I heard he gave pardons for any crime hunter might have commited in the past But not been Convicted of, could Joe do the same for like Jack Smith, kamala harris, Alvin bragg, merrick garland, fauci or Clinton?

If someone had illicit drugs and they got stolen, could the original owner report the theft and have it investigated? Could the thief be charged and convicted even though the items in question were illegal to begin with?

Obviously this is setting aside the fact that it would be a bad idea to incriminate yourself by reporting that someone stole your illegal drugs. And obviously this is setting aside the fact that the police probably wouldn't take it seriously if someone reported that their sketchy friend Jimmy stole their pound of weed.

The question is more about whether there are legal mechanisms or rules in place that would prevent the justice system from being able to prosecute the theft of something that is itself illegal to own?

I'm working on an analog horror series as a little passion project of mine, and I used an actual police badge design in it, along with the name of an actual police department. I used the badge design as more of a background piece than anything, and I plan on putting a disclaimer in the description that everything in it is a work of fiction, and all that. Is this legally dubious, or am I in the clear?

Just a hypothetical based on President Biden's blanket pardon of every crime his son commited against the US from 2014 through 2024...

If Hunter Biden is questioned or compelled to testify, he can no longer claim 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination, right? At least not for anything covered by his father's blanket pardon?

Edit 1: How usual is it to issue a blanket pardon that covers a period of time vs. issue a pardon for specific actions?

Edit 2: tl;dr It seems possible that the blanket pardon may actually enable continued harassment of Hunter.

One of President Biden's stated reasons for issuing the pardon is that he fears for continued/future politically motivated prosecutions:

In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here.

But, if there really is the will to "get" Hunter, and through him the President, it seems like this could just blow-up.

Consider... A congressional committee asks the question, "Should we propose a constitutional amendment to reform the presidential pardon power?"

And so, to develop the record they subpoena the former President's son who has received a blanket pardon for any and all crimes that may have occurred during a period that covers over a decade. It actually seems reasonable to ask, "Well, what crimes does that actually cover? We need to know so we can evaluate whether the pardon power is being abused".

At this point Hunter is placed in an uncomfortable position. They are going to grill him over weeks if not months of highly detailed and intrusive questions. If he refuses to answer or otherwise cooperate he will be in contempt of Congress and jailed until he is willing to do so. If he does answer, any inaccuracies, omissions, or misrepresentations could be persecuted as crimes in themselves for having committed perjury or obstructed Congress and will not be covered by the pardon. Any testimony he does provide can be used in developing cases against other people.

So yeah, if the President's concerns about continued persecution of his son is well founded, it seems like the blanket pardon may ultimately cause perhaps more trouble for Hunter than it solves. (Assuming that there really isn't anything big in Hunter's life during that time period, if there is, the pardon may be worth this potential hassle.)

If Joe Shmoe directly tells you himself that he's committed certain crimes or otherwise engaged in shady behaviors (which are probably still illegal/criminal), and you tell a third party this without disclosing Joe Schmoe's name, would Joe Schmoe have a good chance at winning a defamation case if:

1. The third party coincidentally found out Joe Schmoe's identity (although it did not affect the way they treat Joe Schmoe or their decision to do business with Joe Schmoe or not) and Joe Schmoe somehow found this out (most likely by cyberstalking you or the third party)

and/or

2. You can't tangibly prove that the source of the information was Joe Schmoe himself (just you said, he said) nor can you prove the crimes or actions he claims to have committed are true

and/or

3. Joe Schmoe acquired evidence of you sharing this information with others by hacking / monitoring your devices or the third party's (which you possibly but probably can't prove) or otherwise snooping

and/or

4. You tell a third party that Joe Schmoe (without using his name) repeatedly did not do something he said he would, but you can only prove that he didn't do it but not that he said he would (which may negatively affect their perception of him but not have actual effect on him beyond him claiming it hurts his feelings)

and/or

5. You tell a third party that Joe Schmoe (without using his name) threatened you repeatedly and Joe Schmoe somehow finds out (most likely by cyberstalking you or the third party) but you don't have proof because the threats were verbal (which may negatively affect their perception of him but not have actual effect on him beyond him claiming it hurts his feelings)

Thanks for satiating my curiosity!

I'm looking in to a certain drama situation regarding a public figure and was looking for an answer to a specific scenario.

If someone consented to being recorded during sex but did not give consent to those recordings being shared, is it a crime to share those tapes to an individual outside of the parties involved in the recorded sex act even if those tapes were exclusively sent to one other individual?

An additional question: If the answer is that it is or could still be considered a crime despite only one person being sent the tapes, does intent matter if it was intentionally sent? For example, if instead of it being for malicious purposes it was purely done for sexual gratification or any other form of hedonism, would that context still make it a crime even if it was done with no malicious intent?

If there's any pages for US law on the matter that outlines these questions, I'd appreciate them being sent but if not or you don't want to look for it, that's okay.

Thank you. :)

BTW I'm 16, asking this question I'm just curious about why I'm allowed to have sex with anyone my age and older but can't send a nude.

Other question: If I take a lewd (this website said you can be charged with CP just for a lewd) on my phone as a 16-year-old can I be charged with possession CP?

Trump Will not like this pardon But can he do anything to Put hunter in prison for the crimes Joe gave him a pardon for? Is hunter safe from trump?

This is so random but if an off duty cop was to get pulled over or something and they disclose they are a cop but the other cop doesn’t believe them and arrested them for impersonating police, could they press charges? Its a scene out of a movie btw

Let's say a YouTube channel decides to fabricate stories about Mr. Beast and the video goes viral. Mr. Beast wants to sue the creator, but said person lives in another country.

What happens? What if it's a war-torn country, and a lawsuit is impossible? What actions should Mr. Beast take? Who is responsible for the video, YouTube itself?

This might be a stupid question but consider the scenario: say someone's boss gets murdered and the day of the murder, in the middle of a conversation about their boss, the defendant texts their friend "If I see him I'm going to kill him lol".

The text itself would be admissible, of course, but would the presence of "lol" and an otherwise light conversation be enough for it be considered a joke rather than an admission of murderous intent? If not, what would be the bar for it to be dismissed as mere banter?

Edit: Obviously I'm not talking about if that text was the only piece of evidence dumbfucks. I'm asking whether the addition of "lol" makes it less probative than otherwise in a trial

I work for a company known for making widgets as a widget designer. I've been putting in long hours and working very hard to make our next widget the best widget we've ever made - even better than our previous widgets. I decide to buy a lot of company stock based on my insider knowledge that I've been a doing a really great job lately and therefore am anticipating the stock price to go up.

Is that insider trading?

To be clear, I'm not establishing a monopoly by doing so, and I'm still going to pay him the agreed amount. The owner, Eugene Krabs, just has a grudge against me personally, so I'm trying to avoid him either jacking up the price to unreasonable levels or outright refusing to sell to me.

Article 6(1) of ECHR says that

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Does this right only apply as a supplementary right where a seperate judicial system exists or does this mandate establishing a seperate judicial system too ?

There have been much digital ink spilled regarding Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s intentions for a new department of government efficiency or DOGE. However no such federal department currently exists. Can they do anything at all or have any power since DOGE is not a government agency and thus they cannot be appointed to an agency that doesn’t exist? Can the department be created? If so, what would have to happen for it to be created and for them to have the power to do the things they want to do?

I’m terrified of the things that have been suggested but I’m not clear that any of it will ever happen yet because I’m not sure how it could.

The president has the power to nominate people to form his cabinet and other positions and also fire them at any time. Federal law also says you must resign as a senator, judge, representative, etc to become say attorney general. Does this technically mean the president can nominate someone for a position, the nominee resigns his/her old position for the new position and now the president just immediately fires this person. Is there any recourse for this person? Now of course this probably is only effective initially as afterwards people will catch on and the nominee can just refuse the job and stay in their old position but is there any legal issue with this political maneuver?

Civil law not in the context of civil vs criminal, I mean something more like the laws of France, Emperor Justinian, Germany, and some other similar systems, vs common law which is more like the British, and apparently rather similar to sharia too.

Can a doctor get in trouble for prescribing opioids to a patient they know is an addict?

Hello. I hope I'm in the right sub to ask the question, if not, I'm sorry. Disclaimer : on mobile so formatting is a bit fuzy and english isn't my first langage so both me and autocorrect are making mistakes. The question is purely theoretical since it's about a situation in a rôle playing game. Basicaly a woman recently widowed remarries a few months after losing her first husband. She doesn't know at that time that she's pregnant from the first husband(denial of pregnancy). When she gives birth, who is legally considered the father ?

Hypothetically, can a man in his mid 20s who was talking to a girl who is 16 but claimed to be 18 numerous times and sent him nudes, be charged as a pedophile? The age of consent in the girls state and the man’s state is 16 but she distributed her own nudes, what are the complexities involved in such a scenario? Should the man turn himself in to avoid harsher penalties? Obviously lying isn’t illegal, I believe there should be SOME kind of a penalty for lying about your age and then knowingly distributing sexual material but that’s another story.

Thoughts?

I work for Pig Buttholes Inc. We process the finest pig buttholes in the western hemisphere. We’re a publicly traded, Fortune 50 company.

I possess internal documentation that acknowledges that our newest flagship product, the Pork-o-Tron 3000 XL, isn’t 100% organic pig butthole. It has more than the maximum legal limit of walrus eyelids.

This will naturally cause an uproar and forever taint the brand. Think Ford Pinto, New Coke, or Diablo Mobile.

Concerns have been raised by the engineers to management, but the leadership insists on launching before Christmas.

I’m jaded.

1. Would it be legal for me to short the stock with the intention of blowing the whistle?

2. Would it be legal for me to short the stock with no intention of blowing the whistle and hoping that the company’s irresponsible practices are eventually discovered?

Recently I've started working on an animated project which I'm planning to feature a couple of Australian brands: Vegemite and XXXX Gold (beer).

My concern is regarding the legality of using the trademarks on my animation. Could I possibly be involved in legal trouble if using them?

In one scene, we see a person finding a crocodile. That person opens the crocodile's mouth to pour a can of XXXX Gold Beer and seconds later the crocodile faints.

On another scene, a person is holding a pot of Vegemite squeezing it popeye-style to consume it. So basically popeye reference but instead of using spinach, Vegemite.

If using the exact same brand on the animation and not being able to do so without possibly getting into legal trouble, would it be fine to change, for example: XXXX Gold to ZZZZ Silver or something like that, to avoid any legality issue?

I saw a post here about what if the trolley problem actually happened. The top commenter said that If the person pulls the lever to save multiple people which ends up killing one person as a consequence , they could be aquitted under necessity defense. How is "necessity" decided ? Do judges decide that based on utlitarian considerations ?

Hi, my partner and I have started planning to get married. We're still in the very early stages of deciding this all but what's going on in the government is making me a little spooked. Other threads have answered the other questions I have so I have something more specific I'd like to know. Kim Davis filed a brief to the Sixth Circuit of Appeals to try to repeal Obergefell about 4 months ago. Is there a way to track how these cases are progressing online? How long would it take to reach the Supreme Court? Would it have to go through other courts first? I don't know anything about law but I want to educate myself on this and be prepared just in case.

Whenever a company gets sued, they payout damages (if they lose) or settle. A lot of times the reason the company gets sued is because of the actions of a particular employee. I suppose sometimes that employee could be legally liable, but it seems like people tend to focus on the companies because they have deeper pockets.

But anyway, what sort of things prevent a scenario like this from happening:

You're a middle manager at a big corporation. Your good friends with one of the employees in your department and they desperately need money because of some medical issue. So you call them a racial slur and announce that they're fired in front of the rest of the department.

Now they sue the company. The company maybe settles and they get a payout.

You probably get fired, but that could be mitigated if the settlement is big enough the coworker could just share it with you. Also, as part of a settlement, they could even say they don't want you fired or that they don't want it to be publicized what happened, which would allow you to seek employment elsewhere without that on your record.

So why doesn't this happen all the time? Especially settlement sharing. (Or maybe it does happen often, I don't know.)

Drake is suing Universal Music Group and Spotify, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar's 'Not Like Us.' This is dumb for a few reasons, mainly because no one 'inflated' the popularity of 'Not Like Us.' It was a savage diss track that no one has gotten bored of. It plays all the time on the radio. Even if you haven't been paying attention to the beef or don't know who started it, you have heard the song and know the lyrics by now. Kendrick sung the song live, and the crowd matched him word for word the entire way through without missing a beat.

No one 'inflated' the popularity. Wouldn't the smarter move be to sue Kendrick for defamation and slander? Kendrick accused Drake of being a pedophile in two songs. Drake could sue and say that Kendrick is making a false allegation against him that is harming him, and there are people who now believe he is a pedo or don't know if it's true or not, but there is no proof of Drake being one. Even if we were to argue that he was talking to Millie Bobby Brown when she was a minor, yes, that's weird and very inappropriate, but we don't know what they were talking about. At the end of the day, them talking or being 'friends' still doesn't really prove anything. So these are all still allegations, and Drake could sue Kendrick for defamation, right?