Slashdot Mirror

Being arrested requires that charges be filed.

He was handcuffed, forcible led to the police station and questioned. That's fits the English language definition for the term. Trying to pretend otherwise based on some specific legal nomenclature is at best stupid, and at worst outright dishonest.

Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason.

No, he was *arrested*. Let's see what everyone else defines as arrest:

Dictionary.com says:

Verb: to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody:
Noun: the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.
Idiom: under arrest, in custody of the police or other legal authorities:

Marriam-Webster:Â seize, capture; specifically :Â to take or keep in custody by authority of law

The free dicionary: 2. To seize and hold under the authority of law.

Oxford dictionary (not the OED): 1Seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody

Fenland Dictionary: (of the police) to use legal authority to catch and take someone to a place where the person may be accused of a crime:

Wikipedia: An arrest is the act of depriving a person of their liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of crime and presenting (the arrestee) to a procedure as part of the criminal justice system

And before you start trying to legal-weasel:

http://www.legalupdateonline.c...
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

By any definition, the kid was arrested.

That doesn't say what you think it says. But even if it does, then you have to realize that he is only repeating US law which defines refugee as

(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such personâ(TM)s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

There is more so read it if you want. The rest basically allows the president for the same reasons to designate someone or sets of people residing within their usual country under the same set of criteria as a refugee.

So no, it is not a republican implementing any religious test, it is a republican following the law and saying take the people we know fit the definition but ensure they are who and what they say which is what is required elsewhere in the law. This is largely constructed by case law so I'll point you to a lawyer website

"Constitutional rights? Bah! Who needs 'em!" seems to be the watchword of the new millenium.

//unless they're gun rights, of course. The gun nuts get everything they want.

I thought this was illegal at first. But a little research says that this is perfectly legal. If a prisoner wants to have an unrecorded conversation with his/her lawyer they can do that in person.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-jail-record-telephone-conversation-lawyer.html

Try using Google. https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/m...

In this case, the arrested (and beaten-up) kid offered no resistance. I was talking about violence used by police against people resisting. Care to try again?

Incidentally, http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Yeah, it might happen, but is very rare — as the very page you cited acknowledges.

Try using Google.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/m...

Incidentally, http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

If I am, they can arrest me. That still doesn't give them the right to assault me.

They can use whatever violence they — at their own discretion — deem necessary to subdue you. Yes, they can. They may be punished later for exceeding the amount of violence necessary, but that is still a judgment call for the cops to make. For example, consider the following legalese:

When an officer meets resistance from a suspect, that officer is legally authorized to escalate the level of force employed, depending on the resistance received from the suspect. The continuum of force ranges from an officer’s presence to verbalization, command voice, firm grips, pain compliance, impact techniques and, finally, deadly force.

Meanwhile the police killing someone through excessive use of force is a crime

No, it is not. The victim may have a civil case, but it is rarely (if ever) a crime, my loud- and dirty-mouthed friend. Time for you to learn a thing or two about the actual laws.

The police should fucking behave

The police are the armor, that society wears to protect itself from criminals. You should not and can not expect the armor to be as comfortable and attractive as jeans or tuxedo. Yes, it is better, when that armor is shiny and smooth. But whether it is or is not, it is that armor, that stands between your pink flesh and the real assholes — the ones immediately responsible for the spike of crime, that's the very subject of TFA.

Indeed I did read it and understand it.

If that were so, this conversation would not be happening.

They're not "extremely common", and they're unenforceable because unless there is consideration on both sides, it doesn't meet the legal definition of "contract". A contract is a voluntary agreement between two parties for their mutual benefit... not just the benefit of one party.

It's a good thing you are not a lawyer. Yes, they are extremely common, That's just the facts. As I already explained to you, there does not have to be benefit to both parties, at least what you're thinking of as benefits. There has to be consideration, but this can take many forms. A voluntary agreement between two people, one to render services with no compensation, is enforcable, because it was a voluntary agreement. It's that simple.

This link has some more information on the few times a contract would actually be unenforceable due to lacking consideration. The situation in the summary does not match.

No... that's a "contract of adhesion", as I mentioned earlier. They might be enforceable -- barely -- but a judge is compelled to look askance at them

A contract of adhesion is when a stronger party forces a weaker party to sign a contract in some fashion. A cursory search would have revealed this. ou should quit the armchair layering, it's making you look foolish.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times now, a voluntary agreement between two parties, neither being remotely forced into it, is completely legal. A judge may look at it, if the court bothered to even hear the case, and would likely dismiss it, as courts are not obligated to compensate poor decisions.

If there is actual coercion, it's not voluntary and so is not an enforceable contract. If it's not negotiable, again in a sense it's not really "voluntary" and at best it's a contract of adhesion.

Finally, you've written something correct. In this case, the severance package is an offer. It isn't something that has to be negotiated, unless they were promised it in some form. That would literally be the only legal issue with this; if they had promised severance previously and are now trying to tack on this clause. Failing that, the contract would be entirely legal and enforceable, because it would be completely voluntary from both sides.

Your last sentence appears to have been made up of what you think the law is, rather than what it says, so I think I'll just ignore it.

As other posters note, sometimes an employer will give severance but only if they are required by statute law in their state, or if they promised severance as a benefit. Severance is not lotto. Point of severance is to help a terminated employee get back on their feet. http://smallbusiness.findlaw.c... http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... http://www.gss-law.com/Article... https://www.ohiobar.org/forpub...

> Personally in a situation like that I'd be really tempted to do as other have suggested and take it, but then act like a completely forgetful idiot whenever I'm called in and generally be completely useless. Realistically I'd probably strike the availability cause in the contract and sign it. If they countersigned, great I get money with no strings, if they refuse I'd walk without the extra money because I don't need those conditions over my head.

Smart call. Take the money. And it depends on the terms: an occasional phone chat isn't unreasonable, but in practice when you leave a job your mind turns to mush anyway.

Double jeopardy is about being tried and found innocent by the court, and then being tried again for the same crime. It says nothing about being arrested/charged, then released, then being re-arrested/re-charged, as the outcome of the charge was never decided by a court. A judge may optionally dismiss a case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back before the courts unamended.

Correct, but nitpick: jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled, or in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn, not just upon acquittal.

That said, neither of the above have occurred in Sweden, and in any case the US is not trying to prosecute Assange for sexual misconduct. Even if it was, jeopardy only applies to a single sovereign (state acquittal, foreign conviction, etc. don't foreclose later federal charges brought on the same facts), so Sweden could convict Assange on these charges and the US could still bring identical charges (if a US law was somehow broken by an Australian national's sexual activities with a Swede in Sweden).

A prohibition on double jeopardy is also codified in international law (e.g. in ICCPR, Article 14(7)), but AFAIK only applies to readjudication in the same country. So basically, what has happened to Assange does not invoke, and is not analogous to, double jeopardy.

However, GP's underlying point (made by him and others across a number of posts) is that this situation is fishy, and smacks of US intervention. That appears to be at least as plausible as the alternative--that the investigation, dropping of the arrest warrant, explicitly allowing Assange to leave, and the ensuing "return for an interview" extradition debacle these past years has been 100% the good faith efforts of the Swedish judiciary.

And if Obama announced he was cutting an anti-terror program Clapper said was useful how long do you think it would be before there was a movement in Congress to thwart him by adding a line item to the budget? A couple of those schmucks would actually switch over from strong pro-Civil liberties to strong-anti Civil Liberties simply to spite Obama. Hell, the NSA's specific budget is classified. For all we know there's already that line item.

And I think you're severely under-estimating all of DC's culpability in this. Bush had pretty much a blank check to do whatever he wanted on September 12th, 2001 (note: this is actually how Checks and Balances are supposed to work. The President gets checked, and can do jack-squat, until there's a crises, then he assumes powers similar to those of an Ancient Roman Dictator). He approved this programs. Any attempt by him to disclaim the damn things is one of those age old "lying or stupid?" things. Obama has a little more deniability, because PRISM was actually passed as legislation by Congress before he became President. But not really, because he voted for it.

People like to delude themselves that some stupid bureaucrat deep in the bowels of some agency that nobody had heard of prior to these programs being enacted is the whole problem, and that One Simple Trick (either a Court Case, or the President's signature) will end it.

But the Courts aren't gonna step on Congress's toes, especially when all Constitutional cases against the programs can be brought into pretty serious question law simply by checking a couple legal dictionaries, both Presidents clearly prefer a world where this shit happens to one where it doesn't, and Congress itself has ay least one statute authorizing the whole shebang.

The least difficult fix is Congress.

Clicking a button is not the same thing as signing a contract.

Actually, since the year 2000, in the United States at least, it is every bit the same thing, except for some very narrow types of Agreements.

I found that in exactly 5 seconds of Googling. Perhaps you might spend a couple precious SECONDS of your time before displaying your ignorance to all of Slashdotdom.

Um, my understanding is they were not GIVEN a unit at all, they were SOLD a unit. So how does First Sale doctrine not apply? (Note: the price is irrelevant.)

I apologize for my ASSUMPTION. They were sold (under strict conditions) for US$1.00, ostensibly so that Apple could verify Name and Address through the Credit Card payment.

However, I am not sure that the Doctrine of First Sale gives the user unfettered "rights" to the goods, if they have specifically abrogated certain of those rights by way of a legally-binding Contract (Agreement).

And, as another Slashdotter has posted (who also received a Pre-Release AppleTV Developer Kit), the relevant portion of the Agreement (Contract) that was signed by iFixit in order to receive their Pre-Release AppleTV, makes it pretty clear that they were not to post a Review, Pictures, etc. of their Pre-Release AppleTV.

And before you start baying about how "Click To Agree" Online Contracts are NOT legally binding, you might want to get in sync with the year 2000, when that was changed, at least in the United States.

Yes, Virginia, you really HAD better read that EULA more carefully next time you just want to Install something; because you, like iFixit, really ARE "signing" (and agreeing to the terms of) a legal Contract.

So, with that in mind, there is absolutely no room for a defense of iFixit's actions that any reasonable person (or jury) would believe.

The developers agreement is exactly like any other EULA.

There is no difference.

But maybe the specific AppleTV Pre-Release Agreement is not (and most likely not; see below).

Courtesy of another Slashdotter who also received the AppleTV Pre-Release kit, here is the relevant section thereof, which any reasonable person (or Jury) would conclude iFixit willfully and wantonly violated.

Not every online contract is invalid ab initio In fact, as of the year 2000, in the United States at least, Electronically "signed" Contracts are every bit as legal and binding as paper equivalents.

Typical Slashtard, can't be bothered to do 5 seconds of Googling before exposing his ignorance to the world.

I'm sure that this Peeple thing is set up as a corporation, and thus has "limited liability", but in practical terms I'm not sure that phrase really means anything anymore.

Yes, it does. Why would you think otherwise? It's not "a phrase", it's a fundamental part of corporate law.

Well, first, sure it's a phrase. Second, I'm not a lawyer, so I apologize for talking out of ignorance. But here's an excerpt from nolo.com that sort of illustrates what I had in mind:

...you will remain personally liable for any wrongdoing you commit during the course of your LLC business. For example... if [you]: personally and directly injure someone during the course of business due to their negligence, intentionally do something fraudulent, illegal, or reckless during the course of business that causes harm... If both you and your LLC are found liable for an act you commit, then the LLC’s assets and your personal assets could be taken by creditors to satisfy the judgment. [from http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Given that Peeple's business plan could be viewed as essentially an automation platform for libel, couldn't you make the case that it was an act of criminal negligence to set such a fearsome engine in motion in the first place, without the safeguards that were so obviously necessary?

Also, (and again, this isn't a qualified legal opinion), from where I stand as a layman, and from the stories I read in the press, it sometimes seems like the law is whatever the person with the most expensive legal team says it is.

So you're assuming anytime the government looks for info in private papers it's a Fourth Amendment search.

That is clearly not the case, as multiple legal dictionaries have definitions relating solely to court proceedings. It's also clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Union Army didn't need warrants to search for Confederate Agents.

The Constitution was written in plain English. But it's the plain English of 1789. Back then complex legal terms like "search and seizure" were fairly common knowledge because the culture was vastly different. Everyone did their own lawyering, had to know what their Sheriff was allowed to do because their Sheriff's deputies were a posse of random people he happened to grab, etc.

So you're assuming anytime the government looks for info in private papers it's a Fourth Amendment search.

That is clearly not the case, as multiple legal dictionaries have definitions relating solely to court proceedings. It's also clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Union Army didn't need warrants to search for Confederate Agents.

The Constitution was written in plain English. But it's the plain English of 1789. Back then complex legal terms like "search and seizure" were fairly common knowledge because the culture was vastly different. Everyone did their own lawyering, had to know what their Sheriff was allowed to do because their Sheriff's deputies were a posse of random people he happened to grab, etc.

I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.

The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.

Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law. (you can go back to lecturing the television now)

The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.
Source:(Swedish) Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny

I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.

The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.

> you can only legally justify H1Bs on the basis that there's no qualified US residents for the position

That statement is a reasonable description of one requirement for a work visa in Canada.

In the US, it's not part of the H1B process:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

In Hawaii, the statute of limitations for a lawsuit over a written or oral contract appears to be 6 years. In California, where I'm guessing Luckey resides, it appears to be 4 years for a written contract, and 2 for an oral one. (Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...)

Modifying the page rendered locally on my browser, not so much.

The copyright owner has the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" (17 USC 106). What defense to preparing a derivative work are you thinking of?

Besides, advertisements are not part of the page or content that would be under such protection.

As I wrote in my reply to Oligonicella, the document served by the web server is a collective work consisting of the article proper combined with advertisements licensed from advertisers through the ad network. Or what am I missing?

It all depends on how you define fired. If fired is used to indicate termination with cause, such as you were showed up drunk, fighting in the workplace, looking at porn, habitual late/no show, something with significant misconduct... then unemployment probably will be denied.

If you're terminated for no fault of your own, you likely can still collect unemployment. "No fault of your own" can still include things that were directly associated with you, such as low job performance, inability to perform the job, "just not working out", etc. It requires a deliberate misconduct that could have been prevented and is beyond an isolated accident or minor incident.

A little more detail...and things can change if you're under contract, a part of a union, or specifics in local labor laws.

Yes, protocol on Slashdot with alleged bullshit things is that burden of proof is on the bullshitter. Since, you know, you made the original claim?

But I'll throw you a bone. I won't even use insult you with lmgtfy.com. Aren't I a nice guy?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Wealthy people get visas. Really wealthy people can buy them.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
 

America, land of the free...

...and home of the lifetime sentence for nearly every crime. Best of luck to you.

Actually, not all the States in the United States have the same laws regarding criminal background checks. If I were him, I'd possibly consider moving.

In addition, many state laws provide some protections for applicants with a criminal past. Some states prohibit employers from asking about arrest records, at least if the arrest is no longer pending. Some states allow employers to ask about convictions only if they relate directly to the job, or require employers who consider convictions to take particular facts into account, such as how serious the crime was and whether the applicant has participated in any rehabilitation efforts. To find out whether your state has a law regarding employer use of arrest and conviction records, select it from the list below.

[source]

with working link

ac (with a 2nd opputunity because first post did not work)

What about regular loans (home, auto)? Credit cards? I understand those are quite hard for someone to get those at 18, and if they do it's usually for a smaller amount with a higher APR. But when I was 18 I could get a student loan for $20K with my mom co-signing (I understood loans, just not the realities of the future.) The difference? Student Loans are far harder to discharge in regular bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, institutions making those loans take on far less risk themselves, especially if the government can garnish your pay checks or social security to pay them.

I think it's okay to trust 18-year-olds with loans, but it should be limited (or make them take a financial class to be sure they fully understand what they're getting into). Remove the protection for student loans and you'll probably see both tuition and average student debt turn way down after a decade.

Interesting - according to this here, employers have to give you time off to vote. Check your state to see which law applies to you.

Note that there are two issues with CurrentC: the access medium (app and scanned QR code vs. NFC or mag stripe or smartcard) and the banking system (credit or debit card; Visa/Mastercard/etc with banks vs. debit card with banks). Theoretically all combinations are possible, so the discussions to view the various issues are not necessarily linked. They are currently linked due to the nascent nature of the offerings, but I wouldn't be surprised to see CurrentC paired with NFC in the future. That's a relatively minor technological issue.

The bigger issue is the underlying banking system and whether it's wise to cut Visa/Mastercard/etc. out of the loop. The benefits are cost savings to the merchants and ultimately to the consumer. The supposed drawbacks relate to security and consumer protections. There are differences in legal protections at the federal level as well as state level. It is an incorrect notion that debit cards have no legal protections. For example, for my Chase debit card, there is zero liability for unauthorized transactions and unauthorized charges are reimbursed by the next business day while the charges are investigated. Sounds similar to credit card protections.

There is also the issue of a grace period for repayment with credit cards, but that is relatively minor with today's very low interest rates. If I can delay payment of a monthly total of $2k for one month and keep that money in my 0.9% online savings account, I would gain about $1.50 each month. Not nothing, but close. And that assumes that I'm willing to continually transfer money back and forth between my 0% checking account and my 0.9% savings account.

There are differences between debit cards and credit cards, but I imagine that many people are not aware that the differences are less that what they might assume.

I personally use credit cards all the time, mainly due to the better rewards programs and my desire to limit the number of active payment accounts. However, if CurrentC offers better rewards, then maybe I would consider using it.

Where did you get that interpretation? The way I read patent law, if you trip all the parts of one claim, you infringe the patent. If a claim is dependent ("The device of claim 1, where..."), you have to trip the claim it mentions as well. But you don't have to trip all of them.

In Colorado, retail and service, plus a whole host of other types of business, MUST provide an unpaid lunch. And yes, you as a worker DO have to take it - you could literally turn around later that day and sue the company for not providing one, even if I have your sworn oath on video saying you agree. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... Note that this kind of thing only applies to "employees" - contractors are totally different.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right....

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/ga...

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

Basically if the traffic around you is speeding. Keep up.

Why would they write the law this way? Basically what causes many accidents is not the speed. But the differential between speed and other cars. Basically keep up with the flow. If everyone is going 5 mph and you go the speed limit of 55 you can get cited. If everyone is doing 75 and you are doing the limit of 55 you can also get cited. The ticket is NOT because you are going fast its because you are driving dangerous.

The speed limit is generally interpreted as the "maximum safe speed, regardless of other conditions." As such, driving at exactly the speed limit cannot be considered unsafe for driving too slowly, though it could be considered unsafe for driving too quickly if other factors such as weather and traffic also impact the safe driving speed. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

There are plenty of cases where a contract is unenforceable and therefore not legally binding. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

~~

I mean, why not voluntarily hand over more info to a company who clearly respects our privacy?

If someone steals your credit card, you're liable up to $50. The bank is responsible for the rest-- and they don't put in place potential security systems standard in other countries.

So yeah, nothing says "privacy dream team" like ATT+the banking system.

ATT asking for your personal private information would do more to protect the bank's bottom line- not to protect you.

Judgements are usually the first category to get discharged. It has always been this way. The only exception is if the lawsuit is over something that cannot be discharged even if it was outside of a lawsuit, such as student loan debt awarded by judgement.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

This *may* be something he can't discharge, given that their allegations include fraud. However copyright infringement in and of itself...I imagine it could be discharged, but IANAL.

US v. Maxwell is a different story - it described a user/subscriber relationship with an ISP.

Otherwise as a general rule, corporations and similar entities (like publicly-funded universities) which provide email POP3 and IMAP service says far, far different:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
 

There are currently over 1000 right and privileges that married couples enjoy from the state. Mr. Eich supported a law that would withhold those rights and privileges to homosexual couples. How is that not damaging the LGBT community?

Married couples enjoy this kind of benefits:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
* Tax Benefits
* Estate Planning Benefits
* Government Benefits
* Employment Benefits
* Medical Benefits
* Death Benefits
* Family Benefits
* Housing Benefits
* Consumer Benefits
* and Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Mr. Eich and the other supporters of Prop 8. wants to take away all those benefits from homosexual couples, from people who are born differently as Mr. Eich. That makes him a bigot.

So you tax the farm based on its value... Hmm, so what is that farm really worth?

Farms are taxed as property all the time. It's based on something called an "assessment". You might want to look it up. It's not complicated.

Income is a number, you can tax the number, the number is really not in dispute, you earn what you earn.

You haven't done taxes, have you? Most filings are riddled with inaccuracies due to all the complexities.

This has bad, terrible, horrible idea written all over it.

Gee, thanks Mr. Buffett. All the objections you have raised are addressed pretty clearly in this paper. It's fair, workable, can be revenue neutral, provides the right incentives instead of the wrong ones, and would clear out a lot of complexity and reduce cheating.

Here is nolo's definition: https://www.nolo.com/dictionar...

IANAL, I'm just pedantic enough to be one.

No.

A landlord can't give consent for the police to search a space that you have rented for your exclusive use. They can enter without your consent in case of an emergency (fire, gas leak, water leak, etc), but a simple request by the police to search is not an emergency. Some easy to read sources.

Do note however, as a private actor, a landlord entering your unit legally (or even illegally, but then they would risk being subject to civil and/or criminal consequences for the entry), can observe that you've got a meth lab inside, go to the police and tell them this, and the police can probably easily get a warrant to search because they now have cause. Actually, even if the landlord took (i.e., stole) something of yours from your apartment (such as a gun used in a murder), they can turn it over to the police and it can be used as evidence against you (again, they would risk being subject to civil and/or criminal consequences for the theft). However, these actions on your landlord's part can not be done in coordination with the police. The Fourth Amendment only restricts law enforcement, not private actors.

There is more overlap than you seem to think. Those are just a couple of examples. Just Google.

A quick google would suggest it's possible (but not guaranteed)

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/will-bankruptcy-get-rid-lawsuit-judgments.html

First, workplace accidents aren't personal injury cases. They're no-fault. It's like employers make a deal with employees.

The rest of what you said is also true, but doesn't need specifically addressed. The lawsuits I am speaking of is not a general liability type of suit, it is where a company acted illegally in ignoring safety or some other regulation which resulted in the employee's injury or death. An example might be a construction worker was ordered to go on top of a pitched roof in the middle of winter with ice and snow on it without the proper safety equipment or else face termination- which resulted in his or her injury or death.

Most work place accidents are no fault and worker's comp is supposed to cover medical costs and compensate for some lost wages. But when the employer acts in an intentional or egregious conduct, you sometimes have the ability to go outside the worker's comp system. This has generally always been the case but varies from state to state insomuch as what the bar is for intentional or egregious conduct. The state may have the bar so high that it is almost impossible to be a practical remedy but those states generally fine excessively and hold employer's criminally liable for violations.

Here are a few resources that show a little more details on the potential for lawsuits. Note, these are not simple accidents, they all involve the employer doing something intentionally unsafe without regard to safety or established protocols.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-injury-lawsuit-sue-30334.html

http://www.coleschotz.com/?t=40&an=14486&format=xml&p=5198

http://www.laffeybuccikent.com/can-an-employee-sue-an-employer-for-a-work-accident-in-pennsylvania/

And here is a couple about employers going to jail

http://www.thehortongroup.com/Insurance_Library/Tell_A_Tale__Go_to_Jail

http://safety.blr.com/workplace-safety-news/safety-administration/workplace-accidents/CalOSHA-Referral-Leads-to-Fines-Jail-Time-for-Cont/

http://www.fpcwlaw.com/blog/2013/09/workplace-fatalities-lead-to-jail-time-for-executive.shtml

Search warrants are issued without the target knowing about the process. Clearly the idea of issuing a warrant with the target knowing aforehand would be silly as it would allow moving or destroying the evidence.

The target gets a chance to contest the warrant before or during trial.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

Okay, your not helping yourself or anyone else like you think you are. I'm not writing this response for you personally, I'm writing it before other people follow your advice and get themselves in legal trouble.

You have rights if your a fraud victim and you should exercise them, which you haven't done. In order to protect yourself and your credit rating you have to file a fraud complaint and send it to the and credit agency and company.

If you don't do that the company can continue to report against your credit report and you can be sued by the company in the jurisdiction that they have on file and get a judgment against you. Without a fraud dispute the company has no way of knowing your right address and the fraudulent address will be used for the jurisdiction you are sued under. Once a judgment is issued against someone you can have your wages garnished, credit ruined, tax refunds seized and property sold at auction.

You'll have hell to get an judgment overturned that was issued in another jurisdiction and than your in a position of explaining why you couldn't be bothered to write a simple affidavit and mail it in. Someone following your advice could well get a judgment against them that they couldn't get rid of - even after proving they didn't take it out. With a lot of jurisdictions allowing people to be arrested in order to enforce payment of judgments your advice could well put someone in jail.

* Before I worked in IT I made a living performing large balance credit card fraud investigations ($5000+). I was the one of two people in a well known company that would track down situations like yours. Please stop giving legal advice when you haven't got the slightest clue what your talking about.

TL;DR: Yes, yes, no, probably not.

I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I just read a lot of laws, and have far too many lawyer friends for my own good...

aren't they giving permission to publish it online? Can they really revoke that permission later?

Per the conditions of your site's Terms of Service (you do have them, don't you?), the content your users give you may or may not be retained, retransmitted, adapted, or whatever else. By using the site, your users agree to that and grant you permission. Those terms govern what you can do with what you're given. For example, Slashdot's terms say that by commenting, you're giving them permission to publish your comments indefinitely, in pretty much any form they want. Under Slashdot's terms, that permission cannot be rescinded.

Minors are special. Despite the apparent common opinion here, they can enter into a contract... they just usually can't be forced to uphold their end of it. As far as copyright permission goes, this means you probably are already under a legal obligation to remove it if they want, because they can choose to void the contract giving you the permission... but to make you do that, the minor would have to realize the intricacies of contract law, realize that they still have exclusive copyright over their posting, and figure out how to contact you to request removal.

California's law requires an accessible way to remove (or request the removal of) a minor's own posting, that stops whatever's deleted from being published further. It's practically irrelevant, since most sites already have such a function... the problem is that it's hard to find, and people don't use it nearly as quickly as they should. The law only requires that such a function be "clear". Good luck with that.

Aren't there First Amendment issues here?

The First Amendment has no real part in this. The First Amendment is between you and the government, only. It does not come into play in contracts between you and a web site operator, unless the operator is a government entity itself. That might involve the First Amendment, but I doubt it will be a significant issue.

am I legally obligated to maintain that site forever

The law doesn't have any time limit built into it, so time limits will be up to the courts to decide, but the law also doesn't require you to actually erase the data. You're only forbidden from retransmitting it, so if your site has a self-service delete button, that's probably fine. If you take your whole site offline, nobody can get to it, so that's probably fine, too. Bringing it back later with all the old content intact is riskier. The exact type of site also matters, because the law only comes into effect if you know that minors are using it. A forum dedicated to the latest teen heartthrobs would obviously fall into that category, but a forum for discussing do-it-yourself RV repairs probably wouldn't.

I highly recommend reading the actual text of the law. The first part is prohibiting certain advertisements toward minors, but the erasure part starts at section 22581. As with all legal text, realize that it's written to cover as much as possible, so try to ignore the repetition and it becomes much easier to read.

TL;DR: Yes, yes, no, probably not.

I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I just read a lot of laws, and have far too many lawyer friends for my own good...

aren't they giving permission to publish it online? Can they really revoke that permission later?

Per the conditions of your site's Terms of Service (you do have them, don't you?), the content your users give you may or may not be retained, retransmitted, adapted, or whatever else. By using the site, your users agree to that and grant you permission. Those terms govern what you can do with what you're given. For example, Slashdot's terms say that by commenting, you're giving them permission to publish your comments indefinitely, in pretty much any form they want. Under Slashdot's terms, that permission cannot be rescinded.

Minors are special. Despite the apparent common opinion here, they can enter into a contract... they just usually can't be forced to uphold their end of it. As far as copyright permission goes, this means you probably are already under a legal obligation to remove it if they want, because they can choose to void the contract giving you the permission... but to make you do that, the minor would have to realize the intricacies of contract law, realize that they still have exclusive copyright over their posting, and figure out how to contact you to request removal.

California's law requires an accessible way to remove (or request the removal of) a minor's own posting, that stops whatever's deleted from being published further. It's practically irrelevant, since most sites already have such a function... the problem is that it's hard to find, and people don't use it nearly as quickly as they should. The law only requires that such a function be "clear". Good luck with that.

Aren't there First Amendment issues here?

The First Amendment has no real part in this. The First Amendment is between you and the government, only. It does not come into play in contracts between you and a web site operator, unless the operator is a government entity itself. That might involve the First Amendment, but I doubt it will be a significant issue.

am I legally obligated to maintain that site forever

The law doesn't have any time limit built into it, so time limits will be up to the courts to decide, but the law also doesn't require you to actually erase the data. You're only forbidden from retransmitting it, so if your site has a self-service delete button, that's probably fine. If you take your whole site offline, nobody can get to it, so that's probably fine, too. Bringing it back later with all the old content intact is riskier. The exact type of site also matters, because the law only comes into effect if you know that minors are using it. A forum dedicated to the latest teen heartthrobs would obviously fall into that category, but a forum for discussing do-it-yourself RV repairs probably wouldn't.

I highly recommend reading the actual text of the law. The first part is prohibiting certain advertisements toward minors, but the erasure part starts at section 22581. As with all legal text, realize that it's written to cover as much as possible, so try to ignore the repetition and it becomes much easier to read.

Why is everyone so convinced it is the law? It is only the law in about half of the states. In the other states they are free to to cash you out or send you home empty handed. In his case they may not have even been required to give him PTO for the two week period.

Check the section unused vacation: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/paid-vacation-what-are-rights-33485.html

"If you have accrued vacation days that you haven't yet used when you quit or are fired, you may be entitled to be paid for that time. About half of the 50 states have laws requiring employers to pay out an employee's unused vacation when the employment relationship ends."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/paid-vacation-what-are-rights-33485.html

Like the parent said there is no federal law that compels a company to cash out your vacation pay. About half of the states do not require a company to cash out the vacation pay. So no, you don't know what the hell you are talking about - at least 50% of the time.