If a company agrees to pay travel cost for a job interview, is the promise binding and enforceable?

There is a question on workplace.SE about a company which offered to pay travel costs for a job interview, but canceled the return ticket after ending the interview - Potential Employer Cancels Return Flight . Generally, when arranging a job interview which requires the candidate to travel, it is common for the potential employer to pay travel cost and lodging for the candidate. In practice, the employer will ususally offer this, often in writing, but not write up a formal contract or similar document. In that situation, can the employer later renege on the promise to pay costs? In particular, can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? My thoughts: On the one hand, a simple one-sided promise is usually not binding, as a binding agreement requires both sides to give something (called consideration in Common law). On the other hand, there is the notion of detrimental reliance , which appears to fit here. Also, one could argue that the candidate does provide something in exchange, namely their presence and willingness to attend the interview (basically, the company trades travel costs for having the candidate present for the interview). So, is the promise to pay the candidate's cost enforceable or not? Im interested in any jurisdiction, particularly European and US.

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...

No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

There Is Little Pressure To Improve Contract Drafting One piece of the puzzle is tradition and habitual writing style. A customary writing style for legal documents evolved over time, some of those conventions have evolved overtime (e.g. "Party of the first part, party of the second part"), others have not. Archaic vocabulary is slowly being weeded out, but again, it is almost never the goal of someone drafting a contract to reduce the reading level of the document. As long as the judge, or other lawyers, know what it means, it is an aesthetic stylistic issue more than it is...


Who is supposed to teach the law to the citizens?

As I understand, in general, not knowing the law does not excuse violating it . That should apply to most if not all jurisdictions in most cases with very few exceptions . From personal experience, never in my life has school, family or anyone ever actually taught me any laws or showed me where I could consult them myself, and I have already reached legal age a couple of years ago. So my question is, who, by law or morality, is supposed to teach citizens the law so that they can be aware and abide by it? Answers can be generalized to include most jurisdictions or be specific.

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...

Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a "welfare check." You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...

The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...


I want to leave Islam, but they would execute and kill me. What do I do?

I live in an Islamic country, but I don't want to be a Muslim. I have no choice but to claim to be a Muslim: If I leave Islam, they will execute me according to Muslim law. Where can I go to have a peaceful, non-religious life? Can I get asylum in any English-speaking countries? For example, would the Republic of Ireland accept me as a refugee? This is a hypothetical/abstract question of law. I am not making any personal statements about my beliefs or intentions.

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...

Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...


Why do many "No Trespassing" signs say "POSTED"?

Many "no trespassing" signs say "POSTED" in large letters at the top. Why? Obviously, the sign is posted; that's the whole purpose of a sign. To me, it makes as much sense as putting "ASKED" at the start of a Stack Exchange question or "TEXTED" at the start of a text. Does it serve any legal purpose? Or is it just designed to scare potential trespassers with legal-looking text?

united-states legal-terms common-law legal-history trespass

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...

"Posted" is a Term of Art " Posted " is a term of art in trespass law, specifically meaning that signs forbidding entry have been placed at the borders of a parcel. The page "Properly posted definition" from Law Insider reads: Properly posted means that signs prohibiting trespass—or bright yellow, bright orange or fluorescent paint—are clearly displayed at all corners, on fishing streams crossing property lines, and on roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land. Or, they are displayed in a manner that is visible to a person in the area. The entry "Posting" in the "Legal" section of The...

Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...


If I don't want to patent something, what can I do to ensure the patent office doesn't unintentionally grant the patent to someone else?

Say that I have created a hypothetical new invention. I would like for it to be used by as many people as possible without restrictions, so I deliberately choose not to pursue a patent on it. As described in the answers to What if I don't patent my invention? , someone else can patent my invention unless the US Patent Office is aware that there is prior art, established by me producing and selling my invention. The trouble is, I can't necessarily guarantee that they will become aware of my prior art if I'm not particularly well-known. What can be done to ensure that the patent office knows about my prior work (which I deliberately choose not to patent) and therefore doesn't unintentionally grant a patent to someone else?

There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by "qualified organ procurement organizations" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...

There is a history of "giving away patents", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of " 30 days of employment with xxxxx ". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of " 1-year commitment " is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, " not to quit ") in...


On what basis might Trump's executive order on immigration be illegal?

On 27 January 2017, US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order entitled ' Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States '. On 30 January 2017, the acting Attorney General at the time refused to defend it in court because it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal: [ news article ]. On what basis(es) might this executive order be illegal?

united-states constitutional-law us-constitution immigration

No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...


How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer's instructions?

If a police officer gives me an order, how can I tell whether or not I'm legally obligated to follow that order? If I ask the officer, is he/she required by law to answer truthfully? If the police get to order citizens to do whatever they want, under whatever circumstances that they want, then go ahead and post that as an answer.

It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...

You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are "free to go" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter...


How would the actions of Hänsel and Gretel in the Grimm tale be interpreted in modern law?

This came up as a layman’s law question. I thought of this when reading the classic Grimm tale Hänsel and Gretel to my children. The situation is as follows: The witch imprisons Hänsel with the stated intention to eat (and thus kill) him. Gretel is asked to light the fire in the oven with the stated intention by the witch to use the fire to cook Hänsel. Gretel pushes the witch into the burning oven and closes the door, knowing the witch will die in there. The witch is bigger and stronger than Gretel, so Gretel can’t really hope for a better chance to physically overwhelm her. Question: How would this be treated according to modern law? Would this be a straight-up murder or can Gretel claim some sort of self-defense and go free? If the answer depends on jurisdiction just make some reasonable choice.

Doing nothing is legally safer than doing something, but you're not without hope if you pull the lever. Although you'll likely have committed murder or at least manslaughter, case law is littered with lenience in exigent circumstances, even where convictions have been affirmed. Because this is a philosophical problem, there are plenty of opinions from that perspective, but not so many from a legal standpoint. Let's assume that you're an innocent bystander, (not an employee of the railway company or the train company, etc) and have no duty to act. If you do nothing, then it is unlikely that you...

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....

Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a "welfare check." You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...


Why is stealing from an employer a criminal act when stealing from an employee is a civil act?

Here is the full question with all the context and details: In the majority of cases in the U.S. about theft at a workplace, why is the matter usually tried in a criminal court when the employer is stolen from, yet is tried in a civil court when the employee is stolen from? For example, if a bank owner refuses to send the last paycheck to someone who has just quit or been fired, it has to be fought in civil court. If a bank employee sneaks extra money from the branch, it has to be fought in criminal court. The following comments or something similar may be made, so I will address them before they are made: The reality for both examples above is that most of the time, it is not fought in court at all, and the injustice is just allowed to pass. I'm talking about which court it would be brought to, only considering all the times that the matter is actually brought to court, so this is an irrelevant point. The answer is as plain as day. It's because "bill 9, section 9, article 6, subarticle 7, clause 45" says so, you can read the legal document at this reference. I know it's because the laws say so, I'm asking why the laws say so. What is the legal history behind this imbalance, and why have things become the way they are today?

There is a history of "giving away patents", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...

What do you mean by "stealing"; this matters, because "stealing" often doesn't have a formal/legal definition (and when it does, it falls under your #2 point above, where the employer's action doesn't meet the definition of the forbidden act) and can describe conduct by both parties that could fall under both criminal and non-criminal remedies (i.e. civil and/or administrative action). Some examples: Employer criminal stealing : Taking an employee's property from their possession (e.g. taking cash from their wallet). Employer non-criminal stealing : Failing to pay an employee properly* (either not paying, or not paying completely, or not paying on...


At what point can you walk out of a restaurant if they make you wait to pay the bill?

The other day, I ate at a restaurant; the food was fine, and I got to paying the bill. Their payment system went down. They couldn't accept cards; only cash, and I didn't have the cash on me for the bill. In the end, their payments system was down for about 45 minutes, with several diners being forced to wait around. The staff didn't at any time offer a reassurance that if things weren't fixed in a certain period of time, we could just leave. But it got me thinking to the legality of things - at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then?

at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...

Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited "for cause strikes," which are...

In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the...


Why is murder considered a more serious crime than attempted murder?

By its sentencing guidelines (the world over?), murder is considered a more serious crime than attempted murder. If intent to kill has indeed been proven, does the latter crime reward incompetence with leniency? Shouldn’t the incarceration of such a criminal be intended to either rehabilitate them, or to protect the public from them? So if the intent for an attempted and successful crime is the same, wouldn’t it take the same effort to rehabilitate them, or require the same precautions to contain them?

criminal-law murder sentencing comparative-law theory-of-law

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or...


Why are lawyers typically excluded from juries?

At least in the United States practicing lawyers are called to serve on juries. But my understanding is at least one side will always remove them before trial. Why would it always be the case that at least one side would not want someone with legal training on a jury?

Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited "for cause strikes," which are...

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...

It would indeed be valid and legally enforceable. The Constitution places no limits on what languages bills must be written in. The Constitution specifically allows each house of Congress to make its own rules for how it passes bills, so, even if a house of Congress had a rule requiring its bills to be in English (which they don't, as far as I know,) they could simply change the rules and then pass the bill. From a practical standpoint, though, enforceability would also require courts to be able to discern Congress' intent from the bill. As such, unless we're expanding...


Can a law protect itself? For example, could it be written in to a law that, under no circumstances, it should be amended or abolished (a) for a fixed duration or (b) indefinitely? I am most interested in the United Kingdom but would also be interested to know what the general answer is, if there is one.

In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the...

australia Deliberately rendering the TV non-operational through software would appear to be malicious damage. Under the Australian Consumer Law, one of the statutory guarantees is that a product must be “durable”. Manufacturer’s can offer explicit warranties in addition but these in no way impact on the statutory guarantees. What durable means depends on the product and the price paid for it. For a low end TV, 3 years might be durable enough although it’s arguable, but for a high end TV it wouldn’t be. For whitegoods, 10 years would be appropriate. A similar period would be appropriate for a car....


Is it truly illegal for the US Armed Forces to hire someone whose IQ is less than 83?

In this video , Jordan Peterson says that [...] anybody into the Armed Forces if they have an IQ of less than 83 Is this true? What law is this supposed restriction based on?

Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...

See 18 U.S.C. s. 1621 (a) . Perjury only relates to material matter . In my opinion, your little logical paradox isn't material. You might be scolded by the judge to stay on point. If you keep doing it, you'll be held in contempt of court .

I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...

This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of "free" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide...


Everyone has heard the procedure to get sworn in in an American court: Put your hand on a Holy Bible and answer yes to "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" However swearing on a Holy Bible to God has decidedly Christian roots ( regardless of whether it is actually a Christian practice ) in an official setting in a country with a constitution that explicitly gives freedom of religion. As a non-Christian can you refuse to make such a vow?

This is the Fed (FCC) saying "I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it." The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...

In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to "affirm" instead of "swear" You do not have to say "so help me God" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed "solemn affirmation" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...


Can I legally include a line break in my child's name?

Ethics aside, is it legal (or even possible) to include a line break (newline) in my child's name? Preferably at the end of the child's first name, directly after the last letter. So instead of (for example) the name "John Doe", the name would always be written out "John Doe". And then when the first name only is written out the line break would have to be included, such as "My child's first name is John and his last name is Doe". If this is legal, how would I go about making sure the line break is included on the name section of the birth certificate?

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...

In the US, any legal restrictions on names are implemented at the state level——although broad administrative restrictions exist on the federal level. Some states may restrict use of diacritics (ubiquitous in Vietnamese) or Arabic numerals (but not Roman numerals). At the other extreme, in Washington state, there is no requirement to include a name at all in the case of live birth of known parentage . In the case of delayed report of live birth , and "An individual requesting the delayed report of live birth of an individual under twelve years of age must establish the facts concerning full...

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...


How does SE's arbitration clause hold up under the GDPR?

Today the new Terms of Service of Stack Exchange have been released, sparking a lot of unrest about its arbitration clause; see the comments and answers on the linked meta above, and also this question . Does the GDPR prevent Stack Exchange from using the arbitration clause against EU citizens? In the sense that when there's a massive data leak and a large class-action suit will be filed, can EU citizens do that collectively, as opposed to going through arbitration for each separate user? The below is no longer applicable, since on the 10th of May electronic opt-out was made available . Related to this it states that the opt-out currently is a physical letter send to Stack Exchange (how they'd tie that letter to my SO account is a bit vague for me, as I can type any odd user page on my letter, not only my own), but this comment suggests that under GDPR there should be a digital opt-out for digital services. Does that mean that the entire clause is invalid (or however that goes in law), when there is no digital opt-out currently available?

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....

Not going to hold up. Dutch Supreme Court confirmed 2012-09-21 in LJN BW6135 that arbitration is still covered by the the right to an independent judge, as established in Golder v UK , ECHR 1975-02-21, nr. 4451/70. Stack Exchange can't decide the rules themselves. (The Dutch case confirms that sector-wide arbitration is in fact legal, with regard to a standard arbitration clause commonly used in the Dutch building sector. The arbiter was found to be independent in that case precisely because they weren't picked by the builder involved.) The GDPR is only indirectly relevant, but the fact that it's mentioned...


Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?

This recent article from The Verge claims that two men in San Diego have create a repo company that impounds e-scooters from companies like Lime, Bird, Lyft, Uber and Razor. However as far as I can tell these guys are doing this entirely on their own accord. They don't have a license from the city. They write "tickets" in their own system and charge their own rates. They are called not by police but by random business owners. To me this sounds like straight theft and extortion. Is this something they are legally allowed to do? The article claims that they are now being sued by all these big corporations, but it's unclear to my why this is being treated as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...


I recently read about protests blocking an interstate. I feel like ethically no one no (non-police) citizen has the right to obstruct my travel (on a public interstate for the sake of protest), therefore I'm interested to know if I personally have any legal route to retaliate against the individuals stopping my travel (exercising their rights at the expense of mine). Just because I think I should have the right to slowly push through a crowd unlawfully impeding my travel, doesn't make it the law, unfortunately. But that's why we have laws, right? So we can retaliate against people we feel are impeding our freedom in a peaceful manner. My question is simply of whether I have the ability to legally retaliate against the protesters who may have just made me an hour late for an important event by blocking a public freeway. Edit: Another way to look at it: If a police officer detained me without cause, and there were witnesses and video to verify this, I could sue the police department and win. Why then, can a group of citizens detain me without cause, without also facing legal repercussion? I'm curious to know what legal grounds I would have in this situation to travel unobstructed. Can I only call the police and hope they press charges? Can I video the protesters and press charges against each of them, even sue each protester for damages? In other words, is there any way for me to retaliate against the (unlawful) protesters legally and peacefully? Note: Many are responding with something along the lines of "What if it were an accident? You couldn't press charges on the drivers in an accident for detaining you". There's a huge difference between being detained by an accident, and a group of people intentionally and unlawfully detaining me on a public freeway. So I really don't understand these responses. My initial wording to the question seemed to confuse my intentions and lead to alot of "no, you can't run them over" rhetoric (which wasn't actually my question at all), so I've edited and simplified the question.

Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a "stop" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...

There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by "qualified organ procurement organizations" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...


How do people publicly admit to criminal activity and not typically get arrested?

I've noticed that people on YouTube and even on TV would sometimes say things like "I used to take lots of coke a few years ago" or "I used to smoke weed daily until this and that" or "Yea, I smoke weed every once in a while," or "I used to pirate games a lot when I was a bit younger" or "I used pirated Windows and Photoshop until I got a job," etc., etc.. Basically they are confessing to a crime, on public record, couldn't anyone come after them? They've already confessed - technically all that would have to be done is a trial. In these cases: possession of coke, weed, pirating games and software. In some cases - admittance that they will do it again soon - smoke weed ("I smoke it once in a while"). I just keep wondering every time I hear or read it... I thought finally it's time to ask people who know what they're talking about and who may be able to satisfy my curiosity and help me understand. Hope the tags are right.

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...

Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not. People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no...

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...


Can I legally make a website about boycotting a certain company?

Located in the US. Can I make a website which is specifically aimed at boycotting a certain company? There is no lawsuit between myself and the company. There would be no defamation on the website and no editorials or subjective content. There might be links to editorials hosted on other websites. This website content would simply be information about alternatives. However, I would want the name of the website, including the domain name itself, to have the name of the company this is in reference to. For example, boycott- company .com

The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...

The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...


My wife and I have found a vacant lot (this is in Utah, BTW) where we would like to build a house. However, the HOA that the lot belongs to does not allow more than four occupants, regardless of the size of the home. The CCR actually says (community name) is designed and intended to be for a specific lifestyle. Neither the Units nor the common areas are designed to accommodate large families. Permanent residents of (community name) shall be restricted and limited to families with no more than four person's related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Does the HOA actually have authority to enforce this? What happens if we build a house (with plenty of room), move in with our two kids, and then have another baby?

There is a history of "giving away patents", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...

As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for " housing for older persons ", and the act "does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...


Can an employer withhold pay for a fire drill?

Moved from WorkplaceSE . Recently there was a routine fire drill in an office building. As with most fire drills, it took about half an hour for the fire drill to complete and for everyone to get back to work. When the employees got back to their desks, they were told to charge 30 minutes of time to an overhead charge number, but then management sent out a correction saying that they were not allowed to charge the time lost during the fire drill. Instead, they had to "flex" their time (that is, make up the 30 minutes at some other time during the pay period, or else take vacation time). Is this illegal, or just bad practice? Do these employees have any recourse? Any examples of similar times when an employer mandates a period of time that an employee NOT be allowed to work during normal working hours are welcome also. Jurisdiction is in Virginia, USA, but input from other areas welcome for my curiosity. This didn't affect me personally so I'm not searching for legal advice, but it happened to some close acquaintances of mine. For them, the cost of just working an extra 30 minutes is far less than getting lawyers involved, but it did pique my interest so I thought it was worth a question.

This seems to fall under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and is defined as "waiting time." From Employment Law Handbook : On-duty waiting time should be counted as hours worked. It is time spent by an employee, typically during normal work hours, waiting for direction from their team lead, supervisor, or manager. These on-duty waiting time periods usually last only for a short time and can be unpredictable as to when they occur and how long they will last. The employee is generally not allowed to leave the workplace during a period of on-duty waiting time. Essentially, because the...

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...


The signature on my driver's license is a unique and identifiable smiley face :-) I use this signature to sign all legally binding documents. A lot of the time, people reject it, and request an "actual signature". I then show them that it is the same signature as my driver's license, and they usually, (but not always,) accept it. Is my signature legal? Or must it be my name? If it is legal, is it a bad idea?

Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face? Yes, that is lawful. A person's signature does not necessarily have to include the person's name or initials. What matters is that the signature reliably and unequivocally identifies the person who produces it, which apparently you have been able to prove by showing your driver's license. The Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) states in its entry for signature that " whatever mark, symbol, or device one may choose to employ as representative of himself is sufficient ". It directs to the entry for sign , which likewise speaks in terms of...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...


Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"

I've been living at this place for about two months and my lease looks pretty typical. Nothing unusual. I've had no problems so far. Today my landlord called me and explained something about the city wanting to charge him for a rental inspection that only covers the outside of the house, and so he's outraged that he has to pay for some guy to just look at the house from the sidewalk. He then explained that his plan is to present me with a "land agreement" and also a contract to invalidate the current lease so that I'm just paying him for the land agreement instead. I'm pretty confused about this whole thing and it doesn't seem right. Through some quick googling, it sounds like I'd suddenly have to pay taxes on the property as if I owned it. Suddenly I would become responsible for paying the fee he's complaining about? Not to mention I don't know if any tenant rights apply anymore. I'm deeply confused and would like to know if this is a thing many landlords try to do and whether there's anything I should start doing to cover myself if my landlord starts getting weirder. Update: He says it could be a few months before he has the land contract for me to sign. I haven't agreed to anything and told him I'm going to check with a lawyer before taking any action. Update 2: I'm not going to be signing anything and am going to be upfront about that rather than entertain the notion of having a lawyer look over the agreement. Thanks everyone!

united-states rental-property landlord ohio

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...

It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...

A "land contract" is not a way of renting property, it is a way of purchasing property on an installment basis without bank financing. It is Ohio's version of what in some other places is known as "contract for deed". See "What is a Land Contract in Ohio" and "How Land Contracts Work" The actual law is Section 5313 . In a land contract, the buyer has equitable but not legal title. The buyer normally pays all taxes and fees, and is responsible for maintaining the property, just as if s/he has bought the property. But if the buyer defaults,...


What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment?

In the fourteenth amendment, what does the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” contribute? What people born in the United States would not have been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. Now answer the same question restated using original wording to include within "The Jurisdiction": would the formulation below have a different legal meaning? All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. (Purely theoretical legal question; no relation to current events.)

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)

Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...


Why isn't a draft (conscription) slavery?

The 13th Amendment bans all slavery except for "a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." It doesn't appear to contain any language about military service or national security. A draft is involuntary work that there is no way to opt out of. They can send you anywhere in the world and force you to perform any tasks they want, even some tasks that would be illegal for civilians (like killing people). If you refuse, you go to jail. Why isn't this considered slavery?

Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...

The only real answer is that the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the constitution, and specifically the argument that the 13th Amendment prohibits a draft for compelled military services has totally rejected that argument. For many years now the US has not used a draft, and it is obviously possible for the US to have an enduring and powerful military without any draft, which was perhaps not apparent to the Justices in 1918. A draft had been common in this country from the colonial period, through the Revolution, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and...

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....


Course of action in a criminal case when there is no conceivable defense

I am not a lawyer or a law student; my work is in mathematics, but I like to learn about criminal law as a hobby. I have spent some time googling and searching to find an answer to my question but have found no results. Here is what I am interested in knowing: Suppose a public defender is assigned a criminal case — let's say the charges are gross misdemeanor or nonviolent felony — and there is quite literally no conceivable defense for the client. The prosecution has compelling evidence for all elements of the crime, action, and any required culpability. At this point, what do you do for your client? My best guess would be to put heavy effort into plea bargaining, but this scenario is something that is hard for me to learn about in my hobbyist pursuits because it isn't very well documented. It seems like something you learn from experience, and could depend greatly on the individual attorney and their relationships with the prosecutors in the jurisdiction. The only thing I can find that relates to my question is information about the strategies of lawyers who defended notorious murderers who were overwhelmingly guilty. I would like the scope of my question to be something less serious and less complicated than that. In most of those cases, the defenses' main goal was to keep them out of a death penalty, and the trials were long and complicated. Also, to be thorough, please feel free to note / comment on any of the following in an answer: You know there is practically no conceivable defense for your client; how does that change your efforts in plea bargaining? Let's say the prosecutor won't budge - not a single plea offer. You know there is practically no conceivable defense for your client - what do you do when the case goes to trial? At any point, is it a matter of ethics to make it clear to your client that there is no conceivable defense for their case and your primary service as their counsel will be to provide guidance through the confusing and complicated legal / court process and help make sure their rights to a fair trial are upheld? Now suppose you are not necessarily a public defender but a private attorney for hire. Someone comes to you looking to hire you for counsel on the type of charges outlined above. There is little to no conceivable defense. Do you take the case? If so, do you tell them this before negotiating a price? I understand my question is certainly subjective. The answer could vary greatly from case to case, dependent on countless variables. I do, however, still think it is constructive and on topic because it can be answered on a high level as to how to initially assess those variables and form a strategy. I am open to feedback for how to improve my question. Please edit tags as needed.

There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) . This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his...

No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by "qualified organ procurement organizations" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...

The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...


How does the mandate to report income from illegal activities in the US jibe with the Fifth Amendment?

Al Capone was famously taken down for tax evasion for not reporting income from his illegal activities. If someone were to report the income from illegal activities like a marijuana dispensary or a bribe, my understanding is that they would be then investigated/prosecuted for their disclosed activities. However, The Fifth Amendment states that: No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,... Since reporting income, even if illegal, is a mandate and the Fifth Amendment protects against someone being held as a witness against themselves, the law seems to be inconsistent. How does the mandate to report income from illegal activities in the US jibe with the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination?

Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a "stop" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...

The original 1913 Revenue Act only required the reporting of income from "lawful" sources. In the 1921 Revenue Act the word, "lawful" was removed requiring all income to be reported. [IRS Publication 17] states: Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. In United States v. Sullivan in 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to require that a tax return be filed to report income. If...

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...


Is requesting waiving the right to deletion of contributions against GDPR?

I just got one of those GDPR mails from gitlab.com, which pointed me to a Web page where I had to accept some terms and conditions. The same as everywhere, except this passage: (For GitLab Contributors Only) As part of my voluntary contribution to any GitLab project, I acknowledge and agree that my name and email address will become embedded and part of the code, which may be publicly available. I understand the removal of this information would be impermissibly destructive to the project and the interests of all those who contribute, utilize, and benefit from it. Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I hereby waive any right to request any erasure, removal, or rectification of this information under any applicable privacy or other law and acknowledge and understand that providing this information is a requirement under the agreement to contribute to the GitLab project. As far as I understood GDPR, this passage is just plain bullocks and they're trying to get away with arguably the most difficult bit of GDPR, especially if you consider their argument. I can feel their pain, but it also just doesn't feel like this is made possible by GDPR and if GitLab would deny or not completely fulfil such a deletion request, it would be liable to litigation. Am I correct in this? Note: I'm not trying to put GitLab in a bad spot here, they're just the first (only?) ones that included this kind of passage in their agreement.

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...

Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...


Why do lawyers write contracts with language that is more difficult to understand than other works?

The recent Ig Nobel Prize Winning work "Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language" by Martínez, Mollica, and Gibson demonstrates that contracts are written in language that is harder to understand than other genres such as academic or media writing. In particular, center-embedded clauses are used at more than twice the rate in contracts than in other professional writing except newspapers, lead to long-distance syntactic dependencies and are recalled and comprehended at lower rates than excerpts without these clauses. Why is this? One would have thought that making contracts understandable to the parties would generally be in everyone best interest, but it is possible to imagine situations where this is not the case. Abstract of the paper: Despite their ever-increasing presence in everyday life, contracts remain notoriously inaccessible to laypeople. Why? Here, a corpus analysis (n ≈10 million words) revealed that contracts contain startlingly high proportions of certain difficult-to-process features–including low-frequency jargon, center-embedded clauses (leading to long-distance syntactic dependencies), passive voice structures, and non-standard capitalization–relative to nine other baseline genres of written and spoken English. Two experiments (N=184) further revealed that excerpts containing these features were recalled and comprehended at lower rates than excerpts without these features, even for experienced readers, and that center-embedded clauses inhibited recall more-so than other features. These findings (a) undermine the specialized concepts account of legal theory, according to which law is a system built upon expert knowledge of technical concepts; (b) suggest such processing difficulties result largely from working-memory limitations imposed by long-distance syntactic dependencies (i.e., poor writing) as opposed to a mere lack of specialized legal knowledge; and (c) suggest editing out problematic features of legal texts would be tractable and beneficial for society at-large. Comparison of indices of linguistic processing difficulty in contracts versus various genres of written and spoken English. Effect of text register (legalese vs simple) on comprehension accuracy in the main experiment (i) and replication study (ii), and recall of legal content in the main study (iii). Effect of language experience (measured using Author Recognition Task) on comprehension accuracy (iv). Posterior distribution over logistic regression coefficients reflecting the influence of condition and each surface property on recall (v). Negative coefficient values reflect a decrease in recall performance.

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

There Is Little Pressure To Improve Contract Drafting One piece of the puzzle is tradition and habitual writing style. A customary writing style for legal documents evolved over time, some of those conventions have evolved overtime (e.g. "Party of the first part, party of the second part"), others have not. Archaic vocabulary is slowly being weeded out, but again, it is almost never the goal of someone drafting a contract to reduce the reading level of the document. As long as the judge, or other lawyers, know what it means, it is an aesthetic stylistic issue more than it is...

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)


Why is the structure of the US Code so poor? (And would it even be legal to reorganize it?)

In the process of researching the legality of coil guns in Massachusetts (University engineering project), I stumbled across Cornell's Legal Information Institute, which offers what appears to be a complete rendition of the entire United States Code, and decided to do a little exploring. While I learned a lot of interesting tidbits of information perusing the U.S.C., I was amazed at how poorly it was structured. I know politics is sticky business, and not everything is going to be clean, but what I saw struck me as exceptionally bad. In software design, there's a widely used phrase to describe certain particularly jumbled programs: spaghetti code. This term can be applied to programs which have poor data structure designs, are poorly organized, or simply just don't make logical sense in terms of the way they are laid out. The name comes from how these attributes can be applied to a bowl of spaghetti; it's jumbled and tangled together, and you would be required to really dig deep to find, say, the two ends of a single strand. As someone who is very active in open-source programming, a development style that fundamentally breeds spaghetti code, my first reaction upon seeing the U.S.C. in its entirety was, "Oh my god, this is spaghetti code." The organization is so horribly jumbled. For example, in regards to the Titles, why would topics that sound so incredibly broad, such as Title 6 - Domestic Security, and Title 12 - Banks and Banking, be in the same structural level as Title 23 - Highways, or Title 24 - Hospitals and Asylums? Why do we have Title 14 - Coast Guard and Title 32 - National Guard when there is Title 10 - Armed Forces? The Coast Guard and the National Guard are clearly both a subset of the Armed Forces. Why is a "machine gun" defined under Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code, when every single other type of firearm seems to be defined under Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure? It's not as if Title 26 is redefining a machine gun for the purpose of tax law; Title 18 actually states something along the lines of "Machine gun, as defined in Title 26 / Section etc etc". I could go on and on about the various inconsistencies that I see in regards to how the U.S.C. is structured. Maybe I see it as more of a problem due to my involvement in software development, a field in which structure is paramount to success, but this just doesn't sit right with me. That leads me to my questions (finally): 1. Are there any underlying reasons behind the nonsensical structure of U.S.C. titles? Is it simply a case of "This is how it's been for awhile, don't fix what isn't broken." or is there more to it than that? 2. Pretend that over the next few election cycles, a super majority of software engineers and computer scientists are elected to the House and Senate. These people take structure very seriously, and they are very unhappy with the structure of the U.S.C. Barring the even more ridiculous case of Congress repealing everything and passing the exact same laws again, just under different Titles/Chapters/etc, would it be possible for Congress to arbitrarily merge, combine, and delete Titles, and to rearrange the location of laws, definitions, etc? Are there laws/regulations governing this?

Are there any underlying reasons behind the nonsensical structure of U.S.C. titles? Is it simply a case of "This is how it's been for awhile, don't fix what isn't broken." or is there more to it than that? First of all, the United States Code is generally not designed to be used by non-lawyers. Second, one of the main ways to research case law interpreting a statute is by doing a boolean search on the code section of that statute. Every time you change a title or section number, you impair the ability of people doing legal research (both judges...

This is the Fed (FCC) saying "I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it." The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...

Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...


How come the nude protesters were not arrested?

I read today about the Anti-Censorship Activists in New York (Warning! NSFW pictures inside link) who protested against Facebook while being totally nude out in the street. I'm also pretty sure public nudity is not allowed in the USA. How come they were not arrested or at least warned by police? Is there some exception to the law?

A "land contract" is not a way of renting property, it is a way of purchasing property on an installment basis without bank financing. It is Ohio's version of what in some other places is known as "contract for deed". See "What is a Land Contract in Ohio" and "How Land Contracts Work" The actual law is Section 5313 . In a land contract, the buyer has equitable but not legal title. The buyer normally pays all taxes and fees, and is responsible for maintaining the property, just as if s/he has bought the property. But if the buyer defaults,...

An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of "vegan approved" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...


How is it possible for millions to use pirated software at home and never get arrested?

It's not like talking about using weeds that you tell your friends about but you don't go in public shouting about it. Instead people go to online forums sometimes posting with their real names- bragging about using pirated software. What is exactly stopping the police from having them arrested?

You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) ...(not very helpful)...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation...

Civil law instead of criminal law Not all things that we commonly refer to as "illegal" are actually crimes - many of them refer to violations of contracts or other obligations where the harmed party may (or may not) use the civil system to obtain some satisfaction, but the government and prosecutors will not do it for them. In general (with some exceptions, depends on jurisdiction and circumstances), most low scale copyright violations are treated as a civil matter - it allows the harmed party (i.e. the copyright owner) to sue you for damages in a civil court, if they...


Is it illegal to infringe copyright if your boss or your client ordered you to do it?

The first possible scenario is this: suppose you work in a company, and you need to install some software for a client. The software needs to be purchased, but the boss tells you to just download it for free illegally (infringing copyright). You tell your boss that of course that's illegal and it's not the best way to do the job, but they tell you: "I know, but who cares, just download it for free". If you did it, who would be responsible for the illegal download in this situation? If you are responsible, how should you deal with such a situation? The second possible scenario is this: suppose you are a freelance software developer, and your client asks you to install a thing for them. They give you a link to an unofficial website where you can download the stuff for free (illegally). You tell them it's illegal, and the stuff should be purchased. They tell you: "Who cares, I'm not going to spend any money for purchasing it, your job is just to do exactly what I've told you, that is, just install it, and that's it". Again who would be responsible and how should you deal with this situation? Of course here there's always the option to not accept the job since you are a freelancer, but I also wonder if there are other options in theory. For example, maybe the client could download the software illegally themself, and then only give it to you for the installation? Location of the scenarios: any States of United States or any Member States of the European Union, but only one jurisdiction at a time.

united-states copyright european-union liability workplace

You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are "free to go" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter...

This is the Fed (FCC) saying "I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it." The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

There are two parts to copyright liability: civil and criminal. TL;DR: both cases are criminal offences, and it is illegal to break the law even when you are paid to do it. In the USA criminal copyright infringement requires a deliberate act to infringe copyright for commercial gain. Both of the scenarios meet these requirements. In the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) criminal copyright infringement includes possess in the course of a business an article which is, and which you know or have reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work with a view to...