Thread for legal discussion by non-lawyers

[superrific]

If you would like to talk about law stuff, and court stuff, and you do not meet the criteria for the thread for lawyers, this thread is for you. I will check in from time to time if anyone cares, but this is a great place for people to engage in banter that is unconnected from actual legal principles.

Go for it

 

[Rock]

You are breaking my constitutional rights enshrined in the first amendment by suggesting I cannot post in the other thread for lawyers only. Can I sue you?

 

[superrific]

To be clear, the other thread is open for people genuinely interested in legal discussion. It's not for lawyers ONLY. It just has to be respectful and not full of people who know nothing pretending as if they are experts.

 

[Rock]

Understand. I was attempting to be humorous because people often seem to misunderstand what the first amendment means/does. I appreciate you attempting to cultivate good legal discussion as a non-lawyer. I am fascinated by it.

 

[superrific]

Understand. I was attempting to be humorous because people often seem to misunderstand what the first amendment means/does. I appreciate you attempting to cultivate good legal discussion as a non-lawyer. I am fascinated by it.

Yeah, I got the joke. That particular misunderstanding is so mind-boggling to me. It's just not a hard concept to grasp, in my view. Your post also made me realize that my previous post wasn't fully inclusive of the conversations that would be welcome.

 

[Awinisawin]

To be clear, the other thread is open for people genuinely interested in legal discussion. It's not for lawyers ONLY. It just has to be respectful and not full of people who know nothing pretending as if they are experts.

So you’re saying some subset of people but essentially all of the magabots?

(I couldn’t resist )

 

[gtyellowjacket]

So you’re saying some subset of people but essentially all of the magabots?

(I couldn’t resist )

I think he's saying you can either be a lawyer or a non lawyer that agrees with him if you would like to participate in the other thread. If you are a non lawyer with a different opinion or you would prefer to discuss legal matters without reading through multiple chapter posts, you get to use this thread.

 

[Awinisawin]

I think he's saying you can either be a lawyer or a non lawyer that agrees with him if you would like to participate in the other thread. If you are a non lawyer with a different opinion or you would prefer to discuss legal matters without reading through multiple chapter posts, you get to use this thread.

I fully understand that.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

I think he's saying you can either be a lawyer or a non lawyer that agrees with him if you would like to participate in the other thread.

Lmao, this about made me spit out my drink.

 

[Rock]

Can I get comment on this case as it affects my hometown so I'm wondering if I'm about to lose trash service weekly. Joking of course.

Terrence Shannon was the Illinois star player that was falsely accused of rape and held out for a bit until he sued and was allowed to play again. It appears to have cost him a bit in the draft.

 

[superrific]

Can I get comment on this case as it affects my hometown so I'm wondering if I'm about to lose trash service weekly. Joking of course.

Terrence Shannon was the Illinois star player that was falsely accused of rape and held out for a bit until he sued and was allowed to play again. It appears to have cost him a bit in the draft.

Knowing almost nothing about the laws in Kansas or the specific facts alleged, I would consider it unlikely that Mr. Shannon has a winning case. He might get a settlement. This strikes me more as an anger lawsuit than a considered one, but again, I don't know the facts so I'm just going on the general difficulty of winning on a malicious prosecution claim.

 

[Rock]

Knowing almost nothing about the laws in Kansas or the specific facts alleged, I would consider it unlikely that Mr. Shannon has a winning case. He might get a settlement. This strikes me more as an anger lawsuit than a considered one, but again, I don't know the facts so I'm just going on the general difficulty of winning on a malicious prosecution claim.

Our district attorney is woefully incompetent and was just voted out as the incumbent only getting 9%. She has numerous complaints against her and has done a bunch of incredibly unethical things. There was a perception she pursued this to try and get headlines for her bid to save her job.

Hearing panel recommends Douglas County DA receive censure in disciplinary complaint case

A panel of attorneys have released their final report on a complaint against the Douglas County district attorney, and they're recommending she receive a public censure.

lawrencekstimes.com

But, I don't know that being incompetent helps as you said.

 

[Calheel]

Knowing almost nothing about the laws in Kansas or the specific facts alleged, I would consider it unlikely that Mr. Shannon has a winning case. He might get a settlement. This strikes me more as an anger lawsuit than a considered one, but again, I don't know the facts so I'm just going on the general difficulty of winning on a malicious prosecution claim.

Hey! This is a thread for non-lawyers. Pipe down.

 

[mpaer]

I have a 30 something friend that works in a Federally Funded outreach at HBCUs-to attract State employees for DOT Today she had a two hour presentation from an attorney specializing in such things. Two hours were devoted to cases since the UNC-Harvard Af Am Scotus case . Essentially -to paraphrase-unless the Govt had an active hand in discrimination-they have no standing to have programs to reverse lack of AfAm employees
Attorney was bummed as is my friend
I assume ornageturd will stamp hard on all such Federally funded programs

 

[ColdBlueSteel]

Reviewing and negotiating contracts (facility maintenance, equipment supply) is getting to be more involved at my job. Contracts that were 12 pages two years ago are 80+ pages now due to some customers being acquired by large multinationals. How much legal training do I need to keep us out of trouble?

 

[Callatoroy]

Yeah, I got the joke. That particular misunderstanding is so mind-boggling to me. It's just not a hard concept to grasp, in my view. Your post also made me realize that my previous post wasn't fully inclusive of the conversations that would be welcome.

Is this super?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I have a 30 something friend that works in a Federally Funded outreach at HBCUs-to attract State employees for DOT Today she had a two hour presentation from an attorney specializing in such things. Two hours were devoted to cases since the UNC-Harvard Af Am Scotus case . Essentially -to paraphrase-unless the Govt had an active hand in discrimination-they have no standing to have programs to reverse lack of AfAm employees
Attorney was bummed as is my friend
I assume ornageturd will stamp hard on all such Federally funded programs

I believe the courts went a long way towards stamping on those programs earlier this year.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Reviewing and negotiating contracts (facility maintenance, equipment supply) is getting to be more involved at my job. Contracts that were 12 pages two years ago are 80+ pages now due to some customers being acquired by large multinationals. How much legal training do I need to keep us out of trouble?

Not a lawyer but we had a little bit of legal training for executives in the MBA class. The big one to look for was A loss of profits clause. Basically you don't want to be made to pay the profits a company might have made if something like the electricity goes down or a pipe breaks in your facility and the customer can't do business.

 

[Heelsandeers]

Drake files legal action over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us

Rapper says Universal Music conspired to boost popularity of Lamar’s diss track, which label denies.

www.bbc.com

Any insight into this one?

Probably appropriate for this thread/doesn't need its own. Because I expect no one has any background:

-Drake filed a pre-action petition against Universal Music Group accusing the label of artificially boosting streams of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track against him, "Not Like Us"
-"Not Like Us" was widely seen as the decisive blow in an escalating rap beef between Drake and Lamar earlier this year, topping charts
-Drake is alleging that UMG licensed "Not Like Us" to Spotify at a 30% discount in exchange for boosting the songs streams
-Universal Music Group distributes both Drake's and Kendrick Lamar's music
-Drake also claims that UMG defamed him by boosting the song "Not Like Us" because in it, Kendrick refers to Drake as a pedophile

Mainly curious as to the legality of UMG negotiating royally rates as they see fit. Would it not be in their right to do so? Labels pumping the steams of certain artists has always been assumed. I don't recall ever hearing of similar lawsuits

 

[superrific]

Any insight into this one?

Probably appropriate for this thread/doesn't need its own. Because I expect no one has any background:

-Drake filed a pre-action petition against Universal Music Group accusing the label of artificially boosting streams of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track against him, "Not Like Us"
-"Not Like Us" was widely seen as the decisive blow in an escalating rap beef between Drake and Lamar earlier this year, topping charts
-Drake is alleging that UMG licensed "Not Like Us" to Spotify at a 30% discount in exchange for boosting the songs streams
-Universal Music Group distributes both Drake's and Kendrick Lamar's music
-Drake also claims that UMG defamed him by boosting the song "Not Like Us" because in it, Kendrick refers to Drake as a pedophile

Mainly curious as to the legality of UMG negotiating royally rates as they see fit. Would it not be in their right to do so? Labels pumping the steams of certain artists has always been assumed. I don't recall ever hearing of similar lawsuits

If they had a case they would have filed a complaint. I can't see how any of the allegations amount to anything illegal. He's acting as if UMG has fiduciary duties to him. It, of course, does not. If UMG wants to boost Kendrick Lamar's music instead of Drake's, that's its choice and if Drake doesn't like it, there are plenty of other record labels out there. Or he could start his own.

He's somehow claiming that Lamar's track injured him, when everyone knows beefs between rappers are mostly like smack talk between boxers before the fight. It gets people's attention. I suppose there have been cases in which rappers took the beefs too far, but as a whole, I cannot see any court being sympathetic to whatever he would allege.