|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Is it unethical for a lawyer who knows his client is innocent to allow the client to plead guilty and, in doing so, be placed under oath and participate in a plea colloquy wherein he professes guilt? Isn’t that perjury? I think the Alford plea exists to avoid this situation
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Can a DA refuse to accept an Alford plea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
My understanding is Alford pleas are allowed on a state by state basis but I have no idea how prevalent it is or if you can do it in federal court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
I've never met this alford dude but it sounds like he fucks
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:They should probably look into it. They would probably just stop taking payment until they feel they are ethically safe (no one cries tears for lawyers that don’t get paid) It's more that lawyers lack any internal moral compass, so they make up a bunch of rules to follow so it seems like they do to the untrained eye.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
I just finished reading the Theranos book and had a question about non-disclosure agreements. Theranos made everyone who worked there sign one when they started and when they quit, and threatened to sue people who talked to reporters about the shady poo poo they were doing. Subsequent to the newspaper stories the two top executives were charged by the SEC (with defrauding investors I think) and are under criminal investigation right now. So what happens if you sign an NDA that covers your knowledge of (potentially) criminal conduct and you try to disclose that? When the former employees were talking to reporters, there weren’t any charges so there was no official indication that it was anything abnormal. Do you have to let them sue you and then prove in court that what you were disclosing actually was bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
NDAs have to be enforced by a court, and they’re already pretty had to enforce. Unlikely a court would punish someone for disclosing the type of fraud Theranos was involved in But yea you gotta wait for them to sue you and then fight back. The most effective part of an NDA is just the threat of litigation
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Literally every sane* jurisdiction on Earth will have some form of public policy exemption that invalidates any contract (NDA or otherwise) that covers criminal behaviour (may not cover all US states).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Literally every sane* jurisdiction on Earth will have some form of public policy exemption that invalidates any contract (NDA or otherwise) that covers criminal behaviour (may not cover all US states). How does that work? You report criminal behaviour in defiance of the NDA and hope that the court finds them guilty? What happens if they decide it’s not criminal after all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How does that work? You report criminal behaviour in defiance of the NDA and hope that the court finds them guilty? What happens if they decide it’s not criminal after all? Any criminal activity (whether or not someone is charged or found guilty) as a part of a contract makes it unenforceable in court. Just like you can't successfully sue someone because they didn't perform your murder-for-hire contract with them, you can't sue someone to enforce an NDA that requires they stay silent about said murder-for-hire contract. A lot of NDAs are actually unenforceable anywhere in the USA. However, to get to that end result, you will have to violate the NDA, get sued, and win. You will not be able to recover attorney fees in all jurisdictions, so the costs of litigation are typically enough to make an unenforceable NDA have teeth. If you're reporting legit criminal activity to authorities, you'll be covered under whistleblowing statutes that would invalidate the NDA without the extensive court process. You'll still likely have some attorney fees to deal with even in this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
say that, hypothetically speaking, I'm an american billionaire and, while in america, I use twitter to libel a british guy who lives in thailand. where could he sue me? if more than one place, would he have to choose one or could he do multiple places at once?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If you're reporting legit criminal activity to authorities, you'll be covered under whistleblowing statutes that would invalidate the NDA without the extensive court process. You'll still likely have some attorney fees to deal with even in this scenario. I guess that’s my question though: how do you know if it’s “legit criminal activity” at the time, given how unpredictable court outcomes can be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:say that, hypothetically speaking, I'm an american billionaire and, while in america, I use twitter to libel a british guy who lives in thailand. where could he sue me? if more than one place, would he have to choose one or could he do multiple places at once? The best place to probably sue if he wanted an enforceable judgement would be a federal district court in a district where Musk resides. In order to enforce a foreign libel judgement (if he were to sue in Thailand, for example) would be to either show that he was guilty of libel in the USA or that Thailand provides as much first amendment protection as the USA, so he'd have to prove the case twice regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I guess that’s my question though: how do you know if it’s “legit criminal activity” at the time, given how unpredictable court outcomes can be? Just because someone isn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred does not negate the fact that the crime occurred. They're not going to be held to a criminal standard, anyways, in a civil court when they sue for enforcement of an NDA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They're not going to be held to a criminal standard, anyways, in a civil court when they sue for enforcement of an NDA. So more like “a reasonable person would conclude”, then. I wonder if I’d be willing to rely on that if I were going up against Lockheed or Citibank or such.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So more like “a reasonable person would conclude”, then. I wonder if I’d be willing to rely on that if I were going up against Lockheed or Citibank or such. It'll vary state by state. Lockheed and Ctitibank most likely have legitimate NDAs that conform to the state's restrictions. Florida has quite a few NDA restrictions by statute, for example, and you can bet that any legitimate corporate legal team will have their NDAs structured accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So more like “a reasonable person would conclude”, then. I wonder if I’d be willing to rely on that if I were going up against Lockheed or Citibank or such. Yea that’s basically how NDAs work. Is whatever you think you should report worth the $50-100k (and potentially undercoverable if you win) attorneys fees? Jeb Bush 2012 posted:say that, hypothetically speaking, I'm an american billionaire and, while in america, I use twitter to libel a british guy who lives in thailand. where could he sue me? if more than one place, would he have to choose one or could he do multiple places at once? Wherever Musk’s dumbass lives would be the best bet
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
how do I sue Elon when he moves to Mars
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
You get Captain Murphy to institute Martian Law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
i was thinking about this last night in the SPAM, what sort of law exists around use of trademarks and their homophones? I know this is a broad question, so by example: some boring C-list celebs are making money from a podcast called The West Wing Weekly. Would fair use extend to a satirical treatment of said podcast's title, applied to a new podcast addressing a similar set of content called The West Wing, Weakly? You're theoretically priming/confusing the consumer because there's no difference in pronunciation, only in spelling. asking for
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
I cannot believe you think Jeremy Malina is a third rate star!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Gunshow Poophole posted:i was thinking about this last night in the SPAM, what sort of law exists around use of trademarks and their homophones? I know this is a broad question, so by example: Step 1) is that actually trademarked
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Elon Musk said "Sorry pedo guy" on twitter, referring implicitly to a British national who was living in Thailand. Presumably Musk was in California at the time of the tweet. The British guy is considering suing him for defamation. What court has jurisdiction over that? Would the tweet actually run afoul of slander laws in the US?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
sleepy gary posted:Elon Musk said "Sorry pedo guy" on twitter, referring implicitly to a British national who was living in Thailand. Presumably Musk was in California at the time of the tweet. The British guy is considering suing him for defamation. What court has jurisdiction over that? Would the tweet actually run afoul of slander laws in the US? We talked about this a bit earlier in the thread, but to answer your question: US federal court (a district in which elon lives is probably best), UK court, and potentially Thailand court. For the second question, it would probably run against all states defamation laws. Musk is probably going to settle quickly over this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Settle ? What are the damages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Settle ? What are the damages. I don't know all the states' various defamation laws, but in Florida Elon's statement would be defamation per se and damages available are actual, compensatory, and punitive. Florida has cases on point even about just insinuating someone is a pedo, let alone flat out declaring it as Elon did. A florida jury gave Hulk Hogan $140 million against gawker and all they really did was say he had a thermos sized penis despite years of steroid abuse. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Elon probably has more Twitter followers than Gawker had readers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
When the hell are people going to learn to stay the gently caress off of Twitter
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:When the hell are people going to learn to stay the gently caress off of Twitter If they could they already would have
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
The case against Elon here is basically open and shut. Even if you take the most stringent standard (the diver is a public figure because of his involvement with the rescue) in American law (the most stringent jurisdiction) Elon pretty clearly and facially acted with actual malice. Not to derail, but it’s also not a close match with the Hogan case. Now, Gawker, I still think they would have won handily on appeal if they could have afforded the bond that Florida requires to appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
what, exactly, is the legal requirement for treason and is 'i'm just an old racist pervert' a defense against those requirements
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
well that's frickin vague!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
It is very rare anyone is ever convicted of it. Do keep in mind there are lots of federal laws that criminalize behavior which seems like treason but outside the constitutional definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Besides the obvious BAPCPA answer - is there really no place on the bankruptcy means test to consider student loans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Is donald Trump has lighting us when he says collusion isn't against the law?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is donald Trump has lighting us when he says collusion isn't against the law? That's just lying, the repubes are the ones doing the gas lighting
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is donald Trump has lighting us when he says collusion isn't against the law? Yeah he's basically gaslighting but more precisely he's making a purely technical point not a substantive one. Technically the criminal trigger is the word "conspiracy," not "collusion," but those are synonyms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8c00_story.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Besides the obvious BAPCPA answer - is there really no place on the bankruptcy means test to consider student loans? As part of nonconsumer debt. https://www.abi.org/feed-item/student-loan-for-professional-degree-not-consumer-debt-for-purposes-of-707b
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:34 |
|
euphronius posted:It is very rare anyone is ever convicted of it. Do keep in mind there are lots of federal laws that criminalize behavior which seems like treason but outside the constitutional definition. To add to this a bit, it's an intentional constitutional feature, and why it's defined in the constitution. The founders were afraid (probably rightly) about governmental abuse of treason laws to quash internal dissent and speech.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:59
|
|
