|
At this point any suit without merit is common in the patent world. Has there been any movement in the attempt to fix the patent system yet? Last I heard the only big news was that New Zealand simply got rid of software patents.
ShadowMoo fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 8, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
It's a pun. Uncommon remedy. Get it. Hahahah lawyer jokes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Fun fact: Virginia was the last state to fuse courts of equity and common law. Prior to that, they had to be plead and tried separately. The merger occurred waaaaaay back in ye olde 2006...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It's a pun. Oh god - i stepped right into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:US States use English common law and equity law till the date of adoption by the state and even after it. I believe there are examples of state courts citing English law in the 19th century. English law and US state law has separated a lot since about 1900 and in most states common law and equity have been combined in the same court. And in most states common law has been replaced by statutes and equity remains only as uncommon remedies. How does it work in Louisiana?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Who knows. How does law work in Japan I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Who knows. drat. I've always been curious how an entirely codified system based on the Napoleonic Code would work, but it seems like no one can explain that place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Same way it works in Quebec: if it's not in the civil code, it don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Dwarf posted:Same way it works in Quebec: if it's not in the civil code, it don't exist. So the only check to an unfair or illegal law is the legislature?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
I still have to file things in Circuit or Chancery and have yet to figure out the real difference. I learned it for CivPro, obviously, but I can't actually explain it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:So the only check to an unfair or illegal law is the legislature? Basically, if a law's illegal, a judge will slap it down and send it back to the legislature. Jurisprudence is used to define terms in an ambiguous law and to broaden their application, but they can't actually create new law (ie. torts).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Javid posted:So it's on the same strategy level as a Chewbacca defense? The Chewbacca defense could actually have merit in a case where the facts don't add up. We had sovereign citizen win a case a few months ago through dismissal. Cop was out of the area and time run. I bet he went to his forum buddies and talked about how he won with his bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I'm a paramedic from Missouri. Today my sister texted me that some lawyer has been calling my parent's house supposedly regarding a call or accident or something that I was involved with. I haven't been able to get a hold of my parents to get more information, but this whole thing doesn't sit right with me. First off, why are they calling my parents? I haven't lived there or used that number in nine years, and at that time I was barely even an EMT. How did they even get that number to begin with? Also, generally whenever I'm involved with legal issues the lawyers involved contact my workplace who then get in contact with me and give me a copy of the trip ticket so I know which of the thousands of calls they want to know about. Why attempt to contact me directly? I won't know anything about the call without the ticket. It's not like they don't know where I work, and even if they didn't a quick googling would tell them since I used to be a PIO there. My gut instinct is to just ignore it until they get their poo poo together and either contact me through work or at my real address. Thoughts or advice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Stabby_McBitchslap posted:I'm a paramedic from Missouri. Today my sister texted me that some lawyer has been calling my parent's house supposedly regarding a call or accident or something that I was involved with. Do you mean like they want you as a witness in some case because you were the paramedic on scene? If so, generally in they want to interview or solicit the testimony of a non-party to a civil suit, like you, they have obtain a subpoena and serve it on you. If your hospital (or office, hell I don't know) has a legal department, check with them about it because there is more at issue than just whether they can make you testify - if you're going to be asked about injuries to an accident, then HIPPA could become involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Fun fact: Virginia was the last state to fuse courts of equity and common law. Prior to that, they had to be plead and tried separately. The merger occurred waaaaaay back in ye olde 2006... Fun fact: Georgia's State Court (as opposed to the Superior Court) and Georgia's Court of Appeals (as opposed to the Supreme Court) in 2014 can't hear anything that sounds in equity (including, hilariously, all divorces, which appeal straight to the Supreme Court). Georgia's law of contract remedies defines some relief items as "legal" that other states consider "equitable" as a result... BgRdMchne posted:How does it work in Louisiana? Same as anywhere else; it's all statutory. Although I should note that Louisiana, as a state, adopted the criminal common law of the United States from day 1, while keeping their civil code for civil matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Do you mean like they want you as a witness in some case because you were the paramedic on scene? If so, generally in they want to interview or solicit the testimony of a non-party to a civil suit, like you, they have obtain a subpoena and serve it on you. If your hospital (or office, hell I don't know) has a legal department, check with them about it because there is more at issue than just whether they can make you testify - if you're going to be asked about injuries to an accident, then HIPPA could become involved. Yeah, it sounds like it. Again, in the past when I've had to give a deposition or testify in a case they went through my work and our lawyer for those very reasons. Again, the fact that they aren't doing that is raising some red flags.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Stabby_McBitchslap posted:Yeah, it sounds like it. Again, in the past when I've had to give a deposition or testify in a case they went through my work and our lawyer for those very reasons. Again, the fact that they aren't doing that is raising some red flags. I would just alert your work lawyer to the situation and do what he tells you. These other attorneys sound either shady on incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
That sounds like a good plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
nm posted:The Chewbacca defense could actually have merit in a case where the facts don't add up. They really need to stop doing this as much as possible, as nothing feeds their dumb movement as much as the "oh no not this again" dismissals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
sovereign citizen/freeman is considered a terrorist movement in both Canada and the US. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
By whom? I've never heard of prosecution of sovereign citizens on terror charges but that's probably because I'm just a part of the system, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens Is old and refers to 'Sovereign Citizen extremists'
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
I'm in DC and taking some unpaid leave from work to take a step back, check on health and ponder potential career moves. I was initially going to just take some Leave of Absence and then quit if I get to the end of the 6-8 weeks and don't want to come back, but maybe would it be advisable to pay the $150/30m or whatever it is to sit down with an employment-expert lawyer to see if I might be eligible for any kind of extended benefits, buyout, transition pay, etc? Broad question I know: asking less about my exact situation since there's no point getting into nitty-gritty, but more generally asking whether someone who may be leaving a job should invest in a lawyer for at least a brief consult, or whether it's really only worth doing if I have strong reason to believe I might be able to (legally and ethically) leverage some further advantages out of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I don't know squat about employment law, but why would you think you'd be entitled to anything? Do you have a contract that spells out benefits for leaving? I'm confused. You probably get paid for any remaining paid vacation time if you have it, but for most people when they leave a job it's pretty simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Maybe what you're looking for is a social worker? Typically what you'd be looking for is unemployment/food stamps in that situation. If you get past the stigma and "living off the sweat of others" stuff, it can work out well for people in transition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I'm in DC and taking some unpaid leave from work to take a step back, check on health and ponder potential career moves. I was initially going to just take some Leave of Absence and then quit if I get to the end of the 6-8 weeks and don't want to come back, but maybe would it be advisable to pay the $150/30m or whatever it is to sit down with an employment-expert lawyer to see if I might be eligible for any kind of extended benefits, buyout, transition pay, etc? Is the reason for this because of some job related mental/medical health? If so, absolutely. If you have a pension, I'd do the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I would just alert your work lawyer to the situation and do what he tells you. These other attorneys sound either shady on incompetent. So it turns out it's some personal injury firm that wants to sue one of my part time employers for an injury that happened on the road near their property. I wasn't in any way involved with the call in question and am not about to talk to them anyway due to HIPAA issues, so I sent it up the line to my super and the legal department. I still don't get how they got my name and number, seeing as I was in no way involved in the incident. At any rate, case closed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Stabby_McBitchslap posted:So it turns out it's some personal injury firm that wants to sue one of my part time employers for an injury that happened on the road near their property. I wasn't in any way involved with the call in question and am not about to talk to them anyway due to HIPAA issues, so I sent it up the line to my super and the legal department. I still don't get how they got my name and number, seeing as I was in no way involved in the incident. At any rate, case closed. Boom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I'm in St. Louis, Missouri. I've watched a number of people leave raves on stretchers and someone died last weekend at a local EDM show, so I'm considering volunteering with Dancesafe or a similar organization to hand out information and offer free on-site drug testing at raves. The way on-site drug testing works is a person hands the drug they want tested to the tester (ie me), the tester puts a very small amount of the drug into several wells on a porcelain spot plate, and hands the rest of the drug sample back. The tester adds chemicals to the wells and makes a presumptive identification of the drug(s) present based on the color changes, just like the field drug tests used by police. This is totally kosher under federal law, but Missouri's definition of drug paraphernalia is very broad (subsection 17). I plan to mix up some of the reagents myself to cut costs and because some reagents that I want to use are not commercially available, so I'm concerned about both the laws against manufacturing and using drug paraphernalia. I would be definitely handling some amphetamine/methamphetamine analogs so I'd be staring down a Class D felony in either case. DanceSafe has been in operation since 1999, ran drug testing booths at hundreds of venues, and says that no tester or testee has ever been arrested due to on-site pill testing, but I am still a bit uneasy. So my questions: 1. On-site pill testing is undeniably illegal in my state, right? 2. I plan to talk to the city police to see if I can get an understanding that they won't arrest testers or those who bring drugs to my table for testing. What kind of assurances could they even offer me and would they have any legal weight? Who else would it be worth talking to? The district attorney's office? The St. Louis DEA office? 3. Some venue owners won't allow DanceSafe on their premises because of the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003 (Analysis of it by an organization advocating drug law reform). The closest state-equivalent I could find was under the law for public nuisances. If a venue operator wasn't okay with me being in the venue, could I set up shop next door, on the sidewalk, or across the street (with permission of that property owner and/or the proper permits) without putting the venue operator in legal jeopardy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
You. Need. A. Lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Wait, wait... your plan is to handle and test illegal drugs for other people. And to tell the cops about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
"Hello, police? Yes, I'm going to be in possession of some illegal drugs and helping others do the same, who can I talk to so I don't get arrested?" I think your head is in the right place, but I don't think that's a great idea. It's likely that the police just "look the other way" at the drug testing, and your call may preclude their ability to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of how effective you're going to be, because my first assumption would be that if I give my drugs to you, I will be arrested sometime in the near future. I get that you're just trying to do harm prevention, but yeah. Oh, update on my house damage - the lawyer I spoke to basically said that statute of limitations was gonna kill me, and I tried to speak with the original inspector who informed me that, being not external damage, he was going to win any case I brought against him handily (obviously he has reason to overstate this) - however, when I told him my sob story he offered to come out and look at the damage, and apparently the $15,000 value I was quoted was for WAAAAAAYYYY more work than will actually be necessary, and we're looking at sub-$2000. Talking to a lawyer IS what got me to this point, and I'm hopeful that I can get this all fixed before my insurance drops at the end of the month. Thanks, thread! theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
So hypothetically, my friend overdosed on some sketchy pills at a rave, and hypothetically this person had their hypothetical drugs tested by an hypothetical volunteer of dubious qualification. Can my friend sue the drug tester for, I don't know, negligence or false representation? Stomach pumpin' expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I am not a law person at all but something tells me you'd have a hard time suing somebody because of something that happened because you bought and took illegal drugs
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
tehloki posted:I am not a law person at all but something tells me you'd have a hard time suing somebody because of something that happened because you bought and took illegal drugs Stranger things have been done. I recall there was someone who called the cops because their partner/flatmate stole their drug stash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
tehloki posted:I am not a law person at all but something tells me you'd have a hard time suing somebody because of something that happened because you bought and took illegal drugs Let's trust the police and person that just almost died from doing drugstuff to be reasonable about my unlicensed, on-premises drug test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:So my questions: 1. Probably 2. They can give you ZERO ASSURANCE. Even if you get some type of understanding, it's not binding and they can breach it without notice. And they will. 3. You do whatever you feel like as long as you're not trespassing. If you have permission of the premises next door, you can do whatever the gently caress you want. In general, I think the idea will screw you over in the end. Among the thousand risks I can foresee, one is a person planting their schedule 1 drug on you then turning you in. People are weird. A thousand might be cool and grateful, but all it takes is one weirdo that wants to plant drugs on you. You're putting yourself at great risk, even if you lay all the careful foundations. Speak to a local attorney. Many state bar associations have substance abuse hotlines for attorneys, and they might be sympathetic to you and provide a referral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:
Just by taking drugs off someone and handing them back he's probably committing possession.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Just by taking drugs off someone and handing them back he's probably committing possession. And an overzealous prosecutor could argue it's with intent to distribute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:12
|
|