Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›3 »

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Thuryl posted:

Like, if they were to just go "I refuse to acknowledge the authority of this court: do whatever you're going to do" and leave it that, that'd at least be a coherent if stupid act of civil disobedience. But all of the painstaking effort that goes into the precise formatting of the bullshit they're spouting has nothing to do with fairness or justice and everything to do with some supposed set of secret legal cheat codes that judges are bound to obey, so the only possible justification for it is if it works, which it demonstrably doesn't.

If they comply without protest, they believe that it can be construed as acknowledgement and acceptance of the court's authority, which isn't totally crazy.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2016 19:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 03:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

How would that work in practical terms? Would the sender just receive a notice to appear in court in state-A?

# ¿ Jun 5, 2016 07:30

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Although some state and federal background checks are hilariously intrusive, the people doing the screening are aware that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. You can read the adjudication decisions at http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/ to get an idea of how the cases are adjudicated. The three letter agencies will have their own bizarro criteria beyond the normal background process, which they don't tell anyone about.

Depending on the agency in question, they may only ask about certain criminal acts, or they may ask if you've ever committed any act amounting to a felony or misdemeanor. Even in the latter case, I doubt they would expect you to list out every time you have driven more than 10 MPH above the speed limit, or every time you've watched a video on PornHub that was uploaded without the permission of the original creator. While downloading a photo without the artist's permission is apparently illegal, it's also such ridiculously small potatoes that I highly doubt the CIA would care. It would be a different story if you were hosting a Pirate Bay mirror or something.

I would apply anyway. If you make it as far as backgrounds, be truthful and as detailed as you feel the question warrants. The worst they can say is "no."

xxEightxx posted:

I thought the CIA isn't even an agency really anymore, all the critical stuff gets done by agencies you haven't heard of that have innocuous names, because let's face it, a spy agency that everyone has heard of is a pretty lovely spy agency.

It's not as though case officers walk around Prague with a CIA Junior G-Man badge in their pocket.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 11:02

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

You signed a lease but didn't retain a copy for yourself?

# ¿ Aug 22, 2016 19:22

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Honestly, his post history makes him seem like a colossal rear end in a top hat, so I'm really hoping he makes a thread about his new business that I can follow all the way to either the cold feet moment, or to the inevitable plea bargain.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Aug 30, 2016

# ¿ Aug 30, 2016 08:54

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

David Fahrenthold has been doing digging & reporting on Trump's "charitable" activities, and it's breathtaking. You read through the stories (using foundation funds to pay for things Trump bought at charity auctions, paying money to people suing Trump's businesses) and you don't have to know much about tax law to know you're looking at something that's probably really, really illegal.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Sep 30, 2016

# ¿ Sep 30, 2016 23:56

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

nm posted:

Its only tenants and landlords. Makes sense, means the landlord can't be a loud dick and they have to do somethibg about rear end in a top hat tenants.

He should move to Davis, that way the drunk bums are almost certainly fellow tenants.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 04:45

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

AnonymousNarcotics posted:

Are there any laws against taking stuff out of the trash or recycling bins? There's a guy who comes down our block every recycling night looking for cans and bottles so I was just wondering.

Man, the dude is picking cans out of the trash, presumably as an income stream. Even if it is illegal, do you really want to take time out of your day to hassle him?

# ¿ Oct 19, 2016 04:18

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

xxEightxx posted:

Meh the simple fix seems to start the process over if the tribe wants and then put the tribe on the hook for attorney/expert costs, right? Seems a lot more feasible than the loving mayhem that's going on. But federal judges can be dicks who can dq an entire filing because one line of your signature block is over the page limit so what do I know.

I'm pretty sure a request for a legal mulligan where you pay more attorney fees is called an "appeal."

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 06:10

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Cowslips Warren posted:

So with Trump's latest Roe V Wade discussion, that he wants it overturned and the matter turned back to the states, if a woman in Texas wants an abortion, but it's illegal in Texas, but legal in California, she would go to California (assuming she had the money to) to get the abortion. But could states that outlaw abortion add some subclause that a woman who obtains an abortion elsewhere and returns to their home state would face criminal charges there still?

That's an interesting question. My initial reaction was "no, or California would have long ago made it illegal for its citizens to go to Nevada to shoot machine guns, gamble, and visit brothels." However, both CA and NY have gone after citizens and corporations in other states that they were able to tie tangentially to business in their jurisdiction. I believe the legal concept is called a long arm statute. If I were Texas, I would argue that the state has an interest in an unborn citizen/Texan fetus, but I have no idea how well that would fly in court.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2016 03:46

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Space Gopher posted:

Hey, even SCOTUS believes that certain rights are contingent on uttering the right words of power.

The problem isn't magical thinking, it's that their magic is wrong.

OTOH, I'm not sure how the police are supposed to know you are demanding access to your lawyer unless you tell them.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2016 18:16

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Subjunctive posted:

They shouldn't speak to anyone without counsel present, ever.

It's going to be a long-rear end traffic stop while they wake your lawyer up after you get pulled over for drunk driving at 2 AM.

Alternately, I'm trying to imagine how a traffic stop would proceed when the cop isn't allowed to ask questions.

Miranda is fine because the idea of having chosen counsel present for all citizen/police interactions is infeasible.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2016 18:33

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Subjunctive posted:

The same way they'd proceed if the driver just declined to answer the questions? I assume the maximum ticket permitted by the evidence.

A DUI stop is by necessity going to require things like asking the driver for ID and to perform field sobriety tests. The idea that the state trooper has to go through this interaction while scrupulously avoiding asking any questions that might give her additional information about the suspect or their activities that evening is dumb as hell. I'm not seeing what damage to our rights is caused by the police being allowed to ask suspects questions that may tend to cause them to incriminate themselves.

Space Gopher posted:

Berghuis v. Thompkins wasn't about access to counsel; it was about the right to remain silent.
...
In other words, according to the highest court in the land, there is a magic spell that you can invoke to end a police interrogation when you're under arrest, but only as long as you know the words. They're not obvious, and nobody's required to tell you about them. But the law, in its majestic equality, allows anyone with an education good enough to know these words to use them.

But that's exactly how the right to counsel, which is the other part of Miranda, works. And I would argue that they are obvious, and the suspect was (as Miranda requires) told about them. The suspect verbally affirmed that he understood that he had right to counsel, and a right to remain silent that he could invoke at any time. He wasn't totally silent either, he answered a few other questions during the interview. The alternative is litigating exactly how long of a verbal pause is an implicit invocation of Miranda rights, which is ridiculous.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2016 21:45

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

D34THROW posted:

I think having to literally invoke the right to remain silent by breaking silence is loving stupid.

You have to break your right to silence to request a lawyer too. Just because you open your mouth doesn't give the cops carte blance to interrogate you for as long as they want; you can always stop answering questions once you start. (Although I believe there was a recent court decision that, if you suddenly choose to stop answering their questions, the state can introduce the fact of which question caused you to clam up at trial, which seems pretty borderline to me.)

EDIT: Salinas v. Texas, "a suspect's silence in response to a specific question posed during an interview with police when the suspect was not in custody and the suspect had been voluntarily answering other questions during that interview could be used against him in court where he did not explicitly invoke his Fifth Amendment right to silence in response to the specific question."

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Dec 30, 2016

# ¿ Dec 30, 2016 22:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

nm posted:

I suspect that the number of drivers who would invoke if mirandized are similar to those who invoke now. Most people glaze over when it is read and don't actually understand what it means. It is kind of funny.

That was more a response to Subjunctive's suggestion that the police shouldn't be allowed to ask suspects questions at all, ever, unless they have counsel present.

Alchenar posted:

The US system just gets itself in tangles over this issue when really is should do what we do here and acknowledge that when juries see someone refusing to answer reasonable questions then there are reasonable conclusions to be drawn from that.

I'm actually quite happy that I live in a country where I am never expected to justify why I choose not to interact with agents of the state.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2016 02:27

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I'm imagining a series of detectives rotating through the interrogation room, each one repeating the Miranda warning for an hour and asking of you understand, before being relieved by the next, on the assumption that you'll get sick of this before they do.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2017 02:27

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

EwokEntourage posted:

I'd watch doughy prosecutors rumble it out with various drug addicts and criminals

Oh I got just a few pot heads on Monday, should be easy. Thursday is gonna suck, gotta fight a bank robber

"Mr. Bruce Lee, Esq. to present the case for the prosecution."

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 00:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

SkunkDuster posted:

Say 1-9 grams of DRUG is a misdemeanor and 10+ grams is a felony. Nancy gets popped carrying 6 grams in her purse and does 30 days and pays a fine to satisfy her judgement. As she is getting out of jail and they are giving her belongings back to her, they find another 6 grams of DRUG in the purse. What would happen? Would it be a double jeopardy situation or would they charge her again for a felony 12 grams with credit for time served?

Six more misdo charges for 1 gram each.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

You are guilty of leaving a pocket knife unattended in a place, a Class A felony. 20 months in an iso-cube.

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if "failing to report the theft of a deadly weapon" or some such was a crime in DC.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 20:29

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Legally, I have no idea, but practically speaking, if you roll up to a creditor and say, "this $10,000 is to pay off Person 3's debt", 90% of them will just stop trying to collect the debt without asking questions, 9% will try to collect from Person 3 anyway, and maybe 1% will care if Person 3 knows.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2017 06:46

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

If you wanted to get clever, you could probably offer to buy Person 3's debt from Person 2 at face value via some sort of financial instrument. This would only require Person 2's consent, if my understanding is correct. Then person 3 would (without having consented to it) owe you the money, allowing you to forgive the debt.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2017 07:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Thanatosian posted:

Wait, how is that not a content-based restriction? Isn't that a violation of the first amendment?

Generally speaking, the Bill of Rights restricts the government, not the actions of your fellow citizens. If the local newspaper doesn't run your letter to the editor in favor of one whose content the editor likes more, you can't sue the paper on constitutional grounds.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2017 17:35

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Javid posted:

The most common solution to getting a pet in no-pet housing is one of the billion online doctors that will give you a letter saying you need a comfort animal or whatever for $100.

Which really ought to be illegal IMO. If you are the sort of person who is willing to sign a piece of paper saying that a chihuahua is a "service animal", you belong in jail.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 00:52

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Wickerman posted:

why dont we just hang them along with anyone who needs handicap accessible ramps because if you cant use accommodations like normal people you dont deserve any at all!

Look, if you're blind and need a seeing eye dog to get around, fine, but if your "disability" is that you can't bear to be separated from your pet, I'm OK with saying that you are The Wrong Sort of Person.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 02:09

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Javid posted:

Much better to have medicare paying for a lifetime supply of antidepressants and their side effects, right?

Appropriate reactions to depression:
-cognitive behavioral therapy/psychotherapy
-prescription drugs
-unmedicated perseverance in spite of overwhelming gloom/despair due to demands of family/faith/Protestant work ethic

Inappropriate reactions to depression:
-taking your teacup poodle with you everywhere
-street drugs
-Telling EMS you are having suicidal ideations once a week but not doing anything different after your 72 hour hold expires

baquerd posted:

Out of morbid curiosity, are there any vertebrates that most people would literally crush like a bug without a second thought?

Look up "varmiting" or "Prarie dog hunting" videos on YouTube if you really want to know/lose faith in humanity. Really though, I think anyone who has had a rodent problem has learned to hate them.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Dec 4, 2020

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 03:47

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

There are plenty of drugs sold on the street that may or may not have beneficial effects for depression sufferers, but the street is definitely not where you should buy those drugs if you're legitimately trying to manage your symptoms.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 03:57

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Subjunctive posted:

The street (or the online street, being research chemical online stores) may be the only place to get them. I purchase an LSD analog from an online research chemical supplier with the blessing, but not assistance, of my psychiatrist. As far as we can tell it has been very helpful. I am very much "legitimately" trying to manage my symptoms.

Where should I "definitely" buy them instead? A 1P-LSD vending machine? My pharmacy doesn't carry it.

If I were in the US, it would be even worse, since analogs are also illegal.

If a medical doctor is telling you to buy research chemicals from weirdo Chinese internet criminals, man, you do what you gotta do, but understand.that you're the 5% outlier and "I couldn't handle it so I decided to try smoking meth again" is the 95% majority that I see on a regular basis.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 05:00

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

And yet entitled people who are overly attached to their pets are still the greater social ill, Mrs. Helmsley.

twodot posted:

"If you're the example of my argument being wrong, then I guess I'm just really wrong, but also I'm still right, because examples of me being wrong are relatively rare."

"Research chemicals that aren't part of the normal formulary in my country but aren't strictly speaking illegal either that I've consulted a medical professional before taking" is at the furthest and most tenuous spoke of the umbrella term "street drugs" but if you really gotta feel like "don't manage your depression with street drugs" lovely advice that only a close-minded Puritan would give, be my guest.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jul 18, 2017

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 05:40

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Subjunctive posted:

Specifically, if you don't mean to sound authoritative across the breadth of experience, perhaps avoid declaring what should "definitely" be done or avoided if one is "legitimately" attempting to treat their disease. Or you might find simple joy in saying "I hadn't thought of that situation, maybe it's not as black and white as I believed".

If I say, "Don't roll your own crypto", and someone chimes in that their neighbor is a retired senior NSA network security contractor who walked them through building a bespoke, ground-up crypto solution for their e-commerce business, I will congratulate them for finding something that works for them, but I am not going to stop thinking that "don't roll your own crypto" is good advice.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2017 02:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I hadn't heard that the Bundy's lawyer got disbarred, but if my lawyer dunked on a US Attorney so hard that he got disbarred in retaliation while at the same time getting me off for a crime I really obviously committed, I would be trying to figure out what percentage you tip your lawyer for excellent service.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2017 06:01

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Alchenar posted:

Basically there are a bunch of legal options to deal with this issue without jumping off a cliff and criminalising all free speech, the underlying question of 'do you think it should be illegal to pressure vulnerable people to commit suicide?' should be really easy to answer.

I know I'm the rear end in a top hat that always wants to draw hard, bright, black-and-white lines, but I agree with Blazargh here. I don't find "we can examine it on a case-by-case basis" to be an adequate answer. If your ex says that they are going to kill themselves if you don't get back together, complete with their detailed plan, and you tell them that you aren't ever getting back together with them, are you responsible for their subsequent suicide?

# ¿ Aug 7, 2017 23:22

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Alchenar posted:

Yeah I don't think this is a particularly difficult distinction. I think there are lots of plausible examples where intent to cause harm causes difficulty, but the criminal law deals with cases where intent is difficult to prove all the time.

I guess I don't see how you're drawing a distinction between "telling someone to commit suicide who you reasonably believe will go through with it" and "telling someone information that you reasonably believe will cause them to kill themselves."

# ¿ Aug 8, 2017 01:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Gumbel2Gumbel posted:

I am not a lawyer but this is a really dumb argument and I pray you aren't a lawyer either.

Do you really not see how someone using the threat of force to compel you into an action is different than you berating a mentally ill person into killing themselves?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would object to saying that "if X doesn't happen, I'll kill myself" is a threat of force the way the term is typically used.

I think your distinction ignores the suicidal person's agency and responsibility. If "You said X to a suicidal person, knowing that they would likely kill themselves upon hearing it" is a crime, why does it matter if X is "kill yourself, dipshit", "I'll tell your wife about us", or "I'm taking the kids to my mother's"?

# ¿ Aug 8, 2017 01:41

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Mr. Nice! posted:

There's a big difference between delivering bad news or saying potentially upsetting things than berating someone over and over to kill themselves.

That distinction is entirely a value judgment, IMO.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2017 03:39

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

You can call this your opinion, but it's factually wrong. Mens rea exists, delivering bad news with the intention and desire of conveying information and delivering bad news with the intention and desire of a person killing themself are different actions and should be treated differently.

The defendant in this case was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter though. One of the real lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding has always been that, for invol man, the mens rea attaches to deliberately committing the act in question, rather than intending the outcome. So if you blow through a red light and kill somebody, the fact that you didn't intend for anyone to die and had no malice is immaterial as far as invol man is concerned.

If this distinction is so easy to draw, where does "you would be better off dead"/"it would have been better if you had died"/"this family would be better off if you were dead"/"this family would be better off without you" fall?

In your mind, should it be legally OK to badger and berate a person with suicidal ideations, as long as you aren't doing it with the deliberate goal of pushing them over the edge?

# ¿ Aug 8, 2017 17:31

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Mr. Nice! posted:

"1) An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct;"

Carter's texts 100% fall under this. If anything she was convicted of a lower crime than she could have been because her actions were deliberate and not unintentional.

Right, but if saying something to a person that you reasonably believe will cause them to kill themselves is recklessness, why should it matter what the content of the message was?

# ¿ Aug 8, 2017 21:33

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Discendo Vox posted:

Less as a question and more for resident lawgoons to lol over:

What do they usually look like?

# ¿ Aug 27, 2017 06:28

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

My guess is that, if they ever figure it out, whichever employee is responsible for your account will be told they are responsible for collecting the money with interest, because there is no way they're going to just let it go. The only question is how likely they are to figure it out.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2017 04:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Despite what he seems to be fishing for, legal costs associated with contesting an election would be a legitimate use of campaign funds, no?

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 01:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Yeah, but he probably can't afford a Ten Commandments statue carved out of granite.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 20:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 03:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

So is he now guilty of destroying records/evidence once the company's lawyers find out?

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 20:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›3 »