Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Deduplicated

like 0

Divorced mom pays mortgage. She wants to get title in her name

A divorced mom pays the mortgage on and lives in a house, but the house title is in both parents' names. The father is gone. The mom wants to move, but can't sell the house. How can the mom get the house title in her name without the father signing in Texas?

Short Answer Usually, a divorce decree doesn't leave former spouses as co-owners of the former marital residence, but sometimes this happens anyway. To oversimplify, if the divorce decree leaves a couple a co-owners, either of them can usually force the sale of the property and a division of the proceeds left after paying off the mortgage, in a special kind of lawsuit called a partition action. The rights of mortgage lenders and lienholders against both former spouses cannot be changed without paying off the loan in most cases. If a spouse who lives there isn't able to pay off the old loan and refinance it in their name alone, this usually means that the house will be sold to a third party with the net proceeds of the sale split. The net proceeds from the sale of the house are divided in proportion to their ownership interests in the co-owned property that can sometimes be tricky to calculate. Often the ability of either party to force a sale of the house in a partition action leads the parties to reach a settlement in the shadow of the possible outcome. Long Answer Caveats This answer sets forth the general rules that apply the vast majority of the time. There are some rare and obscure exceptions to these rules that can apply buried in dark corners of Texas law, and this answer doesn't not comprehensively ferret out every single such exception to the general rules. This answer also doesn't discuss ways in which outcomes that shouldn't be allowed by these rules can be made possible by one party or another's procedural mistakes in the court system, which is fact specific and can arise in certain situations. What Is A Divorce Decree? The only way a divorce case can end is for the divorce to be called off (either by mutual agreement or because one or both of the divorcing spouses die before the case is over), or for a divorce decree to be entered by the court, ending the marriage and establishing the rights of the parties after the divorce with respect to each other and their property. A divorce decree can be entered either by mutual agreement of the spouses in a divorce case, but if they can't agree, the judge in the divorce case will impose a divorce decree dividing property and handling other issues in the divorce as the divorce judge sees fit consistent with Texas law. Either way, it isn't official until it is signed by the judge. Sometimes a divorce decree will be very short, but will incorporate by reference one or more other documents like a mutually agreed separation agreement, or a parenting plan, or a schedule of who gets what property in the divorce. The Role of A Divorce Decree Almost anything can be done by mutual agreement (although all decisions related to children must be approved by the judge with a finding that the agreement is in the best interests of the children). A judge has far more limitations on what the judge can do in a divorce decree to establish the post-divorce property rights of the ex-spouses, but the judge still has great discretion in how the judge may make those decisions. Usually, the ownership of a house is handled in a way that leaves only one spouse owning the house in connection with a divorce proceeding. For example, ex-husband may be ordered to transfer the house to ex-wife, and ex-wife may be ordered to transfer her pension to ex-husband in exchange, if that is what the divorce decree says. One of the grounds for appealing a judge's divorce decree decision to a higher court is that the judge didn't adequately separate the spouses financially. But that doesn't mean that a divorce decree can never leave ex-spouses as co-owners of property. Once the divorce case is over, if nothing in the divorce decree separates ownership of the house, then the ex-husband and ex-wife have the same rights with respect to each other that a house co-owned by two people who were never married would have (unless the divorce decree states otherwise). Some divorce decrees, however, prohibit the sale or transfer of the house without the mutual consent of the former husband and former wife (for former husband and former husband, or former wife and former wife, in a same sex marriage), either indefinitely, or for some time period defined in the divorce decree. In rare cases, the divorcing spouses could agree to do something that leaves neither of them owning their house, like agreeing to sell it, or agreeing to give it to charity, or putting it in the trust for their children. The Rights Of Unmarried Co-Owners Of Property When A Divorce Decree Doesn't Provide Otherwise A lawsuit to terminate co-ownership of real estate without the consent of all of the owners of the real estate is called a partition action. In the case of a house that cannot feasibly be divided in kind the way that, for example, farmland could be, what a partition action does is force the house to be sold, with the proceeds divided. Conceivably, one spouse or the other could be both one of the two sellers, and one of the buyers at the partition sale if the spouse that is both selling and buying is the highest bidder in a sale that is open to the general public. In this case, the partition sale is functionally equivalent to cashing out the equity of a spouse who is not the highest bidder at a partition sale. Frequently, given the inevitability of an ultimate partition sale in these cases, the parties will instead reach a mutual agreement to either have one party cash out the other for an agreed valuation of the house and allocation of the equity in the house. Alternatively, another common form of settlement is that the co-owners will agree to sell the house for an agreed price to a third-party and then to divide the net proceeds either according to a pre-agreed formula or in litigation over net proceeds from the agreed sale held in a court controlled bank pending a judicial determination of each spouse's share of the proceeds. Partition actions aren't the most expensive kind of court case, but usually, at least one of the parties needs to have a lawyer for it to go smoothly and the legal fees aren't usually negligible either. Critically, the fact that "mom pays mortgage and lives in the house" doesn't matter much in a partition action after the divorce is over. Paying the mortgage and living in the house are frequently considered to cancel out, rather than changing the share of the equity to which each former spouse is entitled. An ex-wife cannot just get an ex-husband off of the title without being the highest bidder at a partition sale. If ex-husband is the highest bidder, he will stay on the title and she will be off the title and will have to move out or pay him rent. If the third-party is the highest bidden, she will have to move out or pay rent to the third-party, and neither of them will be on the title anymore. The Rights Of Mortgage And Lien Creditors The fact that both ex-spouses are responsible to the mortgage company (and any lienholders who have rights identical to mortgage companies for the purposes of this question) if they were both on the mortgage before the divorce can't be changed without the mortgage lenders consent (which is almost never given), unless the mortgage is paid off in full and (if necessary) refinanced. If there is a partition sale, the mortgage debt must be paid off before either spouse gets any of the proceeds from the partition sale. The Impact of Community Property Laws In Texas One complicating factor in this analysis is that Texas is a community property state. So, to determine what share of the equity in a house belongs to each spouse (if any) you have to apply community property rules that are deceptively simply, but are quite complicated to apply in practice. The general rule of community property in Texas is that property acquired before the marriage or by gift or inheritance by a single spouse, or allocated to a spouse in divorce decree, is separate property. All other property of the couple of community property. Any property for which separate property status can't be proven, or for which there is too much co-mingling of community and separate property, is community property. A spouse is entitled to 100% of the that spouse's separate property, and in addition, to 50% of the community property of the couple, upon divorce. Also, at death, a decedent can't leave the surviving spouse's separate property to someone else, can't leave the 50% of the property that is community property immediately prior to death, that is owned by the surviving spouse, to anyone other than the surviving spouse, without the surviving spouse's consent. Ideally, the divorce decree will spell out what percentage of each piece of land or other property that is owned by each former spouse once they are divorced. But, sometimes a divorce decree entered by mutual agreement, or by a judge, is sloppy and doesn't make that point clear. If the divorce decree doesn't clarify what percentage of the property is owed by each ex-spouse, this has to be cleared up later when the house is sold in a partition action, if there is no mutual agreement to the contrary. A valid pre-nuptial agreement, or a valid post-nuptial agreement, however, can modify the community property rules of Texas that would otherwise apply. The application of community property rules is also particularly complicated in cases where the couple spends part of their marriage in Texas, and part of their marriage either in a state that is not a community property state or that has very different community property laws on some key issues. The Impact Of Post-Divorce Economic Activity Related To The House Also, the amounts spent by the co-owners of the house after the divorce, and the question of whether one of the co-owner has been excluded from the co-owned house by the other, could change the share of each co-owner in the equity in the house after the divorce. The exact rules for how these adjustments are made are complicated, and are often subject to a judge's discretionary decision about this issue should be resolved in a partition action. Footnote Re Gender All of the rules discussed above, even if I haven't worded my explanations that way, are gender neutral. The rules are the same for ex-husbands as they are for ex-wives (and vice versa) in opposite sex marriages, for ex-husbands in same sex marriages, and for ex-wives in same sex marriages.

Options for beneficiary of insurance policy when parents divorced?

A divorced parent in excellent health wants to buy a life insurance policy on himself but he is concerned that the ex-wife cannot be trusted with money. The goal is to help support the 6 year old child in event of premature death. What are the options for naming a beneficiary of the life insurance policy?

Don't name a beneficiary In the absence of a beneficiary the proceeds of the policy will be paid to your estate. They will then be distributed in accordance with your will. Your will should establish a testamentary trust for the child for which you will establish the terms (for example, the will can consider things like living and education expenses and when the trust will end and the child can access the money directly) and name the trustee(s) in the will (and how they get replaced if they die or refuse to continue as a trustee). The trustee is legally obligated to manage the funds in accordance with whatever terms you wrote into the trust for the benefit of the child. This should be someone you trust to a) do the right thing and b) manage the money wisely. You should also make provision in the trust to pay the trustee for their services. Most governments have a public trustee who will do this stuff for a fee. You will need both professional legal and accounting advice to do this properly. A good lawyer should be able to "future proof" the will by considering that you might marry in the future and/or have other children (or that the first (or any other) child may predecease you) and writing it to deal with those eventualities.

Is "attorney-client" privileged waived upon disclosure of documentation?

A document is labeled "attorney-client privilege confidential". If said document is disclosed by the records custodian providing a box of records to the plaintiff, is the document "fair game" for the plaintiff to cite in any future context (including litigation)? Are there any exceptions when it would not be "fair game" ? Does saying "Ooops! I did not mean to disclose this" restore AC-Privilege? Update: Assume the document is photocopied from a set of boxed corporate records and that a documented records request was issued.

Depends on the jurisdiction and context. There are many places where inadvertent disclosure and reasonable efforts to recover the information may allow the disclosing party to retain privilege. There are others where privilege would generally be waived. Also unclear is what you mean by "fair game." You probably have no duty to return the document, and you're probably free to disclose its contents as you see fit. The only limitations I can imagine would be on your ability to use it in court.

determining who filed a disputed document

A document was filed in a case, which provided a key piece of information that the Court was required to consider. Party 2 learned of the filing six months later, states that he did not file it and objected that he had never been served with this document, and furthermore the title of the document was misleading as to the contents, and the contents were both incorrect and prejudicial to his case. Party 1 states that she never filed it. Party 2 states he was deprived of due process and wants reconsideration/relief. What factors might a court consider in these circumstances? Is it true that anyone can just walk up and file a document in any case, with no requirement to identify themselves?

What factors might a court consider in these circumstances? Is it true that anyone can just walk up and file a document in any case, with no requirement to identify themselves? If nobody admits to filing a document, it is likely that the court would grant a motion to strike the document and disregard it (revising a past ruling if the issue was raised within the six months allowed for reconsidering rulings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or the state equivalent). A court document must, on its face, indicate a filing person and be signed to be accepted by the clerk of the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or the state equivalent. But, if the document appears on its face to be legitimate, the person filing it will not generally be required to prove their identity. This happens even less often now than it used to (in the past, fake filings were often made by members of "sovereign citizens" movements to harass governmental officials), because in both the state courts were I practice and in federal court, documents must usually be filed with the court by lawyers via e-filing using a password protected e-filing account. Usually, only parties without lawyers and out of state lawyers who are still in the process of setting up their e-filing account file court documents in person. When documents are filed in person, they are also often delivered via courier rather than by the person who actually signed the documents. And, as a matter of practical reality, third-parties almost never file fake documents in court (in part, because there is usually someone present who is in a position to call attention to the fraud to the court). Still, this can happen, although it is very rare. I've only seen a situation like this come up once in twenty years of practice. (My account below oversimplifies some of the technical details of what happened to get to the gist of the points relevant to this question.) In that case, a lawyer was representing an ex-husband in a post-decree alimony modification case that had been appealed filed a bill of costs that she sought to recover on behalf of her client for the appeal, but she filed it in the wrong court (she filed it in the appellate court where she had represented her client, rather than, as required, in the trial court where another attorney had represented the ex-husband). When an order awarding him costs was not entered by any court, the ex-husband filed an (untimely) bill of costs in the trial court under his appellate lawyer's name using the appellate filing as a model, without her consent, by forging her name on the document. The lawyer didn't discover this (because she was retained only in the appeal and had never entered an appearance in the trial court and thus didn't have access to the trial court file, and because the court doesn't automatically send you a copy of your own filings) until I responded on behalf of the ex-wife to the forged bill of costs alleging that it was untimely which I served a copy of upon the ex-husband's lawyer as required by the rules. At that point, the ex-husband's lawyer immediately called me and the court to explain that she did not file this document and that it was forged (otherwise should could have been sanctioned for knowingly filing the bill of costs knowing that it was out of time and was frivolous at that point and could have been deemed to be responsible for further trial court proceedings of the ex-husband in the case, like keeping him appraised of deadlines, court rulings and filings by other lawyers in the case, since it appeared that she'd participated in the trial court case). Ultimately, the court declined to award the costs because they were filed in an untimely manner and because they were not really filed by the lawyer as claimed. So, the the court disregarded the bill of costs and denied this relief to the ex-husband. (If I was the judge, I would have hauled the ex-husband into court and held him in contempt of court sua sponte , but in this very busy court where hearings in divorcees are often scheduled two or more years out from the scheduling date, the judge didn't have the time to devote to issues like that.)

Is it legal to detain someone to prevent a possible crime that might be committed?

A draft memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security states: "Detention also prevents such aliens from committing crimes while at large in the United States and substantially increases the likelihood that aliens lawfully ordered removed will be removed." Is there any legal basis or precedent to detain someone for the purpose of preventing the mere possibility of unspecified crimes that might be committed?

The Sixth Amendment generally prohibits imprisonment without due process of law ( Korematsu notwithstanding). However, anyone can be temporarily detained as part of an investigative process. A person can (with no change in the law) be civilly committed if their mental state poses a danger. But, a person cannot be imprisoned if it is believed that he might commit a crime (though, a person who has been convicted may be kept in prison if they pose a threat). Suppose that a jurisdiction wants to prevent break-ins. It is not necessary to wait until a person has broken in to a house, to prevent that crime. Instead, a law can be passed that outlaws a related act, such as being in possession of burglary tools. Being in possession of burglary tools does not directly harm anyone, but the government has an interest in preventing burglaries, so it can instead make it a crime to have such tools, and on that basis a person can be arrested. Liberty (a vague term I admit) being a constitutionally protected right, a law restricting what you can do could be subject to strict scrutiny , which means that they can't just pass a law that "anyone who we think might be a threat gets imprisoned". My view (open to correction) is that laws against burglary tool satisfy the conditions known as "strict scrutiny", although as far as I know the laws have never been officially tested. It is difficult to say what degree of freedom is subject to strict scrutiny (what is termed a "fundamental constitutional right"), though certainly anything actually and clearly mentioned in a constitutional amendment is subject to strict scrutiny. It is possible to limit "free speech", thus it is imaginable that a law could limit tattoos. For example, you are not free to make death threats, to defame, to defraud – these are areas where the First Amendment is not held to be absolute. The would-be criminal act has to involve a compelling government interest, it has to narrowly address just that interest, and has to be the least restrictive way of achieving the interest. We can grant that limiting gang violence is a compelling government interest: but outlawing tattoos is not the least-restrictive way of addressing the problem, and it is not narrowly tailored. I really can't think of any way to outlaw gang tattoos which would survive strict scrutiny. Freedom of association is generally seen as a fundamental constitutional right, though the Communist Control Act of 1954 outlawed membership in the Communist Party and was on the books for decades. A law criminalizing "being a member of a gang" would be unconstitutional (too broad, vague), but there may be a way to write such a law to survive strict scrutiny. A gang tattoo could be taken as evidence of being in a gang, but I doubt the fact of having a tattoo could be made a crime.

Have draft SCOTUS opinions been leaked before?

A draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson has been leaked. Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy has claimed : It is totally unprecedented for a draft opinion to be leaked. Is it unprecedented, or have draft SCOTUS opinions been leaked before?

Politico, who published this most recent leak, also has an article about prior SOCTUS leaks . Most of them were very minor or speculative, along the lines of the following two examples given: In 1972, while Roe was under deliberation, an unbylined Washington Post story detailed the justices’ internal wrangling on that subject. The Post story — which appeared days after the justices ordered a second round of arguments in the case — was attributed to anonymous informed sources and did not quote any draft opinions or internal memoranda, but described them in significant detail. In 1979, ABC News Supreme Court correspondent Tim O’Brien went on air with reports predicting the outcome of two decisions that were days away from release. Chief Justice Warren Burger launched an inquiry into whether anyone at the court had breached protocol, and a Government Printing Office employee involved in setting type for the court’s rulings was transferred to a different division. The staffer denied leaking any information. A Business Insider article attributes the original Roe leak to a memo written by Justice William Douglas. The Politico article continues listing a few other examples of a similar vein, where convenient coincidences suggested someone had an inside line on how the court was leaning: a passionate Senate speech here, an article predicting case decisions there, etc. When a leak is strongly suspected, the fingers are usually pointed at one or more of the court's clerks. The aforementioned Business Insider article also mentions that a clerk leaked information to Vanity Fair about Bush v. Gore . Politico does mention the following as a more substantive example: The gravest violations of Supreme Court confidentiality came just over a century ago and led to a law clerk being accused of leaking the outcome of cases to Wall Street traders so he and they could turn a quick profit. The Justice Department fingered Ashton Embry, a longtime clerk to Justice Joseph McKenna, with being the source of leaks in business-related cases handed down in 1919 related to a wartime ban on liquor distilling and so-called patents allowing railroads to use particular lands. The case suffered a number of setbacks, including a lack of any insider trading laws at the time and a disappearing witness, and ultimately Embry was never convicted of anything, or even brought to trial. And it ends with an extremely recent example from a few months ago: During oral arguments on a Trump-era immigration policy this February, Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned that red states’ claim of standing to defend the policy was “pretty similar to what we had just allowed” in a case involving who could defend a Kentucky abortion statute. But the high court had not yet ruled in the Kentucky case. It did so eight days later, ruling 8-1, as Breyer and many less-informed others had predicted. A full leak of a decision does not appear to have occurred before now. Leaks that appear to have been based in substantial part on (draft) opinions do appear to have occurred before, just not as a complete document. But insofar as the Embry incident may have resulted in actual and intentional profiteering off of leaked information it stands as a rather serious and consequential breach.

Rear ended auto accident

A driver in car A is driving down a road and encounters the following that forces a hard brake: A branch or electrical line dropping on the roadway. A dog running out into the roadway, as per driver A. Disputed by driver B. (Brake check) A ball rolling into the roadway. A driver in car B following is unable to stop and an accident ensues. Would all the above scenarios result in driver of car B being found most blamable? United States, no-fault

In a rear-end accident the car at the back is (almost) always at fault australia 126 Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle. That means, you should always leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front to stop safely should they undertake an emergency stop for whatever reason. As a general rule of thumb, the gap needs to be about 3 seconds (about 0.85m per km/h or 4.5 feet per mile/h). At highway speeds this is about 90m or 240 feet - very few people do this but a lot more people should. Almost invariably in a nose-to-tail accident, the rear car was not following this rule. There have been a number of cases where a rear driver avoided liability because they could demonstrate that they were following the rule but there were other circumstances that caused the collision. A recent case in Victoria had to do with a poorly designed road layout that meant the rear driver could not see the forward car until the distance was too short to stop. There have also been cases of sun-glare, insects/spiders in the rear car, and a prolonged sneezing fit.

Are Drone Intrusion Prevention Systems (Drone IPS) systems illegal?

A drone intrusion prevention product being advertised at RSA Conference this year has piqued my interest, and I'm trying to determine whether it and other drone IPS systems are illegal. For background, a WIPS is a device which looks for unexpected WiFi access points nearby and purposefully sends de-authentication packets in order to prevent them from working. In August 2015 the FCC ruled that doing this to hotel guests was illegal, citing Section 333 of the Communications Act 1934. This appears to tally with the FCC's guidance . However, it has been pointed out to me that this precedent may not be applicable as the ruling was in relation to internet service being denied. One could potentially also argue that such actions are in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) under the same provisions which make denial-of-service (DoS) attacks illegal. UK law also has provisions under the Communications Act 2003 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA), with similar advice given by OFCOM ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) as the FCC gives. Drone Intrusion Prevention Systems are a similar concept, designed as security devices which identify drones in the vicinity and inject commands into the control channel in order to disable them. The advertised use-case is to prevent an attacker from using a drone to spy on people's screens, or gain entry to a secured facility. The apparent functionality is that the system identifies a drone in the area, and an operator can choose to have the system disable or otherwise inhibit that drone's functionality. One could argue that injecting commands into the control stream would constitute a violation of both the CFAA and CMA since it causes a computerised system (the drone) to stop functioning or be taken over without the consent of the drone operator. A key thing to note in both cases is that the denial of service is not indiscriminate in terms of jamming the radio spectrum: devices operating on that band will continue to work unless specifically targeted. 47 U.S.C. § 333 states: No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. It is clear to me that indiscriminately jamming a radio band is illegal under both the US and UK Communications Acts. What is not clear to me is whether interjecting additional commands is illegal, nor whether a drone user operating within the vicinity of such a device counts as "authorized" under this particular facet of law. From what I have read, the term appears to refer to communications which are not themselves in violation of the Communications Act, but I'm not certain whether this matters. Are these devices illegal under US/UK law? Is there any precedent in this matter?

For the USA, the FCC has a few words to say on the subject: “Generally, “jammers” — which are also commonly called signal blockers, GPS jammers, cell phone jammers, text blockers, etc. — are illegal radio frequency transmitters that are designed to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with authorized radio communications.” ( https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf ) In addition, the FCC specifically calls out WiFi blocking devices using deauth attacks as you described, calling them “Willful or malicious interference” in a warning they issued in 2015 This is the closest thing to precedent I could find, related specifically to WiFi . That pretty much sums it up. If the device’s primary purpose involves disabling radio communication, it is illegal. It does not matter to the FCC how targeted or filtered the attack may be, it is still unauthorized. At the core of the issue, you (a private citizen) are not allowed to maliciously or willfully interfere with someone operating their radio, no ifs, ands, or buts. Drone IPS system using such an attack would most likely be illegal. The FCC may change this interpretation in the future, but for now it is illegal.

Can a person release music using the name of a fictional character as the artist name?

A example of this would be a person releasing music with one of these names as the artist name: Mogul Khan (the Axe) from Dota 2, Malfurion Stormrage from Warcraft, Saruman from Lord of the Rings. If this infringes on any rights, can this be avoided by changing the name slightly, such as removing spaces or adding numbers at the end?

There is a possibility that a fictional name is also a registered trademark, for example "Harry Potter". You can check here , which will yield no matches fopr "Mogul khan" and 7 for "Saruman". The uses of "Saruman" are specifically for kinds of jewelry. Registering a trademark is not absolute ownership of a name, it is limited to a specific context, so you would need to steer clear of launching a line of jewelry with the name "Saruman".

Can defamation involve a non-believing third party?

A false statement communicated to a third party can be defamatory per se , not requiring proof of actual damage, if the statement falls into one of 4 categories: accusation of committing a crime, professional incompetence, having a "loathsome disease", or engaging in non-trivial sexual misconduct. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 , one of the holdings is that "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected" (emphasis added), thus the statement needs to be somewhat credible as a factual claim. Here is the question. Has defamation ever been found where a person communicated a qualifying false accusation to only a single third party (or two people – but not 'generally broadcast'), where the statement could reasonably be interpreted by someone as a statement of actual fact, but where the third party demonstrably does not actually believe the accusation (e.g. testified to that effect). In other words, if the actual and necessarily limited audience of the accusation dismisses the statement as nonsense, has such a statement ever been judged to be defamatory? Legal assumptions / precedent here are from US law but examples from other jurisdictions are sought, provided that defamation is defined in terms of false damaging statements communicated to third parties, where per se defamation is recognised.

Meta Considerations I'm not aware of any such cases and I don't think that there are any, because if there was, the case would have generated more publicity around a "glamorous" issue in the law. Despite the fact that constitutional law makes it much easier to bring defamation cases when one is a private individual suing a non-media defendant in a matter of private concern, any search of the case law reveals that the defamation cases that actually get brought are those against media defendants and those involving matters of public concern. Private individuals rarely suffer enough harm to make it economical to bring a defamation suit, and people whose lives are not a matter of public concern rarely have deep pockets to hire attorneys to bring defamation lawsuits. Only Nominal Damages And No Attorneys' Fees Could Be Recovered First of all, even in a negligence per se case, where an award of nominal damages (i.e. $1 and court costs excluding attorneys' fees) is allowed as matter of law to the prevailing party, I don't think that an award of more than nominal damages would be upheld in the face of affirmative evidence that there was no actual harm to the reputation of the person defamed as a result of the publication of the defamatory statement. In defamation per se cases, nominal damages are awarded when "there is no proof that serious harm has resulted from the defendant's attack upon the plaintiff's character and reputation" or "when they are the only damages claimed, and the action is brought for the purpose of vindicating the plaintiff's character by a verdict of a jury that establishes the falsity of the defamatory matter." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 620 cmt. a (1977). This would apply in a case of complete disbelief. Since the American rule applies to attorneys' fees in defamation cases, this would make every such suit an economic loser – which doesn't mean that someone might not act in an economically irrational way to defend their honor or something like that. Suing Increases The Harm Rather Than Mitigating It The publicity of a public trial undermines that approach in the kind of case in the hypothetical as well. Absent a lawsuit, there are one or two people who don't even believe it who heard the defamatory statement. But, if you bring a lawsuit, given the likelihood that the media will cover such a case, millions of people will hear the defamatory statement and they may very well believe those statements because they don't know any better. Even if you are ultimately vindicated at the conclusion of a trial, many people will have heard the defamatory statements after the suit is filed, but will never find out that you were vindicated many months later following a trial. Massively spreading defamatory statements about yourself that nobody would otherwise have heard about is just stupid as a matter of litigation tactics. The Presumption Of Harm To Reputation May Be Rebuttable Secondly, it isn't obvious to me that the presumption of harm to reputation in a negligence per se case is a conclusive presumption as opposed to a rebuttable presumption. For example, one can generally argue in a defamation case that someone's reputation before the defamatory statement was made is so irretrievably bad in the area related to the defamatory statement that it is impossible to damage someone's reputation any further, and so far as I know, that argument is not prohibited in negligence per se cases. For example, an intentionally false defamatory statement (which he can prove is false with an iron clad alibi and which the maker of the statement admits was made up at trial) that Ted Bundy once punched a prostitute in the nose giving her a black eye at the Moonbeam Bar at a particular date in the midst of Ted Bundy's serial killing spree, while constituting negligence per se might not state a claim for relief given that Ted Bundy's reputation for not being a violent criminal is already hopelessly tarnished by his multiple murder convictions for similar conduct. Milkovic Can Be Evaluated In Context Third, I am inclined to think that Milkovich v. Lorain Journal , 497 U.S. 1, one of the holdings is that "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected," together with cases such as the New York Times case reflect an evolving understanding in the law (quite distinct from the British concept of defamation which has a bit of an "if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all" to it), that defamation is simply a special kind of fraud claim in U.S. law, and that the tort of defamation is only constitutional in the United States because it is a form of fraud claim. If defamation is and must be merely a special kind of fraud, then the reliance element of a fraud claim is probably constitutionally required in a case where the existence or absence of reliance can be discerned as a matter of fact, without resorting to generalities as the court in Milkovich had to since the statement was published to a large number of people. It would not be unreasonable (and arguably constitutionally mandatory) to read a gloss on the "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected" standard of Milkovich , to include an implied "by the people to whom the statement was published" clause, which would have one meaning when a large number of people in the general public heard it, and another in a context when only one or two people actually heard the statement, or when it was only heard by a group of people who would interpret it differently than the general public would. And, if so, that would be a complete defense and would not just reduce the claim to one limited to nominal damages. This is not a great stretch. For example, in California the words of an alleged libel must be considered "according to the sense and meaning under all the circumstances attending the publication which such language may fairly be presumed to have conveyed to those to whom it was published." Macleod v. Tribune Publishing Co. , 52 Cal.2d 536, 546-547; Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. , 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1132. Libel Per Se No Longer Exists For Media Defendants Absent Actual Malice At one point it looked like the case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 481 U.S. 323, 349-350 (1974) might constitutionally eliminate libel per se, but this was premature. Gertz does not apply in cases involving matters of private concern to private individuals where the defendants are not media defendants. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. , 472 U.S. 749, 761 (1985) (where a defendant's speech concerned a private individual and a matter of private concern, states could allow plaintiffs to recover presumed and punitive damages even absent a showing of actual malice). But, Dun & Bradstreet didn't address the question of whether the presumption of damages in a libel per se case was a conclusive presumption or a rebuttable one, because if it is a rebuttable presumption, then it could be overcome in the hypothetical of the question. And, it also doesn't address the question of whether the Milkovich analysis in a libel per se case must be context specific. In a case involving a media defendant and a private individual plaintiff the U.S. Supreme Court held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 481 U.S. 323, 349-350 (1974) that: States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The common law of defamation is an oddity of tort law, for it allows recovery of purportedly compensatory damages without evidence of actual loss. Under the traditional rules pertaining to actions for libel, the existence of injury is presumed from the fact of publication. Juries may award substantial sums as compensation for supposed damage to reputation without any proof that such harm actually occurred. The largely uncontrolled discretion of juries to award damages where there is no loss unnecessarily compounds the potential of any system of liability for defamatory falsehood to inhibit the vigorous exercise of First Amendment freedoms. Additionally, the doctrine of presumed damages invites juries to punish unpopular opinion, rather than to compensate individuals for injury sustained by the publication of a false fact. More to the point, the States have no substantial interest in securing for plaintiffs such as this petitioner gratuitous awards of money damages far in excess of any actual injury. We would not, of course, invalidate state law simply because we doubt its wisdom, but here we are attempting to reconcile state law with a competing interest grounded in the constitutional command of the First Amendment. It is therefore appropriate to require that state remedies for defamatory falsehood reach no farther than is necessary to protect the legitimate interest involved. It is necessary to restrict defamation plaintiffs who do not prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth to compensation for actual injury. We need not define "actual injury," as trial courts have wide experience in framing appropriate jury instructions in tort actions. Suffice it to say that actual injury is not limited to out-of-pocket loss. Indeed, the more customary types of actual harm inflicted by defamatory falsehood include impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. Of course, juries must be limited by appropriate instructions, and all awards must be supported by competent evidence concerning the injury, although there need be no evidence which assigns an actual dollar value to the injury. We also find no justification for allowing awards of punitive damages against publishers and broadcasters held liable under state-defined standards of liability for defamation. In most jurisdictions jury discretion over the amounts awarded is limited only by the gentle rule that they not be excessive. Consequently, juries assess punitive damages in wholly unpredictable amounts bearing no necessary relation to the actual harm caused. And they remain free to use their discretion selectively to punish expressions of unpopular views. Like the doctrine of presumed damages, jury discretion to award punitive damages unnecessarily exacerbates the danger of media self-censorship, but, unlike the former rule, punitive damages are wholly irrelevant to the state interest that justifies a negligence standard for private defamation actions. They are not compensation for injury. Instead, they are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence. In short, the private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than that stated by New York Times may recover only such damages as are sufficient to compensate him for actual injury. See also Time, Inc. v. Firestone , 424 U.S. 448, 459 (1976). In the cases where it applies, Gertz requires proof of actual damages and bars the award of punitive damages, as a First Amendment requirement, and since actual damages are entirely absent in the case of the defendants in the question's hypothetical, if Gertz applied to them, they would not prevail. Now, Gertz in 1974 when it was decided, had limitations – it involved media defendants for whom actual malice could not be shown, but it did eliminate the public figure/public concern requirement. But, it isn't obvious to me that the Gertz limitations have not been expanded since then. Libel per se no longer exists in cases governed by Gertz (i.e. media defendants for whom there is no showing of actual malice). From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. , 400 So.2d 52 (Fla. App. 1981). Texas has expanded Gertz somewhat and held that even in cases where it does not apply, actual proof of actual damages is required to recover exemplary damages, even in libel per se cases where damages are presumed. Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers , 674 S.W.2d 751, 755 (Tex. 1984).

Defendant lost inheritance due to slayer rule, later exonerated. Do defendant’s descendants have ability to bring a suit?

A family consists of a DAUGHTER, her MOTHER (biological) and her STEP-FATHER (her mother’s second husband). The Step-father had bequeathed all his wealth to the Mother. The Mother had bequeathed all her potential wealth to the Daughter. The Mother is convicted of killing the Step-Father. The Step-Father’s siblings bring suit against the Mother under the slayer rule and win all her inheritance. The Daughter gets nothing. The Mother dies. 20 years later, the Daughter uncovers definitive proof exonerating the Mother. Question: 1. Can she establish her Mother’s innocence legally in court? 2. Can she then sue her Step-father’s siblings for her inheritance which she lost due to slayer rule?

Question 1: Yes Posthumous Exonerations are possible. Whether this is a judicial or administrative process depends on jurisdiction. Question 2: No Assuming that the beneficiaries did not illegally cause the conviction, the estate is settled.

UK tenant no contract wants to leave early

A family member and her husband are renting a house from a friend, the landlord, and have only been living there about a month. There was no contract written up at all. They've become unhappy with the landlord and the house and wish to leave. The landlord is threatening legal action and claims there was a verbal agreement. He has said he will sue them for outstanding rent despite there being no terms - as there is no contract. He has sent them the following: "You have an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The fact that there isn't a written contract doesn't change this as a verbal agreement is legally binding. Payment of rent constitutes acceptance of these terms. The tenancy can only be terminated early from the permission of the landlord. If you leave early this is legally abandonment and you are still responsible for paying rent for the duration of the tenancy ... if you do leave next month I'll consider you in rent arrears and pursue payment through legal means" To me it seems the landlord has very little legal backing if they were to just leave. Can anyone with experience with UK renting shed any light on the legal reality of the situation? EDIT For futher information, I was mistaken in stating they had lived in the property for only a month, it has actually been just over 6 months. There were no witnesses to any verbal agreement, although there will most likely be a considerable number of text messages between the two parties, considering they are long time friends.

Let's analyse the landlord's claims: You have an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The fact that there isn't a written contract doesn't change this as a verbal agreement is legally binding. That's true. A tenancy exists even if this was never written down , and it's an AST by default if the requirements for being one are met. Payment of rent constitutes acceptance of these terms. Payment of rent by the tenant, and its acceptance by the landlord, is sufficient for a tenancy to be regarded as existing. The tenancy can only be terminated early from the permission of the landlord. That's rubbish. A tenant can always end a tenancy, but there may be restrictions. In particular, a tenant cannot end a tenancy before the end of a fixed term without the agreement of the landlord, but the landlord has an obligation to find new tenants if this happens. However, I've been unable to find any information as to whether a fixed term exists if there's no written agreement. Assuming there is no fixed term, then for a month-to-month tenancy, the tenant must provide one month's notice to end the tenancy , with that month ending at the end of a rental period (i.e. the day before the next payment would be due). If you leave early this is legally abandonment and you are still responsible for paying rent for the duration of the tenancy That's true . ... if you do leave next month I'll consider you in rent arrears and pursue payment through legal means That is possible - but if you give notice as described above, then the tenancy will end, and (assuming you're up to date with the rent) you'll no longer be liable.

Is it legal to obscure the address on V5C(W) (logbook)?

A family member has just purchased a car from an entity that was purporting to be a car dealer, and the V5C(W) (part of the document that defines the registered keeper) with which they were provided has the name and address of the current registered keeper obscured by black marker pen. It looks like this but much more effectively obscuring the address. Is it legal to alter this document in this way? I had thought that the document remains property of the DVLA, and as such defacing it would be illegally damaging others property, but I cannot find anything online to confirm this.

Is it legal to obscure the address on V5C(W) 1 ? YES The V5C remains the property of the previous keeper, not the DVLA, and notwithstanding the government's advice to destroy it , they can deface it in any way they wish - especially if they are concerned about protecting their personal information and have given it the new keeper in error: What should happen is the new keeper just gets the tear-off slip V5C/2 with only the vehicle's details thereon. The previous keeper should inform the DVLA of the changes who then issues a new V5C to the new keeper. (If for whatever reason one isn't issued, the new keeper can use the details from the V5C/2 to apply for one themselves.) Note that if the dealership had the car "in trade" , they are not obliged to re-register it in their name, and presumably they obliterated the previous keeper's details to protect their personal information. This is very likely the case even if they weren't applying the "in trade" procedures but bought and sold the car without re-registering it (a fairly common practice among some dealerships that avoids an official paper-trail and lessens the number of recorded previous keepers which can affect the price). 1 the W suffix denotes the document is the Welsh version.

Dismissal versus redundancy from a consulting / outsourcing role

A family member works for a large consulting / outsourcing company and has been permanently employed by them for many years, working for multiple different clients over this time. When one client assignment comes to an end he uses the employer's internal jobs board to find a new assignment. Late last year he started a new assignment, but a few weeks in the client decided that his skills were not well matched with the tasks they wanted him to do and requested that a new person be assigned to the role. He was withdrawn from the role and his employer provided the client with a new person instead. At that time he was given written notice by his employer that he was now "in a Consultation process" and if he could not find a new assignment within some period of time (as far as I know, no set time frame was given in writing, but verbally he understood that he had about 6 weeks) then his employment would be terminated "on the grounds of skills mismatch with the current role." They also verbally used the word "redundancy" but have subsequently retracted this and stated in writing that the role (with the specific client that he was withdrawn from) is not redundant, the work is ongoing and another person whose skills are better matched has filled that role. He then continued looking for alternative assignments and spent time doing various training courses to broaden his skillset. Unfortunately he was not able to find another assignment that matched his skills within the time frame, and his employer has now given him notice. To my mind (and from https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/reasons-you-can-be-dismissed ) there are two ways they could have done this: - redundancy (not redundancy from the specific assignment he was withdrawn from, but redundancy from his outsourcing role in general if they no longer have any roles that need his skillset) - which would entail a redundancy payment - dismissal due to "Not being able to do your job properly" - in which case he should have been through a disciplinary process etc., which he has not. I also work for a (different) consultancy firm and in my company we would definitely class this as redundancy and would pay a redundancy payment. The issue would be ours in that we would not have any suitable work for someone with his skillset, not that he was unable to perform the specific role we had originally allocated him to. Is my understanding correct? Assuming that he would be happy with an outcome of either a) having his job back and waiting until a role that matches his skillset comes along, or b) being paid a redundancy payment, what should be his next steps?

The person has probably been made redundant These are the reasons you can lawfully be dismissed in the UK. The possible reasons that fit the person described are: Not being able to do their job properly: however, there doesn't seem to have been any disciplinary action about this. Redundancy: this is the one that fits. The employer simply has no (suitable) work for the employee to do. That's pretty much the definition of redundant.

Would publicly farting on a picture of the English monarch actually qualify as treason in 1798?

A famous political cartoon from 1798 by Richard Newton claims that farting on a picture of the British monarch would be prosecutable as "TREASON!!!" (caps and multiple exclamation marks in original). Would this act actually qualify as Treason under English law in 1798? According to the Treason Act 1351 , treason consists of: ...when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir; or if a man do violate the King's companion,....or if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere.... Farting on someone's picture is not the same thing as compassing or imagining their death, violating their heirs or companion, or levying war against them. The Treason act 1702 covers attempts to interfere with the royal line of succession, not disrespecting a picture. So, is there any truth to this cartoon? To be clear, I'm not asking whether it was socially acceptable in England of the 1790's to publicly pass gas on someone's picture (nor whether it is acceptable to do so today), but whether it fit the legal definition of Treason under any statutory or common law offense that would have been in effect in 1798. More specifically, either of the following scenarios seems plausible: This was literally treason in 1798, and the cartoon's purpose is to point out the absurdity of treating toilet humor shenanigans as legally equivalent to murdering the king or waging grim war against him. This was not actually treason, but the point of the cartoon was a warning against contemporary trends in expanding the scope of criminal offenses to cover unusual or non-obvious scenarios. In other words, this was an exaggeration to emphasize that criminal law was getting so ridiculously broad that farting on a picture might soon be prosecutable as a major offense if the cartoon's readers didn't start advocating for more narrow and sensible laws.

The cartoon may call back to events of 1795, where George III had stones thrown at him while he was on his way to the State Opening of Parliament. In response, the government - headed by Pitt the Younger, who is the man in the picture saying "That is treason, Johnny" - passed "An Act for the Safety and Preservation of His Majesty’s Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditious Practices and Attempts" , 36 Geo. 3 c.7. We now call it the Treason Act 1795. It was one of a series of Acts that suspended habeas corpus, banned political meetings, and so on, in the wake of the French Revolution. Section 1 deals with treason, at some length, but a fart probably doesn't count. The conditions are that somebody would: within the Realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend Death or Destruction, or any bodily Harm tending to Death or Destruction, Maim or Wounding, Imprisonment or Restraint, of the Person of our same Sovereign Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, or to deprive or depose him or them from the Style, Honour, or Kingly Name of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, or of any other of his Majesty’s Dominions or Countries; or to levy War against his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors, within his Realm, in order, by Force or Constraint, to compel him or them to change his or their Measures or Counsels, or in order to put any Force or Constraint upon, or to intimidate, or overawe, both Houses, or either House of Parliament; or to move or stir any Foreigner or Stranger with Force to invade this Realm, or any other of his Majesty’s Dominions or Countries, under the Obeisance of his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors; and such Compassings, Imaginations, Inventions, Devices, or Intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any Printing or Writing, or by any overt Act or Deed The text is substantially preserved in the Treason Felony Act 1848 , section 3. The 1795 Act also created a "High Misdemeanour" for anyone who shall maliciously and advisedly, by Writing, Printing, Preaching, or other Speaking, express, publish, utter, or declare, any Words or Sentences to excite or stir up the People to hatred or Contempt of the Person of his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors, or the Government and Constitution of this Realm, as by Law established This is closer to the fart; it is a lèse-majesté provision aimed at general disrespect for the King. The provision was due to expire in 1798. I do not know the detailed timeline of its expiry and proposed renewal in relation to when the cartoon was published, but this is a plausible connection to why it was a live issue again. In Scotland, but not England, there were common-law offences of sedition and "leasing-making" covering the same sort of idea. They were abolished in 2010 but were long obsolete. Hume ( Commentaries on the Law of Scotland , 1797) distinguishes between them by saying that leasing-making is solely verbal, a species of slander, whereas sedition is words or deeds "for the purpose of producing public trouble or commotion, and moving His Majesty's subjects to the dislike, resistance, or subversion of the established government and laws, or settled frame and order of things." In any event, the political cartoon is satire and does not necessarily represent a legal reality. It is mocking Pitt's heavy-handedness in the Act of 1795, and perhaps challenging the authorities to define this very cartoon as criminal. Newton's mentor, William Holland, had been imprisoned for seditious libel for publishing Thomas Paine's Letter Addressed to the Addressers, on the Late Proclamation . The proclamation in question was the one of 1792 against seditious writing , also the work of Pitt, and aimed at Paine's Rights of Man , a work advocating for (among other things) freedom of the press and abolition of the monarchy. Therefore there is a specific personal and political edge to criticising Pitt's repressive legislation.

Is there any judicial precedent regarding US governors' power (or lack thereof) to limit church attendance in an emergency?

A federal judge in Kansas ruled it might be unconstitutional: A federal judge signaled that he believes there's a good chance that Kansas is violating religious freedom and free speech rights with a coronavirus-inspired 10-person limit on in-person attendance at religious services or activities and he blocked its enforcement against two churches that sued over it. The ruling Saturday from U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita prevents the enforcement of an order issued by Gov. Laura Kelly against a church in Dodge City in western Kansas and one in Junction City in northeast Kansas. The judge's decision will remain in effect until May 2; he has a hearing scheduled Thursday in the lawsuit filed against Kelly by the two churches and their pastors, on whether he should issue a longer-term or broader injunction. Kelly continued to defend her order in a statement: "This is not about religion. This is about a public health crisis.” [...] Broomes directed the churches to abide by recommendations for social distancing that people stay 6 feet apart and to continue following other practices the lawsuit said they had imposed, such as not using collection plates. [...] Top Republican legislative leaders moved last week to revoke Kelly’s order on church gatherings themselves, only to see the Democratic governor thwart their efforts by contesting their action before the Kansas Supreme Court. The state’s highest court let her order stand on technical grounds, without deciding whether it violated freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. or Kansas constitutions. The details in this case seem to matter, i.e. the judge seems to have had no objection against some of the physical distancing parts of the governors' order (e.g. 6-feet distance), which probably implicitly limit attendance numbers in closed spaces, but otherwise seems to have objected to an arbitrary ceiling to the number of people gathered. Since the US went through a pandemic before, in 1918-1919, in which also some gatherings were banned or at least cancelled, I'm curious if there have been any judicial precedents for this kind of case, i.e. whether limiting the number of attendants to an arbitrary figure was in question.

The main relevant bit of constitutional law is Employment Division v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872, where it was held that a general law against use of peyote does not violate the Free Exercise clause, though in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah , 508 U.S. 520 a law specifically designed to restrict Santeria animal sacrifices is an undue burden on religion. The Employment Division court cites Cantwell v. Connecticut , 310 U.S. 296 and Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U.S. 205 as the only cases where the First Amendment prevents a generally applicable law from applying in a religious context, which the court notes "are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections". The TRO doesn't go into detail about the reasoning: Based on the materials presented and the arguments of counsel, the court finds: (1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim alleging a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion So it is hard to say on what grounds the plaintiffs are likely to succeed. The governor's order is a bit peculiar, because it initially looks like a neutral 10-person limit on gatherings, but on the one hand makes an exception for religious events by allowing any number of people "officiating" so sets the limit on participants (advantage to religion, not constitutional), but then also includes numerous exceptions to the order, including schools, day-care, food pantries, detox centers, shopping malls, restaurants and so on. The set of exceptions is large enough that one might conclude that this is an undue burden on the exercise of religion. The breadth of the number of exceptions undermines claims of "necessity" which are crucial to any order that closes churches.

Can the federal US government use any other powers to ban FGM?

A federal law against FGM was ruled unconstitutional today on the grounds that the powers under which the law was written were not applicable to the activity being criminalized. Are there any other powers the US federal government has to criminalize FGM?

Well, there's always the power of the purse strings . This is the power which makes the legal age to purchase alcohol 21 throughout most of the United States, and for a time imposed maximum speed limits. These are limits that would normally be established by individual states, and the homogeneity was achieved via the purse strings. In each case Congress passed laws 1,2 saying that a state would only receive certain federal fundings for interstates and highways provided they had laws that adhered to these limits. The basic Supreme Court precedent on such matters is that these laws are legal so long as they meet the following criteria: The spending must promote "the general welfare." The condition must be unambiguous. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional. The condition must not be coercive. As such, if Congress can find some substantive matter of funding which is related to female genital mutilation (FGM), and passes a law that provides certain funds only if FGM is banned by the states, and this law is deemed by the courts to adhere to these standards, then they may achieve a de facto Federal ban on the practice. However, there is no guarantee every state would adhere to the condition. It is not immediately clear to me what such a matter is and how to construct such a law, but as you were only interested in knowing the available powers, I won't try to figure that out. 1. National Minimum Drinking Age Act 2. National Maximum Speed Law (repealed in 1995)

How, and under what circumstances would the introduction of "sociological" evidence be allowed in a courtroom?

A female founder of a bankrupt healthcare company is being tried for fraud. Her defense team foreshadowed its intention to blame her actions on her former male partner, for things like "domestic abuse" and "domination." If I were a prosecutor, I would want to rebut this, e.g., by showing full length photos of the woman standing several inches taller than the man. I would want to play recordings of the two people's voices (Elizabeth's voice is deeper, at least her fake voice). I might show comparisons of the popularity of young white women versus middle aged Indian (or Asian) males on such dating apps as Tinder or Instagram to show that the woman was socially dominant. I would also want to have experts comment on the meanings of these matters. To what extent would such "sociological" information (and related expert testimony) be allowed in a California courtroom? Would some items be allowed and some not, all allowed, or none allowed? And how might they be used; would they be mainly in "rebuttal" or in other contexts as well? Edit: My current understanding is as follows: On one hand, the defense can elect to "say nothing" and let the prosecution prove its case, in which case the above would be irrelevant. On the other hand, if the defense puts up an affirmative defense, e.g. "insanity," the prosecution has a certain latitude in picking apart the proffered defense. So the sociological information could only be used in rebuttal. But suppose the defense team does try to shift the blame in this matter. How much latitude does the prosecution have to use sociological information like the above in rebuttal?

There is virtually no chance this would be admissible. When a defendant argues that abuse at the hands of third party led to a mental defect that excuses her from culpability, the prosecution is free to rebut that argument. However, the prosecution's evidence must be relevant , i.e., it must have a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less likely to be true. Here, none of the proffered evidence has any real bearing on any fact of consequence: The fact that the defendant is taller than the alleged abuser does not make it less likely that the defendant was abused. The fact that the defendant's "fake" voice (what does that even mean?) is deeper than the alleged abuser's does not make it less likely that the defendant was abused. The fact that young white women have more Tinder matches than middle-aged Indian men does not make it less likely that the defendant was abused. Even if you could find some thin reed on which to hang the relevance of these racial and gender stereotypes, the evidence would likely still be excluded under Rule 403 , as the probative value would be so trivial that it would be outweighed by the likelihood of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury.

After buying from a brick & mortar shop they've contacted me to say buying things from them is consent to arbitration. Is this legal?

A few days ago I bought over-the-counter goods from a shop. There was no signature involved in this purchase. I walked up to the counter with off-the-shelf items, was asked for a phone number, paid in cash, then left. They just sent a text message claiming that buying anything from them constitutes waiver of right to sue them and consent to binding arbitration. Is the shop violating any law? The shop was in Ohio, United States of America.

They cannot force a contract on you after the fact. You should leave these numbskulls alone, they are clearly up to something that makes them likely to be sued. I am adding the following: it's not illegal as far as I know to declare anything you want to a person as long as it isn't a threat. "You are now beholden to give me your firstborn makle child." lol, no.

Can ignoring a person on the Internet make me responsible somehow?

A few days ago I got to know a person on a social network. We had a few days of innocuous conversations on WhatsApp, but then they started becoming intrusive and imposing and didn't respect my time. After I hadn't been replying for a few hours they started telling me off and accusing me. I had enough and blocked them. The thing is, they are disabled and obviously are having some psychological problems. Now another person which introduced themselves as their partner is writing to me that it wasn't nice of me, they have gone through so much suffering recently and I have to be understanding and all. Given the emotional instability of my former online friend, if something happens to them, can I, in theory, become subject to legal prosecution? I didn't offend them and never said a wrong word, I just respect my time and don't want to talk to people who don't respect me. This all is very disturbing. UPDATE: the person is from the US, and I'm from Ukraine

The First Amendement of the United States Constitution protects the right of an individual's freedom of association from government interference as one of the five protections in the First Amendment. Association generally means your ability to keep your own company, be it friendship, business associations, romantic partners, and online buddies. There is no criminal liability for not having an association with someone and I would be weary that the second person who contacted you is not necessarily who they say you are. While there is a case of possible illegality in which a girl's interaction led to her boyfriend's suicide, this was an active case of egging on the boy's suicide while she was aware of his suicidal state of mind and the case is currently being appealed on the grounds of violating the girl's first amendment right to Free Speech and is hardly case law for the entire nation as a whole. Not legal advice, but block the partner of the guy you blocked and anyone claiming any association with the guy. Assume it's all the same guy.

Paying salary back after leaving the company

A few days ago I received a pretty interesting letter from my ex employer. During my time there I made minus hours, caused by the project situation (I am a software developer). The letter says I should pay the amount of minus hours back. In Germany there is a specific difference between Lohn (wage) and Gehalt (salary), I got the last one. That confused me cause Gehalt is payed independent from the days I worked. What I would like to know is, do I have to payback anything? And if yes, why? And something I am pretty interested in, how does that comply with taxes and social insurances? I hope it fits here, if not feel free to close it. I am not seeking legal advice I am more curios honestly.

I assume you had what is called a Arbeitszeitkonto (work time accounting) - meaning you were allowed to vary the amount of time you worked each day, and your work time was recorded on a time sheet, allowing you to "gain" or "lose" hours each day compared to your regular work time. In that case, you may have to pay back the money. There is a long article on this topic here: Negativer Saldos auf dem Arbeitszeitkonto – und seine Verrechnung beim Ausscheiden ( Negative balance on the working time account - and its consideration when leaving employment ). The short rule is: if you worked less because you wanted to, you may have to make up the deficit if you worked less because you were told to, you don't (§615 BGB - note however that this can be changed in the employment contract) To actually make the employee make up the "missing" time, the employer usually has to prove the employee asked for time off. In addition to that, even if the employer is owed missing work time, they cannot necessarily take back salary already paid. Usually they are only allowed to ask the employee to work extra, or cut the next salary (because the salary paid while the employee worked less is considered an advance payment). Unless it is explicitly mentioned in the contract, they probably cannot take back money already paid, and even if it is mentioned, it might not be valid. Finally, rights and obligations from an employment contract become unenforceable after the period of prescription ( Verjährungsfrist ) has passed. The limit is three years by default, but can be shortened in the contract, down to three months (which is not uncommon). In that case, claims arising from the contract (such as taking back wages) will expire after three months - check if this applies.

I have found my email address online in a .txt file. What should be my next step?

A few days ago someone tried to log into my bank account, the attempt was unsuccessful but it was quite concerning. I’ve spent the past weekend moving my most important accounts to alternate emails and setting up TFA everywhere. I plan to get rid of my old email altogether since it was also used to sign up for some random websites and newsletters in the past weeks. As a part of the clean up I’ve run a Google search for my email and found a .txt file online with my email and thousands of others. They were categorised as valid/invalid. The site was since taken down but I have screenshots. I live in the E.U. and I’ve been thinking about a GDPR or a police report. The website owner was really easy to find and lives in the same country as me. What should be a next step?

Just the email in such a list is annoying but not really concerning. There are millions of people who put their email into publicly available contact data, and after a couple of years of use any email is going to be exposed some way. That's why websites use passwords in addition to just the email and why mail programs have spam filters. Your email was probably not used to sign up anywhere. Instead, spammers pretend that you signed up to slow attempts to prosecute them. A bit of a joke, really, considering how hard it is to prosecute spammers. The valid/invalid remark is used to facilitate spamming, no need to send mails to long-inactive addresses. More concerning than a 'leak' of your email would be a leak of your email plus password. (Such things also happen, and they are a reason why one should use different passwords and 2FA/MFA on important sites.) If it is just the email, see my first bullet point. There is a significant likelihood that the 'website owner' you think you identified is another victim of the address trader. Getting to the real culprit will require significant forensic effort. That effort is unlikely to happen for just emails.

Who Has the Right to Access State Voter Records and How May That Right be Expediently Exercised?

A few days ago, I posted this question on the Politics Stack Exchange I am modifying and reposting it here in the hope of receiving a more substantial answer. In the United States, who (individual, group of individuals, political party) has access to state voter lists that indicate whether or not the given registered voters had voted in the last general election? If an individual has such a right, what is the most expedient way of gaining access to these records, with the objective being to determine who among the registered voters actually voted in the last election?

In most US states, anyone can buy such lists, covering either the whole state or a specific municipality or election district. Political campaigns routinely buy such lists and use them to organize door-to-door campaigning, as well as postal appeals. Some years ago I was a (losing) candidate for local office in NJ. I bought such a list covering the township I was running in. It showed each voter's name, address, age, party of registration, if any, and which of the last several elections the person had voted in. I think the lists were available from the board of elections, and local lists from municipal clerks. Exact procedures no doubt differ from state to state, as will costs. At that time lists were available in electronic and paper formats. Purchasers had to sign an agreement not to use the information for commercial marketing, as I recall. Updated lists including data from the latest election are not usually available at once, but are available long before the next general election.

UK: What information are the police legally required to collect when going door-to-door, and why?

A few days ago, a police officer knocked on my door in the evening and asked whether I had noticed any disturbances in my street earlier in the day - he said it was in relation to reports that they'd had, and were investigating. I informed him that I hadn't noticed anything, and he then asked whether I had been at home at the time of the disturbance, and what I was doing at that time, as well as taking my name and date of birth. What are the reasons/ legal requirements that the police might need my personal information, given that I had not been able to provide any further information/ witness testimony to the incident that they were investigating? I would understand the need to collect it had I been able to provide any further information regarding the incident, or been asked to provide a witness statement, but given I hadn't been able to, what would the legal reasons be for them to collect/ hold this information?

What are the reasons/ legal requirements that the police might need my personal information, given that I had not been able to provide any further information/ witness testimony to the incident that they were investigating? The police in england-and-wales have a duty to undertake reasonable lines of enquiry and to carry out a proportionate investigation in to allegations of crime. No-one is legally obliged to answer house to house questions but, notwithstanding the honesty and integrity of the majority of members of the public, any information held by the police may need to be corroborated to identify or eliminate suspects, witnesses, evidential opportunities or other lines of enquiry. Also, if it is established that someone has no information that may assist the investigation this is recorded to prevent duplication of effort thus enabling the police to focus their resources accordingly. All the while complying with the relevant privacy and data retention legislation.

Is one free from legal responsibility if the intellectual property has passed the plagiarism check software?

A few examples: Bob wrote a blog post and uses a plagiarism checker. The checker didn’t find any plagiarism. Does that protect Bob from copyright infringement claims? Bob uses AI to generate a blog post and passed the plagiarism checker. The AI company that provides the software has marketed to provide plagiarism free copies. Does that protect Bob from copyright infringement claims? Bob wants to register a trademark and uses the trademark search tool. The search tool didn't find any similar trademarks. Does that protect Bob from trademark infringement claims?

None of the methods suggested protect Bob from a copyright or trademark infringement claim. These methods may protect Bob from a claim that Bob is an intentional infringing party, as opposed to being an "innocent infringer". But, an innocent infringer is not immune to liability for copyright and trademark infringement. Instead, an innocent infringer is simply subject to less potent penalties and remedies than an intentional infringer of the copyright or trademark owner's rights. Also, innocent infringer status ceases when Bob receives a cease and desist letter if Bob continues the infringing conduct. This said, in the first case, if Bob independently writes the blog post without copying anyone else's work, Bob has not infringed any copyright. This is true even if someone else had already written exactly the same thing. Copyright infringement, unlike patent infringement and trademark infringement, requires that the infringing work actually be derived from the work claimed to be infringed and independent invention of a work is a full defense to copyright infringement.

Why do prominent public figures resign, instead of being prosecuted, when they appear to have committed a crime?

A few examples: Iceland's prime minister resigned when his relationship to the Panama Papers was discovered. The police superintendent in Chicago, Illinois, USA was fired when a video containing a police shooting was uncovered more than a year after the shooting took place. A regional administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency resigned after dangerous levels of lead were found in the area that the administrator oversaw. These acts prompted suspicions of money laundering and cover-ups, and gross negligence. Why are these public figures typically fired, or "voluntarily resign," instead of being prosecuted for crimes that they could plausibly be accused of? Is it a case of the law not being applied to the powerful and well-connected, or are there other legal reasons?

I will address only the legal issues. Prosecutors for very good public policy reasons are not required to prosecute every crime they have suspicions about. When exercising this discretion they consider: Is the act, in fact, criminal - many of the things you list, while reprehensible, unethical, and possibly immoral are not actually criminal. Do they have the resources (time, staff, money) to collect the evidence and run this case as opposed to the thousands of other crimes out there. There are always more crimes than can be prosecuted and these have to be prioritised in some way. Do they have enough evidence to gain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People can be fired or resign on suspicion, they can't be convicted on it.

Are Steam account IDs (and telemetry data associated with Steam IDs) deemed personal data?

A few friends and were having an argument on the following situation: People can sign up for Steam accounts for free, letting them purchase games and play games over their network. Users are able to create public profiles for their accounts, a nickname, real name, location, etc - but this is not essential (sometimes people put fake information, but a considerable number of people put legitimate information). Via OpenID , users are able to authenticate and identify themselves to various other websites. Some games, for example Dota 2 (published by Valve , who also run the Steam network) use publicly visible Steam IDs of players as unique identifiers within their games - in order to track information about their users, including reports, statistics, etc. Provided that a user consents, part of their data from matches they play in is exposed via an API. This includes stuff like what character you played, your performance in game, etc. This allows 3rd party websites to show you interesting statistics about the games you play. There is another API (also run by Valve) which allows users to download "replays" of the matches, so users can rewatch what happened. Within these replays are, regardless of what a user's consent status may be, users' uniquely identifiable Steam IDs. This allows 3rd parties to track users even if they've not opted into 3rd party sharing. My questions are: Is a Steam ID "personal data"? Is the sharing of data to a 3rd party by Valve without consent against the GDPR? If #2, How would I make a formal complaint about this. Answer mostly important for an EU user, but would be interested if there were US comparisons.

Since the Steam ID contains or may contain enough information for it to be possible to link your account to you as a physical person, it would definitely be considered "personal data" according to Article 4 of the GDPR . However, by agreeing to the DOTA2 terms of service, you have given consent for them to show your information to other players (or at least that is included in most terms of service I have read for other games. I have not read the one for DOTA2 specifically). Replays are an interesting corner case. If download of replays are only possible for other players or if the wording of the ToS says that you consent to displaying your user ID to anybody, that would mean that they would have covered their bases. As long as they comply with other parts of GDPR, like "the right to erasure" ( Article 17 ) that is. If the API is accessible to anyone and not covered by the ToS you might have a case. If you only want to remove the traceability between you and the replays, you can always evoke Article 17 and delete your account.

What legal action can I take if someone who had access to my personal hard disk copied all my personal pictures into his computer?

A few months ago I had a temporary guest in my residence. During this time he, without my permission, went through my personal hard disk and copied all of my pictures onto his personal computer. (These are pictures of me, such as ones you take on holidays, and a few more private ones.) None of these pictures were ever posted online, so the only way he got access to the pictures is because he copied them from my computer. I only found about what he did recently because I received a message with an attachment from him saying, "I've got these photos of you...." I told him to delete them, and he said he did. A few days ago I went to his place and went on his laptop with his permission (as by this point I wasn't trusting him) and There I found lots of other pictures, all from my hard disk that I have never ever shared with anyone, including the pictures that he said he deleted. What can I do to make sure that all these photos get deleted? What are the laws about these types of situations?

You have the copyright on all your pictures. He had no permission to copy any of them, so he has committed copyright infringement on a massive scale. You can just get a solicitor who will happily take him to court for you. You shouldn't be overdoing it, $750 per infringed work (per picture) as statutory damages should be fine. If you want it cheaper, the solicitor will write a letter for you that asks him to destroy all the pictures, sign that he has destroyed all the pictures, pay the solicitor's fees, or otherwise be taken to court for copyright infringement (see above). Now I am not a lawyer, so you go to a lawyer which will correct whatever I got wrong here. Just forgot: In addition to having the copyright, if he publishes pictures of people (like you and your family), he needs permission of these people. So if anything gets published, that goes on top of the copyright infringement.

In United Kingdom what are consumer rights about online subscription

A few months ago I subscribed to an online service that monthly delivers goods (beers) to my home. I now want to cancel but they ask to call to do so. I tried for a few days and of course, no one is ever available... What are my rights? Can I just call my bank to stop the payment?

Assuming the question relates to a consumer as defined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 . I quote from Janet O'Sullivan, O'Sullivan & Hilliard's Law of Contract (2020 9 ed), p 207. The 2022 10 ed shall be published in July 2022. 8.27 According to s 61 of the CRA, a ‘consumer contract’ is defined in s 61(1) as a ‘contract between a trader and a consumer’. In turn, ‘trader’ and ‘consumer’ are defined in s 2 of the CRA as follows: (2) ‘Trader’ means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf. (3) ‘Consumer’ means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession. (4) A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it. If it does relate to a consumer, then I suggest the starting point is the CRA 2015, which protects Consumers way more than the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Can a person benefit from damaging terrorists?

A few months ago Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepaah Pasdaran) of Iran was designated as a terrorist organization by USA. As a person who lives in Iran I was wondering if I damage Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in anyway, say damaging their personnel or their properties, can I be protected by USA? For example can I come to USA as a refugee.

The basic requirement for being granted refugee status is demonstrating that you have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear that you will be persecuted, and is connected to race, religion, nationality, social group membership or political opinion (there are other grounds such as reunification with close family in the US). What you describe doesn't clearly fill the bill (was this just youthful vandalism?). A pattern of public politically dangerous statements would probably be necessary – there isn't a clear objective legal statement of what constitutes evidence that you have a reasonable fear of persecution. A prerequisite is a referral from the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program . The usual first step is apply at the US embassy, but that may be a bit difficult (but you might exit to another country).

Does federal law require people criminally prosecuted to be in federal jail?

A few months ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions implemented a "zero tolerance policy" , requiring the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute every single person caught crossing the border illegally. This has resulted in large numbers of children being separated from their parents. So today President Trump passed an executive order intended to end the family separation issue. Here is what it says: The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members. Now some have argued that this executive order will be overturned because extended detention of children violates the Flores settlement , and the courts may not be willing to modify the Flores settlement. But I'm interested in a different issue. Under the executive order, parents being criminally prosecuted for crossing the border illegally would be held in detention centers by the Department of Homeland Security as they await trial. My question is, is this permitted under federal law? Or does federal law require that those being criminally prosecuted at the federal level (at least for illegal entry) be held in the custody of U.S. Marshals in federal jail as they await trial? Here is what this article says: To be clear, there is no official Trump policy stating that every family entering the US without papers has to be separated. What there is is a policy that all adults caught crossing into the US illegally are supposed to be criminally prosecuted — and when that happens to a parent, separation is inevitable. Typically, people apprehended crossing into the US are held in immigration detention and sent before an immigration judge to see if they will be deported as unauthorized immigrants. But migrants who’ve been referred for criminal prosecution get sent to a federal jail and brought before a federal judge a few weeks later to see if they’ll get prison time. That’s where the separation happens — because you can’t be kept with your children in federal jail. But when the article talks about those referred for criminal prosecution being sent to federal jail, is it just talking about standard practice, or is it talking about what federal law requires?

If someone is arrested by federal agents and referred for indictment, they have to be processed by the federal justice department. Processing includes things like being fingerprinted and going before a judge to get bail set or denied. Federal protocols demand that the prisoner goes through this process without family members. Once the prisoner is processed, there is no detainment requirement. The prosecutor can request detainment, but prisoners could be released on their own recognizance, on payment of bail, or to another organization. For obvious reasons (flight risk), border crossers are generally released to Homeland Security rather than on their own recognizance or with bail. According to the LA Times : Rio Grande Valley border agents have prosecuted 568 adults and separated 1,174 children since zero tolerance began, Padilla said. Of those, 463 were reunited with parents “in a matter of hours” after they returned from court. It wasn’t clear how long the rest were separated. That was as of June 17th of 2018. There isn't a breakdown of why some families were separated longer. TL;DR : No, it is not a requirement that prisoners be kept by the Marshals. It is a requirement that they be processed separately from people not being prosecuted (e.g. their children) and members of the opposite sex (e.g. most spouses). After processing they can return to detainment.

Does being in DHS custody awaiting criminal prosecution count as “time served”?

A few months ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions implemented a "zero tolerance policy" , requiring the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute every single person caught crossing the border illegally. This has resulted in large numbers of children being separated from their parents. So President Trump passed an executive order intended to end the family separation issue. Here is what it says: The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members. So it orders people awaiting criminimal prosecution for illegal entry to be held by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is in contrast to the standard practice before this, which was to keep people awaiting criminal prosecution for illegal entry in federal jail until their trial. I’m wondering about how this will affect sentencing. Before the executive order, judges would sentence most people convicted of illegal entry to “time served”, i.e. their sentence would be the jail time they already served before their trial, rather than an additional sentence after the trial. But my question is, how does this work if a person is kept in DHS custody rather than federal jail while awaiting criminal prosecution? Can time spent in that sort of DHS custody count as “time served” for sentencing purposes? The reason I ask is that if judges don’t have the “time served” option, then they may opt to sentence people to federal prison, where they’ll be away from their kids.

Yes. This is treated as time served as several media accounts of sentencing hearings in these cases have demonstrated. See, e.g. , this account in The Atlantic magazine, and this one in the newspaper USA Today, and this one in the newspaper the Houston Chronicle. I also saw a similar account in the L.A. Times but can't provide a link because my non-subscription access limit has been exceeded.

Hetzner is trying to charge me for Bandwidth overuse and will not respond when I use the contact form

A few months ago, I was using Hetzner Cloud for my VPS, and they blocked a server because someone seems to have DDoSed it. I requested it to be unblocked, and they ignored me. I also noticed they are trying to charge me about €50 for bandwidth overuse, which my bank is blocking. I am now banned from the Console, and cannot delete my account because I have "unpaid products". I have contacted Hetzner's support email, and they proceed to tell me that they require me to use the Contact Form on the Hetzner Robot Dashboard (and that I should be able to delete my account), and then they ignore me. I contacted them numerous times 3 months ago, and now I try every few weeks. Nothing changes. I'm not a lawyer. Is this illegal? Can I report them to the GDPR authorities for not allowing me to delete my account. I will not pay a €50 fee because some random guy decided to DDoS me.

They provide a snail- and e-mail way to end the contract here . This will not eradicate the €50 that they say you owe, but you can sort that out separately. That email address might also respond to inquiries about the validity of the charge. At any rate, they also give a link to online dispute resolution per Art. 14, para 1 of the EU Online Dispute Resolution Regulations. GDPR does not give one the right to be deleted so as to avoid an existing liability.

Where do I go when police refuse to investigate someone who made purchases with my debit card?

A few months ago, my debit card information was stolen and used to purchase some computer equipment in the state of Oklahoma, but the perpetrator lives in the state of Florida and I live in the State of Texas. My local law enforcement refused to take the case because it did not occur in my city and the local law enforcement of the city where the crime occurred in Oklahoma also refused to take the case saying the law enforcement of my city has to take it and they will just do a supplemental report. So, my big question is, what law enforcement agency can I count on here in the United States when the police refuse to investigate a crime against me regarding my financials?

The fact that the Oklahoma businessmen didn't reimburse you until you informed him it was a crime (because he didn't know it was a fraudulent charge) really means nothing. You recovered your loss, albeit by yourself. The bank covered the rest, like your earlier question: As a victim of debit card fraud, what are my legal options? Few prosecutors will look into prosecuting a crime in hindsight since your losses were reimbursed or covered by the bank. A local prosecutor might look into the name of the fraudster to see if he/she has a previous record, and possibly tell law enforcement to keep that person in mind. The local prosecutor would lead the case, not police or law enforcement. But again, if you didn't lose any money, or at least a minimum that would be hundreds of dollars, depending on local and state laws, nothing is going to happen. Talk to the county prosecutor's office in your county and see what the say; there will be a minimum of monetary loss, distant jurisdictions and other more important cases to consider, and since it's a free country, the miscreant will most likely crime again, until they're caught for something that can be prosecuted. Credit/debit card fraud is very prevalent, and will remain so until prosecutors have time/money to pursue, laws become more strict, and the banking industry creates more technical protections. Check https://www.google.com/search?q=carder+sites to see what they are up against.

I Paid my friend's phone bill now there is a debt collector coming after me

A few months back I had purchased a phone for my friend. The agreement between us was that I would pay for one month and that would be it. The store employee assured me it would not have any recurring payments. My name was not provided, they had signed all the documentation and the only way it was tied to my name was with my credit card. I am working on a debt validation letter tonight. I'm guessing since I did not sign the agreement it will be dropped. I did not receive a formal letter in the mail, they have only tried to text me (I believe they also tried to call using a job offer as a way to get me on the phone. A person from India with broken English offered me a job over a voicemail in the same city where I had purchased the phone.) Does anyone have suggestions on what I should include in the letter? Any other insights?

My name was not provided, they had signed all the documentation and the only way it was tied to my name was with my credit card. Based on this, it seems that you did not sign the contract so you are not legally liable. They probably just tried to charge the credit card on file, which was yours.

When Can I report my Social Security Card as Lost or Stolen? (My Situation in Body)

A few months back I realized I couldn't find my SSN card and that the last time I saw it my ex-wife needed it for something because we were married at that time. I asked her if she had it still and she said no. Then last month she says she found it and I told her we could exchange it when she gets her mail. I keep reminding her to bring my SSN Card to me and get her mail but she's been ignoring me or when she replies it's that she's busy. I've been monitoring my credit to ensure she doesn't take my identity and bury me in debt but I would still feel better if she'd return it already. I'd get it myself if I knew where she'd moved to but right now I am powerless to get it back. I wondered if it was legally valid to report it lost/stolen even though I know who has it and have some expectation that I'll get it back without incident?

Reporting that an SS card is lost or stolen could be useful for two reasons: obtaining a replacement, and finding and prosecuting the perpetrator. You can obtain a replacement card from SSA at any time, and they do not require a justification for a card (they do not investigate thefts). The local police can investigate, but will only investigate a theft (not a simple loss). Their interest would be in prosecuting the perpetrator (and possibly retrieving the stolen property). In the course of investigating, the police will ask (in some form) if you have a clue where it is, and if you do not admit that you know where it is, they can prosecute you, because that would violate your state's version of the false statement law (Washington example here ). The physical card is not so important: loan applications etc. don't require producing a physical SS card: what they need is the number on the card.

Is “do not resuscitate” on a t-shirt a legal order?

A few months back, I watched a House episode that featured him violating a DNR order, and being taken to court for it. A few days ago, I've come across a do-not-resuscitate t-shirt on one of the t-shirt web-sites, and trying to find the exact site for the question, it seems like a sample query will give you a complete list of pretty much all of these t-shirt websites overall. If someone is admitted wearing such t-shirt, would it be considered a joke, or would it serve as a legal order to indeed not resuscitate?

I'm not a lawyer or a medical professional, but on Wikipedia's page about DNR , we see the following quote: In the United States the documentation is especially complicated in that each state accepts different forms, and advance directives and living wills are not accepted by EMS as legally valid forms. If a patient has a living will that states the patient wishes to be DNR but does not have an appropriately filled out state sponsored form that is co-signed by a physician, EMS will attempt resuscitation. Based on this, I would hazard the guess that you can't treat anything other than those forms as legally binding, as they even ignore a living will without that state's form.

Use of Co. in a Non-Registered Business Name

A few of my friends and I have started a business in Canada, and in our name we have "Co." at the end. We are deciding whether to register as a business or not, and are unsure as to whether we can continue to use `Co." in the name without registering. In the choosing a name section of the canada corporation site it states: The accepted way to include a legal element in a corporate name is to add a term to the end of the name such as Limited, Incorporated or Corporation, or contractions of these such as Ltd., Inc. or Corp. Does this mean that "Co." indicates a corporation? If so, can we continue to use it if we decide to not register as a corporation?

Co is not one of the words or phrases reserved for corporations. You can use it. Canada Business Corporations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44) Section 10(1) The word or expression “Limited”, “Limitée”, “Incorporated”, “Incorporée”, “Corporation” or “Société par actions de régime fédéral” or the corresponding abbreviation “Ltd.”, “Ltée”, “Inc.”, “Corp.” or “S.A.R.F.” shall be part, other than only in a figurative or descriptive sense, of the name of every corporation, but a corporation may use and be legally designated by either the full or the corresponding abbreviated form. Keep in mind that registering and incorporating are two different things in Canada. The page that you linked to applies specifically to corporations. Not every business is a corporation but most provincial and territorial governments require that you register your business with them.

What types of contracts (that do not create a duty of care) can make legal actions criminal?

A few questions (mostly about copyright) have me wondering if it's possible to enter into a legal contract which would make an action criminal when the same action would be perfectly legal had one not entered into the same contract. To narrow the question down, I'd like to exclude contracts which establish a duty of care. So, to be clear, I am asking about contracts which do not that create a legal responsibility for another person's well-being (physical or financial) .

An obvious example would be a contract that gives possession of something to someone else. It's normally legal to use some reasonable amount of force to protect or prevent trespasses against property you own, but if you give possession of that property to someone else you can lose that right. For example, you can use force remove a guest who refuses to leave real property you own, but can't use force to remove a tenant even if they broke the terms of your contract. In most jurisdictions you'd need to get a court order and have the police use force if necessary remove the tenant.

How long should I wait for a Data Access Request in Ireland

A few weeks ago I made a Data Access request to an Irish company I've been doing business with for just over 10 years. I've not received any sort of response - not even an acknowledgment of my e-mail. Ignoring mails isn't unusual for this company but it is increasingly becoming a problem for me. This is why I have decided to get my data and go somewhere else. I've been told that I have a right to this data. Some people mentioned GPDR as a reason. Other people have talked about the Freedom of information act. How long do I need to wait? Do I have to send them reminder letters? If so, how many? What do I do if they continue to ignore me? I need this data to move on, and the Taxman will certainly need some of it

According to The official government page "Freedom of information (FOI)" FOI only applies to FOI bodies. These are mostly bodies that are publicly funded (for example, government departments). If you want to apply for records that are held about you by a private organisation, you can apply under data protection laws . FOI allows the public to have information about what the Government is doing and it is often used by journalists, campaigners and opposition parties. ... Organisations that are covered by FOI FOI laws apply to public bodies unless they are exempt. FOI bodies include: Government departments Bodies that were set up by an Act of the Oireachtas (for example, the Consumer and Competition Authority was set up by the Consumer and Competition Protection Act 2014), or established by a Minister or the Government A company where the majority of the shares are held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government, or any of its subsidiaries A higher education institute that is publicly funded Some non-public bodies that get a lot of public funding Unless the company you are dealing with is an "FOI Body" it seems that the Irish FOI will not apply. The official Irish Government page on "How to access your personal data under the GDPR" states: Make your request in writing Ask as soon as possible and in writing. This can either be by letter or email. Seeking your personal data is known as making an access request or a data subject access request. You should state in the letter or email that it is an access request. This means that both you and the data controller will have a record of the request and its content if an issue later arises. Some large companies allow you to automatically download your personal information directly through their website. Contact the relevant data protection officer Many large organisations have a Data Protection Officer (or DPO) and they are generally the best person to contact about your request for information. You should be able to find their contact details in the privacy policy or ‘contact us’ section of the organisation’s website. Where there is no specific email address for a data access request, you should use the organisation’s general contact details. ... How will the company or organisation deal with my request? The data controller must respond to your request within one month. However, if you complain to the Data Protection Commission, the organisation may be given some extra time if it missed the deadline as a result of COVID-19. If the request is complex or involves a large amount of information, the data controller can extend the time to respond by a further two months. You should receive a written explanation for any extension within the initial one-month period. If your request is very broad and requires the data controller to provide a large amount of information and documents, you may be asked to reduce the number of documents containing personal data requested. However, you can insist on receiving all the information and documentation held. If you do, it may take longer to comply with your access request. In general, the data controller should respond to your access request in the same format the request was made, or in the way in which you specifically asked for a response. For example, if you emailed your request, the data controller should provide the information by email, unless you request otherwise. ... What can I do if I am unhappy with the outcome of an access request? If you are unhappy with the way your access request was processed, you can make a complaint to the Data Protection Commission (DPC)]( https://www.dataprotection.ie/ ). The DPC is Ireland’s independent authority with responsibility for upholding the right of people in the EU to have their personal data protected. It monitors compliance with GDPR and other data protection legislation and deals with complaints in relation to data protection breaches. The DPC website contains helpful explanations of data protection law. You may be unhappy with the way your request was handled because: There was no response or a delayed response to your access request The response to the request was incomplete You believe the data controller wrongly relied on exemptions to not share your personal data with you How do I make a complaint? Complete the DPC’s online complaint form. You will be asked to provide evidence to support your complaint. This includes: Evidence of your access request Correspondence between you (or your legal representative) and the data controller and information in support of your belief that the data controller holds your personal Information The GDPR provides the right of access to one's personal information under Article 15 , but leaves the details of times for response and handling of complaints to the national data protection authority and to national law. In the case of Ireland this is the Irish DPC. The GDPR dos not provide a right of private action (that is the right to bring an individual lawsuit) to enforce its data access provisions.That can only be done through a complaint to a national data protection authority.

Do I have any options if Chase has closed my account citing payment from fraudulent sources?

A few weeks ago I received a $125 Chase QuickPay from someone on the site localbitcoins.com. Turns out the payment was marked fraudulent, and my account was frozen, whether it was because the user was charging-back or his credentials were stolen I do not know. I knew that on my end the payment was legitimate so I sat down with my branch manager on multiple occasions over two weeks and discussed the situation and we were working on it, submitting documents, etc. After a long (and possibly non-existent) investigation Chase first told me when I called to check up on things this morning that my account was unfrozen but I needed to set up a new online profile. When I went to the bank a couple of hours later to do this and they called to set up a new online account they were informed that contrary to what I heard earlier my account was being closed and that was that. The reason they gave is that I was receiving QuickPays from fraudulent sources (even though this one was one of many previously received QuickPays). So I have two of questions: Is the bank required to give me the results of the investigation? (They refused when I asked on the phone at the branch.) Do I have any options/recourse to stop them from closing the account?

Both of your question are creatures of contract. Their disclosures when you set up the account (or potentially amended disclosures or terms they've mailed to you subsequently) control both of these questions. They don't have to share the results of their internal investigation against you (they do have to give you proof that the deposit/transfer was fraudulent), but that does not give you access to their internal investigative process or its findings. They cannot shut down your account based on protected reasons (race, class, gender, religion, etc.), but the can certainly close an account pursuant to their operating procedures, their rules, terms and conditions or disclosures - all of which you agreed to (implicitly or explicitly) when opening the account. There is likely nothing you can do about either of these issues, unless the contract you formed with them by opening the account gives you that right, which would appear in their terms of service, disclosures, etc., and these almost always protect their right to do most anything when it comes to protecting the overall best interest of the corporate entity.

My phone number used to belong to someone in debt, now I'm getting harassed by debt collectors

A few weeks ago, I moved to a new city, and got a new phone number. The process of finding all my accounts everywhere and changing my number in each was long and complicated, and it's not something I want to do again. Since then, I've been getting calls from debt collectors trying to collect from, say, John Smith. I'm not John Smith, and I've told them repeatedly I'm not John Smith, even calling them up to tell them so. It makes no difference, they keep calling, probably thinking I'm just trying to get rid of them. Is it legal for debt collectors to harass people who aren't their debtees, thinking they're debtees?

From https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/collection_agencies10 : If you are not the person the debt collector is looking for – for example, if your name is the same as the person who owes the bill – explain the mistake in writing as soon as possible. You may be asked to provide a drivers’ license or other proof of identification to show that you are wrong person. Perhaps you should send them a copy of your phone bill, showing the number and your name. When you do this, consider asking them to stop calling you, or to stop communicating with you altogether: You may also ask a debt collector to contact you only by mail. Make your request in writing, send it by certified mail, and keep a copy for your records. You also have the right to ask a debt collector to stop contacting you entirely. The request must be in writing, and you should send it by certified mail and keep a copy for your records. If you make this request, the debt collector can only contact you to confirm it will stop contacting you and to notify you that it may take action against you. (15 United States Code section 1692c.) Remember, though, that if you request no contact at all, the debt collector may take you to court and may still report your debt to credit reporting agencies. Then, if they continue to call (the hyperlinks are in the source): If you believe that a debt collector has violated the law, you can file a complaint with the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit . Consumer complaints are valuable to the Attorney General’s Office because they alert us to debt collection issues and other issues that California consumers face. We may forward a copy of your complaint to the debt collector; however, please be aware that the Attorney General’s Office cannot represent individuals or give legal advice. You may also wish to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This agency enforces the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FTC may be contacted by mail at Consumer Response Center, Washington, DC 20580-0001, or by telephone at 1(877)-FTC-HELP, or at FTC Complaint Assistant .

Who needs to take the California driver license renewal test?

A few weeks ago, I went to DMV office in California to renew my driver license. They asked me to take an 18-question renewal test. I took the test and passed it and received my renewed driver license, assuming it's a normal procedure for everyone. Subsequently, I learned that not even one of my colleagues or friends were asked to take this test. In all my life, I've only had two parking tickets. Is that the reason that I was asked to take the test?

What a bastard of a thing to find out! OK, California law authorizes the DMV to make regulations for "a program of selective testing of applicants" and also requires the renewal notice to tell you if you do. This law came into force in 2011 but was amended in 2018 - I don't know what it said before that. Clearly such regulations have been made but I'm buggered if I can find them. However, if you need to do a knowledge test you have to renew in person and you can only renew by mail/online twice before needing to renew in person. While not conclusive, it seems like you have to take the test every 3rd renewal. Since the license is only renewed every 5 years, your time has only just come up and your colleagues or friends haven't yet.

I'm being discriminated against by my roommate, can I legally do anything about it?

A few weeks ago, one of my roommates chose to disclose to the other roommate (someone I don't trust, and tell no personal information to) that I am a carrier of Herpes (HSV-2), to which she freaked out. I was called into a "roommate meeting" which was mostly to steamroll me with a rehearsed lecture on the dangers of Herpes (something I've had for 9 years, and only get my information on directly from doctors and doctor approved websites), and threaten to sue me twice for not disclosing I had it before we signed on the lease together, because we share food. Clearly seeing she has little to no basic understand of how common and non-life affecting Herpes is (besides the obvious stigma) I tried to explain that's not how it works, and her level of anger escalated, so I left. Since then, I just haven't spoken to her, choosing to let her cool off on her own time, but instead she has taken to harassing me, moving my things into my room whenever I'm not home, using things then piling them in front of my bedroom door, etc. Came home a couple of nights ago to everything of mine she doesn't use outside of my room piled up against the door barricading me out. She had slipped a packet on HSV-2 under the door (which I am certain she didn't read, because I think it would have made her feel a lot better about it, and realize she, too, carries at least one strain). It is beyond clear by now that she is trying to push me to feeling so uncomfortable at home that I'll move out, and I'm feeling so at a loss of what to do about it. Is there anything I can even legally do against a roommate who is super clearly discriminating against me for having HSV-2? Several friends have suggested a restraining order, and I AM starting to look for somewhere else, but in the mean time, I don't know how I'll get out of my lease, or feel safe at home.

This is a very difficult situation. Discrimination is not the right frame within which to view this as your roommate doesn't have authority over you the way that an employer or landlord would. The basic legal issue would be whether your roommate is constructively evicting you from you residence without valid justification for doing so. And, the answer might very well be yes. But, even if that is the case, since the roommate is not an agent of the landlord, your roommate's actions probably don't relieve you from your duties under the lease. So, your relief might be to vacate the premises and then to sue the roommate for the rent you have to pay without receiving anything in return. This is expensive relative to the likely returns, and there is no certainty that you would win or that you would get your attorneys' fees if you prevailed. This would also be a slow solution taking several months at a minimum. Or, in the alternative, you could leave and cease paying the rent, forcing the roommates who remain to pay it if they don't want to be evicted as they are probably jointly and severally liable for the rent. (If they sued you for your share of the rent, constructive eviction by one of them would probably be a good defense.) The landlord could sue all of the roommates if they don't pay, causing them to be evicted and you to be on the hook for any rent or other amounts that they owe, including the landlord's attorneys' fees (and hurting your credit). You could probably cross-claim for indemnification of any amounts you were required to pay in that lawsuit against your roommate. But, this too would be an expensive, complex and slow solution if the remaining roommates don't decide to simply keep paying the rent. It would be very hard for you to evict your problem roommate for breaching the lease by denying you your equal rights to the premises, since you are not the landlord, although it isn't impossible that a court would allow this relief and it would be relatively quick. It would also leave open the question of who was responsible for the evicted roommate's rent. The remaining roommates would be liable vis-a-vis the landlord, and would face eviction if they don't pay, and probably couldn't get a new roommate without the landlord's permission. And, the evicted tenant would probably remain on the hook vis-a-vis the landlord, but might not have a duty to indemnify the roommates who stayed. Also, in any lawsuit where you sue the roommate, the roommate would likely counterclaim against you for non-disclosure of HSV2, and while that would probably not prevail in the end, it would make the legal process hellish for you. The trouble is that there are really no good solutions that you could easily impose on them. A mutual agreement between the landlord and the other tenants to release you from the lease so you could find somewhere else, or to release the problem tenant from the lease so that you and your other roommate could replace that person, is probably the best solution, but that takes mutual agreement of multiple parties.

Could the Intel CEO be accused of insider trading?

A few weeks back, the Intel CEO sold all the company shares he was allowed to . Yesterday, it was reported that a big security flaw existed in virtually all Intel processors sold in the last decade. Intel has known about it for several months and has informed the OS vendors so they could publish patches before the vulnerability was made public, as is the custom in these cases. This looks to my non-lawyer eyes like blatant insider trading. Is it?

The accusation would be the crime of securities fraud ("insider trading" is legally meaningless), under 15 USC 78j(b) . There is a bit more elaboration in 17 CFR 240.10b5-1 . That law prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in" in connection with a securities transaction. Under 15 USC 78ff , violation of the law can result in a fine of up to $5 million and 20 years, thus it is a crime. As a crime, the standard of proof required is must higher than it in for a civil forfeiture (which can be as low as "reasonable suspicion"). In the US, and pursuant to the Due Process clause, that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that is (from in re Winship ), "proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged". The statute itself does not state the elements that must be proven to secure a conviction, but they can be discerned based on jury instructions (which are circuit-specific). The 9th Circuit instruction is here . You can see that there are 4 specific allegations that have to be chosen between, and the prosecutor has to have at least alleged one of those prohibited acts (so that the jury can decide if the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did that thing). The evidence you have presented could constitute "reasonable suspicion", but not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". If we had a different standard of proof in criminal trials, where it was sufficient to just suspect based on a small bit of evidence that a person may have done something prohibited, then the conclusion could be different. Or, if you had stronger evidence surrounding the sale, your argument might carry a bit more weight. In other words, criminal prosecution is based on quite a lot of specific and objective evidence about what happened. An example of the kind of evidence and allegations required to get the ball rolling can be seen here ; for "insider trading" specifically, look here (this case is based on an FBI investigation, where an agent will presumably testify to hearing the defendant state a plan to violate the law).

What public evidence suggests that AWS violated the AGPL by deploying MongoDB?

A few years ago (2018), the software package MongoDB , freely available including source code, was relicensed. The original license was the infamous AGPL , which required anybody offering modified MongoDB as a service to share the source code for those modifications with users. The new license, SSPL , is an untested nonce license which requires those offering MongoDB as a service to share the source code for the entire service. Many commentators have speculated heavily on the question of whether AWS , one of the largest resellers of MongoDB and MongoDB derivative services, violated the terms of the AGPL. Under the principle that fires usually have smoke, I would expect to see some evidence which corroborates this claim. What evidence do we have? I confess some motivated reasoning here: such commentary is generally meant to disparage the AGPL as an ineffective license which would not hold up in court, but I personally have known attorneys who take AGPL seriously and have had employers who forbid AGPL-licensed products in the workplace. (By careful reading of site rules, I believe that this is appropriate for Law SE rather than Open Source SE. I am not seeking community guidance on licensing norms, but evidence which plausibly could be admitted in court.)

Contracts (including licences) have the doctrine of privity Let's say you and I enter a contract and that third parties form the opinion that you have breached it. That doesn't matter. It only matters what I think. I might think that you haven't breached it - I'm certainly not going to sue you for a breach that I don't think happened. Or, I might think you breached it and I don't care - I'm not going to sue you. Or, I think you breached it and I really care but I don't think I can prove the breach to the required standard - I won't sue here either. Or, I can prove it but the damages I've suffered amount to $2.86 and a lawsuit will cost me $50,000.12 - I might sue you on principle but then I remember that suits on principle are what make lawyers rich and I'd rather be rich myself. Or, I might have definitive proof that you broke it, I've suffered massive damage but my lawyer says "I think the contract is unlawful because of X, don't go to court." Assuming none of the above happens and I do sue you then I'll present some evidence. Allegations cost nothing: proof is hard.

In the USA, is it still legal to create a website to connect sex providers with clients?

A few years ago I believe this was outlawed? Can anyone confirm?

It is still legal, if you want to book an appointment, you can do it online . It is legal in that county. Analogously, marijuana is legal in Colorado and fully illegal in adjacent Kansas, and stores in Colorado can advertise online ( example ), even though some customers might come from neighboring not-legal state. Commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment, though not as strongly as political speech. The FCC has (had) extra powers to regulate content broadcast on the airways, which explains some features for pharmaceutical ads (asking your doctor if X is "right for you" when they don't even say what X does). Those regulations do not apply to online commerce. Of course, if you run a brothel in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal, you can be prosecuted for all sorts of things.

Can I be arrested in US consulate for a warrant in the states?

A few years ago I came to Mexico to stay for a while. While I was here I was summoned for court in Arizona, but never appeared (because I'm in Mexico). A warrant was issued for my arrest a few months later. 2 years ago my passport expired so I went to the US consulate to renew it. Instead of getting my passport in the mail i received an email stating that I need to show up for an interview. My question is, can I be arrested at the consulate and be taken to Arizona? I'd like to be informed before I go so I know what to do with my family.

Legally, they cannot just nab you. The usual (?) option is that authorities in the US request extradition pursuant to the US-Mexico extradition treaty via the Department of Justice, and if the paperwork is in order, this can result in a Provisional Arrest Warrant (and arrest) in Mexico, which will be carried out by the Mexican federal police. This is true whether or not you go to the US consulate. After a hearing in the Mexican courts you might be extradited (or not, but DoJ presumably doesn't proceed with cases that they will lose). Extradition is not possible for every offense, so you would have to look at the offenses listed in the treaty, and whatever the Arizona warrant is about. You can't be extradited for parking tickets, you can be extradited for murder: whatever it is, it has to be a crime in both places, and has to be subject to a minimum one year imprisonment. Also, if you are a Mexican citizen as well, you cannot be extradited unless the Mexican authorities agree to (whereas there is no choice if you are only a US citizen). An alternative is deportation, which would overcome limitations related to extradition, but it's not clear what the requirements for deportation from Mexico are (typically illegal presence, unclear whether Mexican authorities can or would try an end-run around official extradition procedure). Although consulates enjoy a degree of immunity from local law, a consulate in Mexico is still Mexican territory, subject to Mexican law. If you are in the consulate, Mexican authorities cannot enter without permission to arrest you. They also cannot arrest you without a warrant (see Art. 16 of the Mexican constitution ). Consular staff also cannot arrest you (if you are not caught flagrante delicto ). Nor are they authorized to execute a US warrant in Mexico (thus they have to go through the process of judicial review to send you back to the US, and why a Mexican warrant is required). See this Q&A , relevant to the status of embassies: what is relevant to us is that both the US and Mexico operate under the rule of law, so the issues surrounding Syrian refugees in the Syrian embassy do not arise here.

Allergies, Sudafed, HIPAA, a prescription, and the logbook/databse

A few years ago I learned about the Sudafed logbook-that-is-implemented-as-a-database. I had to do my own research about it because the person at the Walmart pharmacy didn't know anything and stammered out a few things, most of which made no sense. While doing research, I discovered several believable stories of people buying sudafed for allergies, yet were harassed and/or arrested by their local authorities. One particular example: http s://www.alternet.org/woman-allergies-arrested-and-imprisoned-buying-sudafed Putting your name in a controlled item database increases your risk to get arrested for possessing the controlled item. Fundamentally and unarguably. I'm not interested in getting arrested, nor trying to fight a legal battle if I do. Also, I'm not interested in doing anything illegal. I had thought that getting a prescription for Sudafed would solve my problem, since HIPAA should come into play. As far as I am aware of, it should, and it did (years ago I managed to get a Doctor to prescribe me some Sudafed). I stopped going to that doctor, and I think he died (old age), so I didn't get any more Sudafed, nor could I go back. Recently, I talked to a nurse and a pharmacy tech involved in my treatment and they said that HIPAA would not apply and that I'd still be logged in the database. Complaining about being in a database sounds kind of kooky, and people make out to be moreso than it is. However, knowing a couple things about how forensics, analytics, and the legal ramifications of how computing systems work, if you leak any information anywhere at any time, it can and will be used against you. I had heard that Sudafed's replacement is not effective, so I haven't tried it yet. Due to these hurdles, I'm thinking of giving it a try to see if it works for me. I use Claritan and Flonase as well, but it seems that I have different symptoms based on different allergens, so depending on the problem I use one or all of the three. Does buying OTC Sudafed enable the protections of HIPAA? Or do you and/or the pharmacy still have to record your details into the logbook/database?

The "logbook" is required by federal law, part of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 . See 21 USC 830 (e) (1) (A) : Each regulated seller shall ensure that, subject to subparagraph (F), sales by such seller of a scheduled listed chemical product at retail are made in accordance with the following [...] (ii) The seller maintains, in accordance with criteria issued by the Attorney General, a written or electronic list of such sales that identifies the products by name, the quantity sold, the names and addresses of purchasers, and the dates and times of the sales (which list is referred to in this subsection as the “logbook”), except that such requirement does not apply to any purchase by an individual of a single sales package if that package contains not more than 60 milligrams of pseudoephedrine. "Scheduled listed chemical" is defined in 21 USC 802 (45) and includes pseudoephedrine (the active ingredient of Sudafed). As you can see, no distinction is drawn between prescription and OTC purchases. HIPAA became law in 1996. I'm not sure whether HIPAA would normally forbid the keeping of such a logbook (it mostly restricts how a provider can disclose information, not so much how it can store information), but even if it did, CMEA was passed later, so it would take precedence. Thus there is no way to "enable HIPAA" to avoid CMEA's requirements. (The passage quoted above does indicate a possible way to avoid the logbook: buy less than 60 mg at a time. That seems to correspond to two standard tablets. However, it's conceivable that a pharmacy might decide it wants to put such purchases in its logbook anyway; it's not clear to me that HIPAA or any other law would forbid them from making that a condition of purchase.) There may also be specific laws in your state placing further restrictions on pseudoephedrine purchases.

Why is there no remedy available me when a manufacturer removes a feature due to a flaw after purchase?

A few years ago I purchased an Intel processor simply because this has TSX features and I wanted to write code to test this feature out. They disabled this feature in a microcode update because it was buggy and they alleged they fixed this in a subsequent version of IP. Now in the later processors this and many other so called performancec features that command a premiuim on price have been removed. I complained to intel and requested a refund and they ignored me. Is there a remedy avaiable me? And if so what is this? And why is there no compensation made for loss of enjoyment, loss of performance and nuisance caused to reimplement software when they have to clearly and publicly produced defective goods?

Under EU consumer law, should that be your jurisdiction, you would have a claim against the seller for a full or partial refund. Amazon was forced to do this when Sony removed the OtherOS feature from Playstations against the wishes of its users (users were forced to either update to continue to be able to play new games, or refuse and never receive a game update and lose the ability to play new games).

Would a non-complete clause apply to oversea job searches?

A few years ago I signed a NDA with a non-compete clause when joining my current company in the United States. The NDA is stated to be enforceable where permitted by law. Since then I’ve moved to Japan and am currently working for the same company. But my current contract is with its Japanese entity. I didn’t sign a second NDA when on-boarding here. My question is would my previous NDA apply if I were to look for another job here in Japan or in a third country, say, China/Hong Kong?

It depends Restraint of trade clauses are limited to what is reasonable to protect the interests of the employer. This reasonableness applies to job role and geographic location. Depending on your job, it may or may not be reasonable to limit you worldwide. For example, if you are the CEO of a multinational like Coca-Cola it is probably reasonable to prevent you working in the soft drink industry worldwide for a reasonable time. It would not be reasonable if you were a factory line worker to restrict you at all, probably.

Does a non-disparagement clause in a settlement cover the oppositions attorney?

A few years ago I started to have some disagreements with another party. At the time I had transacted less than $5000 in business. They involved a lawyer, and things got really ugly, really quickly. They sued, and then we settled out of court, but it cost me over $20K in legal bills. Most of this was time wasted in negotiation of a very simple settlement - I feel like the other attorney was intentionally prolonging the process. I have no idea how much it cost the other side. Looking back, I feel strongly that this lawyer intentionally stirred the pot, perhaps even misrepresenting me to them or them to me. I've also heard of another case were this same attorney intentionally made misrepresentations in order to create an ugly legal situation almost out of thin air. Now I'd like to say something to somebody - or just post something online saying "this guy is a horse's ass." However, I have a non-disparagement clause in the settlement which seems like a standard one, saying that I can't disparage the business, including "officers, directors, agents, attorneys," etc. On the one hand, this guy was their attorney at one point in time, so from the wording it would appear that this would cover him. However, he has no public affiliation to the business and my calling him out online wouldn't cast their business in any sort of negative light, and of course he gave me no considerations in the contract. I would think that the other side would never pursue this sort a breach, except for the fact that there is a liquidated damages clause - so in theory, this attorney, who likes to stir things up, could tell them - "hey this guy disparaged your attorney - you win liquidated damages." Is there any sort of clear answer here? Assume for the point of argument that I'm smart enough to disparage him in a way that will never by linked to his former clients. Edit : More specifically, I would like to disparage their attorney for things he has done that are not related to my case. In particular, this guy has been sanctioned by the court for this kind of thing in another case. (Not my case, not pointing back toward me or my adversary.) The point would be to protect other businesses who might be misled into thinking that his services will provide an efficient resolution to similar situations. I should also point out that the Company has their own in-house attorney which would clearly be off-limits for me. There's part of the settlement that says I can't publish information about the settlement "for any reason" so I hesitate to give the text of it (for all I know there could be some unique quirk that may allow them to find me if I do ) - but it appears to be pretty standard - I've seen similar agreements online. Someone asked for the clause so here's one from a different contract that is more-or-less the same. (Both parties) agree that they will not .... directly or indirectly, in any capacity or manner, publicly, by press release or similar public statement to the press, ... make, express, transmit speak, write, verbalize or otherwise communicate in any way (or cause, further, assist, solicit, encourage, support or participate in any of the foregoing), any remark, comment, message, information, declaration, communication or other statement of any kind, whether verbal, in writing, electronically transferred or otherwise, that might reasonably be construed to be derogatory or critical of, or negative toward, Citizen A, Company B or any of its directors, officers, Affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, agents, attorneys or representatives (collectively, the “Company B Representatives”), or that reveals, discloses, incorporates, is based upon, discusses, includes or otherwise involves any confidential or proprietary information of the Company or its subsidiaries or Affiliates, or to malign, harm, disparage, defame or damage the reputation or good name of the Citizen A, Company B, its business or any of the Company B Representatives. Also, it's in the US. I won't be more specific, just in case.

Why on earth would you make statements that may breach a contract you signed and could also be defamatory against a person who a) is a lawyer and b) you know from personal experience will use the law aggressively to get what they want? To make yourself feel better? There are safer ways: skydiving, bungee jumping, climbing Mt Everest etc. Notwithstanding, the person you are talking about is both attorney and agent of the person you signed the non-disparagement agreement with. Disparaging him would be a breach of that agreement.

Is it legal to drive a vehicle with the driver wheel on the opposite side?

A few years ago I was in Belgium for a music show. Given that the singer was famous, people came from other countries, including buses from the UK. Naturally the driver seat on an UK registered bus is on the right side, but when it entered France and then Belgium the driving lane was on the right side (and not in the left, as in UK). It seemed to me very accident-prone to drive on the wrong side of the road, but there were a lot of buses and also smaller vehicles. My question is: was any traffic law infringed? Is it legal to drive a vehicle with the driver seat on the opposite side? I specifficaly mentioned France and Belgium, but I would be interested as well in other countries where this type of situation might happen due to proximity with neighbouring countries where the drive lane is on the opposite side.

People can take their personal cars through the Channel Tunnel from Great Britain to France. They don't actually drive their cars through the tunnel, but going by car is a perfectly normal way to travel between those two countries. That's probably the most well-known place where drivers will switch from driving on one side of the road to the other, but there are many more . If driving with a car with the wheel on the "wrong" side were forbidden, these options would not exist, because at least one direction of travel would not work. Now, of course, that doesn't mean a country like Belgium, which does not have to direct way to Britain, couldn't forbid cars with the steering wheel on the right. But at least for EU states, that seems to be forbidden, as Poland and Lithuania learned when they tried to require cars that were to be registered there to have the steering wheel repositioned to the left Consequently, the Court holds that the position of the driver’s seat, an integral part of the steering equipment of a vehicle, comes within the harmonisation established by Directives 2007/46 and 70/311, so that, in the context of the registration of a new vehicle in their territory, the Member States may not require, for reasons of safety, that the driver’s seat of that vehicle be moved to the side opposite the direction of the traffic. It notes in that regard that the legislation at issue provides for exceptions with regard to the use of vehicles equipped with a steering-wheel on the right by people who reside in other Member States, and travel to Poland and Lithuania for a limited period (for example, tourists). That fact shows, according to the Court, that the contested legislation tolerates the risk involved in such use. So even those countries that tried to ensure that registered cars had the steering wheel on the "right" side made provisions for cars that were just traveling through. And the EU does not consider it a valid law to require wheels to be repositioned.

Same domain name as an old site

A few years ago I was looking for a domain name to use for my website. After trying a couple hundred names I eventually found one that wasn't taken. I did a quick google to make sure the name wasn't trademarked or tied to any businesses. Not long ago I found a post on a forum from almost 10 years ago where the person posted a link to their hobby website which happened to have the same domain name. Am I in the wrong, or could face any legal action from any earnings made form the website?

Your question lacks some details. So you registered a domain name, and later find someone else used that domain name (in the past) for a hobby website? Then no, you don't need to worry about it. If that person has a current trademark on the name used in the domain name, and your website provides/sells products or services in the same area, then you could have a problem. But that doesn't sound like it's the issue.

What's the purpose of large judgments against a defendant that clearly can't pay?

A few years ago I was on the jury of a civil trial wherein we ruled that the defendant should pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff. They were found guilty in the criminal trial and were not present at the civil trial. The defendant was not rich and likely had no way to pay anywhere close to the requested amount of money. What happens in that situation? And additionally, in a case where the jury has assessed that the damages caused by the defendant are worth millions of dollars, but they clearly have no way to pay it, what is the purpose of specifying an amount that big? I can provide more details if necessary.

When the matter is final (no more appeals), the winner in the suit will request a writ of execution to collect whatever is owed. This may involve seizing a person's cash, car and so on. There are limits to what can be seized (some things are exempt by law), for example they can't outright seize a person's home. However, they can put a lien on it, meaning that when the house is sold, the proceeds go to the winner. There are various limits on what can be taken, for example Social Security benefits, welfare, child support – the details are largely determined by state law. There is also a process where the loser's wages can be garnished (there are federal and state limits on how much can be taken). Ultimately, it may not be possible to collect everything. However, today's lack of funds does not necessarily mean permanent lack of funds. A judgment will be valid for a long time and may be renewed. The reason for liability for damages comes down to basic justice. If you harm a person to some extent, you should compensate them accordingly for the wrong that you have done to them. The job of the jury is to determine two factual questions: (1) did the defendant wrongfully harm the plaintiff, and (2) what is the extent of harm. The ability of a defendant to pay such an amount does not affect the answer to those two questions, so inability to pay is legally irrelevant. how much harm was done

If a software concept is discussed on the job, does the software company own the concept?

A few years ago I worked for a software company and we discussed several hundred different ideas for software, but never did any kind of testing or prototyping, we simply discussed the ideas. In other words, there's no identifiable embodiment of any of the ideas. I left the company years ago and would like to build one of the ideas that we discussed while I worked there. Am I prohibited from building the idea on my own because the idea was conceived while I worked there? I'm sure I signed some kind of NDA when I was hired.

This is an Australian perspective; other jurisdictions will differ. Patent The only IP protection for ideas is if they are patented; embodying the ideas in a tangible form is a pre-requisite for acquiring a patent. You can check if this idea has been patented because if it has then it is a matter of public record. Confidential Information However, there is another method of protecting ideas; keeping them secret. It is highly likely that the information that you gained as an employee is confidential. You say you signed a non-disclosure agreement; you will be bound by whatever that says. Even if you hadn't, confidentiality is an implied term of any employment contract ; an explicit term can reduce its coverage or make explicit what is and is not confidential. For breach of confidence to be established: The information must be confidential (it probably is); The circumstances of the disclosure to you are such that you know or should know it is confidential (they probably were); Your disclosure of the information must be unauthorised (it probably is) and to the detriment of the company (if you make money off it then they could have and that is to their detriment) and you do not have a public interest defence (you don't). Remedies include: An injunction to restrain disclosure; An accounting of profits (i.e. what you make, they take); An order for delivery up or destruction; an order for seizing evidence. There is no statutory limit on how long you must maintain the confidence; presumably until disclosure will not cause detriment. Solutions Ask for authorisation: "Remember that idea we discussed years ago? If you are not doing anything with it do you mind if I have a go?" You may get a simple "Sure, go ahead." in which case document it (send them an email confirming your conversation) or you may get a "No" (that's the risk with this option) or you may get pages and pages of license agreement (deal with that on its merits). Do it anyway - they may not sue, if they do they will have a hard time proving that you are using their ideas in the absence of contemporaneous evidence.

Is it legal to ride in the open bed of a pickup truck?

A few years ago a police officer told me it’s not legal for me to ride in the bed of a pickup truck (this is in Michigan and I was well over 18 years old). He “let it go” because it was a short ride to football game. Section 257.682b of the Michigan Vehicle Code says the following: (1) Except as provided in this section, an operator shall not permit a person less than 18 years of age to ride in the open bed of a pickup truck on a highway, road, or street in a city, village, or township at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour. It seems that this would imply that riding on public roads in the bed of a pickup truck is legal except when the person is under 18, AND the vehicle is moving faster than 15 mph. Is it safe to assume that it’s otherwise legal?

My first thought was that you might be violating Michigan's seat belt law . However, the law actually appears to be fairly lax. For example, one section says: (5) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3)(b), each operator of a motor vehicle transporting a child 4 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age in a motor vehicle shall secure the child in a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt and seated as required under this section. If the motor vehicle is transporting more children than there are safety belts available for use, all safety belts available in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, and the operator and all front seat passengers comply with subsection (3), the operator of a motor vehicle transporting a child 8 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age for which there is not an available safety belt is in compliance with this subsection if that child is seated in other than the front seat of the motor vehicle. However, if that motor vehicle is a pickup truck without an extended cab or jump seats, and all safety belts in the front seat are being used, the operator may transport the child in the front seat without a safety belt. So, transporting a child under 16 in an open truck bed, even at less than 15 MPH, would appear to violate Michigan's seat belt law - UNLESS all seat belts in the truck are being used and the child isn't so young as to need a booster seat, in which case it appears to be OK. (At least under these laws - it's possible some other law covers this, but if that's the case I couldn't find it.)

Does a voluntary release form with two signers which uses the wording of I instead of we release one if they do not sign?

A few years ago a woman I was dating asked me to cosign on a loan for a vehicle. I did so, and all was fine for 2 years. Then after a bad breakup, she stopped making payments. The bank sent out a notice of voluntary surrender to both her and myself to be signed and sent back. I personally did not sign the form as one of the lines in the paper said "If the property does not sell for the total amount owed, I will be responsible for the unpaid amount." As I took this to mean that I alone would have to pay this back. (Nowhere in the letter did it state that there were cosigners or two parties involved) She, on the other hand, did sign the paper that was sent to her and return it to the bank. Several months later I have received word that I, as well as her, are being sued for the rest of the amount owed on the vehicle after the sale, which comes to a total of $4800. As I have not signed the release and she did, is she responsible for the amount owed? I have not only the original letter, but also the emails from the bank about the release and a recording of the bank manager telling me that she signed the form and I did not (I'm in Missouri, where one party can record their conversations.)

There is no significance to using the words "I" or "we", nor does it matter that you didn't sign the surrender paper (after al, you did not have possession of the vehicle and it is not yours to surrender). You will have gotten a notice, at the beginning of this process (when the loan was taken out) that provides information like this , in particular The creditor can collect this debt from you without first trying to collect from the borrower. The creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower, including suing you or garnishing your wages. If this debt is ever in default, that fact may become a part of your credit record. When you are a loan co-signer, that means the creditor can go after you and you alone to get the money. Since it seems the creditors are pursuing you both, that beats the alternative that you have to sue her to get anything. Since there is no question that money is owed, the point of the trial is to decide who pays it: it will be one or both of you, and it won't be that the bank has to take a loss. Your attorney's job is to argue that it should not be you (her attorney's job is to argue that it should be you). Your concern should be that it's too difficult to get the money from her, and easy to get the money from you, which is why you need to hire a good attorney.

Are trivial user interface concepts patentable and can they be used?

A few years ago there were some news headlines about that Microsoft is getting royalty fee from Android phones manufactures, because of some Android user interface basic concepts, that were patented by Microsoft. Unfortunately, none of them explain exactly which specific UI elements or concepts was the reason: Why Microsoft Makes $5 to $15 From Every Android Device Sold Currently, I am developing my own UI library for Windows . My library provides mechanisms for Windows-developers to create beautiful GUI programs, and I want to sell it in the future. The main advantage of my UI library is that it does not use any of the standard Windows controls, because I am rewriting it on my own. Although most of UI controls are initially "clean" and need to be set up, customized, some controls already have predefined behavior and the way it displayed, for example - text input field. When developer creates it, it already has an ability to select text via mouse, move caret using keyboard. The fact that is worrying me, is that logic, that experience exists in existing controls. Stuff like caret, selecting text using a mouse, scrollbars, etc. But in the other hand I am going to distribute it only for Windows. Can those be patented by Microsoft or someone else? Can Microsoft suing me, if I will sell GUI library that imitating their patented conceptions only for Windows platform? Update I am asking specifically about text selection using mouse.

Trivial is hard to judge after the fact due to hindsight bias. Once you know the answer to a riddle it seems obvious but you couldn’t figure it out without already knowing it. The criteria for get a patent in the US does not include the word or concept “trivial”. It does include non-obviousness. To reduce hindsight bias an examiner needs to follow a process of identifying all sub- components of an invention in the prior art and then making a good argument as to how someone of ordinary skill in the field would be motivated to put them together. Also there is no measure of improvement over past technology required for a patent. A trivial improvement in cost or performance is fine. Actually no objective improvement is required at all. An existing solution might work as well or better than your invention. That means probably no one will buy it but if it is novel and not obvious one can get a patent.

Can Polaroid force me to remove my app from the store?

A few years ago, I create a simple app that allowed the user to create fake instant camera photos on their smartphone. A few month ago, I received an email from Polaroid stating that my app had to be removed from the store, because they own a trademarks for the "Polaroid Classic Border Logo". To avoid having problems, I removed the app from the store, but now I'm wondering: is this normal?

If there is a trade mark and if Polaroid owns it and if you infringed it then yes they can force you to remove it. In addition, they could sue you for either damages (i.e. what they lost because of your infringement) or an account of profits (i.e. what you made because of your infringement). That is what trade mark law is for ! If the trade mark is registered then this is trivially easy for them to demonstrate. If it is unregistered then it becomes a question of if the mark is clearly recognisable as Polaroid's; IMO they could probably show that it is - those particular border dimensions were distinctive of Polaroid instant cameras for many years. If you want to republish the app, you could probably avoid trade mark issues by allowing users to set the dimensions of the photograph and border, the colour of the border and the location of the caption.

Can I sell my study guide?

A few years ago, I made a science study guide for a specific chapter of a textbook for some people I was tutoring. I would like to sell it now, but unfortunately I used a ton of separate sources from the internet and from separate textbooks. I also used a few diagrams from the internet. If I specify that I only wish to be paid for the time that it took to set up the study guide, can I sell it as long as I don't claim to have made the material? Or can I claim the purchase as a donation to keep my blog going?

I will assume that the study guide copies significant amounts of the original text book, other text books, and online sources, since your concern is copyright. All copying requires permission, which seems to be lacking; the question of "claiming to have made the material" is about plagiarism, which is not a legal matter. The only path for copying without permission is via fair use . One of the significant factors governing fair use is the free / paid distinction: if you get paid, as you propose, that counts against fair use. The work probably fares well in terms of "transformativeness", but not so well in terms of substantiality. It probably also fair better in terms of "nature of the original", which is science and not art, except that images are strong permission-triggers (the publishing rule is pretty much that all images require permission).

The legally blind vs medical intake forms

A fiercely independent, elderly, and legally blind woman walks into a doctor's office. Since she can’t read the intake forms, she requests the staff help her fill them out. Rather then help her, the staff instead let her see the doctor without them and send the blank forms home with her. The next visit the forms are still not filled out. The office staff express annoyance but still let her see the doctor and again send the blank forms home. They still refuse to help her fill them out. After this happens a third time, the staff has had enough and refuse to allow her to make any more appointments. Is the office required to accommodate this legally blind woman without forcing her to use her friends and/or family as interpreters (thus exposing her private medical information to them)?

Under SubChapter III, section 12181. paragraph (7) (F) of the Americans With Disabilities act (ADA), a "professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;" is a public accommodation. Section 12182 (a) provides that: No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. Section 12182 (b) (1) (A) provides that: (i) Denial of participation It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. (ii) Participation in unequal benefit It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. Section 12182 (b) (1) (D) provides that: (D) Administrative methods An individual or entity shall not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize standards or criteria or methods of administration (i) that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability Section 12182 (b) (2) (A) provides that: For purposes of subsection (a) of this section, discrimination includes: ... (ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations; (iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden; It would seem that failure of the people in the office to give assistance would constitute a violation of Section 12182 (b) (2) (A) (iii) and that giving such assitance would be required as a reasonable modification under Section 12182 (b) (2) (A) (ii). Section Section 12182 (a) and Section 12182 (b) (1) (A) would also seem to apply. Filing an actual suit under the ADA would be a possibly costly and time consuming solution, however. It would probably require a lawyer knowledgeable in DA practice. Possibly merely pointing out to the office staff that such assistance is needed, or if that does not work that the ADA requires such assistance would suffice. As a different possible solution, many (but not all) legally blind people are able to read printed materiel and fill out forms with the help of an assistive device, such as a light-and-magnifier system. Some years ago I helped a legally blind friend obtain such a system, and she found it very useful.

Can you legally move a dead body to preserve it as evidence?

A fisherman is heading upstream in his boat, and sees a human corpse float past. Obviously even if it wasn't murder, it still warrants a 911 call because it was a death. The river however, is steadily moving the body away. Can the fisherman move the body and avoid legal jeopardy because the intent was to preserve it as evidence? You can make other scenarios I'm sure, but I chose this one as an example. Basically, the concept here is that doing nothing will possibly result in the total destruction of the body/evidence.

In this specific scenario, not only is it not a crime, failure to do so is a breach of proper maritime protocols and could be illegal. A person manning a boat and sees a human in water in distress should immediately go to the rescue or recovery of the victim. This is commonly started by the crewman of the vessel who spots the body shouting "Man overboard" once... which triggers every crewman on the deck to also shout the same thing exactly once regardless of if they can see the man who is overboard (The idea is that the call is so all crew on the deck are not announcing the sighting but responding that they know there's an emergency situation in progress... and to muster to the appropriate situations). The boat's helmsman or pilot will then proceed to maneuver to recover the body in the water and bring it onboard the boat, (if traveling by sail, to then as soon as possible transfer to a motor powered vessel or to land which ever is quicker). Additionally, should the boat have radio communication, the situation should trigger a mayday communication which will alert other vessels, regardless of purpose and local emergency services to the situation, with GPS tracking aiding all responders. Typically while underway at sea or in large bodies of water, all operators of watercraft are required to respond, regardless of actual purpose on the water (recall the famous "Miracle on the Hudson" incident where New York Ferry Operators were the actual first responders to get ALL passengers and crew off the crashed plane to land, where EMS and police services were waiting to deal with the survivors). Most boating licenses these days require a basic understanding of duties with maritime safety and if you come upon a situation while underway, you are a first responder automatically. Remove the question of water and say that there is person who you are unsure of if they are alive or dead on dry land. Under law, you cannot be held liable for anything you do in the course of saving a life so long as you are acting within your competency to do so, and do not take actions you are not licensed to do as part of training, oversight, and regulations dictate, you cannot be sued for medical injuries inflicted on someone in the course of saving their life (called "Life over Limb"... that if the only way to save an unconscious person from death is to amputate a limb, you're not liable for cutting off the limb in question, so long as you are trained to do this. To a lesser extreme example, if CPR is performed right, you will break the victims ribs... since it's a question of keeping the person alive, the temporary pain and handicap of broken ribs is seen as acceptable). As a lifeguard (for pools, I wasn't certified for "wilderness lifeguarding" but the differences in this respect were minimum) your first thing to do when getting in the water to fish out a swimmer in distress was to get them back to the pool deck before life efforts could occur (there are a few times where you had to start the life saving efforts in water, but I can count them on one hand, and one of those incidents was only after confirming your victim was conscious and even then you still were moving to get them out of the water asap... it's just asap would be a little bit longer. We also weren't trained to pronounce death. If it was so serious that CPR starts, you do not stop unless another guard or EMS relieve you.). In these situations, there is proper evidence gathering procedures that will be used to establish what happened. For example, the first responders will be fingerprinted and prints in the areas touched for life saving efforts will be noted as part of the evidence. Additionally, paramedics, EMS and first responders will often alert police to any items of note they saw around the victim that were disturbed in the process of life saving efforts. The police may collect evidence from you to rule you out as a suspect (by showing the evidence on the body was consistent with applied life saving techniques) and to identify evidence not related to you at all (a pink fiber on the body that doesn't match any of your clothes means the body came into contact with the fibers from another source). This also establishes "Chain of Custody" when you call the body in and stay with it and allow minimum contact with it (many larger ships will store the body in a locked room to keep crew and passenger contact to a minimum). Either way, so long as you tell the police everything you did in rescue and recovery, this isn't tampering with evidence on the face of it. If something that is inconsistent with your story comes up, it's not necessarily incriminating either... in the heat of the moment in a rescue and recovery effort, tunnel vision can form and you aren't expect to recall everything you did. Police should know this and understand that you were cooperating in what for most of the world is an unusual situation.

UK - Joint Tenancy - Renewal/Replacement Tenant Fee

A fixed-term 6 month joint AST agreement ends in April 2020. The agreement had three tenants listed on it. One tenant is leaving (former tenant) two are remaining. The former tenant notified the Letting Agent 2 months prior to the tenancy agreement ending that they would be leaving the property. The two remaining tenants have found a replacement tenant and notified the Letting Agent that they had found a replacement tenant. The Letting Agent has requested the new tenant pay a "Tenant Replacement Fee". The new tenant queried this as the Tenant Fee Act 2019 permits letting agents to charge up to £50 for a "variation, assignment or novation of a tenancy", however as the agreement ends prior to them moving in, they feel that this does not apply and that it is classed as a tenancy renewal. The Letting Agent says they can charge thebfee regardless of the tenancy ending as the former tenant is being replaced. Under the Tenant Fee Act 2019 a Letting Agent can not charge fees for setting up nor renewing contracts. Is the tenant or the Letting Agent correct? Is a Letting Agent permitted to charge a "Tenant Replacement Fee" at the start of a new contract?

In my non-expert opinion, I believe the letting agent is correct. As far as I can tell, a renewal is limited to making a new tenancy agreement with the same tenants. From Shelter's website : Changing or assigning your tenancy You can be charged £50 if you want to change a term in your tenancy or assign it to someone else . The landlord can only charge above this if they can prove it cost them more. I've been unable to find a clear definition of the term "renew", either in legislation or in the official guidance. However, it appears to be consistent with the definition of "replacement tenancy" in section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (as amended): (7) For the purposes of this section, a replacement tenancy is a tenancy— (a) which comes into being on the coming to an end of an assured shorthold tenancy, and (b) under which, on its coming into being— (i) the landlord and tenant are the same as under the earlier tenancy as at its coming to an end, and (ii) the premises let are the same or substantially the same as those let under the earlier tenancy as at that time. So as with the implied definition of "renewal", a change of tenant results in a new tenancy, not a replacement of the old one.

Do NDAs apply to all future interactions between the two parties or just the next one?

A follow up to the question is an NDA binding for sex worker or escorts? If someone hired an escort (or sex worker) and had her sign an NDA stating that she will not divulge their relationship, and that the client had hired her as an escort, would such an NDA need to be signed before each encounter or just the first one? Basically I'm asking what is the perpetuity of when an NDA applies to confidential information. For example you normally sign an NDA once for an employer at the start, but I guess with an escort it might be considered separate encounters each time.

Depends on the NDA Just like any other contract, it does what it says it does. You could draft the NDA either way.

Environment Not Safe for Police to Enter

A follow-up to Can I booby-trap my property against police? , Let us suppose I have some property that I didn't booby trap, but is natural dangerous (say, old mine), and I decided that inside the dangerous areas would be a good place to hide things that I don't want found. But I never bothered to secure the area to make any reasonably safe entrance. I just think that I'm light enough to walk across rotted boards over deep pits. And, dutiful citizen that I am I keep the entrance locked up, with a warning sign just beyond that reads "Hazardous Environment, Do not Enter". I have done nothing to further the danger, but also nothing to remove it. Have I done enough, or am I liable for the consequences of the police forcing their way through and encountering the danger? Hypothetical question only, I have no such land.

In Connecticut, this is covered by the firefighter's rule . Police and fire personnel entering a property as part of their official duties are considered licensees, which limits the duties of the landowner. The rules are as follows: You can't intentionally hurt or lay a trap for the licensee. If you know or should know the licensee is there, you need to exercise due care with them. You don't have to worry about obvious hazards (but keep in mind that it's harder to see stuff at night). If you're doing something dangerous, you need to watch out for them. If you know about a hidden hazard, you must warn them. I'm not sure how in-depth you need to go with the warnings; various things I find suggest the duty to warn might only be there when you know or should know the licensee is present, but signs are a good idea regardless. On the other hand, if you do need to warn them, you might need to mention the specific locations of the pits you actually know about. However, there's no duty at all to proactively look for possible hazards. This rule originated as a rule for professional firefighters responding to a negligently-started fire: the idea is that professional firefighters sign up to do a dangerous job, and letting them sue for hazards inherent in their job (they aren't called without a fire) is a bad idea. Also, since they cannot be denied entry, go in places not open to the public, and can arrive at any hour, needing to keep the property safe for them is an unreasonable burden. Of course, there's an exception if a law is passed to protect their safety, because statutes override common law. The rule has since been extended in some states to police, and to situations besides the very problem they were called for. Other states have abolished it. In any event, this is for civil liability only: this is when cops can sue for injuries caused to them.

What are the parameters of ingredients which may be legally listed as natural flavourings in the UK?

A food product supplier has said: Flavours are sold and marketed as natural if they are derived from the actual source. We use vanilla and chocolate flavours extracted from vanilla pods and cocoa beans. Is this legally correct?

What are the parameters of ingredients which may be legally listed as natural flavourings in the UK? The use of the word "natural" on food labelling falls within Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 , as amended by the Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Article 16 Specific requirements for use of the term ‘natural’ 1.If the term ‘natural’ is used to describe a flavouring in the sales description referred to in Article 15(1)(a) the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article shall apply. 2.The term ‘natural’ for the description of a flavouring may only be used if the flavouring component comprises only flavouring preparations and/or natural flavouring substances. 3.The term ‘natural flavouring substance(s)’ may only be used for flavourings in which the flavouring component contains exclusively natural flavouring substances. 4.The term ‘natural’ may only be used in combination with a reference to a food, food category or a vegetable or animal flavouring source if the flavouring component has been obtained exclusively or by at least 95 % by w/w from the source material referred to. The description shall read ‘natural “food(s) or food category or source(s)” flavouring’. 5.The term ‘natural “food(s) or food category or source(s)” flavouring with other natural flavourings’ may only be used if the flavouring component is partially derived from the source material referred to, the flavour of which can easily be recognised. 6.The term ‘natural flavouring’ may only be used if the flavouring component is derived from different source materials and where a reference to the source materials would not reflect their flavour or taste. For the use of the word "flavouring" see: Article 15 General labelling requirements... 1... packaging or containers shall bear the following information: (a) the sales description: either the word ‘flavouring’ or a more specific name or description of the flavouring; Note that although Article 15 is for the General labelling requirements for flavourings not intended for sale to the final consumer , those that are intended for sale to the final consumer are to be included specifically when the word "natural" is used by virtue of: Article 17 Labelling of flavourings intended for sale to the final consumer ... If the term ‘natural’ is used to describe a flavouring in the sales description referred to in Article 15(1)(a), Article 16 shall apply

Is Crypto the same as any foreign currency?

A foreign currency exchange is nothing new. On the other hand cryptographic currency ("crypto" i.e. Bitcoin) is relatively new, as are their exchanges. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/sec-brings-charges-cryptocurrency-trading-platform-coinbase-99866462 If crypto is a currency, Why not regulate it as a currency and not a security?

Is Crypto the same as any foreign currency? No. Crypto is generally treated as a commodity and capital asset, like gold, and not like a currency, under U.S. tax law. Other jurisdictions vary in how they treat cryptocurrency legally and for tax purposes. Bitcoin (unlike other cryptocurrencies) is also regulated on a non-tax basis as a commodity by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Other cryptocurrencies are regulated in the U.S. as securities by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Why not regulate it as a currency and not a security? Cyptocurrencies are not very much like currencies which is why they are not regulated in that way. The basis for treating it more like a security and less like a foreign currency for securities fraud/disclosure purposes is that it is a better fit to securities law which is designed for more varied legal arrangements than foreign currency laws. Foreign currencies are backed by the full faith and credit of sovereign countries (which are non-profit entities). Also, foreign currencies are transparently based upon laws that are almost always a matter of public record and relatively straightforward. And, of course, banks and money changing firms trading in foreign currencies are subject to significant tax and financial regulation of their own, although not as securities. In contrast, like other securities, cryptocurrencies are private creatures of contract created by entities with shareholders which do not have uniform legal properties. New "coins" can be created in different ways in different crypto currencies, and the relationship between the cryptocurrency to the non-crypto financial markets varies. Securities-like disclosures are necessary for members of the public dealing with it to understand the risks, benefits, and mechanics of the cryptocurrency in question. The U.S. Securities And Exchange position and its basis is suggested by the ABC News story linked in the question , which states: Coinbase has been targeted by U.S. regulators in a new lawsuit Tuesday that alleges the cryptocurrency platform is operating as an unregistered securities platform and brokerage service. The lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission comes only a day after it filed charges against Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange, and its founder Changpeng Zhao are accused of misusing investor funds, operating as an unregistered exchange and violating a slew of U.S. securities laws. Coinbase shares plunged nearly 15% early Tuesday. In its complaint, the SEC said Coinbase made billions acting as the middle man for cryptocurrency buyers and sellers but did not give investors lawful protections while acting as a broker. “Coinbase has for years defied the regulatory structures and evaded the disclosure requirements that Congress and the SEC have constructed for the protection of the national securities markets and investors,” the SEC said in its complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus interest, penalties, and other equitable relief.

Why is Uhlfelder allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit?

A former Florida Supreme Court justice has lined up in support of a Santa Rosa Beach attorney who’s the focus of investigations after he dressed up as the Grim Reaper and sued Gov. Ron DeSantis for refusing to shut down state beaches last year amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Daniel Uhlfelder garnered national headlines for donning the costume to criticize DeSantis’ handling of the pandemic. As COVID-19 cases surged throughout the state in March 2020, Uhlfelder filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order the governor to close beaches and issue a “safer-at-home” order to curb the spread of the virus. Leon County Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll in April 2020 found that he lacked the authority to force the governor to shut down beaches and dismissed the case but encouraged Uhlfelder to pursue an appeal. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-grim-reaper-florida-legal-fight-20210913-vekdyjfec5bojcyvgtkpemazsa-story.html https://outline.com/FW6VSq Why is Uhlfelder allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit? He ordered the governor to close beaches and issue an order to curb the spread of the virus, but he has absolutely no authority to do so, so how come he's allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit that was rejected and likely is to be rejected again. Is there something I am missing?

how come he's allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit that was rejected and likely is to be rejected again The fact that a claim is most likely to fail in upper courts does not mean it is frivolous. Interestingly, the second link you provide reflects that the judge who dismissed the case encouraged Uhlfelder to pursue an appeal. This is at odds with Lewis's import that the lawsuit was ruled as frivolous. Maybe it is the appellate court which might have called the claim frivolous. Without knowing the arguments at issue it is hard to get an idea of what happened, more so where the last two paragraphs of that article insinuate political motives. The journalist(s) could (and should) have done a better job by giving at least a bare glimpse of the main legal arguments. That being said, the top court of other countries have been issuing various rulings in the sense that some measures under pretext of the "pandemic" are in violation of that country's constitutional law. One example that would contravene Uhlfelder's type of claim is STC 148/2021, de 14 de julio , FJ 5 (paragraph starting with " Tal restricción aparece [...] "), where the Constitutional Tribunal of Spain held that it was unlawful for the government to de facto suppress during its decreed "state of alarm" the freedom of movement . The tribunal pointed out that the restrictions impermissibly amounted to a generalized suspension a radice of that fundamental right. It is impermissible because it exceeds the limitations of the legal tool known under Spanish law as "state of alarm". Likewise, Uhlfelder's purpose of shutting down public areas (i.e., the state beaches) sounds in impairing the people's freedom of movement.

A witness (former gov't agent) knows top secret USA information. Can a court compel them to reveal the informaton?

A former US federal government employee knows information that was classified as top secret by the federal government. This information is relevant to a case. They were called to testify before the court. This person is not a defendant. I believe the 5th amendment would be a valid defense since the witness would be violating the Espionage Act, but claiming the 5th on the witness bench would probably ruin the witness' credibility before the jury. Therefore, we may safely exclude "pleading the 5th" on the answers. Can a court compel the witness to disclose the information? Is there any lawful recourse for the witness (to keep confidentiality) other than the 5th amendment ?

The court should not compel the witness to disclose the information because there is a state secrets privilege which bars disclosure of governmental secrets in litigation. An interlocutory appeal of some sort would generally be permitted in cases where the privilege is not honored, and typically, the federal government would become an intervenor in the litigation with respect to that issue. Not infrequently, the state secrets privilege will prevent a matter from being litigated at all, rather than merely preventing the admission of evidence, or requiring that the matter be resolved in a sealed secret bench trial. For example, spies cannot sue the government for not being paid for spying as a result of the state secrets privilege. Similarly, someone who suffers a personal injury arising from a covert operation can not sue the government for that injury.

Removal of defamatory online content

A former disgruntled employee wrote some defamatory comments about me two months ago, and listed them on a site which has a very strong ranking on google. The employee made false claims, and derogatory comments that are completely untrue and I contacted the employee about removing the content. The employee apologized and attempted to remove the content, but the site will not remove it, and the website hides behind Communications Decency Act or the “CDA”, 47 U.S.C. § 230 . This employee signed an NDA and breached the NDA when writing their comments about me and the company. What do I do? I would like to sue this employee, but she is overseas. I need a court order to have this site be removed by Google.

The short answer is, get a lawyer. The longer answer is that it is not clear how this works. There is evidence from The Interwebs that one can get a court order to remove defamatory online material such as here . That discussion is centered on facts that don't hold here, e.g. a somewhat cooperative provider or an unknown defamer. It seems that you file an ex parte motion to remove the content and identify the defamer (not sure if that is a required element of the motion). There is a wealth of case law supporting provider immunity. So, it is quite possible that the only remedy is to get the employee to sue the provider forcing them to take down the defamatory material. It would certainly be unjust for a provider to willfully put a customer in permanent legal peril (the threat of being sued). That doesn't mean that it is legally impossible for them to be stubborn.

Can a former employer deduct a "fee" when issuing a check for my new roll-over?

A former employer deducted a "fee" charge when I contacted him to get my 401 funds moved to my new employer's roll-over account. It was 1 year after I was dismissed from his employment. Is it legal for him to deduct this "fee" from my personal funds?

This handbook and FAQ published by the United States Department of Labor describes that "individual service fees" are permitted, including for selling and distributions, if they are described in plan documents. The plain English limitation is described as follows: Keep in mind that the law requires the fees charged to a 401(k) plan be “reasonable” rather than setting a specific level of fees that are permissible. Therefore, the reasonableness of fees must be determined in each case

How to reconcile opposing legal answers?

A fraud in the terms of use has two opposing answers: one said it was a fraud, while some said it was not . How do I reconcile those answers?

Law is more like sport than mathematics You don’t know how it will turn out until you play the game. If a case goes to trial it’s because at both sides believe they can win. Both sides probably have good reasons for their belief. At least one of them is wrong.

Resolving issues with overdue payments for freelance work

A freelance client of mine is months behind in their payments and is requiring digital account access prior to paying. What are my rights? The client doesn't read or respond to emails or phone calls. The client recently appointed a point person for me to discuss these past due payments with. The point person requested more work prior to payment. I declined and offered a payment schedule. The point person responded harshly, dissolving the business relationship and demanding digital web/email account access immediately prior to any payment.

Law SE is not for direct legal advice. You're in the middle of a contract dispute that has turned acrimonious and need to find legal help. Google for free or low cost legal aid in your area. If this "point person" has mentioned a lawyer or made legal threats, you do need legal help.

Just how different is the legal situation in Germany under GDPR compared to previously with respect to running a website?

A frequent statement with respect to making German websites GDPR-compliant is that barely anything has changed in Germany with DSGVO (the German version of GDPR) and the previously applicable national law (BDSG). At the same time, while many aspects of GDPR are still considered unclear or disputed, there seems to be pretty much a consensus in Germany that any website owner 1 whose site is hosted on the server of a 3rd party will have to sign a contract for processing on behalf with the webhoster. 2 This appears the case even if the webhoster merely handles visitors' IP addresses such as for security logging purposes. While I concede companies and people as a whole used to be sloppy about former privacy laws and very late at starting to prepare for GDPR, the requirement for those specific contracts with webhosters are generally implied to be something new. Webhosting companies have started to offer the respective contract templates only recently as a part of their GDPR preparation, and articles point out these contracts as something to take care of to make one's site GDPR-ready, especially including non-commercial fan sites, blogs, and similar. Was there 3 a requirement to have such a contract with one's webhoster for non-commercial/hobbyist websites before GDPR? (If so, was it simply widely ignored, especially on sites hosted abroad, where hosters wouldn't know about (and be unwilling to sign?) such contracts? EDIT: The only thorough essay on the topic I have found so far is a blogpost on CR-online (in German). It specifically addresses the situation of non-commerical and/or small services (coming to the conclusion that from the point of view of these services, the claim that "not much has changed" is a "myth") and points out that the obligations for internal documentation have been considerably extended. However, it does not concretely discuss any particular setups such as "running a website". 1 : Except for websites maintained as a part of a "purely personal or household activity" , but it seems disputed whether any publicly accessible website can meet these criteria at all. 2 : My understanding is that the website owner ensures towards visitors the visitors' personal data will not be used for anything beyond what is stated in the site's privacy note, and the contract for processing on behalf is the website owner's legal handle to also ensure the webhoster does not exceed the boundaries of the privacy policy (or informs the website owner in time so they can update their privacy note). 3 : Either from BDSG itselt, or based upon some EU-wide regulation.

The 2009 edition of BDSG in section 1 describes the BDSG specifically not to apply for computerized data being collected, processed or used exclusively for personal or family activities: Dieses Gesetz gilt für die Erhebung, Verarbeitung und Nutzung personenbezogener Daten durch […] nicht-öffentliche Stellen, soweit sie die Daten unter Einsatz von Datenverarbeitungsanlagen verarbeiten, nutzen oder dafür erheben oder die Daten in oder aus nicht automatisierten Dateien verarbeiten, nutzen oder dafür erheben, es sei denn, die Erhebung, Verarbeitung oder Nutzung der Daten erfolgt ausschließlich für persönliche oder familiäre Tätigkeiten. (BDSG 2009, §1, 2.3) Depending on one's interpretation, there is some overlap between "personal or familiy activities" and "non-commercial/hobbyist", but other than this, German website owners are very likely to be bound to BDSG 2009. Section 11 has been enacted in September 2009 and is named "Erhebung, Verarbeitung oder Nutzung personenbezogener Daten im Auftrag" (Collection, processing or use of personal data on behalf) and describes data storage and processing via a contractor. Drastically shortened and oversimplified: if you're asking someone else to store or process data on your behalf, you're still responsible to enforce data protection of the stored/processed data and you'll need to have a written contract with your contractor to address this topic. This contract should outline how and which data is to be stored/processed, how (technical and organizational means) this data is being protected, that your contractor will notify you for data protection violations by the contractor or their employees and that any data is being deleted when the contract has been finished. Depending on a few circumstances, your current web hosting contract or T&C with your web host may already be sufficient to satisfy both BDSG and GDPR requirements. At least from a German perspective, you and your web host have demonstrated implied conduct ("konkludentes Verhalten") of storing personal data according to BDSG: by offering web site storage, usually access to server log files and some email service as well, a German web host does offer contractor services according to BDSG and are most likely about to store personal information (server logs, email messages). Most web hosts also do describe their infrastructure in detail, so you've also some outline of their technical measures to protect your data. So: if you as a German resident did sign a contract with a German web host company after September 2009, you've both most likely agreed by implication to have that web host company to store, process and use personal data as regulated by BDSG. If your legal advisor does not follow this idea of implied conduct to be "safe enough", your specific contract may be too old to correctly meet BDSG 2009 requirements or you've made your contract with a foreign web host who didn't consider to be possibly impacted by some German law, you may want to have a specific agreement with your web host in order to satisfy BDSG and/or GDPR requirements. Most web hosts are used to inquiries regarding which standards or regulations they are compliant with and how those do relate to one's specific product (for example, a web host may be PCIDSS-compliant to handle credit card information in a safe way, but this won't cover your self-written PHP script running on their shared web hosting server farm. While those confirmations are certainly less than a "written contract", they do give you some idea of how serious the web host does take their job to secure your data. As you've already noticed, web hosts today do offer a free "data processing contract" as an amendment to your existing contract to legally assure how they're storing and processing data. Such a contract usually doesn't imply any obligations to you, but still may be important. Why: according to BDSG and GDPR, you're still responsible regarding your user's data. If your web host experiences a data breach and loses your user's data, your behavior of NOT having a written contract might be seen as "reckless" in a legal dispute. A written contract saves you from that and also offers you the opportunity to file a complaint against your web host for violating that contract in order to redeem for damages. So in summary: BDSG from 1st of September 2009 does already address your specific topics in a very similar way than the GDPR does, asking for a written contract. As the GDPR has been presented in January 2012, the BDSG did already address your specific topic before the GDPR has been enacted or even been presented. The website requirements have to be met by website owners, regardless of where they're hosting their site. If website owners did silently ignore those requirements or implicitely agreed via implied conduct is hard to answer and only known to each website owner. There are also many more, often very specific factors like the age of the contract and the corresponding applicable law. So that part of the question is hard to answer and probably will never come to a profound conclusion.

To what extent can Disney restrict Actively commissioned police officers from carrying firearms on Disney property?

A friend I know told me of an incident where he was approached by several security officers at Disney Springs outdoor shopping area. At the time, he was an active duty police officer that always carried off-duty. Not thinking there would be restrictions in an outdoor shopping area, he carried his off-duty weapon (concealed). He went to a restaurant with his 3 children and sat down to eat. After he sat down, he was approached by, at least, 5 security officers (uniformed and plain clothed). They asked him if he was carrying and told him that he is not allowed to carry his weapon on the property. Embarrassed and upset about the encounter, my friend identified himself and said "yes, I carry.". He was told that he had to store his weapon at there facility and was escorted by the squad to their security office to fill out paperwork and store his weapon. He told me that he never exposed or talked about his weapon at any time before this encounter. Also, he was embarrassed about being treated like a criminal and that he had to leave his children (unsupervised) at the restaurant until he filled out his paperwork and stored his weapon (approx. 40 minutes).

Disney World is a private entity and private property, and they are free to impose and enforce their own security procedures and requirements, and that includes restricting guns. It doesn't matter how Disney security found that the person was carrying, and it doesn't matter if he was a police officer who happened to be off duty. https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/park-rules/ Also see https://thefirearmfirm.com/carrying-a-firearm-at-disney/ Some states do have laws that allow for firearms on private land and in private businesses, but Florida is not one. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3789216

Who's legally responsible for vet bill in pet injury, owner or pet sitter?

A friend agreed to pet-sit my dog, Taishi, while husband and I were away for 3 weeks. To compensate her for doing this, we told her she could live in our apartment and eat any food we had without question and use our TV and our internet as much as she liked without question. She agreed to this arrangement. I never told her not to take the dog on public transit somewhere but it never occurred to me that she would. She decided to take my dog to an off-leash park. While out, she claimed, "After we got off the escalator, I looked down and saw Taishi's paw was bleeding. I don't know how it got that way. I took him to the vet and it cost $XXX dollars. I paid the bill but you need to pay me back." (It was some amount $200 or less. I forget how much exactly.) She informed us of this while we were away and expected me to either find a way to send her the money from China, where we were, or give it to her the week we got back. I tried not to say too much about it because we were away and she still was caring for the dog and I didn't want trouble. When we got back, I refused to pay for the vet bill because I wasn't the one who injured the dog in the first place. I told her that her desire to walk my dog was correct and admirable but there was no requirement to take him to the off leash park nor did I ever instruct her to do so, so his injury was entirely on her. She said it was cheap of me to risk losing a friendship over a mere $XXX and if I really valued the friendship, I'd pay her back. I stuck by my attitude that she put my dog in an injurious situation, since this didn't happen in my own apartment, and thus I didn't owe her repayment. She then told me she borrowed the money from her mother and I need to pay her back so she could pay back her mother. I told her that if she was willing to give me her mother's address, I would write a check for the full amount, payable only to her mother, and include a letter as to why her daughter had borrowed the money in the first place, as I didn't trust this person to have told her mother the truth to the purpose of the borrowed money. She told me in a panicked tone not to do that, to just give her the money and she'd be sure to pay her mother back. I stood firm and said the only way her mother was getting this money was with a direct check in her mother's name only and a letter explaining the reason for this check. She got huffy mad and ended the friendship, making sure to tell people I was a selfish and mean person in the process. I don't regret the loss of the friendship. I explained what happened to other friends and they told me I wasn't a very nice person and that since I own the dog, it's my responsibility to pay for any vet bills he incurs when friends are looking after him. I then asked that if someone was babysitting a human child (under the pretended idea I had one, for illustrative purposes) of mine and the child got injured in their care, would I or the caretaker be responsible? They said that of course the caretaker is responsible but a dog is not a human child and I was comparing apples to oranges so it's not the same. What is correct? If a pet sitter takes your pet somewhere unnecessary and it gets injured, should they be required to foot the vet bill or is it the owner's responsibility for that bill? If you say the owner should be responsible, explain how that's fair when the pet sitter is already being fairly compensated for pet sitting and the pet only got injured because the pet sitter took it someplace that was entirely unnecessary?

You are responsible It is unlikely that the arrangement you had with the sitter amounts to a contract. Even though there was consideration on both sides, at first blush it seems unlikely that both of you intended to create legal relations. See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? Notwithstanding, if there is a contract it is silent on who is responsible to for injury to the pet so it would fall back on the law of negligence anyway. For the sitter to be responsible, she must have been negligent. She wasn't. See Is there liability for pure accidents? Looking at the elements: a duty to the plaintiff , such a aduty probably exists. breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person) , she didn't (see below). the plaintiff must have suffered actual harm , no question that you have. the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of that harm, and that harm was foreseeable , probably it wasn't (see below). Here are the facts: She took the dog on public transport - not unreasonable, many people do. The fact that you wouldn't is irrelevant since you did not communicate this prohibition to the sitter. She took it to an off-leash park - not unreasonable, that's what they are for. She rode an escalator - it is unclear if she carried the dog or expected the dog to ride the escalator itself. The first is clearly reasonable, the second may or may not be depending on the size of the dog etc. She noted the injury and had it treated - eminentely reasonable. So, in general, she has acted as a reasonable person would. It is also far from clear to me how any of the decisions made would result in foreseeable harm to the dog. Remembering that the standard is would a reasonable person foresee that there was a risk of harm barring extraordinary circumstances. By the way, the legal reasoning is exactly the same if you had entrusted her with your child or your car.

Using a celebrities likeness in a small game - what are the legal issues surrounding this?

A friend and I are currently brainstorming ideas for a little game project we have in a few weeks and one of the ideas involves using two currently alive celebrities as the protagonists. The game isn't going to be a AAA title, it is going to be a small game consisting of 8bit graphics. However, we will be modelling the graphics off these two said celebrities and in addition we are also planning on using one of the celebrities names in the title of the game which we would put on the android app store. Another point to add is that we are planning on monetizing the game. It also might be worth a mention that we live in the UK and the celebrities in question live in the U.S.A So given the above - Is it legal to do what we are proposing? And if so are there any 'catches' if you will? I look forward to any and all help! Many thanks! (I did not know what area of law this would fall under, so apologies if I used an incorrect tag)

In the US there is a "right of publicity": you may not use someone's image commercially without obtaining their permission, but the degree of protection varies by state. The UK apparently does not have a "right of publicity" as such , but other IP and trade rules have been invoked in preventing some uses. Using the names of the celebrities in the title of the game could be a problem because it could be argued that it creates the impression of an endorsement. The submission rules for the Android Store appear to explicitly forbid using somebody else's name : Don't use another app's branding— Don’t use another product, person, or company name in your app title or description if you have not been given express permission to do so, as this may give the impression that your app is officially sponsored when it is not.

Naming a game studio similar to an existing game

A friend and I are planning to start a game studio together. We planned to name it “Delta-v Games”. However, while looking into the name we noticed a game with the name “Delta-v” released in 1994 by Bethesda Softworks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_V_(video_game) . Delta-v is an old game. Related; when Mojang (Creators of Minecraft) wanted to name there new game "Scrolls", Bethesda Softworks argued they could not do that because they had a game named "Elder Scrolls". Mojang was a big name and company at that point and this was both names of games that conflicted. Ours are the name of the production studio. Could this become an issue? Our company is probably never gong to be over 10 people, or even 5. But maybe that does not matter and we should not take the risk?

Yes, this could become an issue Trademark infringement occurs when you use another’s trademark in a way that could cause confusion to the consumer. Is it possible that people will be confused that your company produced a game of the same name? Yes. Is that trademark infringement? Possibly. Would a company like Bethesda take you to court to find out? Possibly. Can you avoid this risk by choosing a different name? Yes. Does this cost anything? No, as a new business your ‘brand’ has zero value right now. Should you choose a new name? Well, it’s your business - make a business decision.

Using a franchise images in my own website

A friend and I want to develop a website related to IT, where we could get hired, however we both like Digimon and we got the idea of using some of the characters images in our website such as the background and those kind of things just to provide some "personality" to what we like. The question here is, is it legal to do this? We won't be earning money while selling / using the characters in our software, only as a visual presentation in the website. I checked Toei Animation contact page where it says: We do not grant individuals permission to use any character images. I checked there because I wanted to ask them this same question, however that makes me think it's impossible to get their permission to use their characters in our website and thus it would be illegal to use them. For Bandai terms & conditions page they say that Digimon Intellectual Property Rights belong to: Digimon: © Akiyoshi Hongo • Toei Animation. TM Licensed by SCG Characters LLC. We don't want to get into troubles while using those images but we would really like to use them if possible, is there any way we could also get written permission to use the characters in our website?

It's almost certainly illegal. The creators/owners of those characters have copyright and trademark rights that allow them to use the images exclusively or to decide who else may use them. The exact extent of those rights varies by jurisdiction, but the use you're describing -- as part of a marketing scheme for commercial profit -- is generally going to be impermissible without permission. If you can get written permission from the owners, you should be fine, but it seems unlikely that they will grant that permission.

Verbal contract involving illegal act: was a law broken?

A friend and I were discussing a hypothetical situation (taking place in the U.S.). It seems like one party has committed a misdeed, but we were not able to identify the specific crime or tort that took place. Here is the situation. Alice and Bob make a deal. Alice pays Bob now, and Bob agrees that by tomorrow, he will acquire or create a controlled substance and deliver it to Alice. But before tomorrow, Bob changes his mind and backs out of the deal. He keeps the money Alice gave him. What crime(s) or tort(s) has Bob committed in this situation? Our naive legal analysis: Bob did not commit fraud because he entered into the verbal contract with Alice in good faith. Bob is not guilty of breach of contract, because a contract requiring an illegal act is unenforceable. Bob never possessed or distributed a controlled substance. Possibly this is a conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. But at a criminal trial, it might very hard to prove that Bob ever intended to provide a controlled substance, rather than just to cheat Alice out of money.

What Crimes Were Committed? The acts would constitute solicitation to manufacturer a controlled substance by Alice, attempted manufacture of a controlled substance by Bob, and conspiracy to commit a controlled substance by both of them. All of these are serious felony offenses. The payment of money by Alice and acceptance of money by Bob to carry out the production of a controlled substance would be a sufficient overt act to support the charges of solicitation, conspiracy and attempt, even though the crime was not carried out. All of these offenses are what are known in the criminal law as " inchoate offenses ". Affirmative Defenses Would Bob or Alice have any affirmative defenses if prosecuted for these crimes? The two main offenses are impossibility and abandonment. We can assume, given Bob's good faith, that it was not impossible for him to manufacture the controlled substances, but he simply decided not to do it. A defendant may plead and prove, as an affirmative defense, of abandonment (typically under typical U.S. criminal statutes) by showing that he: Stopped all actions in furtherance of the crime or conspiracy Tried to stop the crime as it was ongoing Tried to convince the co-conspirators to halt such actions, or reported the crime to the police or other authorities. Bob did shop all actions in furtherance of the crime and tried (successfully) to stop the crime as it was ongoing. But, by not returning the funds and not making clear to Alice that he wanted nothing to do with the plan, Bob may not have met the third prong of an abandonment defense. Alice certainly does not have an abandonment defense. She took no overt acts abandoning the plan. Civil And Criminal Liability For Non-Drug Offenses Also, Bob might have criminal liability for theft, and civil liability to Alice on charges of civil theft or on a claim for restitution. First, a small technicality. Bob did breach a verbal contract. He has an affirmative defense of illegality to civil liability for breaching the verbal contract, but that doesn't change the fact that he did breach the contract. Anyway, while a contract to carry out an illegal act is unenforceable, and Bob would have no right to sue Alice in court if he performed the contract and then Alice failed to pay, it is less clear in this fact pattern where the illegality that bars the contract doesn't actually happen. Retaining property obtained on the basis of a contract that is disavowed that is not carried out, or when the funds are obtained on the basis of a criminal act, might constitute theft for which there might be criminal and civil penalties available, even though it was not fraud. Restitution to put the parties back where they would have been had a contract not be entered into might be available as a remedy. Restitution is often available even when the underlying contract itself fails when people have taken affirmative acts based upon a contract that cannot be legally performed. This wouldn't be a strong case for restitution, and state case law would answer the question, but it wouldn't be a frivolous one either. Of course, since Alice would be admitting to committing a crime is she brought suit (waiving her 5th Amendment right to be silent by doing so) she might be well advised not to sue. And, Bob would still have a strong "unclean hands" defense in an restitution or civil theft lawsuit. The Low Chance Of Charges Being Brought Considered It is true that if no one told anyone that the likelihood of criminal charges being brought is small. But, one can easily imagine hypothetically, that a third party saw what went down in person, or via surveillance video and audio, or that one of the parties told someone what happened and was reported (ex-lovers and mistreated trusted professional aids are notorious for doing things like this), or that someone confessed (often people do things like this when joining a twelve step program or a converting to a new religion), or one of them might testify truthfully at trial despite having a 5th Amendment right not to do so. What If The Jury Doesn't Believe Bob? If the criminal jury thinks that Bob was lying in the first place about good faith, he would have criminal liability for theft and Alice would have liability for solicitation of and conspiracy to commit the manufacture of controlled substances. Alice would be on the hook for the same felonies. Bob would be guilty of a crime the severity of which would depend upon how much money he took from Alice. If Bob doesn't think he can show the facts necessary to establish an abandonment defense, he might be smart to lie and say he was just stealing from Alice if the dollar amount was reasonably small, since the consequences would probably be less severe if he was convicted. It would be very hard to prove that he was truly agreeing to the verbal contract in good faith when he never performed it, but did take the money and not try to return it.

Do other countries have free speech protections similar to the First Amendment, and if so, how do those work?

A friend claimed the First Amendment was unnecessary, and mentioned that other countries tended to get along well without it. I realized I didn't actually know much about how freedom of speech or expression worked in other countries, and figured I'd ask some people here who were a little more knowledgeable. Do other countries have any free speech protections similar to the First Amendment, and if so, how do they work? If not, how are free speech cases handled?

germany Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences] (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. Sources : Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany Article 2 [Personal freedoms] Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]

Deficiency judgement period after foreclosure in IL

A friend entered in foreclosure in 2014, for a condo in Chicago, IL (Chase Bank). Some time later he received a form 1099-C for cancellation of debt for around $9K. I know there's a deficiency but, while we tried contacting the bank to know what the status of that debt is, nobody in the bank seems to knows the answer. I want to know what's the period while the bank or a collector can still claim that debt. I know the form 1099-C is only for tax reasons, but I wonder when will that debt will stop being enforceable. Or, what would be procedure, if possible, to get a deficiency waiver with the bank?

A deficiency judgment in Illinois is valid for seven years after it is entered. A bank has the right to execute a document that treats the judgment as satisfied earlier than that date without receiving full payment, but it is unlikely to do so without partial payment or some other evidence that it would be futile to try to collect the debt (e.g. evidence that the debtor was kidnapped or disabled or dead or in prison).

Can a repair business sell goods that haven't been picked up for over a year?

A friend has an upholstery shop in Buffalo, NY. A customer brought her a set of seats to re-do more than a year ago. The project was completed and several attempts have been made to contact the customer to pick them up and pay for work done, to no avail. Can she sell the seats at this point to recoup her investment without running into a problem, should the customer resurface down the road?

A person who repairs property has a lien on the property and can sell the property to satisfy the lien. There are notice requirements and the property must be sold at auction if it is worth more than $100. I pulled this off of FindLaw, I have no idea of this law is current. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/LIE articles 8 and 9 N.Y. LIE. LAW § 180 : NY Code - Section 180: Artisans' lien on personal property A person who makes, alters, repairs or performs work or services of any nature and description upon, or in any way enhances the value of an article of personal property, at the request or with the consent of the owner, has a lien on such article, while lawfully in possession thereof, for his reasonable charges for the work done and materials furnished, and may retain possession thereof until such charges are paid. N.Y. LIE. LAW § 200 : NY Code - Section 200: Sale of personal property to satisfy a lien A lien against personal property... if in the legal possession of the lienor, may be satisfied by the sale of such property according to the provisions of this article. N.Y. LIE. LAW § 201 : NY Code - Section 201: Notice of sale Before such sale is held the lienor shall serve a notice on the owner... or mail ( certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail)the notice if the property is of a value of less than one hundred dollars. The following must be included in the notice. The nature of the debt or agreement which gave rise to the lien. Description of the property Estimated value of the property Amount of the lien and the date of the notice Give them ten days to pay, tell them when and where the sale is happening, and tell them they can bring as action under section 201a within ten days. N.Y. LIE. LAW § 202 : NY Code - Section 202: Sale to be advertised; exception Each sale of personal property of a value of one hundred dollars or more , or of any security, to satisfy a lien thereon shall be at public auction to the highest bidder, and shall be held in the city or town where the lien was acquired. Each sale of personal property of a value of less than one hundred dollars , other than a security, to satisfy a lien thereon, shall be made pursuant to the provisions of subdivision one hereof ( auction ), or at a bona fide private sale in the city or town where the lien was acquired. A bona fide private sale pursuant to this section shall not be made until the expiration of six months after the time for the payment of the amount of the lien specified in the notice required to be served by section two hundred one or two hundred one-a of this article. Section 204 - keep the money to cover the lien but hang onto the balance. Serve notice on the owner and then in six months if the owner does not claim the money deposit it with the treasurer or chamberlain of the city or village, or the commissioner of finance in the city of New York, or the supervisor of the town, where such sale was held. You don't get this money back, it goes to the owner or to the town eventually.

Is it possible for a lone claimant to obtain an RRO under HAPA 2016 for being let an unlicensed HMO without the involvement of other housemates?

A friend has been in touch with an advice service who have said that it isn’t recommended to apply to court for a Housing-and-Planning-Act-2016 Rent Repayment Order for living in an unlicensed Home-in-Multiple-Occupation (or HMO) without the other occupants on board whose cooperation is necessary “to prove occupancy levels” because “landlords lie all the time and simply their names printed on the lease isn’t enough to prove they lived there”. What legal basis could there be for this advice as surely it must be possible to prove realistically beyond any doubt that the premise was occupied by multiple residents in a wide multitude of ways? For example, group email chains to the various tenants, Screen caps of WhatsApp house group chats between the tenants about house affairs, photos of all of their mail with names and common address printed outside, laid side by side, and so on and so forth. According to S40 of the decision in LON/00BB/HMF/2020/0211, However, the Tribunal is only able to make a rent repayment order if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence under section 72(1) had been committed. In that regard the Tribunal accepts the submissions of Ms Cafferkey that, within the period in respect of which the claim has been made within the statement of case, there were a maximum of four tenants, who had provided witness statements. The Tribunal accepts counsel’s submission that it has no evidence as to the relevant status of Yung-Ru Tseng (YT) and could not therefore be satisfied that she met the necessary qualifications to permit the making of a rent repayment order. The Tribunal finds that once the Brazilian family had moved into the property between 25 July 2020 and 1 August 2020, that those conditions were satisfied. However that time period falls outside the applicants’ statement of case. Further and in any event the Tribunal in exercise of its discretion would decline to make a rent repayment order covering only a six day period having regard to the nature of the claim What is the imolication and relevance of this?

You are fine to proceed on the basis you describe - you just need to convince the First Tier Tribunal beyond reasonable doubt that the required (for the property to be licensable) number of people were resident as their main address . It's better to do with the other occupants because this makes it easier to witness and confirm who was occupant (them and x others) and that it was their main residence (versus visitor or occcasional home). But not impossible without. Your other challenge is if the landlord co-opts one of the others to lie to tribunal and say they didn't really live there (as their main address)...obviously if you can catch them doing this (soliciting false evidence) via double-agent housemate this looks extra bad to FTT. All the examples you have mentioned are reasonable evidence methods in the absence of occupant witness statements (although you should still try and get as many witness statements as possible from housemates). Also utility bills & voting registrations & council tax records may be useful if attainable (for evidencing (main) occupancy). Your friend has 12 months to initiate the RRO from when the offence was last being committed against them (ie the last day they were living in the houseand it was unlicensed). It must be brought against the correct respondent (landlord). Shelter and citizens advice may be able to advise further also non-profit specialists 'Flat Justice' & 'Justice for tenants' are legal experts in this area and can offer advice and representation.

Therapist violates confidentiality. Any laws applicable?

A friend is doing counseling as a domestic violence victim at a domestic violence aid agency. The therapist recently disclosed her information, including what they have talked about in counseling sessions, to other people in the agency. Being confronted, the therapist pointed the finger back and accused her of false things and refused to see her again. We would like to know if there are laws and regulations applicable in this situation. Are there federal level regulations applicable in this situation? The agency is responding indifferently. We are considering filing a complaint with the state board of psychology. We found several possible names on the state's professional licensing website, but can't be sure which one is the therapist, since the therapist keeps her full name from us.

We're missing a lot of information that we'd need to offer a full answer. Here are some of the things that will probably drive the analysis: the type of counselor we're talking about; the types of information the counselor disclosed; the reason she disclosed it; the job functions of the people to whom she disclosed it; the reason the client is bothered by the disclosure. Generally speaking, a mental-health counselor has a fiduciary duty to maintain the confidentiality of patient information, but my understanding is that in most cases, the counselor would be allowed to discuss a case with colleagues for the purposes of advancing the patient's treatment. So discussing the facts of a tough case with a supervisor is not going to be as problematic as idly gossiping about clients with custodial staff. Beyond the permitted disclosures, there are also situations in which counselors are required to disclose confidential information, including cases where the counselor suspects child or elder abuse or where the counselor believes the client poses a danger to herself or others. If the disclosure was truly not permitted, then it may be that the client has a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. In Georgia, proving that case requires evidence that: That the counselor had information relating to the client that she knew or should have known was confidential; That the counselor communicated the client’s confidential information to third parties; That the client did not give informed consent to the counselor’s conduct; That the confidential information was not a matter of general knowledge; and That the disclosure harmed the client. As you noted, the client could also file a complaint with the state licensing board. I don't know of any federal laws or regulations that would come into play in the situation you've described.

Does applying for a Diversity Visa make one ineligible for other visas?

A friend is planning to immigrate to the US in the relatively near future. It appears there are various different avenues by which they may gain temporary or permanent residence and work permits. The most expedient and likely options, relatively speaking, appear to be an H1-B visa or a Diversity Visa. The H1-B visa requires an employer sponsor, and the application period is a short window of a few days in April of each year. The Diversity Visa has an application window of a few weeks from October-November, with awards being announced in May of the following year. I would like to know if it is possible for my friend to pursue both options simultaneously, or will application for a Diversity Visa (which is an immigration visa) render them ineligible for the H1-B (a non-immigrant visa) due to demonstration of intent to immigrate? Also, can they visit the US during the holidays under the Visa Waiver Program if there is a pending Diversity Visa application? Or, again, does the DV application show intent to immigrate and therefore render them ineligible for the VWP or other temporary travel visas?

My concern remains though, that entering the lottery demonstrates an intent to immigrate. And so, I'm not sure how that may or may not affect my friend's eligibility for non-immigrant visas that do not allow dual-intent, or the VWP, meanwhile. Yes, the lottery application implies an intent to immigrate, but every nonimmigrant must overcome a statutory presumption that such an intent exists. The lottery application may make it harder for someone to overcome that presumption, but it is possible to do so by showing that one does not intend to immigrate in connection with the present visit. It is certainly possible to get a visitor (B) visa with a pending immigrant petition. Here's what the Foreign Affairs Manual has to say about it, at 9 FAM 401.1 ; see especially paragraph (e): 9 FAM 401.1-3(F)(2)  Residence Abroad Defined (CT:VISA-225;   10-20-2016) a. The term “residence” is defined in INA 101(a)(33) as the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.  This does not mean that an alien must maintain an independent household in order to qualify as an alien who has a residence in a foreign country and has no intention of abandoning.  If the alien customarily resides in the household of another, that household is the residence in fact.  NOTE:  Only the following visa categories are subject to residence abroad requirements:  B, F, H (except H1), J, M, O2, P, and Q.  When adjudicating this requirement, it is essential to view the requirement within the nature of the visa classification.  Discussion of the requirement in the relevant sections will provide guidance. b. The applicant must demonstrate permanent employment, meaningful business or financial connections, close family ties, or social or cultural associations, which will indicate a strong inducement to return to the country of origin. c.  The residence in a foreign country need not be the alien’s former residence.  For example, an alien who has been living in Germany may meet the residence abroad requirement by showing a clear intention to establish a residence in Canada after a temporary visit in the United States. d. Suspicion that an alien, after admission, may be swayed to remain in the United States because of more favorable living conditions is not a sufficient ground to refuse a visa as long as the alien’s current intent is to return to a foreign residence. e. You may properly issue visitor visas to aliens with immigrant visa (IV) applications pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  You must be satisfied that the alien’s intent in seeking entry into the United States is to engage in activities consistent with B1/B2 classification for a temporary period and that the alien has a residence abroad which he or she does not intend to abandon.  While immigrant visa registration is reflective of an intent to immigrate, it may not be proper for you to refuse issuance of a visa under INA 214(b) solely on the basis of such registration, unless you have reason to believe the applicant’s true intent is to remain in the United States until such a time as an immigrant visa (IV) becomes available. The same principles will apply to entry under the VWP, although it is more difficult to find authoritative references online. Logically, entering the DV lottery has a weaker bearing on immigrant intent than filing an I-130 petition, so someone who has entered the lottery should be at least as able to visit the US as someone who is awaiting approval of an I-130. Whether the traveler is using the VWP or a visa, it will also be necessary to convince the immigration officer at the border that there is no immigrant intent, so attempting to enter as a visitor will always be riskier with a pending application for immigration, but plenty of people have done it.

What happens to the third-person in a copyright-infringement?

A friend just asked me a question about copyright and terms-and-conditions when using a product and it's quite interesting. I have a website where I host software projects, and include a license with every release of my software. What happens, if say someone downloads my software, removes all my licenses, and reuploads it in their own domain. Sure, I can send them notices to remove it, but lets say someone downloads it from their site and then uses it in a commercial product, or in a way sanctioned by the license. Does this third-person then suffer in some way as the source they obtain it from was illegal or do they immediately have to abide by the real terms and conditions if contacted by the owner of the software?

The law will vary by jurisdiction. For example, under Australia's Copyright Act 1968, section 115(3) provides: Where, in an action for infringement of copyright, it is established that an infringement was committed but it is also established that, at the time of the infringement, the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the act constituting the infringement was an infringement of the copyright, the plaintiff is not entitled under this section to any damages against the defendant in respect of the infringement, but is entitled to an account of profits in respect of the infringement whether any other relief is granted under this section or not. "An account of profits" means that the infringer has to pay to the copyright owner the profits that it has made on the infringing work.

What is the law regarding left-turns at four way stops?

A friend just got in a collision at a four-way stop turning left. That friend has insisted that they came to a full and complete stop. Nolo seems to indicate that the general rule is that it's always the left-turn'ers fault, but they don't address four-way stops. What is the liability at a four-way stop. Her car was hit on the passenger's side. The other car was hit on the front left bumper. The other car could have simply stopped and waited for the turn to complete. Here is a picture of the intersection. She was leaving the parking lot, on the right at this camera angle, turning left. The other car had a stop sign, and hit her. She claims she stopped and had the right of way though. The angle from which both cars where heading. The route from the right is the parking log, and from the left would be the vehicle driving straight. The angle from which the car the car that hit my friend was heading as she was heading straight. She claims she stopped at the stop sign.

The relevant rule in Texas (which is somewhat atypical compared to other states) is to come to a complete stop, then proceed only "when the intersection can be safely entered." Texas Transportation Code Sec. 545.151. So, generally speaking, someone who enters the intersection, after coming to a full stop, when it is not safe to do so because someone else is in the intersection, is the one at fault (although, it is certainly possible that more than one car could enter an intersection when it wasn't safe to do so). It isn't entirely clear from the facts presented in the question who is at fault, since the key question of who entered the intersection when it could not be safely entered isn't entirely clear from the facts presented in the question. Also traffic law liability would not necessarily imply civil liability for damages, particularly if both parties were actually at fault, even if only one was cited with a traffic ticket. There are other parts of the Texas Transportation Code which one might expect to apply, that do not: [U]nder Texas law, drivers turning left must yield to traffic from the opposite direction. (Transportation Code, Sec. 545.152) That rule doesn't specify any particular type of intersection, and it does apply to four-way stops. But it's obviously meant to prevent collisions when the oncoming driver is not required to stop. . . . when two vehicles are at angles to each other, the one on the right goes first. But in Texas, that's true only when there are no stop signs, yield signs or signal lights. Texas also does not have a "first-come, first-go" rule, even though many people incorrectly believe that it does, because the effect of the rule that it does have is similar to a "first-come, first-go" rule in many, but not all, circumstances.

If involved in an accident, while uninsured, for which the other driver is insured, can the other insurance company turn them in?

A friend of a friend recently had this situation come up. They were driving uninsured as a result of one of their housemates having tossed the bills as they came in. They learned they were uninsured after another car struck them and, on contacting the insurance company, being told that they had missed their payment and that the company had suspended their account. I know that Corbin vs Khosla (2002) established that an uninsured motorist can hold the at-fault driver liable for their damages, but they're also worried that, if they contact the other insurance company, then they will be reported for uninsured driving (despite that they were unaware that they were uninsured at the time) and face fines or a license suspension. As I understand it, there were no police at the site of the accident, since it was so minor, so they exchanged information, but there was no official police presence. Is an insurance company allowed to threaten to report the uninsured driver to avoid having to pay for the driver who caused the accident? This is in Pennsylvania, in the Allegheny County area.

Threatening to report the uninsured driver to avoid payment would be blackmail and illegal / criminal. As a result, they are not going to do this. Reporting the uninsured driver on the other hand is their civic duty. So they can get your friend into trouble, but they can't get around paying. Is your friend insured now? If not, tell him to get insured IMMEDIATELY. And if they are very lucky, the other company doesn't figure out your friend was uninsured, and they get away with it when they make a claim. Alternatively, tell them to figure out how much the damage is, how much the repair will cost, and whether it is worth taking the risk.

Can a school control an independent student newspaper

A friend of me has founded a student newspaper in Germany that has an acronym of the schools name in its title. Like HBS instead of Harvard Business School . Internationally there are dozens of schools that have the same name. The newspaper is not sponsored by the school. Now the school wants to control what articles are being published by adding a staff member that can reject articles without a legitimate reason as defined in the German Pressekodex , a set of guidelines for good journalism. Can the school force the newspaper to align with their proposals?

Students too have freedom of information and expression. The school has no right to interfere with the student's activities outside of school. But is this activity outside of school? If the newspaper is created as part of a student council or a school-supported project group, supervision by a teacher might be appropriate. If the newspaper wants to distribute copies on school grounds, it will need the school's consent. If the name of the newspaper suggests an affiliation with the school, this could affect the reputation of the school which could lead to legal problems down the line (e.g. claims of defamation). Private schools are likely allowed to impose more restrictive rules. While there are legitimate reasons why the school would have to be (or wants to be) involved, it is ultimately not possible for a headmaster to restrict the student's freedoms. There is no legal basis for installing a censor. But a newspaper by students is not necessarily a “student newspaper”. Of course, any newspaper will have to comply with applicable press laws. Ultimately, the exact rules depend on press law and education law in that particular state. Bavaria provides a good online summary of the rules in that state, and Wikipedia summarizes the situation across a few states. Note that some press laws might require the senior editor to have a certain age if there isn't a special privilege for student newspapers.

Resignation retraction denied because of replacement, but is not true

A friend of mine (person A) has had his resignation retraction denied because a replacement (person B) has already been moved (without Person A knowing). However this isn't true, as Person B was notified 2/3 weeks prior (whilst they were on furlough, and wasn't informed they were a replacement for Person A). Whereas notice wasn't given until last week - and wasn't intimated previously. I understand that a company can reject a retraction without giving a reason, but as they've said that Person B was coming as his replacement, could this amount to constructive dismissal? Related: The reason for retraction was because the branch is being transferred to another company under the same group, and following discussions with them they want to remain. However it is the previous company that are denying the resignation retraction. Are there any employment laws being breached, or is it just one of those things?

could this amount to constructive dismissal No, this is not constructive dismissal . This would require the employer to do something that "seriously" breaches Person A's contract and for Person A to resign as a result of it. Based on what you've told us, that isn't the case. It is perfectly normal for employers to have succession plans in place when employees leave the business. It sounds like that's what's happened here. There is no requirement for the employer to accept the retraction.

Offense that was expunged still showing up

A friend of mine (yes, I'm aware of how that sounds, but it's true) had a felony expunged from his record 10 years ago. Recently when getting screened for a job it showed up and now his job is at risk. How is this possible? And are there any legal actions that can be taken to prevent it from happening again?

Expungement rules and effects vary greatly by state. Good reading on the question can be had here , with notable exceptions to expungement here . Of particular relevance to this question: In some states, individuals who want to work as public school teachers, corrections guards, or police officers should expect that their employers will have access to expunged records. Agencies reviewing applications for professional licenses, including law, pharmacy, or medicine, may also have access. Even in the most favorable circumstances an expungement can't destroy or seal non-government records. For example, if a newspaper reported on a charge or conviction there is no way to eliminate that public record. The mechanics of expungement can also break down. For example, in Pennsylvania it's up to the applicant for expungement to list all the government agencies and entities on which the Order for Expungement should be served. If they forget or aren't aware of some agency that has records covered by the expungement then those records won't be destroyed. (Though if they are later discovered the Order can be served on them and they are still required to comply.)

Does this situation qualify as "reasonable suspicion"?

A friend of mine described this situation to me recently: The scene is a hotel lobby in the middle of the night. Three people, two men and a woman, enter. The woman appears to be drunk and unconscious, and is being supported by one of the men. The other man smells of alcohol, but is otherwise sober. They try to get a room. The receptionist, aware that the hotel is situated in the vicinity of a red-light district, is suspicious and lies that there's no room available. The trio say okay, they'll try another hotel, and leave. The receptionist then calls the police. Can the police act? On the one hand, the circumstances can be interpreted as a rape has happened or is about to happen, e.g. a date rape drug that knocks the woman out has been administered; on the other hand the receptionist can't be sure of that and the three could e.g. be blood relatives or even good Samaritans. If this does meet the threshold for "reasonable suspicion", does it further meet the threshold for "probable cause"? If this does not meet the threshold for "reasonable suspicion", is it worth calling the police in this situation? If it matters, the country is Singapore.

Singapore, being a former British Colony, would likely use Common Law Terms like "Reasonable Suspicion" and "Probable Cause" (Probable Cause is a the general principle that covers terms such as Reasonable Suspicion, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, ect. used in law.). At the very least, it would be reasonable to assume it is Common-Law Hybrid at best (Singapore is way stricter to criminals than most Common Law nations by punishment system only.) The fundamental misunderstanding of theses terms expressed here is that it applies to ordinary citizens alerting the police. It does not. It only serves as rules of operation that constrain police officers to the limits of what they can do with respect to the case. There should be no reason why your friend should not call the police to (in good faith, mind you) report a possible suspicious action that may or may not be a crime in progress. It could be a crime... it could be perfectly logical explanation. For comparison, I had to call police out to my neighbors house after I returned home after dark and observed a man with a flash light looking at a window before running behind their house as I drove into my parking spot. Additionally, I had observed some unusual people who were driving into the end of the street and driving off when approached a week earlier. This of course seemed to me to be the behavior of a possible thief or peeping Tom (On top of that, it was one of the coldest nights of the year, so no body was out in the neighborhood). Cops rolled up and after I explained the situation, one officer knocked on my neighbors door and then returned back. Turns out the guy slinking around the house was an appraiser (explaining the need to look at windows and go to the rear of the house) that the family was aware of (his "suspicious" behavior of ducking behind the house as I drove up was just happenstance and as far as I was aware, he never knew I was there). Now, I didn't get in trouble for this because that is part of the cops' job duties. The situation was unusual enough that there could be something there... at least, something that scared a citizen, but was ultimately perfectly normal and not a threat. Hell, its better to call and be wrong than to not call and be right.

Is it illegal to possess jiggler keys?

A friend of mine gave me his keys to his vehicle so I could clear off the front seat. My friend was not with me at the vehicle at this time, but I was taking a book bag from the front seat, moving it to the trunk when I was approached by law enforcement and after being detained and being searched and patted down they removed the keys off my belt loop. On the keyring were 7 jiggler keys and I was arrested and charged with manufacture etc motor vehicle master keys, possession of an instrument of crime with intent. Fast forward to my preliminary hearing, and the charge possession of an instrument of crime with intent was dismissed but the other was held. Now in the state of Pennsylvania it says that having lock pick tools in your possession can be illegal if used in a crime or intent to be used in a crime. Since the possession of an instrument of crime with intent charge was dropped then wouldn’t that eliminate the other charge and prove my innocence to dismiss the case altogether since possessing the keys isn’t illegal unless used in a crime or with intent?

That's a very poorly written law! Unless they have defined 'fit' elsewhere as completely different to an ordinary interpretation of that word. A master key is designed to operate two or more locks with different normal keys using the same action as a normal key. I assume the omitted exceptions were about vehicle manufacturers or supply chain vehicle handlers or logistics companies who have legitimate reasons for requiring master keys (though I don't know if they actually make these in reality, as they diminish the security of a lock). Possibly locksmiths were included as well, but I doubt it as vehicle companies are not in the habit of granting locksmiths master keys for all their vehicles. By the above definition, literally any key that fits in the lock is a 'master key'. Even if we assume 'fit' is supposed to imply 'operate as the lock's specific key would', it's still completely absurd to define a jiggler as a 'master key'. You can open a lock with a piece of bent wire if you're determined and skilled enough. Or a drill, for that matter. A jiggler key is a tool ('lockpick tool', and therefore potentially an 'instrument of crime' if you intended to use it as such), not a master key. If you include this in your definition of 'master key', where do you stop? Bent wires? Drills? Someone else's worn car key that doesn't match this vehicle's key but conceivably could be used if jiggled around enough? If your lawyer can't find suitable precedent refuting this mistaken definition, then you should be able to find a vehicle locksmith who will provide expert evidence that a jiggler is not a master key.

In Austria, are Microwave Guns illegal?

A friend of mine got a new Microwave oven, and let me have his old one. As a hobbyist engineer, I'd of course love to use the magnetron within to build a small Microwave Gun, which for example to use to light Light bulbs at a distance, or to blow up small batteries. As the device, however, can be quite dangerous to both health and belongings, damaging electrical systems and using high voltages and currents, I was just wondering if they were legal.

§1 WaffG (weapons law) defines what a weapon is mentioned to be. Based on that definition, your microwave gun would be a weapon. ... weapons are items designed by their very nature to eliminate or reduce a person's ability to attack or defend himself through direct action ... Nevertheless, none of the remaining law paragraphs mention this kind of weapon. Also, §17 WaffG does not mention any restrictions on this type of weapon (like e.g it's done for brass knuckles). So, I don't think that it would be a problem. But based on SPG (security police law), it's not allowed to carry it everywhere around. That's because, for some areas weapons are forbidden generally. (e.g. Prater, Vienna)

Do I lose my rights as a British citizen when I travel to an other country for tourism?

A friend of mine got detained at the airport in Jordan because his name matches a name of someone who has issues with the Jordanian authorities. My friend is British and he only was passing through Jordan. They forced him to stay there for 24 hours with no food and he had to sleep on the floor before they determined that he is not the man they were after. Does this incident mean that when you travel to a foreign country – even for a short time – that you give up your rights as a British citizen?

Your rights 1 in a country depend on that country's laws with respect to aliens (foreigners). While you may expect some standards where countries have obligations under international law, a sovereign state is free to legislate with respect to aliens as it wishes. The short answer? You don't have British rights when you travel abroad, and the same is true for any person who travels internationally. But each country may afford certain rights and privileges to foreigners, especially those who are in the country legally. 1. Let's call them effective rights, because there's been a lot of (accurate) talk about you retaining your UK rights when you travel. Though this may be true, your experience overseas is going to really come down to the rights that the country that you are in recognises. Your responsibilities as a UK citizen, however, may continue even if not recognised by the country you are in by virtue of extraterritorial legislation.

Long haul truck driver was not paid for his job

A friend of mine had been working for transportation company (contingently company A ) as a long haul truck driver in PA state before leaving it for another one (due to the poor working conditions in company A ). He was employed at company A for only 1 month, which comes up to 4 weeks, meaning 4 pay cycles. However, while employed at company A and after leaving, he never received a single pay check from the company. Trying to connect with the company's audit department led to nothing, no one answers phone calls, no one responds to emails. Going directly to the lawyers for some $6K-7K doesn't sound reasonable. Is there may be some Labor Unions where the company A behavior can be reported? My question is: what are the legal rights my friend can apply to the company in order to get at least his salary back?

It seems your friend can submit a Wage Complaint form to the Bureau of Labor Law Compliance and have some recourse under section 9.1 of the Wage Payment and Collection Law. If your friend is in the right and the company doesn't follow through properly they could be liable for even more money than what they owe him, though there is also the possibility of a court case if the company decides to fight it. I'd post a quote of the relevant section of law but the formatting of the online version of that wage law I found does not copy well: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1961/0/0329..PDF This may be a better link: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1961&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=329&chpt=0&sctn=9&subsctn=1 A more readable summary can be found in http://www.dli.pa.gov/Individuals/Labor-Management-Relations/llc/Documents/llc-2.pdf under Collection of Unpaid Wages.

Money from relatives given initially as a gift now asking for repayment

A friend of mine has received ~$250,000 over the years from his sister. He has never asked her for money, but he has been ill and Canada does not recognize Lyme's Disease as a disability for him to receive benefits. His sister offered to help him out. Now there has been a falling out, and the sister is asking for the money back. There was no written agreement for repayment, and it was understood that this was a gift of one family member helping another. Does the sister have any legal means to take this money back?

Does the sister have any legal course to demand this money back? If you want true legal advice , then you should consult a lawyer over the advice of strangers. As far as general financial advise goes though, my answer is probably not . Arrangements between family members are presumed to be non-contractural - that is, even if the brother agreed to repayment this is generally not enforceable. Unless your friend specifically signed a contract agreeing to certain terms in order to receive his sister's money rebutting the non-contractural presumption, then the money is a gift and cannot be taken back. From your question, I can see no way that your sister could prove the money was anything other than a gift or had any terms. As Grade 'Eh' Bacon has pointed out, stack exchange's law site will be able to answer your question better than we can.

Self defense after provocation on the part of the defender

A friend of mine in university wants to ensure he can defend himself legally. In a library a group of individuals were talking enough to annoy him and as the library has explicit no talking policy he proceeded to tell the group of indivudals to shut the f up and after some brief exchange of words he gave them the finger and walked off. Clearly one individual from the group was verbally aggressive back. After said friend went to sit down he was glared at by said individual in an aggressive manner. The day proceeded but my friend wants to know if he is allowed to defend himself if the other person some other time gets in his face or attacks him. Since he was initially verbally aggressive.

Canada's law on self-defense can be found here . The force used must be "reasonable in the circumstances" and "the person's role in the incident" is listed as a factor to be considered. I think that's about all that can be said in general; a court would have to decide whether the standard was met in this particular case. Previous versions of the law did explicitly limit, but not completely eliminate, the availability of a self-defense justification when the person provoked the assault.