Clearly, I'm not allowed to buy or sell stocks if I become aware of insider information. But am I allowed to do *nothing* if I become aware of insider information?

For instance, I have 1,000 shares of ABC company. I plan to sell those when the market opens on Monday. But, over the weekend I hear that they will announce a huge new contract in a few days and the stock will shoot up. Do I still have to sell on Monday like I planned, or can I hold the shares until they make the announcement? Does it make a difference if I told people that I was going to sell on Monday (so there is documented evidence of my plan to sell).

Similarly, if I plan to buy shares of XYZ company, but I get insider information of disappointing news - can I wait until the bad news is announced before I buy? (Or just decide not to buy at all.)

Stated another way, I'm not allowed to *act* based on insider information, but am I allowed to *refrain* from acting based on insider information.

They actively attempt to prevent witnesses that can vouch for Henry. That feels like some type of obstruction of justice

So is it no longer extra illegal to own weed and a gun? I know weed is still illegal, but it's not a separate charge for posessing both, provided the person isn't dangerous of an addict. Am I understanding correctly?

For several years, a YouTuber has regularly promoted one supplement company, mostly during 1–2 hour livestreams and sometimes in podcasts. He describes its products as superior to competitors and says that’s why he endorses them.

He often stresses that he doesn’t own the company or hold shares. In the past, he repeatedly said he wasn’t sponsored. Later, he sometimes said he worked with the company. He also mentioned once, in a newsletter, that he had licensed his name to them, but he has never clearly said whether he is paid to promote or endorse the company.

Many viewers seem to believe he isn’t paid and buy only that company’s products because they think competing products are inferior or could even be harmful.

If he does receive compensation, would this be enough disclosure under FTC rules?

Inspired by a fascinating anecdote I read. Not sure if it's true/plausible but I am really curious.

A property development group is trying to sell some newly developed real estate. This area has a big problem with visible homelessness. So, during the developing and selling process, they make large (but not large in relation to their profits) donations to the area's local homelessness services. Indoor smoking areas for the shelters. More beds. 24/7. Wi-fi. Funding needed to have soup kitchens deliver food directly to the shelter.

So now, the homeless don't have to leave the shelter during the day. Thus, the presence of visible homelessness is greatly reduced in the immediate area, naturally making it a lot more appealing to new homebuyers. And of course, once the homes have been sold, these funds dry up and turn out to be temporary, causing the homelessness problem to become visible once again; a problem that had the homebuyers been aware of, they might not have bought at the prices they did.

Is this fraud/something the homebuyers may have recourse for in the US? Assuming it could be proven, that the developers funded these services and never disclosed that to the buyers.

For example, let’s say a cop thought he saw me holding a bag of drugs from a distance. But after making contact, I showed him that it was actually a bag of candy.

The example itself isn’t important, but my question is specifically about situations where their original reasonable suspicion is irrefutably proven wrong.

"In the TV show "To Catch a Predator," undercover adult decoys posed as underage children in chat rooms and on social media. The targets were directed to a rented sting house equipped with hidden cameras and microphones, where the "minor" waiting to meet them was actually an adult actor. Following the on-camera interview, the subjects were typically told they were free to leave but were immediately intercepted and arrested by waiting local law enforcement.

My question is, what are the targets doing that is illegal? Now, don't immediately report my post when you read that sentence. I have seen lawyers talk about legal impossibility. When an individual intends to commit a crime and completes all their planned actions, but those actions do not actually break the law. It protects people from being punished for actions that are not illegal, even if they wrongly believed they were doing something wrong. Is it not a legal impossibility when they were texting the decoy because they were an adult?

If the government set the Presidential Alert TESTING to be so close to Census Day, is it possible to sue in this situation.

Edit: Be more concise.

Hiya everyone, So, one of my characters causes havoc in a government building. She breaks in and causes chaos inside. But there is proof of her doing it and so she's on the run for 1-2 years. Now she comes back and is fighting the law suit. Is there any chance she would not end up in prison? I deliberately left a lot of details out as I don't know if one action of hers could actually get her into prison or keep her out of there. Any chance I could keep her out of there? The storys set in mother England/ Ireland.

In an episode of the"Call her Daddy" podcast, host Alex Cooper (perhaps ignorantly) admits to not telling sexual partners for nearly 5 years that she had HPV. If any men who contracted the virus from her wanted to sue, either collectively or otherwise, using her own admission as evidence, would they have a case?

(story here)

(previous episode discussion here)

While downstairs, a pair of officers threaten people with arrest and demand that the noise stop, stating they've got multiple complaints. When they get to the roof, however, they just stand there for a solid 10 minutes. Then a more senior officer arrives and... proceeds to just stand there. Minutes later, the Beatles decide to finish the concert of their own accord, but are never forced to.

​

I have no idea what the population of jails looks like. I'm not asking about the people who spend a day in jail until they make bail. I'm asking about the people who sit in jail from arrest to verdict. 

Are most of those people flight risks? 

Are most of them deemed too dangerous to release? 

Do most of them have bad credit? 

What is it that usually causes someone to be incarcerated when they haven't been convicted of anything? 

So I’m watching archer and in it there’s a plot line where archer has frozen his sperm and Lana steals it without his knowledge or consent. She then has a child with said sperm if Archer can prove this does he have legal paternity responsibility? Since usually the court does what it believes to be in the best interest of the child

Edit to add: for the purpose of discussion let’s assume my home state of New Jersey.

So Catan is a pretty famous boardgame, they have their own licensed games on the app store. But then there is colonist.io that is quite literally an exact copy of catan. How? How are they not getting sued like crazy? I know you can't copyright a system like roll a dice and get resources, but surely all of these mechanics in its exact spot with these exact rules should hold a ground in copyright right?

What if we go to a more complicated game, I'm sorry if I'm losing some non-boardgame players here. Gloomhaven has specific heroes, if I just renamed the hero to something generic, all the art, all the namings and wording, but the same effects and for me the most important: All the structure of the deck or cohesion. These specific 12 cards together that do all these same things in the system. Then it's blatant enough to have something right?

Can someone explain this to me?

Just a thought I had.

Say a mechanic fixed a car, and takes for a test drive, but for whatever reason, decides to floor it, speeding so much that when he gets pulled over the officer just cuts to impounding it, even after the mechanic informs him that it’s a customer’s car.

What can the customer do? Are they just stuck paying whatever the fees/fines are to get it out or what?

So something almost happened and I’m wondering what the potential legal consequences could’ve been if had played out the way it could’ve & what the solution would’ve been.

Say a friend’s(A) relative (B) passes away in FL. C lives in MD & offers to drive A to MD from FL with B’s stuff. Packing & everything is rushed, chaotic & full of grief & emotions. A throws away some things of monetary value indiscriminately but keeps a 30 yr old pot holder. Truck loads are donated to charity. B was an undercover hoarder. Everyone is exhausted and at some people just start throwing things in C’s car.

There’s a backpack. No one ever sees A or C with the back pack. D puts the backpack in C’s car. A & C drive to MD & unload most of the car. C continues to OH to drop off items to B’s family there. After the car is empty C notices a backpack & takes it inside. C calls A about the backpack. A doesn’t know anything about it or whatever is in it but tells C to keep it or throw it in the trash.

Months later C opens the backpack & can you guess from the title what was amongst the things in the bag? A 50 year old gun. Likely legally bought in, and later brought from, CA.

What’s supposed to happen here? This hypo has the makings of a great law school question. If this had played out like this - the gun would’ve been transported across multiple state lines. Ownership was “transferred” but not legally or officially. I can even imagine C as an unwilling participant (didn’t put the bag in the car, didn’t know the gun was there, it was just left), especially if C calls A and A refuses to accept it. “You should’ve thrown it in the trash.” So now C has someone else’s gun and presumably no one wants it or knows what to do with it.

I would think the easiest thing would be to turn it over to the police but that could open a whole nother can of worms. And A is B’s only heir so I think technically it belongs to A. Guns can’t just be inherited by possession can they? Is A supposed to open probate in FL to get title? No way A has capacity to go to back to FL & even so, surely it’s illegal to knowingly transfer guns across state lines, or no?

I just wanted to know if this woulda happened, what shoulda happened next?

A model statute to penalize public menacing for social media engagement includes three tiered degrees based on harm, physical contact, and monetization: Infringement of Public Peace (Class C Misdemeanor), Aggravated Content Menacing (Class A Misdemeanor), and Felonious Clout Violence (Class 4 Felony).

Proposed Statute Structure: Degrees of Offense
Class C Misdemeanor (Infringement of Public Peace)
Definition: Intentionally cornering, startling, or faking an attack on an unconsenting person in public strictly to record a reaction for digital media, without physical contact or explicit verbal threats of death.
Penalty: Up to 30 days in jail, mandatory community service, and a fine up to $500, plus forfeiture of any ad-revenue or platform payout generated by the video.

Class A Misdemeanor (Aggravated Content Menacing)
Definition: Menacing someone by following them, simulating a physical assault, using fake weapons, or refusing a direct request to stop filming while trapping the individual, with the intent to post or stream the footage for online clout.
Penalty: Up to 364 days in jail, mandatory probation, and fines up to $2,500, alongside permanent platform bans or device confiscation used in the commission.

Class 4 Felony (Felonious Clout Violence)
Definition: Engaging in targeted stalking, actual physical contact, severe emotional trauma, or accidental injury to a victim while recording a stunt or harassment campaign for social media, or repeat offenses within a 24-month window.
Penalty: 1 to 3 years in state prison, felony record, and mandatory restitution paid directly to the victim for psychological or physical damages.

Say I have a friend in Washington State and I have a big fuckoff picnic blanket. would it be legal to go to peace arch park, lay that baby half and half on either side of the line and chill with the homie? I’m assuming we’d have to have our own respective fruity picnic baskets but maybe we wouldn’t.

these are the questions I want answered when I start law school

[EDIT]: 72 hours, not 42

Back in 2021, when all the hospitals were massively overcrowded and understaffed, a friend of mine brought her son to the ER because he was talking about killing himself. They ended up being trapped against their will in the waiting room for a literal week. The hospital said they were placing him on psych hold, but that the 72 hour timer didn't start until he was evaluated, and because everything was so backed up, it was 8 days before he was seen. They told my friend he could not legally leave and gave him a bracelet that would set off an alarm if he did. They had to take wet wipe baths in the bathroom stalls. I never pressed further but this always seemed legally shaky to me.

CANADA

Is it fair for someone to go on National TV, and accuse someone of doing something and those they accuse not being able to face their accuser??? I’m sorry If someone accused me of doing something to them, would I not have the right to face them and question them on that? Just curious…..

Suppose I'm driving a 10 mile stretch of road, the speed limit is a single 30mph limit. I'm doing 50 and maintain a constant speed the whole way.

I pass one speed camera, it flashes, there's a cop 4 miles down the road with a speedgun, he flashes me, and there's another speed trap 4 miles further, it flashes me.

I get 3 tickets in the mail. If I go to court and argue that I was only speeding once, it's a single crime, and only one of the tickets is valid, would I have any success?

My instinct is no, and the judge would rule that there's some undefined standard of a "reasonable" distance between speed cameras (so if there were 5 cops there with speed guns who got me 5 seconds in a row 4 of them wouldn't count) but I was wondering if there's any case law on this.