Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Deduplicated

like 0

Are companies in the United Kingdom entitled to make data subject access requests?

Are companies in the United Kingdom entitled to make data subject access requests, or is this right limited to non-companies such as individuals? Which statute permits or prevents them from doing so?

No. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides a 'Right of access to personal data' to "an individual". See Section 7, subsection 1 . Although the word 'person' can mean a company in a legal context, the word 'individual' does not.

Are corporations subject to international law?

Are corporations subject to international law? A corporation seems to be subject to international law just as much as an individual is, at least according to a decision made by the U.S. against Talisman Energy. In 2001 the Presbyterian Church of Sudan filed a lawsuit against the Canadian oil and gas producer, Talisman Energy, under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, which provides US courts with original jurisdiction over certain tort claims filed by aliens. In the suit, it was claimed that Talisman aided the Government of Sudan in the commission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the claim, Talisman worked alongside the Sudanese Government in the creation of buffer zones around certain oil fields, which effectively assisted human rights violations and the perpetration of international crimes in order to gain access to oil by displacing the population living in the areas around the oil fields and attacking their villages. The District Court of New York dismissed the claim on 12 September 2006. On 3 October 2009, the decision was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that, due to previous case law, it had to look at international law to decide what standard was applicable to establishing aiding and abetting liability for human rights violations. Turning to international law, the Court held that purposefully intending the violations, rather than knowledge of the violations alone, was the applicable standard. So, in order to determine liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act the plaintiffs must show that “Talisman acted with the “purpose” to advance the Government’s human rights abuses.” The Court held that the claimants had failed to establish that Talisman “acted with the purpose to support the Government’s offences”. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/43/Presbyterian-Church-Of-Sudan-v-Talisman-Energy/ However, I am wondering if it applies to all companies and under any situation. I couldn't really find anything about this.

"International Law" refers to laws regarding relations between nations: also known as "the law of nations". Hence a legal dispute between the US and Saudi Arabia would be decided by principles of international law and if adjudicated would be handled by e.g. the International Criminal Court. A business, on the other hand, would be subject to national law, and possibly national law of more than one nation. The case you cite is somewhat exceptional since a case under US law has to be decided by reference to the "international law definition" of aiding and abetting liability for human rights violations. This is because of 28 USC 1350 : The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The allegation in the lawsuit was that this was a violation of "the law of nations". So, if a person or business with a connection to the US violates "the law of nations", they might be sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act.

Crime records as a minor, does it affect sentencing as an adult?

Are crimes as minor, especially felonies, kept in your records? And would they affect your sentencing as an adult? I am not asking about a specific jurisdiction, I just want to have a general idea.

As pointed out in comments, the exact answer depends on the jurisdiction, and on the nature of the crime(s). As a general statement: In many jurisdictions, old criminal records are sealed (=made less available), or even completely deleted after some time. The timespan will depend on many factors, particularly (but not only) on the number and severity of the crimes. Extremely serious crimes may never be sealed/deleted. Sometimes the sealing/deletion may be automatic, sometimes only at the request of the perpetrator, and there may be additional conditions. As an extension of the above, some jurisdictions have special rules for criminal records created while the perpetrator was a minor. Some time spans may be shortened, or minor crimes may be excluded. So, to directly answer the question: Yes, crimes as minor may be kept in your records and influence sentencing as an adult, or they may not - it depends. That is about all you can say in general.

Is there legislation regarding minors joining dating websites?

Are dating websites a special category of websites that must follow certain regulations in terms of who they are allowed to join their site? So if I am a 15 year old, does the law in the USA allow a dating APP to let me join?

U.S. law does not forbid 15 year olds from joining dating websites. Direct U.S. regulation of Internet communications mostly via the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has a cutoff age of 13 years old. This said, nothing obligates websites to allow minors to join their dating app, and they may be reluctant to do so for fear that if you are mistreated by someone as a result of the app that they could be held responsible. In particular, amendments to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) called FOSTA-SESTA for the "Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA)" which took effect April 11, 2018, limited the prior near total protection from liability under Section 230 of the CDA. The amendments maked it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amended the Communications Decency Act's section 230 safe harbors (which make online services immune from civil liability for their users' actions) to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from immunity. Federal sex trafficking laws largely apply to commercial sex by people under the age of 18, which an online dating app could facilitate, if used by someone inclined to use it in that manner. The two main federal sex trafficking laws are as follows: Section 1591 now provides in part the following: “ Whoever knowingly in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person ; knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion ... , or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act ,” shall be imprisoned not less than 15 years (not less than 10 years, if the victim is 14 years of age or older and the offender is less than 18 years of age). The Mann Act outlaws prostitution and unlawful sexual activities that involve interstate or foreign travel. It consists of three principal substantive sections. Section 2421 proscribes the interstate or foreign transportation of someone for purposes of prostitution or unlawful sexual activity; misconduct which is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years. Section 2422 condemns coercing or enticing another person to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or unlawful sexual activity, or using interstate communications to coerce or entice a child to engage in such conduct . The communications offense is punishable by imprisonment for not less than 10 years; the travel offense by imprisonment for not more than 20 years. Section 2423 outlaws four distinct offenses: (1) §2423(a) - transportation of a child in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of prostitution or unlawful sexual purposes; (2) §2423(b)—interstate or foreign travel for purposes of unlawful sexual abuse of a child; (3) §2423(c)—foreign travel and subsequent unlawful sexual abuse of a child; and (4) §2423(d)— arranging, for profit, the travel outlawed in any of these offenses . The first is punishable by imprisonment for not less than 10 years, each of the others by imprisonment for not more than 30 years. So, the reluctance of a dating app to allow minors to use their services is understandable. They either need to aggressively police a low cost or free except for ad support service with considerable employee expense to do so, to avoid the risk of FOSTA-SESTA authorized liability, or they can not offer the service at all. In a nutshell, the app providers consider you to be jail-bait and don't want to face the associated risks.

Do disclaimers need to be capitalized?

Are disclaimers of warranty, liability, and the like legally required to be in all-caps? For example, the "disclaimer of warranty" section from the GNU GPL : THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. On the other hand, Stack Exchange's disclaimer of warranty uses normal casing (well, normal for legal documents): Stack Exchange has no special relationship with or fiduciary duty to Subscriber. Subscriber acknowledges that Stack Exchange has no control over, and no duty to take any action regarding: which users gains access to the Network; which Content Subscriber accesses via the Network; what effects the Content may have on Subscriber; how...

Do they have to use all caps? Well, no. It's just that companies feel that's the easiest way to make the text "conspicuous" which is required by the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly in § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties. (2)Subject to subsection (3), 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. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof." The term "conspicuous" is defined in § 1-201. General Definitions. " Conspicuous ", with reference to a term, 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. So you could make the text all bold and italic. You could make the font color purple. It's just that most companies use the caps lock key, whatever their individual reasons may be. I'll also note that this is a commercial code and these rules are found under Article 2 - Sales . So you'll only see this requirement taking effect in terms/disclaimers for companies which actually let end-users engage in commercial activity (they're actually selling something). Any site which doesn't facilitate commercial activity will likely be using a warranty disclaimer as a note of "hey, this is a free site, so no you don't get a warranty or legal expectation of service of any sort."

Are employees of a military contractor like Blackwater subject to being tried at a court-martial?

Are employees of a military contractor like Blackwater subject to being tried at a court-martial? In my understanding, soldiers are tried at a court martial if they break military law, but I am not sure if the same can be said about employees and especially armed employees of military contractors like Blackwater.

united-states I think so, in principle. 10 USC 802 lists people subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs military crimes and courts-martial. It includes: Individuals belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316), who violate the law of war. One of those categories is: Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. I think this would apply to military contractors.

Are employers required to pay for your vacation days you haven't taken in the U.S.?

Are employers required to pay for your vacation days you haven't taken in the U.S.? I was told I can't get money from the vacations I haven't taken at the end of the year and only 5 days can be transferred to next year. Is this a legal practice?

In California As expalined in the California Employment Law Report the law provides - No use-it-or-lose-it policies permitted. Under California law, vacation is treated the same as earned wages and vest as the employee performs work. Because vacation is earned proportionally as the employee works, any type of policy requiring employees to lose vacation that has already been earned is illegal under California law. Reasonable caps are allowed. While employers cannot implement “use-it-or-lose-it” policies, they can place a reasonable cap, or ceiling, on vacation accrual. Also, when you leave the company the days accrued must be paid. I did not find any requirement to allow employees to demand a trade of days-for-cash at other times. So, I think your situation would be very standard in CA.

Are exhibits presented in order of importance or the order they'relisted?

Are exhibits listed in the order they appear or in order of importance? I'm following the sample format on my county's "self-help center" for pro se litigants, and the example is for another type of case. It has a section for presenting the facts, and under that section (I. FACTS), I list all the relevant facts to the case. The purpose is to refute the libelous claims, so I provide the backstory of what actually happened, leading up to this person creating their libelous content. Thus, while it seems that the main libelous story would be "exhibit A," that doesn't come in until further down the list. So is "exhibit A,", in my case, a relatively minor piece of evidence refuting an unflattering and false portion of the story, but unrelated to the main allegation (which is libel per se). Or is "Exhibit A" or "Exhibit 1" the libelous material and Exhibit B, the next most important piece of evidence, regardless of the order its presented in the list?

I agree with @INaki Viggers that: There is no "formal" rule on that, but it is common for exhibits to be labeled/listed in the order they are referenced in the pleadings and briefs. But, for exhibits to be presented at a trial or hearing, the most common approaches are to list exhibits in order of anticipated presentation, in order of subject matter topics, or a combination of both. However, there is no penalty other than a possible loss of narrative flow, for using another order. It isn't uncommon to put late added exhibits at the end to avoid having to renumber them if you are in a time crunch.

Copyright on characters' quotes?

Are fictional characters' quotes / phrases protected by copyright? For instance, Blizzard Entertainment's video games have characters saying things like "You are not prepared!", "For Aiur!", etc. Are these quotes copyrightable or otherwise belong to a particular universe?

A statement by a fictional character is part of the fiction, and so is normally protected by copyright. A short exclamation such as "You are not prepared!" might be ruled to be too short and not sufficiently original to be protected if it were used separately, but that would apply just as much to a short statement that was not a quote from a character. But something like one of Gandalf's speeches on "mercy and pity" to Frodo in Chapter 2 ("The Shadow of the past") in book 1 of The Lord of the Rings would clearly be protected. The longer and the more distinctive such a text is, the more clearly it would be protected. Whether it is put in the mouth of a character or is part of the narration makes no significant difference. Note, in a copyright sense a statement does not "belong to a particular universe", rather it belongs to a copyright owner, often the author, or in the case of a video game quite likely thy publisher. As this comment by Kevin mentions, and as I should have mentioned, reproducing a short quotation from a work of fiction, particularly if properly attributed, is quite likely to be fair use . See Is this copyright infringement? Is it fair use? What if I don't make any money off it? for more specific details. See also the threads tagged fair use If a quote is used for a different purpose than the original, in what is called a "transformative" manner in copyright cases, then it is more likely to be held to be fair use. The smaller of a percentage of the source item the quote is, the more likely it is that it will be considered to be a fair use. The less the use of a quote serves as a replacement for the source, or harms the market for the source, the more likely it is to be considered a fair use. See the links above for more detail.

Are patent figures protected by copyright?

Are figures in filed patents protected by copyright? If so, who owns the copyright?

The USPTO website states : Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions. MPEP 608.01(w) provides the relevant text from 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s). Essentially, if the text or drawings are subject to copyright, they will include a notice to that effect (e.g., "©2018 John Doe"), along with an authorization that states: The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. However, 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s) do not address the impact of failure to provide such a copyright notice, and published works in general are not required to include a copyright notice. Therefore, it is possible that the text and drawings may still be protected under copyright, despite the assertion on the USPTO website. That said, there is likely an argument for fair use of the material in the patent.

Are forged signatures on company documents illegal?

Are forged signatures illegal on company documents even if they're forged by the director of the company? Example: I looked over some documents for a small company founded by three persons, I believe that the two of the three signatures used during the documentation to found the company were written by the same person. The false signatures also seem to be used in six different companies that all seem to start up then dissolve within months. These signatures were also used for tax exemption in the UK. I don't know if it's illegal since I believe he is the owner of said company that is writing all three signatures.

I was told that when you sign something in the UK, then it is your signature, no matter what name you are using. So if you sign a contract with my name , then it's your signature and you are bound by the contract. Things might be invalid because you signed and not me. For example, if you sign a contract selling my car in my name, then that contract is not valid. If some document needs signatures of two witnesses, and you sign with your name, then with my name, then there are no two signatures. As far as I know, signing under a false name is not in itself criminal, but might very well be supporting fraud, for example, and might therefore be illegal. The contract for the sale of my car, signed by you using my name, would very likely be part of fraud and therefore criminal.

What are the Legalities of Game Shows?

Are game shows legal by nature or is there a catch that allows them to be legal? Are they considered a sweepstakes? How is one able to give away prizes without it being "gambling?" Do the game show contestants have to agree to some sort of contract to be involved? Is it a state by state issue?

Game shows are not gambling because the participants do not wager their own money. They risk the show's money only. (Also as @aroth points out in the comments, the vast majority of game shows can also use the "game of skill" defense.) Yes. Game shows use contracts for contestants. See the following examples. Wipeout Canada Survivor

Are government fees considered taxes?

Are government fees, like the one for getting a passport or a drivers licence, considered taxes from a constitutional perspective? To clarify I am not asking for income tax purposes . I suppose it might depend on the service, like the difference between the gas tax and a toll; or the rights to the service, but most fees seem to "look like a tax, and quack like a tax". The reason I ask is that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment states: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax . but, with the new movement by some states to require voters to have identification to vote, and the fact that no state I know of provides free government issued ID (unless you are an employee) it seems that unless a state provided its residents with free access to state-issued ID, that requiring people to go pay for ID's needed to vote would be contrary to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.

with the new movement by some states to require voters to have identification to vote, and the fact that no state I know of provides free government issued ID (unless you are an employee) it seems that unless a state provided its residents with free access to state-issued ID, that requiring people to go pay for ID's needed to vote would be contrary to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. This specific issue (which is much easier to address than the general question) has been litigated, and in some cases, it has been a successful argument. It is pretty much acknowledged now that requiring a fee for all documents required in order to have ID necessary to vote violates the 24th Amendment. But, the states that enacted these requirements knew that and tried to get around it by making at least one form of voter ID free, which prevents the statutes from being facially invalid. This isn't the end of the question , however: Voter ID laws, enacted in 11 states over the past two years, require voters to show a government-issued photo ID that the state will provide for free. But while the ID is free, the documents residents need to prove their identity in order to get that ID, such as a birth certificate, are not. Now, lots of people already have documents like birth certificates that were purchased by their parents at their birth and are now available to them for free. But, that isn't always the case. This raises the question of whether there is an "as applied" violation of the 24th Amendment in the cases of someone who can't prove their entitlement to compliant voter ID without paying for it, and if so, what the proper remedy is for the violation. These issues are still being actively litigated and haven't been definitively resolved on a national basis in all circumstances.

Are government-funded research producing patents considered illegal subsidies under the WTO?

Are government-funded research producing patents considered illegal subsidies under the WTO? If not, in what case could this be considered an infringement of WTO trade rules on illegal government subsidies? https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8_e.htm Prohibited subsidies: subsidies that require recipients to meet certain export targets, or to use domestic goods instead of imported goods. They are prohibited because they are specifically designed to distort international trade, and are therefore likely to hurt other countries’ trade. They can be challenged in the WTO dispute settlement procedure where they are handled under an accelerated timetable. If the dispute settlement procedure confirms that the subsidy is prohibited, it must be withdrawn immediately. Otherwise, the complaining country can take counter measures. If domestic producers are hurt by imports of subsidized products, countervailing duty can be imposed. Actionable subsidies: in this category the complaining country has to show that the subsidy has an adverse effect on its interests. Otherwise the subsidy is permitted. The agreement defines three types of damage they can cause. One country’s subsidies can hurt a domestic industry in an importing country. They can hurt rival exporters from another country when the two compete in third markets. And domestic subsidies in one country can hurt exporters trying to compete in the subsidizing country’s domestic market. If the Dispute Settlement Body rules that the subsidy does have an adverse effect, the subsidy must be withdrawn or its adverse effect must be removed. Again, if domestic producers are hurt by imports of subsidized products, countervailing duty can be imposed. According to the WTO, research subsidies don't see to be considered to be illegal subsidies since their impact are not directly measurable and only has an impact much further down the road. Am I mistaken? I am not 100% sure.

In your quoted section of the rules we see: “subsidies that require recipients to meet certain export targets, or to use domestic goods…” These seem to be needed criteria for there to be a violation. Subsidizing research with those stipulations could violate the rules. It has nothing to do with patents or how remote the time frame or measurable the benefit. Subsidies for research without those strings would clearly not meet the criteria.

Can a database be made from essays written in college?

Are graded essays written in college marked for destruction considered published work? What is the legal extent the data from essays can be used? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/129934/where-do-all-the-essays-go-in-college

Whether published or unpublished, they are still protected by copyright. (They are probably unpublished for copyright purposes, but in the US this makes little difference for any recently created work (that is anything after 2002). For older work see the Cornell chart .) They cannot be copied or distributed without permission, unless an exception to copyright, such as fair use or fair dealing applies. And it is hard to see how either would apply to entire essays simply begin placed in a database. Placing text in a database is probably making a copy, and might be distributing it or publishing it, depending on how access to the DB is granted. Now data from the essays, as opposed to the texts of the essays themselves, are probably facts. Facts are not protected by copyright in any Berne Convention country, including the US, the UK, and the EU.

Identity photographs under GDPR

Are identity photographs, of the form commonly used for things like a bus/rail pass or membership card considered to be "special category data" within the meaning of the UK's Data Protection Act 2018 ? It seems to me they would almost certainly be, even if not processed for biometrics currently because they are likely to cover at least race, ethnic origin and frequently also religion. Health may also be covered by such photographs, if for example an individual has visual signs of health issues in/around their head. I believe the above points should be sufficient to conclude that identity photographs almost always count as special category data, but given that a well taken identity photograph could trivially be used to extract biometric information I can't really see how that case also wouldn't apply. This seems to cover even the retention of printed copies of photographs. Is my reasoning here correct? Is there anything concrete to support this interpretation? Given the substantially raised barrier to using such data how can an organisation legally justify their use of ID photographs on membership cards (and a corresponding record retained by them)?

Your reasoning makes sense to me. Photographs of people by themselves do not constitute a special category of personal data (see quote) but this type of structured database, with specific fields for each of these categories (albeit in a slightly inconvenient format, namely images), seems to fit the definition very well. From Recital 51 : (3) The processing of photographs should not systematically be considered to be processing of special categories of personal data as they are covered by the definition of biometric data only when processed through a specific technical means allowing the unique identification or authentication of a natural person. If you can't find a legal basis for processing the data in Art. 9(2) , you can think about technical measures to remove the special categories from your dataset (maybe you can redact those fields from the image and still be able to achieve your goals). Note that you may still be processing the data in other ways. If you are or suspect you are processing special categories of personal data, you should conduct a data protection impact assessment . You will definitely benefit from the exercise because it forces you to go through all the categories of data that you have, how it's processed, if the processing is actually necessary, the legal bases, and what technical and organisational measures you have implemented (or are going to implement) to reduce the risk.

Are unaudited server logs admissible in a court of law?

Are internal server logs produced by a firm that has no standards compliance certification and does not conduct any third party audits admissible as evidence? If not, what certification is generally sufficient?

Whether evidence is admissible in court or not doesn't depend on whether it conforms to any standard, compliance, or certification. Those factors may affect how strong the evidence is (i.e how convincing it is), but those factors don't determine whether the evidence may be used at all. Different jurisdictions have different rules, but in most places, as long as the evidence is relevant to the case in trial, then it is admissible. There are usually rules which may render evidence inadmissible, such as if it was obtained illegally, or if it would have such a prejudicial effect on proceedings that it would undermine the fairness of the trial. If you are wondering if evidence is relevent or not, an easy way to determine so is asking yourself: does this evidence help a party's case? Does this evidence undermine a party's case? If yes to either question, then it is relevant.

Are Jurors informed about jurry Nullification

Are jurors in US criminal trials informed that they can rule contrary to the law as given by the Judge (aka "jury nullification") by the judge or by any official source? What happens when juries do "nullify"?

In general they are not told. In fact, I am not aware of any jurisdiction where they are told by the judge officially. Judges will normally charge a jury that they must accept the law as stated by the judge, and ignore any other source of the law, whether they like it or not. But the Judge has no way to enforce such a charge. According to the Wikipedia article The 1895 decision in Sparf v. United States , written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5–4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan , affirmed the power of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that: …by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to ensure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed. It is not so much that jury nullification is a right of the jury, as that there is very little right for the prosecutor or judge to inquire into why the jury acted however it did. If there is a suspicion that the jury was bribed, or influenced by prohibited communications, that can be looked into. But otherwise a jury is like an oracle, its actions have no specified reason or justification, they are whatever they are. The judge (or an appeals court) can set aside a jury verdict on the grounds that no rational jury could find in a particular way -- this is mostly used to overturn convictions based on insufficient evidence. But a jury has almost total freedom to believe or disbelieve any witnesses, so if it disbelieves, it could acquit, regardless of whether it rejects the law under which charges are brought. So there is no way to tell if a particular verdict was based on nullification, or on disbelief of the witnesses, or some other possible ground, without asking the members of the jury about what happened during deliberations, or why they acted as they did. In any case, there is no provision -- that I know of -- to set aside a jury verdict on the grounds that it was an instance of nullification, so inquiring into whether it was would be of little point. This attitude toward jury verdicts goes back to the very early origins of trial by jury, when it was a replacement for Trial by Ordeal. The Ordeal had been considered a way of asking God to decide the issue, and there was no way to ask God to clarify the decision. When it was replaced by jury trial, no way to ask for clarification was considered possible there either -- the jury was said to voice the decision of the community at large: the formal term for jury trial was "to be tried by the country". See C. Rembar's The Law of the Land and H. C. Lea's The Duel and the oath for more on this history. This article reports on recent cases where juries have refused to convict in Marijuana cases.

Are large banks required to write blueprints on how to break them up in case they go bankrupt in the United States?

Are large banks required to write blueprints on how to break them up in case they go bankrupt? I remember there was a talk about requiring large banks to write blueprint on how to break them up in case they go bankrupt to solve the problem of 'too big to fail' and I am wondering if this is now a legal requirement for large banks.

Yes, this was passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 , Pub.L. 111–203. The provision for so-called "resolution plans", informally called "living wills", is in the US Code at 12 USC 5365 , subsection (d). It applies to large "bank holding companies" and "nonbank financial companies". The plans are to include: (A) information regarding the manner and extent to which any insured depository institution affiliated with the company is adequately protected from risks arising from the activities of any nonbank subsidiaries of the company; (B) full descriptions of the ownership structure, assets, liabilities, and contractual obligations of the company; (C) identification of the cross-guarantees tied to different securities, identification of major counterparties, and a process for determining to whom the collateral of the company is pledged; and (D) any other information that the Board of Governors and the Corporation jointly require by rule or order. The Federal Reserve has more information at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/resolution-plans.htm , including the plans submitted by the banks. For instance, Citigroup's 2021 plan .

Does the 14th Amendment give people the liberty to break laws and constitutions?

Are laws and constitutions themselves a violation of the 14th amendment? Can the government deprive people of their liberty to use drugs for recreational use, hire prostitutes, gamble, etc? Any law places a restriction on someone's liberty, correct?

No. The 14th Amendment says no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . There's an argument the legislative procedure must meet certain requirements, but the fact it was passed is certainly capable of being due process (and normally would be due process).

Are laws written logically and rigorously?

Are laws written logically and rigorously in law books? For example, do texts of laws specifically use "if and only if" instead of the more frequently used but less logically correct "if"? I am just giving a specific example, but there could be other subtle logical things that laws do not explicitly state. Also, bonus question, has any case in a court of law hinged on a point of logic?

Are laws written logically and rigorously? No. Laws are not consistently written to any consistent stylistic standards. Whatever legislators approve becomes the law even if the law is poorly drafted. While some legislative bodies, such as the Joint Tax Committee of the U.S. Congress and the legislative services department of many state legislatures encourage good, or at least consistent, drafting practices, these standards are routinely ignored in the course of the legislative process. This is particularly true in the United States, since it does not have a "House of Revision" akin to the House of Lords or the Canadian Senate, that is concerned primarily with the quality of legislative drafting, and also does not have law that are drafted by the secure majority of a Prime Minster in most parliamentary systems. Instead, in the U.S. there is constant haggling and negotiation on a bill by bill basis at every step of the legislative process right up through a conference committee reconciling different versions of a bill that arise between two houses of a bicameral legislature. As a result, the key drafting priority is to secure support of a majority of legislators in two houses of the bicameral legislature and then avoiding a veto of the final product, and that objective is pre-eminent over the objective of good drafting. Frequently, in the U.S., legislation is intentionally drafted ambiguously in order to secure its passage with different legislators essentially making "bets" on the courts interpreting the language which is known to be ambiguous in the manner that they prefer. Sometimes legal language that is very precise and logical is interpreted to mean something completely different than what it literally says. For example, consider the 11th Amendment to the United States which says: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. This is an amendment to Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, which says: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. But, what the 11th Amendment actually means is that states retain sovereign immunity in most cases. The governing principle in interpreting legislation is not logic but legislative intent. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. summed up the situation famously when he said: The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.

Are lawyer conversations with third parties relevant to a case privileged?

Are lawyer conversations with third parties relevant to a case privileged? For example, imagine an attorney is defending a person against a criminal charge. The attorney interviews his client's roommate alone concerning matters relevant to the case and that conversation is recorded with consent of both parties. Later, the police interview the roommate and the roommate tells the police that he had a recorded conversation with the defendant's attorney. The police tell this to the the prosecutor. Can the prosecutor then subpoena the recording? Here is another scenario: an attorney has a conversation with an expert witness pursuant to a criminal case before formally naming that expert witness as a witness (for example, before the trial starts or before his client has been indicted). Can that conversation be subpoened by the prosecution?

In the United States, neither the recording of the lawyer's conversation with a third party nor the lawyer's communications with an expert witness would generally be considered privileged. But that doesn't mean that the prosecutor can subpoena those records. The parties' rights to discovery of each other's evidence is spelled out in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 . That rule generally protects the documents you're talking about as trial-preparation materials: Information Not Subject to Disclosure. Except for scientific or medical reports, Rule 16(b)(1) does not authorize discovery or inspection of: (A) reports, memoranda, or other documents made by the defendant, or the defendant's attorney or agent, during the case's investigation or defense; or (B) a statement made to the defendant, or the defendant's attorney or agent, by: (i) the defendant; (ii) a government or defense witness; or (iii) a prospective government or defense witness. I believe you would reach the same outcome under most states' rules of criminal procedure, as well.

Are lethal autonomous weapon systems legal?

Are lethal autonomous weapon systems legal? I want to know whether this technology is illegal, or not - specifically in the UK, but globally as well. I know the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons held a conference in December, regarding the legalities of this technology, but did not hear of anything being determined. I also think the US has some military law regarding "meaningful human control."

While your question is primarily directed towards the use of legal autonomous weapons systems by military forces, I will address one tangential point (I may provide a separate answer on the military issues later). There is a long standing (i.e. many hundreds of years old) common law rule of premises liability in Britain, which has now been incorporated by law into a statute and is also the law in almost every other common law jurisdiction, that creates liability to a person injured by a private parties using lethal autonomous weapons systems (i.e. deadly traps).

Do local authorities require planning permission?

Are local authorities required to make planning applications in similar ways to private individuals/companies when making changes to city infrastructure? Recently my local council have removed a lay-by and bus shelters from bus stops on a very busy (red-route) road which is documented as having very low air quality. The removal of bus shelters (ostensibly because sex workers and IVDUs use them - which I have never observed, compared to 5-10 people that are often waiting for a bus in them) has already made me more inclined to get in my car and drive myself rather than waiting in the rain for however long the bus takes to show up - adding to the potential pollution problem. Similarly the removal of the lay-by means that the busses (which during peak hours are probably every 4 minutes or less) completely impede the flow of traffic when the stop to allow passengers on or off worsening the pollution further. There were no notices posted about the potential for these works, and a search of my local authority's planning portal brings up no applications related to these alterations. (It does however have active applications, for which a decision is expecting this coming Thursday for the inclusion of advertising billboards within the now removed bus shelters!). As such, local residents have not been consulted on these changes and we have not had any opportunity to lodge objections to the changes to the local transport infrastructure. Should there have been some notification of these changes to local residents, with an opportunity to register objections? If so, what recourse do we have now, after the fact?

To answer the question in your title: Yes, local authorities require planning permission. However, the question in your question is different. Removing a bus shelter or a lay-by probably wouldn't require planning permission if it was done by Tesco's in their car park - so the local authority doesn't require it either. There may be a requirement for consultation on such changes, but when Douglas Adams referred to It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'. he was only half joking. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the bus shelter and lay-by are "roads", so if you don't live in a unitary authority would be handled by the County Council (or equivalent), whereas Planning is the responsibility of the District/Town/City Council.

Are mathematics questions copyrightable?

Are math questions copyrightable? I am thinking it is, but to what extent and what are the limitations? Because some question like 2+2 are too basic to be copyrightable, but some other mathematics question in calculus 1, 2 and 3 are easily copyrightable, or at least should or might have to be. I am asking, because some people may copy other people's questions and put them in their text or textbook.

At some point, a word problem that expresses an underlying mathematical problem that could be posed in many different ways, could be subject to copyright. But some word problems that are effectively unique (e.g. derive Kepler's laws from Newton's law of gravity) could probably not be copyrighted, and others would be, as you note, too basic to have any creative or original element to them. Likewise, stylistic aspects of the presentation that aren't necessary by mathematical convention (e.g. presenting all advanced questions in boxes with borders in large print blue type) could be entitled to copyright protection. Further, merely having identical questions doesn't prove a copyright violation. You have to prove in an infringement action that one question was derived from the other question (e.g. by showing that the alleged infringer had the textbook allegedly copied and carried over typos into their edition). Usually, showing derivation is trivial, but in a case like this one, it might be hard to show.

"diamond" ♦ moderators and the law of agency

Are our moderators (♦) legally considered agents of Stack Exchange, Inc. from the standpoint of other non-moderator community members? I've reviewed the moderator agreement , and note it says: I acknowledge and agree that I am an independent volunteer moderator for one or more sites operated by Stack Exchange, Inc. and I am not an employee, agent or representative of Stack Exchange, Inc., and I have no authority to bind Stack Exchange, Inc. in any manner and I am solely responsible for my statements and actions. I attest that my statements and posts do not represent the views, opinions or actions of Stack Exchange, Inc. I observe that the above is in a two-party agreement that regular users may not even be aware of. It seems evident that the paragraph that answers the question for any claim a moderator might bring directly against the network. But can a social media site disclaim the agency of moderators concerning other users? Note that I'm assuming good faith applies here and that the moderator(s) have not knowingly violated any aspect of their agreement. But in the hypothetical, assume a moderator's words and actions have caused harm to one or more other users. For example, let's assume the harm is a common-law tort in the US. I'm vaguely aware of CDA section 230 but don't understand how that might apply here. The same question might equally hold for companies like Facebook and Twitter, but I don't know because I don't even like those services. Gosh no! Note: If SE wouldn't assume responsibility for the well-intentioned acts of its moderators, it would seem unwise to agree to the company's terms. But I'm not a lawyer, nor am I considering acting as a moderator. Neither role would be well-suited to my admittedly skeptical thought processes. I'm just asking for general education. Further hypothetical: Let's assume a moderator, in good faith, edits the contents of a question, and changes its meaning in a way that reflects badly on the original poster's intent and reputation. Even if well-intentioned, might that action of the moderator, while still associating with new text with the OP author's name, become a defamatory act? Just to take this hypothetical to an extreme, perhaps the original question asks about a "Blackie Chen", who is a real person. The moderator, who might be unfamiliar with the fact that this is Blackie's well-documented nickname goes in and edits the name to "African American" or worse yet "African American Chen". Assume that Blackie is neither African nor American and that the moderator is operating from an entirely different cultural context than the author or subject, perhaps South Africa. The driving, non-legal problem in the hypothetical is the overapplication of political correctness. But when an online service appoints moderators who are from different countries than the author, seems to create risk. For example, the moderator might be in a country where tort law doesn't apply. Assumptions based on the hypothetical New York law applies under the agreement(s) In New York, defamation is strictly common law, not statutory. The case law is probably out there, but it's not the primary point of the question. In the moderator's country, an entirely different interpretation of what the law is might be apparent. He's not a lawyer, but he keeps up with current events. This article describes the legal system from the POV of the moderator. The moderator's system of laws has some basis in common law, so he's not totally unaware. The South African constitution explicitly says: Human dignity Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

Stack Exchange has given moderators certain authorizations or powers, but that does not automatically make them agents. The specific provision in the agreement that they are not agents would make it harder to argue that they are in fact agents in a particular case, but if they are in fact acting as agents they might be held to be agents in some situations. In order to hold SE liable, a plaintiff would need to shoe actual harm by a person acting as a moderator . Such a plaintiff would need to show further that the mod was acting in accord with the delegated authority given to mods, or in ways approved or encouraged by SE. If the action was a breach of the moderator agreement, and in no way approved or encouraged by SE, it might be hard to show that the mod was acting as an agent of SE in that instance. Without specific context, such as how the mod is alleged to have harmed the plaintiff, and how SE encouraged or permitted this, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such harm it is hard to give a specific answer, or an assured one. CDA Sec 230 says, among other things, that the operator of a service, such as SE, will not be treated as the speaker or publisher of statements posted by users, and in general will not be liable for such statements. (That is particularly section 230 (c) (1).) But there are many details and without specifics again there is little one can say. CDA section 230 (c) (2) (A) provides that a service provider (such as SE) or a service user shall not be liable for: any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; and CDA section 230 (c) (2) (B) provides that a service provider (such as SE) or a service user shall not be liable for: any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). Given all this, it is hard to see how a post or an edit of a post made in good faith could be a cause of action against anyone, or how a post made in bad-faith could be a cause of action against the service provider unless they knowingly supported or encouraged it. The added hypothetical says: Let's assume a moderator, in good faith, edits the contents of a question, and changes its meaning in a way that reflects badly on the original poster's intent and reputation. Even if well-intentioned, might that action of the moderator, while still associating with new text with the OP author's name, become a defamatory act? Since the complete editing history is always available, one click away from any post, and the user name of the most recent editor is always displayed right under the post, adjacent to the link to the history, it is hard to see how a reasonable person could believe that an edited post was the work of the original poster. Beyond that, to constitute defamation there must be a purported statement of fact that is false, and harm to the reputation of the would-be plaintiff. Normally such a false statement must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. It is hard to see how A making a statement, and B editing it, could create defamation of A. B could add defamation of some other party C, but then it could be easy to show that this was B's writing, not A's, so A would have no liability, and SE would have no liability for B's actions, as posting defamation is certainly not an approved activity. Moreover, it does not require moderator status to edit someone else's answer. Any user with a certain reputation level (1,000 on Law.SE, the level varies by site) my edit any post. Currently about 160 users have this privilege on law.se, while there are only 2 moderators. On other sites the numbers will often be larger. Since editing another's post is not a moderator privilege, it is hard to see how being a moderator is relevant to doing so improperly. And since CDA sec 230 (c) (2) (A) protects posters for liability for edits or deletions made in good faith, it is even harder to see any liability here.

Are passengers allowed to record the audio of their interactions with the US immigration officers when clearing the immigration as they enter the US?

Are passengers allowed by law to record the audio of their interactions with the US immigration officers at the airport when clearing the US immigration as they enter the US via air travel? If state-specific, I'm mostly interested in California.

It is generally legal to voice-record under US and California law (in CA, the question could arise as to whether the agent has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but they don't when it comes to "public interactions"). But California law has to give way to federal law in the customs controlled zone in the airport, because border crossings are under federal jurisdiction. It is not clear if there is a CBP rule/directive that prohibits voice recording The 9th district has ruled on a related question, where there is a First Amendment right to photograph – there is. However, that right varies depending on the "forum". In the case of "out in public" such as in a park, any content-based restrictions would be subject to strict scrutiny. But In contrast, restrictions on speech in a nonpublic forum must only be “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and view point neutral” Given the tests for judging publicness, the airport customs zone is clearly not a "public forum". That means that any such restrictions only have to be "reasonable", and it is hard to fail rational analysis. There is a no-cell-phone rule, but there are other ways to record voice; hence there may not be a rule that addresses Zoom recorders. In lieu of an explicit policy, you might be detained / moved to an interview room where a supervisor will determine what the rule is (and how that impinges on your desire to record). There is a separate matter that CBP is supposed to record "incidents" , so at a certain point your interactions will be recorded.

What are the copyright terms on patents?

Are patents (and the attached text, diagrams, images etc) covered by copyright? Or are they, by virtue of being published patents, in the public domain?

In the U.S. the text and drawings of a patent application/patent may be copyrighted by the author. If such protections are being claimed, the patent application must contain this authorization from 37 CFR 1.71 (d) and (e)- e) The authorization shall read as follows: A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.

IP law governing physical, functional things

Are patents the only type of IP right that applies to physical, functional things, or can copyright and trademark also apply? For example, say a third party wants to manufacture and sell a purely functional part of a car, like part of the engine, not something like a badge or hood ornament that's likely trademarked. If the part is not covered by a patent, are they in the clear? Or could some other type of IP right apply to, say, a bolt hole pattern?

Copyright and trademark are limited by the functionality doctrine which is the legal principle that denies trademark and copyright the ability to restrict the reproduction of purely functional features. 17 U.S.C. §101 defines the notion of a "useful article": A "useful article" is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. 17 U.S.C §103(b) limits the applicability of copyright on useful articles: This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under the law... In other words, you cannot stop someone from making and distributing a useful article merely because you have previously expressed the useful article in a copyrighted work. For trademark, the most significant court case is TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. , which held that trademark cannot restrict distribution of functional components. The plaintiff in that case claimed that their product's spring mechanism was legally protected as a visually distinctive part of their product's trade dress, but the Supreme Court held that the spring mechanism was ineligible for trademark protection insofar as it was a functional component of the product.

Are peer-reviewed scientific journals subject to FOIA?

Are peer-reviewed scientific journals subject to the Freedom of Information Act? I found this somewhat helpful page: Open Meeting Laws and Non-Profit Organizations (Digital Media Law Project).

No. Freedom of information laws are about government information. Peer reviewed journals are not government institutions.

I live outside of Europe. If I gain e-Residency in Estonia, will I be protected by GDPR regulations?

Are people who gain an Estonian e-Residency treated as a European citizen under upcoming GDPR regulations?

Whether or not you are protected by GDPR depends on the location of both yourself and the party processing your data. Citizenship and residence statuses are completely irrelevant ( Recital 14(1) ): The protection afforded by this Regulation should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence If the party processing your data is established in the EU, then you are protected no matter who you are or where you are ( Art. 3(1) ): This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not. If the party processing your data is not established in the EU, then you are only protected if you are in the EU ( Art. 3(2) ): This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union

Are perceived conflict of interests fairly subjective?

Are perceived conflict of interests fairly subjective? What can encourage an attorney to recuse themselves from a case or client while another might not? Is a court of law the final authority on what constitutes a perceived conflict of interest?

Conflict of Interest in a legal sense is not subjective: if in the circumstances a reasonable person would identify a conflict of interest then there is a conflict of interest. Legally, reasonable is an objective standard. Practically, different people will draw the line of reasonable at different points. As always, a court will only intervene if there is a dispute (people can agree that there is or is not a conflict of interest) and the parties ask it to. If it does, then it has the final word on what is reasonable .

Is perimeter search without a warrant ever legal?

Are perimeter searches without consent nor warrant ever legal? What if it's a motor vehicle / car? Is the situation different with a house?

Huge difference between a car and a house. For example, at least in Pennsylvania no warrant is required to search a vehicle on public roads . In other states there are so many easy pretexts that you practically have little protection from a full vehicle search (although the pretext will have to withstand strict scrutiny if evidence found in a search is used to charge you with a crime). Your house, on the other hand, still enjoys very strong fourth-amendment protections: One of my favorite U.S. Supreme Court cases on the subject is Florida v. Jardines , in which SCOTUS ruled that even approaching the front door with a drug-sniffing dog without a warrant constituted an illegal search. (The majority opinion is worth reading for its illumination of current law on this question.)

Are sites that give unfiltered ADS-B data legal?

Are plane tracking services such as ADS-B Exchange and TheAirTraffic that do not honor the FAA's Limited Aircraft Data Display program legal to use? Is it legal to operate a feeder station for one of these? Is it legal to run one of these services? In other words, is LADD enforceable?

Section 566 ("RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN USING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM", page 3385) of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act , the law which created LADD, says, Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator shall, upon request of a private aircraft owner or operator, block the registration number of the aircraft of the owner or operator from any public dissemination or display, except in data made available to a Government agency, for the noncommercial flights of the owner or operator. This says nothing about creating legal obligations for anyone except the FAA Administrator, so it seems that LADD is not binding on anyone except the FAA. There is one case in which LADD is binding: the FAA's page on LADD says, Vendors who subscribe to FAA SWIM [System-Wide Information Management] Data feeds are bound by a Data Access User Agreement to filter any LADD participant from public display of aircraft flight data. Thus, flight trackers using FAA SWIM data are required to comply with LADD, even if they obtain data on the aircraft from another source. The wording of the FAA's site also implies that compliance is not mandatory for trackers that do not have agreements with the FAA to use SWIM data.

What can I do if police did not record video in car dashcam for a traffic ticket in NJ, USA?

Are police required to record in car dashcam video for traffic tickets in NJ, USA? A town in NJ said not all of their police cars record video. Is there any way to find out if they aren’t telling the truth? Can I contact the police chief, mayor, or municipal judge? How can I defend myself in court trial if the judge always believes highly credible police officers over defendants if I don’t have video? Edit: C.40A:14-118.1 Municipal police vehicles to be equipped with mobile video recording system. 1. Every new or used municipal police vehicle purchased, leased, or otherwise acquired on or after the effective date of P.L.2014, c.54 (C.40A:14-118.1 et al.) which is primarily used for traffic stops shall be equipped with a mobile video recording system. https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/courts/assets/municipal/legis/pl2014_c54.pdf

A related post is here . Are police required to record in car dashcam video for traffic tickets in NJ, USA? Probably not. Is there any way to find out if they aren’t telling the truth? Ask and hope you are not lied to. Can I contact the police chief, mayor, or municipal judge? You can contact the police chief or mayor if you can get through to them. They are not required to answer you unless you make a formal discovery request or public records request. You cannot make ex parte contact with a judge when the other side's lawyer (in this case, the city's lawyer) is not present. How can I defend myself in court trial if the judge always believes highly credible police officers over defendants if I don’t have video? You can tell your side of the story under oath with any details that makes your story believable. You are correct that the judge will usually believe the police officer and not you. So, usually you will lose. This is one reason that most people try to plea bargain their traffic tickets, rather than going to trial. Due process rights give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story when contesting a ticket, but it doesn't give you a right to win (even if you are actually in the right) if the judge or other trier of fact doesn't believe what you have to say. It does not appear that you have a right to a jury trial in a traffic case in New Jersey, although this depends to some extent on the kind of violation being charged, so you are probably stuck with the beliefs of the municipal court judge about who is the more credible witness.

Are political deals legally enforceable?

Are political deals legally enforceable if they are in writing? For example, let's imagine a candidate makes a deal with a political party: "I agree not to run for office in race X right now, if you agree not field a candidate against me in race Y which is coming up next year and promise to pay me an indemnity of $500,000 if you break the agreement and run in the race anyway." Is a deal like this enforceable?

Contracts are enforceable - “deals” are not One of the things required to make a “deal” into a contract is legality of objects. This means that a contract that requires lawbreaking is illegal but so are contracts that contravene public policy. Interfering in the electoral process definitely contravenes public policy. Not to say that such deals aren’t made and honoured all the time, just that if they are breached a court won’t enforce them.

Disclosing records no longer maintained, FERPA

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

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

Projectors, White Boards & Electronic devices in judicial courts

Are projectors, white boards and other electronic devices viz monitor screens, laptops,scanners, recording and playback devices etc. available or allowed in courts? As a example, the lawyer of either the plaintiff or defendant would like to present using a projector and display screen clipings, transcripts, laptop etc. as part of evidences, proofs. Is this allowed in the high courts and Supreme Courts?

These questions are typically left to the discretion of the judge in whose courtroom the presentation is happening. It is very common to see these types of devices in trial courts, but they are much less common in appellate courts, and I doubt you'd ever see one in the United States Supreme Court, where the arguments are essentially limited to oral presentations.

Are Rule of law and qualified immunity doctrines compatible?

Are qualified immunity doctrines compatible with "rule of law" -- the notion of the law giving equal rights and obligations to citizens? Can things like death penalty or immunity from prosecution be justified under rule of law?

"Rule of law" is one thing, "giving equal rights and obligations to citizens" is another. Qualified immunity, both in doctrinal and statutory form, are statements of law, e.g. saying that a police officer has the power to use force in a manner that others may not. "Equal rights and obligations" are actually "equal, as defined in the law", for example a 6 year old has no obligation to comply with contract that that may have formed – there is an exception to the otherwise general rule, which is recognized by the law.

retraction of a rejection of an offer

Are retractions of rejections common or would they prompt for the same offer to be made? In case of a written agreement, would a retraction of an oral rejection require a new writing if the offeror wants to keep the offer open? Would the reason of the rejection matter? What of unilateral mistakes of the offeree's interpretation of a contract?

would a retraction of an oral rejection require a new writing if the offeror wants to keep the offer open? By default, yes, because the offeree's rejection terminates his power of acceptance (see Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 36(1)(a); based on your profile, I'm assuming that you are interested in a jurisdiction in the U.S.). The rejection being oral versus in writing only matters (1) for evidentiary purposes, or (2) if the circumstances are explicit on how offers and decisions are to be communicated to the counterparty. Once rejection has taken place, neither party can [always] know for sure whether the other is open to revisit the offer. However, the offeror may manifest that his offer remains notwithstanding a possible rejection by the offeree. See the Restatement at § 38(1): An offeree's power of acceptance is terminated by his rejection of the offer, unless the offeror has manifested a contrary intention . (emphasis added) In particular, if the offeror manifests from the start that his offer will stand despite a rejection, then he need not re-issue his offer upon such rejection. But that also carries the consequence that, if the offeror changes his mind and no longer wants the offer to withstand a rejection, he needs to make it clear that his initial manifestation and/or the offer is revoked. What matters is that, at all times, both parties are on the same page as to each other's intention of whether or not bind themselves in the tentative contract. Would the reason of the rejection matter? No. Or at least I cannot think of a scenario where the reason for rejection would supersede this aspect of contract law. See the last remark in the previous question. What of unilateral mistakes of the offeree's interpretation of a contract? It is unclear what you mean by that question or how you relate it to your central question (re-issuing an offer once it has been rejected). Chapter 6 of the Restatement addresses voidability of contracts as a result of mistakes, but that implies that the contract has already been formed (and hence beyond any issues of rejection of an offer).

Is there any law (US, UK, or Canadian) that limits the scope of a search, so that unrelated crimes can't be prosecuted?

Are search warrants limited to evidence for a specific crime? For example, assume a search warrant is issued based on probable cause of property theft. While executing this search warrant, the police find marijuana. Would this marijuana be admissible in court for a charge of possessing that marijuana?

A search warrant describes the particular location to be searched and the things to be seized: no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized In Groh v. Ramirez 540 U.S. 551 (2004), a search warrant failed to do this, and it was held invalid: The warrant was plainly invalid. It did not meet the Fourth Amendment’s unambiguous requirement that a warrant “particularly describ[e] … the persons or things to be seized.” The fact that the application adequately described those things does not save the warrant; Fourth Amendment interests are not necessarily vindicated when another document says something about the objects of the search, but that document’s contents are neither known to the person whose home is being searched nor available for her inspection. However, if while executing the search warrant, the government comes across evidence "in plain view", it may be seized and is admissible in court. Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443 (1971): Under certain circumstances, the police may, without a warrant seize, evidence in "plain view," though not for that reason alone, and only when the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent. [...] An example of the applicability of the "plain view" doctrine is the situation in which the police have a warrant to search a given area for specified objects, and, in the course of the search, come across some other article of incriminating character.

Are search warrants public records?

Are search warrants public records? Does it matter whether an investigation ended up resulting in a prosecution? If so, does it matter whether the case goes to trial? If so, does it matter whether the prosecution is successful (defendant is convicted)? If search warrants generally are public records, what is the best, most efficient, most compelling way to retrieve them?

Short answer: Maybe. Long answer: The answer here varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Normally, the process goes like this: The application for the warrant is usually made under seal or otherwise in secret to prevent the target from trying to hide evidence. So before it's been executed, you can pretty much forget about accessing it. After the warrant is executed, though, there are differing answers to this question. The Supreme Court gave us a test for this kind of question in Press-Enterprise II , which held that the First Amendment gives us a qualified right to access court proceedings and records. The right applies when public access makes sense using the "experience and logic" test: Has the Anglo-Saxon experience typically been to provide access, and does logic tell us that access has beneficial effects for the judicial process? But lower courts have disagreed about how to apply the test. The Eighth Circuit allowed access to warrants in a defense-industry corruption investigation in In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area-Gunn , but the Ninth Circuit denied access in to warrants in the same investigation in Times Mirror Co. v. U.S. I think, though, that the Ninth Circuit decision would have come out differently if the investigation had already ended. Just to mix things up further, the Fourth Circuit has also allowed access, but based on common law principles of access, rather than the First Amendment. That was Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz . Same in the Second Circuit: In re Application of Newsday, Inc. Individual states also have their own rules, but those are of course subject to limits under the First Amendment. When I wanted a copy of a warrant, I would go first to the clerk of the court whose judge signed the warrant. I would tell them what I was looking for, and I pretty much always got it. I would rarely submit a FOIA request, especially if the warrant was issued by a federal agency. Those requests sit in a queue for months or years without being reviewed, and the agency virtually always denies the request anyway. When law enforcement agencies and courts have copies of the same record, you're almost always going to have better luck getting access from the courts, which are set to open by default. If the court denies the request, try again after there's an indictment, and again after the trial.

Are silver dollars legal tender?

Are silver dollars (Morgan/Peace) legal tender coins or just collectible items? Is a fake Morgan/Peace dollar counterfeit currency?

Yes, they are legal tender. 31 USC 5103 : United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. They are United States coins so they are legal tender. The age of the coins is irrelevant and I don't think that the US government has ever revoked the legal tender status of any of its coins or currency. (Of course, their value as legal tender is still one dollar, so you'd probably be foolish to spend them that way.) It is illegal to counterfeit them: 18 USC 485 : Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both. (In case you're wondering, the counterfeiting of nickels and pennies is covered under 18 USC 490 : still a crime, but the penalty is less.)

Are public/conference speeches copyright protected?

Are speeches by personalities like Warren Buffett copyright protected? I am not speaking about interviews to news channels but speeches usually made to the public and investors like those found in https://buffett.cnbc.com/warren-buffett-search-results/?query=Mutual%20funds . Can I use them in my websites without legal issues?

Often, but not always If the speech is "fixed in a tangible medium" it is protected by copyright. That includes a prepared written version, and an audio recording made as the speech is delivered. Note that fixation only counts if it is done "by or under the authority of the author". Someone else recording or writing down the speech does not make it fixed unless the author has directed that this be done, or at least authorized it. However, if the speech is neither written down, nor recorded, nor in any other way "fixed" then it is not protected until it is fixed. Someone who took notes or simply memorized the speech would be free to use it as long as it is not protected. All the above is true in the US, and in all other countries that adhere to the Berne Copyright Convention or the TRIPS Agreement . Almost all countries adhere to one or both of those. In many cases there is an exception to copyright for news reporting, but not always. In the US this is covered under fair use and is subject to the normal four-factor test for fair use. In the UK this is covered by fair dealing . In many countries there is a specific exception for news reporting, but such exceptions generally have limits, and the individual law's terms will matter. US Law on Fixation 17 USC 101 provides that: A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

Are state marriage records publicly accessible online?

Are state marriage records publicly accessible online? Is there a database (free or subscription-only) where such information can be found?

I believe they're public record throughout the United States, and available online for most of the United States. I don't know of any single, national repository for marriage records, so I'd recommend Googling around (e.g., "California marriage records" or "San Diego marriage records"). If you're looking for records from a jurisdiction (or time) that are not available online, you could also try using some of the free online genealogy resources, which make those records available. The LDS Church has a particularly powerful service, which, as I recall, will allow you to search for a person and even pull up a scanned copy of licenses that they have available.

Are structures built in Minecraft copyrightable?

Are structures built in Minecraft copyrightable? Specifically, can you use copyright law to prevent others from distributing world files containing only original structures you built (and not anything naturally generated)? This, to me, seems to be an original, concrete work of authorship, and so should be copyrightable. However, I can't find any credible statements about this specifically regarding Minecraft maps. Hopefully the answer would be consistent internationally, but I am particularly interested in the US.

All artistic and literary work has copyright at the moment of creation This includes things “built” in Minecraft. However, under the terms of the Minecraft licence you give a wide ranging copyright licence to Mojang: If you make any content available on or through our Game, you agree to give us permission to use, copy, modify, adapt, distribute, and publicly display that content. This permission is irrevocable, and you also agree to let us permit other people to use, copy, modify, adapt, distribute, and publicly display your content. You are not giving up your ownership rights in your content, you are just giving us and other users permission to use it.

Are tenants responsible for ensuring their guests follow the terms?

Are tenants responsible for their guests violating terms in the lease? For example if a lease says "no smoking in the building" and an invited guest smokes, could the tenant be held responsible? What should a contract contain to show that any guests are the responsibility of the tenants? I've seen "tenants are responsible for their guests actions" but I'm not sure if this is enough as couldn't a tenant argue "I agreed to follow the terms in the lease, but my guest never did, therefore no violation has occurred." Could a contract say "guests are not allowed to smoke" and still be enforceable considering the guests never signed the contract?

As a starting point, if you agree to do something in a contract then that is what you must do. Therefore, if you sign a lease that says "no smoking in the building" then you must make sure that there is no smoking in the building. However, you are not required to do things that are impossible, either physically impossible or legally impossible. So your obligation is to ensure no smoking in the building to the limit of your power. If you have guests, you must ensure they do not smoke, by telling them not to if you know they are smokers and by telling them not to if you discover them smoking or about to smoke. As your guests, they have a legal obligation to follow your lawful and reasonable requests; if they do not then you can revoke your permission for them to be on your premises. If they then refuse to leave then they are trespassing and you can call the police to have them removed. If you did this, then you would not be responsible because you have done all that is legally possible.

Austrian Law about requesting documents not originally required

Are the Authorities in Austria, allowed to ask for additional documents that they did not previously specify, when one applies for a visa? For example, when applying for the post-Brexit EUV 50 card (i.e. "The residency card that all British citizens in Austria, who were resident in Austria prior to 31.12.2020, must apply for in 2021" since they are non-EU citizens), if the required filings ( erforderliche Unterlagen ) are a valid passport, timestamped photo, correctly filled-out form, and a valid Anmeldebescheinigung and you provide all of these, are they legally allowed to then demand something not mentioned, like your bank details from 5 years ago? I would like to read whatever laws pertain to this. At the bottom of their website it states: Es kann sein, dass Sie weitere Dokumente vorlegen müssen. The Google translation of this phrase is: You may be required to provide additional documents.

In general, obtaining a Visa is a thing that is done according to the discretion of the state offering it. As a result, it is entirely up to the Austrian regulations. To establish the necessary information, sometimes additional information is required then the basic ones. Austrias Visa page lists: Nachweis über ausreichende Mittel zur Bestreitung des Lebensunterhalts für die Dauer des geplanten Aufenthalts und die Rückreise in den Herkunfts- oder Wohnsitzstaat Sonstige von der jeweiligen Behörde geforderten Nachweise (Hotelreservierungen, Einladungsschreiben, Buchungsbelege, Rückflugticket, Nachweis einer aufrechten Beschäftigung, usw.) – da diese den örtlichen Standards angepasst und mit den anderen Schengenvertretungen koordiniert sind, können die Nachweise lokal differieren The first is "proof that you are financially not dependant on Austria for the time you want to be there" and "Any other documentation required by the office". That means, yes, they can ask for any documents that are reasonable to establish that you can pay for your travel to Austria and intend to return home after your visit. They do so according to Article 14 of the Visa-ordonance: Article 14 Supporting documents When applying for a uniform visa, the applicant shall present: (a) documents indicating the purpose of the journey; (b) documents in relation to accommodation, or proof of sufficient means to cover his accommodation; (c) documents indicating that the applicant possesses sufficient means of subsistence both for the duration of the intended stay and for the return to his country of origin or residence, or for the transit to a third country into which he is certain to be admitted, or that he is in a position to acquire such means lawfully, in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) and (3) of the Schengen Borders Code; (d) information enabling an assessment of the applicant’s intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for. Any other information is under 14.1.d, and that can take the shape of bank statements.

Are the fonts that come with Ubuntu free for personal and commercial use?

Are the fonts that come with Ubuntu free for personal and commercial use? I tried Googling it but nothing came up.

Are the fonts that come with Ubuntu free for personal and commercial use? In general: Yes. Everything included in the main Ubuntu distribution (the programs, the data, and also the fonts) may be freely used and modified. The details are explained on the Ubuntu Licencing page : All application software in both 'main' and 'restricted' must meet the following requirements: Must allow redistribution. [..] Must not require royalty payments or any other fee for redistribution or modification. [..] Must not discriminate against persons, groups or against fields of endeavour. The licence of software included in Ubuntu can not discriminate against anyone or any group of users and cannot restrict users from using the software for a particular field of endeavour - a business for example. So we will not distribute software that is licensed "freely for non-commercial use". Note one restriction, however: This only applies to the repositories ''main'' and ''restricted''. Ubuntu repositories are stores of software packages provided by Ubuntu, or by third parties. If you use other repositories than ''main'' and ''restricted'', you will have to check the licensing for yourself. Finally, if you are unsure about a specific program of font, check the license. For each software package installed, there will be a file /usr/share/doc/<package name>/copyright , which contains the copyright notice and the licence the software is distributed under. Check that to be sure.

Are property taxes attached to the property itself or the owners at the time?

Are the new owners of a property liable for taxes that accrue before they purchase it, or is this the responsibility of the previous owners? How would a real estate buyer be protected against a surprise tax bill once the sale is done?

In the vast majority of jurisdictions, unpaid property taxes give rise to a lien that runs with the land. So, the new owners have an "in rem" responsibility to pay those taxes that can be collected against them solely by foreclosing on the tax lien and seizing the property if the tax isn't paid. Whether the previous owners also have any responsibility for the unpaid property taxes depends on state law which varies and on the terms of the real estate purchase and sale contract and deed in the transaction. Where I live, the real estate buyer is protected against a surprise tax bill once the sale is done in two main ways. First, the title company provides insurance against unpaid real estate taxes and will deduct any potential unpaid real estate taxes from the funds provided to the seller at closing unless the country treasurer has verified in writing to them that there are no real estate tax arrears for that parcel of property. Second, if the property is conveyed by a warranty deed that does not exclude a warranty that there are no property tax liens in existence for the relevant years, then the buyer has a right to sue the seller for the unpaid back taxes if that warranty turns out not to be true. Almost all sales of real property for full consideration between unrelated parties are carried out by a general warranty deed of this type that doesn't exclude property tax liens except for the current calendar year. If there is no title company involved in the transaction and/or the property is not conveyed by a warranty deed (e.g. it is conveyed by a quitclaim deed), then you could still avoid this risk by checking with the county treasurer to see if any back property taxes are owed on the parcel being sold and getting a certification in writing from the county treasurer of that fact, before agreeing to close on the sale. The title insurance company, or you, if there is no title insurance company, should also check the county real estate records normally maintained by a county clerk or recorder, to confirm that the seller really owns the property sold and that it has not been sold in a tax sale which would eliminate the back tax obligation but which would also mean that the seller no longer owns the property.

Where can one find the penalty per state for a particular drug crime?

Are the sentencing guidelines for each US state available in some consolidated tabular form? I want to be able to easily compare the crimes and their penalties across states to try to identify any differences.

No I don't think so, if by tabular form you mean a book. I've read papers that have that information (famous study on weight of the carrier laws and one on crack sentencing disparity between federal and state charging mechanisms. At least not one that i've ever seen. This would not be a very useful database or book to compile, as it would need to be constantly updated as laws change. You'd have to look at each state's (and the federal) criminal code that you want to compare and go from there. They are all searchable databases though, on the flip side, so this is fairly easy data to compile. Try findlaw if you don't have Lexis or West. Or, if you want to use lexis or West, any law library will have computers that have it on there for free public use.

Are lawsuit depositions public record?

Are the video files of recorded depositions for lawsuits by both the plaintiff and defendant(s) public record? and can I make a FOIA request to obtain these video files?

The question of whether they are a public record or not is more subtle and complex than it appears with a poorly developed case law (e.g. it goes to the question of whether a third party is allowed to be present at a deposition), but fortunately, isn't necessary to answer the question in this case. You cannot make a FOIA request to obtain these video files because they are not in the custody, control or possession of a governmental body, so they are not subject to a FOIA request. Video deposition files are created by the court reporter/videographer (a private business) and are shared with counsel for parties after the parties pay the court reporter/videographer's fees for their services. Unless they are submitted at trial in evidence, they never become a part of a court file. It isn't inconceivable that they could be obtained by subpoena from counsel or the court reporter/videographer in a proper proceeding, but that proceeding would not be a FOIA request.

Is there really such a thing as &quot;international, lawless waters&quot;?

Are there actually places on this planet, in the ocean somewhere, where you can travel by ship and then, once you are there, there are no laws? For example, you could lure on a bunch of little kids with candy, toys and promises of riches/fame, and then subject them to torture and rape out there in the ocean, then travel back and go free from any charge, because it was done on "international waters" and they willingly came with you? Something tells me that's not how it works.

Many countries have the concept of 'extraterritorial application of laws', which means that in many cases courts can and have applied local jurisdictional law to certain crimes committed abroad, especially when the intent of travel was to commit an act that is illegal in the local jurisdiction. For example: In this appeal we are confronted with a question of first impression regarding the scope of Congress's power under the Foreign Commerce Clause. At issue is whether Congress exceeded its authority "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, in enacting a statute that makes it a felony for any U.S. citizen who travels in "foreign commerce," i.e. to a foreign country, to then engage in an illegal commercial sex act with a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). We hold that Congress acted within the bounds of its constitutional authority. United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1103 So, the real question becomes whether your home country applies its laws extraterritorially or not. Extra reading on this concept in US law: Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law

Florida HOA proxy eligibility

Are there an limitations imposed by Florida FS718 as to who can serve as a proxy? Specifically, is there any reason a non-owner can not serve as a designated proxy?

First, a question: Is your community organized as a condominium or as an HOA? I’m asking because you say HOA but you quote from the Condominium Act. In Florida, HOAs do not run condos; in Florida, the governing body of a condo is called a Condo Association, not an HOA. Under Florida law, condominiums are subject to the Chapter 718, the Condominium Act, and HOAs are subject to Chapter 720, the Homeowners Association Act. Because these Acts impose different requirements, it is important to be clear which applies to your community. To answer your question, both the Condo and the HOA Act allow proxy votes, and neither imposes restrictions on who may act as a proxy. However, it is possible that your Association's Bylaws do impose restrictions, so you need to check them. Moreover, the two Acts do impose different restrictions on when proxies can be used, what form they must take and so on. So you really do need to look at the relevant Act. Please Note: In trying to figure out what legal rules apply to your community, you probably need to do more than just read the relevant Act. That's because the law-on-the-books seldom gives a complete or accurate picture of law-as-applied. To find out what rules really apply to your condo, you may need to do more focused searches on line, or even talk to a Florida attorney.

Contours of a national emergency in the United States

Are there any 'bright lines' that prevent an administration (not just the current administration, but future administrations as well) from regularly resorting to the national security argument when it can not find congressional support for its foreign policy initiatives?

Presidential power of that type might arise from congressional authorization, where Congress authorizes action when POTUS deems that such-and-such is the case. An example is 8 USC 1182(f) , which says Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Explicit constitutional powers are not numerous, but include commanding the armed forces and overseeing execution of national law by appointing and removing executive officers. POTUS is constitutionally the federal official responsible for relations with foreign nations, so he can make treaties (subject to Senate approval) and executive agreements (not subject to approval), can appoint US ambassadors and can receive foreign ambassadors. Executive agreements have the greatest potential for being an avenue for POTUS to act contrary to Congress, but they are limited to agreements pursuant to legislation, treaty and constitutional authority (and, as agreements, are not unilateral). Congress was able to somewhat limit presidential military authority by statutes such as the War Powers Act , and in the policy statement at 50 USC 1541 , Congress declares The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces The law limits the length of engagement of the military, without Congressional approval, but there is no toothful restriction on deploying the military for up to 60 days. 50 USC Ch. 34 more generally addressed "national emergencies", and started by declaring an end to all existing declared emergencies. Other sections of the law require Congress to be notified and emergencies to be published in the Federal Register. An emergency can be terminated by POTUS or by act of Congress, and after 6 months (and every 6 months thereafter), Congress shall meet to discuss the emergency. POTUS must also annually re-declare the emergency to keep it in force. These are procedural requirements, not content requirements. In general, you wold have to go through Title 50 to check for particular powers granted by Congress The International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants powers to POTUS, with the following limit: (a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat. (b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat. which appears more limiting than the War Powers Act. There is an extensive list of powers granted under 50 USC 1702 , which in that domain could be called "bright" lines. Generally, the lines are only as bright as Congress has painted them.

is after the fact consent ever possible or a defence?

Are there any Jurisdictions around the world that allow for consent to be after the fact ? or is there defences that allow for consent obtained after an act to be a defence (as in the accuser or victim clearly being permissive or even indulgive in an act)

Where consent is required for some act to be lawful, the consent is required before or at the time of the act. Typically, consent does not need to be express, but can be implied by conduct. It's unclear what "consent after the fact" means. Presumably it means someone has acquiesced to a prior use of force. Certainly that can happen, although it does not make an unlawful act retrospectively lawful. To illustrate the difference, a boxer consents to a certain amount of beating in the sports ring. Whereas a victim of a criminal beating may not have consented, but later may nevertheless acquiesce to the beating they received. As an aside, there is a discrepancy between the concept of consent as being like a bureaucratic decision which is announced and recorded, and the reality of how humans make decisions which often does not involve a sudden conclusion or a sharp transition between a pending and settled state, and might involve internal conflict before there is a clear outward indication of how the person is minded, or inconsistency across time in how a person expresses their mind. How humans react to uncertainty is typically by suspending judgment about events until more information emerges. For example, people often do not react harshly to an insulting remark, until they are sure that it was intended to be insulting by the person who made the remark, and that it was unwarranted. This suspension of judgment during uncertainty, conflicts with laws that expect a firm state of mind to exist and a decision to be made quickly about the consent to an impending act. With human recollection, earlier events can also be reinterpreted through the prism of information that arises later. Keeping careful account of when various pieces of information arrived in their knowledge, or how they previously felt about a scenario based only on what they knew at an earlier time (as distinct from reasoning about how they would now feel about a past scenario with their current knowledge), is a cognitive skill which people possess to a very variable degree. This natural human tendency to reinterpret past events (and mistaken earlier judgments) based on later information, also does not sit easily with legal theories around consent.

Can academics break the law with their research?

Are there any U.S. or U.K. laws that prevent academic research papers or journals from being published? Can academics outline the methodology of illegal activities? For example, could a computer security researcher publish a paper on unknown server vulnerabilities?

Eugene Volokh categorizes this as "crime-facilitating speech" in his articles, " The Freedom of Speech and Bad Purposes ", and " Crime-Facilitating Speech ". He characterizes the situation like this: Some chemistry textbooks discuss how explosives are made, some posts to computer security discussion groups discuss security bugs in a leading operating system, and some works on criminology or forensics discuss how hard-to-solve murders are committed. May the explicitly politically connected speech be treated as more valuable than the scientific speech? The Supreme Court has never decided a case squarely involving the suppression of scientific speech, but it has repeatedly described scientific speech as constitutionally equal in value to political speech. He presents a split amongst the circuits and statutes regarding mens rea for crimes stemming from such speech. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. In one example case, the 9th Circuit ruled that merely distributing computer code "with the knowledge that it would likely be used for bookmaking" could be punished. Other cases have held that speech must "purposely" rather than incidentally inform people how to commit a crime in order for that speech to be punished.

Could a doctor be sentenced to death for abortions in any US state?

Are there any US states where a doctor could be sentenced to death for performing abortions?

There is somewhat-suggestive case law in Coker v. Georgia , 433 U.S. 584 that a death penalty would be unconstitional as "grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime", considered "in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public". It was decided in Kennedy v. Louisiana , 554 U.S. 407 that the death penalty is disproportionate "where the crime did not result, or was not intended to result, in the victim’s death". However, by changing the homicide statutes so that performing an abortion is an instance of capital murder, that limit on the death penalty could be circumvented. In Texas , it is criminal homicide if one intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual Capital murder is defined in §19.03. One of the triggers for capital murder is (3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration Most doctors work for money. But there is also the condition (8) the person murders an individual under 10 years of age; §19.06 has some exceptions for (1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure; (3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or (4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law. Para 1 protects the mother from prosecution, but para 2 requires that the medical procedure be lawful. If and when abortion is outlawed in Texas, the homicide statute would have to be amended to prevent abortion from being a capital offense (or, as always, an appeal to SCOTUS). A fetus is already statutorily defined as an individual: a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth There are some consequences for in vitro fertilization, inter alii, flowing from this definition.

A successful litigant complaining of bias

Are there any cases (from any jurisdiction) in which a successful litigant complained of bias? As in, even while the decision below was favourable to them, they are still aggrieved that a particular judge did not recuse themselves.

When a judge decides a case there will be An order - e.g. "Smith shall pay Jones £100,000" Reasons for the decision - i.e. a description of the evidence, and the judge's findings of fact and legal reasoning. Sometimes a party, even though they have completely won, is nevertheless aggrieved by some things the judge has said in the Reasons (or in the way the judge has handled the trial - e.g. the judge's interventions). For example the judge may have said that the winning party was not a credible witness but they nevertheless won because of the evidence of other witnesses who were found to be credible. The rule in England and Wales is that you can only appeal orders. So if the order is completely in your favour you cannot appeal just because you don't like the reasons.

COVID-19 pandemic as mitigating factor for sentencing in the UK

Are there any cases from the UK, whether from the Supreme Court or any other courts, saying that the COVID-19 pandemic can be considered as a mitigating factor for sentencing?

Yes, R v Manning includes the following (my emphasis) We would mention one other factor of relevance. We are hearing this Reference at the end of April 2020, when the nation remains in lock-down as a result of the Covid-19 emergency. The impact of that emergency on prisons is well-known... The current conditions in prisons represent a factor which can properly be taken into account in deciding whether to suspend a sentence. In accordance with established principles, any court will take into account the likely impact of a custodial sentence upon an offender and, where appropriate, upon others as well. Judges and magistrates can, therefore, and in our judgment should, keep in mind that the impact of a custodial sentence is likely to be heavier during the current emergency than it would otherwise be . Those in custody are, for example, confined to their cells for much longer periods than would otherwise be the case – currently, 23 hours a day. They are unable to receive visits. Both they and their families are likely to be anxious about the risk of the transmission of Covid-19.

Any evidence of cases in the United States where tenant won quiet enjoyment suit?

Are there any cases won on the grounds of quiet enjoyment where a tenant whose life was being disrupted by another tenant or the other tenants' guests? Or are there any cases regardless of circumstances in case law regarding quiet enjoyment that ended up in a favorable outcome for a tenant? I have had my quiet enjoyment violated a couple of times as a tenant throughout my life and yet, unless they are violating a state law in general, I don't see why quiet enjoyment is even mentioned or exists as it does not exist as de jure nor de facto. Also, if the agreement is between landlord-tenant, how does one prove the landlord is at fault for another tenant? Could you make the argument that their change in visitor policy is the problem? For example, if the new policy says, hey as long as the visitor has a permit parking pass we consider them okay to be on premises indefinitely, whereas perhaps before the policy was a visitor must register and they must be there no more than 72 hours or 3-day visit. The quiet enjoyment seems like more of a social contract, but when that social contract breaks down, either between landlord-tenant or tenant-tenant, if the circumstances are not illegal, nothing becomes of that breakdown. So my past and present experience has shown me, its quiet enjoyment violation if and when a local, property or state law has also been violated, otherwise, its your problem and civil suits are fraught as someone once said.

new-south-wales australia Lots Commercial landlord-tenant disputes are heard at first instance in the NSW Administrative Disputes Tribunal. A search of their decisions gives more than 50 hits between 1999 and 2013. Quoting from the first of these: whether the former lessee under a retail shop lease of premises in a shopping centre is entitled to damages from the former lessor, on the ground that renovation works in the centre carried out by a building contractor employed by the lessor disrupted the business of a real estate agency carried on in the premises, in ways amounting to a breach of the lessor’s covenant for  quiet enjoyment Spoiler - the answer was “yes”. Residential landlord-tenant disputes are heard in the NSW Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal but only after mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution has failed. A search gets over 400 hits. For example, Ingram v Department of Housing (Tenancy) [2002] NSWCTTT 84 was a successful argument by a tenant that the landlord denied them quiet enjoyment. The facts of the case were that a neighbour who was a tenant of the same landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment to the extent that required police intervention. These cases give you some idea of the things you would need to prove: that your landlord was responsible (so a neighbour who is not under your landlord’s control wouldn’t. Similarly, a landlord can only influence a body corporate to the extent of their power within it) and the interference was egregious.

Driving licence and vehicle registration in EU without adress

Are there any countries in EU+EFTA, which allow to hold their driving licence and registering a vehicle without having a fixed address? In many countries the address is shown as a field on the licence and I am trying to determine, if it's possible to obtain it without having to update addresses on move, when there is no fixed abode. The same goes for registration plates.

The address field on an EU driving licence is optional - not every Member State will implement it. Indeed, it looks like only the UK, Ireland, and Poland currently display Field 8 (Address) on the driving licence photocard. However, most Member States still require you to submit an address when applying for your driving licence and when registering a vehicle. It appears this is so you can actually receive the driving licence/vehicle registration certificate through the post, and so they can contact you if necessary (e.g. a court summons). The same licence is issued by Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Norway as part of EFTA and they don't seem to put the address field on the licence either--although I cannot determine if they require the address when registering the licence/vehicle respectively.

Are there any countries without copyright?

Are there any countries that do not recognize any form of copyright, and you could legally (for example) strip the DRM from a just-released movie and share it online? If so, what happens if I (a US citizen) go to such a country, make copies of a CD that I either bought there or tool with me, and bring the copies back to the US and give them to friends?

According to the Wikipedia article "List of countries' copyright lengths" the only country currently having no copyright law is the Marshall Islands , and that country is said to have a non-copyright-based law providing that "Unauthorized sale or commercial use of sound & audio-visual recordings is prohibited" [1] However, if a person goes to the Marshall Islands, makes unauthorized copies of works there, and posts those copies to the net, the copyright owner could obtain an injunction under US copyright law requiring the site operator or host to remove the infringing content or be shut down. [2] Similar orders can be obtained under the laws of other countries. In addition, the copyright owner could send a takedown order under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). [3] A copyright suit could be brought by the copyright owner in any country where the unauthorized copies are distributed and, if damages were awarded, property subject to the jurisdiction of the court could be seized to pay them. In the US, infringing copies could be seized by customs officers when they are imported into the US. [4] Also, If an infringement suit is won, the court an order any infringing copies to be seized adn destroyed. [5] Conclusion Of course, if such copies were made in small numbers and distributed privately, the copyright owner might not learn of it. And in any case the copyright owner might not choose to take legal action. But merely making such copies in the Marshall Islands will not make the infringer safe from civil actions, nor will it make the copies lawful in the US, nor in most other countries. Notes [1] Unauthorized Copies of Recorded Materials Act, 1991 [20 MIRC Ch.2]". [2] 17 USC 502 (a) provides: (a) Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28, grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright. [3] 17 USC 512 (c)(1)(C) and 17 USC 512 (c)(3) [4] 17 USC 602 (a) provides: (a)(1) Importation.—Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. (a)(2) Importation or exportation of infringing items.—Importation into the United States or exportation from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506. [5] 17 USC 503 (b) provides: As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, and of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced.

Countries where being too drunk to consent does not apply?

Are there any countries where the victim being too drunk to consent is not sufficient to criminally pursue the perpetrator for a sexual offence? For example, a girl goes into a bar and voluntarily drinks enough alcohol to be considered drunk. The victim is then taken advantage of sexually in her drunken state. The next day she reports this to the police. This question is not related to being poisoned with a date rape drug, or being forced to drink alcohol. Edit below to address comments. I think before 2016 in Germany a woman being too drunk to consent was not considered a crime. Whether this is correct, I wonder whether there are any countries where this is the scenario? Bounty - I am looking for answers like the one mentioning Japan, just for other countries.

Example where rape charges requires use of violent force: In Japan, for example, the legal definition of sexual rape is: A person who, through assault or intimidation forcible commits sexual intercourse with a female of not less than thirteen years of age commits the crime of rape and shall be punished by imprisonment with work for a definite term of not less than 3 years. The same shall apply to a person who commits sexual intercourse with a female under thirteen years of age. Therefore, someone who has sexual intercourse with another person while they are intoxicated may not be considered rape if the act did not involve violent force. It is important to note that this definition has some limitations. For example, it does not account for victims who are violated while incapacitated in a medical setting, and it also does not consider the possibility of male victims. Example where rape charges requires non-voluntary intoxication: There have also been attempts within the legal system to distinguish between people who were unknowingly drugged and those who voluntarily consumed a large amount of alcohol and became intoxicated. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person can’t be found guilty of sexually assaulting someone, who is mentally incapacitated due to intoxication, if that person became intoxicated by voluntarily ingesting drugs or alcohol. In Minnesota, for example, there was a requirement for non-voluntary intoxication. A Minnesota man can’t be charged with felony rape because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules - March 26, 2021 However, the Minnesota legislator has recently amended their legal codex for this. New Minnesota Law Is 'Significant Victory' For Survivors Of Sexual Assaults While Intoxicated - September 14, 2021

Can an e-commerce site owner be guilty of a crime if the site is hacked?

Are there any crimes that could apply to a site owner if his e-commerce site is hacked?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even though the question is little detailed, I'd propose a few inputs on the matter. First, it's important to differ crime and judicial punishment the same way we divide criminal court and civil court . It's important to note that usually a crime requires intent (with obvious exception of crimes against life); that is, to commit a crime you are required to be motivated , be interested in the outcome, to have the intention to do it. On the other hand, civil courts won't bother to limit themselves to your wishes, if damages were caused, damages might required to be repared. What we can conclude is that it's more likely for the owner to be held accountable for the damages he caused in a civil court rather than a criminal one. Although the website was hacked, the information stored there is in the owner's responsibility. The more sensible the data stolen is, the more damages it might cause.

When has Judicial Review not been the process used to deem an act unconstitutional?

Are there any examples where Judicial Review has not been the process used to deem an act unconstitutional?

Several examples come to mind. This may not be comprehensive. Attorney General's Opinions Ands The Equivalent In state and federal governments in the United States, there is typically an official in the Attorney General's office who reports directly to the Attorney General who writes Attorney General's opinions which are binding legal authority on the government officials in that state or in the federal government, as the case may be, on legal issues. One purpose for which an Attorney General's Opinion is frequently used is to declare that a law shall be considered unconstitutional for all purposes by government officials in that governmental body. Typically, this is only done when the precedents regarding a law's unconstitutionality are unequivocally clear, for example, because the U.S. Supreme Court or the state supreme court in the state in question, has declared a virtually identical law to be unconstitutional (e.g. a religious test to run for public office in a state constitution), even though a court has not ruled on this particular law and it remains on the books. County attorneys and city attorneys in their respective local governments often do the same thing. State and federal tax collection agencies often following the federal model of regulation like documents called "Revenue Rulings" and "Revenue Procedures" will sometimes make determinations that are binding on the government that are essentially identical in process and effect to an attorney-general's opinion, except that these are typically issued under the supervision of the top tax policy official in the tax collection agency, rather than by an official in the Attorney General's office. This is also sometimes done by administrative or independent agency boards in the course of carrying out their determinations. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency might determine, by regulation, that a "right to farm" law under a state statute or state constitution is unconstitutional to the extent that it interferences with its environmental regulation of farms. Prosecutorial Discretion Frequently prosecuting attorneys refrain from bringing charges under laws that they believe to be unconstitutional (at least in the circumstances that present themselves where the law could theoretically be used) as a matter of explicit or implicit policy. Even when a policy is explicit, however, it is often an internal policy not disclosed to the general public. And, since prosecutors routinely exercise prosecutorial discretion for all manner of reasons, it isn't easy to identify cases where a failure to bring a particular charge is a result of a determination by a prosecuting attorney that a law is unconstitutional, at least as applied in the circumstances of a particular case. Real Estate Title Standards A somewhat similar practice is found in real estate title work, most often in cases involving racially restrictive real estate covenants. Often there is a statute, regulation, or simply an industry standard privately adopted title standard that title companies trying to determine the state of title to real property use to disregard racially restrictive real estate covenants (and certain other less well known title issues) on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. This is done notwithstanding the general common law rule that duly executed and recorded real estate covenants are binding and run with the land. Mass Implementation Of Retroactive Precedents In rare circumstances, when a once widely used legal practice is determined to be unconstitutional and to have retroactive effect, such as convictions of crimes by non-unanimous juries in the State of Oregon, an ad hoc administrative process is established to identify and summarily invalidate the unconstitutional convictions or judgments, without litigating those cases in the courts on a case by case basis. Legislative Determinations and the Veto Power A legislative body will often repeal or amend a law for the reason that the law in question is believed to be unconstitutional, even if the constitutionality of this particular law has not been adjudicated in a court. In theory, this is a way in which a legislative body deems an existing law unconstitutional. In practice, however, different legislators will justify the repeal or amendment of an existing law for different purposes and there is no obvious way for someone not familiar with the legislative history of an act and the related deliberations to know if a law was repealed or amended because it was unconstitutional. Similarly, sometimes a President or Governor vetos legislation for the reason that this politician believes that a bill passed by the legislature is unconstitutional. But there is generally no definitive way to determine which vetos are for this reason and which vetos are for some other reason. Pre-Litigation Advisory Opinions The federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions in the absence of a genuine case or controversy as a rules of the jurisdictional limits on their authority under Article III of the United States Constitution. But some states grant either the state supreme court, or a special committee or council, the authority to review newly enacted statutes, and/or proposed ballot initiative, to determine if they are unconstitutional on their face, before they take effect. In many civil law countries outside the United States, a constitutional court, or a "council of state" has similar authority. Military Law Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in the United States, disobeying a lawful order is a ground to impose military justice penalties, but court-martial or otherwise. Implicit in the provision of the UCMJ, is the right and obligation of people subject to this provision of the UCMJ (basically active duty military personnel), to exercise independent judgment to disobey an unlawful order. One form of unlawful order is a military order to do something unconstitutional. So, in the first instance, a soldier given an order must evaluate whether or not the order which has the force of law as to them, is unconstitutional, and secondarily, this is raised as a defense before the appropriate military justice body (e.g. a court martial) to a prosecution seeking to discipline the soldier for disobeying an order under the UMCJ. To the extent that raising a defense in a court martial is equivalent to raising a defense in a court proceeding, that really isn't any different than ordinary judicial review. But, when a soldier refuses to follow an order on the grounds that the order is unconstitutional, this amounts to an invalidation of the order on constitutional grounds by a means other than judicial review. Constitutional Amendments The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically held that all laws adopted by the Confederate government during the U.S. Civil War issuing public debts were void as a matter of law. Similarly, the adoption of various other constitutional amendments, such as the 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery, upon adoption, immediately caused all laws authorizing and regulating the institution of slavery in the United States to become unconstitutional. Prohibition and the abolition of poll taxes provide other examples of existing laws being determined to be unconstitutional immediately, when constitutional amendments take effect. Non-Court Precedents Specific historical acts and courses of dealing are often treated as determinations that different kinds of conduct are, or are not, constitutional. For example, the U.S. Civil War was taken as a non-court precedent establishing that a U.S. state does not have a right to unilaterally secede from the United States of America, even before a court reached that determination. This likewise implicitly resulted in the conclusion that all confederate laws were unconstitutional. Many examples of this involve separation of powers provisions of the constitution and provisions adjudicating the internal affairs of legislative bodies. The former are rarely litigated so custom, practice, and political pronouncements have to suffice instead. The latter are often expressly non-justiciable (i.e. beyond the jurisdiction of the courts) so determinations of when legislative procedures are constitutional or not are often vested in the discretion of the legislative bodies themselves. Most constitutional questions related to electoral college results, Congressional elections, and the constitutional amendment process are non-justiciable and are therefore resolved by legislators rather than judges.

Mathematical models for money lending and antidiscrimination laws in the US

Are there any federal or state laws in the US regulating which models can banks and money lenders use to decide for/against lending money to an individual? I am interested on this topic in the context of mechanisms to avoid discrimination (for example, how do you ensure that your AI model doesn't have a variable that indirectly or directly takes into account ethnicity when making a decision).

Are there any federal or state laws in the US regulating which models can banks and money lenders use to decide for/against lending money to an individual? There aren't really safe harbors regarding what lenders can use. There are only laws that prohibit certain practices like discrimination in lending. Everything else is permitted. ow do you ensure that your AI model doesn't have a variable that indirectly or directly takes into account ethnicity when making a decision). Using a "black box" machine learning or AI model is inherently risky legally because it isn't transparent and there is no good way to demonstrate that discriminatory effects aren't due to to discriminatory factors as opposed to neutral factors. AI models tend to pick up on impermissible factors by attaching weight to factors that aren't substantively important, but are correlated strongly with impermissible factors, for example, assigning different weights to different surnames. On the other hand, if you can spell out the precise formula by which your model is constructed (in a closed court proceeding if necessary to preserve trade secrets) and can demonstrate that no impermissible factors are considered, directly or indirectly, then your mathematical model is very likely to be upheld as legal and permissible.

International standards on prisoners&#39; right to vote

Are there any international standards or declarations/conventions on prisoners' right to vote?

The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1 Article 25, says: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions : (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (the monitoring body for the ICCPR) has said : The right to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections must be established by law and may be subject only to reasonable restrictions, such as setting a minimum age limit for the right to vote. States parties must take effective measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right, including measures to overcome specific difficulties, such as illiteracy, disability, language barriers, poverty and impediments to freedom of movement. The Committee has taken the position that a blanket ban on prisoner voting is incompatible with article 25. The Supreme Court of Canada has summarized (in a dissent in Sauvé v. Canada , 2002 SCC 68 , but the summary is accurate): Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) states that every citizen shall have the “right and the opportunity” to vote “without unreasonable restrictions”: ICCPR, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in a comment on Art. 25 of the ICCPR, stated that restrictions on the right to vote should be “objective and reasonable” and that “ [i]f conviction for an offence is a basis for suspending the right to vote, the period of such suspension should be proportionate to the offence and the sentence ”: “General Comment Adopted by the Human Rights Committee under Article 40, Paragraph 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, General Comment No. 25 (57), Annex V, CCPR/C/21, Rev. 1, Add. 7, August 27, 1996. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its Observation Report on the United States in 2014 , reported that the United States was not meeting its obligations under this Article: ...the Committee reiterates its concern about the persistence of state-level felon disenfranchisement laws... The State party should ensure that all states reinstate voting rights to felons who have fully served their sentences ; provide inmates with information about their voting restoration options ; remove or streamline lengthy and cumbersome voting restoration procedures ; as well as review automatic denial of the vote to any imprisoned felon, regardless of the nature of the offence. 1. 173 nations are parties to the ICCPR. It is a treaty and as such is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Are there laws disallowing discriminatory pricing based on the customer&#39;s employment?

Are there any jurisdictions in the US which make it illegal (against the law rather than against some contract or custom) to charge higher prices for categories of customers based on their employment. And I mean overtly. For example, can a restaurant post a sign which demands a $100 entry fee for anyone employed by any city or state government or for anyone who is a doctor or a lawyer? Clearly, customers can lie about their employer, but that's not the point. The point is that if anyone enters and then claims to be in a certain employment situation, then they would create a liability by making that claim.

Washington D.C.'s anti-discrimination laws currently include political affiliation and source of income. Given that the city is home to a wide arrange of political actors from Congressmen/women to lobbyists for various causes, these laws were enacted so various industries may not refuse service to someone based on political affiliation or making money as a lobbyist for a cause they disagree with. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing this elsewhere in the nation, but I'm not sure if there are any other jurisdiction that does this in the U.S. There is talk about enacting protections against discriminatory protections against service for Uniformed First Responders (typically police) though most incidents I'm aware of this kind of discrimination are employees of fast food restaurants that will receive some public backlash that forces company higher ups to discipline the employee. Certain chains of restaurants do offer discounts to members of a certain profession. Mission BBQ is very military and first responder friendly and will offer anyone who can show ID backing up their claims discounts on certain days (Military Service "Birthdays" and September 11. On Memorial Day, they set a table aside (complete with table cloth, candle, dishes, and a single red rose) for those lost in service to the country. Most famously, because their primary food product became so associated, Dunkin' Donuts initially offered free coffee and donuts to cops, giving police their trademark favorite food. This wasn't so much of a promotion as a mutual exchange of services: Cops (especially those working the Graveyard shift) typically enjoy their caffinated and sugary foods for keeping alert, as well as an occasion parking spot to write up reports... Dunkin' Donuts, one of the first chains to run 24/7 service in the U.S. needed some security (especially during the Graveyard shift, when robbers were more likely to cause trouble because of very few witnesses) and found that for the price of a donut and some coffee, they could have the city's finest sitting in their parking lot, sipping coffee and writing reports, for way cheaper than hiring a security service. (This practice was discontinued eventually as police forces saw these gifts as a possible corrupting influence and told officers to pay for their coffee. It wasn't that Dunkin' was bribing cops, so much as it was creating a bad image to the public.)

Is it illegal in any western jurisdiction to hold a fraudulently obtained but legitimately issued passport of another country?

Are there any jurisdictions in western society where it's illegal to hold the passport of another country which was obtained fraudulently (either through lying or other means)? To be clear, the passport itself was officially issued by the issuing country, so the passport is legitimate, but the details used to apply for the passport were wilfully incorrect i.e. a genuine passport was obtained fraudulently. Would holding this passport be illegal in any western country? I'm not asking about using this passport to gain entry to another country, as that would be illegal under several circumstances. This question arises from a situation described in a Travel SE question , where the original poster in one western country used the real-but-fraudulent passport of a second country to apply for a visa to a third country, and was refused.

UK, Identity Documents Act 2010, false identity documents etc : Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention (1) It is an offence for a person (“P”) with an improper intention to have in P's possession or under P's control— (a) an identity document that is false and that P knows or believes to be false, (b) an identity document that was improperly obtained and that P knows or believes to have been improperly obtained, or (c) an identity document that relates to someone else. Each of the following is an improper intention— (a) the intention of using the document for establishing personal information about P; (b) the intention of allowing or inducing another to use it for establishing, ascertaining or verifying personal information about P or anyone else. ... Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse (1) It is an offence for a person (“P”), without reasonable excuse, to have in P's possession or under P's control— (a) an identity document that is false, (b) an identity document that was improperly obtained, ... Such an identity document could be an "an immigration document", "a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation" or "a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport" (e.g. a European country's identity card).

Are there any jurisdictions where theft is not a crime but victims can sue theives?

Are there any jurisdictions where theft is not a crime, but the owner of a stolen item can sue the thief for either return of the item or monetary damages? This would be similar to how copyright law would work if criminal copyright infringement statutes were repealed.

Theft is universally a crime in virtually every jurisdiction. Insofar as a state has a criminal code and a functioning judiciary, theft will always be a crime. It is also a basic legal principle that theft is a tort as well (in other words, a civil wrong incurring damages to an individual that can be remedied in a court of law). A key part of the problem in failing to make theft a crime, is that in the absence of a substantive penalty in terms of a fine or imprisonment, theft becomes a low-risk, high-reward activity where the maximum penalty is simply the repayment of stolen goods (with relatively minimal loss). This fails to provide an effective deterrent to this socially frowned-upon activity, and rates of crime would skyrocket. It is appropriate, therefore, to make theft a crime (and all jurisdictions do so), as all pillars of criminal justice immediately apply. Edit: As @/JBentley correctly points out, penalties do in fact exist in civil law. That said, the power of incarceration, perhaps in this case the ultimate deterrent, is largely unavailable in civil cases. The ultimate point - that theft is rendered a more sound and legitimate enterprise based largely on gambling - remains the same. Additionally, not all individuals have the time or effort to file small claims and follow cases to the end. Making theft a tort-only offense would cause extraordinary difficulties in enforcement as many would consider the loss of perhaps a small article relatively insignificant compared to filing in small claims court.

Do Any Countries Have A Retribution Defense For Crime Victims?

Are there any jurisdictions where there is a defense to criminal charges of murder or rape or assault, when carried out by the victim of a serious crime by the crime victim as retribution, in circumstances where the murder or rape or assault committed by the crime victim does not constitute self-defense or a defense of others?

It is possible in the UK for a person to have a partial defence to murder in very specific circumstances, one of which may possibly include the defendant acting in "retribution". Under English Law, there are three special defences which exist solely for the crime of Murder. One of these defences, is the defence of Diminished Responsibility . The defence is set out in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957, and it provides that a Defendant is not guilty of murder if, during the murder, he suffered from an abnormality in mental functioning, where: The defendant must, at the relevant time, have been suffering from a recognised medical condition This condition must provided an explanation for the Defendant's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. This condition substantially impaired the Defendant's ability to do one or more of the following: a) To understand the nature of the Defendant's conduct b) To form a rational judgment c) To exercise self control The reason why this may be applicable in the context of revenge or retribution, is in the principle case of R v Ahluwalia In summary, a woman murdered her husband, by pouring petrol on him in his sleep, and setting him afire. She was held to be not guilty of murder because of this defence. Specifically, the court held that she suffered "battered woman syndrome" as the result of 10+ years of emotional abuse and beatings by her husband, . The reason why this is relevant to the question is because when giving her reasons for killing her husband, she stated: "She wrote to her mother-in-law from prison saying, amongst other things, that the deceased had committed so many sins, "so I gave him a fire bath to wash away his sins". However, in the course of interview she repeated a number of times that she did not intend to kill the deceased, but only to give him pain." It is certainly arguable that her actions fall within the meaning of retribution. Of course, not just any kind of provocation will raise this defense, you need to be suffering a mental condition, but it is clear that this condition may arise directly from the actions of the victim. I highly recommend reading the full judgment, as the court goes in depth through the law on provocation (since here, on the day of the killing, the husband told the Defendant that he would beat her the following day), and whether the pre-meditated nature of the killing (she bought the ingredients for the fire beforehand, having already decided to set the victim on fire) meant that the defence could not apply.

Sentiment Analysis on Persons, Companies, Things

Are there any laws against applying sentiment analysis on people, places, or things using open source data? How about data only found on my network (proprietary user opinion of other people, places, things). For example, could a website publish a sentiment score (positive, negative, neutral) of a public servant (say a politician or judge) or private citizen (like myself) or public figure (athlete, actress, etc)? Does such a sentiment "score" break any liable laws or raise any other issues you can think of?

There is nothing illegal in the United States about publishing survey results about pretty much anything, so long as you truthfully publish what your survey reveals. Also, foreign judgments related to your publications are not enforceable in the U.S. if they don't meet U.S. legal standards. This is particularly true in the case of sentiment surveys as they are purely matters of opinion that are not capable of being true or false in and of themselves. Defamatory matters must related to false statements of fact in the U.S.

Is it legal to practice psychotherapy between different U.S. states via electronic media?

Are there any laws against practicing psychotherapy across state lines via electronic media?

My psychologist in MN said they could do it, but insurance requires you to physically be in the same state.

Minimum dimensions for a hotel room in the UK

Are there any laws in England which dictate the minimum size a hotel room has to be so it can be rented out? I can only find information on renting of homes etc.

NO : but it's extremely difficulty to prove a negative, however according to Which? 1 : What does the law say? There's no minimum size requirement for a hotel room in the UK, aside from in Northern Ireland where double rooms must be at least 13sq metres. Note that the reference to northern-ireland is incomplete. Schedule 1, paragraph 8(d) of the Categories of Tourist Establishment (Statutory Criteria) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992 ( as amended ) state that bedrooms shall have: A floor area (excluding and ensuite bathroom) of - (i) in the case of a single room not less than 7.50 square metres; or (ii) in the case of a double bedroom not less than 13.00 square metres... 1 Which? is the brand name of the Consumers' Association - a "watchdog" that promotes informed consumer choice, product safety etc

Are there any laws preventing Space Junk?

Are there any laws limiting the production of Space Junk, like there would be laws preventing a company from putting their waste in the ocean?

There is currently no direct limit. First, under the Space Liability Convention , a nation bears responsibility for an object launched from its territory. Accordingly, the Soviet Union was billed for $3M because of the crash of Kosmos 954 in Canada. A thing is not "space junk" initially, so "space junk" is not a thing that is produced in the normal sense (cars and computers are produced). Any restrictions on space debris would therefore have to be either in terms of the number of items a country could launch (there is no provision for such a limit), or requirements regarding what must be done when something becomes "space junk". The existing liability law is a country-to-country liability law, and if a Virgin Moon ship lands on your house or on Russia, neither you nor Russia can sue Virgin Moon. Russia might sue the US, if it was launched from the US. In the case of such a suit, the respondent nation has to have been negligent, and there are no standards for determining negligence. Also, actually proving the origin of a bolt is not trivial, plus, the recourse is via damage caused by the bolt, not the simple fact of there being a bolt. There is some law in the US ( SPACE Act of 2015 ) which addresses private launches (the bill is here ).

Laws on buying rifles in Turkey?

Are there any laws regarding the prohibition of selling rifles in Turkey? I have been going through the sites of various arms-dealers and all I can find is hunting-rifles, which take shells. What I am looking for are actual semi-automatic rifles. I'm going to live there in the future and am a gun-lover, and would love to own a couple. Anyone who lives there with experience or knowledge on this?

Turkey does not allow civilian access to automatic or semi-automatic firearms. Sources differ in whether this is a total prohibition or that very few exceptions are allowed, but generally speaking you will not be allowed to have such a firearm. Firearm ownership requires a license with mandatory background checks and demonstrating a "genuine reason". Collection is considered such a reason, but may involve more than just "I wanna".

Is it Legal to drive while listening to headphones?

Are there any laws that prohibit the use of headphones while operating a vehicle?

The answer depends on the state. In California, you are generally prohibited from driving with headphones in/over both ears. ( California Vehicle Code 27400 ) gnasher729 's answer explains how even if this is not illegal per se , it may be illegal by implicating other laws.

Are there legal cases related to trademark infringement for using names inside a work?

Are there any legal cases regarding trademark infringement when a name is used inside a work? E.g a video game containing a location named using a trademarked name.

You cannot copyright or trademark a name. Trademarks typically are more than just a name, but include stylizations including font, coloring, logos, or other icons and symbols. For example, The Golden Arches of McDonalds or the Nike Swish logo. In writing, these two symbols are difficult to reproduce so saying "He laced up his Nikes and went to grab a burger from McDonald's" is not a copyright or trademark violation. Hell, naming a character Clark Kent is not a violation of Copyright, so long as it's clear that he is not the more famous Clark Kent in even the slightest way.

What can happen if you violate a cease and desist letter?

Are there any legal consequences for violating a cease and desist letter? I was sent a cease and desist letter from my university for annoying administration with a particular issue, and this letter asks me to direct all communication to their gen. counsel's office. My question is: how serious is this letter? Can they really take legal action against me if I contact anyone at the university, even regarding something unrelated to the original issue? Edited to remove personal details

A cease and desist letter is basically a formal way of them saying, "stop what you are doing, and please don't do it again." It is not proof of tortious conduct by you, nor is it proof of illegal conduct by you. It does not open up an avenue for the university to sue you, nor does it open up an avenue for the university to have you committed to a mental institution. Your behaviour after receiving such a letter does matter however. What is most likely their next step should you continue emailing members of the university, is to apply for an injunction. It is possible that should the injunction be granted, you may be liable to pay fees. Breaching an injunction can have serious consequences, including jail. I would recommend against writing a letter apologizing. You are doing the very thing they asked you not to do. If you do feel in inclined to apologize, you should write the letter to the general counsel and ask them to forward it along. They probably won't. Obviously you have to be quite careful with the content of the letter. You are almost certainly within your rights to continue to email their general counsel. In addition, they almost certainly cannot stop you from communicating with the state agency responsible for the university.

Can I use a 3rd party logo for personal use?

Are there any legal consequences if I use a copyrighted/trademarked logo for personal use? I am using the logo to make custom bumper stickers for my friend and I to stick on our cars. So the logo will be visible to other drivers behind our cars. It's strictly personal use and we don't want to distribute these stickers for profit to anyone else. I'm assuming this is fine, but I just want to make sure to be on the safe side.

This is copyright violation. You are not permitted to make copies of the logo unless it is fair use/dealing. One of the factors is if you make a profit but the other facts suggest that this prophesied use isn't fair dealing- in particular it compromises the copyright owners ability to exploit their work by, for example, selling bumper stickers to you and your friend.

Legality of busking a song with copyrighted melody but using different lyrics to deliver a message

Are there any legal impediments to busking a song with melody and lyrics copyrighted in the United States---with the same melody but with different lyrics---on U.S. streets? Does it matter if the song is to be sung not for money, but to deliver a message; i.e., to make a statement?

A song with the same melody and different lyrics is a derivative work . It does not matter whether the song is to be sung for money, or not. The copyright owner still retains the rights to the melody, and can deny anyone permission to use it in a derivative work. Furthermore, using the derivative song to make a statement does not restrict or reduce the rights of the copyright holder. Refer to Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) , below. See: Derivative work Derivative works can be created with the permission of the copyright owner or from works in the public domain. (...) The copyright for the derivative work only covers the additions or changes to the original work, not the original itself. The owner of the original work retains control over the work, and in many circumstances can withdraw the license given to someone to create derivative works. And: Why is parody considered fair use, but satire isn't? As the Supreme Court explained in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., “Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing .” Also: Mechanical license Within copyright law within the United states, such mechanical licenses are compulsory; any party may obtain a license without permission of the license holder by paying a set license fee, that as of 2018, was set at 9.1 cents per composition or 1.75 cents per minute of composition, whichever is more, which are to go to the composition copyright holder. (...) In American law, US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 115(a)(2) states: "A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work ..." thus preventing mechanical licenses being used to make substantially derivative works of a piece of music. (...) For example: Puff Daddy wants to sample the opening riff from “Every Breath You Take” by The Police. (...) He is free to hire musicians to reproduce the Police's sound, but he cannot copy from any phonorecord with only a mechanical license .

Legality of Forking Open Source Projects

Are there any legal issues with forking an open source project and putting your own name and spin on it? I am talking specifically about projects that are operating under the MIT or Creative Commons licenses.

First off, IANAL, so my answer should not be taken directly as legal advice. Whether or not what you are asking about violates the license is largely dependent on what you mean by 'putting your own name and spin on it'. In short, based directly on the standard license text (available trivially from the SPDX or OSI web pages for it), you can do pretty much whatever you want with the code from an MIT licensed project, provided that: You preserve the copyright notice. You preserve the same licensing terms for any version you redistribute. You don't hold the original author liable for any problems that the software might cause (that's what the big block of all-caps text at the bottom of the license is about). That first point is the big one here, because it means that you can't strip copyright notices from you version that were present in the original version. Other than that though, you can do pretty much anything you want with any derivative works you create (which seems to be what you're talking about wanting to do), provided that they use a license that is compatible with and at least as restrictive as the MIT license (which includes, among others, the Apache Licenses, the MPL, most of the BSD variants, and all the GPL variants ). It's probably worth noting here that the MIT license is one of the most permissive classical open-source licenses out there. It's about as close as you can get to being public domain while still protecting copyright and disclaiming liability. Among other things, you can even legally redistribute MIT licensed software commercially (you can also do this with most BSD licenses), in contrast to 'protective' open-source licenses like the GPL which only allow free redistribution.

Issues with Changing Legal First Name

Are there any legal problems that could arise in changing my legal first name that I may not consider? For example, I'm a US citizen and how difficult would it be to get my passport and social security card changed? Would this legal first name change affect me negatively in other ways in regards to the law? I'd like to change my legal first name from something like "David" to "Dave". I have good reasons for this; live in Washington State and know the process; and my family has always called me "Dave" (even my parents), never "David". I've also signed many non-government forms (both paper and online) with my "Dave" nickname. Any words of advice from people that have actually changed their legal first names would be appreciated.

If you do this, you should make a list of all your assets, such as a house, car, investment account, or stock certificates. After a while, all your ID cards in your old name will be expired, so you may have trouble selling these assets. Some organizations, like departments of motor vehicles, are allowed to "connect the dots"; if you show them an ID card in your new name and the court order that changed your name, they'll be happy. But organizations, or officials such as notaries public, may believe they're not allowed to "connect the dots" and won't assist you in selling assets in the old name. You could go to a forum that caters to notaries such as Notary Rotary ; click the "FORUM" tab and search to see what the perceptions are. So you should be sure to change your name on all your assets while you still have ID in both the new and old name.

To what extent are England and Wales one completely wedded jurisdiction?

Are there any legal provisions that apply only to England or only to Wales but not respectively to the other? Why are they so closely associated with each other as to have just one tag on the site, but Northern Ireland and Scotland each seem to be their own worlds?

What Do England And Wales Share Legally? Why are they so closely associated with each other as to have just one tag on the site, but Northern Ireland and Scotland each seem to be their own worlds? Most laws of general applicability, such as criminal law, and private law (i.e. the law governing the interactions of private parties like property law, contract law, landlord-tenant law, employment law, etc.) are enacted by the National Parliament at Westminster (or effective as part of a shared English common law of case precedents) and shared by England and Wales which have a uniform integrated court system. In contrast, Scotland and Northern Ireland have greater autonomy to enact laws of general application because more authority has been devolved to those regional governments than to the National Assembly of Wales. They also have their own court systems. Historic Causes Wales was basically fully integrated into England starting in the 1200s and subsequently restored some autonomy. Scotland never lost its high level of autonomy and was initially joined to England only by virtue of having the same monarch, rather than being the same country. The United Kingdom was formed first by the personal union of monarchs from 1603 (under King James VI of Scotland a.k.a. King James I of England) followed by a federal style merger of governments approved by the Scottish and English parliaments in 1706-1707, rather than by conquest and it has much more government autonomy in generally applicable legislation and its judicial system than Wales does, and more than Ireland had when it was ruled by England. On the other hand, Scottish sentiment towards independence was not exactly unanimous in support of staying with the U.K. in the last referendum in 2014 when 44.7% of votes cast were for independence with 84.6% voter turnout (including voters as young as age 16). Northern Ireland's story is a bit more complicated as Ireland had a legal status similar to Wales from a similar medieval era, but this was complicated by the Irish independence struggle ultimately leading to the creation of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The fine line and complexity of the situation in Northern Ireland is illustrated by this map, and strong autonomy was necessary to allow it to maintain the fragile Protestant-Roman Catholic balance in a divided society there: Each of the components of the United Kingdom has a separate and historically determined status that is not exactly parallel to any of the others. England has no national assembly of its own, sufficing to use the national parliament for its laws despite the fact that some seats in that parliament that govern it are selected in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Likewise, before the U.S. gained independence, different parts of the U.S. had distinct relationships to the U.K., as did the various colonial possessions of the U.K. (e.g. India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Kenya, Tanzania, Hong Kong). The U.K. is an exemplary example of the philosophy that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. To pluck out just one more random example of the English tendency, "Scotland Yard", the national police force headquarters in the City of Westminster within the City of Greater London in England, has jurisdiction over England and Wales, but not over Scotland. Legal Distinctions Between England And Wales To provide a few other examples in addition to the example of language related laws noted by @WeatherVane (noted on my recent visit to England and Wales) and to embellish on that point a little further, the Welsh language is resurgent in Wales where it is a mandatory subject in public schools (often in the North with Welsh as the primary language of instruction) with about 30% of the population (more than 800,000 people) who either speak it as a first language (which is common among the very old and among young people in Northern Wales) by people who are mostly bilingual with English (but may reach for an English word or two now and then) or as a fluent second language. The Anglican Church is the established church in England, but not in Wales where it was disestablished in 1916. The legal implications of this are subtle, but not non-existent. Government agencies are not required to hoist the British flag with primacy over the Welsh flag, and indeed, the British flag is rarely seen there. Primary and secondary education are administered separately in England and Wales with attendant laws on issues like truancy, dress codes, financial arrangements, testing, and certain holidays. This distinction primarily exists to facilitate Welsh language instruction, which is the primary language of instruction in some schools, and a secondary language in others. More generally, the manner in which many government services (e.g. public housing) is administered, and in which tax dollars are expended is not precisely the same between England and Wales. Certain laws regulating immigrants (related to immigrant financial security and leases to immigrants, more or less) differ between England and Wales, although this is a temporary matter and the long term plan is for these laws to be integrated across the United Kingdom. The Welsh Senedd (a.k.a. National Assembly for Wales, i.e. the regional parliament) has some independent legislative power, although honestly, the scope of its legislation is typically closer to what you might see in a U.S. home rule city or a school board, than in a U.S. state government. In particular : The 20 areas of responsibility devolved to the National Assembly for Wales (and within which Welsh ministers exercise executive functions) are: Agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development Ancient monuments and historical buildings Culture Economic development Education and training Environment Fire and rescue services and promotion of fire safety Food Health and social services Highways and transport Housing Local government National Assembly for Wales Public administration Social welfare Sport and recreation Tourism Town and country planning Water and flood defences Welsh language I suspect, but do not know, that land use regulation and occupational and business licensing in Wales is less favorable to big businesses and franchises, based upon the fact that such businesses are far more common in England than in Wales, even controlling for places that are similar in population density. But this could be due to historic or economic factors.

What are the legal requirements for displaying a Terms &amp; Conditions link on a website?

Are there any legal requirements regarding the display of a Terms & Conditions link? Does it need to be out of flow (popup, banner), or actioned ("I agree" checkbox)? Any specifications on font size compared to surrounding font, like there is on some other types on information on mediums? This question has been covered in UX.SE , but the answers came more from the "better to be safe than sorry" angle, rather than actual law

In Australia, the overall representations of the website must not be misleading or deceptive when it comes to the provision of goods or services, in order to comply with Australian Consumer Law. The length of the terms matters. In a very recent case against a homeopathy website, it was noted that (at [47]): The terms and conditions were exceedingly lengthy and it was highly unlikely that any visitor would trawl through them merely to access another part of the Website for free. In this case the significance of the length was not specifically tested. The position of the terms also matters. In another case against a major retailer , it was noted (at [37]) that the conditions visible: a user accessed a link at the bottom of each page of the HN Website titled “Website Terms and Conditions”, such that it was unlikely either condition would be found by a normal reader reading the HN Catalogue or viewing the HN Website This specific matter related to a very specific claim made by the retailer, and so I can't say whether it applies in general to website terms and conditions. Apart from the above cases, I can't find any good examples where the exact form of a website's terms have been considered in determining a case. There are some United States cases referred to in the Wikipedia article for browse wrap . These seem to have been judged in favour of the website operator only when the terms are conspicuous, and/or when the user has had repeated exposure to them (or a link to them), for example over a number of pages. Even where the terms are linked at the bottom of the website, and a user is not required to scroll to the bottom to use the site, terms have been found unenforceable. As far as I know, there's no statutory requirements - in Australia, at least, and quite likely anywhere else - that specify the manner and form that disclaimers may take.

Company wants to hold funds for customers

Are there any licensing or special bank account requirements for our company to hold funds for a customer and later deliver those funds back to the same customer? Similar to a savings account but for a consumer customer. Is this highly regulated in the U.S and if so what is necessary to accomplish this? Also, I am thinking that an escrow type of account might handle this. Can we borrow against that escrow account or pledge it as collateral?

It is sometimes necessary or desirable to hold customer money in a separate account because it is their property. For lawyers, this kind of account is highly regulated. For most other kinds of businesses, this kind if account is not highly regulated. If you were required to have an account of this time, you could not borrow against it or pledge it as collateral. The whole point of having a separate account is to hold the property in trust for the benefit of the customers separate from your own funds and not subject to your creditors. Sometimes a separate account of this type is set up to fund an employee retirement fund that does not qualify for the tax treatment of a 401(k) or IRA or similar account. An account set up for this purpose is called a "Rabbi Trust" (political correctness was not a big thing when this kind of trust was given its name, and the name has unfortunately stuck). But, in those circumstances the exposure to the firm's creditors is intended from the outset for tax purposes and to give the beneficiaries an incentive not to screw up the company, rather than being problematic.

Are there temporal limits to data requirements for a GDPR SAR?

Are there any limits on data that must be provided as part of a GDPR subject access request (SAR) based on the age of the data? The particular case I am thinking about is SAR made to the 3 credit reference agencies . As I understand it they only keep my credit data for 6 years, but I would expect them to keep sales data for much longer. Say they know that they sold a large dataset to a third party 20 years ago, and cannot definitively say my data was not included. Are they required to give me details of this transaction? What if they had a potential data breach 20 years ago, would they be required to give details of this? Is there any particular language I should use in my SAR to make sure this is included?

In principle, the data subject's right to access involves a copy of all personal data the controller holds on them. There are no time limits by default. Of course, the controller can ask a data subject to clarify their request, e.g. to focus on a particular time frame. There is an implied time limit though: personal data may only be processed/stored for as long as the data is necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was collected. Afterwards, it must be deleted. A controller with good data management will be able to limit their effort by having as short retention periods as possible for their different records. Furthermore, a lot of data is not personal data, or falls out of scope of the GDPR because it is not processed with automated means or forms part of a filing system. For example, if thousands of old invoices were archived in paper form in boxes that are only sorted by year, there might be an argument that this isn't a filing system in the sense of the GDPR and that a DSAR would not have to involve looking through all the archived invoices (compare also Art 11). In your scenario, there is a clear retention period of six years. You are asking for records about how that data might have been used further in the past. To the degree that such data is actually available, that could reasonably be personal data and should be included in a response to a DSAR. E.g. they might have information like this: “File #1234 was included in a data set that was sold to EvilCorp in 2007. The entries in File #1234 that are older than 2014 have been purged, so we do not know which entries were included in the data set. The current name on File #1234 is Dave.” This information about the sale would be personal data because it relates to you, and you are identifiable. Of course, the controller might not be set up to perform this search unless specifically asked. However, more unspecific information might not be personal data. For example: “About 70% of our files were included in a data set that was sold to EvilCorp in 2007. We no longer have records indicating whether your file was included.” Since there is no link between the sale and your personal data, I don't think it would have to be included in a DSAR response. The primary reason why you should be told about sales of personal data is that per Art 15(1)(c), you should be informed about “the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed” in a DSAR response. So when making a data subject access request, it could make sense to explicitly referencing this paragraph. So you would be interested in receiving a copy of your personal data as per Art 15 GDPR, and in particular any available information per Art 15(1)(c) GDPR about the recipients or categories of recipients to whom your personal data has been or may have been disclosed in the past. Quite likely the response will be underwhelming, e.g. by just giving a broad category such as “potential creditors who are contractually obligated to use the data only in accordance with our policies”. Whether such responses are compliant (I don't necessarily think so) will not be clear until there's a good precedent, and that would require that someone sorts this out in court.

Is what constitutes outrageous conduct clearly defined in the statutes?

Are there any objective rules or guidelines used to determine whether a police officer's conduct was outrageous?

"outrageous conduct" has sometimes been a factor in holding police action invalid under the uS Federal constitution. In particular, there was a line of Supreme Court decisions that would supress confessions if they were obtained by "outrageous conduct". That line of cases became obselete with the Miranda ruling requiring warnings, and also forbidding most of the sorts of things previously lumped under "outrageous conduct". This sense of "outrageous conduct" was a purely court-made concept, not a statutory one, and the standard seemd to have been conduct that was considered shocking or unconscionable by at least 5 Justices.

Legal precedents or process in USA for removal or alteration of land restrictive covenants for a subdivision lot?

Are there any particularly helpful examples or precedent processes of having restrictive covenants lifted or lessened in the USA (specifically Ohio) when a property is still owned by the original land developer (ie, a real estate lot in a subdivision has not yet been sold and is still and will remain, in perpetuity, held by the original subdivision creator)?

when a property is still owned by the original land developer (ie, a real estate lot in a subdivision has not yet been sold and is still and will remain, in perpetuity, held by the original subdivision creator) Generally speaking, an owner of all property subject to the covenant or restriction can unilaterally change that covenant or restriction by recording a duly recorded amendment to the original in a manner consistent with any amendment process in the original in the real property records. The main limitation is that often the existence of certain covenants is a condition imposed by a local zoning and land use regulation authority (usually a municipality, but sometimes a county or some other local government), and modifying the covenant or restriction without the consent of the body that insisted upon it for a favorable land use ruling or approval may revoke that approval if the covenant or restriction is modified without their consent or permission (ideally in writing and in official minutes of the government body). For example, suppose that to get zoning approval to put duplexes in a subdivision after the zoning board of the city where the property is located insisted that the developer impose a covenant requiring the non-development of a portion of the land that forms a critical wetlands habitat, or that is necessary for the proper drainage of neighboring properties. If the developer unilaterally removed that conservation easement after receiving this approval, this would likely invalidate the subdivision approval and could cause the development project to be shut down or the city to obtain an injunction or declaratory judgment invalidating the change in the covenant.

Representing your own case

Are there any prerequisites to represent one's own case before a jury? Specific answer targeting Indian Law would be appreciated.

Legally, the answer will differ by jurisdiction. Practically, the answer is summed up in the old proverb: "The man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Even experienced lawyers rarely represent themselves, especially when outside their area of professional expertise. There are two reasons people hire lawyers: technical expertise, and objective advice. You need both. I have never represented myself, but I have acted for clients against self-represented (in the U.S., "pro se") litigants. I have never seen one who ever had a hope of succeeding. Usually all of the lawyers involved, and the judge, knew their case was doomed from the first hapless pleading. Usually, the pro se litigant was convinced that he was sure to prevail.

How specific can landlords be regarding Covid-19?

Are there any privacy protections which would prevent a landlord from including the name of a specific tenant in a warning regarding Covid-19? For context: Recently my partner and I (we live in Massachusetts) started exhibiting symptoms of Covid-19. After speaking with a doctor, we informed our landlord that we may be ill. He responded by saying that he has to inform other residents of our building that we are ill. While we agree that it is important for other residents to be aware and take extra precautions, we are concerned about our landlord including our names (particularly given that my partner is Asian-American).

He can tell the world You chose to tell him. He has no duty of confidence with you (he is not your health professional) so he can tell whoever he likes however he likes.

Can police interrogate a drunk suspect?

Are there any proscriptions on the custodial interrogation of people who are under the influence of alcohol or other mind-altering drugs? If not, are there any laws that prohibit offering intoxicating substances to a person in custody? I am interested not only in the U.S. but also in other countries where coercive interrogation is prohibited. But to offer an illustration: In the U.S. police may arrest a suspect of a crime who happens to be drunk. If, following the Miranda warning, that suspect does not invoke the right to silence or to a lawyer is a subsequent interrogation admissible evidence in a trial? Or, if a suspect is arrested who is not drunk: Police are supposed to provide food and water to subjects in their custody. Is there any legal restriction on offering subjects alcohol or other intoxicants prior to or during interrogation?

SCOTUS suggests in Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, that a subject's confession was constitutionally inadmissible if it was adduced by police questioning during a period when petitioner's will was overborne by a drug having the properties of a "truth serum." In Miranda v. Arizona , it is held that If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 490, n. 14. This Court has always set high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938), and we reassert these standards as applied to in-custody interrogation. Subsequently in Colorado v. Connelly , defendant suffered from psychosis that "interfered with his ability to make free and rational choices and, although not preventing him from understanding his rights, motivated his confession." The court found that Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Here, the taking of respondent's statements and their admission into evidence constituted no violation of that Clause. While a defendant's mental condition may be a "significant" factor in the "voluntariness" calculus, this does not justify a conclusion that his mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, should ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional "voluntariness." In the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Hilton ,  443 Mass. 597, the Mass. Supreme Court (in the first ruling) said that We see no error in the judge's finding that the defendant's mental infirmities were such that she did not understand the Miranda warnings, and we therefore conclude that statements made after the interrogation did become custodial were properly suppressed. On remand and after in a second appear, in Commonwealth v. Hilton , 823 N.E.2d 383, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a finding that the defendant was unable to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of her Miranda rights is not enough, standing alone, to support the finding that her statements were involuntary. The court found that the defendant was competent to stand trial contrary to the trial judge's determination, and said that because we are unable to determine if the judge would have allowed the supplemental motion to suppress without the erroneous findings, we vacate the order for suppression and remand for further consideration. The point here is that being mentally disabled is not per se proof that a confession is involuntary. Turning specifically to intoxication, in Colorado v. Jewell , the trial court suppressed a confession while intoxicated "based on its finding that Jewell was too intoxicated to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to remain silent." The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the suppression [b]ecause the facts do not support the trial court's determination that Jewell's intoxication was so severe that he was demonstrably unable to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights which leaves open the possibility that there is some such degree of intoxication. The court determined that Intoxication only invalidates an otherwise valid Miranda waiver if the court finds through a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was incapable of understanding the nature of his rights and the ramifications of waiving them. Subsequent discussion partially fleshes out how one might determine whether a waiver is unknowing or unintelligent. Citing Colorado v. Kaiser , the court suggested considering whether “the defendant seemed oriented to his or her surroundings and situation;  whether the defendant's answers were responsive and appeared to be the product of a rational thought process;  whether the defendant was able to appreciate the seriousness of his or her predicament, including the possibility of being incarcerated;  whether the defendant had the foresight to attempt to deceive the police in hopes of avoiding prosecution;  whether the defendant expressed remorse for his or her actions;  and whether the defendant expressly stated that he or she understood their rights.” One issue was raised regarding "cases where, as here, the intoxication is self-induced." A fundamental result of the mass of Miranda case law is that coercive actions by police invalidate a confession. Getting a suspect drunk(er) would be a clear case of a coercive police action, and presumably would be inadmissible under Townsend v. Sain .

Sue newspaper or the reporter for libel?

Are there any reasons to only sue a newspaper (the corporation) for libel and not the individual reporter who libeled you?

In addition to the other answer which, correctly, notes that the publisher is more likely to be in a position of being able to pay any damages awarded, there is one other good reason to sue the publisher rather than the journalist... The journalist cannot print a retraction or correction with the same reach as the original article - only the publisher can do that, and they won’t necessarily do it just because the journalist wants them to.

As an Iranian, can I sign an Independent contractor agreement, and work remotely for a EU company from Iran?

Are there any restrictions for citizens of sanctioned countries such as Iran to work "remotely" for Europe companies or foundations? if it matters, work mentioned in question is about mobile software development Thanks in advance

There is a remote possibility that it could be prohibited, because there is no blanket exception of the type "unless working remotely". This regulation , No 359/2011, is aimed at specific individuals (listed in Annex I), and Art 2 para 2 says that "No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I", accordingly a person on that list cannot "work remotely" in the EU, though Art 4 makes it possible for a state to allow certain releases of funds if they are "intended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees" (but this requires official Member State approval). Regulation 267/2012 has similar prohibitions directed against a longer set of entities and individuals. Art 4 states, for instance, that It shall be prohibited to purchase, import or transport from Iran, directly or indirectly, the goods and technology listed in Annex I or II whether the item concerned originates in Iran or not. where Annex I is defined in part as everything listed in Annex I of regulation 428/2009 minus some specified set of software and information security items, plus some specifically listed items. While the intent relates to petroleum, weapons and trading in precious commodities, the employer would need to work through the list carefully to see whether their stuff is on the list(s) or not.

As an Iranian, can I sign an Independent contractor agreement, and work remotely for a US company from Iran?

Are there any restrictions for citizens of sanctioned countries to work remotely for US companies?

There is a regulation 31 CFR 560.419 making it unlawful to hire an Iranian national ordinarily resident in Iran to come to the United States solely or for the principal purpose of engaging in employment on behalf of an entity in Iran or as the employee of a U.S. person, unless authorized pursuant to §560.505 If the work is conducted long-distance, the employee would not be coming to the US. An additional regulation is 31 CFR 560.201 , that Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the importation into the United States of any goods or services of Iranian origin or owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, other than information and informational materials within the meaning of section 203(b)(3) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ( 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3) ), is prohibited. which could be applicable. 50 USC 1702 says that there is no prohibition against the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 4604 of this title, or under section 4605 of this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18 It is not obvious how the US government will interpret "information". Following the rule noscitur a sociis , outsourcing accounting services is not clearly "information" given the instances enumerated in the law. Then we come to 31 CFR 560.206 , whereby no United States person, wherever located, may engage in any transaction or dealing in or related to: (1) Goods or services of Iranian origin or owned or controlled by the Government of Iran; or (2) Goods, technology, or services for exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran. (b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the term transaction or dealing includes but is not limited to purchasing, selling, transporting, swapping, brokering, approving, financing, facilitating, or guaranteeing. An Iranian person is subject to Iranian law: I won't try to figure out if there is any Iranian law against such an arrangement, but I assume that it is legal from the Iranian side. In light of 560.206, it may be illegal under US law; however, an Iranian person is not subject to US law. The US company would be. Before giving up hope, I will point out that 560.206 starts with "Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part" (Part 560). There is a sort of contradiction between the prohibition in 560.201 and the one in 560.206, that the former states an exception (about information) to a general prohibition, but that exception is not stated in the later (which is about transactions). The government probably would not interpret the information exception in 506.201 as an "authorization". Instead, specific authorizations are found in Subpart E . The majority of those authorizations pertain to exporting the service of obtaining a non-immigrant visa, but also under 506.509 authorized importation of and payment for certain intellectual property services. However, what is enumerated is services pertaining to copyright and patent registration, and not the creation of IP. Bear in mind that US law is fluid and will change on Nov 4 . The Office of Foreign Assets Control is authorized to grant licenses for transactions with Iran. The company that an Iranian might enter into an agreement with bears primary responsibility for navigating the legal waters, but if a company mishandles the transaction, the Iranian person may end up not being compensated for his work. Normally one would hire an attorney versed in relevant law, and there are firms that specialize in the law of Iran sanctions, but such consultations may be difficult for the ostensive Iranian contractor.

Am I allowed to freely use content included in the D&amp;D SRD?

Are there any restrictions on using content included under the D&D System Reference Document ? As a hypothetical, if I were writing a fantasy book, could I freely throw in a Yrthak or Gray Render with no restrictions? I'm thinking of publishing a supplement for another RPG under their Open Game License that includes creatures in the D&D SRD, which has all relevant information in its first pages.

No you cannot The 4th paragraph identifies proper names (among other things) as “Product Identity” and subject to the restrictions in Clause 7 of the license which starts with: Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. Notwithstanding, Wizards of the Coast have only licensed what is in the SRD. If it is in some other book or on their website but not in the SRD, normal unlicensed copyright applies.

Is publicly accessible data protected?

Are there any restrictions to using publicly accessibly information posted by a company? An example would be a list of the 100 top movies on IMDB, or the 30 most-followed pages on Twitter, or the 5 most-listened songs on Spotify.

Fact are not subject to copyright protection: a list of the top 100 movies on IMDB is a list of facts. There is copyright in the artistic work that surrounds these facts; the font used, pictures, formatting etc. and you can't copy that but if, for example, you used a web API to query the info from IMDB and displayed it as your own artistic creation that is perfectly fine.

Are there any absolute rights in the US?

Are there any rights that absolutely cannot be denied under any circumstance in the United States?

No rights are absolute. All rights exist in some fashion of conflict with other rights, in particular when they clash with the rights or welfare of others.

What is the dresscode for jurors in Australian courts?

Are there any rules and regulations jurors in Australian courts have to abide by when it comes to how they are dressed in court? If so, what would be the consequences of violating them? Can jurors be reported for contempt of court if their outfit is considered improper?

new-south-wales Make sure you are dressed neatly. You do not need to wear a suit but you should not wear singlets, thongs, untidy, revealing or ripped clothing. ​​ What to do, say and wear in court Failure to adhere to the dress code is unlikely to be, of itself, contempt of court . Depending on the circumstances and the temperament of the presiding officer, it might be ignored or the person might be ordered to leave the court, possibly with an order to return suitably dressed. Failure to follow an order of the court is contempt. So, for example, if a person called for jury service was inappropriately dressed, the judge might order them to attend the next day correctly attired: if they didn’t, then they might hold them in contempt for failing to follow the order, not for being inappropriately dressed.