Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

Would making a non-profit TV show about Ronald Mcdonald be legal?

Ok, this is going to sound weird, but I didn't have any better forum to ask this on. Me and a friend are working on a sort of Horror/Comedy. A basic plot rundown: Ronald Mcdonald is a crazy lunatic who acts as the guardian of McDonalds, and will protect it at all costs. Yes, he tries to kill the Main Character. We plan for this to be posted on YouTube, with credit to Mcdonalds in the credits, and in the video description. It will be free to watch, and we won't make any profit from it at all. Is it legal to do this, or is it an infringement on copyright?

Ronald McDonald is not a copyrighted work, it is a trademark . Possibly, the clown outfit is an artistic work which could be protected by copyright. If your chosen outfit looks too much like the real clown suit, you might get sued for artistic infringement, in which case you could avail yourself of a fair use defense, pointing to the social commentary nature of your use.

Can somebody be charged for having another person physically assault someone for them?

For example, if a friend asked her father to physically assault me, and her father did it, can the friend who asked her father to assault me also be charged with assault?

Yes. The charge in that case is solicitation of assault. Usually, solicitation of a crime carries the same punishment as the underlying crime. On the other hand, if a daughter tells her father what you did to her and he unilaterally decides to assault you, out of defense of his family's honor and outrage, the daughter has not committed a crime.

Can somebody be charged for having another person physically assault someone for them?

For example, if a friend asked her father to physically assault me, and her father did it, can the friend who asked her father to assault me also be charged with assault?

germany Solicitation of a crime is a crime in itself, and will be punished in the same way as the actual crime. Als Anstifter wird gleich einem Täter bestraft, wer vorsätzlich einen anderen zu dessen vorsätzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat bestimmt hat. Who intenitionally affects someone to intentionally commit an ulawful act, is punished as an instigator to the same extent as the perpetrator. § 26 Anstiftung StGB (StGB = Strafgesetzbuch, the German penal code). However you will probably not charged with conspiracy. § 277 StGB makes the preparation of certain crimes a punishable offense (even if the actual crime is not executed), but is pretty much limited to human trafficking, some drug related offenses, causing nuclear accidents and wielding weapons of mass destruction. Assault is not in there. If you order people to commit assault on a regular basis and the group includes at least three people, you might be charged according to § 26 StGB with "Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung" ("kriminellen Vereinigung" - "association of criminals" being defined as a group of people who meet with the purpose of committing crimes). That also does not seem applicable to the question,

Can somebody be charged for having another person physically assault someone for them?

For example, if a friend asked her father to physically assault me, and her father did it, can the friend who asked her father to assault me also be charged with assault?

In Australia this could fall under common purpose or commission by proxy. From the Criminal Code 1995: 11.2 Complicity and common purpose (1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly. (2) For the person to be guilty: (a) the person’s conduct must have in fact aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence by the other person; and (b) the offence must have been committed by the other person. (3) For the person to be guilty, the person must have intended that: (a) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any offence (including its fault elements) of the type the other person committed; or (b) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence and have been reckless about the commission of the offence (including its fault elements) that the other person in fact committed. (3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6). (4) A person cannot be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence if, before the offence was committed, the person: (a) terminated his or her involvement; and (b) took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence. (5) A person may be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence even if the other person has not been prosecuted or has not been found guilty. (6) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1). (7) If the trier of fact is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person either: (a) is guilty of a particular offence otherwise than because of the operation of subsection (1); or (b) is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1); but is not able to determine which, the trier of fact may nonetheless find the person guilty of that offence. ... 11.3 Commission by proxy A person who: (a) has, in relation to each physical element of an offence, a fault element applicable to that physical element; and (b) procures conduct of another person that (whether or not together with conduct of the procurer) would have constituted an offence on the part of the procurer if the procurer had engaged in it; is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.

In the US, if I chose to let someone die purely because I have the right to use my body however I choose, would I be charged with murder?

I'll elaborate on the title: Someone asked me the question: Do you believe people should be forced to allow the use of their organs without consent? And in order to respond, I wondered what a court of law in the US would rule in the following scenario: One day I find myself in the theoretical situation where someone is hanging off the edge of a building and wants to live, and I know with 99.9% surety (lets assume this number is accurate and I admit that I somehow knew this beyond a doubt, for the sake of the theoretical scenario) that if I hold onto them until help arrives, my life won't be at risk, I'll simply have to strain my muscles for an hour until help arrives and they're safe. But I choose to let the person fall to their death, purely and solely because I believe I have the right to decline to use my body in any way I choose not to use it. I do not fear that saving the person puts me in any danger, and I admit this on record - furthermore it's reasonable to believe that that risk assessment is accurate. Also, it would likely be very painful for me to hold onto the person for the hour until help arrives. Now, in the eyes of a US court, am I a murderer? Furthermore, if the answer is that I would be considered a murder in the eye of the law, what if we change one detail of the premise: Rather than knowing I have a 99.9% chance of saving the person's life while avoiding any physical or mental damage, that number becomes 90%. Or 80%. Is there any language within the law that specifically defines a threshold beyond which it's reasonable to fear for my health and allow the person to die in order to protect my health? I realize the answer could vary from state to state, and if you need to use an example state, let's randomly say I'm in California.

You have no reponsibility to save someone (unless you put them in that position / were responsible for his safety, this is called owing a "duty of care", e.g doctor to patient, road user to road user etc) Legally you are not a murderer. But morally, your actions are reprehensible.

In the US, if I chose to let someone die purely because I have the right to use my body however I choose, would I be charged with murder?

I'll elaborate on the title: Someone asked me the question: Do you believe people should be forced to allow the use of their organs without consent? And in order to respond, I wondered what a court of law in the US would rule in the following scenario: One day I find myself in the theoretical situation where someone is hanging off the edge of a building and wants to live, and I know with 99.9% surety (lets assume this number is accurate and I admit that I somehow knew this beyond a doubt, for the sake of the theoretical scenario) that if I hold onto them until help arrives, my life won't be at risk, I'll simply have to strain my muscles for an hour until help arrives and they're safe. But I choose to let the person fall to their death, purely and solely because I believe I have the right to decline to use my body in any way I choose not to use it. I do not fear that saving the person puts me in any danger, and I admit this on record - furthermore it's reasonable to believe that that risk assessment is accurate. Also, it would likely be very painful for me to hold onto the person for the hour until help arrives. Now, in the eyes of a US court, am I a murderer? Furthermore, if the answer is that I would be considered a murder in the eye of the law, what if we change one detail of the premise: Rather than knowing I have a 99.9% chance of saving the person's life while avoiding any physical or mental damage, that number becomes 90%. Or 80%. Is there any language within the law that specifically defines a threshold beyond which it's reasonable to fear for my health and allow the person to die in order to protect my health? I realize the answer could vary from state to state, and if you need to use an example state, let's randomly say I'm in California.

In no US jurisdiction does a failure to rescue someone constitute murder. Nor is there generally a common law duty to rescue. In California, there is a statutory duty to rescue, but this falls outside its scope. However, certain other states impose a greater duty to rescue; for instance, under Vermont law: A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall... give reasonable assistance to the exposed person (This duty has certain exceptions - like when rendering assistance would put your hypothetical scumbag in danger - which, so far as you've said, do not apply here. Penalties for violating laws like this are generally small. See http://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/2012/title12/chapter23/section519 , http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/ and http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2168&context=wmlr )

Hypothetical POTUS divorce

If the spouse of the President of the United States filed for divorce, would the President have any claim of immunity from any litigation that followed (e.g. the division of assets in the matrimonial pot, child custody, etc.), would all the proceedings be fully held in private, could the President be compelled to take the stand and what would happen if the President refused to do so?

If the spouse of the US president filed for divorce, would a) the President have any claim of immunity from any litigation that followed (e.g. the division of assets in the matrimonial pot, child custody etc.), The President could claim it, but the President wouldn't win. Notably, a number of state governors and mayors have divorced while in office, and other foreign heads of state have been divorced while in office. For example, a U.K. court recently handled the divorce of a UAE monarch (over his objections to jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds), applying the same common law principles of head of state and sovereign immunities that exist in U.S. law and concluded that it had the authority to move forward with the case. Also, any Presidential divorce would take place in state court, not in federal court. Federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over divorce and custody cases (under the "domestic relations exception" to federal jurisdiction), so the civil action could not be removed to federal court, unlike federal criminal cases involving the official duties of the President and unlike civil cases over which the federal courts have jurisdiction. b) would all the proceedings be fully held in private, This would be in the reasonable discretion of the judge. It would not be a matter of right, but it is quite plausible that a judge might close the proceedings, especially if minor children were involved. c) could the President themselves be compelled to take the stand and Yes. A party to a lawsuit may always be compelled to take the stand, at least if no other person can provide a full substitute for the party's testimony. In ordinary civil lawsuits against the President, a President is usually compelled to testify only if an underling involved in the same matter cannot provide equivalent testimony. In many civil cases naming the President in his official capacity, the President has no personal knowledge of the facts and so can't be compelled to testify. But that would rarely be true in a divorce case, and would never be true in a divorce case where custody was an issue. This said, a state divorce court judge would almost certainly be very deferential to the scheduling concerns of the President for that testimony, and might allow that testimony to be provided remotely via videoconference so as to minimize the interruption this would pose to affairs of state and to address the security concerns of the Secret Service (i.e. the President's official bodyguards). d) what would happen if the President refused to do so? The judge could hold the President in contempt of court, which is punishable by fines and/or incarceration. But a more likely outcome, tailored to minimize interference with government business, is that the Court would sanction a President who defied an order to testify by assuming as a matter of law that any testimony from the President would have been unfavorable to the President and make a conclusive adverse inference on the evidentiary issues about which the President was asked to testify against the President.

Equal Protection and Samoan Credit Law

In American Samoa, a person of Samoan descent and a person of other descent are treated differently under bankruptcy law. Per A.S.C.A. § 43.1528(a): No real property of a Samoan may be subject to sale under a writ of a court to satisfy any judgment other than a judgment foreclosing a valid mortgage. “Samoan” includes American Samoans of at least one-half Samoan blood and persons born on other islands in the Pacific Ocean who are of at least one-half Polynesian, Melanesian or Micronesian blood and who reside in American Samoa. It was my understanding that the 14th amendment provided equal protection of the law, and that laws with an explicit race test have been deemed unconstitutional. What exception allows this law to be considered constitutional?

This is a law of American Samoa . American Samoa is not a state of the US. American Samoans are not automatic citizens under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered?

One of the Youtube channels I'm following is running a series of videos about an ongoing lawsuit (within reason, of course). The latest video has an interesting point that got me wondering. Suppose the lawsuit is about events that took place about a long time ago (in the case above it's in 1999, that's over 23 years now). The lawyers of one side are questioning a witness from the other side. The questions are carefully crafted, but in the end they manage to get a statement of the witness that they are sure of some fact X. They even ask them several times, just to be sure. Then the questioning lawyer produces a photo that clearly shows fact X to be wrong. Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: "Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago..."? Or is it now considered a deliberate lie? As for jurisdiction: the above case is in the USA, but since I'm myself from Latvia, I'm interested in generic answers for various jurisdictions (or maybe it's the same everywhere?)

Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered? ... Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: "Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago..."? Yes. Or is it now considered a deliberate lie? A judge's assessment of a witness's credibility and reliability is much more nuanced. See "How is a judge to evaluate a witness's credibility?"

Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered?

One of the Youtube channels I'm following is running a series of videos about an ongoing lawsuit (within reason, of course). The latest video has an interesting point that got me wondering. Suppose the lawsuit is about events that took place about a long time ago (in the case above it's in 1999, that's over 23 years now). The lawyers of one side are questioning a witness from the other side. The questions are carefully crafted, but in the end they manage to get a statement of the witness that they are sure of some fact X. They even ask them several times, just to be sure. Then the questioning lawyer produces a photo that clearly shows fact X to be wrong. Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: "Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago..."? Or is it now considered a deliberate lie? As for jurisdiction: the above case is in the USA, but since I'm myself from Latvia, I'm interested in generic answers for various jurisdictions (or maybe it's the same everywhere?)

Witnesses are allowed to change or correct their testimony, especially for events that happened long ago. Memories are fallible and details fade over time. As long as the change seems genuine and in good faith, not deliberately false, courts understand witnesses can make honest mistakes. The key is whether the revised testimony seems credible. The court considers: How long ago the events occurred What prompted the change Was it an objective fact like a photo that showed the witness's initial memory was wrong? If so, a genuine correction is not viewed as perjury. The witness likely just misremembered details due to the passage of time. Deliberate lies to mislead the court are viewed differently. But honest mistakes and corrections based on new information are typically allowed.

Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered?

One of the Youtube channels I'm following is running a series of videos about an ongoing lawsuit (within reason, of course). The latest video has an interesting point that got me wondering. Suppose the lawsuit is about events that took place about a long time ago (in the case above it's in 1999, that's over 23 years now). The lawyers of one side are questioning a witness from the other side. The questions are carefully crafted, but in the end they manage to get a statement of the witness that they are sure of some fact X. They even ask them several times, just to be sure. Then the questioning lawyer produces a photo that clearly shows fact X to be wrong. Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: "Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago..."? Or is it now considered a deliberate lie? As for jurisdiction: the above case is in the USA, but since I'm myself from Latvia, I'm interested in generic answers for various jurisdictions (or maybe it's the same everywhere?)

A trier of fact can make determinations about the credibility of a witness for pretty much any reason that they want. They can decide a witness is lying because they contradicted their previous testimony, or because they aren't making eye contact, or they're making too much eye contact, etc.

What constitutes entrapment?

I was just remembering a movie scene where 2 undercover cops knock on a man's door asking to buy drugs and and he sells it to them. In the end he is arrested and convicted. I'm no expert but I thought entrapment usually occurred when the illegal activity it pushed or initiated by the law enforcement offer so would this situation be entrapment? On a broader note, I know the often fine line between entrapment and a legal sting operations is widely debated to what, fundamentally, distinguishes a legitimate sting from unfair entrapment?

Short Answer Entrapment is law enforcement tricking someone into committing a crime they were not already willing to do. It has two parts: 1) police inducement and 2) lack of predisposition. Long Answer There are two key elements: Government inducement - Police must have persuaded, pressured, or lured the defendant into the crime through more than just providing an opportunity. Repeated requests, appeals to sympathy, or large financial rewards can count as inducement. Simply asking to buy drugs likely does not qualify. Lack of predisposition - The defendant must not have been willing or planning to commit the crime prior to the police inducement. If the defendant already intended to commit the crime, entrapment likely does not apply. The difference between a legal sting and entrapment depends on facts of each case. In a legal sting, police provide an opportunity for someone already willing to commit a crime. In entrapment, police pressure an unwilling person into a crime they otherwise would not commit. The scenario you described could potentially be entrapment based on the level of inducement and the defendant's lack of predisposition. However, more details would be needed to determine for sure. Undercover cops simply asking to buy drugs is likely not sufficient inducement to constitute entrapment.

What would you be charged with for covering up a rightful death?

I'm referring to a specific situation that occurred in the TV show 24. Due to previous complex circumstances, a man (call him "Bob") destroys a van that is the scene of a murder and hides 2 bodies. Initially Bob had committed no crime; victim 1 was stabbed by victim 2, victim 2 was then shot by Bob in self-defense. I'm wondering what, if anything, could Bob be guilty of for not reporting the deaths? Edit: I'm just curious about the legality and consequences of covering up the deaths so just assume that there is evidence the shooting was in self defence.

Probably murder. Because " victim 2 was then shot by this man in self defense " hasn't been determined by a neutral third party investigation or jury - it is just his own rationale for shooting. He may not be charged, or he may be tried and acquitted on the basis of self defense, but he isn't in a position of authority to simply make a "rightful death" call on his own, ( is there such a thing? ) and dispose of all the evidence. Obstruction of justice would probably be the minimum charge for covering up evidence of the murder of Victim #1. There is really no valid reason for covering up a double homicide, and his actions could easily result in a double murder charge.

What would you be charged with for covering up a rightful death?

I'm referring to a specific situation that occurred in the TV show 24. Due to previous complex circumstances, a man (call him "Bob") destroys a van that is the scene of a murder and hides 2 bodies. Initially Bob had committed no crime; victim 1 was stabbed by victim 2, victim 2 was then shot by Bob in self-defense. I'm wondering what, if anything, could Bob be guilty of for not reporting the deaths? Edit: I'm just curious about the legality and consequences of covering up the deaths so just assume that there is evidence the shooting was in self defence.

england-and-wales Depending on the circumstances, hiding the bodies would be either Obstructing a Coroner or Preventing the Burial of a Body : Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner. Destroying the van could be either Criminal Damage or perverting the course of justice , again depending on the circumstances. The latter is committed when an accused: does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice. The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when: an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or proceedings have started or are about to start. Answer based on the assumption that as per hypothetical legal / law school questions in the UK: the facts are as stated i.e. there is no need for me to consider whether the killing of Victim 2 is self defence or not.

What would you be charged with for covering up a rightful death?

I'm referring to a specific situation that occurred in the TV show 24. Due to previous complex circumstances, a man (call him "Bob") destroys a van that is the scene of a murder and hides 2 bodies. Initially Bob had committed no crime; victim 1 was stabbed by victim 2, victim 2 was then shot by Bob in self-defense. I'm wondering what, if anything, could Bob be guilty of for not reporting the deaths? Edit: I'm just curious about the legality and consequences of covering up the deaths so just assume that there is evidence the shooting was in self defence.

sweden An Offence against the peace of the grave Gravfridsbrott Brottsbalken 16 kap. 10 § A person who, without authorisation, moves, damages or treats with disrespect the corpse or ashes of a deceased person is guilty of an offence against the peace of the grave and is sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for at most two years. If the offence is gross, the person is guilty of a gross offence against the peace of the grave and is sentenced to imprisonment for at least six months and at most four years. This law is used in Sweden for things like moving or trying to destroying the body of a murder victim.

What would you be charged with for covering up a rightful death?

I'm referring to a specific situation that occurred in the TV show 24. Due to previous complex circumstances, a man (call him "Bob") destroys a van that is the scene of a murder and hides 2 bodies. Initially Bob had committed no crime; victim 1 was stabbed by victim 2, victim 2 was then shot by Bob in self-defense. I'm wondering what, if anything, could Bob be guilty of for not reporting the deaths? Edit: I'm just curious about the legality and consequences of covering up the deaths so just assume that there is evidence the shooting was in self defence.

Charged? new-south-wales Crimes Act 1900 Murder or manslaughter s18 An assertion of self-defence would not necessarily be agreed with by the prosecutor. Especially in circumstances where it seems the accused took steps to conceal or destroy evidence and the accused is the only witness. There may be sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defence and that the killing was unlawful. If the Crown can also prove intent, then that’s murder, if they can’t it’s manslaughter. Destroying or damaging property s195 Bushfires s203E I haven't seen it but its possible that the accused intentionally started a fire with reckless disregard if it might spread to vegetation. Hindering investigation etc s315 Concealing a serious indictable offence s316 Tampering etc with evidence s317 General offence of perverting the course of justice s319 Accessory after the fact to the first murder s349 Quite likely, setting fire to a van will also be an offence under environmental law.

What would you be charged with for covering up a rightful death?

I'm referring to a specific situation that occurred in the TV show 24. Due to previous complex circumstances, a man (call him "Bob") destroys a van that is the scene of a murder and hides 2 bodies. Initially Bob had committed no crime; victim 1 was stabbed by victim 2, victim 2 was then shot by Bob in self-defense. I'm wondering what, if anything, could Bob be guilty of for not reporting the deaths? Edit: I'm just curious about the legality and consequences of covering up the deaths so just assume that there is evidence the shooting was in self defence.

westvirginia The person may face felony charges leading up to 1-5 years in jail and a fine for each count. Even if the self-defense argument prevails and no other charges are pressed against them, they are still guilty of concealing the stabbing victim's body. Also assuming the self-defense claim for the second death is valid, the second body would not fall under this statute as the death was not result of criminal activity. WV Code § 61-2-5a (a) Any person who, by any means, knowingly and willfully conceals, attempts to conceal or who otherwise aids and abets any person to conceal a deceased human body where death occurred as a result of criminal activity is guilty of a felony

What would you be charged with for covering up a rightful death?

I'm referring to a specific situation that occurred in the TV show 24. Due to previous complex circumstances, a man (call him "Bob") destroys a van that is the scene of a murder and hides 2 bodies. Initially Bob had committed no crime; victim 1 was stabbed by victim 2, victim 2 was then shot by Bob in self-defense. I'm wondering what, if anything, could Bob be guilty of for not reporting the deaths? Edit: I'm just curious about the legality and consequences of covering up the deaths so just assume that there is evidence the shooting was in self defence.

nebraska While this isn't a great match for your case it does give some insight into what could happen. In the case I am using most of the charges center around damaging the human remains as well as abandoning/concealing them. There are also issues around not reporting the death in the first place and actions taken to try and hide it. 18-year-old Nebraska woman sentenced to 90 days in jail for burning fetus after abortion An 18-year-old northeastern Nebraska woman was sentenced Thursday to 90 days in jail and two years of probation for burning and burying a fetus she aborted with her mother’s help in a case watched by advocates as a slew of states move to restrict abortion access. Here the charges include damage to the corpse from burying it as well as burying it. Celeste Burgess, of Norfolk, was sentenced in Madison County after pleading guilty earlier this year to concealing or abandoning a dead body. Two other misdemeanor charges of false reporting and concealing the death of another person were dropped, in an agreement with prosecutors. Here show that charges include abandoning/concealing the corpse as well as issues around reporting the death Jessica Burgess pleaded guilty earlier this month to providing an illegal abortion, false reporting and tampering with human skeletal remains. In exchange for her plea, charges of concealing the death of another person and abortion by someone other than a licensed physician were dismissed. She faces sentencing on Sept. 22. This shows charges around tampering with human remains.

What does it take to be sentenced to a medium-security prison (US)?

It is a trope that when powerful/rich people are sentenced, they are sent to cushy, low-security prisons (think The Wolf of Wall Street ). However, in my book, I'd like a certain character to be sent to a medium-security prison. The only problem is, they're the kind of person that the aforementioned trope applies to. They're a wealthy politician with a lot of influence, and they would certainly do everything in their power to rather wind up in a low-security prison. That gives the context for my question; what circumstances could lead to a powerful person not being able to weasel their way into a low-security prison?

united-states Short Answer They're a wealthy politician with a lot of influence, and they would certainly do everything in their power to rather wind up in a low-security prison. The easiest way to do it would be to have a sentence of more than twenty but less than thirty years imposed because of a very large dollar amount fraud involving a great many victims (e.g. a large Ponzi scheme). Espionage is another plausible charge that could have the same sort of sentence length. This would send them to a medium-security prison despite a lack of "points" from offense severity, a prior criminal record, or a history of violence, lack of gang involvement, or an absence of a prior escape attempt. Long answer Each U.S. state has its own system. In the U.S. federal criminal justice system, a convicted felon's assignment to a particular prison is a decision made by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, after the defendant has been sentenced by a federal judge for a particular sentence length for a particular crime. The FBP states that: The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment, and shall, subject to bed availability, the prisoner's security designation, the prisoner's programmatic needs, the prisoner's mental and medical health needs, any request made by the prisoner related to faith- based needs, recommendations of the sentencing court, and other security concerns of the Bureau of Prisons, place the prisoner in a facility as close as practicable to the prisoner's primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence. It is quite an involved process and set of rules. And, there is necessarily flexibility in the system to reflect the availability of prison space at the time of assignment. The overall context is as follows, according to a source writing as of November 2017 (the same source has at times had an online calculator helping people to predict an assignment): The Federal Bureau of Prisons confines 184,855 people. About 83% of those people, or 154,844 inmates, serve their time inside Bureau of Prisons facilities. The other people serve their time in privately managed prisons or other types of facilities. Males make up more than 93% of the federal prison population. Those people serve sentences in the following types of security levels: Minimum-security Federal Prison Camps: 32,189 people, or about 17% of the population Low-security Federal Correctional Institutions: 69,437 people, or about 37% of the population Medium-security Federal Correctional Institutions: 55,377 or about 30% of the population High-security United States Penitentiaries: 21,524 people, or about 12% of the population Unclassified: 6,980 people, or about 4% of the population The full federal BOP policy is here which notes that: The review process to assign a custody level based on an inmate’s criminal history, instant offense, and institutional adjustment. A custody level (i.e., COMMUNITY, OUT, IN, and MAXIMUM) dictates the degree of staff supervision required for an individual inmate. The key table in the rules is below. It is somewhat hard to interpret without the larger context, but is the closest thing to an overall assignment key that exists in the rules. Basically, the left column lists a point score, which provides a default assignment, and each box has exceptions to the usual point score rules: Medium security inmates either have 0-15 points with a prior serious escape attempt or a sentence of 20 years or more remaining, or 16-23 points. But they have less than 24 points, less than 30 years of their sentence remaining, are not part of a disruptive group (read hard core gang member) and have not been involved in a prison disturbance. The circumstances that gets someone to 16-23 points are not simple to describe succinctly. Another source explains the factors involved (PSR is the pre-sentencing report presented to the judge before ruling on a sentence in the case): Voluntary surrender to custody. Where a court permits a defendant to voluntarily surrender to BOP custody for service of an initial term of confinement (not supervised release violation), three points are subtracted from the security point total. Severity of current offense. Appendix A to Program Statement 5100.08 contains a scale of various offense behaviors, and the Designation Manual provides a corresponding point assignment for assessed severity. When evaluating offense severity, staff consider the most severe documented behavior, as set forth in the PSR, not necessarily the offense of conviction. This ranges from 0-7. The key for assigning this score starts at page 97 of the pdf linked. Criminal history score. Points are assigned based on an offender’s criminal history points, taken from the judgment’s statement of reasons or, if not found there, from the PSR. Scoring does not factor in whether the court found a defendant’s points over – or underrepresent criminal history. This ranges from 0-10 based upon the criminal history score assigned at sentencing. If it is absent the BOP will (per the rule linked above): (a)Add 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month; (b)Add 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted in (a); (c)Add 1 point for each prior conviction not counted in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points for this item; and, (d)Add 2 points if the instant offense is a revocation accompanied by a new state or federal conviction, or if the instant offense occurred while under federal supervision including incarceration, probation, parole or supervised release. This together with the severity of the crime are major factors. History of violence. In assessing the violent nature of prior documented findings of guilt (convictions and supervised release violations), policy distinguishes between “serious” and “minor” incidents as well as time relative to when the case is being reviewed. This category does not factor in the instant offense and can change over time based on an offender’s institutional adjustment (i.e., violence in the BOP can result in assignment of points). The rule provides with regard to this factor: History of escape or attempts. Acts for which there are documented findings of guilt, including absconding from community supervision or failing to appear for a criminal case, will be scored. Detainers. Points are scored for detainers, including both those actually lodged and where law enforcement indicates a firm intent to lodge one. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are not scored. Age. Given the correlation between age (youth) and negative institutional adjustment, points are assigned, with inmates under 24 years old receiving eight points and inmates over 55 receiving none. Education level. Where the PSR verifies a high school degree or GED, no points are assigned. Where neither is verified, two points are assessed. Drug/alcohol abuse. Where the PSR documents a defendant’s drug or alcohol abuse within the past five years, one point is assessed. If there is no known abuse or abuse more than five years old, no points are added. An inmate’s security point total corresponds to a security level from which staff determine facility placement. However, security point total is not dispositive. The application of a public safety factor (PSF) or a management variable can impact the placement decision. The application of a PSF, which is not confined to evidence of convictions, is intended to address information suggesting a need for greater security precautions. Examples include sentence length, removable alien status, sex offender status, and threat to a government official. Management variables are grounded in the “professional judgment of bureau staff” and are used to effectuate an inmate’s placement at a facility inconsistent with the inmate’s scored security level. This most commonly occurs when an inmate poses either a greater or lesser security risk than his or her assigned security level denotes or to facilitate program participation (e.g., permit completion of residential drug treatment despite a drop in security level). It is also worth noting that the federal criminal justice system, generally speaking, deals disproportionately with lower risk felons committing white collar crimes and immigration offenses, while state criminal justice systems generally deals with higher risk felons who have mostly committed "blue collar" crimes, often violent ones.

What does it take to be sentenced to a medium-security prison (US)?

It is a trope that when powerful/rich people are sentenced, they are sent to cushy, low-security prisons (think The Wolf of Wall Street ). However, in my book, I'd like a certain character to be sent to a medium-security prison. The only problem is, they're the kind of person that the aforementioned trope applies to. They're a wealthy politician with a lot of influence, and they would certainly do everything in their power to rather wind up in a low-security prison. That gives the context for my question; what circumstances could lead to a powerful person not being able to weasel their way into a low-security prison?

england-and-wales Prisoner placements are risk-managed by the HM Prison Service ( i.e. not the court or police etc ) according to the: risk of escape harm to the public, if they were to escape threat to the control and stability of a prison Source: Your A-D guide on prison categories Setting aside bribery, corruption and undue influences the obvious way to prevent your character from weaseling out of being placed at a lower category prison is to prevent them from manipulating the risk assessment - for example, they could try to get downgraded by: feigning being an exemplary model prisoner demonstrating good behaviour making a show of passing on their financial/legal (or even political?) knowledge and skills by actively educating other inmates One option to counter these weasel-tactics would be to introduce a sceptical character, potentially with inside information, intent on scuppering their plans. But I digress towards being off-topic. Although tagged united-states , I have answered according to the LawSE Help Centre : " we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag] "

Annoying the TSA, Part II: Fake Contraband

Part I: Can you legally have an (unloaded) black powder revolver in your carry-on luggage? Say that a hypothetical person ("Juan Morales") has a large clear plastic bag of talcum powder in his checked luggage. Within the talcum powder is several thousands of dollars' worth of delicate jewelry, which it is cushioning and protecting from moisture. Due to a set of bizarre coincidences, the bag of mysterious white powder has been: In front of a (legal) machine gun during a lengthy range day Liberally misted with Lanacane On a dying nursing home patient's nightstand while she took nebulized morphine In a friend's bathroom while he (the friend) was hotboxing marijuana in a state where it's legal In the same bathroom while a recently imprisoned former friend was hotboxing crack cocaine (Mr. Morales did not participate) As a result, it sets off every alarm possible, causing the TSA to arrest him and confiscate his stuff. Can Mr. Morales sue them for anything? After all, he was arrested despite technically not doing anything wrong, and has lost the legally-owned jewelry that the talcum powder was keeping dry and protected. EDIT: I forgot to mention that the reason he was going on the flight was to deliver the jewelry to a client (he's a jeweler). As a result of the delay, he lost the client's business. Note: If any of the bizarre coincidences are illegal, ignore them. My point is that there's a false-positive for contraband that causes the TSA to wrongfully arrest him and confiscate $K of his property DISCLAIMER: In case you didn't figure it out already from the ridiculousness of the scenario, I have absolutely no intention of ever doing this. This is purely a hypothetical "what-if" question.

he was arrested despite technically not doing anything wrong He was arrested because there was probable cause to believe that he was involved in the commission of a felony. The arrest was legal even if he was innocent. He has no basis for a successful lawsuit.

Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?

For purposes of conjecture, say some nameless online troll decides that they hate you. Perhaps you said you don't worship the members of a K-Pop band they like. As a result, they do some research and find your address. They then proceed to call your local police department, reporting a (fictional) hostage situation / homicide in progress / etc. at your address. The police department's SWAT team busts down your door and trashes your house. This is a "prank" called swatting . As is the troll's intention, it causes a lot of damage to your property, damage you can't afford to get repaired. Is there any way to get the police department to pay for the damage? After all, they did just come and trash your house despite you having done nothing wrong (besides the horrendous crime of not worshiping the troll's favorite band).

There is a police power exception to the 5th and 14th Amendment rights to not taking property without due process of law and just compensation. In a similar case arising in Greenwood Village, Colorado , an innocent homeowner was denied any relief at trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or on appeal to the 10th Circuit, after his house was trashed by SWAT teams trying to catch a guy accused of mere theft and fleeing police officers. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case sometime after the linked article was written.) But, there does appear to be a circuit split on the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a case appealed from a U.S. District Court decision in Texas reached a contrary conclusion in a case between Vicki Baker and the City of McKinney, Texas decided earlier this month in March of 2023 in which it affirmed a U.S. District Court ruling in favor of the homewoner. The fact that there is now a circuit split on the issue increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would consider a Petition for Certiorari from the 5th Circuit decision in the Texas case, although it is far from a sure thing as only about 1% of Petitions for Certiorari presented to the U.S. Supreme Court (about 80 out of 7,000 to 8,000 per year) are granted. The key issue distinguishing these two rulings is the question of whether the police power exception to the eminent domain obligation of a government applies to cases in which the person whose property is taken is innocent of any wrongdoing and any legally relevant connection to a wrongdoer. Both circuits would agree that a government does not have eminent domain liability under the constitution if, for example, the property destroyed belongs to someone who committed a crime and has their house destroyed in the process of trying to arrest the criminal. Also, neither of the decisions disputes that police may, under the police power exception, destroy property in connection with efforts to apprehend a criminal or to prevent a crime, without seeking court approval in the usual situation where there are exigent circumstances that can't wait for the slow process of conducting a court hearing on the question. The question, instead, is whether an innocent property owner has a right to bring an " inverse condemnation " lawsuit to remedy the damage that the innocent property owner has experienced.

Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?

For purposes of conjecture, say some nameless online troll decides that they hate you. Perhaps you said you don't worship the members of a K-Pop band they like. As a result, they do some research and find your address. They then proceed to call your local police department, reporting a (fictional) hostage situation / homicide in progress / etc. at your address. The police department's SWAT team busts down your door and trashes your house. This is a "prank" called swatting . As is the troll's intention, it causes a lot of damage to your property, damage you can't afford to get repaired. Is there any way to get the police department to pay for the damage? After all, they did just come and trash your house despite you having done nothing wrong (besides the horrendous crime of not worshiping the troll's favorite band).

If the police received a 911 call which was designed to make it appear as if there was a huge danger at your home, and the police act accordingly, that’s bad luck. You should get compensation from the troll if they can be found, but not from the police. If “trashing your house” was done deliberately to cause damage, and not because police expected a dangerous situation. Then you will have a hard time proving it. I suspect your home insurance might have to pay for the damage, at least it would be worth checking. They are more likely to pay than the police.

Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?

For purposes of conjecture, say some nameless online troll decides that they hate you. Perhaps you said you don't worship the members of a K-Pop band they like. As a result, they do some research and find your address. They then proceed to call your local police department, reporting a (fictional) hostage situation / homicide in progress / etc. at your address. The police department's SWAT team busts down your door and trashes your house. This is a "prank" called swatting . As is the troll's intention, it causes a lot of damage to your property, damage you can't afford to get repaired. Is there any way to get the police department to pay for the damage? After all, they did just come and trash your house despite you having done nothing wrong (besides the horrendous crime of not worshiping the troll's favorite band).

texas In one particular recent (at the time of this posting) case [ref1] [ref2] [ref3] , the homeowner sued not for damages but under 5th amendment's Eminent Domain doctrine. The Federal Judge ruled that “the destruction to [Plaintiff]’s home was intentional and foreseeable.” In this case, a fugitive was sheltered inside the plaintiff's house and had no hostage. The plaintiff claimed the defendants (law enforcement) seized the plaintiff's house to capture the fugitive. The homeowner legal counsel, in a statement, declared it doesn't matter "whether the government official destroying your home has a business card from the Roads Department or the Police Department." While the damage was caused by the SWAT pursuing a fugitive and not from a prank phone call, it still bears enough similarities. The case could still go on appeal and be reversed, though.

Can you legally have an (unloaded) black powder revolver in your carry-on luggage?

Part I of "Annoying the TSA" For good reason, U.S. law forbids people from carrying firearms on planes. However, last I checked, black powder "antique weapons" (such as cap-and-ball revolvers) aren't considered firearms. With that in mind, would it be legal to carry an unloaded (since you aren't allowed to have black powder or primers) cap-and-ball revolver on a plane? Note: I'm not asking for legal advice, nor do I plan to actually do so if it's legal; this is just a random "what-if" thought that's been bugging me for the last few months.

The relevant regulations in 49 CFR 1540 refer to weapons, not firearms, and unless you are specifically permitted, you cannot carry a weapon in your carry-on luggage. The interpretation of "weapon" is given here , which says Weapons are objects that may be used to attack another. TSA considers an item to be a weapon under 49 CFR 1540.111 if it is created for use as a weapon or is so similar to an item created as a weapon that it appears to be, or is easily used as, a weapon. Weapons include firearms, as well as realistic replicas of firearms that may reasonably be thought to be actual weapons. Such realistic replicas are prohibited because their similarity in appearance to real weapons may allow them to be used to intimidate passengers and flight crew. The screener has the discretion to determine when a replica is so realistic that it should be prohibited. Other toy weapons will be allowed in the sterile areas and cabin. Partial weapons and parts of weapons also are prohibited because they may be carried separately by collaborators for assembly subsequent to entry or boarding. In addition, partial weapons may appear to be operative and could be used to intimidate passengers and flight crew.

Can you legally have an (unloaded) black powder revolver in your carry-on luggage?

Part I of "Annoying the TSA" For good reason, U.S. law forbids people from carrying firearms on planes. However, last I checked, black powder "antique weapons" (such as cap-and-ball revolvers) aren't considered firearms. With that in mind, would it be legal to carry an unloaded (since you aren't allowed to have black powder or primers) cap-and-ball revolver on a plane? Note: I'm not asking for legal advice, nor do I plan to actually do so if it's legal; this is just a random "what-if" thought that's been bugging me for the last few months.

TSA considers Antique Firearms the same as any other Weapon , even unloaded ones. CFR 49 § 1540.111 Carriage of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries by individuals. (a) On an individual's person or accessible property—prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may not have a weapon , explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property— (2) When the individua l is entering or in a sterile area ; or (3) When the individual is attempting to board or onboard an aircraft for which screening is conducted under §§ 1544.201, 1546.201, or 1562.23 of this chapter. Firearms in the relevant law only appear for law enforcement during duties (§ 1540.111 (b)) and the transport in checked luggage. (§ 1540.111 (c)). The Sterile area is past the TSA checkpoint. In 2021, TSA stopped a person in Newark for trying to fly with an unloaded antique revolver. They could not fly with the gun in their carry-on bag, he was allowed to deposit the gun somewhere off premises, but it is not known if they returned in time to catch their flight.

Can you legally have an (unloaded) black powder revolver in your carry-on luggage?

Part I of "Annoying the TSA" For good reason, U.S. law forbids people from carrying firearms on planes. However, last I checked, black powder "antique weapons" (such as cap-and-ball revolvers) aren't considered firearms. With that in mind, would it be legal to carry an unloaded (since you aren't allowed to have black powder or primers) cap-and-ball revolver on a plane? Note: I'm not asking for legal advice, nor do I plan to actually do so if it's legal; this is just a random "what-if" thought that's been bugging me for the last few months.

Black powder guns are considered firearms, they are just treated differently than modern cartridge fed weapons under the sub-set "antique firearms". This category changes how the ATF regulates them, specifically with regard to dealer licensing requirements, shipping, logging sales, performing background checks, etc. However, the TSA is not part of the ATF, and considering the extensive list of things banned from the passenger cabin of airliners, ( including BB guns, which are not firearms ) it would be illogical to presume that antique status of a weapon might make it acceptable to carry one onto an airplane.

Does an illegal mode of creation or fixation remove a work from copyrightability?

Does an illegal mode of creation or fixation (such as vandalism by graffiti) mean that the work is not the subject of copyright?

The Copyright Act provides that (17 U.S.C. § 102 ): Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed 1 in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. It also says: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. There is no explicit requirement that the work be legally produced, and there is no exception for copyright protection if the work is illegally produced. See also Celia Lerman, " Protecting Artistic Vandalism: Graffiti and Copyright Law " (2013) 2 N.Y.U. J. Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law 295: there are several examples outside of graffiti where copyright protects right-infringing works. Copyright still attaches to photographs taken that violate privacy rights: a paparazzi photographer has obtained copyright protection over a picture that he took of a celebrity while violating her rights to privacy, and a camp counsellor obtained copyright over a picture of a minor, taken without her parent's permission. A journalist has received copyright protection over an article that reveals state secrets. A student may obtain copyright protection for a painting of a minor killing a policeman, even though the work could constitute an illegal threat under criminal law. Copyright protection is denied to a work only if the work itself violates copyright. ... If U.S. copyright law included a general "illegality clause," then copyright would not protect works that offend any other body of law. Such clauses are contained in other copyright and trademark laws around the world. U.S. copyright law does not include such a provision. ... [a vandal's] work can still be protected under copyright, because vandalism does not preclude copyright protection. 1. § 101: "A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."

At what point is it punishable to support a "criminal organisation"?

A friend said to me the other day that she was worried that she had supported the the " Last Generation " ("Letzte Generation") organization financially. The Last Generation often blocks the streets of Berlin and other large cities in Germany to encourage politicians to focus more on climate change. In the past, it has been possible to support the organization through donations to help them afford the legal costs they face after their actions. The background to this is that in Germany the Last Generation organization as a criminal organization because of its activities. As a criminal organization because of its activities. Now my friend is of the opinion that if that were to happen, she would have committed a retroactive offence. Because supporting a criminal organization in Germany is a punishable offence. According to my legal understanding, I would say that an organization that has been retroactively classified as a criminal organisation does not does not mean that it has committed a criminal offence. So that it has nothing to fear here. Am I right?

england-and-wales Short Answer: Paying legal fees for a criminal organisation is not (by my reading of the law) an offence. But if it is, retrospective legislation is prohibited in all but a few situations. Long Answer: There are two issues here: Support for an organised crime group This is an offence contrary to section 45 Serious Crime Act 2015: (1) A person who participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group commits an offence. (2) For this purpose, a person participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group if the person takes part in any activities that the person knows or reasonably suspects— (a) are criminal activities of an organised crime group, or (b) will help an organised crime group to carry on criminal activities HOWEVER it seems unlikely that " donations to help them afford the legal costs they face after their actions " would meet the emboldened requirements at subsection 2(b) as it does not appear to be supporting "criminal activities." That said, each case will be considered on its own merits. Retrospective legislation Generally, this is prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted under Article 7 Human Rights Act 1988: No punishment without law 1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. 2 This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations. However, paragraph 2 does allow for retrospective legislation if the need arises. For example the War Crimes Act 1991 retrospectively criminalises murder etc committed in Germany or its occupied territories during the second world war. Although tagged germany , I have answered according to the LawSE Help Centre : " we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag] "

Artist liability for illegal art?

Have any graffiti artists, in the process of asserting their copyright claim in court over illegally placed works of art, and in doing to by proving themselves to the the creator of the works, been subsequently found financially liable for the cost of removing or painting over their own work? (either as part of the proceedings, or in a later counter-suit?) And/or have are there cases where revenue from the copyright infringer's use of the art was funneled towards cleanup costs instead of the artist?

Graffiti artists are routinely found financially liable for their work, but assertions of copyright infringement by graffiti artists are vanishingly rare, so I don't know if that has ever happened in that context. In many jurisdictions, filing a lawsuit against someone waives any statute of limitations defense you may have against counterclaims filed by the person you are suing in any related matter. So, if that rule applies, a counterclaim for financial loss from graffiti could be brought in a copyright infringement lawsuit, even though the statute of limitations on the damages claim would otherwise have run. But, I don't know if such a rule applies to copyright infringement claims filed in federal court.

Is a Prenuptial Agreement a "living document"?

I had a "Property (Contracting Out) Agreement" (Prenup) drawn about the time I got married many years ago. Recent life events require that I revisit my financial affairs (not related to my Marriage), and my Lawyer advised that a Prenup is a "Living Document" and should be reviewed. He persisted with this view - possibly for reasons I don't grasp - even when I advised him I really do not want to review the Prenup "and that it is what it is" (because it will put unnecessary stress on my relationship, and because I can't see what revisiting it achieves and it would be a point of pain in my relationship). My lawyers advice about it being a living document sounds wrong and feels like the lawyer is just trying to up their billables at my expense without having my interests forefront - which would be a concerning development. Is his advice that a Prenup is a living document correct? (I live in New Zealand - not sure if that makes any difference)

Sounds like you aren't sharing the same definition of living document A prenup is simply a contract, and most contracts are "fixed" at the time of their formation: the rights and obligations of each party are defined for all time (or for as long as the contract lasts). This is not what I and I suspect you, would understand to be a living document. However, some contracts contain terms that allow their terms to be varied - either by agreement or unilaterally. That sort of contract would be a living document. Notwithstanding, any contract can be varied or replaced with a new contract until by agreement of all parties as long as the contract is still on foot. Your lawyer may be thinking of the prenup in this way, and, at a stretch, that would make it a living document. Your lawyer's advice is sound - your circumstances have changed, and you should at least look at the prenup to decide if you are still happy with its terms in light of your new circumstances. That's a review. It most definitely "is what it is", but if "what it is" doesn't suit your relationship's current status, you can, with the agreement of your partner, change "what it is". Without reviewing it, you can't make an informed decision if the current agreement even makes sense in the light of the present. It may be that you're perfectly happy with "what it is", or that you're unhappy but trying to change it would make you more unhappy, or that discussing it like adults with your partner and deciding to change or not change is a good or bad idea. But you can't know unless you do the review first.

Is a Prenuptial Agreement a "living document"?

I had a "Property (Contracting Out) Agreement" (Prenup) drawn about the time I got married many years ago. Recent life events require that I revisit my financial affairs (not related to my Marriage), and my Lawyer advised that a Prenup is a "Living Document" and should be reviewed. He persisted with this view - possibly for reasons I don't grasp - even when I advised him I really do not want to review the Prenup "and that it is what it is" (because it will put unnecessary stress on my relationship, and because I can't see what revisiting it achieves and it would be a point of pain in my relationship). My lawyers advice about it being a living document sounds wrong and feels like the lawyer is just trying to up their billables at my expense without having my interests forefront - which would be a concerning development. Is his advice that a Prenup is a living document correct? (I live in New Zealand - not sure if that makes any difference)

Is his advice that a Prenup is a living document correct? In a sense. It's a smart advice of a salesperson. With or without a lawyer, you need to understand if the existing prenup still works for you. Steps to get that understanding: Read the existing prenup, make sure you understand every fancy legal term used in it and how it applied to you at the time it was written. Identify the differences in your current situation to what it was back then. Figure if the prenup still works for you now. If not, figure how would you like to change it, and whether your partner would agree. You would need a lawyer only if: You can't do the above on your own; or You can, and you realise that you actually want to make changes to the prenup. These would need to comply with s 21F of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 .

Can an auto-reply be considered assent/agreement?

The CEO of a certain company set multiple important public email accounts to autoreply to all messages with the poop emoji. Importantly, there is no indication that it's an autoreply. Someone had the funny idea to send the account an email with a contract to sell the company for a small (but not unreasonable) amount along with "If you agree, reply with the poop emoji". And the account replied as expected. Practically, I'm sure this won't work. But, what is the legal explanation for why not? Why is this reply not considered an agreement to sell the company? Fun follow-up: Could someone get out of a contract by proving that their email agreeing to it (e.g., "Yes, I agree to the contract") was an autoreply? (assuming US laws)

Why is this reply not considered an agreement to sell the company? Because a sender's opportunism regarding the bizarre contents of the autoreply preclude a finding that there is a meeting of the minds. Could someone get out of a contract by proving that their email agreeing to it (e.g., "Yes, I agree to the contract") was an autoreply? It mostly depends on the element of authorization to set up the autoreply that way. If the person who wrote the autoreply was authorized by the user of the email account to set it up that way, the contract binds the user. This form of blind and reckless formation of contracts is an extreme scenario of Restatement (Second) of Contracts at §154(b). The contract might be null and void as unreasonable, contrary to public policy, and/or on other grounds. But a wide range of scenarios would fall short of warranting a nullification of the contract. (Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the linked site.)

Can an auto-reply be considered assent/agreement?

The CEO of a certain company set multiple important public email accounts to autoreply to all messages with the poop emoji. Importantly, there is no indication that it's an autoreply. Someone had the funny idea to send the account an email with a contract to sell the company for a small (but not unreasonable) amount along with "If you agree, reply with the poop emoji". And the account replied as expected. Practically, I'm sure this won't work. But, what is the legal explanation for why not? Why is this reply not considered an agreement to sell the company? Fun follow-up: Could someone get out of a contract by proving that their email agreeing to it (e.g., "Yes, I agree to the contract") was an autoreply? (assuming US laws)

The first and most important of the 3 conditions for a binding contract (mutual understanding and agreement to the terms, exchange of value, not criminal) prevents a binding contract from being forced on someone. Signing and everything else is secondary, Mr Poop could sign a paper contract with the same terms, in front of the President, both Houses, and all 9 justices, and as long as it was clear that he didn’t mean it, all the paper would be is souvenir autograph, not a binding contract.

How to best approach dealing with a cybercriminal in a distant country harassing an entire internet community?

For years now, one person has been persistently doing everything they could to make the lives of several administrators/moderators miserable and as a consequence directly and indirectly prevented the normal functioning of the whole internet community these people are responsible for. This person keeps changing usernames and IP addresses, uses VPNs whenever needed and is actively spending money to keep doing what they're doing so any attempt at getting rid of them is futile. Here's what they have done over the span of a few years: DDoSing several different server whenever there's activity on them. They have already done hundreds of DDoS attacks and keep doing them several times a week. general harassment of several different people finding the family members of some of these people and harassing them as well death threats (not ones that could be taken seriously but this is not necessarily clear to some of the people that received them) Police was contacted in the past but they didn't express much interest in taking any action. This person is located in a relatively faraway country and there's no core member of our community from the same geographical area. One thing is clear. This person has no life and they get a kick out of what they're doing so they are not going to stop by themselves any time soon. There's a good few people in our community that are sick of this person and willing to take whatever action is needed for them to stop. We know this person's full name, location, primary IP address and more, however, it would be difficult to actually prove their real identity to the authorities. It would be easy to retaliate in a similar manner to what we received but that's not what we want to do. We also don't want to flood police departments with complaints in hope that they will finally do something once they get annoyed enough. But if we can we want to use our numerical advantage and finally put a stop to this madness. The offender is located in Turkey. The affected servers and people are located in several European countries and the USA. What's the best course of action to take? I apologize if this question is not fit for this site but I'll take any pointers I can get to help with this situation.

You believe you know the address. I write "believe" because this might be yet another level of misdirection or a systematic error in IP geolocation . But assume that your information is true. There is a state where this happens, with law enforcement agencies. Is the conduct criminal where the perpetrator lives? Countries interpret the freedom of speech in different ways. In many, it is no crime to use a VPN to disguise the own IP, or to use an alias on the web. But in many countries, the activities you describe would amount to stalking, which can be a crime. You mention that the police takes little interest. In many countries, the police prioritize specific, real-world incidents (cars being stolen, drugs being sold) over having to resolve an IP and probably getting nowhere. But it is often possible for the victim to file first a criminal complaint, and then a complaint against the prosecution if the case is not charged. As long as you do not name countries, I cannot get more specific.

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

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

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

Does distributing compiled code with "no reverse engineering" notice amount to pre-patent publication?

If I made an invention of a patentable computer algorithm, and then implemented it, compiled and published a program online, while retaining the copyright notice like "reverse engineering is strictly prohibited" (which makes it protected from reverse engineering by law, at least European law afaik), would it amount to a pre-patent publication of the invention? Technically if nobody is legally allowed to study the program, they wouldn't have the means to derive at the invention? Of course they could study it "quietly" and possibly come up with their own algorithm, but my question is about whether the patent court would say that I've published it which makes it impossible for me to patent it (I do know about a 6-month post-publication period that still allows me to patent in some jurisdictions). As a follow-up question, would the same case of pre-patent publication of compiled code help me to claim the prior art if somebody else then went on to patent it themselves?

This supposes that the patentable concept can’t be learned form the operation of the whole program and hiding the invention while making use of the invention in public is not a disclosure. However, in the US there is a famous case In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parte Kuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) that concluded a public demonstration that didn’t expose the inner workings did start the clock on a bar to patentability. See previous question https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/20886/would-the-demonstration-of-an-invention-be-considered-public-disclosure The answer (from me) has the caveat that this is a pre-AIA case and courts might come to a different answer under that current law. The U.S. has viewed public use, especially commercial public use, as disqualifying (after a grace period) but the rest of the world puts its emphasis on actual disclosure of the inventive concept so this result might be different elsewhere. One thought experiment would be to analogize with an article in a widely available journal with the words Don’t read the article that starts on page 19 on the cover. From a disclosure point of view I do not think that is different from it being possible, but illegal, to read.

Does distributing compiled code with "no reverse engineering" notice amount to pre-patent publication?

If I made an invention of a patentable computer algorithm, and then implemented it, compiled and published a program online, while retaining the copyright notice like "reverse engineering is strictly prohibited" (which makes it protected from reverse engineering by law, at least European law afaik), would it amount to a pre-patent publication of the invention? Technically if nobody is legally allowed to study the program, they wouldn't have the means to derive at the invention? Of course they could study it "quietly" and possibly come up with their own algorithm, but my question is about whether the patent court would say that I've published it which makes it impossible for me to patent it (I do know about a 6-month post-publication period that still allows me to patent in some jurisdictions). As a follow-up question, would the same case of pre-patent publication of compiled code help me to claim the prior art if somebody else then went on to patent it themselves?

I don’t think anyone anticipated that the “prior art” could have been created by illegal means. Something simpler, you printed a description of your invention and locked it into a safe. I crack the safe and publish that description. IF this counts as prior art (a big if), and you can’t get the patent, and you lose money due to my illegal actions, then you can sue me for the damages.

Is it legal to place difficult-to-remove deliberately-annoying alarms in a building without permission to do so?

In the UK, a group of unaffiliated people went to a banquet by Just Stop Oil, a climate change activist group, and released electronic alarms tied to balloons. The banquet took place in a building with high ceilings, so even with a ladder, no one could reach the balloons or alarms to disable them. Was placing the balloons illegal? Although the banquet was secular, it took place in a church building. Does this make a difference? Starting at 8:10: https://youtu.be/y6flblkVh1I

australia There are likely several offences under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. Under s4 it is unlawful to enter into inclosed lands (which includes all buildings) without the consent of the owner or controller. The balloon releasers did not have explicit permission and entering with the intent to disrupt means they cannot rely upon implied permission. s4B makes this an aggravated offence if the intention for entering is to disrupt any business or undertaking taking place on the inclosed lands. Because there were 3 or more people involved, the maximum penalty is 200 penalty units (currently $22,000) or 3 years. In addition, the occupiers could seek damages under the torts of trespass or nuisance.

Is it legal to place difficult-to-remove deliberately-annoying alarms in a building without permission to do so?

In the UK, a group of unaffiliated people went to a banquet by Just Stop Oil, a climate change activist group, and released electronic alarms tied to balloons. The banquet took place in a building with high ceilings, so even with a ladder, no one could reach the balloons or alarms to disable them. Was placing the balloons illegal? Although the banquet was secular, it took place in a church building. Does this make a difference? Starting at 8:10: https://youtu.be/y6flblkVh1I

england-and-wales The more likely offence, if at all 1 , would be contrary to section 4A Public Order Act A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person ... distress, he uses ... disorderly behaviour ... thereby causing that or another person distress. An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place. [ edited for ease of reading ] Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. Source: CPS, Public Order Offences FOR GENERAL INTEREST AND AWARENESS : There are a number of potentially related offences that I have discounted for the reasons shown: LOCKING ON contrary to sections 1 and 2 Public Order Act 2023 - fails to meet the definition of serious disruption TRESPASSORY ASSEMBLIES contrary to section 14A Public Order Act 1986 - can only be committed in the "open air" BURGLARY contrary to section 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 - hinges on the definition of "criminal damage" (very tenuous IMO) TRESPASS ON DESIGNATED SITE contrary to section 128 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - fails to meet the definitions of "protected or designated site" 1 There is nothing on open source nor via mainstream media (that I can find) to say whether a complaint has been made to the police or a criminal investigation is underway so this may all be moot.

Is it legal to place difficult-to-remove deliberately-annoying alarms in a building without permission to do so?

In the UK, a group of unaffiliated people went to a banquet by Just Stop Oil, a climate change activist group, and released electronic alarms tied to balloons. The banquet took place in a building with high ceilings, so even with a ladder, no one could reach the balloons or alarms to disable them. Was placing the balloons illegal? Although the banquet was secular, it took place in a church building. Does this make a difference? Starting at 8:10: https://youtu.be/y6flblkVh1I

england-and-wales The offence of aggravated trespass, s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 , seems to fit the circumstances on the face of them. (1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect— (a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity, (b)of obstructing that activity, or (c)of disrupting that activity. It doesn't provide for a defence or lawful excuse.* "Land" includes buildings: DPP v Chivers [2010] EWHC 1814 (Admin) . My understanding is that the people who set the alarms were invited to the banquet. However, the fact of the invitation of the banquet did not give them licence to release electronic alarms tied to balloons at the banquet. The act need not be illegal in itself. The necessary element is that the person carried out the act with the intention of intimidating, obstructing or disrupting. The people who released the balloons seem to openly admit to intention to disrupt the banquet. However, I doubt there will be any prosecutions in these particular circumstances. In which case the behaviour was legal. *In contrast, Penalty for wilful obstruction s137 Highways Act 1980 starts, "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse". This is what Just Stop Oil rely on when they slow-walk along a road. They have the excuse of exercising the right to freedom of protest; they excercise their rights within the constraints so far tolerated by the authorities. Fewer people seem to be aware of the "lawful authority or excuse" than claim awareness of the Highways Act.

Could SCOTUS ban the pointing of guns at jurors?

With the Rittenhouse fiasco were a prosecutor pointed an assault rifle at jurors. Could SCOTUS give guidance as to how the issue of fire arms in the court room should be handled? And more specifically could SCOTUS regulate in what manner in which firearms are pointed. (Specifically not at jurors) Would SCOTUS be able to govern such an issue or does that fall outside it's jurisdiction? I would be interested in what manner SCOTUS has influence on issues of a more practical nature in regards to lower courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to set everyday procedural rules in state court, although it can mandate processes that flow from the constitution. In criminal cases, this allows it to regulate courtroom conduct that is prejudicial to defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has prohibited keeping criminal defendants facing trial in a cage in the courtroom as is common in many jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. The Rittenhouse case took place in state court, over which the U.S. Supreme Court has limited authority in such matters. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has broad authority to establish court rules in the federal courts and could adopt rules in those courts if it deemed fit, and if its proposed rules were not legislatively vetoed by Congress.

Can legal/ pre-action correspondence with a business be subject to a SAR?

Bob has been harmed by a business ACME inc. He sends them a letter before claiming damages as under the pre action protocol. They send him a reply. Bob loses his copy of both of these articles of correspondence, but would like to refer back to them. Can he request them from ACME Inc. Under the DPA 2018?

Maybe not. The ICO says that The right of access enables individuals to obtain their personal data rather than giving them a right to see copies of documents containing their personal data. It might be valid to interpret the DPA / UKGDPR in a way that the relevant personal data undergoing processing in their system is the existence of the letters, but that you are not entitled to a copy of the letters. This is in line with the purpose of the right to access, that you can check what data they are processing about you and whether it is correct. If that argument holds and the data subject insists on receiving a copy of the letters, it might be legitimate to charge them a fee for these copies. But in practice: The data controller might not make this argument and just hand over the copies. It is worth a try. A right to access founded in data protection might not be the only way to receive a copy of these materials. If the letters are relevant for legal proceedings, they could perhaps be requested during the disclosure process.

Can I legally give someone the right to cannibalize me?

Let say I and a friend are stranded somewhere, starving, and confident rescue will not come until we both have starved. Realizing that it makes more sense for one to live then both of us to starve we draw straws and I draw poorly. I give my friend permission to both kill me and eat my body to survive. I've agreed to this plan, perhaps we even record me on video giving him permission, saying I'm of sane mind and why I made the decision etc. My friend gets home afterwards and tells everyone how great I tasted. For some reason people get upset and call the police. My question, is my friend guilty of a crime? Has my permission, and the necessity of the situation, made his actions legal?

germany In Germany this is a solved matter: Killing on request is illegal. Killing someone to consume them can be Mord . Eating human remains is illegal, even with consent of the dead. Why do we know this? Because Armin Meiwes did exactly that: he was involved in killing Bernd-Jürgen Armando Brandes, who wanted to die, and ate the remains of him. He currently is incarcerated for life due to the conviction of Mord. This is because he was found to have killed for his own sexual gratification - one of the factors that can turn an unlawful killing/ Totschlag ( § 212 StGB ) (~manslaughter) into Mord ( § 211 StGB ) (~murder 1st degree) under german law. Consuming the remains of a human body is, as the courts found, Störung der Totenruhe under § 168 StgB (disturbing the rest of human remains). It is not possible to consent to being eaten, as you can not give your body to anything but research or medical education legally and you have to be buried in a designated graveyard.

Can I legally give someone the right to cannibalize me?

Let say I and a friend are stranded somewhere, starving, and confident rescue will not come until we both have starved. Realizing that it makes more sense for one to live then both of us to starve we draw straws and I draw poorly. I give my friend permission to both kill me and eat my body to survive. I've agreed to this plan, perhaps we even record me on video giving him permission, saying I'm of sane mind and why I made the decision etc. My friend gets home afterwards and tells everyone how great I tasted. For some reason people get upset and call the police. My question, is my friend guilty of a crime? Has my permission, and the necessity of the situation, made his actions legal?

canada If your friend has not guilty of an offence, it is not because of consent. Consent is vitiated when the accused intends and causes serious bodily harm to the other ( R. v. Paice , 2005 SCC 22 at para. 18 ). However, the defence of necessity may be available, although the Supreme Court has never directly decided this issue. See R. v. Latimer , 2001 SCC 1 at para. 40 (also surveying the law in other jurisdictions): The third requirement for the necessity defence is proportionality; it requires the trial judge to consider, as a question of law rather than fact, whether the harm avoided was proportionate to the harm inflicted. It is difficult, at the conceptual level, to imagine a circumstance in which the proportionality requirement could be met for a homicide. We leave open, if and until it arises, the question of whether the proportionality requirement could be met in a homicide situation . In England, the defence of necessity is probably not available for homicide : R. v. Howe , [1987] 1 A.C. 417 (H.L.), at pp. 453 and 429; J. Smith, Smith & Hogan: Criminal Law (9th ed. 1999), at pp. 249-51. The famous case of R. v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), 14 Q.B.D. 273, involving cannibalism on the high seas, is often cited as establishing the unavailability of the defence of necessity for homicide, although the case is not conclusive: see R. Card, Card Cross and Jones: Criminal Law (12th ed. 1992), at p. 532; Smith & Hogan: Criminal Law , supra , at pp. 249 and 251. The Law Reform Commission of Canada has suggested the defence should not be available for a person who intentionally kills or seriously harms another person: Report on Recodifying Criminal Law (1987), at p. 36. American jurisdictions are divided on this question, with a number of them denying the necessity defence for murder : P. H. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (1984), vol. 2, at pp. 63-65; see also United States v. Holmes , 26 F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383). The American Model Penal Code proposes that the defence of necessity would be available for homicide: American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries (1985), Part I, vol. 2, at § 3.02, pp. 14-15; see also W. R. LaFave and A. W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law (1986), vol. 1, at p. 634.

What is “private law”?

Section 156 of the Equality Act 2010 says: A failure in respect of a performance of a duty imposed by or under this Chapter does not confer a cause of action at private law. What does the phrase at private law mean?

As @James K indicated in a comment: Private law involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts and torts, (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and artificial persons (i.e., organizations) and the state, including regulatory statutes, penal law and other law that affects the public order. In general terms, private law involves interactions between private individuals , whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population. Source: Wikipedia The effect of section 156 is that anyone adversely affected by a public authority's failings under Part 11, Chapter 1 cannot sue: any redress is by way of judicial review. The Explanatory Note to section 156 offers this example: A local council fails to give due regard to the requirements of the public sector equality duty when deciding to stop funding a local women’s refuge. An individual would not be able to sue the local council as a result and claim compensation. She would need to consider whether to pursue judicial review proceedings.

Do schools have permission to use pictures containing my face taken inside school forever if I agreed to it?

On day one of my first year in high school me and basically every other students were given a few documents to sign. One of them included a clause that allowed the school to publish pictures of us doing activities on the school website. Back then I was not that privacy-conscious and my homeroom teacher pressured us to quickly sign all of them so I did. I don't remember anyone questioning the reasoning behind the clause. After more than a decade past graduation, the school website appeared in my search results so I took a look. I found some pictures of me and some of them were embarrassing and/or really cringe. I would rather have them removed so I contacted the school and politely asked for the removal of about a dozen photos. They declined, citing the document that everyone signs. Does the school really have rights to the photos for eternity? Does the CCPA or COPPA provide any protection for me in this case? Had I been an EU resident, could I have invoked GDPR and have the photos removed without hassle?

There are not enough facts to draw a conclusion First, it’s not clear that the document you signed amounts to a contract. For example, what consideration did the school give you in return for the permission you gave them? Providing you with an education doesn’t count - they were legally obliged to do that already. If it is a contract then whether and how it can be revoked would depend on the terms of that contract witch I’m guessing you don’t have a copy of. Notwithstanding, as a minor, you have the right to void the contract until a reasonable time after you turn 18. Even if it is now many years since that happened, it might be reasonable since you only just discovered the website. If it isn’t a contract, then it would be revocable at any time. Practicalities Make a fuss and they may take the photos down even if they are not obliged to. They presumably have plenty of photos of kids who aren’t you and aren’t complaining and if you make it so it’s easier to change the website than to deal with you, thy’ll change the website. I suspect their inertia is because they once paid a web developer to create the site, it has never since been updated, they don’t know how to do it, and they don’t want to have to pay someone to find out. Otherwise, why would they have photos of ex-students rather than current students? If so, an offer by you to cover the costs, might solve your problem.

Do schools have permission to use pictures containing my face taken inside school forever if I agreed to it?

On day one of my first year in high school me and basically every other students were given a few documents to sign. One of them included a clause that allowed the school to publish pictures of us doing activities on the school website. Back then I was not that privacy-conscious and my homeroom teacher pressured us to quickly sign all of them so I did. I don't remember anyone questioning the reasoning behind the clause. After more than a decade past graduation, the school website appeared in my search results so I took a look. I found some pictures of me and some of them were embarrassing and/or really cringe. I would rather have them removed so I contacted the school and politely asked for the removal of about a dozen photos. They declined, citing the document that everyone signs. Does the school really have rights to the photos for eternity? Does the CCPA or COPPA provide any protection for me in this case? Had I been an EU resident, could I have invoked GDPR and have the photos removed without hassle?

The first question is, is the school required to obtain your consent. The answer is highly jurisdiction-dependent. California is very protective of the individual's personality right and there are specific statutes that define this right. Alaska does not recognize "right of publicity" even on common law grounds, but Ohio does recognize a common law right of publicity. Idaho recognizes a general right of privacy, but no published ruling has recognized a right of publicity that would require consent to photograph a person in a public place. Washington statutorily recognizes the right of publicity. That right is "freely transferable, assignable, and licensable, in whole or in part, by contract or inter vivos transfer". However, permission is not required in case of "matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire, and parody". Therefore defendants could argue that permission is not required. If we assume that there was contractual licencing of the right of publicity, the question is whether the contract can not be repudiated. RCW 26.28.030 says that A minor is bound, not only by contracts for necessaries, but also by his or her other contracts, unless he or she disaffirms them within a reasonable time after he or she attains his or her majority, and restores to the other party all money and property received by him or her by virtue of the contract, and remaining within his or her control at any time after his or her attaining his or her majority. You could have repudiated that agreement some years ago, but that reasonable time has passed.

Do schools have permission to use pictures containing my face taken inside school forever if I agreed to it?

On day one of my first year in high school me and basically every other students were given a few documents to sign. One of them included a clause that allowed the school to publish pictures of us doing activities on the school website. Back then I was not that privacy-conscious and my homeroom teacher pressured us to quickly sign all of them so I did. I don't remember anyone questioning the reasoning behind the clause. After more than a decade past graduation, the school website appeared in my search results so I took a look. I found some pictures of me and some of them were embarrassing and/or really cringe. I would rather have them removed so I contacted the school and politely asked for the removal of about a dozen photos. They declined, citing the document that everyone signs. Does the school really have rights to the photos for eternity? Does the CCPA or COPPA provide any protection for me in this case? Had I been an EU resident, could I have invoked GDPR and have the photos removed without hassle?

Depending on jurisdiction, the right to any picture of you may be yours. Some countries allow taking and publishing pictures of you, as long as you are in public or on the picture taker's private property. However, you explicitly gave them permission to take pictures and use your pictures. Assuming they do indeed show you on school ground doing school activities, there is little you can do. The only option you may have is your age when signing. You said it was in school, so if you were very young, you may have a case where your consent is actually not valid, because you were to young to realize what that specific thing you signed meant. To find out whether this might be a loophole, contact a local lawyer that knows your jurisdiction's age restrictions on consenting to specific things and tell them the details including your age at the time this was signed. On the "technically not about the law, but still a solution" side, you can have that lawyer write the school a letter. Sometimes, a lawyer's letterhead on a real piece of paper does way more than any legal construct or email that may come in. They may not want to find out whether they are right, when avoiding legal problems can be as easy as removing a picture.

Do schools have permission to use pictures containing my face taken inside school forever if I agreed to it?

On day one of my first year in high school me and basically every other students were given a few documents to sign. One of them included a clause that allowed the school to publish pictures of us doing activities on the school website. Back then I was not that privacy-conscious and my homeroom teacher pressured us to quickly sign all of them so I did. I don't remember anyone questioning the reasoning behind the clause. After more than a decade past graduation, the school website appeared in my search results so I took a look. I found some pictures of me and some of them were embarrassing and/or really cringe. I would rather have them removed so I contacted the school and politely asked for the removal of about a dozen photos. They declined, citing the document that everyone signs. Does the school really have rights to the photos for eternity? Does the CCPA or COPPA provide any protection for me in this case? Had I been an EU resident, could I have invoked GDPR and have the photos removed without hassle?

They declined, citing the document that everyone signs. Ask to see their copy of the release that you signed. Since this was some number of years ago, I'd wager that they don't actually have it. If they don't have a signed release form, then they can't claim that as the basis to use your photo. "Trust us, you signed a release at one point" isn't a legally-valid argument. If they can somehow produce the release form, it should have a date on it. You'll be able to calculate your exact age at that time and evaluate whether you were legally capable of entering into that sort of contract according to the laws of your particular locale (typically 18 in the US).

Do schools have permission to use pictures containing my face taken inside school forever if I agreed to it?

On day one of my first year in high school me and basically every other students were given a few documents to sign. One of them included a clause that allowed the school to publish pictures of us doing activities on the school website. Back then I was not that privacy-conscious and my homeroom teacher pressured us to quickly sign all of them so I did. I don't remember anyone questioning the reasoning behind the clause. After more than a decade past graduation, the school website appeared in my search results so I took a look. I found some pictures of me and some of them were embarrassing and/or really cringe. I would rather have them removed so I contacted the school and politely asked for the removal of about a dozen photos. They declined, citing the document that everyone signs. Does the school really have rights to the photos for eternity? Does the CCPA or COPPA provide any protection for me in this case? Had I been an EU resident, could I have invoked GDPR and have the photos removed without hassle?

At least in the United States, False Light is a tort (claim) you can make. Unlike defamation, the statements are factual, but portray a misleading impression of the person. So if they are representing you in a cringe way, you could have a cause for action. Note that they would have a defense if you are actually cringe. :)

How do you find what regulations have been made pursuant to a particular enabling legislation in the U.K.?

How do you find what regulations or other statutory instruments have been made pursuant to a particular enabling legislation in the U.K.?

The statutory instrument search site allows you to do an advanced search for all statutory instruments made under a particular enabling act. For example, these are all the statutory instruments made or in process under the Equality Act 2010 .

Where do lawyers keep themselves updated with some specific laws?

Laws don't update often, unlike software, but we do see some of them update for many reasons. Let's say someone asked questions here, or someone visited this site, found a pretty good answers with certain laws cited. Now as someone who is not a lawyer, but would like to keep themselves updated with some specific laws. So they would be better informed with new laws in place. Is there some kinds of service where people can subscribe to for free? Thank you.

Laws update, collectively, very frequently. Laws are embodied in statutes, regulations, and court rulings, statutes being the most stable of the three. In terms of what an individual lawyer would do, the most important is to focus on the relevant and ignore the irrelevant. If you mostly write wills and trusts, that defines a subset of issues that are important to you; if you are a tax attorney, that is another subset. If you ask a contract attorney about some highly speculative matter of constitutional law, the answer will most likely be "That's outside my area of specialization". The concepts of "subscribe" and "free" are mostly antithetical. If you want the really good stuff, you can subscribe to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis. If you want the really free stuff (as generally seen here), the simplest solution is to use Google which may direct you to Findlaw, Justia, Cornell, Avvo or Law SE (unabashed plug). New is not necessarily better, and frankly, new statutes are the least informative, because legislatures often say things that are less than clear on the face of it, and will need to await either administrative creation of a regulation that spells out what the law means, or a court ruling that does the same thing – maybe 10 years after the law was passed.

Where do lawyers keep themselves updated with some specific laws?

Laws don't update often, unlike software, but we do see some of them update for many reasons. Let's say someone asked questions here, or someone visited this site, found a pretty good answers with certain laws cited. Now as someone who is not a lawyer, but would like to keep themselves updated with some specific laws. So they would be better informed with new laws in place. Is there some kinds of service where people can subscribe to for free? Thank you.

Laws don't update often Laws update more often than you think between new legislation, new regulations, and especially, new case law interpreting the statutes and the common law. As pertinent to any particular U.S. state, it probably updates at least several times a month, and often multiple times a week. When I was a professional journalist covering a Colorado law beat (among others), some of my go to sources were for state law: The Colorado Supreme Court's case announcements webpage (it updates most Mondays, or on Tuesdays when the Monday is a holiday). The Colorado Court of Appeals case announcements webpage (it updates most Thursdays). The Colorado General Assembly (i.e. state legislature's) webpage (it updates every time new action is taken on a state legislative bill). Most U.S. states have similar online resources. In addition for federal law I reviewed: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case announcement webpage . SCOTUS blog which provides comprehensive coverage of the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and The How Appealing blog which aggregates news reports and scholarly work and original sources about appellate case law developments. I relied to a lesser extent Govtrac which provides tracking of the status of bills in the U.S. Congress and mainstream news media sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Denver Post, to alert me to new developments that I would then research and report upon myself from original sources. I also regularly skimmed posts on the Law Professor's Blog network and a few other prominent law blogs such as Above the Law , Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Blog , Lawfare (on national security related law), the Legal Theory Blog (on recent law review articles), Professor Bainbridge (on the law of publicly held companies and securities law), and the Volokh Conspiracy (an academically oriented law blog with a libertarian slant, including a weekly roundup of notable federal appellate court decisions ). I also read the Colorado Lawyer magazine which is the monthly newsletter of the Colorado Bar Association and contains substantive posts about new developments pertinent to Colorado lawyers. I also receive newsletters from various thinking tanks and interest groups, such as the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. These newsletters track developments in the law in areas relevant to their subject-matter areas. This strategy is all well and good when you have a position like the journalist's position that I had at the time, to follow literally everything that is going on in the law before deciding what to drill down and write about, but isn't a good strategy for keeping track of a specific field of law, for which paid services (for example, a subscription to the newsletters of the trade publication Law360) are more efficient. I usually subscribe to one of the two main paid tax services, RIA or CCH, which provide updates on the changes in federal tax laws on a regular basis and provides pamphlets summing up new tax legislation when it is enacted. Frequently, practicing lawyers will only research legal issues as they come up, and then resort to paid sources such as Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis to check the state of the law updated to the minute, at the time that the research question comes up. Most lawyers are also required to take continuing legal education (CLE) classes on a regular basis, which usually contain updates on the law of the subject-matter of the class (with the specific subjects, other than professional ethics, usually left up to the lawyer in question).

Have any regulations been made under s22(2)(b) EA2010?

Section 22(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 allows for certain regulations. Have any been made thereunder?

There are no regulations specifically made under s.22(2)(b). Presumably that's because either "provision, criterion or practice" is too broad for the government to define with any precision, or they have decided to leave it up to the Employment Tribunal to assess each claim on its own particular set of circumstances as can be seen by my simplistic search returning 1,500+ potentially relevant hits .

Where can I find the tax waiver rules for New Jersey?

A person dies in the state of New Jersey. When do you have to file form L-4? Note: It seems to me that if all the beneficiaries are class A then there is no real need to file form L-4 because there is no tax due. However, I do not know what the law says in this case.

When do you have to file form L-4? When one of the conditions for Form L-4 Affidavit Requesting Preliminary Waivers: Resident Decedents are met: A complete Inheritance or Estate Tax return cannot be completed yet; or All beneficiaries are Class A, but estate does not qualify to use Form L-8 ; or All beneficiaries are Class E, or Class E and Class A. For awareness, Form L-8 Affidavit for Non-Real Estate Investments: Resident Decedents is for the release of: New Jersey bank accounts; Stock in New Jersey corporations; Brokerage accounts; and New Jersey investment bonds. NB, L-8 cannot be used for real estate, which requires Form L-9 Affidavit for Real Property Tax Waiver Resident Decedent

Does replacing the operating system on my laptop void my warranty?

I purchased a typical mid-range laptop in late March this year. It came with Windows preinstalled. As soon as I unpacked the computer I removed Windows and installed Linux. I have been using it without any problems until two weeks ago. The system kept crashing whenever I was upgrading a dozen programs or more at once. I ran various diagnostic commands and concluded that the cooling system was failing. I visited the nearest offline customer service with my laptop and logs of the troubleshooters I ran. The technician quickly noticed that I was using a non-stock operating system. He claimed that the manufacturer does not guarantee the machine will run properly in any os other than the preinstalled one, and that my warranty had been invalidated by the swapping of the os. I argued that replacing the stock software with a verified alternative does not pose any danger to the underlying hardware and my warranty is still intact because I never tore the laptop open. Then he said that it is my job to prove that there is a 0% chance Linux harmed the hardware in any way. I found this argument as absurd as his initial one but he didn't back down so I had to return home. Is the technician correct? Can warranties expire just by installing software even though hardware was left untouched? Or is he just trying to deny the defect in the laptop and deny the free repair I deserve? Is the burden of proof on the seller or the consumer that the warranty is valid/invalid?

It depends on the warranty itself. Here is one warranty, which only protects against manufacturing defects and excludes any software issues (whether pre-installed or user-installed). I'm a little surprised that a manufacturer is willing to include someone else's software under their warranty. This also excludes failure or damage resulting from misuse, abuse, accident, modification, unsuitable physical or operating environment, natural disasters, power surges, improper maintenance, or use not in accordance with product information materials failure of, or damage caused by, any third party products, including those that X may provide or integrate into the X product at your request This does not say "If you change the OS, you void the warranty". But, if you change the OS and that causes hardware damage, that voids the warranty. The next question is, what evidence do you have that the problem is a manufacturing problem rather than a consequence of changing the OS. They would have to answer the same question in court. It is legally absurd to claim that you have to prove that it is logically impossible that you contributed to the problem, you only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence, when you take them to court. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a claim. You claim that the product was defective, now you must prove it. But you don't have to prove it to the standard of absolute ccertainty.

Does replacing the operating system on my laptop void my warranty?

I purchased a typical mid-range laptop in late March this year. It came with Windows preinstalled. As soon as I unpacked the computer I removed Windows and installed Linux. I have been using it without any problems until two weeks ago. The system kept crashing whenever I was upgrading a dozen programs or more at once. I ran various diagnostic commands and concluded that the cooling system was failing. I visited the nearest offline customer service with my laptop and logs of the troubleshooters I ran. The technician quickly noticed that I was using a non-stock operating system. He claimed that the manufacturer does not guarantee the machine will run properly in any os other than the preinstalled one, and that my warranty had been invalidated by the swapping of the os. I argued that replacing the stock software with a verified alternative does not pose any danger to the underlying hardware and my warranty is still intact because I never tore the laptop open. Then he said that it is my job to prove that there is a 0% chance Linux harmed the hardware in any way. I found this argument as absurd as his initial one but he didn't back down so I had to return home. Is the technician correct? Can warranties expire just by installing software even though hardware was left untouched? Or is he just trying to deny the defect in the laptop and deny the free repair I deserve? Is the burden of proof on the seller or the consumer that the warranty is valid/invalid?

Consumer Guarantees australia Irrespective of the existence of any warranty, there is a statutory guarantee that goods sold to a consumer are, among other things, of acceptable quality and durability. That is, it must last for a reasonable time considering the nature of the good, the price of the good, statements made by the retailer or manufacturer, and any other circumstances. For a “mid range laptop”, a reasonable time would be 2 or 3 years. Now, if a good is used abnormally, then that may reduce what is a reasonable time. However, using a different operating system would not normally be abnormal use. However, the operating system does tell the hardware what to do. It could, for example, disable a CPU fan and cook the CPU. That would be abnormal use. This is not the sort of thing an out-of-the-box Linux would do - the code’s author would have to make a deliberate choice to do things that risk damage to the hardware. Where a consumer guarantee is breached, you have a right to a repair, replacement, or refund. Warranty A warranty is an extra promise over and above the guarantees. A warranty can’t take away the guarantee or suggest in any way that the consumer is not entitled to the guarantee. Beyond that, a consumer must follow the terms of the warranty to have the benefit of it. If it says you can’t change the OS, then you can’t change the OS. If you do, you void the warranty but you still have the guarantee.

Why was 36 Edward III c. 1 in French while 25 Edward I c. 1 was in Latin?

These laws were only passed about 65 years apart. Was there a shift from Latin into French during this period?

According to the Law Bod's Blog, Law French – When Law and Language Collide : ... After 1066 French became the language of the elite. During the reign of Edward I the first statute was written in French and Law was professionalised 1 . This led to the development of a weird little dialect called law French. As you can see from the image below law French is a bizarre mix of French, Latin, Anglo-Saxon and whatever other languages happened to be hanging around. ... Continental French was originally being used in courts but during the reign of Henry III and Edward I Anglo-French was used to create an entirely new legal vocabulary ‘giving special meanings to ordinary words ... Above from the second result returned from a web search for "why was french used for English law". The first result, a Wikipedia article about law French , is also informative.

Can a judge or prosecutor be compelled to testify in a criminal trial in which they officiated?

Without considering why a party in a criminal trial might want to do so, are there any obstacles to subpoenaing and examining any of the following people as witnesses during the trial? ETA: Not as eye-witnesses to the alleged crime, but rather as witnesses to the criminal process. A judge who has acted in some capacity in the case on trial, but who is not presiding . For example: (A) the judge who arraigned the defendant. (B) a judge who recused himself from the case. A lawyer working in the prosecutor's office that is prosecuting the defendant. If context is necessary, one reason I can imagine a defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant.

The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the why that you've asked us not to consider. If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either Rule 3.7 or Canon 3 . If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under Crim. R. 12 , but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.

Can a judge or prosecutor be compelled to testify in a criminal trial in which they officiated?

Without considering why a party in a criminal trial might want to do so, are there any obstacles to subpoenaing and examining any of the following people as witnesses during the trial? ETA: Not as eye-witnesses to the alleged crime, but rather as witnesses to the criminal process. A judge who has acted in some capacity in the case on trial, but who is not presiding . For example: (A) the judge who arraigned the defendant. (B) a judge who recused himself from the case. A lawyer working in the prosecutor's office that is prosecuting the defendant. If context is necessary, one reason I can imagine a defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant.

england-and-wales In a similar vein to bdb848 's answer... Witnesses are called to either offer testimony concerning facts in issue relating to the indictment, or to give evidence on the defendant's good / bad character. Enquiries in to the "criminal process" are dealt with independently and away from the jury. For example: Complaints against a judge are investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, by virtue of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2014 . Allegations of prosecutoral failings or abuse of process are usually dealt with in a voir dire following a defence application under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or via the court's inherent powers. There is also the possibility of a "Misconduct in Public Office" investigation if the alleged failings and / or abuse of process are severe enough. So no: they can't be called unless they are a bone fide witness.

Can a judge or prosecutor be compelled to testify in a criminal trial in which they officiated?

Without considering why a party in a criminal trial might want to do so, are there any obstacles to subpoenaing and examining any of the following people as witnesses during the trial? ETA: Not as eye-witnesses to the alleged crime, but rather as witnesses to the criminal process. A judge who has acted in some capacity in the case on trial, but who is not presiding . For example: (A) the judge who arraigned the defendant. (B) a judge who recused himself from the case. A lawyer working in the prosecutor's office that is prosecuting the defendant. If context is necessary, one reason I can imagine a defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant.

new-zealand defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant. A prosecutor who is also already a witness for their case can be compelled to testify about the conduct of their prosecution. In Greendrake v McConnochie I was on the witness stand in the role of a witness for the case I was prosecuting self-represented (private prosecution). However, the only questions the defence wanted to ask were pertaining to my roles of an investigator and prosecutor in the case, not a witness as to the elements of the charges in question. I objected to those questions on the basis that I was only giving evidence in the role of a witness for the prosecution. To no avail: the judge overruled my objections and I had to give the answers. In theory, I could request an adjournment and appeal the decision to overrule my objection, but I did not as I had nothing to hide anyway. But the precedent now remains. However, to be compelled to testify like that, a prosecutor (or a judge) must already be on the witness stand — on their own volition. There is no way to compel them to be there in the first place.

Can a judge or prosecutor be compelled to testify in a criminal trial in which they officiated?

Without considering why a party in a criminal trial might want to do so, are there any obstacles to subpoenaing and examining any of the following people as witnesses during the trial? ETA: Not as eye-witnesses to the alleged crime, but rather as witnesses to the criminal process. A judge who has acted in some capacity in the case on trial, but who is not presiding . For example: (A) the judge who arraigned the defendant. (B) a judge who recused himself from the case. A lawyer working in the prosecutor's office that is prosecuting the defendant. If context is necessary, one reason I can imagine a defense might want to examine these people before the jury is to call into question the motives and methods driving the prosecution of the defendant.

In the Scopes trial, the defence called William Jennings Bryan, who was a counsel for the prosecution, as an expert witness . Stewart objected for the prosecution, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible". Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States." So I'd say yes for a prosecutor.

Is “your honour” the proper address for all U.S. judges rather than just the more senior ones?

Is “your honour” the proper address for all U.S. judges rather than just the more senior ones? In the UK this address is reserved for the more senior ones but it seems that in U.S. films and TV series judges are always called for honour in court. What judges are called this in the us and what other addresses are designated for judges?

Yes An American would spell it as “your honor,” but yes, this is how we refer to all judges. This is simply a custom that shows respect. There is no law or concrete fact I could cite that requires this; it is more of a “tradition.” But I have seen plenty of court proceedings (mostly on TV), and I can confirm that all judges, ranging from small claims court to the Supreme Court, are called “Your honor.” (The chief justice of the Supreme Court is sometimes addressed as “Chief Justice.”) Googling articles about courtroom etiquette also mostly leads to people who agree with this. Apparently, there are some countries where it is customary to say “my honor,” or even something else altogether. Sometimes people from these countries immigrate to the US and continue using their local terminology in a US court. Although every judge is different, my perception is that most judges try to be inclusive of other cultures, and if whatever term they use is intended as a sign of respect, most judges will usually just interpret it as it was intended.

Is “your honour” the proper address for all U.S. judges rather than just the more senior ones?

Is “your honour” the proper address for all U.S. judges rather than just the more senior ones? In the UK this address is reserved for the more senior ones but it seems that in U.S. films and TV series judges are always called for honour in court. What judges are called this in the us and what other addresses are designated for judges?

australia “Your Honour” is acceptable except for those who should know better For most people in courts, calling the presiding officer “Your Honour” while it may not be strictly correct might be corrected but probably won’t be. If you are a lawyer representing a client in court you should know the nuances: “Your Honour” is the default The Chief Justice of a superior court should be addressed as “Chief Justice” Except the President of the Court of Appeal or the Industrial Relations Commission who should be addressed as “President” Federal Court magistrates may be addressed as either “Your Honour” or “Federal Magistrate” District Court Judges are properly addressed as”Your Honour Judge” but the Judge is often omitted after the first mention An acting judge should be called “Judge” but yo are unlikely to be corrected in you use “Your Honour” Magistrates were formerly addressed as “Your Worship” but that’s now obsolete. Basically because no one dragged before a Local Court knew that and the law was changed to reflect the reality that most self-represented litigants used “Your Honour”.

Indiana governor's pardon powers

Can the governor of Indiana issue preemptive pardons like the POTUS can? If so, what is the source of law that expressly confirms this, or at least leaves little doubt that this is within the governor's authority (e.g. judicial interpretation, statute, commentary etc.); have there been any instances in the past of it happening; and is the scope of such pardons limited in any way? Thanks in advance for any answers.

The Indiana constitution is phrased differently to the US constitution in such a way to exclude pre-emptive pardons: (Indiana) The Governor may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, after conviction , for all offenses except treason and cases of impeachment (US constitution) he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (my emphasis) The Indiana constitution explicitly states that the Governor may grant pardons after conviction and does not give the Governor the power to grant pardons before conviction . By contrast, the Supreme court has judged that the President may issue pardons after commission , that is after the offence has been committed, and potentially before the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment. They can't issue pardons for crimes not yet committed. The scope of pardons issued by the Governor is limited; this power is subject to regulation by law issued by the Legislature, and (if there is no regulation giving sole power of pardon to the president) the Legislature may form a council to review pardons. The council's advice and consent must be sought. In fact, the Legislature appoints the Parole Board to this role. So the Parole Board gives advice and consent to pardons issued by the Governor. In practice, therefore, the Parole Board makes these decisions, as Governors rarely refuse pardons recommended by the Board. Generally, though, pardons are rare, Mike Pence granted only three during his tenure as Governor. References: Constituion of Indiana Guide to pardons in Indiana

What are non-physiological aspects of sex?

Section 7(1) equality act 2010 refers to “physiological or other aspects of sex.” What are these other aspects of sex? In other words, what does this “or other” clause refer to?

The cited provision is: A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. This language originates in the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 . This statutory instrument was made in response to a 1996 decision of the European Court of Justice ( P v S and Cornwall County Council , C-13/94 ) that Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 , regarding equal treatment of men and women, also covered discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. The regulations were made in order to bring domestic law up to date with the EU requirement, by amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The definition at the time, found in the amended section 82 , was: "gender reassignment" means a process which is undertaken under medical supervision for the purpose of reassigning a person’s sex by changing physiological or other characteristics of sex, and includes any part of such a process So the idea of "other characteristics" or "other attributes" comes from the 1999 version of the law. I expect that the change to "attributes" is simply because the Equality Act 2010 uses the term "characteristic" to mean something else, as it consolidates many different regimes about discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability, etc., all of which are called "characteristics". The more recent text removes the part about "medical supervision", and explicitly includes people at any stage of transition. Explanatory Notes to the 2010 Act give the example: A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act. (These notes are not binding in law but they do give a good idea of what the drafters meant to say. The concept of 'passes' is also not the most sensitive language to bring in, since trans people do not necessarily want to measure themselves by their ability to pass undetected, and may present differently in different contexts.) The example shows that someone can have the protected characteristic without having, or contemplating, any change to their body. So from this example, the other attributes of sex would include all those ways in which the man "continues to live as a man". From general knowledge of trans men, that could include using a masculine name and pronouns; wearing traditionally-male clothes; wearing a binder, baggy clothing, padding in the crotch, or other ways to suggest a more masculine than feminine body; having a traditionally-male haircut; using traditionally-masculine body language; pitching the voice lower; and so on. The situation for trans women would be parallel. These things are all attributes of sex, in that our society abounds in stereotypes of what is a "manly handshake", or a "girly drink", or otherwise associated with a particular sex. They are to do with behaviour more than the body.

What are (respectively) “Lords temporal and spiritual”?

In the opening clause of every parliamentary act seems to appear this phrase. What does each type of Lord refer to?

See UK Parliament Glossary, " Lords Spiritual and Temporal ": The Lords Spiritual are made up of the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester as well as specific bishops of the Church of England. The Lords Temporal are made up of Life Peers, the Earl Marshal, Lord Great Chamberlain, Hereditary Peers elected under the Standing Orders.

What are (respectively) “Lords temporal and spiritual”?

In the opening clause of every parliamentary act seems to appear this phrase. What does each type of Lord refer to?

The division between these categories of peers is of ancient origin. Ecclesiastical dignitaries, such as bishops, hold an office given to them by the Church; whereas noblemen, such as earls, hold titles given to them or an ancestor by the Crown. While the extent to which either system was really in charge was greatly contested historically (can kings choose or veto bishops? can the Pope get rid of a king? etc.), both groups were significant enough that they had to be represented in royal councils. Political theory of the Middle Ages, and earlier, had a great deal to say about the power and relationships of these authorities, but the main point is that "church stuff" and "secular government stuff" were seen as two separate things, albeit interconnected. These English words "spiritual" and "temporal" are direct translations of French words used in mediaeval legal language, which themselves come from Latin. "Temporal", or "existing in time", refers to things associated with this present world, in distinction to "spiritual" things which transcend it, i.e. relating to God and the Church. These are theologically loaded words because they come from Christian doctrine, in a strand of Western theology coming through Augustine to the mediaeval scholastics and therefore into political thought of the time. Even before the present enacting formula was settled, statutes often included some sort of reference to the various people in Parliament who had given their assent. Without trying to list all the variations, a typical example is 36 Edward III c.1 (the Confirmation of Charters, etc. Act 1362), which has (in French; this and other quotations are followed by my translations): p assent des Prelatz, Ducs, Countez, Barons et autres g a ntz by assent of the prelates, dukes, earls, barons and other great men or the Latin of 25 Edward I c.1 (the Restraint on Taxation, Purveyance, etc. Act 1297), assensu communi Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Abbatum et aliorum Praelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, Militum, Burgensium, et aliorum liberorum hominum the assent of all archbishops, bishops, abbots and other prelates, the earls, barons, knights, burgesses and other free men We see here the classic notion of the three estates of society (clergy, nobility, everyone else) by the ordering of the titles, even though they are not grouped in the classes of "lords spiritual", "lords temporal", and "commons". Over time, the precise composition has varied. The 1297 Act does not mention dukes, because there weren't any in England at the time. It does call out abbots, who were only rarely summoned to parliament, and not at all after the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. The specific terms for "lords spiritual" and "lords temporal" were frequently used from the reign of Richard II. For example, the law 16 Ric II c.5, now called "The Statute of Praemunire 1392", recites that the lords spiritual were examined in council on certain contentious examples of papal power: ce demandez estoit des ẜ r s esp̃uels [...] cestassavoir Ercevesq̃s Evesq̃s et aut ꝯ s p ꝯ lats [...] It was demanded of the lords spiritual ... that is to say, the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates [....] It also speaks about the lords temporal (seigneurs temporals) as a separate category. The clergy may also have "temporalities", which are properties they hold according to the secular legal system. When a bishop is invested, by the nature of their appointment they immediately receive the "spiritualities" of the office, effectively the power to run the diocese, and separately are given the temporalities by order of the Crown. At various times, bishops have been required to declare that their temporalities came from the Crown as opposed to from the Pope, which is part of an attempt to draw the temporal-spiritual line in a certain place (and to deny the authority of a foreign power to overrule the king). It is also a bit muddy that bishops are nominally chosen by the dean and chapter of their see - but in fact they are required to choose the person named in the congé d'élire given to them by the King on the advice of ministers - but in fact the ministers are effectively bound to advise the King to name the person that the church wants anyway. Notwithstanding all of this, the bishops in the House of Lords are still Lords Spiritual, because they sit there by virtue of their spiritual office.

Is it the case that married and civilly-partnered people are protected under the equality act while single people are not?

Section 8 Equality Act 2010 seems to define the protected characteristic as solely applying to people who in fact are married or partnered, but my impression was that one could not be lawfully discriminated against either for being married or for being unmarried. Reading the provision makes me question this. Am I missing something? What gives?

It is. Part 2 Chapter 1 Section 8 specifically says "People who are not married or civil partners do not have this characteristic." In practical terms, a claim for unlawful dismissal would not have to rely on this Act or this Characteristic. Many company handbooks refer to avoiding discrimination on "marital status", so the claim could be made that the company had acted against policy. Not as strong as national law, but likely to succeed in absence of other factors. Single people who were expected to cover shifts that people with a family consistently avoided could argue constructive dismissal on "making unreasonable changes to working patterns or place of work without agreement" grounds. And cases of sexual harassment are as likely to refer to Sections 11 or 12 of the Act as to Section 8. There appears to be some interest in this - north of the border if not in England and Wale s - and perhaps less jurisdictionally in Bella De Paulo's article for Psychology Today , which concludes "All serious forms of prejudice and discrimination go through a similar process of going unrecognized, then getting dismissed and belittled once people start pointing them out, and in the best cases, eventually getting taken seriously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that when she was first appointed to the Supreme Court, the other judges did not think gender discrimination existed. ..."

Does Brazil issue a document certifying that one has never been married?

Is there a certificate issued by the Government of Brazil to prove that an individual has never been married before? If so, how is it called? Some countries call it Certificate of No Marriage and others Single Status Certificate .

The only one I can find so far relates to a Brazilian citizen getting married abroad, called a: Consular Declaration of Civil Status These are issued by the Consular Authority to: Brazilian citizens who intend to marry before a foreign authority within their jurisdiction. The document is issued in English. Source: gov.br (I have yet to find if a comparable certificate is available in-country, for marriage or otherwise, but none of the official guidance sites I have trawled though mention it)

I need to know if I need a privacy policy for a computer app

make computer apps using Winforms and such the apps that i make are computer side only nothing gets stored off the computer nothing gets moved anywhere else lets say i have an app that needs your email and it just saves it inside the app itself after the user enters it without ever leaving or sending that information anywhere but in the computer itself would this require a privacy policy

So your privacy rules are "nothing ever leaves the computer, and the only private information stored is the user's email address which is stored inside the application". So that's what goes into your privacy policy. Normally a privacy policy would be viewable on your website, but you can also just add a menu item "View Privacy Policy" into your application, where you display the privacy policy. As others mentioned in comments, what exactly is going on with that email address? If it isn't used, why is it stored? So I suppose you use it somehow. Put that into your privacy policy. "Your email address is recorded so you can receive an email when a new version of the application becomes available", just as an example what could go into your privacy policy. If that's your only use obviously.

How long are UK Crown Court Hearing Recordings kept?

As the title suggests, I am wondering how long UK Crown Court Hearing Recordings and transcripts are kept because in order for court transcripts to be requested, the recordings need to be still available. The government's guidance on how to Apply for a transcript of a court or tribunal hearing does not stipulate this information.

Seven years. See the paragraph 13 of the Crown Court Records Retention and Disposition Schedule : 13 Recordings of trials -- Keep for 7 years and then destroy For awareness, and completeness, the list of retention schedules for other courts and tribunals may be found here .

Legality of stealing news

Say I read in the newspaper that a kangaroo shot a man on highway 45. If I put this information on my homepage, and don't copy the exact wording of the newspaper, this is probably ok and not a violation of copyright or any other law. But what if I read the newspaper every day, summarize facts from it, and sell this information? It does not sound legal to me, but I would not know which law I am violating.

Facts are not copyrightable united-states Facts are not copyrightable since at least Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) . IF you take only the facts and not the expression, then the news site can do nothing: you do not violate copyright by taking only the facts. Or as Scotus said in Feist: As a statutory matter, 17 U.S.C. § 101 does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality. News contain more than facts. However, do note that news are not mere facts - like a phonebook as the Feist case was - but have their facts intricately entwined with expression. That's why press agencies like Reuters work: They get informed of facts, write an article and news sites buy that article's expression to refine it into their style. Most newspapers buy these articles, which leads to the appearance of nigh simultaneously reporting on the same event. To understand where the line is between fact and expression, compare the following headlines from 24th March 1933 , all regarding the same event: Berliner Morgenpost titled their front page: Ermächtigungsgesetz mit 441 gegen 94 Stimmen angenommen (Enabeling Act approved with 441 to 94 votes) - That is merely reporting facts. Deutch Chinesische Nachrichten titled the front page: Ein Neues Zeitalter (A new Age) - This is an expression of opinion - and thus protected. New York Times titled, deep inside, in the category Special Cable : Speech of Hitler in Reichstag on His Policies for Germany - That is a fact.

Legality of stealing news

Say I read in the newspaper that a kangaroo shot a man on highway 45. If I put this information on my homepage, and don't copy the exact wording of the newspaper, this is probably ok and not a violation of copyright or any other law. But what if I read the newspaper every day, summarize facts from it, and sell this information? It does not sound legal to me, but I would not know which law I am violating.

In germany , you have to consider the ancillary copyright for press publishers (Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger), specified in §§ 87f to 87h UrhG. The publisher has the exclusive right to publish their news publication online. However, they explicitly cannot prevent you from using facts from the news publication linking to the news publication using individual words or very short snippets from the news publication So yes, it would probably be possible to create, publish, and sell such a news digest, as long as you avoid lifting quotes from the news publication. You should write everything in your own words. In this context, you should review the history of the Leistungsschutzrecht, and in particular the role of Google Search and Google News. Many publishers that had advocated for this Leistungsschutzrecht ended up giving Google gratis licenses so that snippets/teasers could be shown in Google services. You would not benefit from such a license, and would have to be more careful. Compared to the united-states , Germany and Europe has more complicated copyright rules, with lots of ancillary rights that make a simple statement like "facts are not copyrightable" slightly incorrect. For example, facts are not copyrightable, but databases as collections of facts are. There's also a very low threshold of originality, so that even short text snippets must be assumed to be covered by copyright. As to why copying news doesn't seem to be a common business model: it is reasonably common to report on something that was originally reported by another newspaper. However, there are practical downsides: the news would be delayed summarizing stuff in your own words is still a lot of work (though automation is arriving) legal risks if you include snippets of the original why would people read your summary if they can read the original? At least for newspapers and similar press products, it is rare for journalists to write their own stories. Instead, a lot of news is licensed from news agencies, e.g. Reuters, Associated Press, or dpa. This syndication is cost-effective and avoids legal problems. The main value of a publication in that workflow is to select relevant stories and to maybe provide a bit of context for the audience. Reporting on others' stories is more common in areas that are more online and informal, for example tech news.

Legality of stealing news

Say I read in the newspaper that a kangaroo shot a man on highway 45. If I put this information on my homepage, and don't copy the exact wording of the newspaper, this is probably ok and not a violation of copyright or any other law. But what if I read the newspaper every day, summarize facts from it, and sell this information? It does not sound legal to me, but I would not know which law I am violating.

In the United States, this would be a form of unfair competition. The law treats things that behave like property as if they were property. Early knowledge of news, gathered at great effort and expense, behaves like property and so courts treat it like property. If you use the property of another to harm them, courts may fashion equitable remedies. See the Supreme Court's ruling in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) for a case of precisely this: " The contention that the news is abandoned to the public for all purposes when published in the first newspaper is untenable. Abandonment is a question of intent, and the entire organization of the Associated Press negatives such a purpose. The cost of the service would be prohibitive if the reward were to be so limited. No single newspaper, no small group of newspapers, could sustain the expenditure. Indeed, it is one of the most obvious results of defendant's theory that, by permitting indiscriminate publication by anybody and everybody for purposes of profit in competition with the news-gatherer, it would render publication profitless , or so little profitable as in effect to cut off the service by rendering the cost prohibitive in comparison with the return. The practical needs and requirements of the business are reflected in complainant's bylaws which have been referred to. Their effect is that publication by each member must be deemed not by any means an abandonment of the news to the world for any and all purposes, but a publication for limited purposes; for the benefit of the readers of the bulletin or the newspaper as such; not for the purpose of making merchandise of it as news, with the result of depriving complainant's other members of their reasonable opportunity to obtain just returns for their expenditures ."

On what basis is s14 EA2010 “prospective”?

On legislation.gov.Uk, this provision is marked as “prospective.” What does that mean, and what particularly in this case makes it so?

Clicking on the "?" symbol at your link reveals: ... A version of a provision is prospective either: where the provision (Part, Chapter or section) has never come into force or; where the text of the provision is subject to change, but no date has yet been appointed by the appropriate person or body for those changes to come into force. Section 14 was never brought into force. See 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .

On what basis is s14 EA2010 “prospective”?

On legislation.gov.Uk, this provision is marked as “prospective.” What does that mean, and what particularly in this case makes it so?

What makes it so? According to written evidence , submitted by the Discrimination Law Association (DLA) in July 2022 to Parliament's Woman and Equalities Committee, the government said in their letter to the DLA on 25 May 2022 that its introduction would create... ... unwelcome regulatory complexity and place new costly burdens on business and the public sector . Note that despite the DLA evidence concluding with: It is understood that the s14 amendment to the Equality Act Bill was introduced late in the day and as a consequence there was little parliamentary scrutiny. The DLA consider this should be given further consideration and with time for further Parliamentary scrutiny, it may be that the Government wish to consider not simply enacting s14, but expanding it beyond simply direct discrimination to include indirect and harassment as well as discrimination on the grounds of more than 2 characteristics. In summary, the DLA disagree that the administrative or regulatory burden is sufficiently substantial to justify not enacting s14. Furthermore, the DLA consider that as part of its review of enacting s14, the Government should take the time to consider expanding this to include harassment and indirect discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of more than 2 characteristics. There does not appear to be any subsequent developments, intent or moves by the government to introduce section 14.

Are foreign sellers exempt from consumer protection laws?

German law offers certain protections for online buyers, essentially the right to return the goods for a refund within 14 days and a certain warranty within 2 years of purchase. I was under the impression (but I might be mixing it up with GDPR) that if an online seller advertises their products to customers in Germany, those laws would apply, even if the seller is outside the EU. Now I had a seller blatantly tell me that those laws don't apply to them as they are outside the EU and that they don't offer any refunds whatsoever. A cursory search suggest that they might actually be correct or at least that I don't have any recourse if they don't follow those laws?

No, they are not exempt Consumer protection laws (in general) apply to anyone doing business with consumers in that jurisdiction. You need to follow that law and apply to the company for a refund in compliance with the law. If they refuse, you can report them to the German regulator who may, or may not, take action against them. If you paid with a credit card, PayPal etc., once the company has broken the law, you can apply to them for a reversal of the charge. Similarly, most online platforms like eBay or Amazon will reverse the charge if you used them.

Are foreign sellers exempt from consumer protection laws?

German law offers certain protections for online buyers, essentially the right to return the goods for a refund within 14 days and a certain warranty within 2 years of purchase. I was under the impression (but I might be mixing it up with GDPR) that if an online seller advertises their products to customers in Germany, those laws would apply, even if the seller is outside the EU. Now I had a seller blatantly tell me that those laws don't apply to them as they are outside the EU and that they don't offer any refunds whatsoever. A cursory search suggest that they might actually be correct or at least that I don't have any recourse if they don't follow those laws?

The EU has pretty clear rules on this in form of the Rome I regulation (reg 593/2008). In general, it allows the contractual parties to choose the law governing the contract. By default, the seller's law will apply. However, there are more restrictions for consumer contracts . If the buyer is a consumer in the context of this contract, and the seller "by any means, directs such activities to that country or to several countries including that country", then the consumer's law applies. The parties can choose another law, but this cannot deprive the buyer from essential consumer protections in their own country's laws. The question is then what it means to "direct activities to that country". Here, cases like C-144/09 ( Hotel Alpenhof ) provide clarity. Mere availability of a website does not by itself demonstrate any intent to target a particular country. However, other factors might be evidence of an intention to target customers in that country: mentioning that country by name, e.g. "free shipping to Germany" running online ad campaigns that target people in that country not targeting that country specifically, but targeting an international clientele using the language or the currency of the targeted country (e.g. accepting payment in EUR rather than CNY) This means your hunch here is 100% correct, as far as European rules on consumer contracts are concerned: I was under the impression (but I might be mixing it up with GDPR) that if an online seller advertises their products to customers in Germany, those laws would apply, even if the seller is outside the EU. Having rights is different from being able to enforce them, though. For easier enforcement, it makes sense to prefer contracting with sellers that are established within the EU, and/or sell via a platform that provides a non-judicial enforcement mechanism. You mentioned the GDPR. There is a direct connection here in that the GDPR applies to non-EU data controllers if they offer goods or services to people who are in Europe. The EDPB interprets this territorial scope to be aligned with the Rome I and Alpenhof criteria.

What is the disposal of premises?

Part 4 Equality Act 2010 makes extensive references to the disposal of premises. What specifically does this concern?

Disposal of premises is explained by the interpretation of Part 4 at section 38 which includes: (3) A reference to disposing of premises includes, in the case of premises subject to a tenancy, a reference to— (a)assigning the premises, (b)sub-letting them, or (c)parting with possession of them. (4) A reference to disposing of premises also includes a reference to granting a right to occupy them The supporting Explanatory Notes include this: This section explains what is meant by terms used in this Part. In particular it sets out the kinds of property transactions meant by “disposing of premises” in the case of premises which are subject to a tenancy...

Is there anything to stop a private business from barring a previous customer who takes a civil action against it?

Suppose that a customer C sues a shop, S, for some reason or other, whether it be discrimination, negligence, or another reason. Or they make a claim but it gets settled by the business without going to court. Can the business refuse future dealings with the individual supposing that the claim was valid and successful? It seems to me that they could unless there are provisions preventing retributive refusals that I’m not aware of. And this would be even if the triumphant claim was for discrimination on a protected characteristic. Because the previous refusal would be unlawful discrimination, but the future would be on the basis of the customer having been litigious and the business not wanting the trouble of that which is not a protected characteristic per se, although perhaps this could be argued indirect discrimination. Or could the retributive future refusal generally be seen as contempt of court and contempt of the law, in trying to evade future repercussions for any potential unlawful conduct?

A business has the right to refuse service, except in the case of unlawful discrimination. "Sued us" is not a protected characteristic. Unless part of the settlement was that the business must serve that customer in future, there is no way this could be considered contempt.

Is there anything to stop a private business from barring a previous customer who takes a civil action against it?

Suppose that a customer C sues a shop, S, for some reason or other, whether it be discrimination, negligence, or another reason. Or they make a claim but it gets settled by the business without going to court. Can the business refuse future dealings with the individual supposing that the claim was valid and successful? It seems to me that they could unless there are provisions preventing retributive refusals that I’m not aware of. And this would be even if the triumphant claim was for discrimination on a protected characteristic. Because the previous refusal would be unlawful discrimination, but the future would be on the basis of the customer having been litigious and the business not wanting the trouble of that which is not a protected characteristic per se, although perhaps this could be argued indirect discrimination. Or could the retributive future refusal generally be seen as contempt of court and contempt of the law, in trying to evade future repercussions for any potential unlawful conduct?

It depends . I think it would turn sharply on a couple of things. The underlying reason for the suit Let us suppose that the business is a lumberyard that sells the customer roof trusses. The insurer has a problem with the trusses for complex engineering reasons: the store says the customer misapplied perfectly good product. Yes, that lumberyard can be expected to "86" that customer (at least, as regards to selling them engineered products LOL.) However. If the suit is "you refused to sell trusses to me because I am Irish ", that is a horse of a different color and should rapidly result in a ruling that "you can't refuse service for that reason". If the shop could simply change the reason to "you sued me", that would utterly defeat the ruling and civil-protection law generally - so yeah, that would be a "contempt of court" scenario. Alternative sources for that thing This was also trotted out in the Memories Pizza affair . "We're not the only pizzeria in town". (well there's ONE other in town; all others are at least a 25 minute drive). The argument is the customer has a variety of alternative sources so they don't need this one . Versus the customer saying "No, I really don't". But again, this turns on the facts and circumstances. If you're in a protected class, the business really can't turn you away on that basis. (imagine if businesses in the US rural south were able to turn away minorities on the basis of "you have many other choices. In reality, if every business does that, you'd have no choice and it would be a lie.) I could also see this appearing in Right to Repair litigation. Manufacturers are often the only source for repair parts (e.g. because the are a vertical manufacturer or it contains propriety embedded software)... if a manufacturer litigated to stop a 3rd party repair shop from servicing their equipment, and lost , courts would take a dim view of the company then refusin to sell repair parts to the shop, since that would simply be another attempt to do what the court already said was impermissible.

Extensions of time to respond

Is an extension of time to file a response something that is available in the case of a petition to confirm arbitration award?

Arbitration Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method where the p[arties voluntarily submit to the binding decision (award) of the arbitrator(s). It gets its legal effectiveness by being legislated in the relevant jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions have different laws for international, domestic commercial, and other (e.g. family law) arbitrations. Notwithstanding, there is a great deal of commonality across types and jurisdictions. Extension of time for making submissions How an arbitration is conducted is by the agreement of the parties, or, if the parties can't agree, at the discretion of the arbitrator(s). Often, the parties will agree on rules that will be followed in their arbitration clause. So, if you are asking if a party can be given an extension of time to make a submission, then yes - if all parties agree, the rules allow it, or the arbitrator(s) agree. Enforcement In most cases, arbitral awards are voluntarily complied with. It is estimated that in international arbitrations, only 11% of awards are not voluntarily complied with, and most of those stem from an inability to pay rather than an unwillingness to pay. Failing to honour an arbitral award is a breach of contract, and the successful party can sue for recovery like any other breach. The law of arbitration is that an award is binding, and the courts will simply enforce the award as a judgement debt. Like any breach, there may be a statute of limitations beyond which action can no longer be taken without the court agreeing to waive those limits. Challanging an award There are very limited grounds and strict timeframes for challenging an arbitral award. While courts have the discretion to extend those timeframes (because they're courts), they very rarely (approaching never) do so for arbitral awards.

Working a car cleaner now, my manager asked me to take some pictures before cleaning and after clearing, privacy issue of the car owner

I understand that the car's owner and the company have some agreements before the service begins. But as a worker, I would like to ensure doing so would not break any laws, even if the instructions are given by the manager. Since home and car are personal private property in general and people take that vary seriously. While I don't want to ask the manger directly if they have such an agreement (of taking picture of car clearing service ) with their customers. And pictures would not reveal car plates. Q: Can we do that legally while as a cleaner without knowing company's agreement? Q: Can the company have that kind of agreement with its customers in the first place?

Working a mobile car cleaner now, my manager asked me to take some pictures before cleaning and after clearing, privacy issue of the car owner California law creates an expectation of consent for taking photographs of people for purposes of commercial distribution of the image to the public. California Civil Code § 3344 . But, absent copyright or design patent issues (which would only very rarely come up since most people don't own the copyrights or patents to the designs of their cars, and the owner of the copyrights generally grants an implied license for the owners of the cars to display the copyrighted or patented designs), there is no parallel requirement of consent for taking photographs of things. Furthermore there is no common law expectation of privacy in anything that someone you do business with must necessarily see with their own eyes. So, if you must see the car to clean it, then taking photographs before and after the work is done does not violate any expectation of privacy to which the customer has not implicitly consented and does not violate any California or federal statute. Better practice would be for the business to explicitly have the customers consent in writing to the photographs, to remove all doubt. But the implied consent to having someone see your car when they are cleaning it would be unreasonable to deny in almost all circumstances. A company might voluntarily have an agreement to keep any photographs taken confidential and to have its employees sign non-disclosure agreements not to reveal what they see while working. If it did, this would create a legally enforceable expectation of privacy for the customer. For some VIP clients, this contractually enforceable discretion might be something that would induce them to pay a higher price for the same services. But those kind of protections are not the default standards of law that apply in the absence of an agreement. And, even then, taking photographs for purposes of internal use only would probably not violate an agreement of this kind. The work still requires that people inside the business, including remote supervisors, be able to see the cars to do their work.

Low-Ball Buyout Offers in Multi-Class Share Structures: Protecting the Interests of Series A Stockholders

In USA listed-stock (even ADR), when there are two series (classes) of stocks: A (common) and B. Say, series B is not tradable but has above 90% of voting power despite the number of shares are much smaller compared to series A, let also assume no conversion is possible between the types of shares. In short the scenario is that series B holders represent less 50% of ownership, but more than 50% of voting power. Given that, can the owner(s) of Series B accept a low-ball buyout offer (might be even with discount to the market value) - even theoretically $1? is that legal? what protects the interest of series A stockholders? (*) Due to their percentage of ownership they are not so much harmed by selling the company in absurdly low price, and might have received (being usually executive of the company) some compensation in the transaction. Edit: to clarify the question, let's consider Twitter example. Musk offered to buy Twitter, which triggered a shareholder vote that passed despite more than 4M shareholders votes that were against. But, as I understood, they were forced to accept the majority vote and their shares were converted to cash as in the offer. I ask, then, in case of discord between voting rights and ownership what happens? do the voting rights do not apply in this case? or they rather they do and the owners are in "danger"? Basically, my question also applied where entity holds > 50% of ownership (and voting rights) - what prevent this entity (or for that matter - separated legal entity that has close ties with that entity) from offering to buy the company for one cent and make it private? (and then even sell?). I could not find the legal mechanism that prevents this kind of action.

Given that, can the owner(s) of Series B accept a low-ball buyout offer (might be even with discount to the market value) - even theoretically $1? is that legal? what protects the interest of series A stockholders? The Class A shareholders don't have to accept offers to buy their shares of stock unless they believe the amount offered is sufficient. The Class B shareholders with a majority of the vote don't control when particular Class A shareholders do or do not sell their shares. Historically, a tender offer to buy shares of stock of a public company has taken a premium over the current market value to induce the shareholders subject to the offer to sell their shares.

is there a limit of speed cops can go on a high speed pursuit?

Let's have the following scenario, where a police officer is trying to pull a car over, but the car decides to try to run away. HOW fast is the police officer legally allowed to go when chasing the car?

Here's the relevant statute for Virginia, 46.2-920 A. The driver of any emergency vehicle, when such vehicle is being used in the performance of public services, and when such vehicle is operated under emergency conditions, may, without subjecting himself to criminal prosecution: Disregard speed limits, while having due regard for safety of persons and property; B. The exemptions granted to emergency vehicles by subsection A in subdivisions A1, A3, A4, A5, and A6 shall apply only when the operator of such vehicle displays a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light or lights as provided in §§ 46.2-1022 and 46.2-1023 and sounds a siren, exhaust whistle, or air horn designed to give automatically intermittent signals, as may be reasonably necessary. Such exemptions shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vehicle from criminal prosecution for conduct constituting reckless disregard of the safety of persons and property. Nothing in this section shall release the operator of any such vehicle from civil liability for failure to use reasonable care in such operation. So the law does not impose any specific speed limit. Department policy may still impose speed limits on its own officers in this situation, but violating department policy is not a violation of the law per se , if the violation of policy is not reckless. Of course, the million dollar question is what constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property.

is there a limit of speed cops can go on a high speed pursuit?

Let's have the following scenario, where a police officer is trying to pull a car over, but the car decides to try to run away. HOW fast is the police officer legally allowed to go when chasing the car?

england-and-wales As fast as is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, as long as it is for "police purposes" which includes pursuing a car that fails to stop. Properly trained and qualified officers have an exemption to the posted speed limit under section 87 Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984: (1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, for ambulance purposes or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion. For awareness, they also have statutory exemptions to observing keep left/right signs, and complying with red traffic lights. The latter are to be treated as a "give way" (aka yield in certain countries). Although tagged virginia , I have answered in line with the LawSE Help Centre : " we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag] "

is there a limit of speed cops can go on a high speed pursuit?

Let's have the following scenario, where a police officer is trying to pull a car over, but the car decides to try to run away. HOW fast is the police officer legally allowed to go when chasing the car?

The speed limit for the road OR if it is reasonable in the circumstances that the speed limit should not apply, as fast as the driver, acting reasonably, determines australia The relevant provisions are detailed in each state or territories’ road rules. Most have adopted a modified form of the Australian Road Rules . These make it an offence to exceed the posted speed limit or, if there isn’t one, 50km/h in a built-up area (one with street lights) or 100km/h in a rural area. Police are bound to follow the road rules just like everybody else. s305 provides an exemption for drivers of police vehicles if, in the circumstances, the police driver is taking reasonable care and it's reasonable that a provision of the road rules should not apply. Every police force in Australia has guidelines on pursuit and an officer who follows those guidelines will almost certainly be found by a court to have been acting reasonably. Operating beyond the guidelines may also be reasonable in the circumstances. Again, in every Australian police force, a pursuit, like the discharge of a firearm or taser, is a critical incident and will be subject to automatic investigation by a police integrity unit. Depending on the state, this may be part of the police force or an independent body. If the pursuit results in a death, there will be a coronial inquest which will examine the lawfulness of the pursuit. Anyone harmed by a pursuit may seek compensation which will also examine the lawfulness of the pursuit.

Is an employer permitted to use images of employees for marketing without their consent?

Paul works in a restaurant, sometimes as a chef and sometimes as a bartender. David is the manager of that restaurant. David has been taking pictures inside the restaurant including some showing Paul at work cooking and tending bar. David posted those pictures on the company's website to promote the business. Paul did not consent to having his picture used in this context. What are his legal rights?

The law varies greatly among U.S. states, most of which treat this as a common law tort action rather than having a statute on point. But, the question tags California, and under California law, the relevant statute, which is called the "Right of Publicity Law" is California Civil Code § 3344 (rights of publicity after you are dead are governed by parallel California Civil Code § 3344.1). This statute, under the relevant circumstances, gives the person whose photos were used commercially without their consent the right to economic damages (but not less than statutory damages of $750), disgorgement of profits from the commercial use of the image, attorney fees, and sometimes punitive damages. In the case in the question, the economic damages are unlikely to exceed the $750 amount unless the employer is a massive chain of restaurants. There are arguments that could be made against liability in this case, so it wouldn't be a sure recovery, but it would have a decedent chance of success. The goal of the statute in this context is to have the employer separately pay a small fee, perhaps a few hundred bucks, to employees who serve as models for advertisements in addition to being employees doing their ordinary work. Of course, if your occupation is to be a promotional model (my wife's line of work for many years), your consent is inferred from the circumstances. The statute states, in the pertinent part: (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name . . . photograph, or likeness, in any manner, . . . for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, . . . shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs. (b) As used in this section, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable. (1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use. (2) I f the photograph includes more than one person so identifiable,then the person or persons complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a baseball team. (3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as members of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner. (c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's photograph or likeness. (d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, . . . photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a). (e) The use of a name, . . . photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person's name, . . . photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a). (f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations, cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's name, . . . photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this section. (g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall be in addition to any others provided for by law. The most relevant language to this question is in bold.

Is it libel if a company lies about being the first to achieve something?

If a company publishes false statements claiming that it was the first to achieve some notable technological milestone, or that it currently provides the most of some measurable service, can that count as libel against the company which truly achieved that or holds that record? Because claiming to be the first seems to include saying that the other company was not the first, so is that libel if that's false?

Typical in any of the several united-states No, this fails to meet two of the core elements of libel. The statement must be Adverse (fails) Stated by one party To a second party About a third party (fails) The case you're thinking of, where a company brags excessively about their company or products, are covered by a variety of securities and trade laws, such as false advertising. Many of these are applicable in the Federal domain, i.e. are Federal rather than state laws. Edit: Now I see you've changed the question a bit to claiming to be first. Yes, the injured party can sue for that, but they are more claiming false advertising than libel. Accusing someone of not being first-to-market is not a particularly powerful or damning claim. Oreo didn't invent the sandwich cookie nor did Apple invent the computer. So such a claim is really a lot more about the publicity than actual, provable damages; so the controversy is more likely to be aired outside the court system, or in the courts but mainly for the publicity. (an example of the latter being the "Taco Tuesday" trademark-busting action; IIRC Taco Bell even paid the other party's legal fees, despite prevailing.)

Is it libel if a company lies about being the first to achieve something?

If a company publishes false statements claiming that it was the first to achieve some notable technological milestone, or that it currently provides the most of some measurable service, can that count as libel against the company which truly achieved that or holds that record? Because claiming to be the first seems to include saying that the other company was not the first, so is that libel if that's false?

canada In contrast to Trish's answer (I don't know what jurisdiction that applies in), the law in Canada leaves open the possibility that the circumstance you describe could make out a successful defamation claim. The elements of defamation are ( Grant v. Torstar Corp. , 2009 SCC 61 , para. 28): (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. But, whether the impugned words were defamatory and whether the words in fact referred to the plaintiff can only be determined in context by a finder of fact. Whether a person to which the statement was published would reasonably understand the statement to be a defamatory statement about another company is judged based on the full context of the statement. Defamation need not be literal; it can be inferential or based on inuendo. Where a claim is based on the inferential meaning of words, the question is one of impression: what would the ordinary person infer from the words in the context in which they were used? Both literal and inferential defamatory meaning reside within the words, as part of their natural and ordinary meaning. In contrast, where legal innuendo is pleaded the impugned words take on defamatory meaning from outside circumstances beyond general knowledge, but known to the recipient . Weaver v. Corcoran , 2017 BCCA 160 at para 72 See also R.E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada , 2nd ed. (1999), quoted in S.G. v. J.C. (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 215 : Therefore, in order to recover, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he or she is the one to whom the defamatory statement refers, that is, it must be shown to have been published 'of and concerning' the plaintiff. The defamatory publication 'must refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff.' It must refer to or concern him personally. The test in every case is whether the ordinary sensible person to whom the words were published would understand them as referring to the plaintiff . It is not necessary that the plaintiff be identified by his or her proper name, or even mentioned at all, if it is otherwise shown that the words would be reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff. He or she may be referred to in the guise of some fictional or historical character or by a play on words. It may be clear from other evidence that he was the one alluded to, but he must satisfy the court in that regard. This may be done by introducing evidence, apart from the publication, connecting the plaintiff with the defamatory publication. The question in such a case is whether or not the words used are such as to lead an ordinary sensible person, or reasonable persons, who pay reasonable attention to the contents of the communication, to understand that it was the plaintiff to whom the defendant referred . The test of whether words that do not specifically name the plaintiff refer to him or not is this: Are they such as reasonably in the circumstances would lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to? That does not assume that those persons who read the words know all the circumstances or all the relevant facts. But although the plaintiff is not named in words, he may, nevertheless, be described so as to be recognized; and whether that description takes the form of a word-picture of an individual or the form of a reference to a class of persons of which he is or is believed to be a member, or any other form, if in the circumstances the description is such that a person hearing or reading the alleged libel would reasonably believe that the plaintiff was referred to, that is a sufficient reference to him .

Is it libel if a company lies about being the first to achieve something?

If a company publishes false statements claiming that it was the first to achieve some notable technological milestone, or that it currently provides the most of some measurable service, can that count as libel against the company which truly achieved that or holds that record? Because claiming to be the first seems to include saying that the other company was not the first, so is that libel if that's false?

No in the united-states Libel is written defamation , its sibling is slander. That is not simply stating something wrong, libel is stating something that is disparaging a different person in the eye of the public and which does not have the defense of truth or being an opinion. In general, the test if something is Defamation has four factors, which were outlined above: a false statement purporting to be fact [about a second person]; publication or communication of that statement to a third person; fault amounting to at least negligence; and damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. If Alice says "Bob won a medal", that would not be disparaging about Bob, as that is not causing harm to Bob's reputation. If Alice says "I won a medal" that is not a statement about a different person than yourself. If Alice says "I won a medal, Bob didn't", now that could be causing harm to the reputation of Bob - if the statement is patently wrong and Alice knows or should have known the truth. Where the line is between the second and third statement is very much dependent on the exact state law: if implication can qualify is generally in statutes. Different laws apply to ads If anything, claiming that your company achieved something and if that claim is more than puffery , then the statement might be false or misleading advertisement - which are usually violations of state law.

Is it libel if a company lies about being the first to achieve something?

If a company publishes false statements claiming that it was the first to achieve some notable technological milestone, or that it currently provides the most of some measurable service, can that count as libel against the company which truly achieved that or holds that record? Because claiming to be the first seems to include saying that the other company was not the first, so is that libel if that's false?

An interesting case of something like this is an ongoing (as of 2023) lawsuit by Nona Gaprindashvili, against Netflix, for claiming in its show The Queen’s Gambit that its main character is making history in an episode set in 1968 because, “There's Nona Gaprindashvili, but she's the female world champion and has never faced men.” in fact, Gaprindashvili had played against nearly 60 men by the time the episode is set. In its early filings, Netflix defended itself by saying the show was a work of fiction set in an alternative timeline. This alleges defamation, not fraud. That is, it alleges that viewers will believe the show’s historically-inaccurate claims denigrating Gaprindashvili’s accomplishments, not that the audience will think the show is a documentary about a real person.

Is there any need to offer communication by standard/interoperable/asynchronous means?

Many companies only offer customer support through “web chat” or similar which forces a customer to keep a browser window open whilst waiting for the representative’s responses to each of their messages which may take multiple minutes. Furthermore it prevents customers from being able to see all of their correspondence with different companies’ representatives in one place. Suppose Bob would like to communicate with ACME about issues he is having with their product by either post or email. Is there anything in the laws meaning that they must have a more standardised means of communication available such as an address for service of legal communications? I’m thinking along the lines that there are indeed laws that stipulate consumers rights, providing that customer service avenues have been exhausted to resolve the issues, etc. Is there any way in which any of these types of provisions accordingly insinuate that companies must have some more standardised means of contact available to be reachable for resolving quality related complaints etc? Such as phone or email?

Not for normal correspondence There are laws that require a specified channel of communication for specific purposes such as a physical address for the service of legal notices, but there is no general requirement. How, or if, a company communicates with its customers about complaints will either be specified in the contract or up to the company to determine and advertise. For example, this site specifies “ will be deemed to have been duly given when received, if personally delivered or sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested; when receipt is electronically confirmed, if transmitted by facsimile or e-mail; or the day after it is sent, if sent for next day delivery by recognized overnight delivery service” - any other method of delivery (Whatsapp, Facebook, even their own chatrooms etc.) is not a valid method of service, if you use those methods, then legally, you have not communicated. So, if the company requires complaints to deal with by online chat, they can safely ignore any letter or email you might send them.

Is there any need to offer communication by standard/interoperable/asynchronous means?

Many companies only offer customer support through “web chat” or similar which forces a customer to keep a browser window open whilst waiting for the representative’s responses to each of their messages which may take multiple minutes. Furthermore it prevents customers from being able to see all of their correspondence with different companies’ representatives in one place. Suppose Bob would like to communicate with ACME about issues he is having with their product by either post or email. Is there anything in the laws meaning that they must have a more standardised means of communication available such as an address for service of legal communications? I’m thinking along the lines that there are indeed laws that stipulate consumers rights, providing that customer service avenues have been exhausted to resolve the issues, etc. Is there any way in which any of these types of provisions accordingly insinuate that companies must have some more standardised means of contact available to be reachable for resolving quality related complaints etc? Such as phone or email?

british-columbia Is there anything in the laws meaning that they must have a more standardised means of communication available such as an address for service of legal communications? Yes, service of legal documents can be by way of delivery to a corporation's registered office in the corporate register. See B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules 4-3(2)(b)(iv) : Unless the court otherwise orders, personal service of a document is to be effected as follows: ... on a corporation, ... in the manner provided by the Business Corporations Act The Business Corporations Act , s. 9(a) says: ... a record may be served on a company ... by delivering the record to the delivery address, or by mailing it by registered mail to the mailing address, shown for the registered office of the company in the corporate register The "corporate register" is "the information filed with or recorded by the registrar under [the Business Corporations Act ] or a former Companies Act, and includes any corrections made to that information by the registrar under [the Business Corporations Act ] or a former Companies Act."

Are lone excerpts considered derivative works?

Specific context: I am in the United States as is the owner of the work. The work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 Someone has digitized a public domain reference dictionary and posted it on the internet under CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0. It is in a format where the entire contents of the dictionary are in a single web page. I would like to make a searchable version of this dictionary (it is very hard to navigate in a single web page). In this case, I would be providing a web page that contains a search bar, and the results would be unmodified excerpts from the original digitized version corresponding to the entry being requested. Does this break the terms of CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0?

If we subtract the public domain aspect of the situation, CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 means that you may not "Share" any "Adapted Materials". Share means what you think it means: you can adapt materials for yourself, you cannot share (redistribute) that adaptation. "Adapted materials" is material "translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor". No you may not, if you are talking about material protected by copyright. Material that is simply digitized does not gain copyright protection from being digitized, see Bridgeman v. Corel . So if a work was un-creatively digitized and was in the public domain, then it does not become re-protected by the act of scanning. However, if the work was creatively digitized, even minimally, then that new work is protected by copyright.

Can a company in the Netherlands which has an American parent company hire an Iranian?

Because of the US sanctions, there are many limitations and restrictions on some countries, and these sanctions also affect the people of those countries. Suppose that a person, A, was going to work with a company in the Netherlands which in 2019 was acquired by an American company. Recently the company told A that because the company belongs to an American company, they can not proceed and get A the work permit, but they also said if A were in the Netherlands now, it would be easier. Is there any way this company can hire A while A is still in Iran? How can they hire A if A were in the Netherlands? (For instance as a traveler in the Netherlands) If they can hire A while a/he is in the Netherlands, could they also hire A if A were in Turkey?

It's difficult to tell: it's possible that you could be hired, or that you can't be hired. The easy part, the third question, is that this is not a ban based on ethnicity or citizenship, it is based no residence, so it you are not in Iran, you're not a target of the ban. The sanctions prohibit the importation of certain services of Iranian origin (e.g. employment), and also §560.419 says that The prohibitions in §560.201 make it unlawful to hire an Iranian national ordinarily resident in Iran to come to the United States solely or for the principal purpose of engaging in employment on behalf of an entity in Iran or as the employee of a U.S. person, unless authorized pursuant to § 560.505. See also § 560.418 with respect to the release of technology and software. But you are not coming to the US (or The Netherlands). Nevertheless, HR of the employing firm may have misinterpreted the regulation. There is a good chance that you would not be subject to the importation of services regulation, §560.201: Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the importation into the United States of any goods or services of Iranian origin or owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, other than information and informational materials within the meaning of section 203(b)(3) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3)), is prohibited. First, is there a reasonable interpretation of the circumstances where your services are imported into the US? Second, is the hiring company a subsidiary of a US firm and is controlled by the US firm (if not, the US sanctions do not apply to a foreign employer). Under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syrian Human Rights Act §218, that would be (1) one that is more than 50% owned by the U.S. parent; (2) one in which the parent firm holds a majority on the Board of Directors of the subsidiary; or (3) one in which the parent firm directs the operations of the subsidiary. The nature of the services imported also matters: information services can be imported, likewise sports-related services. Importation of oil and gas related services is prohibited. So all told, it's difficult to say what is allowed in this circumstance.

Comcast Xfinity CCPA Policy

I have an old login with Comcast under a relative’s primary (billed) account that I'd like to have deleted under CCPA. The relative lives in Florida, but I am a California resident. I'm attempting to request the deletion of my login and personal information through CCPA. After many emails and calls to Comcast's privacy department, I finally got them to proceed with my account deletion about a month ago. But a few days ago I got a voicemail that it hadn't gone through because the "primary account holder needed to approve it". Since I've already been authenticated and this CCPA request is solely for my own account and personal information, I don’t see why this is necessary. The primary account holder could call to delete their own account, but that would be subject to Comcast’s national policy and not covered by CCPA. Is this a valid reason to deny a CCPA request? I’ve made it clear in writing multiple times that it is only for my own personal information.

Update: I've filed a complaint with the CA Attorney General. They automatically forwarded the complaint to Comcast and sent me a notice in the mail. If you have filed a complaint against a business, we will forward your complaint to that business and request that it contact you promptly to resolve the issues you raised. Please note that we cannot represent you, advocate for you with the business, or force the business to satisfy individual requests for relief. Please contact the business directly to discuss your complaint. While we cannot provide specific legal advice, please see the information below, which may help address your concern. For more information about the CCPA, please see https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa and https://cppa.ca.gov/ . [...] If a business has violated the CCPA, you may notify the Office of the Attorney General by filing a consumer complaint. While we cannot file an action on behalf of an individual consumer over an individual violation, consumer complaints are an important source of information for the office. We will review consumer complaints to identify patterns of misconduct and to determine what law enforcement actions to take. You can sue a business under the CCPA only if your unencrypted and un-redacted personal information was stolen in a data breach as a result of the business's failure to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect it. You must generally give the business written notice of its violations and 30 days to fix the violations before you can sue. For more information about when you can sue for a CCPA violation, visit https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa If you want to consult an attorney, you can obtain a referral to a certified lawyer referral service through the State Bar at (866) 442-2529 (toll-free in California) or (415) 538-2250 (from outside California), or online at https://www.calbar.ca.gov . If you cannot afford to pay an attorney, contact your local legal aid office to see if you qualify for free or reduced-rate legal assistance. For a referral to local legal aid offices, visit https://lawhelpca.org/ and click on the Search for Legal Help tab. Comcast responded immediately to the forwarded complaint and appears to have deactivated my login, but nearly a month later have still not confirmed whether any personal information has been deleted. I'd strongly recommend anyone in a similar situation to file a complaint as well. There's no guarantee the Attorney General or California Privacy Protection Agency will act on it, but it can increase the civil penalty to the company by $5,000 per complaint (see section 1798.155) and makes it more likely they will comply. Don't waste your time with any unnecessary calls from the business or obfuscating information yourself as a commenter here mentioned. Just submit your CCPA request in writing, complete the identity verification, wait the 45 days as allowed by the law (or 90 if an extension is requested, see section 1798.130), and file a complaint if it's not completed. Update 2: I received a forwarded letter from Comcast to the Attorney General in response to my complaint. They lied and backdated their alleged completion date of the deletion request to fall within the 45 day deadline, despite emails I sent past their claimed date repeating the request as I was still able to login. Before filing a complaint, make sure to take screenshots showing you logged into the account and email it to the business in order to document it.

Unpacking "If they have a question for the lawyers, they've got to go outside and the grand jurors can ask questions." from former US Fed. prosecutor

I need help understanding in plain language the last few sentences of the following exchange between CNN's anchor Dana Bash and CNN's Chief Legal Analyst (and former federal prosecutor) Laura Coats in the July 28, 2023 Trump's lawyers have secret meeting with special counsel BASH: And Laura, how conclusive must the evidence be in a case like this to show intent? COATS: Well, an average case that's not under the microscope, but a case like this would be, the prosecutors must be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They want the jury to -- the grand jury, remember (hearing from?) the actual trial jury -- They're talking about probable cause, probable cause that a crime has occurred and this person (has done) it. But in reality, it's beyond a reasonable doubt in the sense that 'can I really be successful in the courtroom with this?' The vote that's returned, whether it's a majority, whether it's a slim majority, whether it's unanimous, will be very, very telling. Well, remember, there's a reason why the lawyers for Trump want to talk to Jack Smith and prosecutors as opposed to Donald Trump himself. In a grand jury climate, it is the defendant alone or the witness alone who can go into the room. If they have a question for the lawyers, they've got to go outside and the grand jurors can ask questions. And so by the lawyers trying to have the meeting it's likely to suggest, 'Listen, we want to make sure that if this person would go before the grand jury, (he's chosen not to) that they are protected in some way.' That's for every single defendant, every single witness as well. Coats packs a lot of information into each sentence and speaks quickly, and the YouTube transcript is imperfect so I've added a few parentheticals. My confusion is with the line: If they have a question for the lawyers, they've got to go outside and the grand jurors can ask questions. Is "they" the grand jury? Is she saying that if the grand jury members have questions for Trumps lawyers, they (the grand jury) must leave the room and ask questions of Trump's lawyers in the hall outside the room or some similar "unofficial" location? I don't see how that fits with the next sentence: 'Listen, we want to make sure that if this person would go before the grand jury, (he's chosen not to) that they are protected in some way.' which seems to be from the point of view of Trump's laywers, not of the grand jury members. What is Coats' point here?

The witness can go outside and ask questions of the witness’ lawyers So if, for example, Mr Trump chooses to testify to the grand jury he goes in alone - no lawyers. If he wants to consult his lawyers he needs to ask to do, leave the room and consult them. If I were Mr Trump’s lawyer I would be worried that he wouldn’t know when he should do that.