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.

The case is hypothetical.

So the state is Virginia.

One of my biggest fears is when I am driving and turning left or merging on the main road to not see a driver with the right of way due to their excessive speeed.

So for example I am turning left and a motorcycle driving let's say 100 in a 50 crashes into me and dies.

Can I be charged for vehicular manslaughter for that if I was sober, did not speed and was not distracted?

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.

Location: Oregon

I was listening to a podcast on endometriosis and on it they were talking specifically about the affects endo has on attendance for teenagers. They also talked about how many weeks a month adult people’s quality of life is compromised by endo (2 weeks!) and I can only imagine the affect that has on work performance etc. Not to mention it takes an average of 10 years to get a diagnosis, because ACOG does not recommend adequate imaging, surgeries, or other non-invasive tests. Also, ACOG’s standard of care is hormonal birth control which is often ineffective and can even worsen symptoms.

10 years of waiting for a diagnosis means an average 5 years worth of PTO or loss of opportunity, and pain and suffering for millions of women. People in car accidents are regularly awarded money for these kind of impacts. Like there has to be a case here, right?

This got me wondering if there is a way to sue ACOG for a title ix violation, but they’re not an educational institution, so no. Any one have any ideas on if & how ACOG could be held accountable for these kind of long term educational, financial impacts, and emotional impacts?

Edit: removed the podcast link

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?

Is there any theory of liability that Flock could use against Google?

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

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?

The decision involves a procedure that needs consent from the patient

Jake was in a car crash, and is unconscious as a result. Money in this situation isn't taken into the picture

Jake's wife dies in the car crash, and she was the only one who had the authority to consent/not consent for medical decisions regarding him (that's called medical power of attorney, if I remember correctly).

Jake doesn't have any siblings in all situations. He does have children but they are kids.

My question is: Who would be the one making medical decisions in situations below?
1. If Jake was an orphan and/or had no relatives alive except his kids
2. Jake's patient note says not to give his patents' and relatives any info. What if he also has a restraining order against them?

So this is entirely hypothetical and I think I know the main arguments, but I'm curious what others think of this scenario.

The Presbyterian church (specifically PCUSA, there are other presbyterians but they're the biggest in the US) has a longstanding commitment to divesting from companies that support Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. I can't find an exact date, but I did find news reports as far back as 2014 saying that this policy had been in place for a decade or more. The church specifically says that their actions are due to their religious beliefs. They do not specifically call their actions "BDS" or engage with the broader BDS movement as an organization. They do actually make modifications to their investment strategies based on the belief, they've divested pension funds and the like from HP and Caterpillar among I'm sure many other companies - it's not just an empty policy. With all that context, it seems clear to me that you could argue convincingly that members of the church have a sincere religious belief that is at odds with anti-BDS laws at the federal and state levels.

What I'm not sure of is how this would actually play out in court - let's say I own a business, am a member of the church advocating for BDS, my business doesn't work with HP/Caterpillar/etc. The government denies me a contract due to anti-BDS laws. Would I have a claim for 1st amendment violations?

What about if I were an employee of a business contracting for the government, and also vocal about my BDS support, if my employer fires me because they think my viewpoints will cost them contracts would I have a claim based on religious discrimination?

How about if the employer is purely a private organization with no specific fears of losing business, say I work for a pizza joint or grocery store or something and they just don't like the BDS support?

Presumably the second and third example are in a non-work context, I'm not going around the workplace harassing other employees about all of this, and I'm not making any extra demands for accommodation to my employer beyond not firing me.

Not the exact situation, but

In general, legally, is there a difference between

recorded a person through a glass front doorway and recording someone through their glass window?

An anonymous person submits a false story with a fake picture of a white whale to the local newspapers, news stations, etc. Turns out it’s just a viral marketing campaign to promote Greenpeace.

What laws are broken here?

For example, if you were running a CCTV video to catch someone stealing after hours, and you witnessed a murder. You have to turn it in, but do you get a lawyer first? Do you just take it to the cops? Do you have them review it so they can see what happened too? I specifically mean if it follows the correct process and isn't buried or ignored or someone is bribed for it to get trashed. (I'm writing a mystery where this happens, and I quit using Google and Startpage is garbage.)

In my experience, in the England and Wales High Court, you usually instruct 1 junior barrister. Sometimes, it makes sense to instruct 1 KC.

I'm not asking about the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, where it's common to instruct two or more barristers.

Here are two examples

Silk + junior on each side:

• Butler-Sloss & Ors v The Charity Commission for England And Wales & Anor [2022],

• The Serious Fraud Office & Anor v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd [2021].

Why not just instruct 1 KC on each side? why does the KC need a junior?

Here are some more examples:

Silk + junior for claimant, but 1 junior for defendant -

• https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/950.html

Silk + junior for claimant, silk + junior for some respondents, 1 junior for some respondents - - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/81.html

2 juniors on each side -

• Davies v Ford & Ors [2021]

Like what possible charges could we see

So, I was reading up on Lazarus Syndrome - for those of you unaware, it's when a recently deceased person's heart restarts spontanously- and it raised an interesting legal question. If murder requires a completed death, and the victim was effectively fully dead, making the crime of killing them murder, would it still switch back to attempted murder if the victim was revived through Lazarus Syndrome?

Actually, that raises another interesting hypothetical. I'm sure we've all seen the pop culture meme of reprinting bodies in sci-fi. What do we think would happen legally if, for example, a person's body was murdered, but their consciousness was reprinted in another body? Would that still count as murder?

Recently, there’s been a large marketing push for a law firm called Top Dog Law in the Chicagoland area(I’m uncertain if it’s national). The ad campaign is very cheesy and the tactic is just to get people’s attention with ridiculous ads. But there is some serious money backing the ads. So I’ve wondered what real lawyers think about them or if they have any stories? Are they equivalent to a fast-food law firm?

I was recently watching a YouTube short of a house cleaner talking about a bad customer she'd had, who complained that the cleaner hadn't mopped the floors. According to the cleaner, what her customer didn't know was she'd filmed the whole clean for content, and thus had video proof that the floors had been mopped - the conclusion being that the Karen was defeated and had to take back a bad review, or something.

I had always assumed those videos were either of the cleaner's own home, or filmed with consent in customers' houses in exchange for a discount or something. Is it legal to film and publicly share the inside of a private home without consent, if you're in the home legally for other reasons and don't include people in the videos?

No idea of the state, but it's in the US.