r/legaladviceofftopic

Hey, found this subreddit after seeing if there was one to ask more general, theoretical legal questions, and stumbled upon this, so uh, here it goes!

I was talking with a friend today who's, well, even less knowledgeable about law than I am, which is saying something, but she had an excellent point. I was explaining to her basically how Christa Pike's execution is being held off until next year due to it being botched, and she asked me "Well, why don't they keep trying? Isn't it cruel and unusual punishment to save her life just to kill her again?"

And... Y'know what, I'm not entirely sure why they go out of their way to save her after they failed to kill her twice. How does that work, legally? Like, surely without the medical care she was given shortly after two botched attempts, she'd die anyway, right? And that was the goal... Right?

I know medical ethics probably come into this a bit too, but why would they try to save someone and administer medical care if the goal was to kill her? At what point is the procedure of ending someone's life considered botched enough that it's no longer ok to let her die on the table?

I'm sure there's a lot that goes into this, so, I was just curious if anyone had any knowledge of how these things play out in legal theory in the US.

Obviously, most storage units that are auctioned have 10-20 years of useless stuff in them. If it contained a car, would I get that or is it still the titleholder's car? (Also would it matter if the title to the car was the same as the storage unit renter's name vs. a different name?)

If it is my car, how would I get the title transferred to me?

Bonus question: Same thing if I buy a property, and the owner abandons a car in the garage?

AZ if that matters.

If I didn't, would I be civilly liable for negligence based on the theory that I failed to provide affirmative duty to rescue?

There’s a case in Thailand involving Cambodian businessman Yim Leak. From what I understand, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office has frozen over $600 million in assets, with the investigation reportedly stemming from a currency exchange transaction worth around $150,000.

That’s roughly a 4,000:1 ratio.

What I find strange is that, as far as I can tell, no criminal charges have been filed against him.

I’m not saying he’s innocent. He could very well be involved in something much bigger, and the $150k transaction could simply be the thing that initially brought him to the authorities’ attention. If there’s evidence linking the rest of the assets to money laundering or some other crime, then obviously the $600M figure needs to be considered separately from the original transaction.

My issue is with the process.

It seems concerning that someone’s assets can be frozen on this scale without criminal charges being filed. Even if the person eventually turns out to be guilty, I’d still expect there to be some proportionality and procedural safeguards when the government is effectively locking up hundreds of millions of dollars.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding how asset freezes work under Thailand’s AML laws, or maybe there’s much more evidence behind the freeze than what has been reported.

CMV: What am I missing? What’s the strongest argument for why freezing $600M+ in a case like this can be reasonable and proportionate, despite there being no criminal charges?

Let me know!!

Hi Friends,

HINDSIGHT question; I once had an Fla. LLC where I was the only member making it a single member LLC. The LLC got sued and I was forced to hire a lawyer on a petty BS suit. The cheapest way out was to settle or pay 10's of thousands in Legal Fees.

• HIND-sight I never thought about this question; Could I have sold the 100% interest in the company to myself?
• If I was able to do so, I could have represented myself and turn the tables on the plaintiff.

Anyone know the answer to this?

Thanks for your help !