|
Yesterday, I came home to a sternly worded letter from the Ministry of the Attorney General, informing me that I was legally required to fill out a handy lil' questionnaire that would determine my eligibility for jury duty somewhere along the line. Failure to fill this out would result in legal action, which, ironically, might preclude me from serving on any jury in the future. At any rate, one section explains that I can be excluded if I have committed certain crimes but that other straight summary offences would not bar me from jury duty. Examples that the Attorney General provided were: 1) Participating in an unlawful lottery scheme — Section 207(3)(b) 2) Participating in an unlawful lottery scheme on an international cruise ship — Section 207.1(3)(b) 3) Interference with the saving of wreck — Section 438(2) 4) Operation with low blood drug concentration – 320.14(4) 5) Dealing in marked timber or lumbering equipment of another person — Section 339(2) Other than the extreme specificity of the list (which is roughly fifty items), it's suggested that this list is exhaustive. Anyway! It gave me the idea for this thread, which is where you post your favourite dumb laws, criminal proceedings, law-related foibles and the like. For example, did you know that most fun comics in Canada are illegal? More specifically, "Section 163, 1b of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime to possess, print, publish, or sell a crime comic if you are possessing that comic for the purposes of sale", where "crime comic" is any comic that depicts crime. Like, at all. Here is an article about pigs being on trial. For the purposes of keeping threads a little neater and also keeping moods lighter, really unnerving trials should go into the Unnerving Story thread, people who do stupid poo poo and go to jail should be in AUG, Schadenfreude, or in a shoebox where no one can see them.
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
This is my thread now children quote:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'd 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000), more widely known as the Pepsi Points Case, is a contracts case tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1999, in which the plaintiff, John Leonard, sued PepsiCo, Inc. in an effort to enforce an "offer" to redeem 7,000,000 Pepsi Points for an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet (valued at $33.8 million at the time) which PepsiCo had shown in a portion of a televised commercial that PepsiCo argued was intended to be humorous. The plaintiff did not collect 7,000,000 Pepsi Points through the purchase of Pepsi products, but instead sent a certified check for $700,008.50 as permitted by the contest rules. Leonard had 15 existing points, paid $0.10 a point for the remaining 6,999,985 points, and a $10 shipping and handling fee.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Not to be confused with Reagan’s attempt to classify ketchup and relish as vegetables as an attempt to “diversify” school lunches
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Tony Snark posted:In California animals are banned from mating in public within 1500 feet of a school, bar, or church i looked this up and apparently cats and dogs need a permit to mate, but only in ventura county.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
stamps form while sighing i guess the cat can gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2019 05:10
|
|