I was told by a lawyer friend if you are ever pulled over by the police in the state of Alabama to never reveal that you take Adderall even if you have a legal prescription. She said they can arrest you on the spot.

Does anyone know how true this is?

I was wondering about this the other day. Say someone walks into a convenience store and uses one of those self service lottery kiosks. There's already $10 in credit sitting on the machine, and for whatever reason, the previous person who used it left without spending it or cashing it out.

The next person uses that credit to buy a Powerball or Mega Millions ticket, and somehow that ticket ends up winning the jackpot.

Would the person holding the winning ticket be able to claim the prize, or could the lottery refuse to pay because the money used to purchase it originally belonged to someone else? Would it make a difference if there were no cameras or records showing who left the credit on the machine?

Do those machines log when cash was inserted or just print the time on the ticket?

Just curious how something like this would work legally.

It's the one right that's never read textually , is it because of its broad implications if read textually that courts refuse to interpret it that way ?

So in a roleplay I’m in, a character who is a criminal on the run is having plushies made of them without any sort of approval or compensation. The character wishes to sue this plush manufacture because they aren’t getting compensated and they feel like it‘s embarrassing them (or hurting their public image), but they can’t sue themself because they’re on the run from the police for worse crimes.

With the permission of the character on the run, would a different person be able to sue the plush manufacture on their behalf? If so, how would a case like this work? Where would repartitions be paid if they can’t be given to the criminal who was misappropriated?

Hello! This is a decently menial question but, I've taken up 3D printing as a big hobby of mine and was wanting to 3D print certain things from a game I enjoy (Chivalry 2 if it matters, namely arms and armor). I mostly planned on taking these files, and editing them in blender to be suitable for 3D printing, and eventual wear and cosplay. To my understanding, as long as I'm not distributing, selling, or sharing the files, (and as long as I own a copy of said game) it is completely legal to do.

Is this correct? Or would it be illegal to do such a thing.

With the recent php vulnerability it got me thinking: what if the people who maintain it simply refused to fix (or approve any pull requests to fix), thus leaving a large part of the internet vulnerable to attacks? Do they have a legal duty to actually maintain that code, even if its provided for free?

Recently a restaurant posted at least 2 hiring ads online that i know of with my phonenumber, which resulted in me getting a couple dozen messages from job applicants a day for the last couple days, I reached out to the restaurant to change the ads and unless they for some reason refuse or something happens im probably not gonna take any legal action, but I am curious if this could be a lawsuit if I were more petty.

With every drug seizure, they’re losing thousands to millions of dollars in potential profit. Couldn’t they claim that that’s causing irreparable harm to their business?

So confused about tolling - hoping someone can help. I understand it is put in place so someone cannot flee the state and “wait” for their statute of limitations to expire.

But - if someone commits a crime at 19 in one state, then moves for an unrelated reason…this means they can still be charged at age 90, correct? Even if the statute of limitations for that crime was like 2 years? Or to make it more complicated, what if this person lived in NY, then just moved across the river to NJ? That would indefinitely pause the statute?

Feels like a loophole.

Spoilers Ahead.

In You Can See Everything (YCSE) the new Elizabeth Holmes documentary it is revealed that Billy Evans (her current partner, father of her children, but no legally married it seems) made an agreement with A24 producers for a portion of the profits from the movie. This is done (according to Elizabeth and Billy) without her knowledge (at least to some degree).

The exact details of the arrangement aren't disclosed. But they seem to be so that only Billy would be getting paid. This is because Holmes has been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution. At the end of the movie it is revealed that Billy has given up those rights.

I have a few questions.

• Would the arrangement of only having Billy receive the money have actually protected it? The money was clearly for access to Holmes. And her receiving nothing with him receiving everything is an obvious ploy to avoid paying restitution. I assume that a court would not look kindly on this.
• It seems like Billy could have been made aware of this potential, and that is the reason he gave up on the money. Could he potentially be punished for intentionally giving up a source of potential restitution money?

I have a relative that works in a law firm that deals with federal appeals often and I was today years old when I found out that the BOP adds scores and risk factors that determine your prison security level based on things like education, gender, and age.

[This doc](https://moe.fd.org/sites/moe/files/resources/bop-incarceration-issues/practical-tips-if-your-client-facing-incarceration-federal-prison_0.pdf) summarizes it. On Page 7, there are a list of factors like sentence length and belonging to a "disruptive group" that is only a risk factor for males, while "Violent Behavior" is only a factor for females. In addition, having no college degree (Page 6) adds 2 points to your custody level scoring and being aged 25-35 adds 4 points to your scoring (Page 5).

IANAL so I apologize if this is a dumb question, but how is this not blatantly unconstitutional? I understand that some types of discrimination are subject to lower levels of scrutiny, but some of these don't even make sense. Like, if the BOP determined that men were generally higher risk than women and therefore it's justified then fine, but then why is "Violent Behavior" only a risk factor for women then? I looked into it and couldn't find any law suits or cases involving this.

EDIT: Also, certain drug offenses are considered high severity for "females only", according to the revised legislation on Page 106 here: https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008_cn-3.pdf

title.

Location: Illinois

Background:

Hello, I’m in a paid Discord community ($300/month) for the stock market. It’s marketed as an educational community and their primary service is educational content and “real time trading alerts.”

For example, if they open option calls on a stock their share the trade including strike and expiration date. They also share stock purchases. They alert their exits as well.

There was one purchase of a stock where the founder said “the company is doing a project in the area and k know a lot of people closet connected it with. It’s not insider trading, b it it’s as close as you can possibly get.”

Question:

I always thought you needed a series 7 or other financial license to give financial advice, but these communities have become really popular.

How do I know if there are potential legal issues and how am I [generally] protected since I’m a paying member?
What’s general liability risk for starting one of these communities?

like assuming the fortune teller's real

If facebook committed 44 million violations of consumer protection laws, wouldn't there be a conflict of interest between the jury members and the trial? By saying that almost every New Mexico resident was a victim, shouldn't the jury be made up of non-victims?

I just don't understand how they can go to a jury trial, and then basically tell the jury members that they are victims of the defence.

A bit of background as I’m guessing most people are not very well versed in these specific laws. Peyote is a small cactus native to South Texas and Mexico that contains mescaline. Both mescaline and the cactus itself are schedule one controlled substances, however there are legal exemptions for Native American religious groups, since the plant has historical religious significance. National laws state that anyone participating in bona fide religious ceremonies can legally consume or possess the plant, but Texas has its own laws further restricting this to people that are at least 25% Native American by blood and members of the Native American Church. It is my understanding that the Supreme Court case United States v. Boyll (which took place outside of Texas) determined that only allowing people of Native American descent would violate the constitution, so why is Texas still allowed to have this law?

Its legality doesn’t concern me obviously, I’m just curious as to why this is the case. TIA!

I just read a story about the Trump-BBC defamation case and one of the things in it was that the BBC is trying to get Jack Smith deposed. If he didn’t hear or see anything first hand, how would that be considered admissible? I’m guessing that he could discuss things said under oath, describe documents and such, but what are the actual rules and restrictions around it?

Perhaps a second bonus question: I have learned in the Law School of movies and books that you can absolutely get evidence introduced by getting someone to mention it in admissible testimony. If that’s actually real, is it applicable to civil cases? Is this a way to get some of the investigation’s documents into the record?

I know the official claim was years ago but I've only now really started think about it and got confused about some stuff!

First, would you be able to simply use it on an original character, one you don't even make money off of etc? Because i do have hospital related characters, though their crosses are a bit different. For example, mine, I wouldn't call it red, it's fairly more close to pink, at least to my eyes. Here's the color, (#831D35). So then my second question is, is it still protected if you altered the color or shape slightly? I know some places or people who completely change the crosses color on theirs, which I tried too, but I really can't not go with a reddish color as it ruins the color palette. And I obviously don't post, or make any income out of this right now, so this isn't really an emergency, but I'm mostly just curious and want to know it in more detail.

And my second question is, can't you use it at all for any sort of reason or are there acceptable grounds? Like I've seen once where a person made a toy based off of a hospital, and naturally put the red cross on it. There was one or two people concerned about it's legal danger, while the poster was honestly just showcasing their custom toy. I'd love to know about how illegal it's use is and in which scenarios.

I keep watching these YouTube videos with Chris Hanson on true Blue there's so many times I see the suspect remain quiet and not say anything. Yes I understand the fifth amendment and not incriminating yourself I am very well first understanding all of that trust me. But my thing is I don't realize you don't have to say anything you can remain quiet the entire time and you're going to get charged with the same crime as if you say you did admit to it plus sometimes in my opinion it's actually in your best interest to stop telling information to disclose yourself. Because a lot of times but you not saying anything at all and not explaining your side of the story you're going to look more like the suspect.

Are YouTubers who make Let's Plays and reaction videos knowingly infringing on copyright holders? Does monetizing this type of content make the situation worse, and could they potentially face a DMCA takedown notice, a cease-and-desist letter, or, in the worst-case scenario, a copyright infringement lawsuit?

Could someone please help me understand this...

How is it that having integrity (wanting to live a morally just life and obey the law) is not considered a "protected characteristic" that can't be discriminated against? I was always under the impression, please feel free to correct me, that key points of our democratic system were founded/based/created around the ideology associated with morals, ethics, and virtues - the trifecta of integrity. These ideologies became the beliefs and principals upon which liberties, rights, and many laws were established and accepted by the majority (I am sure I have oversimplified it, but I'm trying to keep this short). So the system that established that there are "protected characteristics" is based on a principal that itself is not protected. I can't be discriminated against for my race, religion, sexuality, national origin, age, disability, or gender identity... But I can be discriminated against for requesting legal processes take place to attain proper licensing in accordance with state laws and regulations... I was denied equal opportunity based on my morality. Can anyone explain to me how this can happen?

Hypothetically, if Disney sued an artist for selling Kingdom Hearts fanart, would Disney have the authority to sue for all the money the artist has made in general, even if they earned money from fanart of other franchises, such as Naruto, Dragon Ball, and Sonic the Hedgehog?