r/legaladviceofftopic

According to 8 USC § 1481(a)(6)

(6)making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense;

So this reads that you can but I can find no public record if any person successfully getting rid of their citizenship in my scenario

I'm pretty dumbfounded that a supposedly democratic government railroaded Bill C-22 through the house, arguably one of the most dystopian surveillance bills in a civil society.

As I understand it, it will compel companies to retain metadata on all users for at least six months, as well as permit the government to make tech companies install secret backdoors into hardware and software products as requested by the feds. These orders can't be disclosed at all.

My question is what is the legal future of this horrible bill? Many parts of the bill seem to contravene our rights and freedoms (specifically against unreasonable searches and seizures). The secrecy aspect is particularly troubling. How can you even use evidence in a trial if you can't disclose where you got it from? And doesn't prohibiting disclosure impact open justice and infringe on our freedom of speech? On the other hand, how will we challenge Bill C-22 if we don't know what to challenge? In other words, how do we challenge a secret backdoor that gave the government access to my messages, if we don't know that this secret backdoor exists?

Please give it to me bluntly and no need to be warm and fuzzy. The only thing that makes me feel better when I think about this bill is imagining this is going to be a slam dunk to tear this down in court. But I realize it's probably not going to be that simple.

How can a democratic government do this, and will we possibly be able to stop them?

Edit: also, in a practical context how will this bill affect the legal system? For instance, won't we know there's a secret backdoor somewhere as soon as evidence is used in a trial, because the crown/prosecution will have to disclose where and how they obtained their evidence against you? Or will we get into a situation where the government won't "waste" their backdoor by presenting evidence obtained from a backdoor until they get a "big enough" trial?

Pirating content is illegal, but the specific wording of it implies downloading or distributing content is illegal. When streaming a movie from a website, you aren't downloading it per se, you're just viewing it in the browser with the content temporarily buffered to memory that is inaccessible otherwise (obviously you can do things to access it but we're not doing that in this scenario).

If streaming was considered downloading/distributing, then simply watching it legally would also be piracy because you do the same for legal websites, not to mention all the copyrighted material on youtube.

Also to state the obvious, yes I know this isn't enforced regardless, I'm just curious because I've seen people say it technically isn't illegal even if you were to be prosecuted. Is that true?

If Taylor Swift’s prenup says she can’t release any negative songs about her husband could a family court judge order her not to do so? Assume “negative” is more fleshed out and not in any real dispute. Could the judge order her not to release such a song under penalty of contempt, or would that be prior restraint, a doctrine which was ruled to restrain the government from prohibiting the New York Times from releasing the Pentagon Papers, which is quite extreme. After the fact it would just be damages which she probably would just be willing to pay.

And he had good intentions but was insane? What would happen if he were charged? Thanks!

got stoned with some friends and a hypothetical popped up that we don't really know how to address. lets say a random person, for this scenario lets say they are american on american oceans, and for whatever reason they are swimming. then, a shark pulls them under and *somehow* they are able to beat the shark underwater. its a stretch i know, but it still begs the question. Could they take that shark home and eat it for dinner? If they did, what legal barriers might they run into?

So most people in the decision-making capacity field say in a paper that the legal standards for informed consent in the context of medical care requires reasoning, the ability to weigh pros and cons and such. Is this actually a legal requirement? I can only find it in the statutes of two states.

I am a gen Xer that had crappy boomer parents. This post is not looking for legal advice but rather something that happened years ago and me reflecting on it.

In 1982 my mom bought a house for about 8,000. Her mother gave her half so she had a pretty small mortgage. She hooked up with a guy and they shacked up. He told her that if she takes care of the food, electric, etc, he will pay the mortgage payment. After a year or so, he said that he talked to a lawyer and he is entitled to be on the deed. It's kind of shitty, I know but that is kind of who they were. Shortly after he was on the deed, he told her that it was him or me. My mom booted me out and I went to live with my grandparents. I guess that she was worried about being a single mom and approaching 40.

I was reflecting on that and was thinking what I would've done. I probably would have said, "Wow. Sounds pretty evil. Well, since you paid the mortgage of (let's say) 300 dollars a month and that comes out to about 3600 a year, you have made principal payments of about 150 dollars and the rest was interest. So I'm going to give you 200 dollars and you can get the hell out of my house. If you're still here tomorrow, I'm going to have the sheriff escort you out.

Could she have kicked him out and not allow him to be on the deed? Maybe I am totally out of touch with this or does this sound about right?

Location: Pottstown PA

Let's say I am driving at night 5 miles above the legal limit (lets say i am going 55 mph) and a moose appears in the middle of the road. I apply my breaks but realize I will not stop in time so I swerve into the other lane and hit a car. Let's say everyone survives but there are injuries. Who would be at fault?

At separate but related question: when should you break, swerve, or collide with an animal to avoid liability? I have heard it is better to kill a bunny than to swerve and risk a human life in the eyes of the law, but would breaking and potentially causing an accident be a better compromise? And for larger animals?

I've heard stories of it happening, like your next door elderly neighbor has marijuana growing in her garden and she legitimately doesn't know its weed. If its you in this situation I have 2 questions if you realize its a drug do you just throw it away and you are good to go? 2nd, if yoi never find out and the police find it are you still going to jail regardless?

So this has been on my mind for the last day now ever since watching that squatting series on A&E.

Let's say you own & live in your own house. You're not a Landlord, you live by yourself, you've established residency there & obviously occupy the space. You've also got an alarm system & hidden cameras on your property.

Let's say you're not present in your house for a little bit, whether it be from vacation or hospital or work travel. What would happen if you had a squatter go in through a window, or have them uninstall the lock to your door & they trigger the alarm or get caught on camera during the act?

What if they also had a fake lease or a piece of mail sent to the place? Would it still be considered as breaking & entering since there is camera footage & proof of a home security alarm getting triggered? Would police be able to do something if provided proof or would they just classify it as a civil matter instead? Would it be better to get a guard dog of sorts instead? As an aspiring homeowner, I want to make sure my future house is able to keep squatters out & away as much as possible.

*Edited for typos

Hoping this is the right place to ask a general legal question like this.

If it is possible, have there been any cases yet?

My partner assaulted me multiple times, finally reported him. After months of adjournment his lawyer was asked to either book a trial or a resolution date in the last hearing. So same day they booked a resolution date.

I read a lot for stories on Reddit of women who went through this and unfortunately the law is not perfect and many get off with a lighter sentence.

My question is, why is Canada more lenient than other countries in punishing abusers despite there being proof?

Carney announced changes to Victim act as well. How will this take into account for domestic cases that are still in progress? My abuser got an ankle monitor and works for law enforcement. Will they let him off easy because he is one of them?

I'm so traumatized from all of this. I will be leaving him and I am hopeful for justice that he will be convicted with a record so other women can be wary if they ever look him up

A couple of examples, Someone is convicted of a violent crime, judge goes easy during sentencing, criminal gets out and does it again. Or a custody hearing. A judge gives custody to mom against advice from CPS and the biological father and then something awful happens to the child because of the judge's decision.

Do judges ever get in trouble with....idk anyone for making a bad call? Or is it just an "oops my bad".

Edit: I used "bad judgement" and "get in trouble" too loosely. A bad outcome does not mean a judge made a bad judgment. So if someone reoffends later, judge acted improperly. Got that part.

What I'm really trying to ask is, what if the concern is not just that the person reoffended? What if, at the time of sentencing, the judge ignored required legal factors, disregarded major evidence, failed to follow sentencing law, or gave a sentence that was not supported etc.? If the judge is immune from being personally sued for that decision, is there any accountability path other than appeal, public criticism, or losing reelection/reappointment especially since impeachment is so rare?

Like, is there any routine oversight of judicial behavior, or does the system only notice when someone appeals or files a complaint or media gets involved?

Maybe you wanted to book a marriage ceremony with a church that was part of the SSPX. And now they've been excommunicated and their stuff is invalid. EG how a marriage done with one of their bishops is not allowed.

Given that you had made that arrangement on the presumption that the marriage would be properly Catholic, if they were excommunicated, I imagine you would want your stuff back so you could marry correctly.

Now that the children of undocumented people and other temporary immigrants have definitively and explicitly been determined to have obtained constitutional citizenship, it can no longer be stripped involuntarily, right?

Afroyim v. Rusk says that Congress has no power under the Constitution to revoke a person's U.S. citizenship unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.

Wouldn't this mean that even if one tries to end birthright citizenship by statute, like Kavanaugh suggested in Trump v Barbara, wouldn't this be limited to only future births, and not retroactively?

NAL.

I am looking for thoughts from lawyers, but also from small business owners.

This is not a finished idea. It is a rough concept. The goal is to put it into public discussion. If there is something here, then maybe lawyers and businesses can polish it into a real tool or organization. If there is nothing here, then the problems with it can be made clear.

The basic problem is small losses caused by customer behavior that businesses want to stop, but which are usually too small to fight over; the cost of doing business.

A customer can waste a company’s time, make a truck roll out, reserve a service slot, or create real costs, but the loss may only $200. One company suing over that backfires on paper. So the behavior is allowed to continue because the customer knows the company will probably walk away.

This idea is about whether companies can organize around those small claims.

Core idea

Companies form a kind of union, trade group, or claims organization to deal with behavior by customers they want to discourage.

The companies keep records of customer interactions. When a customer causes a real loss, the claim can either be joined with claims from other companies, or assigned to the organization.

The organization has a lawyer. The lawyer looks at the records, decides what can be brought, and builds the case from the records. The individual company does not need to chase the customer themselves every time.

The goal is not really recovery for the individual business. The goal is deterrence. The company may already know the claim is too small to be worth chasing alone.

The organization is funded by dues, and maybe by whatever is recovered. Recovery does not have to go back to the member company. The value to the member is that the behavior is discouraged in the future.

This is different from companies sharing a list of bad customers and refusing to serve them. The goal is not to turn away business. The goal is to keep the market open, keep companies competing, but still have a way to answer bad customer behavior when it causes real damage.

Instead of saying, “Nobody serve this person,” the idea is closer to, “Serve customers normally, but if someone is a problem, the organization takes care of it.”

Communications and public relations

A single company suing a customer over a small amount can look vindictive. That is bad PR.

An organization changes the picture. The story becomes about a trade group saying, or white noise after repeat cases.

That matters because news itself has value. If people hear about cases like this, some of them may change their behavior. They may realize that calling five companies, wasting four of them, and paying only one is not harmless.

The public message has to be controlled carefully. If the case looks like a business attacking a sympathetic customer, it backfires. If the case looks like a customer knowingly wasting workers’ time and money, the public may understand the point.

The mission statement would matter. It should make clear that this is not about attacking ordinary customers or honest mistakes. It is about repeated, careless, or bad-faith behavior that creates real costs for small businesses.

Most customers will not identify with the person being sued if the behavior is described clearly. They will think, “I do not do that.” That is part of why the message matters.

The organization would also take most of the public attention. The individual member company would not have to be the main face of every dispute. Over time, the public may remember the organization more than the specific company involved.

Because the goal is not simply getting every dollar back, case selection matters. Some cases may be legally possible but publicly stupid. Other cases may be good examples because the facts are clear, the damage is real, and the customer is the typical Kevin or Karen people hate.

So the organization would need judgment. It should not bring every possible case. It should bring cases that won't generate a lot of sympathy.

There is also a difference between sending a public message and setting a legal pattern. Sometimes the goal may be that customers hear about it. Other times the goal may be that lawyers advise future customers to settle because the claim is real and documented.

Organizational coordination

Funding would probably come mostly from member dues. I do not know the perfect funding model. That is not the part which is of concern yet; each union figures that out themselves.

The harder issue is coordination.

The lawyer or organization would need access to enough information to understand the claims, but not become a tool for illegal price fixing, and an antitrust suit.

I think a core requirement would be journaling customer interactions above a certain level.

The lawyer would build from those records, instead of the companies just pointing at someone and saying, “Go after them.”

That seems important. The claim should come from records.

There may be states where this cannot work. There may be structures that fail immediately. But the point is not to defend every bad version of the idea. The point is to ask whether there is a lawful version of it.

I do not have the answers, or know what questions need to be asked. I am hoping people here will fill in the blanks.

Your thoughts?

EDIT: I do appreciate all the replies so far saying that obviously Dbrand can't use Valve's IP, but none of them answer the question. I want legal provisions that say as much, i.e., some law or similar regulation. Something a Valve lawyer would cite in their case (I assume they'd not argue, "Your Honor, obviously they can't, duh").

Context: Dbrand is a company that makes skins for phones and computers. They created a hard plastic shell in the shape of a Companion Cube to be applied over the Steam Machine, Valve's new console-like PC. The Companion Cube is featured in the video game Portal, made by Valve.

Valve didn't take kindly to the idea because Dbrand didn't have a license to use the Companion Cube in their products, so now Dbrand has pulled the plug on the skin and issued refunds.

In another sub discussing the situation, someone argued the following:

>Isn't a skin merely something that applies to the surface of a device? What protectable IP, i.e., patent, trademark, trade secret, or copyright, would a skin producer need a license for? Please cite sections of US Code and/or caselaw that supports your argument. ELI5. Ill wait.

To me, that is intuitively BS because you can't just use a graphical element that's part of a copyrighted work without a license. Just try to sell a T-shirt with Mickey Mouse or Mario without a license and you're all but guaranteed that Disney or Nintendo will sue you to oblivion no matter how much you argue a T-shirt is merely something that applies to the surface of a body.

Can anyone provide the US legal provisions that apply to this situation and prohibit Dbrand from selling a product depicting the Companion Cube without a license?

Valve is an American company while Dbrand is from Canada if that matters.

(Sorry if I misused any terminology, clearly I'm not a lawyer.)

Of course, cops typically need a warrant, exigent circumstances, or something displayed in plain view in order to search private property. If cops suspect someone has something illicit in their backyard but cannot prove it, would they be able to do something like fly a drone over the property or ask a neighbor to observe the property from theirs?