Slashdot Mirror

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-penalties-and-sentencing.html

The base sentence for involuntary manslaughter under federal sentencing guidelines is a 10 to 16 month prison sentence

https://study.com/academy/lesson/concurrent-sentence-in-law-definition-lesson.html

When a defendant's convictions are all connected, the judge may impose a concurrent sentence rather than a consecutive one. For example, if the defendant robbed a convenience store, he may be convicted of robbery 'and' burglary, in which case a judge may find a concurrent sentence appropriate for the 'continuing course of conduct'.

Since it is unintentional and all counts are a result of the same action and the defendant ticks two out of the three "rich white woman" boxes for getting out of jail you can expect 10 month.

There is no expectation of privacy in public.

Every automaker has to sell this percentage of ZEVs. If they fail, they have to buy credits from an automaker who exceeded their quota. If they fail that, they are banned from selling cars in California

Meanwhile, in the real world, automakers can simply pay $5000 for each missing credit they didn't earn or buy. So for a 2,5% ZEV mandate, that's an average fine of $125 per vehicle. For earning no credits whatsoever. And there are lots of ways to earn credits besides selling BEVs (although a given fraction must be from BEVs or FCVs). Manufacturers can earn credits for good fleet fuel economy. They can earn credits for making advanced tech prototypes. They can get credits for PHEVs, NEVs (think "glorified golf carts"), banked credits from PZEVs, etc. It's an extremely flexible process.

So I look at this again in Wikipedia.

Additionally, Turner was informed of his life-long obligation to be lawfully registered as a sex offender and furthermore, ordered to complete a state approved rehabilitation program for sex offenders.
...
In November 2016, Glamour named "Emily Doe" a woman of the year for "changing the conversation about sexual assault forever", citing that her statement has been read over 11 million times.

The case influenced the California legislature to toughen sexual assault laws by requiring prison terms for rapists whose victims were unconscious and including digital penetration in the penal code's definition of rape.

This isn't about punishing Brock. (The lifelong registration as a sex offender wasn't enough already? What remotely sane person would choose that door over a thousand other indignities?) No, this is about the penal code getting medieval on rape-culture's ass. Because the time is long overdue for unambiguous.

Brock would have been way better off facing involuntary manslaughter charges for drunk driving (say if he'd left tread marks on Emily Doe's corpse instead).

Involuntary Manslaughter Penalties and Sentencing

The base sentence for involuntary manslaughter under federal sentencing guidelines is a 10 to 16 month prison sentence, which increases if the crime was committed through an act of reckless conduct.

The minimum sentence for involuntary manslaughter committed with an automobile is higher still, although judges may use a certain amount discretion in those cases.

And no lifelong registration as the scum of the earth, either. Easy street. Sign me up.

While Brock almost certainly intended to initiate sexual activity with this girl, I don't think he intended to have her pass out (in fact, Cosby's sentence as a remorseless serial offender committing rape rape with the full Jabbywocky in sober calculation was hardly worse).

So Ana, if what you want is a Draconian penal code, say so (and your wish will be granted because the time is right). But don't pretend Brock was not punished enough in the first place, because any honest assessment of his life outcome would conclude the complete opposite.

That first time you go to the place in your new community where you publicly register as a sex offender.

I'm pretty sure every man who has ever done this remembers his first time.

Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.

That's all we are now - consumers. And having to work two jobs and STILL not be able to afford health insurance is a flaw in free market capitalism. Or the fact that housing is affordable to many people. To afford to just have an apartment in my area of Metro-Atlanta, Family Promise says that a person needs to make $18.62 an hour and that's assuming he's getting scheduled 40 hours a week. My sub division is being scooped up by private equity firms. Every time a house goes on sale, they come in and buy it. They then rent it.

Prices are no longer restricted by people's income. It's controlled by capital. And the bridge? Debt. Making us all serfs.

My point is that the negatives they are harping on have already happened without UBI.

Healthcare is the most regulated industry, it is filled with exceedingly complex regulations and prices exploded when the Government really stepped in. Far from being a "free market capitalism" issue, it's essentially the result of Government trying to manage an industry whilst simultaneously being greased (via contributions) by the industry it's seeking to manage. Obamacare was a massive giveaway to insurance companies (guaranteed consumers, restitution payments, guaranteed sales of services not needed - like men paying for OB/GYN and childless adults paying for pediatric), and only made the situation worse.

If you want to talk housing, house prices in some areas are exploding (SF, NYC, etc) mainly because Government restricts supply. San Francisco's housing shortage has it's own Wikipedia page where we find:

San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations.[6] Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments.[7] Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth.

Fill the area with new-found wealth from tech and you have massive bidding wars forcing prices so high only those with 7 figure budgets can even think of living there. Strict regulation has, once again, turned out to be the source of pain for most.

Well, it's not quite that simple. I believe this falls under the Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption: (Article 6 of the US Constitution)

Emphasis mine:

The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict.

Now, this is the fun part. The very next sentence reads:

But in the absence of federal law, or when a state law would provide more protections for consumers, employees, and other residents than what is available under existing federal law, state law holds.

If this turns into a boxing match between Governor Moonbeam and The President, I suspect Moonbeam might win.

The term for that is price gouging when it happens around the time of a natural disaster.

It is only called "gouging" by people that don't understand markets. The likely storm track has been known for days. So why didn't the suppliers run extra overtime shifts to bring in more supplies? Answer: Because they knew they would not be allowed to recoup the extra costs, since NC has price control laws.

So anti-market laws were the reason for the shortage. "Price gouging" is the solution. Sure, prices would be higher, but not by as much as you think, since extra supplies would limit the rise. But there would have been far fewer shortages.

But no, even though every voter ID provides methods of obtaining free IDs, securing our elections is somehow "racist" because, according to the left, minorities are apparently too dumb to figure out how to get a free ID.

As we found out in Pennsylvania, the problem was always the government refusing to issue the ID. They literally stood in the way of voters who wanted it.

So yeah, blame the voters, not the obstructive government officials failing to do their lawful duty.

Good idea. Claim they're just dumb. Just like everybody else who is the victim of your oppression.

Attempting to see someone naked without their permission is sexual assault and a felony. In the case of a minor, permission is irrelevant, especially when an adult is doing the seeing.

Rule of law, including the 2nd amendment: it has teeth for a reason.

Best case scenario - idiot hotel employee makes a highly unprofessional mistake and enters a room without knocking. Upon seeing the room occupied, he leaves immediately, then reports the incident to the hotel management. Management immediately contacts the customer, apologizes, and offers to assist her in any way, up to and including pressing charges of assault against the employee.

Worse case scenario, the employee was a perv and knew exactly what he was doing and remains free to continue assaulting others. He leaves behind a trail of victims and damaged lives, which could be yours or my wife, sisters, and children.

And you are not in any position to ascertain what the scenario is the moment someone enters your room. Are they assaulting you, or just making a mistake? Have they exhibited a pattern of entering rooms to see people naked? You have no idea in that moment, and yet you think it is warranted to kill that person anyway.

Truly amazing. If you are an example of a responsible gun owner, I'd hate to see an example of an irresponsible one.

You would shoot someone just for seeing someone naked? Wow. Make America Great Again?

Yes.

Attempting to see someone naked without their permission is sexual assault and a felony. In the case of a minor, permission is irrelevant, especially when an adult is doing the seeing.

Rule of law, including the 2nd amendment: it has teeth for a reason.

Best case scenario - idiot hotel employee makes a highly unprofessional mistake and enters a room without knocking. Upon seeing the room occupied, he leaves immediately, then reports the incident to the hotel management. Management immediately contacts the customer, apologizes, and offers to assist her in any way, up to and including pressing charges of assault against the employee.

Worse case scenario, the employee was a perv and knew exactly what he was doing and remains free to continue assaulting others. He leaves behind a trail of victims and damaged lives, which could be yours or my wife, sisters, and children.

Ladies - carry a J-frame Smith & Wesson (or similar) revolver in your purse, 38 Special is just fine. Get a concealed carry permit. Practice shooting as often as you can afford. Join and participate in the International Defensive Pistol Association if you can, or get comprehensive professional training. Put rounds on target in safe, staged real-world scenarios. With law and luck, you'll never need it, but if you do... be inferior to no one.

Forget being a lawyer, first work on constructing a sentence in a reasonable facsimile of English.

What is Defamation per se? or is it that you have trouble with colloquial metaphors like skating?

The charge is involuntary manslaughter.

From that link:

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter: Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

The interesting bit is "The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life."

We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.

This is about the federal government conducting surveillance, by collecting data on everyone without first having evidence of a crime.
It is unconstitutional for law enforcement people to collect this data, but not (under federal law) illegal for a private company to do it.ACLU should be allowed to verify this.

According to this article it isn't illegal and the ACLU knows it. They are trying to have it made illegal
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blot...

Here is the linked ACLU report
https://www.aclu.org/files/ass...

So, two things:

1) The actual law refers to communications, not conversations, so the fact that there was a biological person on only one side of the call doesn’t matter. Communication still occurred.

2) Duplex acts on Google’s behalf and Google falls under the definition of “person” according to the law. It’s no different than when you work through an automated phone system and they warn you that the call may be recorded. Whether it’s an AI or a simple automated system, it’s still just a tool being used by the “person” on that end of the line.

But that actually raises an interesting point to consider: are these robocalls, and if so, do they run afoul of federal regulations against robocalls?

The 4th Amendment does not provide any exceptions to its rules.

The SCotUS has consistently ruled that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. soil. That's why Bush put a prison in Guantanamo. The Marine base there is on Cuban soil, leased since 1903. Any prisoners sent there would technically not be on U.S. soil, and thus not gain U.S. Constitutional rights. (A later SCotUS decision ruled that although it wasn't U.S. soil, the U.S. had administrative authority over it making it essentially the same as U.S. soil, granting the prisoners there Constitutional rights.)

So no, if you're trying to enter the U.S. at a border, you're not protected by the 4th Amendment. The answer is muddied a bit by air travel, but some leeway is given for deplaning passengers who have not yet passed through immigration. Some extremists at CBP have interpreted this exception to the extreme to come up with the infamous "Constitution does not apply within 100 miles of an International airport" quote, but given the history behind the SCotUS precendents that interpretation would be highly unlikely to stand up in court.

Also, the argument you're trying to make (applying the U.S. Constitution outside U.S. territory) is extremely dangerous. If you say the 4th Amendment protects people outside the U.S., you set a precedent whereby other U.S. laws can also be applied to people outside the U.S. And that is a can of worms we're trying to prevent from being opened. It sounds like a great idea when your country does it. But if you consider what happens if every country on Earth does it, you realize just how terrible a concept it is.

There is no way that such information has been kept away from the CEO, unless the CEO is utterly incompetent. With 13 miles between interventions, it was only a matter of time before a safety driver failed to step in.

By your logic, it is criminally negligent homicide to allow any human being to drive a car that causes an incident resulting in death. It is only a matter of time before they fail to properly "step in" (i.e., manually perform) a driving action. Therefore the CEO of every car manufacturer everywhere is guilty of criminally negligent homicide, and anyone who allows another to drive their car would be guilty of such if their car causes an incident resulting in death.

You, my friend, are ignoring the requirement of "proximate causation." If you want to allege that the CEO has personal criminal responsibility, then the CEO's personal actions must be the proximate cause of the death. Not an engineer's decision concerning the threshold at which the algorithm or AI outputs an action to avoid a obstacle, and not a safety driver's decision to play with their phone while in motion.

In addition, criminally negligent homicide requires more than mere negligence. The action must be inherently dangerous or reckless (small problem -- governments routinely require autonomous vehicle testing platforms to use safety divers, so one so equipped is not inherently dangerous or recklessly deployed) and the CEO him or herself must have known that his or her conduct was "a threat to the lives of others."

Allowing a self driving car on public roads with 13 miles between interventions is reckless endangerment.

Not buying that. We haven't personally prosecuted auto CEOs for deploying cars with cruise control, and the intervention rate for that technology is no better.

Try harder.

Quid Pro Quo is the term for sexual harassment of that nature. Career advancement in exchange for sexual favors. See here:
https://employment.findlaw.com...

Not a lawyer, so I do not know what the legal view is when someone gives in to the harassment. The above link seems centered around rejecting the harassment and then losing the job and the legal avenues after that.

And, again, you're using "government" in the US sense. You might as well claim that cars don't have boots on their wheels, so speaking of a boot of a car is senseless. If you get to redefine words to be other than what the speaker meant, you can create contradictions, sure.

Anyone who makes decisions about care (or anything else) has to make decisions about whose opinions to listen to. I don't see how to do it any other way. This is not about money (even less about dollars), but rather what care is appropriate. The people who worry about the money (the executive branch) and the people who made the decision (the judicial) aren't that closely tied together. This was not a criminal case that requires a jury for due process. Not all cases in US courts require juries.

Revoking citizenship isn't a matter of whim. There are protections. This FindLaw article describes the process. It is carried out in federal court, with due process, and is not a decision of the executive branch. (It also applies only to naturalized citizens; there is no legal way I can be deprived of US citizenship.) Citizens do actually not have much more in the way of Constitutional rights than non-citizens.

Do you have any cases of drone strikes being applied in US territory? Or cases of drone strikes as retribution that are not aimed at legitimate military targets? If not, I'll have to conclude you're being paranoid.

There is nothing to apologize for. If newspapers assert the right — both legal and ethical — to publish state secrets they obtain as a result of somebody's felony, and the courts agree, how can Facebook (or anyone else) be denied the right to or even reprimanded for publishing personal information given to it willingly?

Knowingly giving material false testimony to congress is a felony whether under oath or not. Being under oath mostly gives congress the right to hold you in contempt of congress and put you in jail if you refuse to answer questions.

You can go to jail for lying to Congress even if you're not under oath. I completely believe that Facebook is scraping audio from recording for advertising, but not eavesdropping on us otherwise.

That would be incorrect in Oregon http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1347290.html

In Soviet Oregon,
Your pond water is your neighbor's water, your internet bill goes to feed your neighbor's porn addiction (which is what net neutrality really is all about), if you can't feed yourself you can be starved to death (HR4135) and abortion is preferred in the tax system to pregnancy (in that you can get a free paid-by-income taxes abortion, but you can't be born on the public dime).

It's the Hobby Lobby case.

While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives.

We *have* road neutrality.

No, we do not. There are entire roads off-limits to business-owned vehicles. There are parking spots for commercial cars only. On many highways trucks and buses aren't allowed in the left-most lanes.

You were saying?..

Hmm. Interesting. Can you cite some case law where the term "protect" was successfully applied to shooting someone for throwing rocks at a car window?

Here's the law: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/pe...

And, no, it wouldn't cover this case, unless it was clear that the intent of the rock-throwing was to steal the vehicle. The law allows use of deadly force when necessary to prevent "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft". Note that this only applies during the nighttime, and there are some other caveats as well.

It helps to read the articles of the links you posted.

The first one, http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott...
Has nothing to do with "lying" but giving wrong statements to authorities.

If a police officer asked me where I was at 20:00, and I say in a pub, while I actually was in a red light district: that is a lie. And that is completely legal.

Filing a "wrong accussion" is technically a lie too, but first of all it is a "wrong accussion", and this is covered by law, while a simple "lie" is not.

Lying to law enforcement has always been illegal:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott...
Did you not notice headlines about Gates in court for lying to FBI?
https://www.pressherald.com/20...

Technically, they received stolen property.

Considering that Gizmodo paid $5000 cash for it, it easily exceeded the $950 threshold below which "receiving stolen property" is a misdemeanor.

It is sad that this got modded up as informative.

Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.

I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.

Point of fact, one finding lost property doesn't make one the true owner of said property.

Looking at California law, http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/pe..., it is clear that in this case the person who found the iPhone and didn't return it is guilty of theft, and consequently Gawker was handling stolen property.

On this point, jcr is 100% correct, and dirk is 0% correct.

Here's the CA penal code.

A person who knowingly allows the use or who uses the 911 emergency system for any reason other than because of an emergency is guilty of an infraction, punishable as follows

Increasing fines up to $250/call after the third violation.

I'm not sure what the solution is

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." --Justice Sanford.

Oppressing speech with censorship, even if the speech is made of lies, will never be effective, and can easily make the problem worse. If good people are not willing to speak up, then there is no hope for the country.

Uh... Where the hell do you live? Conspiracy need involve only two people... conspiring to commit a crime.

Mandating background checks for private sales would probably help, but I don't like it.

You're not too familiar with gun laws, are you?

It's not illegal to sell someone a gun from your trunk in a dark alley.

Actually, in a lot of places, it is. Come to California and perform such a sale in front of a cop. If you're lucky, the cop will step in and let you know you have to go through an FFL dealer for the transfer; if you're not, he'll watch the transaction go down and arrest everyone involved.

Here's a reference, so you can educate yourself. Many states require private transfers to be done through an FFL dealer (with a background check), many more require a specific type of ID (for which a background check is done); only 27 states allow private sales with no background check and, IMO, that number is too high.

Realistically, owning guns is not the problem, carrying them everywhere is the problem.

Sure, if you're a criminal looking for unarmed victims.

A criminal who can't take his gun anywhere is not going to have a gun when he wants to threaten you.

Criminals don't care about CCW permits, they'll damned well carry without one. Have you ever looked into how many CCW holders commit gun crimes? The number is damn near 0, while the number of gun crimes in this country is much higher. CCW holders are, by and far, not criminals -- think about it for just a second, you shouldn't meed much longer, only a complete and total idiot would register the fact that they're carrying before going and using that gun to commit a crime; and a complete and total idiot wouldn't be able to meet the requirements for a CCW permit in the first place.

Wait a minute... is there maybe a reason you think a criminal would apply for a permit to carry? I mean, given that only an idiot criminal would do that... that speaks volumes about you.

But there's nothing preventing someone from putting a dozen other, different ones, on their car as long as the legit one is displayed (free speech!).

Except state laws?

For example here is the law around license plates in my state:

(a)A person commits an offense if the person attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a license plate that:

(1)is issued for a different motor vehicle;

(2)is issued for the vehicle under any other motor vehicle law other than by the department;

(3)is assigned for a registration period other than the registration period in effect;

(4)is fictitious;

(5)has blurring or reflective matter that significantly impairs the readability of the name of the state in which the vehicle is registered or the letters or numbers of the license plate number at any time;

(6)has an attached illuminated device or sticker, decal, emblem, or other insignia that is not authorized by law and that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers of the license plate number or the name of the state in which the vehicle is registered; or

(7)has a coating, covering, protective substance, or other material that:

So since you can't legally get multiple valid license plates for your car and thus you would either have fictitious license plates or ones that were issued for a different vehicle which violates the law.

'heat of passion' is just one criteria for voluntary manslaughter.

States sometimes also define voluntary manslaughter as a homicide that occurs with the mistaken belief that the killing was justified. For instance, if the defendant kills in self-defense, but was the original aggressor in the situation that led to the homicide, the state could potentially charge the killing as voluntary manslaughter. In addition, voluntary manslaughter can also encompass a homicide that occurs based on the defendant's honest but unreasonable belief that a situation requires deadly force.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

I think the latter in particular could be applied here.

I think we're in general agreement that the officer who shot the guy is criminally responsible for a homicide. As for the specific charge we think should be brought against the officer, I'm not going to argue with you further. 2nd degree murder might well be the correct charge.

The main argument I am interested in furthering is that the 'prank caller' is jointly responsible for this death.

In most States (and with Federal law), the statute of limitations does not start until the date of the incident or discovery of a wrong. That second part - discovery of a wrong - is what can bite you here. Build chemical weapons, hold them in your backyard for 9 years - and then then let the police know. You will NOT be exempted from prosecution because the statute of limitations did not start until you told the police of your offense.

None of that changes that Citizens United doesn't produce bona fide documentaries. They produce campaign advertisements disguised as documentaries. It's sort of like how late-night infomercials sometimes pretend to be talk shows. They're ads.

You could say the same thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 and all the other crap Michael Moore has put out.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Michael Moore is putting out documentaries and CU is putting out advertising when both are doing pretty much the same thing - they produce advertisements to vote for one side, or at least not vote for the other. Plus of course there's the fact that the First Amendment says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Back when the McCain Feingold bill was signed into law but President Bush he said there were 'serious constitutional concerns'.

https://spectator.org/25356_mc...

Here's a classic example of what I'm talking about when I say that the president has an independent duty to uphold the Constitution rather than simply defer to the Supreme Court: George W. Bush's decision to sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill into law. President Bush clearly believed significant parts of the bill were unconstitutional. His own presidential signing statement cited "serious constitutional concerns," "questions [that will] arise under the First Amendment," and "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising."

The American Spectator links to this

http://supreme.findlaw.com/leg...

Many other Presidents have thought they had an independent duty to prevent violations of the First Amendment, as well as violations of states' rights, criminal defendants' rights, and other constitutional freedoms.

For example, when Congress in its 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts sought to outlaw criticism of incumbents (sound familiar?), Thomas Jefferson campaigned against these laws and later, as President, refused to support a new Sedition Act when the old one expired. Jefferson also pardoned all those who had been convicted under the old Act, even though federal courts had upheld these convictions over First Amendment objections. To Jefferson, the question was not simply what courts had done or might do, but what his own independent constitutional conscience dictated.

Consider also what President Andrew Jackson wrote in 1832, as he vetoed a bill on constitutional grounds even though the Supreme Court had already upheld a similar bill against constitutional challenge:

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

Before last week, George W. Bush clearly sided with Jefferson and Jackson. During the 2000 campaign, pundit George Will explicitly asked Bush whether he thought "a President has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment he thinks are unconstitutional." Bush's reply was an emphatic "I do."

When asked if he would therefore veto the version of McC

This instance shows an example of an ad that is probably, probably, infringing.

Craigslist was challenged for this. From the article:

"The FHA makes it "unlawful to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, family status or national origin."

This post advises that the 2010 Equality Act prohibits publication, and so holds the publisher equally liable...

Section 623e of the ADEA specifies an employer is prohibited from "(e) Printing or publication of notice or advertisement indicating preference, limitation, etc." Continuing:

"It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age.".

I suspect, as a matter of law, a newspaper could easily be found to be liable for having been an agent to "cause to be printed or published" such a notice, and liable for its publication.

I shouldn't post this early in the morning. The Supreme Court struck down the shrinkwrap license [freibrun.com] in the case that made it in front of them. And they were right to do so.

Hate to be devil's advocate but you misread the article. The SCOTUS did not rule on shrinkwrap licenses, it was a lower court decision which is still going through the appeals process. The lower court relied on the SCOTUS decision that ruled that established facts such as telephone numbers are not entitled to copyright protection, and shrink wrap licenses were not addressed in that case.

1) Yes, getting a DNR tattoo would be insane if you didn't really mean it.

Which would be a pretty strong case against a family suing for wrongful death. The burden is on the Plaintiff to "that there is a greater than 50% chance, based on all the reasonable evidence, that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage." And before you argue they could sue anyways, they could also sue even WITH an official DNR notification.

2) It's not a legal document because there are no signatures, no notarization, and if you start treating one tattoo as a legal document, you have to start treating ALL of them that way. There's nothing to "prove." It simply is not a legally binding agreement/contract.

Reread the summary/story. It did have his signature.

3) No, because they did not have access to the DNR documentation at the time. In this case they had to go through unusual channels to get the document, and acting on a DNR requires that you have the official, notarized DNR documentation.

Since you didn't actually bother to provide any evidence: Living will if applicable. Or a DNR Order which would seem more valid. To that end, Florida law is pretty insane that it specifically requires yellow paper for the DNR Order to be valid.

4) It doesn't matter what the intention/point of the tattoo was from the patient's point of view. It's not a legal document, and that's just a fact.

Thanks for not bothering to prove it. Great example, btw, of how the wishes of the person who wishes to engage in a contract is usurp by capricious rules by the State. As much as I appreciate the need for specific standards, the whole notion that one has to locate a yellow form or it's somehow not kosher when the intent is clear is, again, insane.

That time period doesn't count if it's a fraudulent filing. Like willfully failing to report income, like in this case. There is no statute of limitations for fraud. SOURCE

According to this link http://civilrights.findlaw.com... A landlord must treat every tenant equally. Illegal discrimination occurs when the landlord: -Includes preferences or limitations in a rental advertisement - Denies the availability of a available rental dwelling or steers renters to a certain area based on race The Fair Housing Act covers both tenants and prospective tenants. I would think those two points are pretty clear that Facebook is doing something illegal.

Of course if you say something like "I wasn't happy", you're fine... that's clearly an expression of your own personal feelings, which are entirely protected... not because it is simply your own opinion, but because it is true (or presumed to be true, as you are the most knowledgeable person about your own feelings).

And that is not what happened in this case. The reviewer stated facts that could be challenged.

lIn fact, the only way that opinions are actually protected in any way from being defamatory is under the category of being a "fair comment", which itself may be an opinion, but one which is itself formed entirely based on accurate facts, and do not allege dishonorable motives or intentions against the person about whom the statements were made. If the outward appearance exists that the comment was made out of malice (in particular to the judge), regardless of how much you might try and disguise it as just your own opinion, then trying to use that defence will not pass, unless the other party has a real shitty lawyer.

A) You have already presumed that the facts were indeed accurate. The accountant gets to challenge such facts. B) Motives and intentions are not an element in determining the truthfulness of facts or defamation (which the lawsuit is about). Motives and intentions are separate and not necessary to this defamation lawsuit. The accountant has to show 5 elements to win:

1. Someone made a statement
2. that statement was published
3. the statement caused you injury
4. the statement was false
5. the statement did not fall into a privileged category

Nowhere does intent or motive a factor for defamation of ordinary people. For public officials and figures, there is the actual malice standard set by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. However this accountant is not a public figure so does not apply here.

That's actually another problem caused by Visa/MC. They lobbied for and got laws passed which prohibited merchants from charging a fee for a credit card transaction.

False. (At least in most locations. I don’t know every law in every state, city, and town in the world.)

According to the article, merchants must simply clearly disclose the extra fee.

You guys should tell the truth. Stop exaggerating and stop making false statements.

There is:

Nuncupative (Oral Wills) Valid only if made by members of armed forces while in actual military or naval service during a war or other armed conflict, person who serves with or accompanies an armed force engaged in such activity, or mariner at sea --src

In New York and Maryland only.

I don't know, how you define the term "pervasive surveillance". But I do know, that use of stingray to target a suspect's phone is no different from following a suspect on the street. And that does not require a warrant — and never did.

This court disagrees, and so do I. Using stingrays should absolutely require a warrant, and is far, far different from walking down the street behind a suspect. This decision by the D.C. appeals court does indeed reverse past precedent set by other courts that have allowed unreasonable encroachment on our right to privacy, and this is a good day for anyone who values privacy and limiting the ever-watchful eye of our government. They aren't saying you can't use stingrays, i don't think, but they are implying that you need to get a warrant, which is not that difficult or prohibitively time consuming.

Pervasive surveillance used to require a warrant. A stingray is pervasive surveillance.

I don't know, how you define the term "pervasive surveillance". But I do know, that use of stingray to target a suspect's phone is no different from following a suspect on the street. And that does not require a warrant — and never did.

Police in public places limited to things they can see and hear

Citations?

Only in a criminal case.

O Rly?

Under state and federal civil or criminal procedural laws, subpoenas offer attorneys a chance to obtain information to help prove or disprove their client's case. [...] Similarly, civil attorneys often subpoena individuals to obtain information that may help settle someone's claim.

A subpoena is an order requiring a person to attend a particular event or proceeding, such as a small claims hearing.

Subpoenas can be issued in criminal cases, in private ("civil") lawsuits; they may also be issued by government agencies conducting their own investigations and proceedings

You should ask DeVry for a refund if that's where you studied law.

A quick search says that, no, minors in the US are legally capable of consenting to a contract: citation, citation, citation, and if you need more I suggest trying Google. The bottom line is that "I am a minor" cannot allow you to void certain types of contracts, it's necessary for the minor to act before they're of age to have the contract nullified, and courts tend to not let you use the "I'm a minor!" card when the contract in question is with a bank.

The problem actually is more one of finding somebody willing to take the risks involved with forming a contract with a minor--as a general rule of thumb, you shouldn't do so unless the law in your state explicitly says that these contracts will be binding anyway, and some laws exist pretty much entirely to keep from fucking minors over by having them unable to form necessary contracts. (For example, car insurance is a contract & some states refuse to issue a driver's license without proof of insurance.) That said, the details will vary from state to state right down to the list of what types of contracts are going to be explicitly non-voidable and details thereof, consult a lawyer experienced with contract law in the jurisdiction(s) in question or avoid the problem entirely.

Most credit card companies seem to go with Option #2.

Also, the whole 'debt ends up on the credit of cosigner' issue is something that happens normally, and most minors have the basic problem of 'no income.' A 16-year-old who is already running their own successful business isn't going to need a cosigner for their credit card unless local law requires it.