rate of being overturned on appeal have any effect on a judge's career? It is unthinkable that a judge who had 95% of his or her trial court decisions overturned on appeal wasn't also guilty of other serious misconduct that could have the judge removed from office or impeached. I can only think of two judges ever, in all time, who have had that kind of track record. It just doesn't happen outside a pervasively corrupt organized crime relationship. The one case I can think of that approached that level involved two rural Pennsylvania juvenile judges who were bribed to convict kids who were innocent or guilty of only minor crimes, and send them to juvenile prison by a private prison operator (the judges and the private prison operator were both later convicted of multiple felonies and the judges were also kicked off the bench and disbarred and successfully sued for about $206 million by the 300 or so victims of the scheme). After the fact, all of these judges' convictions were overturned in a collateral attack on the convictions (even though most of the kids who were convicted were guilty of at least something anyway), but even then, only a tiny percentage of the cases were appealed immediately (i.e., before the corruption scandal was revealed), and only some of those direct appeals from the juvenile convictions prevailed. Typically, about 10% of a judge's final orders, plus or minus, are appealed and about 30%-70% of them are overturned on appeal (so, 3-7% of their final orders are ultimately overturned on appeal). Appeal rates are higher for criminal cases, but success rates on appeal are lower. Appeal rates are lower for civil cases, but success rates on appeal are higher. But, if, for example, a judge final orders were only appealed 2% of them and 95% of the case appealed were reversed on appeal, that would actually be an exceptionally good track record. Almost always, if someone appeals a case and it is reversed on appeal, the case is sent back to the same judge after the appeal to do what the appellate court told the judge to do. But in perhaps 1 in 5,000 or 1 in 10,000 appeals, the appellate court orders that the judge be removed from that particular case. Usually this happens when the judge is reversed on appeal the first time, the case goes back to the judge, and the judge then defiantly disregards what the judge was told by the appellate case to do so the case is successfully appealed again. The other scenario that comes up, usually long before it gets very extreme, is that an older judge begins to get Alzheimer's or some similar form of dementia, and begins to make more, and more obvious mistakes, or stops showing up to work. In the most state courts, in this fact pattern, a judge can be removed for having a disability that prevents the judge from doing the judge's job, if the judge doesn't voluntarily step down after strong persuasion from judicial regulatory officials and fellow judges (which is what happens the vast majority of the time in this fact pattern). It is harder to force a judge to resign for disability in this fact pattern in the federal system, and indeed, one such case involving a 96 year old federal judge is currently playing out in the federal courts right now. It is unclear how it will be resolved. N.B. In common law countries that strong default rule is that a case that is reversed on appeal is returned to the same judge if it has to be remanded for further trial court action as noted above. In most civil law legal systems, such as those of continental Europe, the default rule is that a case that is reversed on appeal is assigned to different judges for further proceedings in the trial court following the reversal on appeal, if further trial court proceedings are necessary. U.S. and Non-U.S. Judicial Career Paths Compared In almost all civil law countries, and in most common law countries, the judiciary is a career that one moves up the ladder in after being appointed in a civil service merit based appointment system. In these systems, if you managed to get hired in competitive merit based applications for judgeships at all, you start as a judge handling small claims cases and petty criminal matters and you work your way up over time to a general jurisdiction trial court that handles the most serious matters and then to the appellate courts. And, non-lawyer judges are not allowed (except as "lay judges" who confer together with professional judges on a single case basis in serious criminal cases as quasi-jurors). Thus, in most countries, the likelihood that a grossly incompetent judge who constantly makes incorrect legal rulings gets appointed in the first place, or that such a judge moves up beyond the lowest level limited jurisdiction court, is very low indeed (barring later in life disability for some reason or another, or corruption). This is not the way that the judgeships in the U.S. are filled, so the damage that a high reversal rate might due to a judge's potential for career advancement in Canada or England or France or Japan or Germany is not nearly so significant a factor in the U.S. The typical process in the U.S. is for a lawyer to be distinguished in a career as a lawyer and also politically connected, and then to either run for office as a judge in an election, or to obtain a political appointment as a judge to a particular court. Many low level elected judges in the U.S. (thousands of them since some big states like New York and Texas select their low level judges called justice of the peace on this basis) are not even lawyers. Often, a lawyer's first judicial post will be as a general jurisdiction trial court lawyer or as an appellate court lawyer, despite having no prior judicial experience. U.S. Supreme Court judges often have prior experience (often brief) as a federal U.S. District Court or U.S. Court of Appeals or state supreme court judge, but this isn't a requirement and there have been many exceptions to that rule over the years. The vast majority of U.S. judges appointed to serve as judges on a particular court will never serve as a judge on any other court later in their career. Working up the career ladder of courts from less important ones to more important ones, which is the predominant norm in most of the world, is the exception to the rule in the U.S. judicial system.

Ways to avoid a running Naturalization application being forwarded to another municipality/city

I have recently made a Naturalization application in Germany (1 month ago) in Bayern and am about to Move to Berlin in 2 months. And after I do the anmeldung my application will also be forwarded to the Berlin office. This appears quite hopeless to me since in Berlin my request will not be even looked at before the end of this year due to the centralization of the Einburgerung office in Berlin. Let alone normal cases, Berlin also has a significantly durable process on this topic compared to other cities, and can take years instead of months. My question is, can you please suggest a few ways to me to keep my application running in Bayern not to be transferred to Berlin? Because otherwise, it would be really hopeless... --Possible ways that I have thought of so far is mentioning my place in Berlin as a Zweitwohnsitz, but I doubt I can find a landlord to accept doing the Anmeldung with me in Bayern while I don't live there, and don't know about potential risks. Another option also not doing Anmeldiung for a while...

This answer is based on a legal greyzone and Berlin's notoriously inefficient bureaucracy. As @Trish noted, you are legally required to register your new residence within two weeks § 17 BMG . In some (most?) German states you can just walk into a Bürgeramt and register your new residence so it is perfectly straightforward to do that within two weeks and that is expected. This is not the case in Berlin, you need to get an appointment to register and these are hard to get. I just searched online for Bürgeramt in Berlin, picked one and then you can choose the service your want (register new residence) and look at the available appointments. Right now on July 7th there were appointments available on exactly one date, September 1st. Note that this is nowhere near within two weeks. To my knowledge, if you have an appointment at the Bürgeramt to register your new residence than current legal opinion is that you did fullfill the two weeks requirement regardless of when the appointment actually is. After all it is not your fault if the city doesn't offer a faster registration.

Ways to avoid a running Naturalization application being forwarded to another municipality/city

I have recently made a Naturalization application in Germany (1 month ago) in Bayern and am about to Move to Berlin in 2 months. And after I do the anmeldung my application will also be forwarded to the Berlin office. This appears quite hopeless to me since in Berlin my request will not be even looked at before the end of this year due to the centralization of the Einburgerung office in Berlin. Let alone normal cases, Berlin also has a significantly durable process on this topic compared to other cities, and can take years instead of months. My question is, can you please suggest a few ways to me to keep my application running in Bayern not to be transferred to Berlin? Because otherwise, it would be really hopeless... --Possible ways that I have thought of so far is mentioning my place in Berlin as a Zweitwohnsitz, but I doubt I can find a landlord to accept doing the Anmeldung with me in Bayern while I don't live there, and don't know about potential risks. Another option also not doing Anmeldiung for a while...

Don't move. Your application is by law to be handled by the office that is responsible for your primary place of residence. The only lawful way to keep your primary place of residence at your old residence is to not move your primary place of residence. Not (starting the process of) informing Berlin within two weeks that you are now a resident is violating § 17 BMG. Also, claiming a secondary residence when it is your first is a violation of § 21 BMG . § 54 BMG regulates that it is a misdemeanor to not handle the Anmeldung properly.

Is an unauthorised appropriation with simultaneous deposit of another value a theft? &#127851;

Today I tried to explain to my daughter what the saying "opportunity makes the thief" means. My example: Someone forgets his expensive chocolate 20 euros on a table in the park. You see the chocolate and, of all things, you have a big appetite for chocolate. Because the chocolate is lying on the table so unobserved, the temptation to eat the chocolate immediately is great. But my daughter said she wouldn't do that. After a moment's thought, she said she would put 20 euros on the table and then eat the chocolate and leave a note saying that the chocolate tasted very good. Now I was irritated. Is that actually theft? I suppose if the owner of the chocolate sees the note and accepts the 20 euros, it would be a legal transaction, wouldn't it?

This is theft. While theft is defined in different ways in different places, the heartland of theft is "larceny" which involves knowingly taking property without permission of the owner, with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property taken. In general, one of the defining qualities of something that is "property" is that it can't be transferred without the permission of the owner, except in narrowly defined circumstances where the government authorizes a taking. In a very different but analogous context, if a lawyer takes money held in trust for a client out of the client's trust account with the lawyer, without a valid legal basis for doing so, even if the lawyer intends to and does replace the funds in the trust account later, the lawyer is guilty of a crime. Unintentional Conversion Compared If you accidentally and unknowingly take someone else's property, for example, taking the wrong coat from a coat rack, or taking the wrong umbrella, and that item is later destroyed, you have committed the civil wrong (a.k.a. the tort) of conversion, but you haven't committed a crime. Crime usually (but not always) involves acts committed with a bad intent. But taking someone else's property on purpose, without their permission, is the crime of theft and not just a tort. Implied Consent To A Purchase Compared The situation would be different, however, if there is implied permission to purchase the item taken from the person who owns it. For example, suppose you walk into a convenience store which sells 20 euro candy bars, but there is no one available to sell it to you because the sole employee of the store is hung over and vomiting in the store's toilet. If you take the candy bar and leave a 20 euro bill at the cash register, you have not committed theft, because in that context, the owner of the property has implicitly consented to sell the candy bar to any member of the general public who wants to buy it for the stated price. Similarly, this is why buying candy from a vending machine isn't theft. Abandonment Compared Also, it is important to distinguish property that has been abandoned by the owner, to which a "finder's keepers" rule generally applies, to property which there is no indication that the owner intended to abandon. So, if someone throws something in the trash, or simply leaves what would generally be thought to be trash in public, like a bag of dog poop, that would not generally be theft, since a reasonable person would assume that the property had been abandoned and no longer had an owner.

Are complaints to hospital administration PHI under HIPAA&#39;s Privacy Rule

Paul has heart surgery. While he's recovering, staff is constantly distracted by their phones and fails to check in on him at required intervals, administer medication on time, and provide medically recommended therapy. Before he checks out, Paul sees that the hospital's website has a form for making a complaint to hospital administration. Paul fills it out and notes all the information above. The hospital's CEO reads the form, disciplines all the staff identified, and takes no further action with it. To what extent is the form covered by HIPAA's Privacy Rule? I'm looking for answers supported by law addressing similar facts.

PHI is health information that is individually identifiable. Any record, even a post-it note, can be PHI. In this case, the complaint form is PHI if it contains the patient's name or other identifier along with the details of treatment. When PHI is held by a covered entity, including the hospital CEO, it is protected by HIPAA privacy regulations.

Is it legally possible to bring an untested vaccine to market (in USA)?

Here Neil DeGrasse Tyson says there was testing and a system in place assuring the safe production of the new vaccines. He addresses people who have claimed there was no testing. That got me curious about the process so I did some research. Looking to fill in some gaps. Could the new mRNA vaccines have come to market without any testing? I keep hearing claims that the new Covid vaccines weren't tested before being brought to market, and that there's a law eliminating all liability, both criminal and civil, in the emergency situation. Lacking legal incentives to test, Pfizer, Moderna, and the rest did not, so it is claimed. My own research suggests otherwise, perhaps on a technicality, but I'm no lawyer. Best I can tell, limited liability for vaccine manufacturers comes from the 2005 law PREPA . It still allows for prosecuting "willful misconduct". Am I right to take that to mean criminal liability is still on the table? From what I can tell, an effort is made to rein in what qualifies as "willful misconduct" which could potentially reduce even criminal liability to nothing. It's also been said that those potentially hurt by an emergency vaccine have no recourse when injured. From what I can tell, they may have no legal recourse but VICP and CICP of The Healthcare Systems Bureau will compensate people. This happens rarely and with a pittance, so arguably doesn't exist. If there are no legal consequences, what reason would pharmaceutical companies have to conduct clinical trials before going to market? A gesture of good faith? I can't tell if companies are legally required to test before going to market. Is there a specific law about that?

Could the new mRNA vaccines have come to market without any testing? No. The FDA still has to approve emergency limited approvals of new vaccines. At least as a practical matter, the FDA requires some testing to grant this approval, although not the full testing regime of a non-emergency application for a new vaccine or drug approval. FDA approval is the limiting principle that prevents emergency drug approval from being used recklessly despite a lack of civil liability. I know this from news reports about the COVID vaccine approval process and can't cite chapter and verse of the relevant statutes. If there are no legal consequences, what reason would pharmaceutical companies have to conduct clinical trials before going to market? Drug companies have to get FDA approval for every single product they make. If they act in bad faith to get emergency approval, the FDA will not treat them well in the future and could even revoke their authority to manufacture any drugs going forward. Also, keep in mind that vaccines are not particularly high profit margin products for drug companies.

Is it legally possible to bring an untested vaccine to market (in USA)?

Here Neil DeGrasse Tyson says there was testing and a system in place assuring the safe production of the new vaccines. He addresses people who have claimed there was no testing. That got me curious about the process so I did some research. Looking to fill in some gaps. Could the new mRNA vaccines have come to market without any testing? I keep hearing claims that the new Covid vaccines weren't tested before being brought to market, and that there's a law eliminating all liability, both criminal and civil, in the emergency situation. Lacking legal incentives to test, Pfizer, Moderna, and the rest did not, so it is claimed. My own research suggests otherwise, perhaps on a technicality, but I'm no lawyer. Best I can tell, limited liability for vaccine manufacturers comes from the 2005 law PREPA . It still allows for prosecuting "willful misconduct". Am I right to take that to mean criminal liability is still on the table? From what I can tell, an effort is made to rein in what qualifies as "willful misconduct" which could potentially reduce even criminal liability to nothing. It's also been said that those potentially hurt by an emergency vaccine have no recourse when injured. From what I can tell, they may have no legal recourse but VICP and CICP of The Healthcare Systems Bureau will compensate people. This happens rarely and with a pittance, so arguably doesn't exist. If there are no legal consequences, what reason would pharmaceutical companies have to conduct clinical trials before going to market? A gesture of good faith? I can't tell if companies are legally required to test before going to market. Is there a specific law about that?

No. If you plan to sell any pharmaceutical products in the US, you have three choices. Go through the FDA's New Drug application process. Sell it without FDA approval, which is a felony. You risk going to jail for a long time and paying a hefty fine. Give up on the US market altogether. But most significant markets have an equally onerous process. BTW, the FDA aren't stupid, or willfully obstructive, whatever snake-oil merchants might claim. If urgency is justified, there are mechanisms such as the Orphan Drug Program to expedite development and approval.

Getting an EIN number for a Trust and Section 645

A person dies with a revocable trust that becomes irrevocable after the person's death. The trustee of the irrevocable trust wants to get an EIN number. If in the process of getting the EIN number he/she selects to have the trust file under Section 645 does that eliminate the need to file a separate tax return for the trust? That is, the income for the trust can be reported on the estate's income tax return. Bob Sherry

If the trust's income is reported under the estate given an election under 26 U.S.C. § 645, it does not need to apply for a second EIN while the estate continues to exist.

How and when did trespass become a crime, or not a crime?

principally interested in the us and in England, but what are the origins of trespass being treated as not a crime in England, and conversely as a crime in the U.S.? As with terminology for civil burdens of truth? How did they diverge or who diverged from whom?

There hasn't really been any such divergence. The elements may vary, but trespass can be prosecuted both civilly and criminally in both jurisdictions.

How could submarine tours (or similar activities) in international waters be regulated?

After the recent Oceangate Titan submersible disaster, much attention has been drawn to the fact that there was no requirement for licensing or certification, due to operating in international waters. It has been said that Oceangate operated in a "regulatory no man's land" and that the results of an investigation may be of limited value, since no government has the jurisdiction to implement practical changes in the rules. I imagine that there are ways to regulate such activities. For instance, countries can make it illegal for a ship offering unlicensed deep-sea exploration tours to dock in its ports. (Of course, this can be circumvented by using a different country as a starting point). Another measure might be to "sanction" a company, i.e. to prohibit the selling of parts or technology to a company offering uncertified ocean tours, which could be effective if most of the world's developed countries were on board. However, I say all this as someone who knows nothing of the relevant laws/treaties/practices. What do experts on this subject think? For example, do you think that the results of an investigation into the Titan disaster could lead to practical changes?

Let's start with the bottom: For example, do you think that the results of an investigation into the Titan disaster could lead to practical changes? Yes, but it will depend on who does the investigation: The police or the responsive maritime safety board (the National Transportation Safety Board in the US). The police can present charges e.g. for negligent manslaughter, but the Transportation Safety Board cannot. Their job is to present ideas on how to improve the security of transportation, not to apportion blame. there was no requirement for licensing or certification, due to operating in international waters. I would contest that. It is true that the open ocean is no-mans-land and you can do whatever you want there, unless it is against international law. And there are international regulations regulating the safety of shipping anywhere on the world. The must important such regulation is called SOLAS ( International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea ). And all vessels need to adhere to it, at least in as far as the rules apply to them. The "flag state" is responsible that any vessel flying its flag are in compliance with these regulations. Honestly, I'm no SOLAS expert, so I don't know what happens if a vessel doesn't comply to it. It is probably true that they won't be allowed to enter or leave a port if the non-compliance in any point is detected. Interesting fact: The first version of the SOLAS convention was established as a result of the Titanic disaster. Yet still people die as a result of her sinking, even 111 years after the fact... The "flag state" is the state whichever flag the vessel flies. In the case of the Titan, this appears to be the US. So the US can indeed enforce the operator is in compliance with any safety regulations. Also, anyone on board a vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of said flag. So on board the Titan (and it's mother ship) the US jurisdiction is applicable. That means that the US police can indeed start an investigation and charge someone for manslaughter. Of course, as always, they can only charge living people. And the heirs of the deceased may sue the operator in the US.

How could submarine tours (or similar activities) in international waters be regulated?

After the recent Oceangate Titan submersible disaster, much attention has been drawn to the fact that there was no requirement for licensing or certification, due to operating in international waters. It has been said that Oceangate operated in a "regulatory no man's land" and that the results of an investigation may be of limited value, since no government has the jurisdiction to implement practical changes in the rules. I imagine that there are ways to regulate such activities. For instance, countries can make it illegal for a ship offering unlicensed deep-sea exploration tours to dock in its ports. (Of course, this can be circumvented by using a different country as a starting point). Another measure might be to "sanction" a company, i.e. to prohibit the selling of parts or technology to a company offering uncertified ocean tours, which could be effective if most of the world's developed countries were on board. However, I say all this as someone who knows nothing of the relevant laws/treaties/practices. What do experts on this subject think? For example, do you think that the results of an investigation into the Titan disaster could lead to practical changes?

The assumption is incorrect All merchant vessels (which includes any vessel carrying paying passengers) is subject to the SOLAS convention (Safety of Life at Sea) ratified by 167 states including the United States and Canada. Most of the states that haven’t ratified are landlocked. While this is not directly applicable to the submersible, as equipment carried on a covered vessel, it’s up to the flag state to decide if this equipment met the standards. One imagines they will look closer in future.