|
euphronius posted:Yeah collusion kind of means “unlawful conspiracy” euphronius posted:gently caress it. I’m getting the dictionary out, big guy. My initial thought when this topic was broached a few posts up was "conspiracy is to murder as collusion is to homicide" but then I realized that would be an inexact rabbit hole since technically some homicides are legal
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
euphronius posted:gently caress it. I’m getting the dictionary out, big guy. Deceitful isn’t necessarily illegal, nice self own
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:gently caress it. I’m getting the dictionary out, big guy. I thought the guy was asking in the legal thread if collusion was a crime, not what the definition of collusion was. If we're picking synonyms, I vote for skullduggery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Ya'll are definitely talking past each other. I think the original question was, "what is the crime of collusion?" And the answer is, "collusion isn't, in and of itself the crime. the crime is that they colluded to commit a crime." And Euph is also right, that its defined as "collusion" if there is an illegal purpose (the crime they colluded to commit). But there isn't necessarily a criminal statute called "Collusion."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Ya'll are definitely talking past each other. In which case, if you're talking about crimes the correct word is 'conspired.' Collusion is so fetch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Colloquially, they got caught colluding to commit conspiratorial crimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
The point is “collusion is not a crime” is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Sorry to break up all this collusion chat. In Fond Du Lac county, WI, are wills filed with a court/the county prior to death? I evidently know a bunch of people who don't put these fuckers on the fridge, so just trying to cover the bases re: places to search besides toilet tank and personal attorney (lol as if).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The point is “collusion is not a crime” is wrong. Don't make me semanticize this early in the week, you fucker
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
You can get a safe deposit box at a Bank as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Sorry to break up all this collusion chat. In Fond Du Lac county, WI, are wills filed with a court/the county prior to death? I evidently know a bunch of people who don't put these fuckers on the fridge, so just trying to cover the bases re: places to search besides toilet tank and personal attorney (lol as if). No idea. someone at one of these phone numbers might have an idea, though: http://www.fdlco.wi.gov/departments/departments-n-z/probate
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Sorry to break up all this collusion chat. In Fond Du Lac county, WI, are wills filed with a court/the county prior to death? I evidently know a bunch of people who don't put these fuckers on the fridge, so just trying to cover the bases re: places to search besides toilet tank and personal attorney (lol as if). I'd suggest calling the local clerk of probate court and asking them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
You better look good because If you Petition to be an administrator of an intestate estate and the will turns up that’s a big matza ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No idea. someone at one of these phone numbers might have an idea, though: http://www.fdlco.wi.gov/departments/departments-n-z/probate Thanks, don't know how I missed that lol. euphronius posted:You better look good because If you Petition to be an administrator of an intestate estate and the will turns up that’s a big matza ball. Oh hell no, I'm already admin of an intestate estate from when my dad died a couple years ago. In-laws are now dealing with the same BS and an attorney in their family gave me bad advice at the time, just trying to do a bit of legwork for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
My friend and I were discussing the usual stupid get rich quick schemes the people always come up with, and he said sperm donation always seemed like a good idea, provided of course he had ever fit the criteria of being super tall and smart xcetera. I told him it was a horrible idea, because you would be on the hoc for child support if the mother ever needed it and went to court. He insisted that something like sperm donation, as long as you did it anonymously through a clinic, would never result in anything like child support needed to be paid. I told him it varied by the state, and also that child support is not something you can simply contract yourself away from, because it's in the best interest of the child not the parents. so even if you were a guy, you did the anonymous sperm donation through a licensed clinic, there would still be a way for the mother, if she found out your identity, to get child support from you. Of course, if the clinic ever released your information, or it was stolen, I could see a lawsuit against that but in general, it's pretty much always possible for the man who donated sperm to get hit with a child support bill?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:My friend and I were discussing the usual stupid get rich quick schemes the people always come up with, and he said sperm donation always seemed like a good idea, provided of course he had ever fit the criteria of being super tall and smart xcetera. I told him it was a horrible idea, because you would be on the hoc for child support if the mother ever needed it and went to court. The general (majority) rule and the one followed by the uniform parentage act is that if the sperm is provided to a doctor (or clinic) than the donor is not a father and has no obligation, even if the eventual recipient knows or finds out who the donor is. Intent, contract and state will play a role however, as a partner who uses artificial means to inseminate his significant other would almost always have rights and obligations that would almost certainly never attach to an anonymous donor. The place where it gets iffy and state law/contract language becomes vital is when a woman/couple use a friend to provide the sperm. Uniform Parentage Act of 2017 posted:SECTION 701. SCOPE OF [ARTICLE]. This [article] does not apply to the birth of a Yoda fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
is it actually a crime to collude with Russia to post memes on Facebook? We're not at war with them or anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Dumb question: What happens when, upon being asked to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc., somebody says ‘No?’
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Dumb question: What happens when, upon being asked to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc., somebody says ‘No?’ Ianal but probably contempt until you agree?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Uh, probably depends upon if you are being compelled to give testimony or not. In theory. In practice then if they have you in the box and you refuse then that's probably contempt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Doesn't one of your amendments give you the right to not answer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Austen Tassletine posted:Doesn't one of your amendments give you the right to not answer? An actual lawyer will have a real answer but that's about self incrimination
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Austen Tassletine posted:Doesn't one of your amendments give you the right to not answer? You can say that your testimony will tend to incriminate you, and plead the fifth amendment The government can offer you immunity to get around that (see e.g. Mueller's requests for use-immunity in the Manafort case) in which case you are required to testify, since you are no longer able to be 'incriminated' by your own testimony
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
What if the suspect refuses to request or accept immunity? Could the government just impose it on them, thereby removing their option to not testify?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Austen Tassletine posted:What if the suspect refuses to request or accept immunity? Could the government just impose it on them, thereby removing their option to not testify? Yes, hence t he "compelled testimony" from that wikipedia article quote:the Supreme Court held that the government need only grant use immunity to compel testimony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Austen Tassletine posted:What if the suspect refuses to request or accept immunity? Could the government just impose it on them, thereby removing their option to not testify? Yes, that's what happened to several witnesses in the Manafort case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
There is an exception for marriage - you can't be forced to testify against your spouse in a criminal case. But that's it, AFAIK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
KillHour posted:There is an exception for marriage - you can't be forced to testify against your spouse in a criminal case. But that's it, AFAIK. As I remember it, In Criminal proceedings either spouse can invoke the Marital privilege for themselves or against the other whereas in Civil cases, one spouse can choose to waive the privilege.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:As I remember it, In Criminal proceedings either spouse can invoke the Marital privilege for themselves or against the other whereas in Civil cases, one spouse can choose to waive the privilege. It varies, and also depends on whether it's Communications privilege (e.g. private statements made before or during the marriage) or Testimonial privilege (e.g. I saw my husband bury that hooker). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege#United_States quote:Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so. The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege. If you're in a state that follows the federal common law, let's hope that you didn't piss off your wife when you "allegedly" killed that hooker
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:As I remember it, In Criminal proceedings either spouse can invoke the Marital privilege for themselves or against the other whereas in Civil cases, one spouse can choose to waive the privilege. The person above me explained it well, but the reason I know this is it was an example bar exam question on a recent episode of Opening Arguments, which y'all should listen to. That's it; I just wanted to plug my favorite legal podcast (Yes I listen to multiple legal podcasts. I'm a nerd.) Edit: According to that episode, spousal testimonial privilege doesn't exist federally in civil court. So don't let them know about all the times you over bill clients, either. KillHour fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
My bar association just published a procedure and evidence manual for small claims court. Too bad it’s not available digitally for this thread. Rip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:My bar association just published a procedure and evidence manual for small claims court. Too bad it’s not available digitally for this thread. Rip. Is it available via woodcut, or have they gotten with the times to movable type
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Look at this tho. It’s like distilled this thread 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Look at this tho. It’s like distilled this thread What's the most interesting evidentiary practice that is unique to PA magisterial district courts Do they allow testimony by horses yes/no Edit: This is obviously assuming a reasonably practiced Horse Ventriloquist a la Mister Ed, or stomping-hoof horse witness
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
We've talked about this before, but I really don't understand why anyone would even bother to appear as defendant in small claims court if it's not a court of record. It seems like a waste of your own time or, worse, free billable hours for your attorney. Obviously don't be dumb and miss your chance to appeal, but before that why not just use it as an opportunity to see if the plaintiff just decides to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Look at this tho. It’s like distilled this thread South Carolina doesn't require the magistrate judges to have any qualifications beyond a high school diploma. https://www.sccourts.org/summaryCourtBenchBook/ https://www.scbar.org/media/filer_public/9c/29/9c290707-9ff2-4780-a78e-6928b9f57a22/magistrate_court_guide_2016.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Question for anyone who has knowledge of UK intellectual property litigation: is there any sort of formal procedural interaction between Part 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules and applying for a declaration of non-infringement under s.71 of the Patent Act? I appreciate that might be poorly-articulated and I'll try to clarify if need be; I was doing some reading on this today and realised that Part 63 just doesn't mention declarations of non-infringement at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Question for anyone who has knowledge of UK intellectual property litigation: is there any sort of formal procedural interaction between Part 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules and applying for a declaration of non-infringement under s.71 of the Patent Act? quote:Part 63 You start a claim under the normal process. The first thing that happens is a case management conference where the parties agree with the judge what the timetable and necessary actions are for bringing the case to trial. There are pre-action protocols (read here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct) which are basically an exchange of letters over several weeks with set deadlines where you say "hey, you owe me this or I'll sue" and they respond with "oops, here you go" or "you are incredibly mistaken, here is why". Intellectual Property claims don't fall under the list of claims where you have to follow the protocol but it's considered best practise and good manners to do so and you will piss off a judge if you don't without a good reason (usually it's "I need to start with an emergency injunction without notice"). e: PS. whatever you are thinking of doing it is a terrible idea
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
It's just personal curiosity. I was doing some general reading recently on defences to a patent infringement claim and was curious how a declaration of non-infringement could factor in on the procedural side since it wasn't mentioned in the CPR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 22:39
|
|