Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Deduplicated

like 0

Question on intellectual property and contracts

Alice invents a widget and receives a U.S. patent for her invention. In return for payment, she grants Bob an exclusive license to manufacture and sell the widget. Carol decides to make knock-off widgets without permission from Alice. Alice decides that, for a number of practical reasons, it's not worth pursuing a claim against Carol. Now, does Bob have a claim against Alice for not enforcing his exclusivity? Does he have a claim against Carol?

does Bob have a claim against Alice for not enforcing his exclusivity? Does he have a claim against Carol? The licensee primarily has a claim against the infringer of the patent, but see Ind. Wireless Co. v. Radio Corp. , 269 U.S. 459, 468 (1926) : The presence of the owner of the patent as a party is indispensable not only to give jurisdiction under the patent laws but also, in most cases, to enable the alleged infringer to respond in one action to all claims of infringement for his act [...] which is why [i]f the owner of a patent, being within the jurisdiction, refuses or is unable to join an exclusive licensee as co-plaintiff, the licensee may make him a party defendant by process and he will be lined up by the court in the party character which he should assume. Id at 469 . That "party character" would be co-plaintiff. See Gentesix v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Texas Sys. , 966 F.3d 1316, 1323 (2020) : [A] patentee who refuses to voluntarily join an infringement action initiated by its exclusive licensee can ordinarily be joined as an involuntary plaintiff under Rule 19(a). For Bob to have a claim against the owner of the patent, the terms of the license agreement would need to establish the owner's responsibility. For instance, Ind. at 469 notes that exclusive licenses frequently contain express covenants by the patent-owner and licensor to sue infringers that expressly cast upon the former the affirmative duty of initiating and bearing the expense of the litigation. This reflects that the owner a priori has no duty toward the licensee in regard to enforcement of exclusivity.

Do patent royalties date from the date of filing?

Alice invents a widget, files patent; it gets granted after a couple of years. Meanwhile, Bob has copied the widget and been selling many units of his copy. Alice and Bob reach a license agreement whereby the latter will pay the former a royalty per unit sold. By law and custom, are back royalties due back to the date the patent was filed? Or do they only apply forward from when the patent was granted? And have the rules for this been the same since the patent system started, or have they changed over the years? The jurisdiction I'm concerned about is the US, if it makes a difference.

You mention an agreement between Bob and Alice. Since it is not court imposed it could have any provision that they both agreed to. But custom would not likely result in royalties from the day of filing. A more answerable version of the question is what is Alice entitled to under law? Back royalties would be from the date of grant plus possibly royalties on units that fall under something called provisional rights. These would be units sold after the application is published but before the patent was granted. Since 2000 U.S. applications are published by the patent office 18 months after the earliest filing date. Alice is only entitled to this if a claim in the published application is substantially the same as a claim that made it through the process to be in the granted patent. There is also a requirement that Bob be put on notice regarding the provisional rights. Applications have only been published in the US for a couple of decades so no provisional rights would have existed before publication came into being in 2000. Note - this has nothing to do with provisional patent applications.

Child pornography and pictures of oneself

Alice is 30 and lives in the EU. When she was underage (say 14) she willfully took photos and videos of herself masturbating and/or performing explicit sexual acts. She still has those photos on her computer. Situation A: She is charged with an unrelated crime (e.g. fraud) and her computer is searched by the police, who find the files. Situation B: She now uploads those files to an American website, and sells them to get money from pedophiles willing to see them. Situation C: She willfully uploaded those pictures to the Internet when she was 16, without asking money for them. The pictures are now public, uploaded to servers in many different countries, and she is OK with it. In what cases and to what extent would she be liable for child pornography related offences?

"The EU" is a lot of different jurisdictions, and laws vary between them. The following answer applies to the UK. A: Alice is guilty of making and possessing indecent images of a child. The fact that the child was herself is irrelevant, as are her current feelings on the subject. The "making" offence was committed when she was under 18, so for that she would be treated as a child, but the possession offence would be be charged at her current age. If Alice has made recent copies of the pictures, for instance by moving her files to another computer, then she is guilty of "making" as an adult. B: As with "A", but with increased penalties for publishing it. C: As with "B", except that the offence was committed when she was under 18.

Does an email hop in the US count as an international data transfer?

Alice is a data subject, Bob Inc. is a data controller processing her PII, both located in the UK. In responding to a subject access request, Bob Inc. sends some PII in plain text in an email. Examining the headers Alice finds that the email has gone via the US, apparently Microsoft's servers perhaps because Bob Inc. uses their mail service. Has an international data transfer taken place such that CHAPTER V of the GDPR applies?

An email hop? Probably not a transfer. A data controller using an US-based email service? Very likely to be a restricted transfer. The ICO's guide on international transfers explains that there must be a recipient in the target country in order for something to be a Chapter V transfer. One of their examples is relevant: Transfer does not mean the same as transit. If personal data is just electronically routed through a non-UK country but the transfer is actually from one UK organisation to another, then it is not a restricted transfer. Example: Personal data is transferred from a controller in the UK to another controller in the UK via a server in Australia. There is no intention that the personal data will be accessed or manipulated while it is in Australia. Therefore there is no restricted transfer. But just because the it's not an international transfer doesn't mean this plaintext email is legal. Regardless of whether data is being transferred internationally, the data controller has an obligation to implement “appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk” (Art 32), in particular encryption if it is appropriate. But whether and which kind of encryption is appropriate depends entirely on context. Your question suggests that “Bob Inc. uses [Microsoft's] mail service”. Then, things are more difficult. We can't necessarily argue that the email is just being routed via an US-based server. It is probably more correct to argue that the email service is acting as a data processor on behalf of Bob Inc. Since there's now a US recipient that performs processing of the email (such as storage on these servers), a transfer would have taken place. Then, Bob Inc as the data controller and data exporter must safeguard this transfer. The EU–US Privacy Shield adequacy decision was invalidated (before Exit Day) and Standard Contractual clauses are not sufficient by themselves. However, the ICO is in the process of writing guidance on new International Data Transfer Agreements (IDTA) that can be used in place of the old SCCs.

Can a marriage be dissolved between Alice and Bob under California law?

Alice is a national of Afghanistan, Bob is of Afghanistan and the U.S.. Bob gained U.S. citizenship as a result of having been in the employ of the U.S. military as a translator and subsequently having been provided refugee status and lived in the U.S. for sufficient time. Bob has a well-founded fear to enter Afghanistan; Bob may be killed. Alice lives in Afghanistan, Bob in California, and they get married. The marriage is arranged remotely due to COVID and/or for Bob’s fear for his life , and they are made husband and wife under Afghanistan law. Alice moves to California and eventually becomes a citizen of the U.S. herself. Alice and Bob become father and mother of children each becoming a dual citizen. May a court of the State of California or the U.S. dissolve the marriage if either one of them files for divorce at? May the one keeping the children after divorce seek child support at a California or U.S. court? Can a court of Afghanistan adjudicate either matters under California and not Afghanistan’s law? Edit: Some questions and comments required clarity for this hypo; added more substance.

If both parties are legal, permanent residents of California, their marriage is recognized under Californian law no matter where it originated (provided that the marriage doesn’t violate Californian law, e.g. if Alice were a minor). Alice and Bob would file for divorce in California and the matter would be adjudicated under a Californian court and under Californian law. After these proceedings, Alice and Bob would still be married in Afghanistan (and maybe other foreign countries? That’s a tricky question, so if someone else can figure it out please leave a comment!) but the US would cease to recognize the marriage. In no case would either a Californian or Afghan court make a ruling under the other’s laws. As far as child custody, property, etc. the divorce would essentially proceed as a normal divorce case, although things could become complicated if Alice and Bob own property in Afghanistan, which would usually still be able to be appropriated by a Californian court but, once again, the matter is complex since Afghanistan still recognizes the marriage. As you can tell, a divorce of this nature is not as complicated as one might think, but nevertheless could create some complicated legal situations. Also, marriage is regulated state-by-state, so other states may have different rules regarding foreign marriages. As always, the best path of action is to consult an attorney who specializes in divorce. Edit: A commenter brought up the issue of whether California would recognize a marriage where both parties weren’t present. While this varies by state, California generally doesn’t allow so-called “proxy marriage” unless one of the parties is deployed in the military.

Can Alice accept tips after providing free, no-strings-attached labor or service without employment authorization?

Alice is an asylum seeker with her EAD pending renewal with 179 days of unauthorized work under her belt total. Bob is a recipient of the labor or service of Alice. Is she entitled to engage in labor or provide a service (for e.g. cleaning, shopping for groceries, transporting with a vehicle from A to B etc.) based on a contract strictly for no remuneration of any kind may be provided and will not be accepted with entire agreement and written-amendments-only clauses, and allow — but not stipulate as a prerequisite for the service or labor — labor or service recipients to leave a tip? Is such a contract achievable that would withstand inquiries for removal or deportation on the grounds of violations of employment and similar laws or is the law established in a way that under no circumstances could any such or similar contract allow effectively for free no-strings-attached service and/or labor provision of Alice and also to accept any non-obligated tips from Bob? Does it make a difference if Alice regularly engages in such labor or provision of services although predominantly to a different person each time? If not, what laws would prevent acceptance of such tips? (For e.g. could this be considered panhandling, soliciting etc.) Presume all ancillary laws are followed and complied with (for e.g. paying taxes since Alice had been already provided a social security number etc.) Alice, if wasn’t hypothetical, would greatly appreciate it!

If Alice receives nothing in return for doing the work, there is no contract, as consideration has not been provided. See the canonical question about what a contract is and requires . If Alice receives anything in return for the work, this is income from employment and, because nobody asks this question unless they're trying to circumvent restrictions on whether they can be employed, it is almost surely illegal. Alice would do well to consult a lawyer on exactly what they could do to earn permitted income, and in the mean time avoid jeopardising their refugee status by doing things they are not permitted to do.

Declining name and birthdate when answering police questions until grounds for suspicion has been precluded or reasonably established

Alice is approached by police following complaints that a woman wearing a yellow jumper has committed some minor offence or another. Sometimes, in such scenarios police will meticulously investigate the facts of the situation before bothering with ascertaining even so much as her name. Other times they will firstly ask for her details to check her history before proceeding with their inquiries as to the situation which gave rise to their encounter with her, and if she satisfies them that no offence has been committed by the woman in the yellow jumper, then they will just as happily leave her alone and be on their way without being concerned about her identity. In the former types of encounters, as they have received complaints not not independently established any reasonable likelihood that she had committed an offence, is Alice entitled to decline her details while pointing out the grounds of her refusal while indulging their questions as to her acts in question as being simply of the yet-nameless woman in the yellow jumper? Or is a mere yet-unsubstantiated complaint at that preliminary stage of investigation grounds enough for reasonable suspicion of an offence? Both legally and in typical practice, is Alice not quite reasonably entitled to insist that they carry out the rest of their inquiries without ascertaining her name? Even more fundamentally than this, perhaps Alice while perfectly confident of her innocence is late for an appoint and in a rush to go somewhere as it is. In this case, is it not then both legally and practically quite reasonable at this stage for her to decline to cooperate with their questioning, whether nameless or identified? One would imagine that the answer to this aspect of the question would hinge on whether or not she is being detained (or if she is not being detained then whether they would at this stage have any grounds to detain her, ie whether she should have any fear of being lawfully detained on the mere basis of a member of the public's so far entirely unsubstantiated/uncorroborated allegations.) What is the standard of suspicion/probability that is required then of the police to be able to detain Alice, and is she obligated to assist in their efforts to establish this level of probable suspicion if it isn't already established?

I am not sure what the standard is, under UK law, for the police to be able to lawfully insist on basic identity information, or to briefly detain Alice. (In the US it is "Reasonable suspicion" or "founded suspicion".) But since Alice apparently matches a very superficial description of a person who has been reported as engaging in criminal activity, it is plausible that the police will ask for her name and contact info, and will make some effort to insist if she initially declines. It may well be tht the police do not have sufficient grounds to lawfully compel Alice to respond. But if Alice has an appointment and wishes to be on her way as promptly as possible, it may well be that her best choice is to answer the oficer briefly and politely. If she refuses, this may well result in the officer arguing with her as to whether she can lawfully refuse. It might even lead to an attempt by the officer to detain here while inquiries proceed. Such detention might well be unlawful, but resolving that issue might well take significantly longer than responding to the questions. To be clear, I am not advising anyone to waive his or her rights. I am merely commenting on the probable practical effect of insisting on them. I will be very interested to read an answer making clear what the UK legal standard is in such a case.

Does Alice have an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing duty towards appointed counsel, Bob?

Alice is charged under a criminal accusation, and counsel is appointed for Alice under the Sixth Amendment. Alice gives written notice to Bob (the appointed counsel) that Alice will always have at least one friend or family with the objective to aid the cause of the defendant and advising the defendant (Advisor) overhearing any remote communications they may have over the phone, but will not interrupt or otherwise even announce their presence just listen, and Bob acknowledges that fact. [EDITED] **Alice will not disclose the name or other identifying information of the Advisor to Bob other than the general relationship of and role of Advisor to Bob, and Alice will please the Fifth if compelled to provide information any further information on Advisor. Alice’s secondary objective is to meet her burden of proof of inadequacy of counsel which she is unable to without the audio recording. Alice might have a similar interest protected by the First Amendment to the recording that is supported in connection with recording the police. Under California case law, announcing to all parties that a call may or will be overheard shall be treated as if it is announced that it may or will be recorded which rebuts an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy or confidential communications and communication thereafter implies consent as well. Does Alice have to expressly announce if she or friends or family would be recording and obtain therein the implied or an express consent due to a covenant of good faith duty — or since they don’t have a contractual relationship, and Bob acts out of a statutory right of Alice imposing in particular a duty on Bob — she does not have to do that? Is Alice, for any of the above reasons and under the above circumstances, privileged to recording Bob without expressly announcing it to Bob and can Alice do so while evading a finding that she obviated her privileges to the confidential advice of Bob as counsel?

Does Alice have to expressly announce if she or friends or family would be recording and obtain therein the implied or an express consent due to a covenant of good faith duty or since they don’t have a contractual relationship, and Bob acts out of a statutory right of Alice imposing in particular a duty on Bob, she has no such duty? Alice and her counsel have some reciprocal duties. The duty of good faith and fair dealing, while in principle applicable to any contractual relationship, is not a good framework in which to analyze those duties. It is more fruitful to consider this specialized situation as a relationship arising at law which is not predominantly contractual in character. It is an attorney-client relationship primarily, not a contractual one, particularly in the case of appointed counsel who is not voluntarily selected or paid by the client. There are rules of professional conduct that specifically govern the allocation of responsibilities between an attorney and a client, some of which are particular to criminal defense clients and their attorneys. These rules of professional conduct would be controlling, not the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Further, it bears noting that the proposed arrangement would result in a forfeiture of the attorney-client privilege which is not a condition that any reasonable attorney engaged in a criminal defense case would agree to allow, for the client's own good. The main rules of professional conduct that are applicable (all U.S. jurisdictions use the same numbering system for their rules of professional conduct although not all of them are identical in content) are Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer), Rule 1.4 (Communications), and Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information). Of these Rule 1.2 is most important. It states: [A] lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify. It also prohibits a lawyer from allowing his or her services to be used in furtherance of an ongoing crime or fraud. Rule 1.4 provides that: (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims & Contentions), Rule 3.3 (Candor Towards The Tribunal) and Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel) would also often be pertinent (as this defines what communications an attorney can and cannot have with others ethically, primarily prohibiting an attorney from knowingly using false testimony or faked evidence). There is some variation from state to state in the exact details of these rules, but the general thrust and the general scheme of organization is the same. In a nutshell, the clients has a responsibility to determine ends, and the lawyer is charged with deciding means, although in practice, it can get more complicated than that when the ends and the means are intertwined. The main exceptions in criminal cases to this division of labor are the means involved in electing a jury trial and choosing to have the client testify as a witness. A lawyer could reasonably insist, as a condition of ongoing representation by the lawyer of the client, that communications between lawyer and client not have someone else listening in.

Copyright with circular referrals

Alice is hoping to use image X, which is posted online on a popular photo-sharing site under the account of Organization B, labeled with copyright and "All Rights Reserved." Alice's intended use might be considered "fair use" but she's not sure, so asking for permissions just to be sure. Also, the image is a photo which appears to have been taken to document normal conditions at a particular location which appears to be more or less generally accessible to the public. It does not appear especially artistic nor are the contents depicted unique enough to be visibly recognizable as a particular point in time. Alice contacts organization B requesting permission for use of the image. Organization B responds by saying "That's actually not our photo; we got it from Org C." Org C owns the land where the photo was taken. Alice then contacts Org C, and the rights manager says "Sorry, we've checked and that's definitely not our image. We'd generally say ask Org B instead, but recognizing the circularity, we have no further recommendations." What are the consequences of Alice's options? It seems like they include... Use the image, on the grounds that probably nobody will claim copyright, because the most obvious potential copyright holders expressly disclaim ownership, and an individual might be unlikely to care (and in this particular case, possibly unlikely to recognize the image as uniquely theirs). An individual photographer could also be deceased, leaving no heirs intimately familiar with the work enough to claim copyright. Alice would be willing to take the image down if requested to do so. Spend a lot more time developing the fair use argument. Avoid any use of the image, because no copyright claimant can be found. ...? While "avoid engagement in anything potentially even a bit risky" (option 3) seems to be the safest strategy in general, lawyers sometimes explain the risks to clients who then make an informed decision to take some small risk anyway, because they may be outweighed (here, by e.g. the illustrative value of the image). What are the risks associated with Alice's options?

I would recommend a variant of option 1: Alice should use the image with a comment that she has tried and failed to find the copyright holder for it (possibly also mentioning that Org B and C have both disclaimed copyright). I have seen this done in actual printed books sold for money. As you refer to "taking it down", that suggests the image is going to be used on a non-commercial website. I think the chances that the original copyright holder is going to come along and sue for damages is very small. (They may demand an acknowledgement, or that the image be removed - but that's fine.)

Limits on reasonable compensation for a carer in the UK

Alice is in her 90s, blind and becoming deaf, with increasing dementia. She lives in a retirement home in the UK with some carer support. She sold her house to fund this, and has plenty of money. Alice's children are Bob, Carol, Dorothy and Eve. For obscure reasons, Bob and Carol don't talk to Alice, Dorothy or Eve. Eve has sole power of attorney over Alice's financial and medical affairs, and is sole executor of Alice's will. When Alice dies, it is not inconceivable that Bob or Carol might allege that Eve mismanaged Alice's affairs and thus depleted Alice's estate, some of which is left to Bob and Carol. Alice becomes very unwell because of an infection. In the short term, she needs intensive nursing to recover, including help with feeding and turning in bed. Because of her dementia and (it is hoped temporary) delirium , Alice will only allow Eve to help her. Eve makes multiple trips by car each day to Alice. Eve is self-employed with a low-paid job for multiple customers, and loses money (and possibly a regular customer) every time she has to visit Alice. Bearing in mind that Eve's management of Alice's finances might be examined in court, in general , how does the law determine whether Eve's expenditure of Alice's money is reasonable? In particular, is it possible to say what reasonable expenses Eve might claim from Alice? Mileage travelling to visit Alice? Lost income from the hours Eve is unable to work while tending Alice? Lost goodwill for Eve's business as customers desert her? Cost in Eve's time to consult a lawyer for advice on these matters? Cost of consulting the lawyer? If any of these expenses are reasonable, what documentation should Eve keep to support her argument in a possible future legal dispute? Apart from a possible family dispute, are there any other limits (beyond the requirement of an attorney always to act in the interest of the grantor) that Eve should be aware of? Apologies if this seems very specific and detailed, but it is a general area that is going to become more important in the UK as we become better at keeping old people alive, and more lay people have to act with power of attorney. I would like to understand how the law approaches these fundamentally difficult family problems.

Eve must act in Alice's best interests Payment to Eve that is not clearly and unambiguously authorised by Alice while Eve is Alice's attorney is almost always inappropriate and possibly illegal. Reimbursement of expenses that are directly undertaken for Alice's benefit (e.g. paying her electricity or gas bill) are OK but anything that could be considered payment for services provided by Eve is not. Unfortunately, Eve needs to decide if she will provide these services gratis, engage professional care 1 paid for by Alice, or surrender her power of attorney and seek reimbursement from Alice's new legal representative 2 - anything else is legally grey verging on black. The current legal presumption is that the care of relatives is done for love and affection - not for profit. Ideally, Alice would have left clear instructions on how her money could be spent while she was still legally capable and this could have included a stipend for any relatives who cared for her, however, Eve has to deal with things as they are not as she would like them to be. From you list, the only costs that are unambiguously OK for Alice to pay are the legal fees a lawyer would charge for consulting on this matter. 1 Professional carer's will just have to deal with Alice's desire for only Eve to help her. 2 Given that Alice is not legally capable of appointing a new attorney, this would be the UK Public Trustee

How many days in advance should a subtenant notify the sublessor that he will leave earlier than expected?

Alice is subletting an apartment to Bob. The contract stipulates that Bob is subletting the apartment till August 15. Can Bob leave earlier, i.e. decide to end the sublet earlier than what the contract stipulate? If so, how many days in advance should Bob notify Alice? Everything is happening in Massachusetts, United States.

First and foremost there are laws in Massachusetts that govern leasing (and subleasing - this is only a sub-category of leasing after all) of real property. I do not know what they say and I am not going to bother finding out; you should. Start here . Typically, real property transactions are one of the most highly regulated areas in any jurisdiction. In general, they will read terms into any contract, prohibit other terms and may specify the form of the contract - it may be that the contract must contain certain clauses or it is unenforceable. Notwithstanding, if the contract is enforceable and if the only terms are the ones you have given (both questionable predicates): Bob can physically leave anytime he wants to - a subtenant is not an inmate of a prison. Bob will have access to the property until 15 August and must pay the rent up until that date. Alice must allow Bob "quiet enjoyment" of the property until that time. Bob can ask Alice to vary the terms of the contract in any way he likes; including reducing (or extending) the term with or without notice periods. If Alice agrees then the contract is varied and the new terms replace the old. Having said that, civil law only matters when there is a dispute ; if Bob and Alice (and Ted and Carol) are (reasonably) happy with their arrangement it does not matter that it may be legally unenforceable. Courts and judges do not wander around town sticking their nose into every arrangement to make sure it is in full compliance with the law (largely because of the risk of bodily harm that would result :)); they only interfere when one of the parties asks them to.

Can a plaintiff call the defendant as a witness in a civil trial?

Alice is suing Bob, representing herself. She has decided that her best strategy is to catch Bob in a lie to undermine his credibility. Can Alice call Bob as a witness? What questions can she ask?

Only in a civil case Yes, in a civil case, Alice generally can call Bob as a witness to take the stand. In many cases, this is done very early, locking in their testimony, before expert witnesses or other evidence by the plaintiff are presented to try and undermine the testimony. Alice may ask only questions that have relevance to the case. Let's take for example a dispute about a contract: Alice may ask Bob if he engaged in negotiations to form the contract, about the matter of the contract, if he signed the contract, or how he (or his employees) fulfilled (or not) the contract. Pretty much everything that pertains to the contract or the execution thereof . This does not extend to the settlement of the case or attempts thereof. Alice may not ask if Bob has an affair with Clarice unless that somehow is material to the contract at hand. Alice may not re-ask questions where an objection was sustained in the same way. However, Bob might not need to answer all questions (there are things that are banned from being asked), especially as Bob's attorney will object to questions. A few examples of competent questioning can be seen towards the end of My Cousin Vinnie, though this is a criminal trial. Never in a criminal trial In a criminal trial, not only can the prosecution not call Bob to the stand, he has to elect to go to the stand to even be questioned by the prosecution. That is because he can "plead the 5th". There is a tiny exception for civil cases, where they can do so there too.

Is it legal to use force against a person who is illegally trying to disconnect a hospital patient's life support with intent to kill the patient?

Alice is visiting Bob, who is on life support in a hospital, when Mallory comes into the room and tries to disconnect Bob's life support with intent to kill Bob. Is Alice allowed to use force against Mallory to protect Bob? There is no euthanasia law or other law allowing Mallory to disconnect Bob's life support, and Bob is conscious and actively objects, but is not capable of stopping Mallory on his own.

england-and-wales It depends on Alice's belief about who Mallory is and what Mallory is doing and whether Alice's force was reasonable. If Alice is aware that Mallory's action is lawful, then Alice cannot use force to protect Bob. Is Mallory a doctor who is lawfully withdrawing treatment? (You say there is "no law allowing Mallory to disconnect Bob's life support" but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction that requires indefinite treatment regardless of the circumstances.) If Alice honestly believes Mallory is attempting to unlawfully kill Bob, Alice can use force to protect Bob. Is Bob on life support because of Mallory's previous attempt on his life; is Mallory a hitman, a vengeful spouse or some other person with no lawful reason to kill Bob? Crown Prosecution Service guidance: Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime : Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force. The basic principles of self-defence are set out in Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814; approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: "It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary." The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." ... In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions: was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all?; and was the force used reasonable in the circumstances? The courts have indicated that both questions are to be answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367). To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

Do occasional guests forfeit one's single person discount?

Alice lets Bob crash on her sofa 1 or 2 days per week. Is she still entitled to a single person discount for council tax?

Council tax arises from Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 . This provides that liability for the tax is to be calculated on a daily basis. If there are two residents on some days and one resident on other days, then the single person discount applies only on the days when there is one resident. Crucially for this question, however, In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires ... “resident”, in relation to any dwelling, means an individual who has attained the age of 18 years and has his sole or main residence in the dwelling. The answer to the question, therefore, depends on an analysis of Bob's residence. The single person discount should remain in place for any day when Bob's sole or main residence is somewhere else, and it should be forfeit on any day when Bob's sole or main residence is Alice's place. Where Bob sleeps will be one element considered in determining his sole or main residence, but it should not be the only one.

Photos taken inside private home by guest without permission

Alice meets Bob on a dating app and invites him to her place to have good time with him. Bob takes photos of the place's interior (walls, furniture etc.) without Alice's knowledge (and so without her explicit permission). Bob keeps the photos for himself and does not share/upload anywhere. Some time later Bob chats with Alice and shows her the photos. Alice becomes perturbed and accuses Bob of breaching her privacy. If Alice takes this to the court, could she possibly be awarded any damages at all in any jurisdiction? If not, is this sort of thing that Bobs can do without facing any consequences, even though technically it may be called breach of privacy?

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is governed by Shari`ah law. See this work for an overview of Shari`ah as it relates to compensatory damages in personal injury cases. It is a principle under Ijma (a second-order source of Islamic law) that if one is insulted or emotionally injured by another party, you are entitled to be monetarily compensated. Sharia law in Saudi Arabia is not codified, so there exist differences among the four schools of Shari`ah regarding compensating a victim monetarily for emotional distress, which may alternatively be answered with physical punishment. Under Shari`ah, it is highly likely that moral harm would be found, since privacy is a fundamental right in Islam (see this source , with numerous citations). The standards for "intrusion into seclusion" under Shari`ah are stricter that they are under common law. However, other premises of the hypothetical are a problem under Shari`ah law (e.g. the whole dating thing).

How many witnesses’ testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?

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

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

"Settling" out of court rather than pressing for possession hearings in an assured statutory periodic tenancy

Alice rents a house to Bob under an assured Shorthold Tenancy and the fixed term expires. Alice now wants Bob out, so she must serve him a s21 notice of two months Bob has an option to not leave after this period in which case Alice can go to court and pay a £355 fee to apply for a possession order. Would it be blackmail or otherwise illegal in any way for Bob, toward the end of this period, to say to Alice in one way or another, "look, I don't really want to leave, but I am entitled to stay here until you get an eviction order that could take about another month at the absolute minimum, and it will cost you by the end of the day £355+£155=£510, at no adverse legal effect to me. Why don't you give me £400 toward a deposit on my next place and I'll sign a note of surrender date with an effective date in two weeks time?

Why would that be blackmail? Bob has a legal right that he is willing to forego in return for a cash consideration. Sounds like a perfectly straightforward contract to me.

Original Signed Contract

Alice rents office space from Bob in 2020 for one year and seeks to dispute the return of the security deposit: the landlord paid contractor to paint rooms in the office. Alice seeks 100% of her deposit. Bob: is thorough in the sense he documents (photographs) the walls: annotated with 3M post-its). has records of payments that show electronic payments from Alice and Alice agree that the amounts are not in question and Alice do not Agree whether the painting should have been performed and charged to the security deposit Alice rents from Bob in 2021 with a new, virtually identical lease. Assume Florida law does not place any requirements around non-residential deposit handling. EVIDENCE: Bob is able to produce an unsigned copy of the missing lease as it was stored (and dated) in a cloud service such as Google Docs. The second lease is a copy of the First lease, with the dates changed. The financial records affirm that the amounts are not in dispute. If Bob is unable to find the signed initial lease, does this somehow help Alice's claim / position? Relevant Florida Case Law is always appreciated.

Non-residential tenancies are subject to Fla. Stat Ch. 83 Part I . This is statutorily a tenancy at-will unless a contrary agreement is in writing signed by the lessor: the duration of the lease is yearly, quarterly, monthly, weekly as determined by the periodicity of rent payments. There are various legal conditions related to rent default and causes for removing tenants, also conditions about premises that are wholly untenantable. Unlike residential leases, there are not any special statutory conditions surrounding the landlords presentation of leases. Florida law contemplates and allows the possibility that there are no written documents, and for non-residential tenancies has very little to say about it (only pertaining to the distinction between at-will vs not at-will leases). Therefore, the matter follows the general rules for contractual disputes: whoever makes the best case for their claims wins. If Bob has a scanned copy, that is excellent proof. If Alice alleges and proves that the scanned copy was modified, that disposes of Bob's evidence. If Alice presents a copy of the contract that says otherwise (I do mean copy), then this anomaly has to be explained. Bob can claim that they tore up Alice's original and renegotiated the deal, but he needs to prove that claim. If Alice presents the original contract, Bob's story becomes much less plausible. There are millions of variants of what might happen: the point is, there is no requirement to present the original signed document to support a claim in a contractual dispute.

Do reward-seekers have a duty to minimize loss or harm to a third party?

Alice repeatedly commits some tortious act against Bob (say, defamation, or copyright infringement, or breach of contract). Under the principle of mitigation, Bob must take reasonable action to minimize the amount of harm or loss he suffers. That is, once he becomes aware of Alice's tortious activity, he cannot simply allow it to continue with the intention of accumulating loss and suing her for a much greater amount in the future. However, consider the situation in which Bob is not yet aware of Alice's tortious activity, but an uninvolved third party, Charles, does become aware of it. As I understand it, as a third party, Charles would generally have no legal obligation to minimize Bob's losses. But what if Charles intends to report Alice's activity to Bob in hopes of receiving a reward from Bob? (Note the wording "hopes" here; Charles would freely turn over his evidence to Bob without demanding anything in exchange.) Charles supposes that if Bob indeed offers a reward, then it will be proportional to Bob's losses. Can Charles delay reporting Alice's tortious activity with the expectation that she will repeat or continue it, thus causing Bob further loss, and thus increasing the expected value of the reward from Bob? If Charles does so delay his report, then does Bob (or indeed Alice, in the event Bob sues her) have a claim against Charles for the losses Bob incurred after Charles first became aware of Alice's tortious activity? (This question arises from reports I have heard that certain law firms in Germany are proactively gathering evidence of serial copyright infringement and then presenting this evidence to the copyright holders in hopes that those copyright holders will retain the law firms to sue the infringers for damages. I don't know or care whether these reports are actually true, though I am interested in knowing about the legality of this general sort of scenario, for any sort of tort in any jurisdiction.)

Given that Bob has no obligation to pay anything to Charles, who has no legal duty to do anything, I don't see how Charles could have liability to Bob. If Charles wants to, he can decline to pay a reward to Bob or can pay an amount smaller than Charles hoped for as a reflection of Charles' delay.

Is "not committing a crime" sufficient consideration?

Alice sees John attempting to steal her car. For some reason, instead of calling the police, she says "I'll give you $1,000 tomorrow if you don't steal my car." John agrees. Scenario 1 Alice gives John $1,000 and he doesn't steal the car. Has either of them committed a crime (e.g. extortion)? Scenario 2 One of them breaches the contract and the other sues. Is there consideration for a valid contract? Scenario 2A Alice does not give John the money the next day. Can he sue her for breach of contract? Can he legally take her car? Scenario 2B Later that day, before the money is due, John steals the car. Can Alice sue for breach of contract, in addition to the typical theft-related claims? Scenario 2C The next day, after Alice gives him the money, John steals her car. Can she sue to get the $1,000 back?

Forbearance from action can be consideration, but it must be forbearance from something that is one's legal right. It is sufficient that a person has restricted their lawful freedom of action. See Hamer v. Sidway , (1891) 124 NY 538 . A promise to not do something that one has no right to do in the first place is not consideration. Throughout your entire spectrum of examples: there is no contract to breach; the intitial attempted theft was an offence; absent consent, it will never be lawful for John to take the car; any money accepted by John is likely an unjust enrichment.

Is a digital signature done by a third party valid?

Alice sends Bob a document to sign with DocuSign or a similar service. Bob does not have a device DocuSign works on, or does not know how to open the document. Bob forwards the email to Joe. Joe calls Bob on the phone and reads the document to Bob. Bob tells Joe to sign it. Joe signs Bob's name. Is the signature binding on Bob?

Possibly. Under UCC 3-402 , a representative can sign for a party. There are some conditions though. One is that the signature should show unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of the person identified in the instrument. If the signature is not clear that the signature is made in a representative capacity, the representative is liable. The only thing that a digital signature adds is the possibility that it is impossible to unambiguously show this because of the software. It seems from the internet that Docusign allows this.

What is the difference between trespass on a venue and theft of services?

Alice sneaks into a concert venue and enjoys the show. Bob sneaks into a spa to enjoy a jacuzzi and steam bath. Charlotte sneaks past the usher into a cinema and watches a film. Have each of these committed theft of services or merely a civil trespass?

england-and-wales They each committed both the civil tort of trespass ( Wikipedia ) and the criminal offence of Making off without payment contrary to s3 Theft Act 1978 ( legislation ; CPS guidance ). A person might have explicit or implied permission to enter a cinema building, but the person doesn't have licence to do anything they want whatsoever in the building. When they enter an area without permission, or they exceed their licence, they commit trespass. If they watch a film and leave with no intention to pay, then they commit s3 Theft.

Alice stole a package from Bob. Is it legal?

Alice stole Bob's Amazon package and opened it. It contained sheets of processed wood, 216 by 365 millimeters. Is this legal?

No! Not unless ther is something to the situation not mentioned in the question. Taking the property of another person without permission is usually theft, and that is a crime. Why do you think it might be legal? You used the word "stole" in the question, and tht normally indicates a crime.

Alice wants a divorce but Bob does not. What can Bob do to stonewall the process and what are the consequences of doing so?

Alice wants to get a divorce from Bob. Bob is an upstanding member of society. There is no credible case against Bob for any crimes or impropriety (no abuse, infidelity, etc). Bob does not want Alice to divorce him. Alice and Bob have no prenuptial agreement. Alice has asked Bob to leave their shared house, but he refuses and maintains residence at the property. What can Bob do to stonewall the process? What happens if he refuses to sign the divorce papers? If those consequences are highly detrimental, what is his next course of action after delaying as long as possible? And then what are the consequences from that action? (Continuing on until he is out of options) What is the ultimate outcome? Can Alice unilaterally force a divorce? What are the conditions of such a divorce likely to be? (alimony, the house, other property, etc) This is a hypothetical and I am interested in the United States law as a whole, but if necessary I will specify New York State to establish a concrete jurisdiction.

Prior to 2010, New York was the last state to have only fault based divorce. In 2010 , the fault based grounds for divorce were retained, but a no fault ground for divorce was added and has become very popular. In a no fault divorce: All that has to be proved and stated in your divorce papers is that the marriage has been “irretrievably broken" for at least six months. One spouse must state this under oath. With respect to this point: Alice has asked Bob to leave their shared house, but he refuses and maintains residence at the property. The judge will almost certainly at the very outset (probably within a month or two, quite possibly in a matter of days) order one spouse out of the house in temporary orders if either spouse objects to continued cohabitation. Temporary orders at the outset of a divorce establishing a provisional status quo with separated parties is routine. In a divorce, title to the residence is pretty much irrelevant, and so are the wishes of the adults unless they agree. There is no presumption in favor of either party, i.e. neither for or against Bob, and neither for nor against Alice, in a temporary orders hearing, based upon who filed for divorce or who lived there at the time of temporary orders. There is, however, a very strong imperative to not have people who are getting divorced cohabiting when one or both of the parties doesn't want to cohabit. Cohabitation would only in the most extraordinary case be imposed on a party who opposed it during divorce proceedings. The judge looks at the facts and circumstances and decides for one or the other without considering at all who filed for divorce, and without seriously considering what either of them want (if they don't agree). Once a divorce has been commenced, everything is up for grabs without regard to who filed for divorce. Usually, temporary use of the residence if awarded to the primary caretaker of the children if there is one, so that the children's lives can be disrupted as little as possible. But, a judge in a temporary orders hearing has immense discretion. For example , Rudy Giuliani wife was granted occupancy of his official residence as Mayor of New York City during one of his three divorces: "Giuliani moved out of Gracie Mansion by August 2001 and into an apartment with a couple he was friends with." What can Bob do to stonewall the process? Not all that much other than insisting on disputing all matters to be resolved in the divorce and taking them to trial. Bob can't prevent the divorce from happening and can't do all that much to slow down the process any more than insisting on taking everything to trial does. Generally speaking, efforts to unjustified efforts to delay the process and the inevitable will be penalized and it is unethical for Bob's lawyer to use such tactics. If it is apparent to the judge that Bob is trying to stonewall, this will be perceived as defiance of the court's authority in a case where the judge has massive discretion to make a determination on the merits. This is unwise, although there is no specific consequence that could necessarily be assigned to this kind of perception. What happens if he refuses to sign the divorce papers? A process server delivers the papers to him, and then a judge decides how to resolve the disputed issues related to custody, property, child support, alimony, and attorney fees. Bob's consent is not required for anything. Bob could speed things up by agreeing to various things, but only so much. If those consequences are highly detrimental, what is his next course of action after delaying as long as possible? And then what are the consequences from that action? (Continuing on until he is out of options) Fighting for the sake of fighting rarely produces an optimal outcome. Delaying as long as possible is almost never the best strategy. If Bob litigates needlessly, he is likely to see most of both side's attorney fees allocated to him and to get a custody arrangement that is rigid in a way that will be detrimental to him in the long run. What is the ultimate outcome? Can Alice unilaterally force a divorce? Yes. What are the conditions of such a divorce likely to be? (alimony, the house, other property, etc) An equitable but not equal division of property, a parenting time and parental responsibility order that a judge finds to be in the best interests of the children, child support based upon child support guidelines with statutorily allowed adjustments if any are present, and alimony based on many factors but mostly duration of the marriage and the relative incomes of the parties. The specific award could vary significantly even in case where the lawyers present exactly the same facts to two different judges in the same courthouse, without either judge committing reversible error. This is a hypothetical and I am interested in the United States law as a whole, but if necessary I will specify New York State to establish a concrete jurisdiction. For what it is worth, New York is somewhat atypical. But the broad outlines of no fault divorces are reasonably similar. One factor that makes New York State divorces different from some no fault states is that marital fault can be considered in some cases in the substantive decision on the merits. But this is no applicable in the case of this question where, by assumption, there is no marital fault present.

Is it legal for two individuals in California, United States to place a bet between themselves?

Alice wants to make a bet with Bob (e.g., betting 100 USD that tomorrow there will be no snow falling in a given location, or that some new phone to be announced tomorrow will cost less than 1k USD). Bob agrees to the bet. Is that legal, and is the bet legally enforceable (i.e., Bob must pay Alice if he loses)?

No California has no laws on social gambling so it is treated identically to commercial gambling. Since betting on outcomes other than sports betting is illegal in California, such a bet would be illegal. While it’s unlikely to be prosecuted, as a contract it would be void its illegality and thus unenforceable.

How can a renter verify the lessor has authority to lease?

Alice wants to rent a residence. She finds a house advertised and contacts the listing agent, Bob. Bob shows her the residence, and then offers her a lease agreement that requires her to pay him 3 months rent up-front (not atypical: first and last months, plus security deposit). How can she ensure that Bob has authority to lease the house? Or how can she make payment on the lease in such a way that she is protected against loss if it turns out that Bob does not have authority? There is a notion in contract law of "apparent authority," which presumably would be satisfied if Bob can show Alice the house. But who is left with the loss if it turns out that Bob did not have authority? Just because someone has keys to a house doesn't mean they actually have authority to lease it. A fraudster who gains access to an unoccupied house could conceivably lease it to numerous parties simultaneously and then disappear with all their money. (So imagine the house is actually owned by out-of-town Zed, and Bob collects lease payments from Alice, Charlie, and Doug before disappearing.)

Real estate ownership is a matter of public record throughout the United States, unless there are exceptional jurisdictions I don't know about, usually at the city or county level. So Alice could go to the county clerk's office (or, these days, probably their website), whose records would show that the property is rightfully owned by Zed, and might also include a home address or other contact information for Zed. Alice could then contact Zed and verify that Bob is Zed's authorized agent. Alice may have to iterate through several layers of delegation, e.g. if Zed hired property manager Yolanda, who subcontracted to Xavier, etc, etc, until she reaches the person who actually hired Bob. Of course, if Zed hired a property manager specifically to avoid being bothered by tenants, they may not be too pleased about all this, which could hurt Alice's chances of being approved to rent the property. It is also possible that the property is owned by some shell corporation (e.g. Zedcorp LLC) which Zed set up to insulate their rental business from their other assets. In this case Alice may have to chase more links, e.g. through some lawyer who is the corporation's registered agent.

Staying anonymous as a witness in Germany

Alice witnessed an altercation in a public park in which a knife was pulled, but nobody was hurt. The police were called, the offender fled the scene but stayed in the vicinity. Since Alice saw everything from ca. 30ish meters away, her statement was taken by the police at the time and now she is asked to provide a written statement. Alice understands that this will make her address visible to the accused, and she is already nervous about the person targeting her for giving a statement/pointing him out. Is it normal under German law to just assume the accused will never go after a witness? The form seems to allow giving a different address (like a work address), but this seems to require a "good reason". What are acceptable reasons? What is the best way to go?

Is it normal under German law to just assume the accused will never go after a witness? This is not a question that can be answered here, or probably anywhere with any degree of certainty. The form seems to allow giving a different address (like a work address), but this seems to require a "good reason". What are acceptable reasons? These include an imminent risk of serious detriment to her well-being and a well-founded reason to fear she (or anyone else) might be improperly influenced if she gives here address. Staying anonymous; She is asked to provide a written statement. SHORT ANSWER A witness is not obligated to give the material witness statement to the police. Instead, a witness is only obligated to appear before and make a statement to the German public prosecutor ( Staatsanwalt ). AND... every (potential) witness is obligated to give their particulars at the hearing, including full names, maiden name, age, occupation and place of residence. Some or all of these details may be omitted, however, if there is a specific risk. In those cases, the identity of the witness may be kept undisclosed. LONG ANSWER Book1, Chapter 6 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure , Strafprozeßordnung (StPO), gives the rules for examining, and protecting, witnesses. Section 48 (Obligations on witnesses; summons): (1) Witnesses shall be obliged to appear before the judge on the date set down for their examination. They shall have the duty to testify if no exception admissible by statute applies. (2) ... (3)... An examination shall, in particular, be made as to whether an imminent risk of serious detriment to the witness’s well-being requires measures to be taken pursuant to section 168e or section 247a, as to whether any of the witness’s overriding interests meriting protection require that the public be excluded pursuant to section 171b (1) of the Courts Constitution Act and as to what extent it is possible to refrain from asking non-essential questions concerning the witness’s personal sphere of life pursuant to section 68a (1) [ see below ] Account is, further, to be taken of the witness’s personal situation and the nature and circumstances of the offence. Section 68 (Examination as to witness’s identity; limitation of information, victim protection): (1) The examination shall begin with the witness being asked to state his first name, last name, name at birth, age, occupation and place of residence... (2) A witness shall, furthermore, be permitted to state his business address or place of work or another address at which documents can be served instead of stating his place of residence if there is well-founded reason to fear that legally protected interests of the witness or of another person might be endangered or that witnesses or another person might be improperly influenced if the witness states his place of residence. If the conditions of sentence 1 obtain at the main hearing, the presiding judge shall permit the witness not to state his place of residence. (3) If there is well-founded reason to fear that revealing the identity or the place of residence or whereabouts of the witness would endanger the witness’s or another person’s life, limb or liberty, the witness may be permitted not to provide personal identification data or to provide such data only in respect of an earlier identity. However, if so asked at the main hearing, he shall be required to state in what capacity the facts he is indicating became known to him. (4) ... (5) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply after conclusion of the examination of the witness. Insofar as the witness was permitted not to provide data, it must be ensured in the course of the provision of information from or inspection of the files that these data are not made known to other persons , unless a danger within the meaning of subsections (2) and (3) appears to be ruled out. Section 68a (Limitation of right to ask questions to protect privacy): (1) Questions concerning facts which might dishonour the witness ... or which concern their personal sphere of life are to be asked only if they cannot be dispensed with. Section 168e (Separate examination of witnesses): If there is an imminent risk of serious detriment to a witness’s well-being in the event of his being examined in the presence of persons entitled to be present and if that risk cannot be averted in some other way, the judge shall examine the witness separately from those entitled to be present. There shall be simultaneous audio-visual transmission of the examination to the latter. The rights of participation of those entitled to be present shall otherwise remain unaffected. Sections 58a and 241a shall apply accordingly. The decision referred to in sentence 1 shall not be contestable. Section 247a (Order for witness examination via audio-visual means): (1) If there is an imminent risk of serious detriment to the well-being of the witness were he to be examined in the presence of those attending the main hearing, the court may order that the witness remain in another place during the examination; such an order shall also be admissible under the conditions of section 251 (2) insofar as this is necessary to establish the truth. The decision shall not be contestable. Simultaneous audio-visual transmission of the testimony shall be provided in the courtroom. The testimony shall be recorded if there is a concern that the witness will not be available for examination at a future main hearing and the recording is necessary to establish the truth. Section 58a (2) shall apply accordingly.

Are witnesses allowed to give private testimonies?

Alice's grandpa Greg is on trial. Alice's testimony is crucial to get Greg convicted. But, for some reason or another, Alice doesn't want to appear in court as a witness in front of Greg to badmouth him. Is Alice allowed to give private testimony to the jury/judge without Greg finding out about it? If you want a bunch of example reasons for Alice to want to do so: She loves her grandpa and doesn't want to badmouth him to his face. She feels threatened by her grandpa and wants to remain anonymous to him while still giving testimony. She was raped by grandpa Greg and can't mentally bear to even look at him. As a follow-up question, does Alice electing for some sort of "private" testimony weaken the case against Greg in any way?

united-states The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant in a criminal case the right to “confront one’s accuser”, and the Supreme Court has taken a notably originalist view of this right, holding that this means face-to-face cross examination under virtually all circumstances. While there are some small exceptions related to minors and to witnesses who became unavoidably absent after giving a sworn statement (none of which could apply to Alice), and while the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled out cross examination over videoconference, the idea of anonymous testimony in a criminal case is unthinkable. Part of an effective cross examination is arguing why the witness’s testimony might be unreliable, and a defendant who didn’t know whose testimony it was would be hamstrung at that.

Can a client share legal advice from a lawyer?

Alice, Bob, and Chris have a conversation about doing XYZ, and the question of legality comes up --- none of them know whether or not XYZing is legal. Alice hires a lawyer and asks him; he says yes, it is legal to XYZ. How can Alice share this information (that the lawyer said, "yes, it is legal to XYZ") with Bob and Chris without practicing law herself? If the lawyer is wrong, and XYZing is actually illegal, is Alice responsible for Bob's and Chris's XYZing? Can they sue her? In this case, Alice and the lawyer are in Oregon, but Bob and Chris are in other US states. It is a federal legal issue.

Can a client share legal advice from a lawyer? Yes. In fact, by default a client is entitled to waive his attorney-client privilege. That means that the client may disclose the entire communications between the client and the lawyer rather than just the legal advice. It would be make no sense to outlaw the disclosure of lawyer's advice but not the full disclosure that the client's waiver enables. How can Alice share this information with Bob and Chris without practicing law herself? In any way short of misrepresenting, explicitly or otherwise, to Bob and Chris that Alice is licensed to practice law. In the absence of akin misrepresentations, Bob and Chris are not entitled to presume they have an attorney-client relation with Alice. If the lawyer is wrong, and XYZing is actually illegal, is Alice responsible for Bob's and Chris's XYZing? Can they sue her? It depends. First, it is unclear that the parties engaged in "XYZing" and whether it had any legal consequences, such as prosecution or losses. Second, the nature of the relation between the parties determines whether Alice had a sort of fiduciary duty toward Bob and Chris. Third, Bob and Chris need to satisfy the element of reasonable reliance even if Alice were their lawyer. Case in point: Someone's lawyer can advise to literally jump from a skyscraper to the concrete, but no reasonable person would rely on that advice.

Can addressee of lost in post item break the privity of contract between sender and post?

Alice, living in country A, sold an item to Bob, living in country B. She sent the item using A Post, tracked but with no insurance (the sale contract obliged her to ship the item, not deliver). The item arrived in B but got stuck/lost somewhere in B Post. Bob approached B Post but was told they have no idea where the item was and that the sender should file claim with A Post. Could Bob somehow break the privity of contract s "A↔A Post" and "A Post↔B Post" so that he could sue B Post for losing the item? For example, could Bob claim being a party to collateral contract here? If answer varies vastly by jurisdiction, let's assume A=China, B=New Zealand.

Usually, remedies for shipping damages by postal authorities is governed by postal system specific administrative law type remedies (if any) and not by bare contract law principles. Usually, reimbursement (at least in excess of postage paid or some other very minimal amount) for packages lost or damaged in shipping is only available from a postal system for a country in the case of packages shipped via that postal system, if the package is expressly insured. Generally, all other remedies are either contractually waived, or are waived by statute or regulation. Thus, while Alice might have a duty to cooperate with Bob in securing a remedy from the postal service, in all likelihood, that remedy will be minimal or non-existent. If the shipping terms in the contract are FOB (Free on Board) China, and the shipment is not insured, Bob probably bears the loss and has no remedy. The question seems to imply that this is the case when it states that: Alice, living in country A, sold an item to Bob, living in country B. She sent the item using A Post, tracked but with no insurance (the sale contract obliged her to ship the item, not deliver). On the other hand, if the shipping terms in the contract were FOB Customer's Address, then Alice would bear the uninsured loss, and Bob could sue Alice for the loss, reverse payment on a credit card payment, or decline to pay if the goods were shipped on credit. For what it is worth, shipping goods of any meaningful value via the postal service without insurance would be a quite irregular practice in an international sale of goods situation. Incidentally, to the extent that there is a dispute between Alice and Bob (e.g. regarding shipping terms or contract formation), the law controlling that dispute is the U.N. Convention of the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and not either Chinese or New Zealand law, because both China and New Zealand are parties to the Convention , and this is an international sale of goods, if it is a business to business purchase rather than a consumer purchase from a business. The relevant provisions of this treaty state: Article 66 Loss of or damage to the goods after the risk has passed to the buyer does not discharge him from his obligation to pay the price, unless the loss or damage is due to an act or omission of the seller. Article 67 (1) If the contrnct of sale involves carriage of the goods and the seller is not bound to hand them over at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer in accordance with the contract of sale. If the seller is bound to hand the goods over to a carrier at a particular place, the risk does not pass to the buyer until the goods are handed over to the carrier at that place. The fact that the seller is authorized to retain documents controlling the disposition of the goods does not affect the passage of the risk. (2) Nevertheless, the risk does not pass to the buyer until the goods are clearly identified to the contract, whether by markings on the goods, by shipping documents, by notice given to the buyer or otherwise.

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

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

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

Why do UK Supreme Court Justices read aloud their judgments?

All UKSC (and Privy Council) judgments are published and can be read and downloaded for free. So why do Justices read parts of them aloud, as you can see on UKSC's official YouTube channel ? I'd certainly think that lawyers can read for themselves! Are they intended for the illiterate? As you can also see, very few people attend these declamations, barring the landmark cases.

Because it’s the default The law requires: Judgment A judgment may be— (a) delivered in open court; or (b) if the Court so directs, promulgated by the Registrar

What sort of facts are considered when determining if a work is inspired by or derived from another?

All art is inspired by what came before. This is particularly obvious in visual art, where the progression of the medium can be seen from the cave art of the neolithic to the art of today, but is equally true for music and all other forms of art that occur to me. The creation of derivative works of art is a right protected by copyright. Being inspired by a work of art to create another work is not restricted by copyright and is how art happens. I assume the distinction between these two would come up in court, possibly in the various music plagiarism cases , possibly in upcoming AI cases . When making these determinations, what sort of facts are considered? How similar the works are? How original each is? How competitive they are in the market? How much work was involved?

In considering whether a work is derivative, the key question is whether multiple, significant distinctive elements of the source work are used in the allegedly derivative work. It is also significant whether the two works display "substantial similarity". The amount of effort that goes into a work is not relevant. Nor is the market value of each work. A work need not be totslly distinct from previous works to be protectable by copyright. In Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation , 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) the 11th circuit court of appeals held that a mere stock figure was not enough to make a work derivative. This case is still considered the basic rule on derivative works. The opinion held that copying musty be "substantial" to make a work an infringement. Judge Learned Hand wrote: It is of course essential to any protection of literary property, whether at common-law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations. ... ... the question is whether the part so taken is "substantial," and therefore not a "fair use" of the copyrighted work; it is the same question as arises in the case of any other copyrighted work. Marks v. Feist , 290 F. 959 (C. C. A. 2); -Emerson v. Davies*, Fed. Cas. No. 4436, 3 Story, 768, 795-797. But when the plagiarist does not take out a block in situ, but an abstract of the whole, decision is more troublesome. Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his "ideas," to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended. Holmes v. Hurst , 174 U.S. 82, 86, 19 S. Ct. 606, 43 L. Ed. 904; Guthrie v. Curlett , 36 F.(2d) 694 (C. C. A. 2). Nobody has ever been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can. ... In such cases we are rather concerned with the line between expression and what is expressed. As respects plays, the controversy chiefly centers upon the characters and sequence of incident, these being the substance. ... It follows that the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for marking them too indistinctly. ... ... granting that the plaintiff's play was wholly original, and assuming that novelty is not essential to a copyright, there is no monopoly in such a background. Though the plaintiff discovered the vein, she could not keep it to herself; so defined, the theme was too generalized an abstraction from what she wrote. It was only a part of her "ideas." ... The testimony of an expert upon such issues, especially his cross-examination, greatly extends the trial and contributes nothing which cannot be better heard after the evidence is all submitted. It ought not to be allowed at all; and while its admission is not a ground for reversal, it cumbers the case and tends to confusion, for the more the court is led into the intricacies of dramatic craftsmanship, the less likely it is to stand upon the firmer, if more naïve, ground of its considered impressions upon its own perusal. We hope that in this class of cases such evidence may in the future be entirely excluded, and the case confined to the actual issues; that is, whether the copyrighted work was original, and whether the defendant copied it, so far as the supposed infringement is identical. See also: "Open Source Copyright Casebook; Class 4: Derivative Works by Brian L. Frye, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law. This discusses image copying and reproduction specifically. Frye writes: Notably, copyright only protects the original elements of a derivative work or compilation: "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." ... Notably, a work that copies the ideas expressed by a preexisting work is not a derivative work, because it is not a copy of that work. Copyright cannot protect ideas, so the author of the new work has not copied a protected element of the preexisting work. See further Frye's long discussion of Gracen v. Bradford Exch. , 698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983) in which questions of whether a painting was a derivative work of a film, and what rights the painter had, are dealt with.

What is the basis for how aggressive a person can be in self-defense?

All manner of hugging goes on in society in the US. For some people it is unwanted regardless of who the other person is. Autism spectrum comes to mind. How aggressive can person A be against person B to avoid the hug? Here is a recent post: https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/9016 What is the basis for legal limits on response? I imagine A is allowed by law to aggress against B only to some proportionate extent. But proportionate in what terms? Of society, in which case A can't pepper spray B when B tries to hug A? The idiosyncrasies of A, in which case pepper spray would be justifiable, in my opinion.

They can use reasonable force . This is an objective definition: would a reasonable person think that the force was necessary in the circumstances. The fact that the actual person concerned may be paranoid, or autistic, or have suffered harm in the past, or ... is irrelevant. The public policy reasons for this should be obvious: you are allowed to approach someone in a way that is culturally and situationally appropriate without having to be legally concerned that the particular person concerned may react un reasonably.

Requirement of attribution when reusing Wikipedia articles licensed under CC BY-SA

All of Wikipedia's content is licensed under the CC BY-SA, and Wikipedia encourages fulfilling the attribution requirement for CC BY-SA by linking to the original Wikipedia article, which contains a page history with all authors attributed. However, Wikipedia deletes articles on occasion, causing page history to become inaccessible. If I am a (partial) author of a Wikipedia article that was reused under the CC BY-SA by someone else, but then Wikipedia deleted that article (and with it, the attribution), do I have the right to send DMCA takedowns to websites that attributed that work simply by linking to the original (now deleted) article?

No. The Creative Commons license seeks to promote recognition of the original author's work through attribution, but does not provide the same framework for enforcement that the DMCA would. The proper approach in cases such as the deleted Wikipedia article and subsequent reuse would be to provide a courteous notice to Wikipedia of your original publication and ask to be listed as the original author or be provided attribution. In the absence of relief there, then what rights you have would be determined by the Wikipedia Terms of Service. Since, and I am assuming here, that you are not generating billions of dollars on the original publication in royalties, seeking to bring a DMCA type enforcement on a Wikipedia article dispute would be like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. (or more commonly in divorce, two people having hearing and spending thousands of dollars on attorney's fees fighting over a blender -- they are free to do it, but they would have been much better off buying 500 new blenders...) Keeping perspective and providing a courteous letter is probably your most cost efficient first step in situations like this. And in all areas of law, just remember, you catch more flies with honey than you do with salt. (meaning taking the courteous approach usually affords better results than a scalding letter breathing hell-fire and brimstone) In followup to earlier comment: Presuming you would be covered by the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Copyright of 1996 (as a U.S. Citizen you would be), and your copyright is on file with the United States Copyright Offices (same presumption) as prerequisite to suit, then there is nothing that prevents you from invoking the protections under general copyright law and under the DMCA (inlcuding the Takedown provisions). Note: these are not the only prerequisites to taking action, but instead the minimum critera to qualify, and note this does not pass on the wisdom of doing so (there are often significant consequences to improperly invoking previsions of certain acts).

Child Sexual Abuse - is a religious leader required to automatically report such accusations or confessions?

All religious organizations seem to have some kind of a process for handling "sin", i.e. some process where a religious leader is spoken to when someone has done something wrong. My understanding is that in United States, statements made in a confession to a religious leader are privileged and confidential. However, how does it work when the sin involves child sexual abuse? Is a religious leader responsible to automatically report accusations (claims that someone else did something) or confessions (admissions of quilt by a person present)?

Testimonial Privilege There is a tradition, embodied in law in many jurisdictions, that a religious confession, is not subject to compelled disclosure in court or to other legal process. This arose from the Catholic practice of confession, but has been long sine extended to the similar practices of other religious organizations. Note that in most jurisdictions this applies only to confessions that a person makes about his or her own actions. It does not apply when a person reports some other person's actions to a religious authority. It also usually applies only to a formal, religiously mandated or authorized communication, not to an informal chat or counseling session. In the US this is usually a matter of state law. Let's look at the relevant law in California, which is tagged as the relevant jurisdiction. (Laws in other US states are usually similar on this subject.) Such a privilege usually applies only to actual testimony under oath, in a court or as part of court proceedings such as a deposition. The law concerning an initial report of possible child abuse is different. According to the California Evidence Code, Sections 1030-1034 : Subject to Section 912, a penitent, whether or not a party,has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. Subject to Section 912, a member of the clergy, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege. This means that neither the clergy-person, nor the person disclosing information to the clergy-person (the "penitent") can be required to provide court testimony about the content of the confession. (Note that this is part of the evidence code which governs what evidence is admissible in court.) Also, the penitent may forbid such testimony from the clergy-person. Note that the privilege must be explicitly invoked, it is not automatic. Questions may be asked about the confession, and only if the penitent or the clergy-person objects and invokes the privilege does it apply. The previous three sections (included in the linked page) limit the privilege somewhat. Section 1030 states that: a "member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church or of a religious denomination or religious organization. Section 1031 states that: "penitent" means a person who has made a penitential communication to a member of the clergy. Section 1032 states that: "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret. So the privilege only applies when the communication or confession was made one-to-one, with no other person present, is part of the regular religious practice of the church or group involved, and the clergy-person has a religious duty to keep the communication secret. All this is normally true of Catholic confessions. It may or may not be true of confessions or communications in other religious organizations, depending on their traditions and practices. Also code section 912(a) provides that: the right of any person to claim a privilege ... is waived with respect to a communication protected by the privilege if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to disclosure made by anyone. Consent to disclosure is manifested by any statement or other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure, including failure to claim the privilege in any proceeding in which the holder has legal standing and the opportunity to claim the privilege Mandated Reporting In recent decades laws have bee passed requiring people in various positions of trust, or positions where such people are likely encounter evidence of child abuse, to report to law enforcement when they know or reasonably suspect such abuse. Such people are called "mandated reporters". A failure by a mandated reporter to make such a report when the mandated reporter has knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse is a crime. Note that, in most jurisdictions, mandated reporting applies to all forms of child abuse, not just sexual abuse, but also physical and emotional abuse and neglect. Therefore in this answer "abuse" is not limited to sexual abuse. In the US, this is a matter of state law. What positions carry mandated reporter status, what circumstances trigger a mandated report, an what the penalties are for failing to make a report all vary significantly from state to state. Mandated reporter (MR) status is separate from the testimonial privilege described above in this answer. However, circumstances that would trigger the testimonial privilege may also trigger an exception from mandated reporting. Mandated Reporting in California In California Penal code section 11165.7 (a) (32) and (a) (33) list clergy members (defined as " priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.") and "any custodian of records of a clergy member" as mandated reporters (MRs). However section 11166 (d) (1) provides an exception. Knowledge or suspicion acquired "during a penitential communication" need not be reported. For this purpose a "penitential communication" is defined as: a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret. Note that only if the "church, denomination, or organization" imposes on the clergy member a duty to keep the communication secret is the communication a "penitential communication". If there is no such duty, the exception does not apply. Normally, a "penitential communication" concerns the actions of the person making the communication, not of some other person. However in the course of a communication about him- or herself, a person may mention the actions of another person. That mention would, as I understand this law, be part of the penitential communication and thus subject to the exception in section 11166 (d) (1). When is a Report Mandated? Section 11166 (a) provides that: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), and in Section 11166.05, a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter, in the mandated reporter’s professional capacity or within the scope of the mandated reporter’s employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. ... [The paragraph goes on to define the time and manner of reports.] Section 11166 (a) (1) defines "reasonable suspicion": For purposes of this article, “reasonable suspicion” means that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on the person’s training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. “Reasonable suspicion” does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any “reasonable suspicion” is sufficient. For purposes of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse. 11166 (a) mentions a MR's knowledge of or observation of the possibly abused child. It is not clear to me if a discussion with a third party, such as another adult, would be sufficient to raise a "reasonable suspicion" such that a MR would be required to file a report, if there is nothing that the MR has personally observed that would raise or tend to confirm such a suspicion. However section 11166 (g) provides that: Any other person who has knowledge of or observes a child whom the person knows or reasonably suspects has been a victim of child abuse or neglect may report the known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect to an agency specified in Section 11165.9. For purposes of this section, “any other person” includes a mandated reporter who acts in the person’s private capacity and not in the person’s professional capacity or within the scope of the person’s employment. { Emphasis added. } Thus the person who makes a penitential communication to a clergy member may (but need not) report directly to Law Enforcement, and the clergy member may urge such a person to do so. Note that 11166 (i) (1) provides that: (i) (1) The reporting duties under this section are individual, and no supervisor or administrator may impede or inhibit the reporting duties, and no person making a report shall be subject to any sanction for making the report. However, internal procedures to facilitate reporting and apprise supervisors and administrators of reports may be established provided that they are not inconsistent with this article. An internal policy shall not direct an employee to allow the employee’s supervisor to file or process a mandated report under any circumstances. Note that 11166 (i) (3) provides that: (i) (3) Reporting the information regarding a case of possible child abuse or neglect to an employer, supervisor, school principal, school counselor, coworker, or other person shall not be a substitute for making a mandated report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9. Specified Scenario In a comment on an earlier version of this answer, the original poster of the question (OP) asks: So if there was a situation where church member X tells to a religious leader L (no other persons present) that church member Y has abused a child, then the legal responsibility for the leader to inform authorities depends primarily on state law and secondarily on what the religious traditions of that religious org state? Would this be correct? Yes, the responsibility of L in that situation depends on both the state law of the state where this occurs, and on the rules and traditions of the the church or other religious organization are. There are several questionable points in that scenario under California law: When X tells L about the abusive actions by Y, is that a "penitential communication" under the traditions of the relevant religious organization? For instance, in Catholic practice, a confession is about oneself, and any mention of the misdeeds of others is not confidential unless it would reveal the contents of the actual confession. Does religious law, tradition or practice impose a duty of secrecy on L? If not, the exception does not apply and a report is mandated if the other conditions for a report apply. My understanding (not confirmed) is that the Catholic church, for example, has in recent years changed its canon law so that a persistent course of action, showing no indication of repentance nor effort to stop the sinful action where there is a likelihood of future harm to others relives a priest from the duty of secrecy. When there is no religious duty of secrecy, the exception does not apply. Does the report by X give L "knowledge" or "reasonable suspicion" of abuse? If not, no report is mandated. If there is not at least corroboration through direct observation of the child in question, then the wording of 11166 seems to me to imply that no report is mandated, but I have not found case law confirming or opposing that conclusion. Also, under 11166 (a) (1) suspicion must be "objectively reasonable" to trigger a mandated report. If X is known for making unfounded accusations, X's report might not be grounds for "reasonable suspicion". Thus the detailed facts about the situation, and about the rules or traditions of the church or religious organization will matter.

How should a contract for Agile software development differ from a contract for Waterfall software development?

All software development contracts I've seen specify that x piece of software will be developed for y dollars within z amount of time. This works out for traditional Waterfall model projects, where you do a lot of forward planning and it is reasonable to expect that you will know how long the project will take near the beginning of the project. It doesn't match up at all for Agile , where you can start without having any idea exactly where you will end up and you are expected to be able to deal with requirements changes. How would a contract for Agile software development differ from a contract for Waterfall software development? Is there a place where I can find a sample contract for Agile development?

Keep in mind that for a real project with real money on the line you should consult with a business lawyer who can tailor a form to the specifics of your project and team. That said, this is the first google result for 'Agile Software Contracting' (and there are many others): Agile Contracts Contracting for agile software development is fundamentally different from traditional project contracting. Using traditional contracts for an agile development project can endanger the project execution and causes the company to fail to get the potential benefits of agile development. The purpose of this page is to collect references to agile contracting to support organizations to change their contracting models, reduce risk and get more benefits out of adopting Agile development. THE AGILE CONTRACTS PRIMER (PDF)

What are the legal boundaries of a parent's right to direct their children's education in terms of a private school or homeschooling curriculum?

All states in the US have some form of compulsory education law with allowances for private schools and homeschooling for children roughly between the ages of 5 and 17. There are some existing exemptions from compulsory education for special situations, but let's set aside those exemptions and assume we're talking about a child without special physical, mental, religious or geographical considerations when it comes to education. In many states the curriculum for the non-public education must cover a number of specific topics, like language arts, math, history etc. Sometimes the law requires the schooling offer an "equivalent" education to the public school education. How comprehensive and/or specific can the government's dictates be with regard to specific topics? For example, some states have banned teaching certain concepts like "That the United States of America and the state of Iowa are fundamentally or systemically racist or sexist. Currently, the law only applies to "governmental agencies and entities, school districts, and public postsecondary educational institutions", but what if the state refused to recognize a parent's proposed curriculum as equivalent or failed to certify them as a home school teacher because they knew a parent was going to teach the banned concepts? What prevents a state from requiring certain topics that some parents might object to on non-religious grounds? Can the state insist on a particular version of history for example? If the state requires that the curriculum include teaching that "Jimmy Carter was widely regarded as the handsomest US president." do parents that believe that is not true have any recourse? I realize that state law varies widely on how a parent can go about homeschooling their child, and I'm not trying to express an opinion on what children should or should not be taught. I'm interested in how far the government can go with compulsory education to ensure that its populace receives an education that is reality-based (we don't have winter because Persephone is in the underworld), and what safeguards are in place to prevent the government from using public education to teach things in its own self-interest like "only bad people need a lawyer when being questioned by the police".

The state has wide discretion on what to require that a school teach to children, particularly in the K-12 grade range. There is little case law where a parent or private school has challenged such requirements. However, for a state to forbid that certain things be taught would probably run into a first amendment problem, because the school has free speech rights. In addition, if the school is a religious one, forbidding teaching its dogmas and views might also impact the free exercise clause. Note that a state need not permit homeschooling at all, and some states do not. When a state requires that a school teach something that it disagrees with, it can often follow a line such as "Many people think X {Standard state supported concept} but we believe Y instead. Then it has taught X, but not endorsed it. Some religious schools have handles the teaching of evolution in this sort of way. If a state mandated teaching matters of opinion as fact, such as "CARTER WAS THE MOST HANDSOME president EVER" there might well be a challenge, and I am not at all sure how it would be resolved.

Opposite Title of a case

All the cases have the plaintiff's name first and and defendent's name after it ( as in Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose). But there's a case wherein the defendant's name comes first ( in: Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini Begum). Why so?

The custom is that the person who brings the case is named first. This will be the plaintiff in a civil case. But when the plaintiff wins, and the defendant appeals, the case in the appeals court may have that person (often referred to in older cases as the "defendant appellant") named first. More recent practice is to keep the name of the case the same. But it used to be considered a separate case with a separate name in some jurisdictions. In any event, this is merely a custom, and not a law. The court has discretion to name cases as it chooses in its judgements, and if a court chooses for whatever reason to follows a practice that differs from the usual one, that is the name of that particular case. Without a full citation or a link, so that the actual opinion could be consulted, three is no way to know what reason, if any, there was for the order of parties in the particular case mentioned in the question. A quick Google search did not turn up the case.

I made a software version of a semi-popular board game for free. Is that legal?

All the code is 100% my own - I made it for practice, and to showcase my abilities to potential employers. To facilitate this, I want to release the code open source on GitHub. I credit the game's designer in the opening menu, and use the title in my title. Surely since I'm not running adds on the site I plan to host it on, or monetize it in any way, I should't be in any legal trouble? Thought I'd ask first. What kind of licence would I use?

Unless the game is out of copyright, e.g. chess, snakes and ladders, Go, or checkers, your software would probably be considered a derivative work of the copyrighted game and an actionable infringement. The fact that you do not monetize it is not a defense. You would need written permission in the form of a license agreement from the copyright owner to do this legally. The penalties for violating copyright laws in this way could be punishingly serious.

On what basis did the UK courts prevent the media from publishing stories on Philip Green's behaviour?

Allegations of various sorts of inappropriate behaviour were made by several employees of Philip Green. These claims were settled and the settlements included NDAs. There is no allegation that these NDAs were improperly obtained (i.e. proper legal advice was obtained by the employees). The media were prevented from revealing Philip Green's name by an injunction. (I don't know how they found out about it, perhaps that is relevant). Lord Hain used parliamentary privilege to reveal that the stories were about Philip Green and consequently the press are now free to talk about it. My question is: given that the NDAs were between the employees making the allegations and Philip Green on what basis did the courts prevent the media from revealing his name? They were not party to the NDAs so surely cannot be bound by their terms. Presumably I'm free to tell my friends if I think its Philip Green, what's the difference? Could he take out an injunction against me? For the purposes of this question please ignore the rights and wrongs of the NDAs or the use of parliamentary privilege.

As far as I know, this was a preliminary injunction. In a case like this, if making a correct decision to grant an injunction or not would take long time, and it's likely that the damage would be done by the time of the injunction, a preliminary injunction can be granted with less careful checking of the evidence - there's not much damage if such an injunction is lifted a week later, but much damage could be prevented if the injunction is granted.

Did Zoey Tur assault Ben Shapiro?

Alleged Facts On this video (at time marker 5:32-5:36) , Ben Shapiro alleges Zoey Tur committed the crime/s (and/or tort/s) of assault and/or battery against Shapiro. (I believe) the incident occurred in California. Shapiro filed a police report and criminal complaint against Tur. After an investigation, the police and/or D.A. declined to prosecute Tur. Questions Did a crime (or tort) occur? If so: Does Shapiro have any recourse and/or mechanism to force enforcement of the criminal statutes? If Shapiro sues Tur civilly, would/should he win? If Shapiro wins a civil suit, how would damages be assessed / determined / calculated?

"If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you." ( said while grabbing the handle of sword ) This is a famous conditional threat where the speaker/actor was not found to express intent to do harm; perhaps better called a negative condition. This probably confuses matters but if you are to search for more answers this could be a good place to start. One of the elements of common law assault is that the threat must be able to be carried out immediately; it must be imminent. I do not have a cite for this but I recall that this means that conditional threats are excluded from assault. So calling a politician on the phone and telling them that if they do not drop out of a race you will hurt them is not assault. So, " You cut that out now or you’ll go home in an ambulance " sounds a lot like, "stop or you will get hurt." The victim has the opportunity to avoid the danger; the threat is not imminent. But the facts here are interesting because the speaker touched the victim while speaking which might mean fear of imminent was real. But they were in a crowded room in front of cameras - could the victim really feel that threat was imminent? Plus, the "you will go home" implies a future harm. Oh, and the speaker does not say "I will hurt you," maybe she was actually trying to protect the victim from someone else's actions. Like when my teacher knew someone was waiting outside the classroom to fight me and she told me, "if you go out there you will get hurt!" I would hope that a jury would consider this hard bargaining.

Can a child sell things in a public place without a permit?

Allison Ettel, dubbed "Permit Patty," was under fire after calling the police on an 8-year-old selling water bottles without a permit. People of the Internet got really pissed at her. Legally speaking, was she right? A quick Google search leads me to believe that minors do actually need a permit to sell stuff. However, the kid and her mother didn't get into any trouble. Was it a situation where calling the police was the proper legal action? Was Allison Ettel legally right even though everyone hates her?

It's called police and prosecutorial discretion to discern when to arrest and prosecute; and that situation in particular is also the result of a decision of the jury of the court of public opinion. Permits are required to sell on the street in Oakland. But not everyone who sells has a permit, and not everyone who is confronted about not having a permit is arrested and prosecuted. There are simply too many potential cases to prosecute. And, the police officer has the discretion to ticket or not. When you get pulled over while driving or riding a bike, you don't always get a ticket, since the officer has the option of discretion. When the officer responded and found an eight year-old selling water, he obviously was aware of the fact that it was a violation. But he was also aware of the court of public opinion. What is it going to look like if he arrests an eight year old and their parent? Allison Ettel was right, in a purely legal sense, to make the report. And technically, the child (and adult) needed a permit. And could have been ticketed and prosecuted. But it was Ettel was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, and she lost her case. Happens a lot.

Can company sue me if I release a similar product outside their operated countries?

Allow me to directly go to the scenario and take real case as an example: In the field of music-simulation game, there were many cases of patent conflicts. To name the few, Konami v Rock Band game, Konami v EZ2DJ, etc, some of those happened in US. And Konami v Pentavision which happened in Korea. Let say, if I'm going to make a drumming game, maybe into arcade game cabinet, this would clearly violates MTV Drumscape or Konami's patents in affected countries. But what if I do this in unrelated country to those companies, let's say, Laos or Thailand, which those companies does not have branch offices in. And let's say : I setup the program inside cabinet legally (the game might developed by my team) I obtained the song's license correctly. etc. No other issue for local law. Distribute the game nationwide. My question is: Can those companies sue me over this game cabinet? By any mean. Can those companies file their existing US patent in those countries and then sue me after? Will patents those big companies are holding expire and become public domain? If so, does that's mean I can then distribute this game into US?

Patent rights are absolutely territorial in nature, as the patent is granted by the state (i.e country where filed) therefore patents are only enforceable in the country where they are granted. As per my knowledge, if a patent is granted in USA and no such patent is granted or patent application has been made in australia, UK, mexico etc. , then US patent is unenforceable in those countries. The patentee has no rights to sue you in those countries. Keep in mind that, if an application for patent has already been made in those countries before your launch but no patent is yet granted, you'll be liable for infringement in those countries. If an application for patent is not made in other countries but it is made after your launch in that country, you won't be liable until unless that application is made within one year from the original application for patent in the country where such application was made first. Once a patent falls into public domain, you are free to commercialize its contents but normally inventions have multiple patents, so you have to see that you don't infringe on any other patent because a product can have multiple patents and expiry of any one patent doesn't put the entire product's technology into public domain. It only puts the content of expired patent in the public domain. I hope this would have given you some basic idea of patents.

Are open air cremations illegal in most of the US?

Almost all cremations done in the US are done at crematoriums where bodies are put inside an incinerator. The only open-air cremation service in the US is the non-profit Crestone End-Of-Life Project , which does a handful of open-air cremations every year in Crestone, Colorado. But my question is, are there specific state laws that prohibit open-air funerals everywhere else in the country? Maybe environmental laws, fire safety laws, or body desecration laws?

I'll give you the situation in Washington, which is probably similar to the situation elsewhere. RCW 68.50.130 say that you have to follow the law in disposing of a body. To perform a cremation, you need a license . The regulations established by the Department of Licensing say that cremations take place in a crematory, and the facility must be licensed . We turn to the definition of crematory, which is a building or area of a building that houses one or more cremation chambers, to be used for the cremation of human remains This applies to hydrolysis facilities as well, but not composting facilities (which can simply be "real property").

Religious exemption to vaccines that relies on preservation of life

Almost every US state allows a religious exemption to vaccination requirements in schools. Some religions are opposed to vaccination as a basic principle (maybe because healing is reserved for God or something like that), and those obviously fall under the religious exemption. Judaism is not one of those religions. If someone claims that it is and requests a religious exemption on those grounds, I understand that the government is not going to dig any deeper and deal with questions of religious law. But as far as I understand, the more usual claim is along the lines of "mumble mumble dangerous mumble autism mumble mumble and Judaism requires me to keep my kids out of danger, so therefore religiously I'm not allowed to vaccinate them." (See the deservedly downvoted answers to the linked question.) Does that really support a religious exemption? It's not even a religious argument! Or to put it another way, comparing these four claims: vaccination My religion says that healing is reserved for God so I can't vaccinate My religion puts a high value on human life and Dr. Quack says vaccines are dangerous so I can't vaccinate accomodations at work I'm Sabbath observant. I'll have to miss the Friday afternoon meetings during the winter My religion says I should use my time wisely. The Wednesday 2PM meeting is a waste of time, we never do anything productive, so therefore I can't come to it. 1.2 and 2.2 look basically the same to me. Is there a difference between them? Does 1.2 work? (Apparently it does, because people use it.) Does 2.2 work? (That would be really useful!)

The legal question is whether there is a religion-specific exception to mandatory vaccination laws, and if so where does it come from? These are state-specific laws, so one would have to look at a specific state to answer the question. In Washington, this is implemented in the exemptions section, RCW 28A.210.090 (1)(b) A written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the religious beliefs of the signator are contrary to the required immunization measures; or (c) A written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the signator has either a philosophical or personal objection to the immunization of the child.... (2)(c) Any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child who exempts the child due to religious beliefs pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of this section is not required to have the form provided for in (a) of this subsection signed by a health care practitioner if the parent or legal guardian demonstrates membership in a religious body or a church in which the religious beliefs or teachings of the church preclude a health care practitioner from providing medical treatment to the child. In other words, you have to just say you object for one of these reasons, or you have to show that you are a member of a sect that is known to object. The law does not, however, provide a central registry of churches whose teachings preclude immunization, not is there any investigation of the claim allowed under the law. In Nevada, NRS 392.437 does not expressly include the personal-or-philosophical exception contained in Washington law: A public school shall not refuse to enroll a child as a pupil because the child has not been immunized pursuant to NRS 392.435 if the parents or guardian of the child has submitted to the board of trustees of the school district or the governing body of a charter school in which the child has been accepted for enrollment a written statement indicating that their religious belief prohibits immunization of such child. However, there is, likewise, no further vetting of the claim for exemption where the state determines if the religion claim is real. Nevertheless, under a Nevada-type law, one would have to make the claim that the belief was religious in nature, in order to claim the Free-Exercise exemption. California has no such exemptions – they eliminated an existing exemption – and predictable they were sued ( Brown v. Smith ). The state district court rejected a free exercise argument, though one based on the California constitution (the court however cited various free exercise rulings in the US). That court points to case law saying that "the state’s wish to prevent the spread of communicable diseases clearly constitutes a compelling interest", suggesting that such a law might pass strict scrutiny (the First Amendment has limited exceptions). The ultimate legal source of such exceptions is the First Amendment, specifically the "Free Exercise Clause". In a nutshell, that says that the government cannot prohibit a person from exercising their religious beliefs. If that means you must pray at noon, you must be allowed to pray at noon; if that means that you cannot eat lettuce, you cannot be forced to eat lettuce. Because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the government also may not get into the business of approving or disapproving religions. The courts have indicated that a personal or subjective belief does not enjoy Free Exercise protection. In Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 the court commented that Although a determination of what is a "religious" belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Thus, if the Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at Walden Pond, their claims would not rest on a religious basis. Thoreau's choice was philosophical and personal, rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses. Somewhat contradictorily, in US v. Seeger , the court held that "The test of religious belief within the meaning of the exemption in § 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption", but "The exemption does not cover those who oppose war from a merely personal moral code, nor those who decide that war is wrong on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations, rather than religious belief", and "There is no issue here of atheistic beliefs, and, accordingly, the decision does not deal with that question" (that is, the court did not rule on atheistic religious beliefs). Under the premise that one claims a religious exemption, there is no further investigation as to how compelling the claim is. On the other hand, if one makes a claim that merely looks like slapping the religion label on a personal objection, one might well run afoul of the state law, and then the courts might be forced to judge that very delicate question. This could arise, for instance, in the context of the Islamic distinction between haram and makruh acts, where the former are absolutely forbidden and the latter are "recommended against".

What legal standing do non-compete clauses have in employment contracts?

Almost every job I have ever held has a non-compete clause, lasting for up to a year after I leave a particular organisation, prohibiting me form delivering similar services on behalf of a competitor. Are these clauses actually valid in a court of law? I'm most interested in UK law, but as most of these roles are for international companies, any examples would be useful.

I can answer for the U.S., if that's helpful. The general rule, in the United States, is that covenants not to compete are enforceable as long as they are reasonable. What constitutes "reasonable" varies from state to state. Factors considered generally include: What kind of actual harm will come to the business if you go to a competitor? In other words, is this rote language they include in every contract, or did they put it in yours because you know all the secret formulas and have the customer list memorized? Is it reasonable in time, location, and scope? Something preventing you from taking any job anywhere in the United States for ten years won't be enforceable; something preventing you from taking a job with the exact same title in the same industry in the same town for the next six months might be. The general rule at common law was that covenants not to compete were unenforceable restraints of trade; the fact that they're enforceable at all is later law created by each jurisdiction, and that means it's going to vary based on your specific jurisdiction. If you want to know whether it's okay to take a specific job based on a specific non-compete you signed, you will need to talk to a legal professional licensed in your jurisdiction--and even she may not be able to tell you for sure.

What exactly does "Copyright © [year] [company]" on a website entail?

Almost every website has some variation of "Copyright © [year] [company]" at the bottom. Sometimes they also add "All rights reserved". What exactly do those terms entail? My biggest concern is this: by writing that, is the company claiming to own everything on the website, even potentially copyrighted user-submitted material?

The notice has a lot to do with legacy requirements in the United States to claim the copyright to a work. Up until 1989, the copyright notice was required. Today, the statements are mainly maintained to protect against "innocent infringement" which might reduce what a content owner can get in court. What exactly do those terms entail? That the owner stated owns all rights and you may do nothing with the content. My biggest concern is this: by writing that, is the company claiming to own everything on the website, even potentially copyrighted user-submitted material? That's exactly what they are doing. Depending on the terms of the specific site, content contributors generally either assign copyright to the site owner or license the content in a way that allows the site owner to do exactly what they want with it. Site creators with the smarts or money to do it right/get someone to do it right usually state something like: Copyright [Site Owner] and contributors. Other sites (like this one) state specifically what they hold the copyright to: site design / logo © 2015 Stack Exchange Inc THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY REGARDING YOUR SPECIFIC SITUATION.

Could Apple legally steal a leaked design and claim it as their own?

Almost every year, millions wait in anticipation to hear about what new products will be announced during Apple's scheduled launch events. Weeks and days before, the press publishes photos obtained from secret sources of what they claim will be revealed during the event. Most of the "leaks" turn out to be made up fake rendered CAD models. A few, however, are good enough to fool many into believing it came from Apple's industrial design group. Consider, for instance, Apple likes one of the fake designs so much, it secretly appropriates it for an upcoming product. Let's say they go even further and legally claim it as their own design. Does the original designer of the fake have a legal claim to their own work, especially after falsely purporting it belonged to Apple? Moreover, could Apple subpoena the publication the fake appeared in to testify against the designer's claim? What about the protection of the press? If the designer loses in court, could Apple turn around press charges against them for theft? Could the publication sue the designer for selling them a fake story? In summary, would it be wise for the designer to seek a claim on their work even if millions of dollars were at stake?

Yes, the original designer (or the designer's employer) would have a legal right to the design, insofar as it included protectable design elements. Copyright on the design of "useful" products is limited, and the exact limitations vary from country to country. However, it might be hard for the designer (or the company for which the designer works) to prove that the creation was original, and was not an actual leak. But if the designer or company has retained sufficient evidence to convince a court, then a suit could be successful. Such a possibility makes me doubt that Apple or a similar large company would do that. The risks are too great when a design of their own creation would probably be quite good enough for their purposes. But that is all speculation.

Old Photo copyright

Almost finish with writing a business book - and am going through some of the illustrations to make sure I have copyright permissions and attributions. Here's a problem I've encountered: There are a few photos that are from World War 2 era (battlefield photos in France, for instance), that are generally very common on the web - and I cannot find any attribution - let alone license information for these photos. Another photo or two is very specific (Cargo Cults) and the few photos available also have no source or attribution - but are used just about everywhere. I'm pretty good at searching, and diving deep. I've also checked AP, Getty images, other commercial sites and also the Smithsonian archives. Nothing. So - what do I do? I don't want to get sued after the book is published, or charged extortion after-the-fact, or worse, have to reprint the book without the photos. REWORDING the main question for clarity (and so others don't think I am asking for legal advice: My question is not generally not "how can I search online to find the original image". The question is - how can I properly use and attribute a photo inside my book - when no official attribution or copyright can be found? Note: 1) this is a writer's question tagged under the "copyright" tag. in all of stack exchange there is no place more appropriate than here.

The fact that you haven't managed to determine who holds the copyright does not per se mean that you can't be sued for infringement. Given the age of the items, it is possible that they are no longer protected, as specified in 17 USC 304 depending on the country where the right exists and details of registration. Assuming that the copyright is still valid and the rights-holder sues you, then you might attempt a fair-use defense. This Q&A summarizes the legal elements of that defense. It's unclear how you would fare w.r.t. the purpose and character element: being free and educational is seen as good. The nature of the work favors fair use (news item), but the extent element doesn't ("extent" could be favorable if you take only the eyebrows, but you're basically copying the whole thing). The 'effect on market' concern probably favors fair use, since the use wouldn't apparently undermine a market for the original work (indeed, there may be no such market, but it's never safe to assume). And finally, there's the mystery factor of "transformativeness". The fair-use index run by the copyright office can help, since you can read summaries of cases where fair use was found versus not found, to try and determine what constitutes "fair use".

Was it legal in 2004 to sell a minor an airline ticket from the US to a foreign country without proof of parental consent?

Alone, when I was 17 (born 1987), I bought a ~$537 round-trip web/internet ticket (for a 2-week trip to Amsterdam by way of Germany) and returned at age 18. I did not have official parental consent, and I was not asked for proof of consent. Did the airport/airline who made money and/or the travel agent who made money break the law? As with all my law/legal questions, I do not intend to litigate and do not need legal advice, so I am seeking general legal knowledge, what happens in such situations, what laws apply, how well does the law work covering these factors? In terms of "minors should be protected from unscrupulous merchants taking unfair advantage of their naivete" and "minors should be restricted from jetting off to parts unknown, for their own safety", I did not mean to distinguish one or the other though, judgement could be for both issues, if a line was crossed, either is applicable.

So far as I can see, no US law required an airline to demand written parental consent for a passenger aged 17 in 2004, nor does any law requires such consent now. A passport could probably have been required. Minors in general may make and enforce contracts, including those for purchase of travel services. Parental consent is only required for a few specific activities, and air travel does not seem to be one. The question asks "Was I liable at 17 or 18...?" Liable for what? There is no liability unless there is wrongdoing or negligence or at least harm to someone. I don't see what there was to be liable for here, so there is no reason to try to determine who was liable. Had a law been violated, it would make sense to ask who was criminally responsible, but apparently none was. If no one was harmed there is no civil liability. I am not clear why the OP thinks there was a legal problem. Nothing in the question indicates that there would have been.

Filing a patent without 100% ownership

Along with a co-inventor, who is employed by company ABC Pty Ltd , you invent "Gadget Thing". (To be clear: you are not employed by ABC Pty Ltd .) It looks like a great, first-of-field invention with huge commercial potential. ABC Pty Ltd files a provisional patent application with you and your co-inventor correctly identified as Inventors, but you are not privy to the filing and so remain unaware until well after the application is made public that ABC Pty Ltd deliberately recorded itself as the sole applicant (obviously a pretty stupid decision because they clearly did not own 100% of interest in the IP). This later causes problems because ABC Pty Ltd lacked standing when they filed, and the patent/application is invalidated. Understanding that the answer will likely vary from region to region and any observations are stuck with that caveat, is it likely that ABC Ptd Ltd has done anything illegal (e.g. IP theft)? What other issues might be relevant in a case like this?

A U.S. answer. In the US there is nothing about this that automatically makes the patent invalid. They listed all the inventors as required. How did they handle not having a signed declaration from you? If they forged your signature that can be fraud on the office. Alternatively they could have said you had some agreement with them that justified them saying they tried to reach you but couldn’t (sometimes ok under the AIA law but not earlier) and therefore filed without your signature. However, depending on the details, you might want to help them fix that up in retrospect and enjoy being exactly equal co-owners with ABC Ptd Ltd. In the U.S. all rights flow from the inventors and the default is they can each make, sell, import, etc, and can each license with no consulting or accounting to each other, a horrible arrangement. This puts them in a bad position commercially and they might give you much money or royalty stream for you to agree to a different arrangement. In the rest of the world the applicant is often more important than the inventors so this is a U.S. only answer.

Can a California county restrict redistribution of its GIS products? (even if I FOIA the data)

Alpine County, CA makes a Parcel Map available for a certain fee. Many other counties make this data available for free but Alpine County charges some $1.3k to acquire it. This part is fine, and I imagine that if I FOIA'd (or CPR'd ) the data it would still come out to be that sum of money. I don't mind paying this, except that I'd want to be able to redistribute this public information. However, the compulsory license agreement they require from me to get it restricts such use. Is it legal for them to restrict access even if I FOIA/CPR'd this data from them? I'd prefer to just buy it from them normally but if I have to pay that amount to FOIA it, I can do so too. The key is I want to be able to give it out for free like the other counties do.

It seems that a California court (County of Santa Clara v. First Amendment Coalition) has ruled that the California Public Records Act does not grant a basis to copyright works by the State of California. Thus assuming the work cannot be copyrighted under other statutes, requesting this information in this way will provide you access to a work in the public domain.

What if someone put a non-lethal "bomb" in a package addressed to them to get back at a mail stealing thief

Already I know this is a bad idea. Someone keeps stealing my friends packages that were left on their doorstep. They had the bright idea of rigging a smoke bomb or itching powder bomb or something nasty that would be triggered when the package was opened and leaving it on their doorstep to get back at the thief. Not sure if they are going to do this, but I'd want to have solid legal advise I can give them to prevent them from doing this. Yes opening someone else's mail is a federal crime, but what if the person is injured by this "bomb"- even if only mildly. How would that play out if they tried to press charges? They'd have to admit to a federal crime OR maybe they lie and say they were confused (haha not sure how plausible that argument would be in court though). Essentially I want a realistic worst case legal scenario.

"Revenge" is not a legal concept. If you injure someone other than in self defence or for another legal reason than you are committing assault. Hence dangerous booby traps for trespassers are illegal, so anything that might cause injury, however minor, is definitely out. That includes itching powder. However I would make an analogy with anti-climb paint . This allows you to use a paint that damages clothing provided you put up warning signs . So if you were to leave a parcel coated with anti-climb paint or containing a bag of paint or glitter rigged to spill it over the person opening it then that would be legal as long as there was a warning that tampering may cause property damage. (Note "spill", not "squirt" or "splash": anything ejecting paint or glitter under pressure might get it in someone's eyes, causing injury). So your friend could put a notice up saying that unauthorised tampering with parcels could cause damage to property and then put out parcels that might do exactly that. Your friend could also put a GPS tracker in a parcel to try to find out where they are going. Update Here is someone who did this . The BBC story does not mention any legal issues for him. A former Nasa [sic] engineer spent six months building a glitter bomb trap to trick thieves after some parcels were stolen from his doorstep. The device, hidden in an Apple Homepod box, used four smartphones, a circuit board and 1lb (453g) of glitter. Mark Rober, who is now a Youtuber, caught the original thieves on his home security camera. [...] The former Nasa engineer said: "If anyone was going to make a revenge bait package and over-engineer the crap out of it, it was going to be me."

What happens if an international student doesn’t pay rent and then leaves the country?

Already moved out of an unhabitable apartment 4 months ago. Can’t really sue or break lease (at least I don’t think) cause I messed up. What happens if I stop paying rent? Location: PA, USA Okay, here’s the situation. I will preface by saying, I know I messed up. This is being written in March 2023. In January, I faced a number of issues in my apartment. The heating stopped working and the smoke detector started beeping every 2 minutes. It was living hell. Earlier, in September when I first moved in, I arrived to a fridge infested with hundreds of fruit flies and a ton of left over food from the tenant whose place I took over during the summer. I cleaned it all, and then the flies kept returning. I then noticed the fridge gasket was very loose in several parts which was what was causing the flies to go in. I learned that the only way to contact maintenance was through submitting a work order online - no phone number. I submitted a work order, it took around two weeks for anything to happen, i then got an email where they said they fulfilled it, but when i checked the fridge there was no change, not even a replaced gasket. (I have photos and videos for all of this if it makes a difference.) I accepted the situation and made do with my mini fridge. Now fast forward to January. After September’s experience, I was pretty cynical that submitting a work order would actually fix anything (this was my mistake) and I spoke to management in person about it. They did tell me to submit a work order. I had also run into a maintenance worker and verbally told him about the situation and he verbally told me he’d come the next day to fix it, but he didn’t. I got a respiratory infection (documented) and when I told my parents abroad about the situation, they told me to move out, so I did. At the same time I went through some other difficult circumstances and got diagnosed with ADHD. The work order never got submitted. I completely forgot about it. This was a year long lease so I was stuck paying for every month since then while not living there. I am an international student and this is my first time being an adult so I was unfamiliar with what these actions entailed and the amount of money I am paying every month in addition to my new place’s rent. I get that because I didn’t put the work order in at the time, I probably have no legal standing because of the lack of a paper trail. But this is seriously taking a financial and mental toll on me and I would really benefit from saving the 5,500 dollars in rent I still have left to pay from the lease. I just thought of something that is potentially reckless so I came here to check if it’s an option. Can I just stop paying rent? I get that eviction is a potential consequence, but I already moved out in January. What are the other probable legal consequences? This is a big company that owns the apartment building in addition to many other properties in the city, so I don’t know if that means they are more or less likely to make use of every legal action against me. I am leaving the country in August. I know the country’s legal system is slow, so even if the company does take legal action against me, is it likely for me to face consequences within these few months?

Two different questions here, damaged housing and the rights of a tenant, and leaving the country to get away from a debt. If you simply leave the US with the debt left unpaid, you won't have problems at the border crossing going out. But the debt will not go away simply because you don't answer the mail. Quite possibly, the landlord will sell the debt to a collection agency, which adds interest and fees to the claim if they ever find you in the US again. They may or may not find you. But you risk complicating your future. Can you imagine telling an employer "sorry, I cannot work in the US?"

Evil mother filed missing person report after kicking out adult daughter. Any way to dismiss it?

Alright, so my girlfriend and I were planning to move in together sometime next month. We've been in a long distance relationship for over 2 years and have never met in person until now. She was in Oregon and me in California. To make this easier for everyone, I kept advising her to tell her parents in advance so I can meet them beforehand. Unfortunately, they suddenly went berserk and decided to kick her out one random day at 3am after her mother failed to catfish me the night before. She was able to beg for extra time so they let her stay until evening that day. That day, her mother kept yelling and breaking her things (shattered phone as evidence) as well as spilling water on her boxes she had prepared to move out. When she told me about this that morning, I immediately skipped work and went on a 17-ish hour long non-stop road trip to pick her up. She has just turned 18 last month and did not have a job so she would've probably ended up on the streets. She still had her laptop to talk to me so I was able to call her a taxi for a nearby Motel. With the money she had, she was only able to afford up to 2 nights there. Anyway, I got there at 2am and we left to California the next morning. Now we're finding out that her mother tried messaging the phone she broke and accusing me of kidnapping her daughter. We know she's crazy so, for our safety, we refuse to disclose our location but she did take selfies, videos, and even called her over the phone to prove that she's fine. Even then, she filed a missing person report and we're being tracked down. They already found records of places we stayed and visited. What can we do to dismiss such report? Does she just show up at a local police department telling them that she's fine and it was her own decision? Her mother said the police also wanted to talk to me separately. I do not want to get involved in this at all. Can I reject it? Can we file chargers to her mother for being so abusive? Would I get in trouble for being in a relationship with her daughter since I was 20 and she was 16? We had never met in person until now, to avoid any trouble. She's short which makes her look a lot younger than she is. She did bring her Oregon driving permit and birth certificate as proof of her age. Furthermore, I'm part of the DACA program so I fear this may put my work authorization at risk. I really love my fiancee and do not want to be separated from her...

What can we do to dismiss such report? Does she just show up at a local police department telling them that she's fine and it was her own decision? In short, yes. She shows up at a local police station, tells her side of the story including the whole bit about things getting destroyed and her getting kicked out, cites the missing persons report, and make it clear that she's not missing but an independent adult who is free and making her own decisions. Since she's over 18, she can do that. (Bringing proof of age might be helpful.) The mystery of the missing person will be considered solved from the police side. She does not have to give a specific address where she's living, just convince the officer that she's OK and making an intentional decision to create distance between herself and her mother. She could also try calling (the same local station which is convenient to her current location) before showing up to see if that satisfies the officer, and only go in if needed. Would I get in trouble for being in a relationship with her daughter since I was 20 and she was 16? We had never met in person until now, to avoid any trouble. Shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's a mutually willing (non-coercive) relationship. Her mother said the police also wanted to talk to me separately. I do not want to get involved in this at all. Can I reject it? Yes, you can reject it. You do not have to answer ANY question a police officer asks; you have the right to remain silent and/or to say only "I have the right to remain silent." To reduce the probability that they'll even ask questions, you might prefer not accompanying your girlfriend when she goes to clear the missing persons report, if she goes in-person. This adds more weight to her assertion that she's going there to clear it of her own free will, not because you're forcing her.

Can I turn cryptocurrency into giftcards without being taxed?

Alright, so my idea is to trade crypto then turn it into giftcards since I don't have a bank account. I want to make sure taxes don't apple. Thanks for any help!

No. This does not work. When the transfer your crypto in exchange for something else that is a taxable disposition of the crypto and any appreciation in value it has experienced is subject to capital gains taxation. If you don't self-report it, you are committing tax fraud, for which there are significant civil penalties and potentially even criminal penalties.

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

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

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

What is the difference between theft by deception or theft of services and fraud?

Also, is fraud actually a crime by itself, or is it an element in another crime (theft by deception, tax evasion, etc.)?

maryland Different jurisdictions define "fraud" and various crimes differently. I am therefore concentrating on the laws of the state of Maryland, in the US, which I believe is reasonably typical of US laws on such topics. Criminal Fraud Title 8 of the Maryland Criminal Code (FRAUD AND RELATED CRIMES) prohibits a number of acts which it defines as crimes, all of which involve fraud, false statements, or misrepresentations. These are categorized as: Bad Checks Credit Card Crimes Identity Fraud Other Commercial Fraud Public Fraud Counterfeiting and Related Crimes Crimes Against Estates Financial Crimes Against Vulnerable Adults Miscellaneous Fraud Most of these involved obtaining money or other benefits, or depriving someone of value, by means of false statements or misrepresentation. Generally the various code sections in Title 8 prohibit specific acts in specific fact patterns. Section 8-501 defines fraud for the purpose of several code sections by providing that: In this part, "fraud" includes: (1) the willful making of a false statement or a false representation; (2) the willful failure to disclose a material change in household or financial condition; or (3) the impersonation of another. This actually applies only to sections 8-502 through 8-507, but similar definitions apply throughout title 8. For example, section 8-522] provides in relevant part, that: (b) Prohibited.- (b) (1) A person may not use, sell, or send or deliver to another, with the intent to induce the payment of a claim, a document that: (b) (1) (i) simulates a summons, complaint, or other court process of any kind; or (b) (1) (ii) implies that the person is a part of or associated with a unit of the federal government or a unit of the State or a county or municipal government. (b) (2) With intent to induce the payment of a claim, a person may not use a seal, insignia, envelope, or any other form that simulates the seal, insignia, envelope, or form of any governmental unit. In general, knowing use of a false statement, false document, or materiel misrepresentation to obtain an improper financial gain, or to deprive another of value is likely to fall under one of these code sections. Theft by Deception In Maryland, "theft by deception" is covered by code section 7-104 (b) which provides that: (b) Unauthorized control over property - By deception.- A person may not obtain control over property by willfully or knowingly using deception, if the person: (b) (1) intends to deprive the owner of the property; (b) (2) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or (b) (3) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property. So t6hat involves using some sort of deception to obtain property or deprive another of property. This could be considered a form of fraud, but it is a very specific one. Theft of Services Section 7-104 (e) {same link as above} providwes that: (e) Services available only for compensation.- A person may not obtain the services of another that are available only for compensation: (e) (1) by deception; or (e) (2) with knowledge that the services are provided without the consent of the person providing them. So theft of services may or may not involve deception. Civil Fraud What might be called "pure fraud" is usually a civil matter, not a criminal one. In its page on "Contracts" the Maryland People's law Library says: Fraud – the court may cancel a contract if one of the parties knowingly made a misrepresentation or told a lie in forming the agreement. Proving fraud can be difficult; there will usually have to be an outright lie or a substantial omission in the contract. A similar statement could be made in most US states. Indeed § 2-721 of the Uniform commercial code (A version of which has been enacted by every US state, as I understand it) provides that: Remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all remedies available under this Article for non-fraudulent breach. Neither rescission or a claim for rescission of the contract for sale nor rejection or return of the goods shall bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other remedy.

If a foreigner marries a green card holder in the US, will the foreigner also be entitled to a green card at some point?

Also, what is the difference between a foreigner marrying a green card holder vs a citizen of the US?

Short Answer If a foreigner marries a green card holder in the US, will the foreigner also be entitled to a green card at some point? Yes. In theory. Congress can, however, change the system by legislation before someone gets a visa that they have applied for at any time, which could prevent some applicants from ever receiving a visa. what is the difference between a foreigner marrying a green card holder vs a citizen of the US? Someone marrying a citizen of the U.S. has a higher priority that is not subject to categorical or country based quotas. This means that delays in these visas being issued are shorter : If your spouse is a U.S. citizen and you currently live in the United States, it takes on average 11-20 months to get a marriage-based green card. Spouses of U.S. citizens living in the United States can file their I-130 and their I-485 at the same time. If your spouse is a U.S. citizen and you currently live outside the United States, it takes on average 7.5-13.5 months to get a marriage-based green card. A foreigner marrying a green card holder is subject to both categorical and country based quotas which can greatly delay the processing of their application, but, in theory, will eventually cause a lawful permanent resident visa to be issued to the foreigner seeking to marry the lawful permanent resident. The delay is especially long if the foreigner is from Mexico or the Philippines. According to this source : The total processing time for obtaining a marriage based green card when one spouse is a permanent resident and the other is a foreign national seeking a green card, both living in the U.S., ranges from 29-38 months. Another source (the same one used for the delays for U.S. citizen spouses), however, states: Spouses of green card holders will have to wait for a green card to become available after their sponsor files form I-130 and before they can apply for a green card from either within the United States or at a U.S. consulate abroad. In most cases, it takes about two years for a green card to become available, and the entire process takes around three years. It can take slightly longer for citizens of Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines. If your spouse is a green card holder and you currently live in the United States, then you will wait about 11-20 months to receive your green card. If your spouse is a green card holder and you currently live outside the United States, then you will wait about 13.5-35.5 months to receive your green card. Long Answer Overview This answer provides an overview of the overall U.S. immigration system for green cards and otherwise, because it is easier to understand immigration in the specific category asked about in the context of the overall picture. Overall, the U.S. grants about one million people a year lawful permanent resident visas (a.k.a. "green cards") under several distinct priority systems, some of which have quotas and some of which do not. It also grants a great many temporary visas. ( Source for the images above) Family Based Immigration The biggest single category of these lawful permanent resident visas are granted based upon a family relationship with a current U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The number of lawful permanent resident applications that can be granted each year on the basis of family relationship other than being immediate relatives of U.S. citizens is limited a quota of about 480,000 visas a year created by U.S. immigration law and there is a priority system for those applications. In fiscal year 2021: A total of 757,206 petitions to establish a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or green card holder (Form I-130) were received in FY2021, with a steep uptick in quarters three and four (USCIS received 149,173; 148,039; 243,753; and 216,241 petitions in quarters 1 through 4, respectively). Overall, denials of I-130 petitions fell in FY2021 to just under 11 percent. USCIS received 300,162 adjustment of status applications on Form I-485 in FY2020, but only 288,668 in FY2021. The agency approved 266,080 applications, a significant increase from the approval of 229,676 seen the year before. In further good news, 44,181 applications were denied in FY2021, down from 53,032 denials last year. However, this progress was not enough to make a meaningful dent in the family-based I-485 backlog, which stands at 349,350 pending cases at the close of FY2021 — a 52% increase over FY2020. Current estimates place the family-based green card backlog – including the USCIS and Department of State green card backlogs — at 1.6 million. A spouse of a lawful permanent resident of the United States (a.k.a. a "green card holder") is eligible to apply to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States on that basis, and so in a spouse of a U.S. citizen. ( Source ) If you are the spouse, minor child or parent of a U.S. citizen, this application can be granted to these people who count as " immediate relatives of U.S. Citizens " without considering the quotas established by U.S. immigration law for other kinds of lawful permanent resident applications based upon family relationships. In family based visa application system for people other than immediate family of U.S. citizens there are five different layers of priority, a spouse of a lawful permanent resident has second priority after the unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens: First preference (F1) - unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age and older) of U.S. citizens; Second preference (F2A) - spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years of age) of lawful permanent residents; Second preference (F2B) - unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age and older) of lawful permanent residents; Third preference (F3) - married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and Fourth preference (F4) - brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age and older) Country Quotas And Backlogs In addition to those priority categories there are also priorities and quotas within the overall allowed family immigration visa quota based upon the applicants' countries of origin. For the capped preference categories in the family and employment streams, U.S. law imposes a limit on how many immigrants from any particular country can receive green cards in a given year. Under the per-country cap set in the Immigration Act of 1990, no country can receive more than 7 percent of the total number of employment-based and family-sponsored preference visas in a given year. There are no per-country limits for uncapped categories, such as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Because of the numerical caps and per-country caps on certain green-card categories, there are significant waits for some categories, with sharper effects on a few countries. For example, as of April 2019, the wait for U.S. citizens to sponsor adult, unmarried children was more than seven years for most parts of the world, but was 12 years for relatives from the Philippines—and more than 21 years for those from Mexico. As of November 2018, there were 3.7 million people waiting in line abroad for a family-sponsored green card, and 121,000 awaiting an employment-sponsored green card. ( Source ) Thus, a lawful permanent resident's spouse applying to become a lawful permanent resident needs to be able to fit in both a quota for their visa priority level and also a quota for their country of origin. These combined quotas often give rise to large backlogs, especially for immigrants from Mexico and the Philippines. Non-Family Based Green Cards There are also more than half a dozen other major categories of grounds upon which someone can apply for lawful permanent residence status in addition to a family relationship with a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent residence of the U.S. Some of the main other categories of lawful permanent residence visa applications are those based upon ordinary employment (about 140,000 a year), employment as a religious worker or journalist, those based upon refugee, asylum, crime or abuse victim status, connections to services done for the U.S. military in Afghanistan or Iraq or in NATO, diversity visa lottery winners (about 55,000 a year), and a host of other niche grounds for applying for this status that have accumulated on an ad hoc basis over time. The priorities and quotas for lawful permanent resident visas granted on these other grounds are more or less independent of the priorities and quotas that apply to applications for lawful permanent residence status based upon a family connection to someone who is already a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. For example: There were 45,897 applications for employment-based green cards submitted to USCIS in the final quarter of FY2021, a dramatic increase from the 26,433 applications received during the same period last year. In total, USCIS approved 161,438 employment green cards, a 1,077% increase from 13,709 the previous year. Employment-based green card backlogs in particular have become an unfortunate fixture of the U.S. immigration system, largely due to regulations that cap the number of immigrant visas (green cards) issued to citizens of any one nation, as well as the overall green card caps put in place by Congress that were discussed earlier. By law, USCIS can issue up to 140,000 employment-based green cards each year, plus any unused family green cards from the previous year. As a result of the steep decline in family-based green cards issued during FY2020 discussed above, 122,000 family-preference visas went unused and were added to the 2021 cap on employment-based visas, which raised the total available to 262,000. Due to administrative processing backlogs and other paperwork snafus, however, about 200,000 available visas under the quotes have not been used in recent years. The predominant source for the visa related statistics above which are not otherwise attributed is here . Temporary Visas In addition to lawful permanent resident visa, the U.S. also issued a wide variety of other temporary visas, some of which, like vistor's visas from countries with whom the U.S. has a favorable immigration relationship and student visa, are granted almost as a matter of course, and others of which, like H1-B technology worker visas, are extremely scarce and hard to obtain. Change In Status Considerations Special rules apply to transitioning from one kind of visa to another and to the treatment of undocumented immigrants who seek to obtain lawful immigrant status with an appropriate visa (particularly a subset of the applicants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program).

Is US Immigration policy's per-country quota cap for employment-based immigration illegal?

Although United States federal law has provisions against national origin discrimination , why does the immigration system still discriminate against people by national origin ? Each country has a 7% quota, which might seem superficially fair except for the fact that the population of countries is highly variable. Currently, Chinese and Indian immigrants have to wait 5-10 years for a greencard, whereas immigrants from some 100+ other countries can get a greencard almost immediately. For example: Suppose immigrants born in China, India, and Sweden are sponsored for an employment-based greencard for the same position. The Swedes will get it within 6 months while the Chinese will have to wait for roughly 5 years and the Indians will likely wait 10 years. If discrimination based on national origin is illegal in employment, then how is it legal to discriminate on that characteristic in employment-based immigration systems?

In fact, the immigration quotas do not discriminate. The described limit is that "No more than 7 percent of the visas may be issued to natives of any one independent country in a fiscal year; no more than 2 percent may issued to any one dependency of any independent country". All countries get the same upper limit. Additionally, anti-discrimination laws are subject matter specific: they exist because Congress passed a law that prohibits using race as a basis for employing a person (which Congress can do because of the Commerce Clause). Congress has not passed any such law pertaining to granting of visas. There is a path of reasoning that could lead to concluding that national quotas violate anti-discrimination laws, based on an "effects test" ( disparate impact ). It appears to be a fact that an applicant for a visa has a much higher probability of being denied a visa is their country of origin is China or India, as opposed to Sweden, which one could spin into a disparate impact argument. In order for this argument to become the law, there would have to be a case brought to the federal courts to the effect that national quotas are illegal, and as far as I know there has never been such a case. There are no provisions in anti-discrimination legislation that support a disparate impact doctrine in immigration, and pretty clear evidence that it was not congressionally intended since Title 8 Ch. 12 clearly calls for nation-based quotas. A final point: " national origin discrimination " is based on "an individual's, or his or her ancestor's, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group". A Swedish citizen of "Chinese national origin" is subject to the Swedish quota, not the Chinese quota, thus the discrimination is based on country of citizenship, not national origin.

Senate Impeachment rule change?

Although a 2/3 majority is required for the Senate to convict an impeached US President, some of the rules governing the Senate trial can be amended by a simple majority of the Senators. Could a simple majority of Senators vote to make the conviction vote a secret ballot? EDIT in light of some interesting answers: By secret, I mean no record exists to ascribe a particular vote to a specific senator. Black balls, pieces of paper with "Convict" or "Don't convict" printed on them, whatever. Obtaining individual "Yays and Nays" to record in the Journal after the secret ballots have been collected and counted could prove impossible, but would that invalidate the result of the original, secret ballot?

Yes the Senate could adopt a secret ballot rule, but other constitutional provisions combined with high partisanship make it practically impossible that the final results will be done through secret ballot. As other answers have mentioned, Article 1, Section 3, provides for the Senate to have sole power of trying impeachments. Similarly by Article 1, Section 5, each House may adopt its own rules. That means that yes the Senate can create its own rules that say the conviction vote will be done by secret ballot. However, adopting these rules only achieves a pyrrhic secret ballot. The very same section that provides for each house to make its own rules (Article 1, Section 5) also states: ...and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal. This means that if any vote is taken including this secret ballot vote, after doing so any member can ask for the Yeas and Nays of all members to be put into the Journal. The journal is the official record of each House. Thus while the vote was first taken in secret at least any member of the Senate will have access to the subsequent recorded vote, provided at least 1/5 of the Senate wishes to have a recorded vote. While not all is lost, the Senate could declare that this record itself is to remain secret, all 100 Senators and most likely many of their staff members will know how each Senator voted. Additionally, the Speech and Debate Clause states that: for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. Thus if a Senator were to publicly read the vote results into the record of a public committee hearing or during a filibuster or for really any other procedure (as rules of germane debate are very very lax in the Senate, but that is an issue for another question) that information could easily become public record. So while yes the rules can be changed to use secret ballot, a fifth (20 Senators currently) could ask for the Yeas and Nays to be entered on the Journal and this defeats the purpose of the secret ballot. So the only reasonable way to keep a secret ballot as the final dispositive record of a vote is to convince more than 4/5ths of the Senators to not ask for a recorded vote. In this sense it is certainly allowed and possible for the Senate to vote by secret ballot.

EU-Wide laws on Crime and Punishment (of individuals)

Although at present there is no 'Single Market' for Crime and Punishment, is there mutual recognition of Criminal Laws across all EU members, such that any offense commited in one Country is also an offense in every EU Country? For example, a person commits a (non-corporate) crime in one country, and subsequently goes on holiday in another Country. Can he be prosecuted for the original crime (and possibly jailed) in the Country he is in while on holiday, without requiring extradition back to the original Country? Similary, lets assume that somebody that somebody publicly insults the EU (e.g. on Social Media) while in his home Country. Can he be punished anywhere in the EU for it, including his home Country?

The simple answer is no. This one of the areas least impacted by EU harmonization, the differences between judicial traditions are too large and there is little appetite for anybody to converge on this. As an example of an issue where the EU is nowhere near consensus is abortion: it is still illegal or almost completely illegal in some countries, completely decriminalized in other countries. The first forays of the EU into this area of the law, under the guise of the “area of freedom, security and justice” are the European Arrest Warrant (technically not an extradition and in general much easier/faster) and the notion that some crimes should be punished everywhere in the EU (but the EU doesn't define the punishment, just that there should be one).

Does any other country, besides the US, employ something substantially different from the ‘loser pays’ system?

Although many of the jurisdictions that do employ the ‘loser pays’ system only do so up to certain limits, usually of modest amounts, nonetheless all the places I am familiar with have the expectation that some monetary compensation is due to the victor. Even for a jurisdiction such as Quebec, where such compensation is usually very modest, it’s quite rare for no money to be given. Are there countries, other than the US, that have differing expectations?

Fee Shifting In Various Jurisdictions Spain (at least as of 1984) has rules on fee shifting (or the lack thereof) very similar to the American rule. The other countries of the E.U. (as of 1984) had rules similar to those of Britain's loser pays rule, although there was significant variation in detail from country to country that made this less of an omnibus statement than it might seem. See Werner Pfenningstorf, " The European Experience With Fee Shifting ", 47(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 37 (1984). Most countries with civil law systems (i.e. those systems based upon the civil code tradition of Continental Europe rather than the common law tradition of England or something else entirely) outside of Europe in Africa and Asia are derived from the French Civil Code (most of West, Northwest and Central Africa, for example), or the German Civil Code (Korea and Japan, for example), and probably have followed in the footsteps on their parent legal traditions on this issue. This is also true of most formerly Communist Eastern European countries. Most countries in Spanish speaking Latin America, however, have legal systems derived from the Spanish legal tradition (and national constitutions modeled on that of the U.S.), so other countries besides the U.S. and Spain without automatic fee shifting to a prevailing party are probably located in Latin America. Some of these Latin American countries, however. probably adopted fee shifting rules of their own, and many of these countries declared independence from Spain before Spain adopted its civil code, so the extent to which those countries follow the Spanish model may not be as complete as in countries that gained independence later on. It is also worth noting that, however, in most civil law countries, the fees that an attorney can charge are usually significantly more highly regulated than in the United States, so the possibility of extremely high litigation fees is lower. Furthermore, civil litigation, in general, involves lower attorney fees on average in civil law countries (and in Islamic law and Chinese style Communist countries) than in the United States, in litigated cases, because the process is less attorney resource intensive due to civil procedure differences. So far as I know, fee shifting is also not used in Islamic law countries, where the basic assumption is that the parties are often pro se (i.e. without lawyers) and the institution of a professional legal class post-dates the establishment of the relevant legal rules. I do not know what the situation is in the People's Republic of China or similar legal systems. The American Rule It also bears noting that there are many exceptions to the "American rule" in U.S. law. While the American rule does not shift attorney fees, fees for out of pocket litigation expenses such as filing fees, copying charges, and expert witness fees are shifted as a matter of course to the prevailing party. Most professionally drafted written agreements have fee shifting provisions. Many specific statutes (e.g. civil rights actions and many labor law and consumer rights enforcement cases) also have fee shifting provisions (sometimes one sided, sometimes two sides). Fees can also be awarded in certain kinds of breach of fiduciary duty litigation contexts and in cases involving a dispute over a "common fund". In divorce cases, litigation costs of both sides are often (really usually) allocated by the court in proportion to ability to pay, as "winning" and "losing" are ill defined. The biggest areas where fees shifting would be unusual in the U.S. would be in common law tort lawsuits, such as negligence cases (e.g. automobile accidents and slip and fall cases), strict liability products liability cases, defamation cases, intentional harm cases, and fraud actions. The American rule also applies in cases of oral contracts or contracts drafted by inexpert non-lawyers. Even in those cases various kinds of litigation misconduct can result in fee shifting. In U.S. tort cases, defendants usually have their attorney fees paid for by their insurance company, and plaintiffs often have an attorney paid on a contingent fee basis. Furthermore, awards by juries for non-economic damages and/or punitive damages often makes it possible for a prevailing plaintiff to receive full or nearly full economic loss compensation in such lawsuits, with the non-economic and/or punitive damages awards effectively providing resources to pay the attorney for the plaintiff on top of economic loss compensation for the plaintiff.

If one person owns the parts to a ship, and another owns the design to the ship, who owns the ship?

Although not exactly the same scenario, it is related philosophically to the Ship of Theseus . Okay, so Eve stills a bunch of ship parts from Bob and the design for a super-ship from Alice. Eve uses Alice's design to make a ship from Bob's parts. She is later arrested. Eve also has no money or assets (she destroyed her tool box). So now we have a ship. The parts are owned by Bob, and the design by Alice. Who owns the ship. The estimated value of the parts and the design is the same. (The parts are quite expensive, and the design required extensive R&D). The whole ship has value equal to the combined value of the parts and design (Eve is an expert ship builder). If the ship is disassembled, Bob's parts will be ruined and have no value. Whoever owns the ship will be able to get Alice's design. If anyone besides Alice learns about Alice's design, she will lose all ability to make money off of it. Alice and Bob will not compromise; they both feel entitled to the whole ship, and will not agree to anything else. Bob owns the parts and Alice owns the configuration. Who owns the ship?

You would think that if someone steals your things and you find the thief and the things, you have the right to get them back. Often, but not always. If the stolen goods are distinguishable items, you have the right to get them back. If B steals a car from A, then sells it to C, A can ask C for his car back. But if B steals $10,000 from A and pays his debts to C, A cannot get the money from C. Cash is not distinguishable items, so A can only get his money back from B - bad luck if B doesn't have any money. In this case, the parts stolen from Bob don't exist anymore. They have become part of the ship. The ship is property of Eve. Eve has to pay damages to Bob and Alice, probably to be determined by court. And the court will probably say that Eve has to sell the ship to get money to pay back Bob and Alice. (She may have to empty her bank account as well, and sell other things). If the money isn't enough, tough. And if Eve has more debt, I don't think Bob and Alice are higher up the list than others. Whether Bob and Alice feel entitled to the ship doesn't matter because neither of them is entitled at all. If the design is copyrighted then nobody can just copy it; if the design is just a trade secret, that trade secret is gone.

Legality of absolving martial arts class of responsibility if injury or death occurs?

Although people sign a declaration before skydiving, that they are aware they may die, the parachuting center can still be charged for manslaughter if the parachute doesn't open. Does the same apply for martial arts classes? This is the clause mentioned in the "Liability waiver" section of a martial arts class application form. Am not mentioning which martial art it is. Will just name it X. I am applying for instruction in martial arts activities involving strenuous exercise and personal body contact. I understand that because of this there is always an inherent risk of injury that cannot be eliminated. As a condition of being admitted to train in X at any training premises, I assume the risk of all injuries, losses and damages and do hereby hold the training center, its instructors and agents or persons otherwise connected with the X classes harmless from any and all liability (including legal costs) for all claims, actions or damages due to injuries, losses or damage suffered by me or caused to a third party by me during the course of X training, or arising out of the activities of the X classes, or any other activities occurring on the premises of the training facilities or elsewhere. I have been given the opportunity to seek legal advice regarding the terms of this document. Even if there is a good amount of discipline during classes, if a student waives liability, that gives opportunity for a rogue student or egoistic or inexperienced master to do whatever they please. They can be rough. They can injure the student and claim that the student was not observant or quick enough. Is it wise to sign such a document as-is or can I scratch off any of the conditions there, write a counter condition and sign at the side of the sheet? An example of a counter condition would be "...unless otherwise proven by witnesses that the injury/death was caused by negligence on the part of the student/instructor". I also felt the sentence "damage suffered by me or caused to a third party by me during the course of X training, or arising out of the activities of the X classes, or any other activities occurring on the premises of the training facilities or elsewhere." was too ambiguous.

That waiver for the martial arts class is a contract. One can attempt to negotiate any contract and change the terms to one's liking. It is unlikely, however, that a martial arts studio is going to want to negotiate the terms of their waiver of liability on a student-by-student basis. This will probably leave prospective students with a choice of accepting the terms of the waiver or not taking the class. However, such waivers are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. Louisiana Civil Code article 2004 for example: Art. 2004. Clause that excludes or limits liability Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for intentional or gross fault that causes damage to the other party. Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for causing physical injury to the other party. Acts 1984, No. 331, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1985. Here is an interesting article that discusses a lawsuit against Louisiana State University (LSU) over an ankle injury. The court held in that lawsuit that the "release and hold harmless" portion of the waiver was null and couldn't be presented to the jury. However, the parts of the waiver that did not release LSU could be weighed by the jury; these included an obligation of the participant to have adequate health insurance among other provisions. Another article from 2012 regarding such waivers in Virginia mentions: ...,most, if not all states prohibit waivers of liability based on willful or wanton misconduct, gross negligence or intentional acts. A web site titled Sport Waiver has a page, www.sportwaiver.com/about-waivers , that gives advice to businesses which want to use waivers. On the linked page, which is from 2009, it lists each of the states and how they treated such waivers at that time. A business that caters to inherently risky activities will often have participants sign waivers and hold harmless agreements even when those agreements are null as a matter of law. This is done to discourage lawsuits and also, in case of a lawsuit, as a means of demonstrating that the participant knew the risks associated with the activity.

How can anti-hate-speech laws be inconsistent with the First Amendment when (for instance) libel laws are consistent with it?

Although the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech this proscription is far from absolute, as various forms of speech that cause harm to others can give rise to civil or criminal liability. Given the numerous forms of harmful speech not protected by the First Amendment (many of which are less -potentially-harmful or less- directly -harmful than many forms of hate speech), it strikes me as extremely odd that hate speech is a form of protected speech which cannot constitutionally be restricted by Congress or the states: 1 If Dỳo libels Isabel's restaurant in his magazine column, causing his readers to avoid her restaurant and resulting in her losing business, Isabel can sue him for causing her financial loss via his libel. If Sirleck kills Francine by speaking a lethal auditory cognitohazard, he can be arrested and tried for murder. (Even if he "merely" puts her in a vegetative state or drives her insane, he can still be arrested and tried for that.) Yet, if Ronald kills Kayleigh by using incessant transphobic hate speech to drive her to suicide (or "merely" causes massive psychological trauma resulting in various delightful severe psychological and psychiatric disorders), he gets off scot-free. Why this perplexing inconsistency in what, harmful-speech-wise, is constitutionally-permissible and what is not? 1 : The argument given in this answer to a related question , that The key is that holding these beliefs, and stating these beliefs, hurts nobody. doesn't hold water, as, while holding hateful beliefs ( without stating or acting on them in any way) is indeed harmless, stating hateful beliefs can cause real, concrete, immense, and potentially- lethal 2 psychological harm to the victim of this speech. 2 : As (among many many other examples) the countless LGBTQ+ children and teenagers who've been driven to suicide by being victims to incessant hateful speech could testify (were you to reanimate them with their mental faculties intact, at least).

One notes your third example is rather more specific: you describe someone as being driven to suicide. People have been held accountable for counselling people to commit suicide (as in this Ottawa case , where two girls were charged). What does "hate crime" add to the situation, especially given it covers only a small subset? As for the claim that "hate speech" in general causes suicide in the group, it is impossible to establish a direct connection between the speech and the death, let alone that it caused the death, given that you have to exclude other factors. Alleging direct psychological harm from the speech means, basically, that anyone, anywhere, can be silenced at any time in the absence of actual evidence. Furthermore, a lot of forms of speech can cause people to commit suicide. A son may commit suicide on hearing that his comatose father is recovering, because he was embezzling his father's property and realizes he will be found out. That speech is not punishable, and it's far more direct.

What laws are there regarding being pulled over by an unmarked cop car/undercover cop?

Although this has never happened to me, I've read and heard about people driving on the road and then being signaled (in some way, usually with reds and blues) to pull over for a ticket and the car doing this isn't the usual police car for that area but instead an unmarked car. Are you legally required to pull over for this unmarked car just like you would for a regular police car? What laws mention or describe this situation (in any state)? If it is required, how are you to know if the police car is legitimate?

In most states you are required to pull over to the side of the road and come to a stop for any vehicle displaying flashing red and/or blue lights, whether oncoming or overtaking. If you don't you are guilty of a moving violation. 1 If the vehicle with the lights then pulls in behind you the same law forbids you from moving your vehicle. So that's the law for being pulled over by an unmarked car. If you are concerned that you were stopped in this manner by someone not authorized to do so (police impersonators have been known to do this) you should call 911 and get the dispatcher to confirm whether the apparent emergency vehicle is legitimate. In general, if you fear for your safety, you can stay in your car and ask to be escorted to a known police station before exposing yourself. E.g., here's the advice of one Ohio State Highway Patrolman : If the area where you stop looks desolate, Miller said you don't have to stop there. In fact, he said, "Proceed to that well lit area or a public building, the fire department, hospital." [B]efore you even stop, if you don't feel safe, "Use your cell phone to dial 9-1-1 and talk to the dispatcher, let her know what's going on, give your location and have her guide you as to what she wants you to do." There are some jurisdictions that restrict the use of "unmarked" cars by police.

Could we understand that someone who is still 'innocent until proven otherwise', be 'possibly' guilty?

Although we accept that legally everyone is 'innocent until proven guilty', is it right for people to keep open in their minds the plausibility/possibility that the accused is guilty? Or is this ethically wrong and the correct stance is that not only are they 'legally' innocent, but in all aspects should be treated/understood as innocent until proven guilty. Hence, leaving no avenue for speculation of guilt (e.g. thoughts of ' if he/she's guilty...') until proven of it.

First we should be more specific about a person being "accused" – we should disregard lunatic rantings, and limit our attention to a person who has been officially, legally accused of a crime (which is the class of acts to which the concept "guilt" applies). In all jurisdictions, a formal accusation must be supported with some evidence. In light of that, by definition it is possible that the accused is guilty. The fact-finders will then weigh that evidence and conclude that the evidence meets the standard of proof for guilt, or does not. It is then logically incoherent to deny that guilt is a possibility, unless the intent is that all accused persons should be found innocent irrespective of the evidence. The finder of fact must allow both possible outcomes. The reason for the "innocent until proven guilty" viewpoint is that it puts a specific burden of proof on the government: the government has to not just knock down all of the accused's defenses, it has to conjure up a certain level of sufficiently-convincing evidence proving guilt. This is to avoid the situation that characterizes totalitarian regimes where the tyrant can accuse a person of a random crime, offer no evidence, then insist that the accused somehow prove their innocence.

Cutting grass of vacant house next to me

Am I able to send the city a bill for cutting the grass of the vacant house next to me? It's been condemned and was supposed to be torn down last June. I can't let the grass get too high because it attracts rodents and all sorts of things and being in the city our houses are close together so I don't want those things coming into my house. I've been mowing the grass now for the past 3 years and I was told that I could send the city a bill for the mowing. Is this true? (Akron, Ohio)

No, you can not. It is your choice to cut the grass, not the city's.

Ok as a YouTuber I wish to make a animation that features darth maul and Vader am I allowed to use the original design or do I have to majorly alter

Am I able to use the original maul design can I minorly alter it or do I have to majorly change his design

Copyright includes the exclusive right to create derivative works. So "majorly changing" the design will not get you around any accusations of copyright infringement. What you would have to do is to create a design from scratch. And as Trish said, I don't know who owns the originals, but if it is Disney, they will sue you and it will cost you much more money than you can afford. Whether they win their case or not.

Can a minor copyright or trademark?

Am I allowed as a minor to copyright materials and trademark names in Utah?

Federal law governing copyright, and state and federal law governing trademark, do not make any stipulations about the person enjoying the particular property right. In lieu of a specific restriction, the person may be an alien, a prisoner, a public employee, a corporation, or an astronaut. There are limits on minors and contracts, but no contract is required to write a book, make a sculpture, or create a distinctive business mark. (Those limits potentially raise questions about a minor signing away their author's rights if they create a work for hire, which you didn't ask about. A contract is typically necessary to profit off of such a creation, but not always). The copyright office even says that you can register copyright (important, registration is necessary to get maximal protection). There is a bit of an issue that a minor has limited ability to sue (for infringement), so in Utah Rule 17 you would need a guardian to sue for you, likewise in federal court ( same number! ).

Am I allowed to use recorded Text to Speech audio files in my Android or iOS App?

Am I allowed to create audio files with apple TextToSpeech on my Mac and then use these recordings in my app or web page?

I assume this is a legal question and not a technical question. If you create sound files using some program, you hold copyright in that content to the extent that it is not an unpermitted derivative work (e.g. you can't feed a novel into a synthesis program and create an audio book). It doesn't matter which operating system or program you are using. There is the possibility that a certain software license prohibits commercial use, so that you could not use the software to create sound files that you sell, so you would also have to check your software license.

Is it ok to prevent users from exporting their data

Am I allowed to encrypt customers data residing on their servers, preventing them from exporting the data to a competition without my help. I need it to make sure the customer doesn't change services before paying off the bill. I'm providing them with the software to access data, the user is creating the data using my software, which saves it on the customers servers. Question is if I'm allowed to save the data in a way only my software should be able to read it, with no option to export. the data is saved in a sql server database which gives the option to encrypt the data with a secret key, customer has no way of exporting that data without the key. I guess the customer owns the data, and I'm not looking to take it away from them, Just need to block them from changing providers without contacting me first... once the customer is already hooked up with another similar software its very difficult for me to get the money out, even with the contract. On the other hand, if they need my help changing provider, I could get the money easily. Customers don't sign long contracts when purchasing the software.. so there's no real agreement between us about the data etc.

Unfortunately I believe that this is legal in most places, provided your agreements don't say anything to the contrary, and provided that the users can still view the information.

Am I allowed to lowercase an ALL CAPS section in a license?

Am I allowed to lowercase an ALL CAPS section in a license? Example: The MIT License (MIT) Copyright (c) 2015 Andrej Karpathy Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.* I want to lowercase the last paragraph when I redistribute it: The MIT License (MIT) Copyright (c) 2015 Andrej Karpathy Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the software or the use or other dealings in the software.*

You need to do something , if you don't like all-caps. This is a response to the requirement to be "conspicuous", as required under UCC 2-316 , viz. to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous , and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SHOUT since under UCC 1-201 "conspicuous" means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language There is a relevant case, American General Finance, Inc. v. Bassett, 285 F.3d 882 , which deals with a "clear and conspicious" requirement in another context, which "sees no reason to depart" from the UCC understanding.

Can I share an academic article with people who contact me via email after they have seen my web annotation?

Am I allowed to share an academic journal article (e.g. downloaded from ScienceDirect) with people who contact me via email through a Hypothesis annotation that I left on the web page of the respective article? Figure 1: Example screenshot of the web annotation

Copyright law in the US is spelled out in Title 17 . The basic idea is that the person do creates some intellectual property has exclusive ownership of that property, and may sell it, give it away, or prevent anyone from knowing about it, as they choose. Academic articles come in three main varieties: copyright has been transferred to the publisher; the publisher has a license to copy but the author retains copyright; the author has executed some public license allowing anyone to copy the article. Journals are not particularly good about distinguishing the first two cases, but usually if something has been publicly licensed, the article says so in some way *usually at the bottom of the first page). There is a minor complication that in a few cases, the employer requires copyright to be transferred by their employees to the institution, in which case it is the institution and not the author who might have copyright. With all copyright, there is a small loophole in the form of "fair use", which states how to defend against a charge of copyright infringement, for certain limited cases . You can read up on fair use here . There is a common but not unjustified misconception that "for private use" constitutes a blanket exception to copyright legal protection of IP, especially for educational purposes. There is no statutory or case-law direct support for this, that is, it has never been held that you can always make copies if it is for educational purposes, but as far as I have been able to discern, there is a de facto tolerance policy of copying academic articles for private purposes. This excludes anything systematic, such as libraries doing massive copying for courses, or copy shops making course packets, without the proper payments and paperwork; also, if you were selling copies on the black market, it is likely that somebody would legally go after you. The cost of litigating a small infraction of the law would be high and the recovery would be really small, which is why most academic copyright infringement gets a pass: unless you can sue an institution with deep pockets. However, you also introduce a complication regarding the ScienceDirect paywall. In general, you have to pay to acquire copies of material that they have licensed, and there is a TOS that almost certainly prohibits such "sharing" (i.e. copying).

Top 100 Charts copyright

Am I breaking copyright if use the Billboard Hot 100 chart on my own website but in a different format and adding data, I created, to it. On the website I am displaying this modified chart and letting users interact with it. The interaction is a form of gamification. I have read this article which says: Charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection because they do not meet the first requirement for copyright protection, that is, they are not “original works of authorship,” under the definitions in the Act. The state of law seems really muddy on this topic and I would be grateful for some clarification. Further clarification - what I am using is: The list of songs for that week's billboard chart. So only the names of the songs, without particular ordering. The facts whether the song has risen or fallen compared to the previous week.

You cannot copyright facts. The number of records sold in a week is a fact.

Copyright and transcripts

Am I breaking copyright law if I embed an educational video on my site and also provide a transcript of the video? I have searched the w3c website as well as Youtube and cannot get a clear answer.

Assuming the video is copyright and you are not the rights holder: embedding it is copyright violation unless you have permission (linking is OK). For example, YouTube allows this if it is done in accordance with their Terms of Service. making a transcript is copyright violation unless you have permission. In either case, fair use or fair dealing defences might apply depending on your circumstances.

Can I use the copyright symbol and rights statement if I haven't registered the copyright?

Am I legally allowed to put the (C) Copyright, all rights reserved text at the bottom of my website, if I have a logo that I own but have not registered the copyright or trademark in the logo in any way?

Copyrights You may use the circle c mark (c) normally with a year, the name of the author of the work and possibly the words "all right reserved" without any legal permission. This gives you more rights legally than you would have from the copyright rights that arise automatically upon the creation of the work. Registering the copyright with the copyright registrar simply gives you additional litigation rights and must be done before you file a lawsuit to enforce a copyright. "All rights reserved" means you aren't granting a license to people who see the website to republish it or use it themselves. "All rights received" would mean that you are using someone else's copyright with their permission, but would more commonly be expressed "used with permission of [name of copyright owner]." Trademarks A trademark arises from use in commerce that causes people to associate your mark with your goods and services. You may use the superscript letters TM to claim a common right trademark in a trademarkable item such as a logo or slogan by affixing it to the claimed mark. This is a basis to sue for trademark infringement but requires proof of many elements that can be dispensed with when the Patent and Trademark Office includes a trademark in its principal register following a formal application to them. What you can't do. You may not say "patent pending" if you have not applied for a patent, may not claim that something is "patented" when a patent has not been approved, and may not use the circle R mark (R) if your claimed trademark has not been including in the principle register of the Patent and Trademark Office. (This answer is based on U.S. law, but copyright and trademark laws are quite similar on these points internationally.)

Breaking stuff while doing someone a favor

Am I less responsible/liable for stuff that I break while doing someone a favor, and neither doing anything intentional to cause the break nor being negligent? For example: someone on the street asks you to take a picture of them with their phone. You drop the phone and cause a visible damage. some friend asks you to drive his car since he's intoxicated. You haven't drunk and his home is near yours. In the way home you crash the car by being slightly inattentive and wrongly calculating the braking distance.

In general, no In the absence of a contract detailing your obligations (such as you get when you hire a car) the relevant law is that of negligence . To be responsible for damage you must have: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. The duty arises from having the item in your care and control, failing to take reasonable care to avoid damage is a breach of that duty - you are liable no matter the reason the item was in your care and control.

What's the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty?

Am I right in believing that ratification refers to local enforcement of a treaty, upon signing it?

Most broadly, ratification is the approval, by a principal, of an act by an agent, whereby the agent indicates contingent acceptance (contingent on the principle actually approving). This can be relevant to contracts as well as treaties. For treaties, the US President has the power to negotiate a treaty, but making it binding on the country requires approval of the Senate. Approval by the Senate is not the same as local enforcement, which may take the form of laws passed by Congress in order to satisfy the terms of a treaty (e.g. the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act ). In Australia , under Sect. 61 of the Constitution, the federal government can enter a binding treaty without parliamentary approval, but Parliament has the right to legislate internal affairs under Sect. 51(xxix) , so local implementation does not follow automatically from an executive signature. It is hard to say whether any country allows the executive to bind the nation by decree, not requiring approval of a legislative body.

Is it legal for police to travel with a film crew and publicize arrest footage without consent?

Am I right to assume that police bodycam footage is only allowed to be released as part of a court order / as evidence? If this were true, than wouldn't a news crew accompanying the police officer be illegal? I'll explain this further: I recently saw a video on Youtube where a person is being arrested by a traffic officer for a minor violation. Accompanying the officer is a videographer who apparently works for a news network. The traffic stop is being filmed as part of a Cops -type series called Bad Drivers or something. If the news crew were to have simply stumbled upon the arrest, I can understand their right to publicize. But this situation happened on the side of the freeway, and it's clear the news crew was either following or being transported by the police. Furthermore, as the stopped driver is basically under arrest, the cop is the only one in this situation who can command the filmers to stop. Since the filming would not occur without the cop's support, it seems like the cop should be responsible for the filming (and the same laws as body cameras should apply). I am in San Francisco, California, USA, but interested in other areas' laws as well.

It's really the other way around: film crews can legally travel with the police. This is very similar or identical to what you saw on YouTube. From http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2014/04/cops-and-suspects-rights-whatcha-gonna-do-when-they-record-you.html (dated 4/18/2014) "Cops" will soon begin a 10-week filming stretch in San Jose, California, for the first time in the show's 26-year history, reports the San Jose Mercury News. The "Cops" crew will hit the streets alongside San Jose's finest to provide a window into what these men and women do in America's 10th largest city. More from that link: When the officers on "Cops" arrest most of their suspects, the circumstances leading up to the arrest are out in public. However, in order to avoid unlawfully appropriating the images of those caught on "Cops'" cameras, the crew asks the arrestees to sign a release form. The "news crew" are producers who have permission from the police to follow along. As above, they ask each suspect to sign a release after the arrest. These arrests take place in public, on public streets and right-aways, where filming of the public is legal. If the arrestee does not sign the release, their face is blurred in the resulting footage that is made public. This does not mean the producers or videographers are automatically allowed into a private residence. They need a release to go onto private property (unlike the police involved in an investigation) and as such, the resident can actually forbid the cameramen from entering the house even while the police have entered. The footage from the body cams of the police are a different story; they are public employees of the local government and are bound by the laws of the locality. A search of Google News shows that in San Fransisco, the issues of the use of body cams by police and public access to that video is an ongoing issue; some laws have been finalized, others are bound to change. Around the US, some localities at this point in time allow public access to the footage from police cams; others only after department or local governmental review; still others only on in as need basis for prosecutions. ...the cop is the only one in this situation who can command the filmers to stop. Even if the "news crew" is not a news crew and just someone from the general public, it is generally legal for the public to film the police, as long as they are not causing issues with the police and stay out of the way (re: all of the recent news regarding police shootings and the footage available on YouTube and in news sources). There is case law pertaining to that, but IANAL, so I'll let someone else outline that. But https://photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a good resource. In the US, you pretty much have no expectation of privacy while in public.

A network of anonymous content sharing

Am building an anonymous private network, meaning anyone can put whatever they want, As the network Admin, I won't sue or grudge anyone for whatever they host in the network. Now let's say within this network, users share pirated content, if the law sues one of these users, will I be forced to bring down these users? while my main policy of this network is anonymous content sharing? Is there a way these users can get away with sharing whatsoever content they want? all I want is a place of freedom where the law cannot act. How can I allow users to carry out any activities(illegal/legal) without the law being involved?

In the U.S., under Section 230, which is part of the DMCA , as a host you don't have any liability so long as you meet certain standards, including providing contact information to which someone claiming copyright infringement can send a takedown notice which the host promptly honors if made and if it is not superficially absurd (e.g. a claim directed at a photo of a passage in a historic King James Bible). Under recently passed legislation called the CLOUD Act (enacted in March of 2018), which "allow[s] federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.", simply locating a U.S. operated server offshore providers are fewer benefit than it used to provide. There is also new legislation in the U.S. (enacted in April of 2018) related to liability, notwithstanding Section 230, in certain instances potentially related to prostitution and human trafficking, called FOSTA-SESTA , which among other things, resulted in the demise of the website "Backdoor" which made most of its money and earned most of its revenues by offering advertisements for people pitching prostitution thinly veiled as escort services that had defeated many prior civil charges and even some criminal charges as a result of Section 230. As Vox explains : FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. If you are U.S. based and you don't respect these laws then you are basically part of the Dark Web , and are vulnerable to being shut down, if you site can be located on the Internet in a manner sufficient for law enforcement officials to intervene, and can result in you being criminally prosecuted personally, if law enforcement can link you to your network. So, this is a course of action you should only undertake if you are either an ideological true believer in making information "free" from legal regulation, or you can make it profitable enough to make the risk worth it.

Can I get my citizenship without physical green card

Am wondering if i can get a US citizenship without a green card(hard copy), I had one but it got stolen. (have a police report for it) I can apply for a replacement but since my interview will be in few days, I think it might be a waste of money.

You can still become a citizen. Here is a site that shows you how to apply for a replacement. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/replace-a-green-card You are supposed to apply for one even if the interview is coming soon.

Is there a way to make amazon refund an incorrect charge?

Amazon (US) has charged me incorrectly (shipment cost was calculated incorrectly), but the support refuses to refund with money, it only offers "promotional credit" that can be used on next purchases. I do not plan to use amazon again as their level of service is very low and there are errors in their IT systems. Is there a law that obliges them to refund? They sent the package to an incorrect address. I chose the correct address in the interface but somehow at their back end a different address was chosen. They refuse to change the address after the shipment has been sent. There's no way to get the package at that address, and it is not my error. Is there a law that they should send the package to the correct address even if I found out that the address is incorrect after the order had been shipped as I had paid for the package already. Should they somehow compensate for the time that was wasted on their incompetent support specialists? (Approximately 6 hours of useless conversations and repeating the same issue again and again) What is the legal way to ask a company for a compensation without applying to court, when the support specialists say "there's nothing we can do, the system does not allow us to compensate"? I'm worried if it is legal to mention a specific store and if they can sue me for mentioning them. Just in case the info I gave is only for example, it may not be 100% accurate, it is only for the purpose of making an inquiry here, in fact the info I provided may be not 100% true. And maybe it is about a different store.

It is not clear what your basis is for saying that they calculated shipping incorrectly. Every experience that I have had has involved a definite shipping charge which is part of the price that you have to agree to – I have never encountered a case of "plus shipping, we'll charge you separately for shipping". You may disagree with their shipping and handling charge, but that does not constitute an error on third part. You are also stuck with the shipping address at the point of the agreement: you can't change your mind and have it shipped elsewhere (at least, legally – tactically it is possible if you act immediately). Again, it is not clear what evidence you have that the address they have is their error. For the sake of argument, I will assume that somehow their server put some random address into the shipping field at the very last minute, even though you typed it in correctly and they displayed that shipping address at the confirmation page. If that is the case and they did truly ship your package to random oblivion, they have a responsibility to deliver it to the address that you actually agreed to. The challenge will be to convince them, or the court, that the address that you think you entered is indeed what you entered. You are not charged for customer service, and they will not compensate you for the time you spend disputing the charge and shipment. The remedy available to you depends in part on whether you are directly buying from Amazon, or through a third party. This does not include going to court, instead you will resolve your dispute with binding arbitration.

Is it legal to use a brands name in products title?

Amazon keeps deactivating listings for this reason. The reason that i am using their name is; I am producing product for (compatible) their products. Titles are like "Bag for XXBRAND XXMODEL". I have to use their name to reach correct customers(search engines). Amazon told me to write a line that describes i am not associated with the brand(as i understand). My native language is not English so: How can i explain this in formal language? Or is it legal to use their name like this?

Companies, like Apple, have what are called “trademarks” on their names for specific markets. This means, for instance, that Apple can sue any company that uses their name and likeness to sell any device that might compete with Apple. As these companies are likely selling their own products that might compete with yours. Companies also don’t want people using their name to sell products that might be inferior. The use of the company name might cause consumers to associate your product with your product. There is no way around trademarks, especially in the title of a product. While in the product listing you should be able to list “compatible with XXX” you cannot add that to the name of the product.

Why are Amazon and other vendors allowed to say "buy" an ebook or other digital asset when it is actually a license?

Amazon offers you the opportunity to buy a Kindle book. But you are clearly not buying, rather licensing , as they make quite clear. This seems like false advertising; or alternately that a customer could demand to keep/own the item since that word was used. Why are Amazon and other vendors able to do this without being stopped by lawsuits or legal enforcement?

You can “buy” a licence Buy simply means exchanging money for goods or services. A licence is a service that can be bought.

How are voice-operated smart devices legal in jurisdictions that require two-party consent for recording?

Amazon's Alexa is the example that comes to mind the most. It seems likely that Alexa would record people who are unaware they're being recorded. Seems like it would violate two-party consent pretty much by definition. The fact that Alexa and other voice-operated smart devices are legal everywhere makes me think I must be missing something. So what am I missing?

One-side recording prohibited without knowledge or continuous consent of all parties Under CIPA, it is prohibited to record even merely your own side of any telephone conversation without first informing the informing whoever that is a party to the call — let alone both. ( Gruber v. Yelp Inc. , 55 Cal.App.5th 591, 269 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)) This may include communications where the recording party is the only party communicating since being provided information in confidence, for purposes of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, is communication protected by CIPA. (The first hand dissemination is prevented by recording that one has been informed of certain information.) This makes it pretty clear that recording the other party or parties communication is at least equally protected and hence prohibited without the other parties’ knowledge. In fact, “for purposes of section 632, the privacy rights affected are the same regardless whether a conversation is secretly recorded by a machine or monitored by a human being.” ( Kight v. Cashcall, Inc. (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1393) However, "a conversation is confidential [only] if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded." ( Flanagan v. Flanagan , (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768) No reasonable person would believe they can get up-to-date daily information (for e.g. news queries to Alexa) without first sending the request to the Internet. (It is theoretically possible to just download the whole thing — the Internet as updated since yesterday — every morning, but as absurd as it sounds to read this, it would sound equally absurd from a sane person to assert they believed that’s how Alexa worked) 2 Consent is not the crux of the inquiry, but a requisite to the privacy protection: An objectively reasonable expectation of privacy that an averge person would deem reasonable. One knowing that they will be or are being recorded rebut to them any expectation of privacy for purposes of CIPA, and an implied consent factual finding goes along with it if communication is not ceased — including verbal objections to the recording. And this is the key, one typically needs an account for an Alexa device to be set up: 1 The devil hides the details — that’s where you consented likely continuously, and acknowledged by agreement your understanding that the operation of the device requires one to be recorded along with that you will inform everyone getting near that thing. Further, when TechCrunch reached out to the major players in the smart[-]home space, only one device maker had a transparency report [on how many requests, subpoenas and search warrants they received, and how many of those they complied with,] and most [of these “players”] had no future plans to publish one — leaving consumers in the dark on how these companies protect your private information from overly broad demands.” ( Judge orders Amazon to turn over Echo recordings, TechCrunch ) All this apart, inviting someone into your home unaware of Alexa ear-dropping is a CIPA violation, a matter of criminal law, by the person who knowingly allowed that to happen. 1 “When you speak to Alexa, a recording of what you asked Alexa is sent to Amazon's cloud, where we process your request and other information to respond to you.” — What happens when you speak to Alexa ( Wayback archive ) 2 “Is Alexa recording all my conversations?” Yes. […] Audio is sent to and stored in the cloud unless the device fails to detect the wake word or is not activated by pressing a button.( https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GVP69FUJ48X9DK8V )

Why are residents of particular states barred from being Amazon affiliates?

Amazon's affiliate operating agreement contains the following clause: In addition, if at any time following your enrollment in the Program you become a resident of Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Rhode Island, or Vermont, you will become ineligible to participate in the Program, and this Operating Agreement will automatically terminate, on the date you establish residency in that state. Why would they be excluding these particular states from participation?

These states have relevant (offending) sales tax laws. Amazon has no physical presence in Louisiana, but Louisiana recently passed HB30 which requires businesses with in-state affiliates (p3 line 25) to remit sales tax, by redefining "physical presence" which is a requirement for collecting sales tax ( Quill Corporation v. North Dakota 504 US 298 ). Similar laws exist in these states. It does collect sales tax in Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota and Washington since it has a real physical presence in these states.

Copyright restriction in other countries

Amazon.com sometimes refuses to sell me audiobooks. The message is as follows: I don't understand how a copyright can be enforced in other countries . Surely copyright holds for a specific country where it is registered, and has no enforceable jurisdiction in others. Is this type of copyright restriction valid? Under what law? I can buy the digital text, so this issue is with the copyright for the audio only.

Two bases in law can think of besides Amazon just being cautious: As mentioned by tripleee's comment, there could be a specific agreement between Amazon and the copyright holder. Amazon needs consent of the copyright holder because one of the rights granted in copyright law is the right of distribution. Copyright law is on a per-country basis, additionally the international Berne Convention requires foreign works be treated equally to domestic works (rule of the shorter term being the major exception). For example, if I as a Canadian publish an original work, I can not only assert my rights in Canadian courts under Canadian law, but I could theoretically also assert my rights in French courts under French copyright law.

How does "mistake of fact" apply as defense in the Amber Guyger Case?

Amber Guyger was convicted of murder: entering the apartment of Bothum Jean and shooting him. She claimed she thought she was in her apartment. How would a defense of "mistake of fact" apply in said case? IANAL and seek to understand the subject matter

Amber Guyger was convicted of murder under Texas Penal Code section 19.02 : A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. The Texas mistake-of-fact defense is codified at Penal Code section 8.02 : It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense. To assert a mistake of fact defense, then, you need to demonstrate that you reasonably believed something that changes whether or not you met the mens rea requirement of intentionally or knowingly causing a death/serious bodily injury. An example would be firing a gun at what you reasonably thought was a corpse, or a mannequin, or Superman. In any of those circumstances, you would not have intended or known that you were going to cause someone's death. If you reasonably believed your gun was unloaded, you would not have known you were going to kill someone if you pulled the trigger. In Guyger's case, Whether she was in her apartment or someone else's, she still knew that putting two bullets in a man eating ice cream would cause his death or serious bodily harm. In the Guyger case, the defendant claimed she was mistaken about what apartment she was in, but that doesn't change whether she had the intent to kill Mr. Jean. That mistake does implicate the Texas "Castle doctrine" statute, Penal Code section 9.32 : A person is justified in using deadly force against another ... when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary ... to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. ... The actor's belief ... that the deadly force was immediately necessary ... is presumed to be reasonable if the actor ... knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used ... unlawfully and with force entered ... the actor's occupied habitation If her mistake was reasonable, that would give her reason to believe Mr. Jean had unlawfully and with force entered her home, making it presumptively reasonable that she used deadly force. But the mistake of fact defense only looks at mistakes that change whether you committed the offense, not whether an affirmative defense is available to you, so it doesn't really change whether the defense is available. Nonetheless, it's generally accepted that a person can use self-defense doctrines like this even when they're mistaken about whether they're in danger. The question for the jury in those cases is whether the defendant's mistake was reasonable. Because the jury convicted her, it necessarily did not believe that she had made a reasonable mistake.

Hit during traffic stop

Ameer is driving in fast traffic on a highway when Bob, a police officer driving behind him, lights up the blues for a traffic stop on reasonable suspicion of speeding. Ameer looks for a safe place to pull over, but the shoulder is consistently the same width, matching that of the car. Bob thinks this has gone on too long and gets on the loudspeaker informing Ameer he must pull over immediately. Ameer does so. Bob approaches in the small space between the car and guardrail on the passenger side, pissed, with his gun drawn, and asks some questions about Ameer's speed. Ameer gives some snarky answer about not wanting to meet the driver behind him. The conversation escalates as the officer comes around to the driver's side and performs an " extraction maneuver " to get Ameer out of the car, as Ameer has not complied with an order to do so sufficiently quickly (though he did unbuckle his seatbelt after the order). Ameer claims it was a rather rough extraction, but Bob's dash cam was coincidentally not operating at the time (and Bob's department does not have body cameras). The officer gets Ameer up and requires him to stand next to the vehicle with his hands up on the top of the driver's door and his feet about body width apart and the same distance away from the vehicle. The officer moves back to being in front of the vehicle, facing Ameer. A third car (for convenience, I'll call the driver C) driving along the same highway in the same fast traffic comes along and strikes Ameer, throwing his body a good distance. As a result of the accident, Ameer has severe injuries including a broken back and permanent paralysis from the waist down. His car is undamaged, but he is unable to drive it anymore (even with assistive technology, and he must sell it to help pay the huge medical bills that rack up during his long hospital stay). C immediately leaves the scene, before the officer can switch focus away from his efforts to get out of the way of the flying body; the officer does not notice enough to identify C or C's vehicle. C cannot be tracked down, thus successfully evading any legal responsibility. Does the officer and/or his department and/or municipality carry legal responsibility for this? Or is it indeed all Ameer's fault, for having made the snarky comment (but for which he would arguably not have been forced out of the car to begin with)?

In principle, police are liable for the safety of anyone they detain. If an officer creates a hazardous condition, as was described in this scenario, he or his agency (which effectively means the taxpayers who fund his agency) can be held liable for damages resulting from that action. (Whether it is the officer or instead the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill is a separate question of "qualified immunity .") This idea has been formalized under two theories: The " special relationship doctrine " would apply in this case because the officer was detaining the driver. Otherwise, the liability could be argued under the more broad " state-created danger doctrine ."

Clarification on Amendment XIV

Amendment XIV says: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. What does it mean? A State can abridge the right to vote of persons 21 years of age or older except in case of rebellion or any other crime? It seems logical it would be the contrary: irt could not abridge the right to vote except for rebellion or any other crime

It says if some portion of the electorate is deprived of the right to vote then the state looses an equal proportion of its representation in Congress (and therefore electoral college votes). There is an exception "rebellion, or other crime". So if a state disenfranchises X% of the population for rebellion or crime they do not lose X% of their representatives/electors.

Eminent domain payout

America builds 400,000 acres of road a year. The country has a billion acres. Furthermore usually about a mile from a road is seized for sound barriers and other services which puts the total at 15 million acres. In other words 2% of the land area of America is eminent domained every year. There are no buildings in New York older than 1800 because literally all the land has been seized. If eminent domain paid just compensation would the payouts be trillions? The previous question was unclear.

Your numbers are off The states don't seize a mile next to every road, as farms don't suffer from traffic noise. They also don't seize land when they just rebuild a road, but that is still part of the 400k acres of road. In fact, most "new roads" are rebuilding old ones, and a huge part of the rest is through undeveloped land that is owned by the state or farmers - and thus cheap and doesn't need a mile-wide strip of noise protection. Eminent domain cases are RARE 2018 saw 87 cases of eminent domain in colorado - most of them for buildings no longer deemed habitable and condemned to be torn down, then re-developed. The federal government lists 1001 real property cases filed by the US in the same year's report , not indicating what kind of development or redevelopment would happen there, or if it is Eminent Domain or some other type of real property case. Under Eminent Domain, the seized land can be used for any public use. And in strange cases, it happens even to what used to be a private road and shopping complex in front of Walt Disney World - to build an interchange.

How to get American citizenship back, once it is renounced?

American citizens can have dual citizenship, but if an American citizen who has renounced his or her citizenship (even though the person was originally an American citizen), then what is a way of obtaining it again? Can an American citizen without dual citizenship (only an American citizen), renounce his or her citizenship?

American citizens can have dual citizenship , but if an american citizen who has his/her citizenship renounced (even though the person was originally an american citizen) , then what is a way of obtaining the citizenship back? Possibly, by the same means that a non-citizen could be naturalized. But, immigration and nationality officials have broad discretion and would probably refuse to grant citizenship to someone who had previously renounced it. And can an american citizen without dual citizenship (Meaning that he is only an american citizen), renounce his/her citizenship? Yes. For example, Prince Harry's financee plans to renounce her U.S. citizenship and contemporaneously be granted U.K. citizenship (the paperwork goes through really easily when the Queen is your grandmother in law). Renunciation of citizenship is not necessarily tied to gaining a new citizenship, but leaving yourself stateless would be a foolish thing to do.

Is It Illegal To Test A Website For Exploits Regarding My Personal Info?

American here. I'm not a hacker or anything, just a normal computer science student. Anyways, I believe that my university has left an exploit open through their hub where anyone can use the modular apps to gain access to your: Last 4 digits Of SSN, University ID, and possibly your password. If I were to test the exploit by only using the public interface they provide, on myself, would this be considered illegal? I would need to use a selenium script to automate attempts on finding the last 4 digits of the SSN - because it appears the database doesn't have a limit on how many attempts you can make. Of course I would be trying to gain access to my own data, not anyone elses. Oh and of course I would tell the Uni that this was a problem. I just didn't want to message them for nonsense.

In a narrow sense, since you are a student at the U, you are bound by a contract you signed when you registered for classes. Read it, and you'll probably find a clause or two that states that you are not allowed to abuse, script, attempt logins or otherwise use the computer systems in any way other than typical, day to day use. The U's recourse is to kick you out and possibly take you to civil court to recover damages, and possibly refer you to the local county attorney for criminal charges, depending on the existence of criminal statutes for computer access in your jurisdiction. In a broad sense, pentesting can be either a civil infraction or a crime, depending on the terms of service for the system you are trying to exploit, what exactly you do, the jurisdiction, etc. See State Computer Crime Statutes and Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - Wikipedia . See also LE answer When is a permission required to attack a system?

When did the American and British naming conventions for legislation diverge?

American laws seem to be named as, for example, the Trade Act of 2002, while British Acts of Parliament seem to use the same naming convention, except without the word "of" preceding the year? Did American legislation ever follow the British naming convention of today? Or did British legislation ever use "of" like the US still does? If so, when and what can the changes be traced to?

The naming conventions for legislation in the United States and the United Kingdom have evolved over time and have undergone various changes and adaptations. It is difficult to pinpoint a specific time when the naming conventions for legislation in the two countries diverged, as the process has likely been a gradual one. In general, the United States and the United Kingdom both have a long history of using names or titles to identify and refer to legislation. In the United States, legislation is typically given a short and descriptive title, such as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" or the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act." In the United Kingdom, legislation is often referred to by its short title, which may include the year in which it was enacted, such as the "Companies Act 2006" or the "Bribery Act 2010." These naming conventions have evolved over time and have been influenced by a variety of factors, including changes in the political and legal systems of the two countries. It is likely that the naming conventions for legislation in the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to evolve and change in the future.

Can one use a contract to enforce a bluff?

Amy has been working for Bill for 15 years. Despite the fact that Bill runs a very profitable company, and that Amy is a very productive employee, Bill has not given Amy a raise in 15 years. Bill has long promised he will give Amy a raise sometime in the future, but never does. Amy has threatened to quit, but Bill ignores this because he knows quitting and finding a new job will pose significant inconvenience to Amy. So Amy goes to a third party, a signs a contract with the third party. The contract states that unless Amy has received a raise of $2.00/hr by January 1, the third party is entitled to all subsequent wages she earns from Bill. The third party then gives the contract to Bill. Bill sees that if this contract is enforceable, then Amy must be very serious. Bill is a rational businessman, and calculates that the cost of giving Amy her well-deserved raise is much less than bringing on a new, untrained employee. The only question is: Is this enforceable? EDIT: Amy pays the third party a small fee. The third party is a business that specializes in these types of contracts. (Amy and Bill are not real people, so they are having trouble contacting an attorney in their jurisdiction.)

It's not a contract because there is no consideration on the part of the third party. It's not enforceable. Consideration is either: a) giving up (or doing) something that you have a legal right to not give up (or not do) or b) not giving up (or not doing) something that you have a right to give up (or do).

Can the owner of an open social media account be held accountable for attached comments made by others?

An "open" social media account can be viewed by anybody. I understand that the laws of the UK and other countries too extend to social media and users of such platforms can be prosecuted for posts which are defamatory or harmful in some way. But what about comments made on posts by other users? If I were to post a perfectly acceptable photo on an open Instagram account, for example, and someone else using their own account added a comment to my original post which contained something defamatory or otherwise litigious against another party (not myself), can I, as the owner of the original post, be held accountable for that? If the police were to investigate the source of the comment, could they force me to delete a comment made by someone else from their own account but is attached to my original post? I appreciate you might ask why would you not want to delete a defamatory comment from your post? Well, sometimes we may support the reason behind something but not the actual action taken. For example, thousands of people might be willing to sign a petition against something, but only a small subset of those might be willing to actively protest against it, and when a protest crosses the line between acceptable protest and illegal protest some might tacitly support what an individual or group did even though they would not do it themselves. Likewise, if somebody made a comment that I agree with in principle but would not have said myself, I would feel hypocritical deleting it, but I do not want to risk prosecution myself and so am interested to know where a person would stand in such a situation.

Yes In theory at least. Libel attaches to any publisher of the libellous statement and anyone who publishes an endorsement of that statement. So, for example, a person who retweets a libellous statement liable and there is case law to support this. Of course, if you republish without endorsement (e.g. "Look at the BS X said: ...") then you are not liable. In theory, this would extend to allowing a libellous statement to remain on a platform under your control once you were aware of it.

Can a lawyer's pattern of "own goals" constitute malpractice?

An "own goal" in soccer constitutes kicking the ball into your team's own goal, to the benefit of the opposition. If your lawyer repeatedly makes mistakes or other actions that tend to benefit the other side (this was not a one time thing), even if it stemmed from incompetence, could that constitute malpractice, or some related charge such as breach of fiduciary duty? How would this change if your lawyer accepted work from the other party shortly after he concluded your case to your detriment? And suppose "discovery" showed that on at least one occasion, the lawyer represented a small company, A, against a much larger company, B, and then a year later helped B take over A?

If your lawyer repeatedly makes mistakes or other actions that tend to benefit the other side (this was not a one time thing), even if it stemmed from incompetence, could that constitute malpractice, or some related charge such as breach of fiduciary duty? Incompetence is the principal reason for a malpractice lawsuit, which is a subset of the ubiquitous ground for tort lawsuits which is "negligence", although mere carelessness is also often a ground for a malpractice lawsuit. For example, in one professional malpractice lawsuit I am aware of, a lawyer failed to have a mortgage securing a debt owed to his client recorded in the real property records as required for it to be effective against third-parties, and so the client lost the benefit of the mortgage, even though this was merely the kind of carelessness an otherwise competent lawyer could commit. Of course, often carelessness reflects incompetence in the form of failure to competently put in place good systems to guard against careless mistakes. The legal standard is that the attorney failed to act with the reasonable care of an attorney in a manner that caused harm to the client. This breach of a standard of care is usually established and opposed with expert testimony from an another attorney regarding what a reasonable attorney would have done. A single act of negligence is sufficient (and indeed, usually easier to prove than a series of missteps in most cases). Breaches of fiduciary duty typically involve breaches of a duty of loyalty (including conflicts of interest that don't involve otherwise negligent work product), misappropriation of client funds, or unauthorized disclosures of client secrets that are damaging outside the context of litigation simply by virtue of the emotional harm associated with their disclosure. Generally speaking, incompetence can only be pursued in an action for professional negligence and not in an action for breach of fiduciary duty. Sometimes forfeiture of fees paid, or fees owed, is a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty even in the absence of other evidence of damages caused by the breach of a fiduciary duty. How would this change if your lawyer accepted work from the other party shortly after he concluded your case to your detriment? And suppose "discovery" showed that on at least one occasion, the lawyer represented a small company, A, against a much larger company, B, and then a year later helped B take over A? In the U.S. this is governed by Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 governing duties to a former client. Rules of professional conduct have the same numbering system and are variants on the same American Bar Association set of Model Rules in every U.S. jurisdiction, although there are minor, but important, differences in wording between them. Generally speaking the rule is that a lawyer can't represent a new client against a former client if it is in a matter in which the former client was previously represented, or in a matter in which the new client gains some advantage from the confidences shared by the former client in the representation of the new client. Often, the former client would move to disqualify the attorney from representing the new client in the case in question once learning of the representation.