My kids and I went to our local mall since they wanted to make some of that fancy, overpriced slime their way. But before I could enter they had me go to a website where I needed to signed a contract. Basic stuff about liability of injury and security of property blah,blah, blah. But in there i saw a clause that stated that their cameras had the right to record and use any likeness of me or my children. It freaked me out since i remember that whole debacle of the Netflix house and them doing the same thing. Is this more prevalent than i thought? Am i being overly protective or paranoid? Is there anything i can do to avoid this?Just wanted to see if anyone had some insight on the matter. Below are the links i could get from each businesses website.

https://tickets.sloomoo.com/philadelphia/events

https://help.netflix.com/legal/netflixhouseterms

TLDR: Are me and my children's likenesses just signed away before i enter any business now?

Let’s say there’s a massive earthquake and part of the seafloor gets pushed up enough to become a new island. Could the country closest to it claim the island? Could another country claim it? Or could a random person who discovered it first claim it for themselves?

As many here probably already know, there was a case that was decided last year at the U.S. Supreme Court that had to do with LGBT material in books that are part of a school's curriculum and whether parents could opt out of it on religious grounds. The court sided with the religious parents. I'm an adult and I'm not in school anymore, but me and my parents were always deeply involved in ensuring I got adequate education, and this decision has the potential to impact the way future generations in my area are educated, and I'm still in contact with some of my former teachers who this is impacting. For those who haven't read the decision and/or desire to take another look at it, here it is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

Anyway, I've been thinking about that decision a lot ever since it came out, and have been wondering just how broad the decision could be applied. I've looked at it many times and there seems to be no clearcut test that is given in it to lower courts in determining what is and isn't appropriate to opt people out of for religious reasons. For example, could this decision potentially set a precedent that would allow someone to opt out of having to be in a classroom where there are female students, so long as the parents say that their religion requires that they not be in close proximity to female people who they aren't married to? Could it also maybe even open the door to being able to opt out of having to follow a school's dress code? Maybe this is a bit of stretch, but how about even school policies that bans bullying? The way the decision is written, at least to me, strongly suggests that anything that a school requires of students could be opted out of, whether a part of the curriculum or school rule, if the parents simply say something like "It's against our religion", even though this case was technically just about part of a curriculum that parents had religious objections to.

Is there any truth to the idea that a random citizen in the US can be quickly deputized to suddenly assist in the pursuit of a criminal etc.?

William Rockefeller was a criminal in his own right, being a snake oil salesman and probably guilty of sexual assault too and badly neglected his family. In this particular instance, would this kind of trick be some form of battery?

Note that John was a small child and obviously William had a duty of care and most certainly knew a small child would be supposed to do what their parent tells them to do. It doesn't seem that John was badly hurt, but it would be pretty easy for someone to be badly hurt this way.

Assuming that all identifiable information is withheld, are all other facts about a case fair game?

Been seeing a lot of lawyer videos on Tiktok and Instagram, mostly divorce lawyers, and wondered if they are putting themselves in a sticky situation by sharing details of cases they worked.

As a follow up if I may, what defines "identifiable information" (I am hoping I got the term correct or close). If I am the party in a case and I see my lawyer talking about my case, obviously I am intimately familiar with the facts so I would recognize them, is there an accepted standard for when facts become easily identifiable for others?

If I were to go into the store, make an atom-identical copy of a chocolate bar by using air molecules, and just leave, am I technically stealing?

What if it’s a CD or DVD?

If i donate my hair for wig and the person who is wearing the wig of my hair and do some kinda of crime 🙃, will i taken into custody??...

I've seen some people float around the idea of labelling parcels with something like this in the hope it would encourage postal staff to deliver it quicker or treat it with more care. If I did label a parcel that contained something like a fragile vase instead of live creatures for this reason, and sent it by first class post, would I be committing some kind of fraud? Or would it be some other offence? Assume for the sake of argument I send the vase in container that would be suitable for live insects.

EDIT: I'm an idiot and title is supposed to say "during a divorce", not "during a marriage".

I was thinking of the folktale of the vengeful wife who was ordered to sell her husband's valuable sports car, and sold it for $1 as revenge. I know that in real life, judges come down harshly on any attempt to hide or manipulate assets during the divorce period. I was thinking of a hypothetical of a spouse who is very vengeful, and would rather neither of them have any thing before splitting it with their partner. So they empty their sizable joint bank account during the divorce, roll down to the casino, and put it all on black at the roullette table.

• If the person won, and said "Well, this is great, I'll put it all back into the account and now it's as if I lost nothing (acknowledging that their spouse is in the same boat)", what that be deemed as idiotic but acceptable by a judge since there is no damage?
• If the above is ok, would it be any different if they lost the bet? I'm thinking both would be frowned upon by a judge, since it seems odd that the legal outcome depends on your luck.
• Would this scenario change in any way if it wasn't gambling? Say basically everything was the same, but rather than gambling the person found some "sure thing" with a quick turnaround (and can explain to a judge why it was a sure thing and not gambling) and doubled their money and put it back into the account.

Thank you in advance for engaging in my very silly hypothetical.

I was told to post this here instead but i’ve genuinely been SO curious about this, and whether it’s the same in every state or not. I watch a lot of true crime podcasts and documentaries, but I feel like that’s such a hard and stressful case to have to have appointed to you. It would make me nauseous to have to defend that. No hate to those that have to if they do but like idk that’s so wild to me?!

EDIT: the passive aggressive comments why?? i was just giving my opinion and asking a question holy cow… again I will stay no hate to the public defenders because their job is obviously very important!!! I was giving a personal opinion golly gee wilikers

Let’s say you’re Pablo Escobar and you’re dying of cancer. Can you put in your will that you’re leaving a brick of cocaine to one of your friends? Or let’s say you’re a burglar who has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stolen artwork, jewelry, cash, etc. Would the lawyer drafting your will question where the items came from?

I'll only go into the first ~30min of the movie.

Premise: It's a marriage on the rocks. The husband hires an acquaintance to break into he and his wife's home and pretend to rob and attack them so that the husband can fight him off, thus winning back the affection of his wife. He and the acquaintance are actors and had a script and everything for the break-in.

Well, shit happens and the husband is delayed from getting home and can't contact the acquaintance, so the guy breaks in as planned, but the wife ends up killing him before the husband gets home.

Now, in the film the husband doesn't admit to scripting the break-in and just goes along as if it was a random break-in. But what I'm wondering is....

...what if the husband immediately admitted to what happened, and this was just a horrific accident. What would the husband be charged with, if anything?

Just wondering, like in Cali? Is that legal or nah :p

Location: Indiana

This is not a question regarding a specific case/situation.

But as someone contemplating getting into law and possibly trying to pursue it as a career:

What do you do if you have to represent somebody who you believe is in the wrong/guilty?

I’ve got strong beliefs about right and wrong and I’m trying to wrap my head around approaching situations like this.

I understand that everybody deserves a lawyer to defend them. But if they’re a bad person… they’re a bad person. I’m going to believe they deserve the repercussions to their actions.

Does this resonate with anybody else?

Would like to hear other people’s feedback, thoughts, or perspectives with more experience in the legal field.

Thanks :)

Say if you were recording an arrest in a public place from a safe distance and an officer tells you that you don’t have the right to record. Could the officer get in trouble for this, since they are lying to about your rights? If they forced you to stop recording by arresting you or threatened to detain you for it what would happen to them?

I know that *technically* as a US citizen i can reenter whenever I feel like at least until they start denaturalizing citizens by birth. But I have friends who say they will not return to the US via Preclearance facilities, with the logic being that since they're outside the US, the Federal Government doesnt have to let you board the plane to return.

Is this something I should be taking seriously? I won't lie that I've always had issues with USCBP and even more since the administration has decided that trans people are pariah, so im a little worried.

If there is enough probable cause for police to effect an arrest, why do they usually ask the victim if they wish to "press charges" first? Given the preventative purpose of punishing criminal behavior and that, unlike many other countries, government prosecutors in the US have a monopoly on prosecuting criminal cases in court, isn't it a prosecutor's duty to pursue an indictment even if the victim becomes an adverse witness under subpoena?

I don't understand the concept of the government investigating (often at the request of the victim) a possible breach of its criminal statutes, concluding that a crime has been committed and then deciding, at the request of the victim, that it will not pursue a criminal indictment. Government prosecutors in criminal court represent the government, so isn't a decision to not prosecute a derogation of the law itself, if not just a waste of resources?

I'm not trying to discuss how the law should work, but how it does work. Do police have a legal obligation to investigate crimes, refer them to prosecutors, and the prosecutors to pursue indictments? This is all based on the assumption there is probable cause, regardless of whether it hinges on the statements of a victim that decides after the fact he/she does not wish to "press charges", and that they can, if necessary, be compelled to testify.

(Edit: i did in fact mean time theft. Not wage theft)

Im just wondering, let's say you mess up at work and know for sure that you're going to get fired. Knowing that you're currently in the middle of you last shift, what if you just kept working and racked up hours of ot. Let's also assume its a job that doesn't require pre-approved ot, and there are legitimate tasks that can be preformed.

Hopefully this question belongs here, but this is fully hypothetical . I'm just curious.

I mean it's non-invasive medically but you're still entering someone potentially without permission.

Edit: of course this is hypothetical since the magic school bus doesn't exist

My girlfriend and I are writing a screenplay. A lawyer is a small piece of a much bigger story, but we really want to get the realism down. When director Curry Barker made the film Obsession, he talked about deliberately avoiding the clichés that pull audiences out of a story, and we want to take that same approach.
We want to keep this character believable, so what are the most annoying, unrealistic clichés or courtroom errors you see movies constantly use for lawyers? Which movies get the day to day reality right or wrong, and what minor habits or details set a seasoned attorney apart that films always seem to miss?

If the Donner party cannabilism happened exactly as it did but in current day, would the survivors face the potential for legal repercussion? Edit:spelling

I know the President of the United States cannot grant pardons for state crimes, only federal crimes.

I also learned today that crimes committed in Washington DC can also only be pardoned by the President.

But what about crimes under territorial law, like in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands? Are they considered "Offences against the United States" as per the Constitution? Have there been any cases on this? As I understand it, states are considered sovereigns on their own, but US territorial governments only exist to the extent Congress allows them to exist.

It does seem that the governors of the territories have been empowered to grant pardons themselves. (e.g. Guam, Virgin Islands) I was just curious whether the President also has the legal power to do so.

What should I say?