|
What typically happens if someone files a motion with the court that is filled with false assertions and the person filing knows these statements are false? Does anything happen to the filer? Or the lawyer who filed the motion?
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
DNova posted:Can you please elaborate on this? I'm not allowed to write a work of fiction in which my characters say good or bad things about a trademark? No, of course they can say "I hate Diet Coke" or "Disneyland is for idiots." If you write a novel about Disneyland poisoning tourists by slipping arsenic in their Diet Cokes, you'll get some pushback. The Jeffrey Dahmer Batman costume would probably be fine, actually. Now, if in your novel DC had been secretly priming serial killers for decades through coded messages in comics, not so much. On song lyrics: I totally oversimplified, because I am an idiot. What I should have said was that, in the U.S., both book publishers and music publishers believe that there is no such thing as fair use of song lyrics, so your book publisher will make you (you, the author) pay out of your own pocket for the licensing fees. Yes, even if you're a best-selling writer (Neil Gaiman has to). This article points out that this is pants-on-head stupid from a copyright law standpoint, but publishers' lawyers are cowards. AlbieQuirky fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:No, of course they can say "I hate Diet Coke" or "Disneyland is for idiots." Ok thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
llamaperl2 posted:What typically happens if someone files a motion with the court that is filled with false assertions and the person filing knows these statements are false? Does anything happen to the filer? Or the lawyer who filed the motion? Nothing. Seriously, nothing. It's a good opportunity though for the other side to score some points. If the plaintiff files a motion saying "defendant stole my tv" and defendant rolls into court and can show "actually you pawned the tv here's the text where you told me," plaintiff loses a lot of credibility. It is very rare for something serious to happen to the party or their lawyer. It usually has to be pretty egregious, demonstrably false, and everyone knew it was false. But even then, it's a judgement call and 99% of the time nothing happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
If a single person, or couple (married or unmarried) wish to adopt a child, once the adoption process goes through their names are on the child's birth certificate, right? What if a polyamorous triad wants to adopt? There's only space on the birth certificate for two parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What if a polyamorous triad wants to adopt? They would be denied the moment they brought up that little detail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:If a single person, or couple (married or unmarried) wish to adopt a child, once the adoption process goes through their names are on the child's birth certificate, right? Ahahahahaha. Bad Munki posted:They would be denied the moment they brought up that little detail. Good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
"Hello, we're emotionally broken and also brimming with self-centrism and entitlement; please place the life of this other human in our care."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Fat people in Utah do it, "Religion is so hosed up and stupid" Fat people in San Francisco do it, "Wow, so progressive, totally makes sense"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:They would be denied the moment they brought up that little detail. Why? People who have other people living in their household (boyfriend/girlfriend, relatives, etc can adopt children. They just need to do background checks on all the adults over 18 living in the house. Not too long enough, people would have had the same incredulous reaction to the idea of a gay couple adopting a child. The only real issue I see is that birth certificates are designed to only accommodate two parents, but I don't see why that might not change in the future. In the meantime, I imagine having one or two members of the poly group having their name on the birth certificate would work in the interim, with legal paperwork stipulating the adoption of the child by the third member if one of the original two were to die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
This actually happened in BC. Here is a news story on the legislation for having more than two people on a certificate of birth: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/della-wolf-is-b-c-s-1st-child-with-3-parents-on-birth-certificate-1.2526584 Edit: hah, didn't even notice the part about the lawyer's name the first time I read it. Chicken Doodle fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
quote:In the meantime, I imagine having one or two members of the poly group having their name on the birth certificate would work in the interim, with legal paperwork stipulating the adoption of the child by the third member if one of the original two were to die. That's called a will, and it still doesn't take effect until both people on the birth certificate die. Chicken Doodle posted:This actually happened in BC. Here is a news story on the legislation for having more than two people on a certificate of birth: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/della-wolf-is-b-c-s-1st-child-with-3-parents-on-birth-certificate-1.2526584 Different situation. In it are two lesbians who have a friend giving up sperm to have the child. The stipulation is still everyone in the situation who applies were involved in the direct creation and upbringing of the child aka parents. Simply having someone being in a relationship polygamy style doesn't count. Also, that's amazing about the lawyer not using capital letters. Makes sense since it's BC ie the Portland of Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
llamaperl2 posted:What typically happens if someone files a motion with the court that is filled with false assertions and the person filing knows these statements are false? Does anything happen to the filer? Or the lawyer who filed the motion? False assertions are one thing, known and provable lies made while under oath are another. Sanctions typically are the remedy when I encounter this. Depends who is making the lie, the attorney or the client.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
It's more than "background checks on all persons living in the house." You have to hire attorneys to represent the children's interests and third party professionals to conduct social studies of the adoptive parents and their home life. Yes, it may go down the same track as gay marriage at some point, but there right now isn't social, medical, or legal scholarship/studies to support three-parent households (Or as far as I know, relationships). And no, the adoptive parents don't go on the birth certificate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Maybe the process has changed since the late 80s but I have my own birth certificate and it has adoptive parents + last name on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:False assertions are one thing, known and provable lies made while under oath are another. Sanctions typically are the remedy when I encounter this. Depends who is making the lie, the attorney or the client. The false assertion/lie is "Filer is X", where in the contract the filer is referring to, the filer is not X.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
"frumpy, and stupid, and really really insecure" is not a protected class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:Sure, fair use is allowed, but in some areas almost nothing counts as fair use by the courts' opinion. Oh, you only sampled three notes? Get hosed. Wow, that seems pretty off. My father and I run a business that uses images of famous paintings on our product boxes and tags. We simply change the tone of a few, or all, of the colors in the painting and use it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Wow, that seems pretty off. The people who own the estates of those artists can sue depending on whether the image is actually public domain or not. Just because you haven't been caught and sued yet doesn't mean it isn't illegal, especially if your'e doing it purely for profit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:The people who own the estates of those artists can sue depending on whether the image is actually public domain or not. Just because you haven't been caught and sued yet doesn't mean it isn't illegal, especially if your'e doing it purely for profit. Anyone can sue for anything, I know. We've been doing this for over a decade and the estates are well aware of it. I let our lawyer handle this stuff, but according to him they can't really do anything about it as long as it isn't an exact copy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:The people who own the estates of those artists can sue depending on whether the image is actually public domain or not. Just because you haven't been caught and sued yet doesn't mean it isn't illegal, especially if your'e doing it purely for profit. spacetoaster posted:We simply change the tone of a few, or all, of the colors in the painting and use it. And the Warhol estate, too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
joat mon posted:And the Warhol estate, too? Depends. American fair use laws are pretty insane and basically you're in a grey area until you get sued and the judge decides whether it's covered or not. Litchenstein created his entire career over tracing comic panels other artists but no one could afford to sue him, so it's "okay." On the other hand, Warhol estate is getting sued by a tonne of people right now because he stole from the wrong/richer people and is still actively gaining profit large scale from it. In the commercial art world (not fine art) the idea is basically if you don't have the rights, don't use it and don't take a chance unless you know for sure you've changed it enough. Not just changing a colour or two, especially if those people you're stealing from don't have the same laws you do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
I am astounded at the copyright suit involving Men At Work's Down Under and the children's song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree. http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/80s-hit-down-under-copies-kids-song-court-1.925823 The rules are obviously much different in Australia but in the US I don't think that poo poo would fly. I feel like there are such a finite number of notes and chord changes that they are bound to be repeated in popular Western music. Were the creative minds behind Men At Work intentionally ripping off 11 notes from a song of 50 years ago, or is it just a catchy riff that any band could come up with? Malcolm fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
In NY, what's the easiest way to let someone sign a sales contract on my behalf? I am the buyer and I want the contract to be notarized (unless that's silly?). The person who would be signing for me is a family member and there is no possibility of their authority to sign for me on this contract ever being disputed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:20
|
|
Malcolm posted:I feel like there are such a finite number of notes and chord changes that they are bound to be repeated in popular Western music. There is an excellent piece of fiction called "Melancholy Elephants," by Spider Robinson, which revolves around that exact concept. It's pretty much the greatest/only copyright-law science fiction story I've ever read. There's also a woman who kills a man with her bare hands on the way to a meeting with a senator who has a prosthetic spine. So, you know, it pretty much rules.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
sleepy gary posted:In NY, what's the easiest way to let someone sign a sales contract on my behalf? I am the buyer and I want the contract to be notarized (unless that's silly?). The person who would be signing for me is a family member and there is no possibility of their authority to sign for me on this contract ever being disputed. Call up the other side and let them know. Sign a letter that says Family Member is your agent on this contract and has full authority to negotiate and enter a contract on your behalf. The only real issue is making sure the seller is happy. As far as the contract being notarized, the sensibleness of that is determined by how much money we are talking about and how much trouble you anticipate. Although if you anticipate a lot of trouble over a lot of money then that raises obvious questions as to whether you should go through with the deal in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Okay, so a bit strange question about personal property and the destruction of it (Ontario, Canada, small claims). Say someone destroys $3000 of my furniture that I bought out of pocket, putting me at -$3000. I then get $3000 from my boss (advance payments on my contract, not a loan) to replace it and pay for delivery expenses etc, putting me at -$6000 balance. If I sue and get just enough to cover the furniture, I would only get +$3000. After I pay my boss his $3000 back, I'm still out at -$3000. Could I sue for that advance payment as well, since that's my income I won't get in the future, or am I expected to eat the costs of that advance? I'm not sure if a judge would think it was fair to double charge that amount or if they'd it as me trying to be greedy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Okay, so a bit strange question about personal property and the destruction of it (Ontario, Canada, small claims). There is something really wrong with your logic and/or math.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Okay, so a bit strange question about personal property and the destruction of it (Ontario, Canada, small claims). No. That advance isn't a cost. That's your money. You still have it. 1) Your furniture is destroyed. 2) You ask your boss for money to buy furniture. 3) You buy furniture. 4) You sue for costs and win and somehow collect your judgment. 5) You now have furniture and money! Hooray! 6) You buy 3000 cans of beans with your money, eat them and restain your furniture the way you like it. Looks like you break even to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
You are subtracting 3000 for the loan/advance twice. Its either -3000 when you get it if its an advance or -3000 at the end when you repay him if its a loan, but not both. If its an advance there is nothing to pay back, and if its a loan you had no up front cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Okay, so a bit strange question about personal property and the destruction of it (Ontario, Canada, small claims). With math like this you will make a fine candidate for the bar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Okay, so a bit strange question about personal property and the destruction of it (Ontario, Canada, small claims). Sue for $9,000 so you'll break even. I'll leave the math as an exercise for the plaintiff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Once you have furniture again you are up $3000 in terms of furniture. You haven't lost that money, you've just converted it into things. e; You also aren't 'out' $3000 if you return an advance because presumably you get that money back when you do the contract.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
the littlest prince posted:There is something really wrong with your logic and/or math. I have a few learning disabilities, especially when it comes to math and language. That's why I'm posting and asking before I go in front of a judge and make myself look like an incompetent jackass.  xxEightxx posted:With math like this you will make a fine candidate for the bar. Thank god I do art for a living and rely on excel to do the adding/subtracting in my budgets. CaptainScraps posted:No. That advance isn't a cost. That's your money. You still have it. Alchenar posted:Once you have furniture again you are up $3000 in terms of furniture. You haven't lost that money, you've just converted it into things. edit- realize I have the furniture replaced oops. Disregard. patentmagus posted:Sue for $9,000 so you'll break even. I'll leave the math as an exercise for the plaintiff. The amount of damages I'm suing for is close to this, so honestly I guess in the end I'll have enough money to cover everything anyway (except all the antiques that were destroyed that I can't ever replace FUUUUUUUUUUUCK) Horrible Smutbeast fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:You are subtracting 3000 for the loan/advance twice. Its either -3000 when you get it if its an advance or -3000 at the end when you repay him if its a loan, but not both. If its an advance there is nothing to pay back, and if its a loan you had no up front cost. Yeah, I think this is where I got caught up. I don't think I remembered to convert that $3000 advance into the second set of furniture so it was looking like I was losing out on getting the advance back. Phew. So if I do get the $3,000 through the court case then I just apply it to Jan/Feb and I already have the replacement furniture so it all evens out. Thank christ I asked before filling that out on the forms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Try to keep this short - I signed a lease back in July for a house in Elkridge, MD with two friends. After moving in in August, I've realized that the house is not for me, the friends are not the friends I thought they were and started having anxiety/panic attacks. Some old roommates who I got along great with had a spot and invited me in, which I took them up on and moved. I'm on the lease for the old house and am aware that it's a contract I'm responsible for. Already paid September's rent and am capable of paying the two combined rents indefinitely if need be. Obviously I don't want to do this. The two people in the house I moved out from are willing to look for a new tenant but have told me they are going to be "particular" about it. We went through a leasing agent so I don't deal directly with the landlord. When I asked the leasing agent about all this, they replied: "If P. and S. do not agree to remove you from the lease and make you financially accountable for payments you can try to find someone to replace you. During that time you would be responsible for continued payment until a new tenant is found. That tenant would have to meet the PCF requirements with credit score and background check and be approved by the owner and agreed upon with P. and S." That bolded last bit is what has me worried. What are my rights for finding a replacement tenant? I know they'll need to meet the landlord's criteria, what if my former roommates reject them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
ADudeWhoAbides posted:Try to keep this short - I signed a lease back in July for a house in Elkridge, MD with two friends. After moving in in August, I've realized that the house is not for me, the friends are not the friends I thought they were and started having anxiety/panic attacks. Some old roommates who I got along great with had a spot and invited me in, which I took them up on and moved. I don't see why your landlord can't make the other tenants agreeing to a new tenant a requirement. You are the one with a problem, not them. You feel like that would be holding you hostage. It might be in a sense, but it isn't illegal because of the lease you signed that binds you to the unit for whatever time period. Nobody, your landlord or your roommates is obligated to help you break the lease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I don't see why your landlord can't make the other tenants agreeing to a new tenant a requirement. You are the one with a problem, not them. You feel like that would be holding you hostage. It might be in a sense, but it isn't illegal because of the lease you signed that binds you to the unit for whatever time period. Nobody, your landlord or your roommates is obligated to help you break the lease. Yeah, if it was just a year I wouldn't be nearly as worried, but both of them had financial issues and so we negotiated a two year lease at a lower rate. Blerg. Hopefully they work with me on this, I'm probably just getting anxious about all of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
ADudeWhoAbides posted:The two people in the house I moved out from are willing to look for a new tenant but have told me they are going to be "particular" about it. Which makes sense, considering from their perspective their last roommate freaked out and fled the house?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:Yeah, I think this is where I got caught up. I don't think I remembered to convert that $3000 advance into the second set of furniture so it was looking like I was losing out on getting the advance back. Phew. So if I do get the $3,000 through the court case then I just apply it to Jan/Feb and I already have the replacement furniture so it all evens out. Your posts reminded me of this Abbott & Costello routine: "7 * 13 = 28" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbQDEXJy2k
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:50
|
|
