Just want to see if you think the title and introduction of my paper is to much, not enough? Just right? I'm still very early in the process.

"Systematic Constitutional Violations: An Examination of 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendment Violations by 501(c)(3) Organizations and Elected U.S. Government Officials (2024)"

I. Introduction

This paper aims to make an argument for the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th ammendment violations of every non-Christian Citizen of the United States of America and other qualifying persons and minority groups by 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations like but not limited to The Heratige Foundation, The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, The Catholic and Christian Churches and U.S. Government elected officials to include the violations of individuals who identify as said religions in question and still adversely affected by change in policy."

I believe there is established case law that says the guest of a hotel has the same Fourth amendment protections inside their hotel room as they would in their private domicile, but I'm curious about how tenuous those protections are in practice.

I see a ton of footage of people getting kicked out of hotels, involving the police entering the room and removing them, so I'm curious if your fourth amendment protections only apply as long as the custodian of the property also chooses to uphold them.

What happens if a declared dead person comes back to life, then tries to choke you. Then you punch them and knock them dead. Do you go to jail for murder?

In the decision it is stated:

"In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this Court did not “undertake an exhaustive historical analysis . . . of the full scope of the Second Amendment.” Bruen, 597 U. S., at 31. Nor do we do so today. Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."

Upon reading, with inclusion of "may be TEMPORARILY disarmed," it seems that the lifetime firearms ban provided by 922(8)(g) would fall out of line, at least in some states that offer no second amendment restoration through operation of law, as well as federally, since the Lautenberg Amendment offers no details on a timeline that may define "temporary," though it does say that it respects a ban lift if a state has an operation of law providing for it, or if the civil rights was otherwise restored in the jurisdiction of conviction.

Some states offer a few years ban, after which, the defendant may automatically regain the right, although some auto-restoration states do not provide it for individuals convicted before a certain date.

Virginia, for instance enacted a three year restriction on firearms possession a few years back, but only for persons convicted AFTER the enactment took place. Anyone convicted prior to that date does not have that operation of law restoration.

What now in regards to effective lifetime bans for people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence after the Rahimi decision?

Must states and or federal courts now provide a definite timeframe on the ban?

Does this mean that the Lautenberg amendment is unconditional when applied to MDCDV?

Could the text of Rahimi be later used to argue that someone with a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence should be able to own a firearm even if the jurisdiction of the original conviction provides no definitive direction for the restoration of their second amendment rights?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not even sure Im asking the right questions.

So I'm a staunch opponent of class action waivers, which are US provisions of contracts that state you can't file a class action against another entity, usually a big company, if they're in the contract.

Let's assume that I have my own website which has a TOS, and let's assume that it is disclosed clearly enough to the point where a court would find that visitors of the website had sufficient notice of my terms. Now if I can get a business to accept my own TOS by visiting my website...and if I make them pay me a Porsche for attempting to enforce them at all...

https://preview.redd.it/6pzcjwe10u7d1.png?width=1802&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6efebe4fd8eeb07fc8178b16e73ad18cf23118c

The constitution is explicit that, in situations otherwise detrimental to an individual (3/5ths compromise, 13th amendment), people are property. However, it is silent when it would be beneficial to people (5th amendment) to be considered owners of themselves. It cannot be right they can have it both ways. So do we own ourselves?

I have studied legal positivism quite a lot. I've read Austin's Province of Jurisprudence, Kelsen's PTL and GToLaE and Hart's the Concept of Law. Now, i want to start reading Joseph Raz to better understand his theory, but what should i read first? Which book or article? Is there an intended sequence? Please help

I put out a weekly podcast and this week we are discussing Nietzsche's essay on the use and misuse of history. Nietzsche makes an interesting point that without history there would be neither war nor justice and in order to be happy, you must forget.

This is an interesting point as it somewhat flies in the face of some concepts of social justice that involve remembrance - but it seems that according to Nietzsche, there would be no happiness to be found in a project like that.

I tend to agree that happiness and forgetting (or at least letting go) seem pretty strongly tied.

What do you think?

If you're interested, here are links to the podcast:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-6-4-let-the-dead-bury-the-living/id1691736489?i=1000645249410
Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/3isSLzjKoCjXNUuzUQsOVa?si=fV6oXKP9T1-fYCNjzpDfjA

Disclaimer: Yes this is promotional, but I also am very interested in discussion surrounding this topic and essay.

Refer to the U.S.C.S. Cite the title and section of the code that addresses equal opportunity in contract solicitation, housing, and community development by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. If you used the U.S.C.S. in print, when was the section last amended? If you used an Internet source, what source did you use? Did it allow you to check the currentness of the section? If so, what was the public law number and date that the section was current through?

I think it’s 12 U.S. Code § 1833e but that doesn’t include community development, any ideas?

Lets say a person A is a stalker and will be referred to as stalker and person B is defendant. Defendant has exited a vehicle and is headed towards a one-way that ends in a culdesac on foot. Stalker shows up and follows Defendant. An alteration occurs where the Defendant is forced to show a knife. Stalker runs away towards Defendant's vehicle, out of one-way. Defendant makes split second decision to go towards vehicle exiting culdesac and one-way. Stalker shows up again an altercation occurs Defendant stabs Stalker.

Do you think this is self defense y or n? Why?

Hi, I know this is a developing issue but I was hoping to get some pointers on how to think about some specific legal cases involving the use of AI in a company code base.

First off, I'm not entirely sure of the definitions surrounding proprietary software and copywrite in regards to specific uses of code within a company. For instance, if a company creates a function for summing an array of numbers within a specific context, let's say an array of user tax tax data, how is that seen? If it's extremely basic, and potentially equivalent to code found on the internet, even if not directly copied, how does that work?

Second, in the context of AI generated content, if an AI creates the above example, would that affect the status at all? What if it generates the array summing function it's modified to use the company specific user data instead? Or what if it actually uses this context, and uses the company specific data but it's simple enough that there are plenty of examples of the exact same company user data language found on the internet. I'm sure this illustrates what I'm going for.

I have read the federal guidance on AI copywrite that specifies the authorship must contain human modification and creativity, which is straightforward enough for complete works of art or software, but what I'm unsure of is how compositional works are regarded.

My final question is, is it even important for a company to have copywrite claims on parts of its code? Let's say I write half of my code base using AI generated code that is non copywriteable, but half of it is completely human generated and the company owns the copywrite to that, and they are intertwined in such a way that it's not practical or possible to separate out the AI code for its own purpose. What are the implications here?

In our podcast (Plausible Deniability AMX) this week, we discuss Plato's Republic - Book 1 - where Socrates and his buds are discussing the meaning of justice. After a lot of back and forth, they don't have much of a conclusion other than it does not mean: giving to people what is owed to them, helping your friends and harming your enemies, or the benefit of the stronger.

In my opinion, justice is not a word with much of a definition of its own. I think it's related to fairness and moral good. But I don't think that the term serves much function other than to add moral weight to a discussion of fairness or virtue.

What do you think it means and do you find it to be an important concept?

If you're interested, here are links to the full episode:Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-11-2-justice-for-the-unicells/id1691736489?i=1000637001067Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/6XQ8m3CUawMn7XiDMfSUym?si=6A-3W4a-RHO0dEsZYzoLEgYoutube - https://youtu.be/iXi0HClH1uE?si=oihSxA5VrLmNGJzZ

Could anyone point me to a good analysis of the nine new opinions in "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions?"

I'm having a hard time pinning the different judges down to one of the main legal theories.

Also, what do you think the point of this book is? Merely to see how various legal theories influence opinions?

Quick disclaimer: So I'm not a lawyer, but I've come across a problem that I think other legal subreddits would take down and I really need an answer that isn't "get a lawyer." Believe me, I've tried. It's not that it's not a viable case, but it pertains to psychiatric malpractice and the few attorneys who seem to work on those cases have all told me there has to be serious physical injury to entertain it.

Anyway, I live in NYC and filed a complaint against some doctors in the Supreme Court. At a hearing, the judge informed me that medical malpractice cases require expert testimony. It's well-established in the documentation I've filed that I can't possibly generate the income to afford that. I'm sure there are plenty of statutes and cases that pertain to the right to meaningful access to the judicial system, but what I've been able to find with my limited resources is 42 USC 1981(a), or more simply and relevantly, the right to sue. I believe that's also covered by the first amendment and I think I have a tab open on not forming provisions in violation of constitutional rights. Because it's required by New York caselaw to have such an expert, isn't that an infringement on meaningful access to the judicial system? Shouldn't that be overturned or re-evaluated?

I moved to have a court-appointed witness pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706, but New York follows federal guidelines pretty loosely and doesn't have anything similar to that provision in its own rules of evidence. I assume that the US Code supersedes state laws, but I'm not really sure of anything. It just seems the laws contradict each other. I'm essentially wondering what the outcome will be.

I’m a paralegal student from Wisconsin, and I’m nearing the end of my program at a local technical college.

A requirement of graduating is a career experience “project”. I chose a field research project, well, because that’s what I’m good at.

So, I’m here to do a little research. I’m looking to maybe narrow down my subject a little. I’m looking for something in relation to; how society/behavior influences the law, and how the law influences society/behavior. Expressive Law, Legal Theory, ect…

Anything, anything at all that comes to mind is helpful. I’ve found myself in a rabbit hole and it’s all so interesting I could go forever. I’ve ordered 6 books, but I don’t really have the time to focus on one source like that.

This is my first post here, figured I’d give it a shot?

I am currently writing an essay on the Hohfeldian immunity and would love some input. It has been argued that "immunity" cannot even exist because it stands in a jural relation with "disability", which in other words, is "no-power", and putting that in another way, is simply nothing. Hence, immunity does not exist.

What do y'all think?

I'm trying to make sense of why we ever needed the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation when the Supremacy Clause makes the US Constitution the supreme law of the land? I realize that Marshall wrote that the Bill of Rights “contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments,..." (Barron v. Baltimore) But how do you square that with the Article VI? What Constitutional authority provides for that reading? How does Marshall justify completely ignoring Article VI? Or am I missing something here?

Help! (Thanks.)

Does anyone know where I can find a PDF of "Durkheim and the Law", 2nd ed.?

Thanks.

It's a bit hard to explain so I will use an example.

Say law X requires that a company publishes a notice with certain information about their products, and the law says if some information is missing in the notice (i.e. it is defective), the company will be liable to a penalty.

If a company publishes a "notice" with lots of information missing, but it claims that law X does not apply, because there is no notice at all. (in other words, the argument is that "notice" has so many things missing that it can no longer be considered to have existed)

How do legal philosophers describe or explain the difference between a defective thing, and a thing that doesn't exist?

I thought about the distinction between void vs voidable contract but I don't think those concepts apply here.

I am touching up a publication on CRT counterstorytelling in the field of education so early work by CRT legal theorists is a bit beyond my area of expertise. Nevertheless, I have downloaded and scanned numerous law journal articles searching for an explicit reference to Gramscian hegemony. While the largely white, less race-inflected, polemicists of CLS cite the concept of hegemony and related Gramscian concepts (i.e., organic intellectuals, etc.), with alacrity, the only article by a bonafide CRT scholar that references Gramsci, however fleetingly, is Matsuda's (1987) Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. Unfortunately, this article cites the Gramscian elaboration of intellectuals and does not touch on hegemony.

References to articles by early CRT scholars that do this move are highly welcome--thank you in advance!!

Basically what the title says. Say you have a pair of conjoined twins. One of them committed a murder and the other was unable to prevent it. How would you rule on this? Would they both go to jail? Would you have them forcefully surgically separated to preserve fairness (somehow)? What are your thoughts?

Idk, it's like 3am and this is a very silly random thought.

I know it's an odd theoretical question. If there's a better place to ask this kind of thing, let me know. /r/law seems to just be news links.

This idea came to me the other day, and I would like to hear sides of the argument from those who have studied law. I recognize that this is mostly theoretical since people need to be able to testify on their own behalf.

I remembered (apocryphally) that there was one or more cases where someone trained in martial arts was tried in court, with the claim that they used deadly weapons, on account of their training as a fighter.

Is there any grounds to think that an actor or actress could be tried using similar principle of their training – to convincingly make people believe they hold a different point of view than their true beliefs or knowledge?

Thanks for pondering it as a conjecture.

***Don't want to make this political, just asking about legal stuff out of curiosity since I don't have any formal training in law

I found the updated indictment here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1473241/download) and his charges were listed as

• Civil disorder 18U.S.C.§231(a)(2): transporting weapons for use in civil disorder
• Obstruction of official proceeding 18U.S.C.§1512(c)(2) and 2: obstructing congressional certification of the election
• Restricted grounds 18U.S.C.§1752(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A): entering restricted grounds w/ deadly weapon
• Civil disorder 18U.S.C.§231(a)(3): interfering with Capitol police
• Obstruction of justice 18U.S.C.§1512(a)(2)(C): witness tampering, threatening son and daughter to prevent their reporting him to the police

​

Reading through the second charge, I wasn't quite sure what the "2" in "18U.S.C.§1512(c)(2) and 2" referred to. It didn't seem like they were referring to a "paragraph 2" without specifying which subsection. So were they saying 18U.S.C.§1512(c)(2) and 18U.S.C.§2 (Section 2 on Principals)?

Also w/ respect to the second charge, 1512(c)(2) seemed a bit odd to me. First google search on "obstruction of official proceedings" popped up section 1505 which seemed a more accurate description for what he tried to do, ie. prevent Congress from certifying the results. Most of 1512 seems to be geared toward offenses which aim to interfere with the proceedings of official investigations or the witnesses/testimony being used in an investigation. Congress certifying results of the election doesn't strike me as an investigation. Can anyone explain that?

For the restricted grounds charge, why not (a)(2) or (a)(3)? Is it because it would be more difficult to prove his intent to disrupt government, so even if the 1512(c)(2) charge doesn't hold up, at least 1752(a)(1) will since it does not require any intent?

With the obstruction of justice charge, it was 1512(a)(2)(C) because he threatened his son and daughter about reporting him to the police, right? Charges of 1512(a)(2)(A or B) would be applicable if he threatened his son or daughter to not testify in court, but the threats he's being charged with were made prior to any official proceeding, yeah?

Let's say a company offers unlimited PTO for people of a certain level or higher.

Let's say I am not currently at the level where I would be granted unlimited PTO, and have a large amount of PTO accrued from time in service.

Can a company immediately promote me to a level that is granted unlimited PTO if I give my two weeks notice so that they are not obligated to pay me (especially if they can easily justify the promotion)?

i am working for form a government for r/HelloInternet. Hello Internet is a podcast hosted by CGP grey and Brady Harren. the last episodes of the podcast came out in Feb of 2020. The community is still pretty active but lacks leadership. I hope to establish government, give us leadership so we can weather the podcast drought. Ive created a GitHub to try to form our constitution. i would apresheate any help anyone here could offer. if your familiar with GitHub create a fork, or comment here with suggestions. Any help is welcome!

(assuming insurance won't cover either party)

Hi, everyone. I am a student of Moscow State University. Now I am working on my research paper on the following topic: relativity of ownership. I can find a lot of English literature conserning relative strengh of title, relativity of title and so on. But I can not find almost nothing about the current state of this problem in European law (esp. France, Germany). I've found one German article and one German book about it, but my German is worse than my English (even if my English is not so high :). So may be someone can share some English articles or books abour relativity of ownership in German or French law. First of all I am interesting in the relative ownership which occures when sale contract is made, but goods have'nt been delivered yet, the second aspect is about european analogies of Trust (fiducia in France, Treuhand in Germany) and the third one is about relativity of proprietary claim (procedural aspect).

Thank you very much