|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Just a reminder to new posters in the thread: euphronius is our landlord/tenant specialist, blarzgh is great with any traffic related questions, and Nice Piece of Fish probably decapitated a journalist on his homemade boat. So he's great at maritime law. U-boat. Allegedly. E: Also, and by the way, that danish gently caress not only decapitated the poor woman, also dismembered her, punctured her torso to prevent gases from rising the corpse, attached metal to her and loving sunk the blood-filled u-boat to get rid of the evidence. The he proceeded to lie about every single conceivable checkable and provable fact, only admitting to things after he'd been completely exposed. Completely impossible to even suggest mitigating circumstances within danish criminal law, at least that I can see. Two people go out, only one comes back, "I dinn do nuffin" isn't going to cut it. Dude is going away for a long time, and I don't mean on any more sea voyages. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Aug 26, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Just kind of a general question, I can get into specific jurisdictions if necessary. Are constables typically permitted to wear badges in rural jurisdictions? e: because a big-rear end tin badge/belt buckle that says CONSTABLE would be a good way to let people know who's boss. Asimov fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Are constables typically permitted to wear badges in rural jurisdictions? IIRC elected constables have full police powers in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Yes. In order to stand for election they have to have peace officer training stuff. Random Joe in Texas can't just get elected constable. Some rural counties have trouble getting constables, because it pays really poorly. Like 15k and it's a "part time" job. I'm not sure if they're allowed to have other full time employment as a peace officer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
In fact, I'm probably more of an expert on fish law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Less as a question and more for resident lawgoons to lol over: https://twitter.com/michaelbkiefer/status/901299143917748225
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
I hate everything about this year.
Gumbel2Gumbel fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
That signature is exactly what I imagined Trump's signature would look like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Less as a question and more for resident lawgoons to lol over: What do they usually look like?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Is a pardon for "anything that might be charged in the future" actually a thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Javid posted:Is a pardon for "anything that might be charged in the future" actually a thing? While there have been pardons for past acts that could have been charged in any way in the future, there have not been any pardons for future illegal acts. That would be a "permission," not a "pardon" - the definition of pardon requires a prior act to forgive. e: Maybe the permission for future illegal acts could be shoehorned into some kind of modern letter of marque - but that's a congressional power, not a presidential one. joat mon fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
The pardon power is also broader than legal vs illegal, but it would never hold up for a future act. Could you imagine a president giving a pardon like that, it would essentially make that person above the law until they died not to mention it would be a inconsistent with the pardon power since the person pardoning the future act wasn't president at the time the pardon was used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Javid posted:Is a pardon for "anything that might be charged in the future" actually a thing? Anything that might be charged in the future connected with the specific case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:The pardon power is also broader than legal vs illegal, but it would never hold up for a future act. Could you imagine a president giving a pardon like that, it would essentially make that person above the law until they died not to mention it would be a inconsistent with the pardon power since the person pardoning the future act wasn't president at the time the pardon was used. It was a minor plot point in Tom Clancy's opus Teeth of the Tiger; the commando-assassins had fill-in-the-blank pardons signed by former president Jack Ryan. ...Clancy got weird after the wall came down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Interestingly you lose the power of pleading the fifth once pardoned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Someone on Twitter (Sopan Deb?) said that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, which can be used in a civil case. Is that true?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Someone on Twitter (Sopan Deb?) said that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, which can be used in a civil case. Is that true? It carries an implicit admission of guilt according to dicta from the relevant SCOTUS case. How this will play out in civil court is yet to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Which one of you guys is this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
iirc there's a goon who's a lawyer for the texas state government, so probably that guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
He's in la his billboards are all over
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:iirc there's a goon who's a lawyer for the texas state government, so probably that guy Yes it's me, Jacob.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Lawyers, what is your professional opinion on this document: https://www.scribd.com/document/355291378/ACLU-Brief-on-Behalf-of-John-Oliver#download&from_embed ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
It appears to be a PDF version of an amicus brief .
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Arban posted:Lawyers, what is your professional opinion on this document: https://www.scribd.com/document/355291378/ACLU-Brief-on-Behalf-of-John-Oliver#download&from_embed ? What is it? Nobody is going to read that for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Arban posted:Lawyers, what is your professional opinion on this document: https://www.scribd.com/document/355291378/ACLU-Brief-on-Behalf-of-John-Oliver#download&from_embed ? It came up a few weeks ago. I thought it was probably the most fun anyone has had writing an amicus brief. spacetoaster posted:What is it? Nobody is going to read that for you. It's the "Anyone Can Legally Say "Eat poo poo, Bob!"" Brief supporting John Oliver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Anyone up for some fiction lawyering? I was rewatching Silicon Valley with my girlfriend (as she had never seen it) and the ending of Season 2 had me wondering. For those that aren't familiar - the setup is that the main character left the tech company he worked for because he had an awesome algorithm and started his own business. Said business was sued by the first company saying they owned the IP of the algorithm. The entire scene hinged on the fact that he had run one test on the algorithm using a company computer, instead of the personal laptop he had been using. Does this pass muster? Could one write an employment contract such that using any company property, just once, in a very small capacity in the furthering of your own project means that the entire project's IP belongs completely to your employer? It seems suspect at best, but I guess they're Hollywood writers, not lawyers. There's another piece where the case was decided in the favor of the defendant because another unrelated part of the employment contract (non-compete) was found to be unenforceable and so that invalidated the entire contract. I know THAT part is wrong (the rest of the contract would still be valid AFAIK), but I'm not sure about the IP part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
It would probably be more of an issue of what facts you could muster to show that the algorithm wasn't developed on company time or with company resources or otherwise resulted from the employment itself. I doubt a single use would be enough to satisfy that showing. You could probably enter into a contract that made that a presumptive element, or prohibited outside work related to the employment. But just using a computer once to compile some code when you are a receptionist, for e.g., probably won't get you there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Also lol at a company in California wasting their time with a non-compete.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
MonkeyBot posted:Also lol at a company in California wasting their time with a non-compete. Could you elaborate? In the DC area basically all the software development jobs come with non competes even though loving everybody is a government contractor and thus in competition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Could you elaborate? In the DC area basically all the software development jobs come with non competes even though loving everybody is a government contractor and thus in competition. I think non-competes are unenforceable or illegal in CA
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
My company, and I'd image other tech companies too, have a clause that basically says that any IP developed by an employee is owned by the company even if they did it on their own time and hardware.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:My company, and I'd image other tech companies too, have a clause that basically says that any IP developed by an employee is owned by the company even if they did it on their own time and hardware. Holy poo poo. So if I work for a software company and, at night, went home and came up with a new technology that allowed me to masturbate hands-free, your company would own that new tech? There's no common-sense restriction saying that the employee's idea has to exist in the same logical space?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Holy poo poo. So if I work for a software company and, at night, went home and came up with a new technology that allowed me to masturbate hands-free, your company would own that new tech? There's no common-sense restriction saying that the employee's idea has to exist in the same logical space? Ah, the realization that capitalism is a bad system of social organization because you're so easily alienated from the fruits of your own genitals
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Isn't that basically what happened with Wozniak? He was working at HP at the same time that he was helping develop the Apple computer, and because of that he had to offer the company a chance to pick it up - they thought it was worthless and turned it down, so then he was free to run with it on his own/with Jobs. I know that he offered it to them and they turned it down, but I seem to recall the IP development from the older movie about the history of the company (not one of the newer ones).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Like, this is completely unchallenged and unchallengeable? No courts have gone "yeah, the guy came up with a new pizza oven and you're a telecommunications company. You have no valid claim to the employee's idea."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:My company, and I'd image other tech companies too, have a clause that basically says that any IP developed by an employee is owned by the company even if they did it on their own time and hardware. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Like, this is completely unchallenged and unchallengeable? No courts have gone "yeah, the guy came up with a new pizza oven and you're a telecommunications company. You have no valid claim to the employee's idea." The employee signed a contract saying that the company has a claim, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
I think there are some states that have their own restrictions on it (much like CA and non-competes) that require the employer show some sort of company stake in the development through their equipment/resources/information/etc., but I have definitely seen 'everything you make while you're here, even out of popsicle sticks with your son on the weekend, is ours' contracts before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Jesus. Late-stage capitalism is a real motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
null_pointer posted:Jesus. Late-stage capitalism is a real motherfucker. Get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:20
|
|