|
I work for a summer football camp company and we run an annual High School Football All-American Game. One of our players from 2007 recently became the most talked about college player / NFL draftee, so we have been HEAVILY promoting the fact that he was one of our kids. Last week one of his agent's lawyers contacted us and told us that we're not allowed to use his name, photos, or videos now that he's an adult and going into the NFL, unless we pay for the rights. Keep in mind these are photos WE took, videos WE shot, etc. We're not using anything but our own material. I wish I could be more specific, but the C&Ds they've been sending are very barebones. Do these guys actually have a leg to stand on or are they just trying to extort money out of us? ($100k to be specific)
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
I was charged with a noise ordinance violation in my county. I live in a multi-story apartment complex and there are units on all sides of me basically. I was playing Rock Band fairly loudly at 9PM (just from the tv though, no elaborate home theater set up) and singing along etc. The cops came and wrote me up for section 108-5-1 from below:quote:Section 108-5-1. - Loud and unnecessary noise. My question is, should that fall into section 108-5-2 or 108-5-1? 108-5-2 deals with loudspeakers/televisions which is I guess where most of the noise was coming from. But the first section is very broad and would seem to include all noises regardless of the time of day or source. So what is even the point of the subsections?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
fullroundaction posted:I work for a summer football camp company and we run an annual High School Football All-American Game. One of our players from 2007 recently became the most talked about college player / NFL draftee, so we have been HEAVILY promoting the fact that he was one of our kids. What state are you in? Assuming the player was a minor when he was at your camp, did you get written consent from his parents to film him and use his image in promotional material for the camp? Do you say or imply that he endorses your business? In general, I think you're probably in the wrong here if you do anything more than mention his name, unless you have written release forms signed by the parents. You could maybe get away with it if you conduct business in a state that doesn't recognize publicity rights, but even then it will be a risk since you probably advertise in states that do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
spog posted:Did she receive any communications from them between sending off the application form and the letter that informed her of the GBP20 bounce fee? Thanks, I got all the stuff from her today and plan to write a letter to them - thougt it would be useful if I could find something that explicitly states that they are acting illegally in charging her a different amount without specifically stating they will. She did get a letter after the payment bounced and they tried to charge her the additional £10, and the day before they tried to take the payment with an additional £30 (£10 not getting the form fee and £20 bouncing fee). I'll point out that they didn't give her 7 days warning but I think they'll say it's all covered in their terms and conditions. There's a case on the Money Saving Expert website that's pretty much the same except the people sent the form to the wrong place rather than it being 'lost in the post' and that's the response that person got. It just seems like a lovely way to do business - if she hadn't been particularly skint this month and down to just enough to cover the direct debit she probably wouldn't have noticed or if she had just let it go. If they hadn't received the form then they should have let her know (even if they still decided to charge £10) so at least she would have been prepared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Corsair Jr posted:I was charged with a noise ordinance violation in my county... My question is, should that fall into section 108-5-2 or 108-5-1? 108-5-2 deals with loudspeakers/televisions which is I guess where most of the noise was coming from. But the first section is very broad and would seem to include all noises regardless of the time of day or source. So what is even the point of the subsections? 108-5-1 is the actual violation. 108-5-2 is a non-exhaustive list of things that qualify as noise disturbance under 108-5-1. What constitutes a "disturbance" is fairly subjective, so they listed some of the more common sources of noise and laid out an objective test for whether their use is disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:What state are you in? The company is based in South Carolina, the promotional material in question was taken in various states (SC, FL, GA, etc). Konstantin posted:Assuming the player was a minor when he was at your camp, did you get written consent from his parents to film him and use his image in promotional material for the camp? He was a minor when he played in our Bowl Game, and we had a signed form from his parents. They're telling us that now that he's an adult the form is "legally nullified" or something similar. However, he has come to our camps as a counselor/coach as an adult, sat in front of a camera to do interviews, sign autographs, etc. Konstantin posted:Do you say or imply that he endorses your business? "[company name] jumpstarted my career!" is one of the taglines we use, which is a direct quote from a video interview we have with him. So yes, to answer your question. It sounds to me like his people's biggest problem is that they're getting crap from other sponsors who are paying money to use his name/image, knowing that we're not. That all sounds reasonable, we're just having a hell of the time finding out what we can/cannot do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
That makes it a lot less cut and dry than I thought. I would talk to a lawyer about it, better to cover your bases now in case they do sue you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Before the Cops on the Beat thread was closed in D&D, there were occasional absurd stories posted that related to this, where cops would gently caress some poo poo up and then the PD/city/state would say to the victim, "You're SOL, we have immunity." Here is one case, for example, and the article includes a (very) brief description of the origin of sovereign immunity. This is not an absolute thing, though, since if the cop goes way out of bounds you can go after him in a civil suit under Title 42 USC sec. 1983. http://familyrightsassociation.com/info/law/title42sec1983/ They're not the easiest cases to pursue, because there's a lot of quirks and loopholes to the law, but I've seen them happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
I'm in the middle of helping to start a non-profit group (Hackerspace/Makerspace/Open-Access Lab) in NH. We will eventually have 501(c)3 sponsorship though another group, but will not actually be a 501(c)3 ourselves. I don't need any heavy legal advice, but I'd love it if I could bounce some questions off a legal savvy goon (or even better, an actual lawyer). I feel like I have enough questions that it would clutter up the thread for me to just post them all here, but we aren't really in a position financially to hire a lawyer and haven't had luck finding one willing to donate their time yet. If you're local and interested in the whole Hackerspace thing, we'd be happy to barter free membership for legal counsel. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Hillridge posted:I'm in the middle of helping to start a non-profit group (Hackerspace/Makerspace/Open-Access Lab) in NH. We will eventually have 501(c)3 sponsorship though another group, but will not actually be a 501(c)3 ourselves. I don't need any heavy legal advice, but I'd love it if I could bounce some questions off a legal savvy goon (or even better, an actual lawyer). I feel like I have enough questions that it would clutter up the thread for me to just post them all here, but we aren't really in a position financially to hire a lawyer and haven't had luck finding one willing to donate their time yet. If you're local and interested in the whole Hackerspace thing, we'd be happy to barter free membership for legal counsel. Thanks. PM sent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
I have a question about guardianship/custodianship in North Carolina. Just to preface this, I am totally going to talk to an actual lawyer about this. But for the time being, I want to have a vague idea of what's involved. I'm in North Carolina. I am currently living with my girlfriend. We're not engaged, but neither of us doubt that we'll get married. My girlfriend's sister is thirteen (we're in our mid-twenties), and long story short, her mother and my girlfriend think that if the sister came to live with us, she'd be in a much better environment. She'd be moving to a different county; the mother is financially unable to move with her. The sister currently receives SSI survivor payments, as her father died two years ago. Disregarding life advice, what's legally required for that to happen? Is this called legal custodianship? Everything I can find on that assumes that the actual parent doesn't want to give up their child. The key difference here is that her mother is on board with this. Basically, if Will Smith moved to his unmarried aunt and not-uncle's in NC instead of Bel Air, what kind of hoops did his aunt and not-uncle have to jump through?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:Thanks, I got all the stuff from her today and plan to write a letter to them - thougt it would be useful if I could find something that explicitly states that they are acting illegally in charging her a different amount without specifically stating they will. She did get a letter after the payment bounced and they tried to charge her the additional £10, and the day before they tried to take the payment with an additional £30 (£10 not getting the form fee and £20 bouncing fee). I'll point out that they didn't give her 7 days warning but I think they'll say it's all covered in their terms and conditions. There's a case on the Money Saving Expert website that's pretty much the same except the people sent the form to the wrong place rather than it being 'lost in the post' and that's the response that person got. I would concentrate on that first period - i.e. the time between her sending the application, the time that they claim they received it and the time that the policy was valid. There's 7 weeks that seem unclear. I'd argue to them that she sent it out on time and that it must be that they mishandled it. I bet she dated the application form when she sent it. Don't bring legal issues into it else they might bump it to their legal dept. Just ask them to cancel the penalty payments as they were not her fault. It can probably be done as a customer courtesy thing. You can always threaten to cancel and go elsewhere. And let me ask this again: if the docs weren't received by your GF for 7 weeks, a) was she insured during this period and b) did she pay for coverage for this period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
fullroundaction posted:He was a minor when he played in our Bowl Game, and we had a signed form from his parents. They're telling us that now that he's an adult the form is "legally nullified" or something similar. I'm only familiar with the law in Michigan, but recent court decisions have decided to interpret contract law in such a way. It actually makes sense when you think about it; a parent shouldn't be able to bind their child and limit his ability to bring suit against people who are using his likeness during his adulthood just because he's underage at the time of the signing. It's a big time bummer but it means the forms your company used were inadequate. On the other hand, this emerging doctrine in Michigan replaced a doctrine that said parents could so bind their children, so your question is highly jurisdiction specific.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Before the Cops on the Beat thread was closed in D&D, there were occasional absurd stories posted that related to this, where cops would gently caress some poo poo up and then the PD/city/state would say to the victim, "You're SOL, we have immunity." Here is one case, for example, and the article includes a (very) brief description of the origin of sovereign immunity. The Wiki article on soverign immunity is also quite good. In my understanding it origninates from protecting the Sovereign in person from when those persons where much more central than they are in the governments of today. (To some degree comparable to how diplomatic immunity works today.) The functions of today are, however, different where it serves reasons as stated above. Most jurisdiction will recognise the government as primarily a service provider and to some degree ease their potential liability, though it may not be done through an outright soverign immunity approach.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 09:41
|
|
|
Maultaschen posted:My girlfriend's sister is thirteen (we're in our mid-twenties), and long story short, her mother and my girlfriend think that if the sister came to live with us, she'd be in a much better environment. I think the easiest thing would be to have the mother grant your girlfriend a limited power of attorney for the care of her sister. This would give your girlfriend the ability to do most anything that usually only a parent could: authorizing the sister's medical care, signing any documents that ask for a parent's signature, etc. The mother would be able to terminate this power at any time. Likewise, you and your girlfriend can always just bring the sister back to her mother if the situation no longer is working out for whatever reason. PS: if the sister does move in with you guys, your girlfriend can claim her sister as a dependent in any year the sister lived with you for at least half the year. This is true generally, even if you don't go with the power of attorney. Just make sure the mother does not also try to claim her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:It's a big time bummer but it means the forms your company used were inadequate. Yeah it totally makes sense why the forms would be voided, but it seems like there's no possible way to make them adequate if I'm understanding correctly. If the kid signs them as a minor, they're void when the kid becomes an adult. If the parents sign them when the kid is a minor, they're void when the kid becomes an adult. This is the first time it has come up in the history of our game, so I guess we'll just deal with this one instance and move on. The rest of our kids usually love all the free press we give them v  vThanks for the replies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
Is there a form or something that I can download regarding an out of court settlement? I am settling with someone about rent before there is a trial and I want to make sure they don't come after me in the future. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
Actually I do have one question that someone could probably answer easily: On the proposed lease, there are spaces for the 5 of us on the Board of Directors to sign under a section marked [Name of Our Corporation]. However, under each signature spot it says: "[Name], Director Personally and Individually" Does this mean that each one of us would be personally responsible for the lease, like roommates in a residential lease? We want the lease to be for the corporation, so that we are personally insulated from it in the event of a break of the lease, bankruptcy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Hillridge posted:Actually I do have one question that someone could probably answer easily: Under traditional business law, in some circumstances individuals are insulated from liability / debts of the corporation. This insulation can be contracted away. The contract can say whatever the parties want, including a provision that makes the individuals (you) liable for the corporate debt (the lease). In order to determine the legal effects of this particular contract and in order to better negotiate with the other party, I recommend (as I always do) that you talk to a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
Hillridge posted:Corporate stuff. It also helps if you tell us what state. If nothing else we can make referrals once we know where you live. It also makes it easier for us to stare at you through the window while you sleep. I assume this is why more people don't give their location. \/\/\/\/ I'm a little cranky today. Looking back I see you did explain it. No offense ment. Soylent Pudding fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
Sorry, I said NH in my first post, but I probably should have reiterated it in the one with the actual question. I'd love referrals, especially if you know someone in the area that would be cheap or freeto just advise us on a few legal docs. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Figured I'd repost this now that I have the rent credit addendum text: I'm looking for some advice on landlord/tenant law in Virginia. I'm a reservist leaving for a 4 month TDY at Ft. Leonard Wood for training at the end of June, so I'll need to break my lease per the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The issue I'm running into, however, is concerning a rent "credit" that my landlord has given me. Essentially, for signing a one year lease they gave us a "credit" equal to 105 dollars per month off of our base rent contingent upon our occupying the apartment for the full 12 months (I've lived here over a year). Because I'll be terminating it early, they want to back-charge me for the 5 months of the lease and charge me an early termination fee equal to two months' rent. Per the VRLTA §55-248.21:1, the landlord may not "charge any liquidates damages" against a client who is breaking the lease due to a military obligation. Should I consider taking them to small claims court to fight the rent credit and the termination fee, or is the leaglese confusing me? The rent credit is actually handled in an addendum: "1. In conduction with the parties' execution of the lease, subject to the terms and conditions of this Rent Credit Addendum, Landlord hereby grants Tenant a total rental credit in the amount of $1260 toward rents due and owing or which may become due and owing pursuant to the lease. . . . 3. Tenant's right to receive the foregoing rent credit is conditioned upon tenant maintaining his/her residency in good standing throughout the full term of the lease ending January 31, 2012. 4. In the event that the tenant violates any of the terms, covenants or conditions of the lease, including but not limited to untimely payment of rent, voluntary or involuntary termination of the lease, or any of Landlord's rules and regulations governing the property, then: a. the rent credit shall be cancelled and be null and void; b. the tenant shall repay the credit granted herein to the extent then received, and tenant shall be liable for the balance of the rental payments set fourth in the lease that may be due and owing through the end of the lease term without regard to any rent credit; and c. Tenant shall be liable for other damages that the landlord may suffer by reason of tenant's breach of any of the terms and conditions of this lease. 5. All other terms, covenants, and conditions of the lease remain in effect and are binding upon the parties hereto, save and except where modified by the terms and conditions of the addendum."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
spog posted:I would concentrate on that first period - i.e. the time between her sending the application, the time that they claim they received it and the time that the policy was valid. There's 7 weeks that seem unclear. The insurance policy started on the 25th February, my sister called up and arranged it by phone after finding it online. She had to pay £60 upfront on the 25th February when the insurance started and then was sent the welcome pack with the credit agreement. The insurance is with ASDA but all communication has been with a finance company called Panacea Finance who she made the initial £60 payment then a direct debit payment of the agreed £29 on the 13th March. I don't drive so I don't know how the whole insurance shebang usually works but it looks like ASDA get all the money upfront from what's basically a loan company and then the customer pays back the loan to the finance company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
I bought a car back in June 2008. At some point, the dealership I bought it from, and who were the lien holders, went under. They sold the lien to another company. THAT company went under, and they sold the lien to the company that I paid off in July, 2010. I got the title and the attachment saying the loan was paid, and the lien released. I sold it yesterday, and today he has been trying to title it under his name. The attachment is from a company that is NOT the one listed as lien holder on the title (title says the place I bought the car from is the holder). The county Motor Vehicle Department (Colorado) won't accept the attachment as proof of discharge, because it's a different company. The DMV called the person who handles the titles at the company I paid off, and she supposedly sent them the same attachment that was already with the title. Right now, it can't be titled as the original company no longer exists. What the gently caress am I supposed to do? EDIT: The DMV approved the title at the last possible loving moment. Christ that was nerve wracking! fusionpit fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Apr 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:The insurance policy started on the 25th February, my sister called up and arranged it by phone after finding it online. She had to pay £60 upfront on the 25th February when the insurance started and then was sent the welcome pack with the credit agreement. The insurance is with ASDA but all communication has been with a finance company called Panacea Finance who she made the initial £60 payment then a direct debit payment of the agreed £29 on the 13th March. Okay, so at least she wasn't paying for insurance and not getting it. Here's my suggestions: Deal with the company that she sent the application to. 1) Send a letter. Keep it concise - preferably one page for the complaint 2) State facts clearly: I wish to complain about a penalty charge that was unfairly applied to my account I applied for the insurance on the 1st, received the welcome pack on the 6th, completed and signed the form on the 8th and posted it back to you the same day On the 18th, you took $50 from my account by direct debit, including a $10 surcharge for late return of the completed application. I do not believe I should be charged this penalty when I completed the requirements within the timeframe requested. As I was not expecting this extra charge, the DD failed and you charged me an extra $20 on the 25th. As I returned the completed form within the requested 10 days, I should not have been charged the penalty charge of $10, or the additional penalty of $20 that resulted from this unexpected charge. i would therefore be grateful if you would credit my account for this $30, so I can continue to keep my policy with you Hopefully, some low level admin will see it, highlight your main points and pass it to their boss to sign off. I'd bet lots of forms get delayed in processing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
spog posted:Okay, so at least she wasn't paying for insurance and not getting it. Here's my suggestions: Thanks a lot, I've drafted a letter which is along those lines but as they were pretty condescending and unwilling to listen when my sister called them to say that she had posted it back the letter is a bit hostile: "Letter Hookerbot wrote to nasty finance company posted:
Is it a bit much? It has the word pillage in it
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
Fellow lawyers, I am hoping that one of you hip internet guys knows the answer to this so I don't have to research it myself. I am old and technology frightens and confuses me. A dude called me because he wants to sue some guy. Dude had placed a family video of his wife doing normal, non-sexual things on youtube. Some guy either (1) used keepvid or something similar to download and re-post the video in his channel on youtube, or else (2) some guy added the video to his youtube channel without downloading and re-uploading it (if that is even possible). The problem is that some guy added an overtly sexual label to the video, making it look like it was going to be a sex video if it was clicked upon. Some guy made no changes to the video itself. Everything was taken down by youtube after a DMCA claim, but dude is outraged and wants to exact civil justice from some guy to the fullest measure of the law. I'm not taking the case because (1) I don't share dude's outrage, (2) collectibility concerns of some guy, and (3) having trouble pinpointing a cause of action (not quite defamation, not quite invasion of privacy, etc.) We don't recognize false light in my state. It is my practice when rejecting a case, that if there is a cause of action potentially available, I disclose it and the statute of limitations in a letter so that I don't get sued later. Anyone see anything beyond defamation or invasion of privacy? Is there a copyright cause of action under these facts, and if so, what's the statute of limitations?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Fellow lawyers, I am hoping that one of you hip internet guys knows the answer to this so I don't have to research it myself. I am old and technology frightens and confuses me. From Youtube's terms and conditions: 8. Rights you licence 8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant: to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats [and through any media channels]; to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service and under these Terms. 8.2 The above licenses granted by you in Content terminate when you remove or delete your Content from the Website. The above licenses granted by you in textual comments you submit as Content are perpetual and irrevocable, but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights, which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 7.2 above. I can't imagine anything not-defamation, not-copyright that wouldn't be excluded by that term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:10
|
|
|
Where would I begin if I had a legitimate complaint against a former employer due to the California Labor Code sections 201 and 203? Should I just find a local lawyer or what? I'm honestly clueless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:25
|
|
|
Liquid Penguins posted:Where would I begin if I had a legitimate complaint against a former employer due to the California Labor Code sections 201 and 203? Should I just find a local lawyer or what? I'm honestly clueless. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileWageClaim.htm or you could find a local lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:From Youtube's terms and conditions: Thank you. I knew asking here would be faster than doing research, and it was better, as it turns out, because I never would have thought to look in the Youtube license agreement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:Thanks a lot, I've drafted a letter which is along those lines but as they were pretty condescending and unwilling to listen when my sister called them to say that she had posted it back the letter is a bit hostile: Looks fine. Apart from 'pillage' that is. Save that for a follow-up letter, if you need to send one
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
I can't remember poo poo about property law and don't want to research this for myself. Someone entered a caveat on title on a piece of property that there should be no burning on the property. Like, no fires, no burning brush or trash, whatever. Owner then sells it off, continues to own an adjacent piece of land. Is the buyer of the land bound by the caveat? What's involved in having it removed? This is in glorious Canuckistan, the land god gave to snow
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Fellow lawyers, I am hoping that one of you hip internet guys knows the answer to this so I don't have to research it myself. I am old and technology frightens and confuses me. false light tort if your jurisdiction recognizes it
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but I just saw the conclusion of a criminal case in my local paper and was wondering what some actual lawyers thought. (I have no connection to this case whatsoever and this is solely for my own personal curiosity) Man sentenced to year in jail for online threats against Washington State governor Basically, he did the following: 1. Made a comment stating that the governor "should be burned at the stake like a heretic." 2. Made a comment stating that "I hope you have the opportunity to see one of your family members raped and murdered by a sexual predator." 3. Filled out a contact form used to invite the governor to events, this event was a "public execution." My initial thoughts were that if it were only for points 1 and 2, this would clearly be protected speech, because his statements don't rise to the level of actual threats. However, that third element is problematic, because I can certainly see how it COULD be interpreted as a threat, but at the same time I'm not sure if a reasonable person WOULD interpret it that way given the context and method of delivery. I thought USA v. William White looked like a lot more of a slam dunk since he said everyone connected to a trial should be killed and posted personal information about and directions to the home of a juror, and that case was just overturned on appeal, with the district court finding his postings were protected speech. How likely do you think it would be that the defendant in this case would win an appeal on First Amendment grounds? Would the judge's statement at sentencing that "From what you've said here today, it appears to me that you don’t believe these were threats" have any bearing? (Does intent matter for this kind of crime?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
I'd be wary of making any comments on a case where the only information is a news report that quotes 'some' of the threats. I don't know what the precise legal test in the US is, but the harm from a death threat is not in the phrasing of the words but in causing the victim to have a genuine fear that their life is at risk. A deliberate course of action that causes this fear shouldn't be defensible on the grounds that "I didn't explicitly say that I would kill him".
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
Test for uttering threats is saying things that are intended and do cause the target to fear for his safety or the safety of his family. Saying "I hope you or your family dies" and then inviting a person to a place and time called "I'm going to kill you here" probably clears that hurdle I just read a local case where a guy went down for posting a bunch of really specific "gently caress the police, only good cop is one I've killed with a shotgun" type stuff on his facebook wall, that then got read by a couple police officers. Whether you really "intend" or "mean" for that to cause fear, and whether it really does, will be a question of fact, but there's a line and it's probably wise not to publicly toe it, especially w/r/t a loving elected official hypocrite lecteur fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Apr 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 13:19
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:especially w/r/t a loving elected official Hell, I had actual credible death threats from a contractor who'd been to my house, where the threats were also an attempt to subvert the law (approximately "if you try to enforce the legal judgement against me I will violently murder you in your sleep") and I was told there's nothing the law can do about that until after he tries to kill me. (And also I'm not allowed to be prepared to defend myself, if I was to defend myself with an improvised weapon such as a kitchen knife or hammer that I'd deliberately kept on hand because of the threat then I'd be committing a crime!) That guy sure is lucky I'm not an elected official. vvvv It was in the UK, but I'm fairly sure it's not true there either. (What I was told about the law, not the story, which is true.) The UK doesn't even have a freedom of speech law! And with the legal judgement aspect it seems like it could reasonably have been filed under "extortion" since it basically amounted to "I am taking your money or I'll kill you". I'm certain extortion isn't legal in the UK. My point is, the legal system doesn't give a poo poo about enforcing these laws if you're not an elected official or paying for expensive lawyers to push them into action. roomforthetuna fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Apr 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 14:48
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Hell, I had actual credible death threats from a contractor who'd been to my house, where the threats were also an attempt to subvert the law (approximately "if you try to enforce the legal judgement against me I will violently murder you in your sleep") and I was told there's nothing the law can do about that until after he tries to kill me. (And also I'm not allowed to be prepared to defend myself, if I was to defend myself with an improvised weapon such as a kitchen knife or hammer that I'd deliberately kept on hand because of the threat then I'd be committing a crime!) That guy sure is lucky I'm not an elected official. Yeah basically none of that's true in Canada and probably not in most parts of the US so not sure what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
I have a purely academic legal question. I thought of a strange legal situation and have been trying to think of an example but come up dry. Are there any instances of state governments trying to bar their citizens from making a claim in a federal court? Example: Federal law says that if anyone sneaks into your back yard at night and paints your dog house blue, you can sue for damages in federal court. A state law bars any residents of the states from attempting to assert that cause of action, in federal court. Of course there is a long history of states trying to stop the federal government from acting within the borders of a state, but that is not what I mean. Is there any history of states trying to stop the exercise of a federal cause of action?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 15:25
|
|
