|
If your attitude on this is anything other than 'gently caress people who drink and drive' then really I don't know what your deal is.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:If your attitude on this is anything other than 'gently caress people who drink and drive' then really I don't know what your deal is. right! the police would never stop anyone and conduct as invasive a search as they possibly can without a warrant
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If your attitude on this is anything other than 'gently caress people who drink and drive' then really I don't know what your deal is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If your attitude on this is anything other than 'gently caress people who drink and drive' then really I don't know what your deal is. literally nobody here is saying otherwise, so I guess thanks for your input?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
I believe what is trying to be communicated here is that there is a balance of harms to consider. If the rules for test/search are too strict, Police abuse the position they are in. If the rules are light, drunk drives are harder to prosecute. There is a balancing act at play here. That's all that's being sad IMO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:I believe what is trying to be communicated here is that there is a balance of harms to consider. If the rules for test/search are too strict, Police abuse the position they are in. If the rules are light, drunk drives are harder to prosecute. There is a balancing act at play here. That's all that's being sad IMO. I thought I was reading a discussion about why implied consent laws exist, how they function, and why they're constitutional in the presence of the 4th amendment (and where they may cross the line). Someone else is apparently reading a discussion about how to dodge a DUI so that you can keep driving drunk with this One Weird Trick that Police Hate!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
I think Birchfield got to the right outcome. I absolutely think cops would use the ability to drag people to a clinic/make them wait for a phlebotomist and then stick them to harass people. But adding a breathalyzer blow to a stop they can already do doesn't add much burden for the benefit I'm not sure about the court's legal reasoning though, I thought the ostensible purpose of warrantless search incident to arrest was just to check for weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:I believe what is trying to be communicated here is that there is a balance of harms to consider. If the rules for test/search are too strict, Police abuse the position they are in. If the rules are light, drunk drives are harder to prosecute. There is a balancing act at play here. That's all that's being sad IMO. Hey, HEY HEY, no fuckin nuance here, on the INTERNET
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
ACAB haha
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:search incident to arrest Oh god I just started having flashbacks to CrimPro and ConLaw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Hi r/legaladvice, I need your help here. My dad (60M) has fallen down a rabbit hole since Covid started about how the government wants to take away your rights, American is run by a satanic cult that harvests “adrenachrome” from children, etc. Something specific he’s taken an interest to recently is becoming a “state national.” Now, I (17F) have no idea what this is, and though I’ve tried to research it myself, have found no information on it. My dad says that without being a state national, I am a corporation of the United States and not a person in the eyes of the law (or “Land Air Water” according to him). He is currently in the process of making himself a state national, which he claims will allow him to not pay taxes, drive on the road without a license, etc. He wants to make me and my younger siblings state nationals too, but I am very against this. I have no idea what this state national crap is, and I am scared my dad will go behind our back and make me and my siblings state nationals without our consent. I’ve tried to talk sense into him and tell him I’m not comfortable with the idea, but he won’t hear it. I’m afraid that I have no say because I’m a minor and he might be tampering with my citizenship. Can he make me a state national without my consent? Is this even a real thing? I am so confused and scared!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Congrats, your dad is becoming a sovereign citizen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
therobit posted:Hi r/legaladvice, I need your help here. rip her and her family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
Yeah, so this is all part of the sovereign citizen play book. I'm *somewhat * sure that the 'state national' is not a real thing and just made up sov cit bullshit (which is pretty common). I only know enough to point and laugh at them on YouTube
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
But just to be clear: yes, this is all crazy loving bullshit
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
This is made up and does not goof up your citizenship. Genuinely curious though - how does a 17 year old find out and care enough to buy an account for SomethingAwful in tyool 2021?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:This is made up and does not goof up your citizenship. With an 08 reg date no less!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:
By becoming a State National, of course
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
is it illegal to quote some bad reddit post without sourcing it, and if so, what kind of lawyer would someone need if they did that? In theory, asking for someone else
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:is it illegal to quote some bad reddit post without sourcing it, and if so, what kind of lawyer would someone need if they did that? Criminal Code of Something Awful, §4.20(69)a: Anyone who commits the act of unsourced quoting of reddit is guilty of a summary offense punishable by no more than six (6) hours of probation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
I was going to type up an explanation but since I am being accused of posting crimes I will have to stop posting until my attorney blarzgh can advise and possibly answer for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
I did NoT create joinder!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 11:49
|
|
|
you post unsourced? you pass posts like the football? oh! oh! jail for therobit! jail for therobit for One Thousand Years!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 12:08
|
|
|
While we on the topic of crazy things sovereign citizens like to talk about, what's the deal with capitalization in legal documents? Example: the MIT License, an open source thing:quote:Copyright © 2021 <copyright holders> Is there any significance to the all-caps section? To me it seems like the first part is "ok here's what you can do" and the second part is yelling for emphasis AND YOU BETTER NOT SUE US. But I'm not sure yelling is really a recognized legal construct. (Source: The Office)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:While we on the topic of crazy things sovereign citizens like to talk about, what's the deal with capitalization in legal documents? Example: the MIT License, an open source thing: The specifics depend on the jurisdiction, but a lot of states have laws that says for [X] to be valid in a consumer contract, it has to be "conspicuous" or such and so they capitalize it like that [X] of course generally being waiver of something meaningful, from any warranties in this case, to procedural rights that would prevent effective consumer redress, like to a jury trial, or class actions, or to a court at all in the case of arbitration. EDIT: also what he said vvvvv, where specifically required by statute/regulation. As another example, if you actually look at your credit card terms and conditions, there are going to be certain things in bold, in larger font, etc, and all of that is going to be dictated by Truth in Lending Act regulations. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Oct 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
Some statutes require specific text, and sometimes that text has formatting requirements. For example, in Florida, contingency fee agreements must contain specific verbiage. In every agreement, the statutory language is copied directly from Florida statutes, so the formatting is whatever was passed into law. That all caps thing probably has a similar source in some federal statute. Basically it’s because people are lazy and copy/paste things. Some statutes require specific formatting for things to include all caps, but that’s typically signage and mostly size requirements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
if its in all caps, you are more likely to read it. in reality you threw the terms and conditions away without even looking at them or simply scrolled through the agreement as fast as possible and clicked next
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Well I identify as a corporation, and my corporate personhood is unable to read and I am therefore immune to prosecutions and solicitations of the non-accepted written material described. Furthermore it is discriminatory to ask for my consent, as it is de facto coerced as a logically proven consequence of determinism
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:if its in all caps, you are more likely to read it. in reality you threw the terms and conditions away without even looking at them or simply scrolled through the agreement as fast as possible and clicked next
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I'm doing my part to support an argument that the EULA isn't binding because no reasonable person will read it! To be fair it's hard to have a meeting of the minds between a citizen, sovereign or otherwise, and 20 lawyers who have 5 years of experience drafting agreements that are intentionally impossible to understand and effectively reserve all rights to the corporation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Humans are corporations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
and corporations are people my friend
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:if its in all caps, you are more likely to read it. in reality you threw the terms and conditions away without even looking at them or simply scrolled through the agreement as fast as possible and clicked next I mean yes, exactly, but I'm in this picture and don't like it.jpg I assume they all say we can do whatever you want and there is no recourse for you about any of it. Do you all read EULAs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
no one reads eulas
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
You never click through without reading something according to the EULA I wrote
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
In my younger, more-willing-to-piss-off-my-boss days, the company I worked for made everyone put one of those “if you read this and you’re not the intended recipient then you must contact us by carrier pigeon” disclaimers at the bottom of our email signature. I added in “if you are reading this and you are the intended recipient then you owe me $5” to mine, and left it there for 4 years. Only one person ever (apparently) read it and noticed. Thread-relevant: I assume those are basically nonsense, but is there any situation in which (assuming the person writing it is competent, and not a trust fund kid who happens to own a company) those disclaimers actually encumber the recipient somehow?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
If it's within the same company, they could fire you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:If it's within the same company, they could fire you. If it’s Tuesday they could fire you
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Thread-relevant: I assume those are basically nonsense, but is there any situation in which (assuming the person writing it is competent, and not a trust fund kid who happens to own a company) those disclaimers actually encumber the recipient somehow?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:
In addition to things like the insider trading mentioned above, there's a number of things in litigation where it's like, "you can't just call this stuff 'proprietary' or 'confidential', you have to actually take steps to treat it as such." So much of that disclaimer stuff and lots of other things are less about magic email words that make you forget you ever read it, and more about showing a jury some years down the road that all this information that was being circulated was considered confidential at the time, therefore the bad guy in this case should not have done whatever he did with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 07:09
|
|