|
ShadowMoo posted:Anyone know anything about the Lakotah attempts to create their own nation? What are the likely results of such an act? From what I've read the gov't has already admitted fault by paying out monies so what legal angle will they take, or will they just say 'we have the guns, you are not leaving'? People doing things for attention. The only reasons laws work is because even if we don't believe in them, someone with the power to enforce them does. Rummaging through the nuances of 150 old laws only makes a difference if the party in power is interested in revisiting the way the law works. Probably the better way to look at this is to ask yourself, "Did this information cause me to think about and consider the history and plight of Native Americans?" if yes > then, good. LONG EDIT: Upon further rumination, try to imagine if 500 french people landed in Baton Rouge, and claimed they were starting their own country because "the Louisiana Purchase was invalid for failure of consideration." As much as they protested, or blogged, or spoke about how they had their own country, unless and until they break the law, all they've done is talk - no real action in contravention of the laws of the United States has taken place. Imagine then, if one of them assaults a police officer who tried to conduct a routine traffic stop on one of 'their' streets. He would be arrested, because his 'forces' wouldn't be able to stop the police from arresting him, and he would be brought before the judge, tried, and sentenced. Unless his 'country' had the power to stop the judicial process through force, he would be convicted and sent to jail. His next option would be to appeal his conviction on up to the Supreme Court, and claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction because he was on foreign soil. In the INCONCEIVABLE event that the court were to grant certiorari (decide to hear the case) he would still lose his argument for one of some million reasons. Not least of which I can think of off the top of my head is that even if there was some claim to US soil by a foreign entity, that soil has thusly been abandoned, abdicated, escheated or lost to adverse possession about 125 years ago. The other possibility would be for him and his french buddies to appeal to the United Nations or some other international organization for intervention. Membership in these organizations is voluntary, and compliance with their edicts and rulings is also 'voluntary.' No Iraq derails please, but one of the alleged justifications for invading Iraq was that the country had failed to comply with orders from the UN for over a decade. The problem is, they aren't members, and even if they were, imagine trying to convince the rest of the world of their argument. Even then, try to imagine another country saying "fine, I'll risk our international relationship with the United States over these goobers. SEND IN THE TROOPS." Even if the UN issued a ruling, the United States wouldn't have to follow it if they didn't want to, because, essentially, who's going to make them? Power and authority are the gears of the machine that is our rights. Perhaps an ugly truth to some, but a powerful reminder of why we should all remain diligent of our rights. Also a further reminder of why the Loyal Contrarian is a necessary part of our world - its dissent, not consent, that protects the majority. So long as we have responsible dissent and discourse in this world, we will have a voice to turn to when public opinion shifts away from our ideals. Every school of public thought goes through changes, and eventually we all become the minority in something. Its not when everyone agrees with us that we need protection, its when everyone begins to disagree. Thats why people who pull stunts like this are doing a disservice to our nation; they speak flippantly of the underpinnings of our society, and in turn draw more eyes and ears from the real avenues for change. And all in the pursuit of attention. We'd all be better off if they just took a bunch of selfies or something. You may also freely apply this analogy to all of the goobers out there who are all about that "sovereign citizen" stuff. So to recap: - Unless you take any action, its just talk. - Unless the actions you take are illegal, you haven't challenged the sovereignty of the US in any tangible way. - Unless you forcibly stop the judicial process, you will go to jail. - Unless the Courts entertain your insane arguments, you will lose and go to jail. - Even if the Courts entertain your insane arguments, you will still go to jail. - Unless another Country wants to start poo poo with the United States, no one is going to get you out of jail. - Dissent is real and powerful and important, and worthless in the hands of assholes who like attention. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Apr 30, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Perhaps an ugly truth to some, but a powerful reminder of why we should all remain diligent of our rights. Also a further reminder of why the Loyal Contrarian is a necessary part of our world - its dissent, not consent, that protects the majority. So long as we have responsible dissent and discourse in this world, we will have a voice to turn to when public opinion shifts away from our ideals. Every school of public thought goes through changes, and eventually we all become the minority in something. Its not when everyone agrees with us that we need protection, its when everyone begins to disagree. [I have no idea what the/some Lakotahs are doing] - what are they doing that does a disservice to loyal contrarianism - what should they do to bring them into the fold of proper loyal contrarians?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
I have a purely hypothetical question, if it was real I'd tell the person to get a lawyer. Someone has a non-compete agreement. They are fired from the company they work for. Then within six months they are rehired. Would the non-compete time period be paused or would it be considered to be running from the from the original date of termination?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
That person should have had a clause included in their contract addressing the break in employment. Hypothetically, that person might want to ask HR because there might be a policy in place (Especially if it's a union joint), but I'm not a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:I have a purely hypothetical question, if it was real I'd tell the person to get a lawyer. Someone has a non-compete agreement. They are fired from the company they work for. Then within six months they are rehired. Would the non-compete time period be paused or would it be considered to be running from the from the original date of termination? This would depend on so many things that the theoretical person would be an idiot to not talk to a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Sometimes, judges can be fun though. Former Judge Kent's had a bad run of it, as the screams of the guy getting raped in the cell next to him kept him up all night during his prison sentence. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Former-federal-judge-Kent-calls-prison-unfair-1718673.php
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Let's say a celebrity is on a talk show. Would I be breaking any law(s) if I was to quote something he/she said by printing it on t-shirts, with attribution, and selling them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
e: maybe not a good idea
randomidiot fucked around with this message at 10:34 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:I have a purely hypothetical question, if it was real I'd tell the person to get a lawyer. Someone has a non-compete agreement. They are fired from the company they work for. Then within six months they are rehired. Would the non-compete time period be paused or would it be considered to be running from the from the original date of termination? In my state, the time runs from the date of termination almost invariably. We call them "covenants not to compete", and there is a particular reason why the time period starts running from the date of termination: The Supreme Court here has held that generally a covenant not to compete is undesireable as a restraint of trade. Therefore, the covenant itself must be tied to the nature of the protection to the former employer. Long, other, complicated reasons, but in general, the time period is view through the lens of a restraint on trade, and therefore it can only last as long as necessary to protect the former employer. translated, that means that once the employee leaves, the employer's clock starts running on its protection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:In my state, the time runs from the date of termination almost invariably. We call them "covenants not to compete", and there is a particular reason why the time period starts running from the date of termination: Of course, if the employee was rehired, they would quite probably have signed a new non-compete, resetting the clock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Law goons, how often does something like this happen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:Law goons, how often does something like this happen That video is basically every single deposition in patent lawsuits. "Sir, you have a PhD from MIT in electrical engineering. Is that piece of the circuit a resistor or not?" "I don't know if it is a resistor and I am not here to give my opinion on that topic so I have not prepared and I couldn't answer without preparing, but within the language of the claims it is certainly a resistive element."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:Law goons, how often does something like this happen Usually when the deponent is being a dick which is pretty frequent. People get the idea in their head that "because this is the other side, I have to be as difficult and onerous as possible, because gently caress them." Compounding the situation, often times your only recourse for a deponent who's being difficult is to suspend the deposition, run to the courthouse and try and get a motion to compel with some sanctions, and then go through the trouble of resetting the deposition - a process that can take weeks. The other side's attorney knows that you're trying to make the witness sound difficult and look bad in front of the jury, so hes trying to cover for his witness by defending him on the record. The other side also knows that you'd rather fight through it all than go to the trouble of suspending the deposition. Plus, you usually look like a tattle-tail(tale) when you run to the judge about poo poo like that. So yea, pretty regularly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Of course, if the employee was rehired, they would quite probably have signed a new non-compete, resetting the clock. I would think so, yes, but that's a fact question more than a legal question. Of course, rehiring the employee who signs a new non-compete in my state raises two more fact questions, being generally 1) was new consideration exchanged for the new non-compete? and 2) is the new non-compete still sufficiently related to the aspect of the business that the original was intended to protect. Generally here, specialized training or access to trade secrets and the like is the consideration for a non-compete, and the non-compete is designed to protect companies who share this specialized training and access to trade secrets; we feel like continued employment simply isnt sufficient consideration to justify a future restraint on trade. Because of the jurisprudence in my state on the issue, Courts tend to end up enforcing the covenants, and modifying the original terms to be "reasonable." They tend to restrict the non-compete to the geographic area the employee serviced while employed there or the list of customers that they serviced, and tend to apply an approximately 2-3 year term from the date of termination. Theres a really great case out there on it that involves jet-packs that I had to cite back in 2011, though the citation escapes me at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That video is basically every single deposition in patent lawsuits. God, and I thought deposing an appraiser was tedious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That video is basically every single deposition in patent lawsuits. Patent case law owns, in Canada the leading case on claim construction/double patenting is related to washing machines, and the decision was significantly influenced by the fact that the golden gobbler was a thing: quote:In the late 1960s, GE and its Canadian subsidiary, Camco marketed a range of washing machines across Canada that utilized what was known as a single action agitator, that is to say a single spindle sitting in a tub of water rotating its vanes back and forth to scrub the clothes. Similar machines were marketed by the respondents Whirlpool and Inglis, and by the appellants in the companion appeal, Maytag Corporation and its Canadian subsidiaries. The U.S. laboratories of the parent companies were at work trying to develop products that would give what advertising agencies call a “new and improved wash” to heavy household loads. Progress was uneven. Much research was done at Whirlpool and other manufacturers on the benefits of rigid vanes on the agitator versus flexible vanes (sometimes called “flex vanes”). In the late 1960s, Whirlpool built a washer with flexible vanes for development purposes that mauled the clothes so badly it became known as the “Golden Gobbler”. Maytag however developed a “flex vane” unitary action machine in the late 1960s and the trial judge noted the evidence that “[i]t's been nothing but a satisfactory device” over the next 30 years (1997 CanLII 16944 (FC), (1997), 76 C.P.R. (3d) 150, at p. 182). It did not tangle clothes unduly and was a great commercial success. By the end of the 1960s, the clothes washing machine trade in North America was thus familiar with one-piece agitators featuring rigid or flexible vanes, and understood that the “yield” in the flex vanes could deliver an extra push to the laundry load to produce a better scrub. Indeed, the evidence was that Maytag obtained a 50 percent increase in wash loads by using flexible vanes rather than rigid vanes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Theres a really great case out there on it that involves jet-packs that I had to cite back in 2011, though the citation escapes me at the moment. Powerhouse Prods. v. Scott, 260 S.W.3d 693? "This case involves a confidentiality and non-compete agreement in the unique field of personal rocket pack flying."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Washington state, on the do not call list, prerecorded message has been bugging my cell phone at 7am every day to call them. Google it, is a scam debt collection company. There was a goon who sued these companies for 1k a pop per infraction. Anyone know telephone/wireless law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That video is basically every single deposition in patent lawsuits. When I watched the video I figured this -should- only happen if the deponent is an individual and not a corporation or organization. The deponent is obviously not an expert because the transcript would go against the expert's qualifications. If the deponent is supposedly an organization and they failed to produce someone competent to testify then I'd push for both a new deposition and for the other side to pay my fees and costs. That said, I also thought, the attorney was too concerned about the size of his dick or something. If someone says they don't know what something is then you patiently circle the issue for a while until he says something like "Oh, that's a xerox machine." It is entirely possible the deponent had never heard or understood the word "photocopier."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:When I watched the video I figured this -should- only happen if the deponent is an individual and not a corporation or organization. The deponent is obviously not an expert because the transcript would go against the expert's qualifications. If the deponent is supposedly an organization and they failed to produce someone competent to testify then I'd push for both a new deposition and for the other side to pay my fees and costs. That said, I also thought, the attorney was too concerned about the size of his dick or something. If someone says they don't know what something is then you patiently circle the issue for a while until he says something like "Oh, that's a xerox machine." It is entirely possible the deponent had never heard or understood the word "photocopier." The actual attorney in that case has sounded off and says that while the dialogue was accurate, the tone was not. His contention is that the witness was deliberately being coy and everyone in the room knew it. His intent was to drag that out for as long as possible to demonstrate bad faith by the witness before the Ohio Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
 On the subject of depositions
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #38 posted:Powerhouse Prods. v. Scott, 260 S.W.3d 693? Thats the one!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:The actual attorney in that case has sounded off and says that while the dialogue was accurate, the tone was not. Well obviously. It would be nearly as funny if the actor hadn't played it like that. I used to videotape depositions for extra money when I was in school and I almost everytime I would wish opposing counsel would go off like that.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Alright so trying my luck here. I'm living in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City Metro area. I've been dating a girl for about 3 months now but here's the kicker. She has a child with her former boyfriend (as do most here I've noticed.) I only see her every other week or so because during the custody hearing (I believe it was a hearing) the Judge formed a stipulation that she (and her room mate, also female, also has a kid) cannot be present around anyone she is involved with romantically. She is presently consulting a lawyer to get this over turned (and paying out the wazoo on him apparently) but I have no idea what's being said between them. Has anyone ever heard of anything like this in Oklahoma and is it fairly easy to over turn or what are the thoughts on this?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Malek posted:Alright so trying my luck here. Wait... the judge has said that she and her roommate aren't allowed to see anyone they are dating? Or the child isn't allowed to be around anyone she is dating?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Logic would stand to reason the child can't be around anyone mom is dating. That said, no idea how/why the roommate and her child are relevant to the situation.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Malek posted:Alright so trying my luck here. I think he is asking us because he thinks she might be lying to him about why she can't see him more often. If you're really that curious, you can go down to the court and ask the clerk to see the transcript if you have the cause number or party names. Then you can read the record, or any orders entered and see if there is such a ruling. There won't be a standing order unless its written, so unless the stipulation is between the parties' attorneys and not from the judge, there will be a written order which says as much. Also, any family law goons correct me here, but I don't believe its unheard of for a judge in a custody battle to order that the primary custodian not have boyfriends/girlfriends around the children for the pendency of the proceedings. In family law cases in my state, judges have broad discretion to order whatever "is in the best interests of the child."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Logic would stand to reason the child can't be around anyone mom is dating. That said, no idea how/why the roommate and her child are relevant to the situation. I mentioned the room mate mainly to show that it passed for another individual. Sorry for the confusion and being unclear. And no, I have no reason to distrust her, just wanting to know how easy / possible it is to over turn that clause. vvvv: Fair enough then. Malek fucked around with this message at 03:09 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Or, just accept that there are inconveniences when dealing with the future of a kid's custody, and maybe don't gently caress with that, for the sake of the kid. If you wanna date this woman who is trying to sort out her kid's custody, you may have to stay home and jerk it for a little while.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Malek posted:And no, I have no reason to distrust her, just wanting to know how easy / possible it is to over turn that clause. Generally speaking, family court judges get a lot of discretion: if they've decided that some arrangement is in the best interest of the child, it'll be very difficult to challenge that determination except in the event of a very substantial change of circumstances, e.g. a parent starts cooking meth and strangling people. Consider that you'll be swimming very much against the current (even before anything the father does to hinder you) and think hard on whether hanging around her place more often is going to be worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think he is asking us because he thinks she might be lying to him about why she can't see him more often. If you're really that curious, you can go down to the court and ask the clerk to see the transcript if you have the cause number or party names. Then you can read the record, or any orders entered and see if there is such a ruling. The common injunction is to have no unrelated members of the opposite sex spend the night while the child is in residence.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:The common injunction is to have no unrelated members of the opposite sex spend the night while the child is in residence. According to her (and I haven't seen the agreement) she cannot have the kid around me (or ANYONE she is romantically involved with.) Period. Not just overnight. I'll ask for a copy of it and see what she says. Again, I wasn't asking for dating advice nor am I asking to get laid in the same residence as her kid... ew.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Hypothetical situation in the state of Texas: a person purchases a home, and the relationship between buyer and seller becomes less friendly as negotiations proceed, but the transaction occurs and the home is purchased. A few questions: 1) After the papers are signed and the buyers move in, items belonging to the seller are found (toiletries, knick-knacks, etc.). Does the buyer have an obligation to return these items? If they destroyed them or threw them out, would they have any liability? 2) The sellers leave behind a request to forward their mail to a certain address. If the buyer writes "Return to sender" and sends mail back, rather than forwarding it, are they breaking any laws or committing any tort? 3) The sellers neglect to change their address on their accounts and ship large items on multiple occasions to the buyers' home (beds, furnishings, etc). The buyers are notified by their agent that the seller will be coming to the property to pick them up. Does the buyer have any duty to protect the items from theft/damage or would they be ok to leave them on the curb unattended? What if the buyer returned the items to the company that shipped them?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Purely hypothetical question, if someone is clairvoyant or can see into the future and trades on the stock market to their advantage, can they be charged with insider trading? This would be some dude off the street, without any connection to any business. Are there more specific criteria that someone has to meet to get in trouble for insider trading or is acting on non-public information enough?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Hypothetical situation in the state of Texas: a person purchases a home, and the relationship between buyer and seller becomes less friendly as negotiations proceed, but the transaction occurs and the home is purchased. A few questions: The problem with answering your 'hypotheticals' is that you haven't explained the transaction sufficiently. Has the deed of trust been recorded, or is it an executory contract (lease-to-purchase)? Was a standard Texas Real Estate Commission form used, or was it a custom contract? Where there any special addenda to the sale executed contemporaneously with the contract? Forwarding addresses are done at the post office - not by the people who just bought their house. Further, they are good for up to 60 days, so either they haven't hauled their rear end to the post office to do it yet, or this problem is now over two months old. Depending on the answers to ALL of the above questions, their personal property on your real property is a trespass, and subject to removal from your real property. However, if you or your agent (not just a real estate agent, but any person who may be acting in your stead) has agreed to you accepting mail and deliveries, or managing personal property on their behalf, then you may be holding these items in trust for their benefit. Therefore, by you or your agent's agreement may have created legal obligations for you to hold and care for that property for the seller's benefit. Just because you feel like you aren't doesn't mean that you aren't. You need to talk to your agent.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Ancillary Character posted:Purely hypothetical question, if someone is clairvoyant or can see into the future and trades on the stock market to their advantage, can they be charged with insider trading? This would be some dude off the street, without any connection to any business. depends on the language of the statute that makes insider trading a crime. It will be in here somewhere: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-2B
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Ancillary Character posted:Purely hypothetical question, if someone is clairvoyant or can see into the future and trades on the stock market to their advantage, can they be charged with insider trading? This would be some dude off the street, without any connection to any business. You can only be charged with insider trading if you got the information as the result of your position at the company. There is a very prosperous group of people who trade on non-public information they received elsewhere all the time and never get punished for it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The problem with answering your 'hypotheticals' is that you haven't explained the transaction sufficiently. Has the deed of trust been recorded, or is it an executory contract (lease-to-purchase)? Was a standard Texas Real Estate Commission form used, or was it a custom contract? Where there any special addenda to the sale executed contemporaneously with the contract? Apologies! It wasn't a lease to purchase transaction. There were no custom contracts or special addenda that the buyers are aware of. The buyers' understanding is that this was a "normal" sale of a home. quote:Forwarding addresses are done at the post office - not by the people who just bought their house. Further, they are good for up to 60 days, so either they haven't hauled their rear end to the post office to do it yet, or this problem is now over two months old. Depending on the answers to ALL of the above questions, their personal property on your real property is a trespass, and subject to removal from your real property. For this situation the home was closed on over a month ago, but slightly less than 60 days. Buyer is unaware of any agreements regarding mail and deliveries but will contact their agent about this. The bolded is the main concern.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
What's the general legality of this, the Weev's new plan, now that he has been released from prison?quote:“The strategy is short equities—like all short sellers, I am looking to publicize flaws in publicly traded companies,” he said. “However, instead of financial problems, I will be looking for companies with poorly written software that breach the implicit promise of safety that they give when they take data from their customers. When someone affiliated with our fund identifies negligent privacy breaches at a public web service, we will take a short position in that company’s shares and then tell the media about it.” Basically they're going to find data/security flaws, short a company, then leak the flaw/breach. This is assuming anyone even gives a heck.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Ancillary Character posted:Purely hypothetical question, if someone is clairvoyant or can see into the future and trades on the stock market to their advantage, can they be charged with insider trading? This would be some dude off the street, without any connection to any business. I only do muggle law.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:58
|
|