# embeddings_queue

created_at: 2025-08-10 11:09:45
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_999_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"original_index":999,"content_length":40,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: california, professional-licensing","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"content_length":151,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Can a German declaration of division (Teliungserkl&#228;rung) or community ordinance (Gemeinschaftsordnung) prohibit long-term rentals?","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1000}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Consider an apartment block consisting of three equal units A, B, and C, located in Bavaria, Germany.  At present, all are owner-occupied and the Community of Apartment Owners (<em>Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft</em>) has three members Asani, Bahar, and Camille, with equal power.  Units B and C are on the market and are bought by Diya, who decides to rent them out.  Now Asani finds himself having a minority in the Community of Apartment Owners and, as an owner-occupier, having other needs and interests than Diya, but Diya can possibly push through or block any decisions taken by majority vote (depending on the specifics in the declaration of division (<em>Teilungserklärung</em>), a person owning two units may have either one or two votes).  This situation is not desirable for Asani.</p>\n<p>Is it legally possible in Bavaria, Germany, to enact a rule that restricts the rights of owners to rent out their property long-term?  For example, could it contain</p>\n<ul>","content_length":992,"original_index":1000,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1000,"chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"<p>Is it legally possible in Bavaria, Germany, to enact a rule that restricts the rights of owners to rent out their property long-term?  For example, could it contain</p>\n<ul>\n<li>a rule that every owner must live in their property, or</li>\n<li>that the majority of homes must be owner-occupied, or</li>\n<li>that new rentals are not allowed, or</li>\n<li>that everyone who owns a property in the building must also live in the building, or</li>\n<li>something similar?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Such a rule would need to be changeable only by unanimous consent, otherwise Diya owning two out of three properties could simply abolish the rule, so Asani, Bahar, and Camille would together agree on such a rule (perhaps Asani would pay Bahar and Camille in case they fear the rule might reduce the sale value, but that is separate from the legal question).</p>","content_length":844}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1000,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"content_length":710,"chroma:document":"<p>I've searched the web about restrictions on renting out, but all I find is either about restrictions on <em>short-term</em> (holiday) rentals, or about owner-occupiers objecting to <em>specific</em> prospective tenants.  I couldn't find anything about the possibility to restrict long-term rentals <em>in general</em>.  Is there any law that would prevent the rules governing the property as a whole (such as the Declaration of Division (<em>Teilungserklärung</em>) or the Community Ordinance (<em>Gemeinschaftsordnung</em>)) from containing such a restriction?</p>\n<p>I am primarily interested in the situation in Bavaria, Germany, but for context it's also interesting to know the situation elsewhere.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1000,"content_length":995,"chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Yes, you can put <em>pretty much anything</em> you like into the co-op statutes.\nYou are actually interested in whether it <em>makes a difference</em>, though, whether the sheriff will come enforce a court order if it came to a trial.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>a rule that every owner must live in their property, or</li>\n<li>that everyone who owns a property in the building must also live in the building, or</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>By virtue of indirect effect of basic rights (<em>mittelbarer Wirkung von Grundrechten</em>) a court will never issue an order mandating Diya to live in her apartment, Art. 11 GG.\nThe sheriff will not forcefully “shove” her into her apartment:\n“You <em>must</em> live here now!”</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>that the majority of homes must be owner-occupied, or</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Similar, but Art. 2 I GG.\nVacancy of apartments is legal in Germany.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>that new rentals are not allowed, or</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1000,"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Similar, but Art. 2 I GG.\nVacancy of apartments is legal in Germany.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>that new rentals are not allowed, or</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>As soon as Diya is recorded in the <em>Wohnungsgrundbuch</em> (apartment register) as the new owner of units B and C, she incontestably assumes the <em>role</em> of owner about said units.\nIf she rents them out despite the co-op statutes forbidding so, she does nothing illegal (that means breaking <em>state</em>/<em>federal</em> <em>law</em>).\nAfter all she <em>is</em> indeed the owner, so there is no fraud involved, § 263 Ⅰ StGB.</p>\n<p>The fact that she agreed to <em>not</em> rent out is a matter between Diya and the co-op.\n<em>No court</em> will evict the new tenants from units B and C, because Diya has breached <em>her</em> obligations.</p>\n<p>However, it <em>might</em> be a just cause to oust Diya from the co-op, § 17 WEG.","content_length":920,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>However, it <em>might</em> be a just cause to oust Diya from the co-op, § 17 WEG.\nYet still it requires <em>severe</em> grounds as it <em>essentially</em> means exercising eminent domain, Art. 14 Ⅲ GG.\nI tentatively claim it won’t work out as long as Diya pays her share in maintenance and the tenants chosen by Diya are well-behaved.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>something similar?</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You will need something that produces <em>evidence</em>.\n“Diya does not live in unit B” is a claim that needs corroboration in court.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>[…] restrict long-term rentals <em>in general</em>. […]</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Tenancy agreements are by default unlimited in time.\nShort-term rents are sort of “forbidden” except if <em>justified</em> by one of the reasons named in § 575 Ⅰ BGB.\nHence restricting long-term rentals borders on a blanket-ban on <em>all</em> rentals.</p>","original_index":1000,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":898,"chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1000,"content_length":708,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>It would seem this is not possible.</p>\n<p>From the <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/woeigg/BJNR001750951.html#BJNR001750951BJNG000102360\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Gesetz über das Wohnungseigentum und das Dauerwohnrecht (Wohnungseigentumsgesetz - WEG)</a> (Act on the Ownership of Apartments and the Permanent Residential Right):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>§ 13 Rechte des Wohnungseigentümers aus dem Sondereigentum<br />\n(1) Jeder Wohnungseigentümer kann, soweit nicht das Gesetz entgegensteht, mit seinem Sondereigentum nach Belieben verfahren, insbesondere dieses bewohnen, vermieten, verpachten oder in sonstiger Weise nutzen, und andere von Einwirkungen ausschließen.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>From the <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_woeigg/englisch_woeigg.html#p0050\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">translation by Iyamide Mahdi in cooperation with the Language Service of the Federal Ministry of Justice</a> (based on an older version of the law, but this paragraph appears to not have changed):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>§ 13 Rights of the Apartment Owners<br />\n(1) Every apartment owner shall have the right, in the absence of conflicting laws or third party rights, to deal at will with the parts of the building forming part of the separately owned property and in particular to occupy them, rent them out, lease them out or use them in any other manner, and to exclude others from interfering.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I am not a lawyer, but from my reading, it is not possible to restrict by declaration of division or community ordinance the rights of owners to rent out or lease out their property.</p>","content_length":942,"original_index":1000,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1000_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: rental-property, germany, homeownership","content_length":45,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":9,"original_index":1000}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1001,"chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Why does &quot;object&quot; mean &quot;the persons who may benefit from property on the exercise of a distributive power, or discretionary trust&quot;?","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":167}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>I know that legal persons can be natural/physical, or juridical/fictitious. But even fictitious persons are animate, or are run by humans! Hence, this word choice of OBJECTS feels weird, because &quot;objects&quot; denote inanimacy, whereas OBJECTS defined below refer to animate persons.</p>\n<h4>Why did trust law choose &quot;OBJECTS&quot; for the definitions below? Can you explain this word choice to make it feel more natural? Has anyone proffered a better term?</h4>\n<blockquote>\n<p>OBJECTS the persons who may benefit from\nproperty on the exercise of a distributive\npower or discretionary trust.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>Pearce and Stevens' Trusts and Equitable Obligations</em> (2022) 8th edn, page lxiii.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Another form of express trust is the discretionary trust under which the trustees have discretion to ‘appoint’\n(meaning ‘to distribute’) the property as they wish to people from a particular class of potential","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1001,"chunk_index":1,"content_length":961}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"(meaning ‘to distribute’) the property as they wish to people from a particular class of potential\nbeneficiaries, known as the <strong>objects [emphasis added]</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Paul Davies, <em>Equity &amp; Trusts: Text, Cases, and Materials</em> (2019) 3rd edn, page 30.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>3.7 The result of the trustees having a discretion to select only some of the possible beneficiaries\nmeans, of course, that some might not receive any money at all, in which case\nthey will not really be ‘beneficiaries’ of the trust. For this reason, the term <strong>‘objects’ [emphasis added]</strong> is\nused, and the group of objects among whom the trustee may select is called the ‘class of\nobjects’. ‘Objects’, then, is the compendious term that covers beneficiaries under a fixed\ntrust, possible beneficiaries under a discretionary trust, and possible recipients under a\npower of appointment, to which we now turn.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":944,"original_index":1001,"chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":912,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1001,"chunk_index":3,"chroma:document":"trust, possible beneficiaries under a discretionary trust, and possible recipients under a\npower of appointment, to which we now turn.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>James Penner, <em>The Law of Trusts</em> (2022) 12th edition, page 52.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>        But trusts need not work in this way. The settlor may pass property to a trustee to\ndistribute among a defined group of individual beneficiaries, but leave it to the trustee\nto decide exactly who is to get what. These trusts are known as discretionary trusts,\nfor the simple reason that the trustee has a discretion as to how the property is to be\ndistributed among this group of beneficiaries (or, as we more usually call them in such\ncases, <strong><em>objects</em> [emphasis added]</strong>). The discretion given to the trustee may be more or less extensive. So, a\nsettlor may give his trustee free rein to decide what property, if any, each beneficiary","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"settlor may give his trustee free rein to decide what property, if any, each beneficiary\nis to receive. Alternatively, he may stipulate that each of the beneficiaries must receive\nsomething, but leave it to the trustee to determine exactly what each gets.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Tim Akkouh, <em>Trusts Law</em> (2017) 5th edn, page 19.</p>","content_length":337,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"original_index":1001}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>&quot;Object&quot; doesn't necessarily denote inanimacy.  Consider the sentence <em>Alice likes Bob.</em>  Grammatically, <em>Bob</em> is the object of the sentence.  Apart from grammatical analysis, we can also say that Bob is the object of Alice's affection.</p>\n<p>In other words, a more general sense of <em>object</em> is &quot;something toward which something else is directed.&quot;  (In modern idiomatic English, you will probably more likely hear <em>objective</em> used for that, especially when the object/objective is an abstract goal.)</p>\n<p>The concept at use here is defined in Black's law dictionary (second edition) under the phrase <em>objects of a power:</em></p>\n<blockquote>","content_length":709,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1001,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":6,"chroma:document":"<p>The concept at use here is defined in Black's law dictionary (second edition) under the phrase <em>objects of a power:</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Where property is settled subject to a power given to any person or persons to appoint the same among a limited class, the members of the class are called the &quot;objects&quot; of the power.  Thus, if a parent has a power to appoint a fund among his children, the children are called the &quot;objects&quot; of the power.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Analogous to Bob being the object of Alice's affection because the affection is directed toward Bob, the children in the example are the objects of the power because the power is applied to the children.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":699,"original_index":1001,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1001_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":7,"content_length":37,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: legal-terms, trusts-and-estates","original_index":1001,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Title: Is it illegal to display a price perpetually while giving the impression it&#39;s a discount?","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":109,"original_index":1002}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":942,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1002,"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Over a year ago, I purchased a license for <a href=\"https://esotericsoftware.com/spine-purchase\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Spine</a>. At the time, it had an offer from $99, to $69.</p>\n<p>I didn't have plans to use it yet, but I purchased it at the time to catch a better price. However, since I bought it, it has always had that pricing. Reviewing the <a href=\"https://archive.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Internet Archive</a>, the pricing as it's shown today has been perpetual since 2016.</p>\n<p>While there's no deadline, it gives the impression that it's a discount, but in reality it's an arbitrarily inflated price, struck out, with the normal price next to it.</p>\n<p>Is this pricing actually legally compliant, and if not, where can one report such behavior?</p>\n<p>The organization is based in Washington, United States.</p>\n<p>Regarding governance, these are the relevant terms of the license:</p>\n<blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":846,"original_index":1002,"chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"<p>The organization is based in Washington, United States.</p>\n<p>Regarding governance, these are the relevant terms of the license:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>17 Governing Law.</strong> This Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with, without regard to conflicts of law provisions, the internal laws of:</p>\n<p><strong>(a)</strong> the State of California and any suit, action, or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be brought in the state or federal courts located in Los Angeles County, California; or,<br />\n<strong>(b)</strong> England and Wales, provided You are located in the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, or a member state of the European Union, and any suit, action, or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be brought in the courts located in London, England.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1002,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"content_length":684,"chroma:document":"<p>You irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of these courts in any such suit, action, or proceeding and waive any objection based on improper venue or forum non conveniens.</p>\n<p><strong>18 Trade Control Laws.</strong> The Spine Editor and Your use of the Spine Editor are subject to United States and international laws, restrictions, and regulations that may govern the import, export, and use of the Spine Editor. You agree to comply with all such laws, restrictions, and regulations.</p>\n<p>— <em><a href=\"https://esotericsoftware.com/spine-editor-license#s17\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://esotericsoftware.com/spine-editor-license#s17</a></em></p>\n</blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":4,"content_length":901,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>In England and Wales, falsely suggesting a sale or discount price would be contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/consumeradvice/goodsandservices/pricinglaw\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/consumeradvice/goodsandservices/pricinglaw</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>practices that have been widely used by businesses for many years are\nnow deemed under the Guide as “less likely to comply” or, in other\nwords, more likely than not to be viewed as misleading and in breach\nof the CPUT Regulations.</p>\n<p>So what is now <strong>less likely to comply</strong>?</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>Price establishing for 28-days within a 6-month period</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Using a reference price that applied many months (at least more than 2 months) prior to the promotion.</p>\n</li>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1002}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":768,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"original_index":1002,"chroma:document":"<ul>\n<li><p>Price establishing for 28-days within a 6-month period</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Using a reference price that applied many months (at least more than 2 months) prior to the promotion.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Using a reference price when only a minimal amount of product actually sold at that price. There is now an expectation that a<br />\nbusiness will have sold a “significant number” of units at the higher\nprice in order to make a price comparison.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/no-more-28-day-rule-pricing-and-promotions-under-the-spotlight/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/no-more-28-day-rule-pricing-and-promotions-under-the-spotlight/</a></p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1002_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1002,"chroma:document":"Tags: software, licensing","chunk_index":6,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":25}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1003_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":135,"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Why did the strict rules of evidence result in a debt being due twice, even though common law dismissed this as absurd?","original_index":1003}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1003_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1003,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>As &quot;<em>the common\nlaw held that a debt was due twice . . . [that proposition] would have been dismissed as\nabsurd</em>&quot;, why wasn't this the end of the story for the debtor? Why was this &quot;<em>the result which followed from observing strict rules of evidence</em>&quot;?</p>\n<p>I am befuddled by the modal verb &quot;<strong>might</strong>&quot; in quotation beneath. Did the rules of evidence truly  &quot;<em>exclude the merits of the case from consideration but which could not be relaxed without destroying certainty and condoning carelessness</em>&quot;?</p>\n<p>Most lawyers and judges are crafty. I am startled that even they could not skirt, outjockey, and/or relax the rules of evidence in order to actualize  a common law proposition dismissed as absurd (&quot;a debt was due twice&quot;)</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>1.5 The first is that equity, fairness, or justice were never absent from the common law","chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":939}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1003_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>1.5 The first is that equity, fairness, or justice were never absent from the common law\ncourts. The difference was that from the mid-fourteenth century the complaints that the\ncommon law courts would hear became fixed. That is, the common law courts refused to\ninvent new categories of writs, or different ‘forms of action’; the procedures of the court\nas to pleading and evidence also became fixed. Baker (2002), at 102–103 (slightly modified)\nillustrates the sort of problem that could arise because of this:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>[T]he growing strength of the substantive law could also work injustice, because the\njudges preferred to suffer hardship in individual cases than to make exceptions to clear\nrules. The stock example was that of the debtor who gave his creditor a sealed bond\n[a paper document recording the obligation to pay the debt], but did not ensure that it\nwas cancelled when he paid up. The law regarded the bond as incontrovertible evidence","content_length":979,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"original_index":1003}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1003_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"[a paper document recording the obligation to pay the debt], but did not ensure that it\nwas cancelled when he paid up. The law regarded the bond as incontrovertible evidence\nof the debt, and so payment was no defence. Here the debtor would suffer an obvious\nhardship if he was made to pay twice; but the mischief was a result of his own foolishness,\nand the law did not bend to protect fools . . . <strong>Now it was not that the common\nlaw held that a debt was due twice . . . [that proposition] would have been dismissed as\nabsurd. Yet that was the result which followed from observing strict rules of evidence,\nrules which might exclude the merits of the case from consideration but which could not\nbe relaxed without destroying certainty and condoning carelessness. [emphasis added]</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n</blockquote>\n<p>On page 4 of <em>The Law of Trusts</em> 12th edn (2022), James Penner quoted  Baker, J. H. (2002). <em>An Introduction to English\nLegal History</em>, 4th Ed.</p>","original_index":1003,"chunk_index":3,"content_length":992,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1003_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1003,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":677,"chunk_index":4,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The &quot;rule which might exclude the merits of the case from consideration&quot; referred to in this passage is the rule that &quot;a sealed bond [was] incontrovertible evidence of the debt, and so payment was no defence.&quot;</p>\n<p>Strict application of a rule about &quot;incontrovertible evidence&quot; can result in absurdity when the proposition which is legally &quot;incontrovertible&quot; – in this case, that the debt evidenced by the sealed bond continued to exist – is actually false. <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">From falsehood, anything follows.</a></p>\n\n\nTags: england-and-wales, equity"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1004,"content_length":71,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Why can a court always, irresistibly appoint a trustee?","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1004,"chunk_index":1,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":988,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>The embolded phrases make it sound like a court can unpreventably, necessarily appoint trustees. Are there no exceptions?</p>\n<p>Can't a court fail to appoint  a trustee?  For example, can't a court fail to find anyone willing to be a trustee —  particularly if the trust appears too complicated or controversial, and/or the trustee would not be recompensed enough?</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(3) It is a fundamental principle of Equity that a trust will not fail for want of a trustee.65\nIf a trust is created by the settlor, <strong>but the trustee declines to act as trustee, the beneficiary\ncan apply to the court to have a trustee appointed [emphasis mine]</strong>. The right of the beneficiary to have a\ntrustee appointed cannot be considered to be a right against the trustee’s right of ownership,\nbecause there will be no trustee at that particular moment. It is much more satisfactory\nto analyse this right as arising because Equity will ensure that the beneficiary’s"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"because there will be no trustee at that particular moment. It is much more satisfactory\nto analyse this right as arising because Equity will ensure that the beneficiary’s\nproprietary right to the trust property is respected.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>65 See Section 12.4.5, p. 374.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Virgo, <em>Principles of Equity &amp; Trusts</em> 2020 4th edn, page 51.</p>","chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1004,"content_length":388,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <h2>The court can appoint a <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/official-solicitor-and-public-trustee\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">government trustee</a></h2>\n<p>All common law governments have an office called something like the Public Trustee that can act as a trustee of last resort. They work to a schedule of fees payable by the trust. Often they also provide their services commercially.</p>\n<p>They are often the same office that acts as the public guardian of “wards of the state”.</p>\n<p>They don’t have the right to refuse a court appointment.</p>\n<p>Of course, for an unsustainable trust, the court can order it would up instead and have the assets distributed to the beneficiaries.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1004,"content_length":722}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1004,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p>Can't a court fail to appoint a trustee? For example, can't a court\nfail to find anyone willing to be a trustee — particularly if the\ntrust appears too complicated or controversial, and/or the trustee\nwould not be recompensed enough?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There are circumstances under which a court can find that a trust should be terminated prior to its express terms (beyond the Rule Against Perpetuities or its modern equivalent).</p>\n<p>For example, a court can terminate a trust because the amount of the trust estate is too small to be practical to manage in trust form.</p>\n<p>In order to decline to appoint a trustee, the court would, in practice, have to find valid grounds to dissolve the trust. The inability of the court or parties to locate anyone who would consent to serve as trustee (including the lack of eligibility to have a government trustee appointed) would be one factor among many that might be considered in a case like that.</p>","chunk_index":4,"content_length":980}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1004,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":761,"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"<p>In the alternative, if there was one particular provision of the trust that made it impossible to find a trustee for an otherwise valid trust (e.g. compensation was limited to 1 British pound per year for a trust owning hundreds of profitable rental properties), the Court could exercise its powers in equity to reform the offending trust provision.</p>\n<p>But if a court declined to appoint a trustee for a viable trust just because it didn't want to do so, this would be an abuse of discretion which would be grounds for an appeal of that ruling that would very likely prevail.</p>\n<p>Also, while, absent grounds to dissolve the trust, a court has a duty to appoint a successor trustee, that doesn't mean that the court has a duty to do so immediately.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1004,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":794,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Also, while, absent grounds to dissolve the trust, a court has a duty to appoint a successor trustee, that doesn't mean that the court has a duty to do so immediately.</p>\n<p>For example, suppose that the trustee died, and the beneficiaries of the trust filed a petition with the appropriate court to have a successor trustee appointed, but due to a staffing shortage on the court and scheduling conflicts of the counsel for the parties in setting a hearing on the matter, a trustee can be appointed no sooner than seven months later. The court's delay would only rarely be something that could be raised in an interlocutory emergency request for a writ (or whatever it is called these days) insisting that the court take action immediately on the matter in order to prevent urgent harm.</p>","chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 3: <p>I am startled that Graham Virgo didn't expound this in his textbook! Perhaps you ought try another better textbook? <a href=\"https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/trusts-law-9781137606723/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Trusts Law</em> (2017) by Charlie Webb &amp; Tim Akkouh</a> explain this at page 302, just like <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/75304\">Dale M's answer</a>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The first question to be addressed concerns the role of trustee. In the first instance,\nthe choice of trustees is (in relation to intended trusts) a matter for the settlor. He\ncan decide how many trustees he would like and who they will be. The law imposes\nfew limitations on this freedom. One is that a child cannot act as trustee: section 20\nof the Law of Property Act 1925. Another is that, in respect of trusts of land, there\nmay be no more than four trustees: section 34 of the Trustee Act 1925. Those chosen","content_length":923,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1004}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"of the Law of Property Act 1925. Another is that, in respect of trusts of land, there\nmay be no more than four trustees: section 34 of the Trustee Act 1925. Those chosen\nby the settlor to act as trustees are free to refuse. However, if they do, this will not\nlead to the failure of the trust. <strong>The principle is that a trust will not fail for want of\na trustee and the court will ensure that another, willing trustee is appointed. In the\nlast resort, the trust will be taken on by the Public Trustee, a corporate trustee provided\nby the state. [emphasis added]</strong></p>\n</blockquote>","original_index":1004,"content_length":593,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1004_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":9,"content_length":23,"chroma:document":"Tags: england-and-wales","original_index":1004}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":460,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Did the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms cause any existing laws to be immediately struck down?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>In the Charter, certain laws became more difficult to pass without the use of the notwithstanding clause. Some laws theoretically violated the Charter as soon as it was enacted (certain sections of the Indian act, for instance). Did any laws immediately become void simply by the Charter being enacted?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1005,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1005,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The invalidity of laws that are inconsistent with the <em>Charter</em> is by virtue of section 52(1) of the <em>Constitution Act, 1982</em>, which came into force with the bulk of the <em>Charter</em>. It states that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":461}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":999,"chroma:document":"<p>This might be read as immediately applying by its own force to render laws inconsistent with the <em>Charter</em> to be void. And language to this effect has been even used by the Court, saying that a provision inconsistent with the Constitution is &quot;invalid from the moment it is enacted&quot; (e.g. <em>Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur</em>, <a href=\"https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2088/index.do\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2003 SCC 54</a>). But for Section 52 to have effect &quot;requires the exercise of judicial power to declare the law to be unconstitutional&quot; (<em>R. v. Sullivan</em>, <a href=\"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19390/index.do\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2022 SCC 19</a> at para. 54). That a law is inconsistent with the Constitution is &quot;revealed through litigation, specifically the judgment that declares the inoperability of the impugned law&quot;","original_index":1005,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1005,"content_length":546,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"SCC 19</a> at para. 54). That a law is inconsistent with the Constitution is &quot;revealed through litigation, specifically the judgment that declares the inoperability of the impugned law&quot; (<em>Sullivan</em> at para. 55). Section 52 has no practical effect aside from Courts or other decision-makers declining to apply law that is inconsistent with the Constitution. Whether a law was void as soon as the <em>Charter</em> was enacted is not really a meaningful question nor even detectable until a Court declares the law to be invalid.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1005,"content_length":169,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The Court has also clarified that declarations of invalidity are not necessarily retroactive to the moment of enactment (internal citations removed):</p>\n<blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"original_index":1005,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>[60] ... Mr. Sullivan points to the idea that an unconstitutional law is invalid from the moment it is enacted. But the strict enforcement of such a principle “cannot easily be reconciled with modern constitutional law”. Instead, it is subject to a number of exceptions and s. 52(1) must be read “in light of all constitutional principles”. In <em>Albashir</em>, my colleague Karakatsanis J. explained that declarations of unconstitutionality are generally retrospective, consistent with the notion that a law is unconstitutional from its enactment. However, other constitutional principles may require a purely prospective declaration of unconstitutionality or a suspended declaration. Similarly, the legal effect of a s. 52(1) declaration by a superior court must be defined with reference to constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and federalism.</p>\n</blockquote>","content_length":887,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"content_length":228,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>I'll say this one more way: while it's true that some laws were immediately inconsistent with the <em>Charter</em>, s. 52(1) did not have any observable effect until a court declared such laws to be invalid.</p>","original_index":1005}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1005_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":12,"chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1005,"chroma:document":"Tags: canada","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1006_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"original_index":1006,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":932,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: UK law and time limits\n\nQuestion Body: <p>A patient with a history of mental health problems goes to his/her GP claiming depression. However, because the patient does not appear to act in the expected manner, the GP refuses time off.</p>\n<p>This is contrary to the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Mental Capacity Act of 2005</a> that requires\n(3) A lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to—\n(a) a person’s age or appearance, or\n(b) a condition of his, or an aspect of his behaviour, which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about his capacity.</p>\n<p>It turns out that the patient does have some serious problems and suffers at work.</p>\n<p>Can the patient take the GP to court because the GP broke the 2005 Act and, if so, is there a time limit that must be observed? If not, what recourse to action would he/she have?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1006_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1006,"content_length":448,"chunk_index":1,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <h2>How is the Mental Health Act relevant?</h2>\n<p>It sets out the law relating to removing a person’s decision making ability over their own life and placing it in the hands of a guardian and, possibly, confine them to an institution against their will. The question is not whether a person is mentally ill, it’s whether that illness prevents them from making decisions about their life.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-kingdom, medical, time-periods"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":141,"original_index":1007,"chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: What legal relief is available when a neighbour uses my address as his own for communication without written consent from me?","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>A property, say plot no.31, was sub-divided into two parts. After subdivision the plot number on record for the newly created subdivision was, say, 31-A; the original plot number remained 31.</p>\n<p>The division was challenged, and the challenge dismissed at all levels after the first initial success. Many years later, after the challenger passed away and that sub-division was inherited by the challenger's heirs, it was discovered that even after dismissal the challenger continued to use the postal address of the challenged sub-division. This continued for years even when the heirs too knew from record that the address was 31-A instead of 31. When asked the postal department stated the address being next door, all mail was delivered assuming the misstated address  to be simple oversight by the sender/s. Even assuming defence by 31-A claim the misrepresentation was by oversight, it comes across as far-fetched for such oversight to continue for whole decades.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1007,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":993}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"content_length":961,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1007,"chroma:document":"<p>What legal relief is available when a neighbour uses my address as his own for communication without written consent from me? Is the the postal department also culpable?</p>\n<p>EDIT: To follow up with @eis' answer that tort demands establishing damage here is my concern. Documents which establish proof of address s.a. Utility Bills - telephone, energy, water service lose clarity. If so inclined, one may call this behaviour causing loss of value to the property simply because it amounts to squatting - if only on paper.</p>\n<p>EDIT 2: Pursuant to the comment by R.M below, an additional question that comes to mind is as follows -</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Could such use of my address as an alias for their own address serve to establish 'proof of residence'? For instance, some days ago I encountered a pizza delivery boy waiting outside my premises. Upon enquiry he intimated the pizza was to be delivered to them but the address given by them was mine.</li>\n</ul>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":3,"original_index":1007,"content_length":226,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Mark the mail delivered as &quot;addressee unknown, return to sender&quot; and give it to the postal delivery person next time around. If the mail stops getting through, the neighbor will update their address.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":891,"original_index":1007,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>Based on the description, there is no legal relief available.</p>\n<p>To quote:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to\nthe plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which\nremedy is available.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>To establish a tort, you need to establish that damage has occurred. Since mail is simply being delivered to the correct location despite the address, and you don't claim any harm having occurred, it does not sound like you have suffered any damage, hence no legal relief is available.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>You added:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Documents which establish proof of address s.a. Utility Bills - telephone, energy, water service lose clarity. If so inclined, one may call this behaviour causing loss of value to the property simply because it amounts to squatting - if only on paper.</p>\n</blockquote>","chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>But you need to establish damage having happened. In general you would need to have receipts proving the amount of money you have lost. You don't have a bill to pay for losing clarity, hence you can't prove that you've suffered any damage.</p>","content_length":260,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1007}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 3: <h2>None</h2>\n<p>Unless the neighbour was a company (which, since they died, they can’t be), or they are giving out false information (like the address) with the intention of committing a crime like fraud.</p>\n<p>You could, perhaps, have sought an injunction for them to stop but it seems unlikely the court would grant it since it doesn’t appear to have caused you or anyone else any harm. In any event, any remedy you might have had ended with the person’s death.</p>","original_index":1007,"content_length":479,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1007,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":963,"chroma:document":"Answer 4: <p>Firstly, the fact that utility bills can be used to prove title to the property is in itself a cause for worry, and can also constitute a cause of action by itself. This is due to the mere fact that these documents, can in fact, constitute proof of address, for example, for <a href=\"https://cleartax.in/s/gst-registration-documents-checklist\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">GST registration</a> of the individual.</p>\n<p>Further, you can refer to the following court cases which have treated utility bills as proof of title on a balance of probabilities.</p>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nileshkumar-Hiralal-Modi-Versus-Hitesh-Kaushi-Kumar-Modi-2012-07-17\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Nileshkumar Hiralal Modi v/s Hitesh Kaushi Kumar Modi</a> at paragraphs 10 and 15.</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79916882/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Rabari Nagjibhai Maneklal vs Nilamben Upendrabhai Shah</a> at paragraph 56</li>\n</ol>","chunk_index":7}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":8,"chroma:document":"<li><a href=\"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79916882/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Rabari Nagjibhai Maneklal vs Nilamben Upendrabhai Shah</a> at paragraph 56</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Since you are the owner of property with presumably a perfect title, you are entitled to file a suit for <strong>mandatory injunction</strong> which will prevent the neighbour from using your address, there being &quot;<em>no standard to ascertain the actual damage caused</em>&quot;. This relief is provided under <a href=\"https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00009_196347_1517807320084&amp;sectionId=30253&amp;sectionno=38&amp;orderno=42\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963</a>.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1007,"content_length":707,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"content_length":455,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>You must also bear in mind that, if the neighbour also claims title, you may have to contest the title to the suit property since this remedy will not then be available to you, and instead you will have to claim for declaratory relief first as per the guidelines by the Supreme Court of India in paragraph 13 of <a href=\"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540361/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors</a></p>","original_index":1007}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1007_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":17,"chunk_index":10,"chroma:document":"Tags: india, tort","original_index":1007,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":79,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1008,"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: can one turn left or right at a red light with dual lane turns?"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>The link <a href=\"https://www.alberta.ca/turning.aspx#:%7E:text=Turning%20left%20from%20a%201%2Dway%20onto%20a%201%2Dway,pedestrians%20crossing%20to%20your%20left.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Turning | Alberta.ca</a> says &quot;when the light is red, if there are no signs prohibiting the turn, you may turn left on a red light from a one way to a one way after you come to a complete stop at the proper stopping location (stop line or crosswalk) and it is safe. This also applies to dual lane turns. Yield to pedestrians crossing to your left.&quot;  It seems it's saying with dual lane turns, one can also turn left on a red light.</p>","chunk_index":1,"original_index":1008,"content_length":654,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"original_index":1008,"chroma:document":"<p>However, in this link <a href=\"https://www.alberta.ca/turning-lanes.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Turning lanes | Alberta.ca</a> it says &quot;unless prohibited by a sign, at a dual right turn intersection, you may turn right on a red light after you come to a complete stop at the proper stopping point (stop line or crosswalk).&quot; It doesn't mention turning left on a red light.</p>\n<p>So can one turn left or right at a red light with dual lane turns? Thank you!</p>","content_length":477}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1008,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The critical consideration is that the permitted left turn must be onto a one-way roadway in that direction. One is not permitted to perform a left turn which involves crossing traffic from the left, which would also imply that it is not a one-way roadway.</p>","content_length":273,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>Intersections have a number of possible paths through them. Where those possible paths cross is called a <a href=\"https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/januaryfebruary-2003/reducing-points-conflict\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">conflict point.</a></p>\n<p>Canada drives on the right.  That means that right turns only do not entail any conflict points, except for a merge into the lane you are joining.   This means you only have three things to watch for: pedestrians, moose, and oncoming traffic in that lane.  That is the rationale behind allowing &quot;right on red&quot; - given the <em>de minimis</em> number of conflict points involved,  the driver workload is reasonable.</p>\n<p>As a matter of policy they allow 2 lanes of right on red, but that's not your question.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ss4do.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ss4do.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a><br />","content_length":957,"chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1008}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ss4do.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ss4do.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a><br />\n<a href=\"https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04091/10.cfm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">source</a></p>\n<p>A &quot;left on red&quot; isn't going to work as a general rule, because of a much larger number of conflict points, mostly the worst kind, <em>crossing</em> conflict points.   Is this too much workload for the driver? Yes - we know that, because <em>that was the whole reason why the intersection was upgraded from stop signs to traffic lights in the first place!</em>  So a <em>general</em> left on red is unworkable.</p>","content_length":714,"original_index":1008}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":983,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1008,"chroma:document":"<p>However,  one-way streets to the left create a special situation.  From a one-way to a <em>leftward</em> one-way has no conflict points except the &quot;merging&quot; one discussed with right turns.  As such, &quot;left on red&quot; is allowed there.  This is the situation being discussed in your first link.  The first link isn't referring to left turns onto two-way streets.</p>\n<p>This isn't relevant to this conversation, but from a two-way to a leftward one-way <em>arguably</em> creates this favorable situation again; while there are crossing conflict points, they are only with your own street's traffic which is held by the red light. As such, some jurisdictions allow left turns from a 2-way to a 1-way. <strong>Alberta is not one of them</strong>, probably due to moose :)</p>\n<p>The simplest way to think of this is, &quot;you are allowed to turn into the nearest lane to you, if you don't cross any lanes at all&quot;, and in Alberta 2 lanes can do this at once.</p>","chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1008_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1008,"chunk_index":7,"chroma:document":"Tags: canada, traffic, alberta","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":30}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1009,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":65,"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Copyright on commercial image from the 1930s (UK)"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1009,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>I want to use a railway poster from the 1930s in publicity for a play, but the Science Museum wants a fee for it, claiming copyright (<a href=\"https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co231218/london-midland-scottish-railway-poster-see-the-peak-district-poster\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co231218/london-midland-scottish-railway-poster-see-the-peak-district-poster</a>).</p>\n<p>On what basis might their claim be legitimate? afaict they are not paying the money to descendants of the artist, and it seems likely that he wouldn't have had copyright in the first place (that would have been with the railway company, which no longer exists, and was absorbed by British Rail).</p>\n<p>When I (politely) asked them, they said: &quot;The copyright was revived in the 1990’s and the rights were assigned to us by the British Railways Board at that time.&quot;</p>\n<p>Revived by whom? How?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":959,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":990,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The modern rule in the UK is that copyright lasts until the end of the calendar year following 70 years after the death of the author. So if the author died in or later than 1953, it would be under copyright under this general rule.</p>\n<p>However, this wasn't always the rule and the museum speaks of a copyright revived in the 1990s. So I went down that rabbit hole of historical UK copyright legislation. I personally find it interesting, but it turned out to not be entirely determinative.</p>\n<p>It all turns on publication date and date of death of the artist, neither of which I can find, with the museum only stating the artist was <a href=\"https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/people/cp20240/s-r-wyatt\" rel=\"noreferrer\">active in the 1930s</a>. But even assuming the most favourable facts for this to still be copyright under a &quot;revived&quot; copyright, the latest date I can find for copyright to still remain under that regime is end of 2015.</p>\n<hr />","original_index":1009,"chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":850,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1009,"chroma:document":"<hr />\n<p>Per <em>Copyright Act <strong>1956</strong></em> <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1956/74/section/3/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 3(4)(a)</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>in the case of an engraving, if before the death of the author the engraving had not been published, the copyright shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of fifty years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>For the fact pattern I'm outlining, we must assume the author died before publication. As for the engraving bit, s. 48 defines that lithographs are engravings, and while I am far from an expert in this field, skimming the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithography\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Wikipedia article on lithography</a>, it does seem quite possible the poster could be a lithograph.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":885,"chunk_index":4,"original_index":1009,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>I'll note here since you bring up who precisely would be the owner of the original copyright, that it does seem likely that the poster was a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire\" rel=\"noreferrer\">work for hire</a>, following the provisions of <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1956/74/section/4/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 4(2)</a>. As such, the copyright would have indeed ultimately transferred to British Rail.</p>\n<p>Jumping ahead a bit, the more precise year which the museum states is &quot;the 1990's&quot; is 1995 (we'll get to why). So in order for copyright to have first expired as per the museum's statement and the authors active years, we must assume a publication date between  1930-1945 (or thereabouts, I'm not being super careful in this answer about the months things happen in, so there may be accumulation of off-by-one errors).</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":849,"chroma:document":"<p>Because of those years, I now have to quickly address why the <em>Copyright Act <strong>1911</strong></em> isn't relevant. The transitional provisions outlined in the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1956/74/schedule/SEVENTH/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Seventh Schedule</a> reveal that only for photographs are the copyright duration provisions maintained from the 1911 Act.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Now we can jump into the modern law, the <em>Copyright, Designs and Patents Act <strong>1988</strong></em> (<em>CDPA</em>). The transitional provision in the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/schedule/1/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Schedule 1</a> s. 12(2)(b) directly maintains the 1956 copyright duration in this case which given our possible publication years, would have led to copyright expiry sometime between 1980-1995.</p>","chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1009}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":756,"chroma:document":"<p>However, in 1995, the UK passed <em>The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations <strong>1995</strong></em>. This was in accordance with European legislation harmonizing copyright duration, in <em><a href=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31993L0098\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Directive 93/98/EEC</a></em> (itself since replaced by <em><a href=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0116\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Directive 2006/116/EC</a></em>).</p>\n<p><em>Side Note: 1995 is a peculiar year for copyrights in Europe due to that directive and so is exactly where I started my research for this answer, because it caused weird quirks for copyright terms in some countries in some cases.</em></p>","original_index":1009,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>For the UK, <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/regulation/5/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 5</a> of the regulation amended the <em>CDPA</em>, basically establishing the general European standard of copyrights expiring 70 years after the author's death.</p>\n<p>More importantly for our case though is the regulations own section explaining in which cases the new copyright term expires. In <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/regulation/16/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 16</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The new provisions relating to duration of copyright apply— (a) [...] (b) [...] (c) [...] (d) to existing works in which copyright expired before 31st December 1995 but which were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1009,"content_length":834,"chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":8,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":847,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>Now, I'm not going to go through and look at all the EEA contries legislation to confirm, but it seems incredibly likely that one of them would have had engravings protected for life+70 in 1995, given that's what Europe has now standardized on (since we're assuming pre-publication death for an author who was active in the 1930s).</p>\n<p>Notably, <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/regulation/17/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 17</a> even defines cases of expired works re-entering copyright as &quot;revived copyright&quot;, matching the terminology the museum's statement used.</p>\n<p>It would have been great if the 1995 regulation explicitly spelled out the relationship with <em>CDPA</em>'s Schedule 1 s. 12, but in judicial interpretation, newer legislation takes priority, so the 1995 law would control.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1009}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1009,"chunk_index":9,"chroma:document":"<p><em>Note: The answer is getting long enough so I'm not going to fully research/cite this, but for regulations vs. legislation, we have a weird case of a regulation amending a statute. I'm fairly certain this is due to UK Acts passed for European Community membership elevating regulations to primary legislation when they are passed for compliance with European law.</em></p>\n<p>So given our assumed facts, the poster would have revived copyright per the 1995 Regulations. However, you may note (as I belatedly did after first posting this answer) that even given revived copyright, that revived copyright is still life+70. And the assumptions made for copyright revival under this clause requires a posthumous publication date of 1945 at the latest. This means at best any copyright under these particular circumstances would have expired in 2015.</p>\n<hr />","content_length":862}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<hr />\n<p>There is a bit of a middle ground here. If the poster is not a lithograph, or the publication was not posthumous, the work would have gained a life+50 term per aformentioned <em>Copyright Act 1956</em> <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1956/74/section/3/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 3(4)</a>. But then for copyright to expire and be revived, we still have to assume a 1945 death date at the latest.</p>\n<p>Alternatively, instead of copyright revival, it could have gotten extended from life+50 to life+70 per the 1995 Regulations <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/regulation/16/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 16(c)</a>. But because we are more than 20 years from 1995, it mathematically works out that it doesn't matter anymore and we can just work with the life+70 rule.</p>","original_index":1009,"chunk_index":10,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":813}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>A combination of 1995 Regulations s. 16(c) and posthumous publication though does actually give another reasonable way for the work to still be under copyright. If published in 1988 before the <em>CDPA</em> entered into force, it would have followed the cited 1956 rules of copyright expiring 50 years after publication. The 1995 Regulations s. 16(c) specifies that longer existing terms can continue. So that results in 2038 as a latest possible year through this method.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>In the end I think there are two or three reasonable interpretations:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>The museum is correct the work is under copyright, but incorrect about the reason.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>It's instead because the work is under copyright because the author died after 1953 (or is still living), or</li>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":11,"original_index":1009,"content_length":785}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":12,"chroma:document":"<ul>\n<li>It's instead because the work is under copyright because the author died after 1953 (or is still living), or</li>\n<li>The work is still covered under the 50 years after posthumous publication rule for engravings established in the <em>Copyright Act 1956</em> (publication years 1973-1988 for copyright expiry at the end of calendar years 2023-2038).</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li><p>The museum is correct that copyright was revived, but I can't find a way for this to be true and for the work to still be under copyright (with 2015 the latest year I can find for the given facts).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Note that this is my own reading of legislation, please take it with a grain of salt.</p>\n<hr />","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":696,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1009}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1009_13
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1009,"chroma:document":"Tags: copyright, united-kingdom","chunk_index":13,"content_length":31,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":232,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"original_index":1010,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Do US born children whose parents are NOT citizens get automatic citizenship at birth?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>If you immigrate to the USA, will the baby get automatic citizenship? Wouldn't that kind of be a loophole?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":960,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Yes, the <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Fourteenth Amendment</a> makes a person born on U.S. soil a U.S. citizen at the moment of birth.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This is not a &quot;loophole,&quot; because it is exactly what the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were trying to achieve.</p>\n<p>There are narrow exceptions because of the &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; clause:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince. ... Thus the children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens.</p>\n</blockquote>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1010,"chunk_index":1,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1010,"content_length":200,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/inglis-v-trustees-of-sailors-snug-harbour\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour</em>, 28 U.S. 99, 155-56 (1830)</a>.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1010,"chunk_index":3,"content_length":509,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>Not a loophole but the intent of the constitution.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It might seem odd to you because many other countries are less generous with their citizenship.</p>\n<p>Do note the caveat. It means children born to foreign diplomats do not get automatic citizenship.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1010,"chunk_index":4,"content_length":943,"chroma:document":"Answer 3: <p>Yes, children born in the territory of the United States automatically become U.S. citizens by the <a href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#:%7E:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws\" rel=\"noreferrer\">14th Amendment</a>.</p>\n<p>It is not a &quot;loophole&quot; in that, while the child is a U.S. citizen, their parents can still be deported.</p>\n<p>The U.S.-born children of immigrants cannot sponsor their parents for a green card until they are at least 21 years of age or older. <a href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/A1en.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Source</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>As a citizen of the United States, you may help a relative become\na lawful permanent resident of the United States by obtaining what\nis often referred to as a “Green Card.” To do so, you need to sponsor\nyour relative and be able to prove that you have enough income","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1010,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":973,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"a lawful permanent resident of the United States by obtaining what\nis often referred to as a “Green Card.” To do so, you need to sponsor\nyour relative and be able to prove that you have enough income\nor assets to support your relative(s) when they come to the United\nStates.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If eventually granted a green card, the parents must be a permanent resident for five years before they can apply for naturalization <strong>or</strong> be a permanent resident for at least 3 years and married to a US citizen (who is <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_incest_in_the_United_States#:%7E:text=No%20person%20shall%20marry%20his,is%20not%20a%20criminal%20offense.\" rel=\"noreferrer\">not your descendant</a>). <a href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/forms/uscis-early-filing-calculator#:%7E:text=You%20may%20file%20Form%20N,married%20to%20a%20US%20citizen.\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Source</a></p>\n<p>A common (derogatory) term for this is &quot;Anchor Baby&quot;.</p>","chunk_index":5}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":6,"original_index":1010,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 4: <p>Unfortunately yes. My daughter did not have the choice and became a citizen of this country. Now 30 years later she has lots of problems because of that citizenship. There is an association called Accidental Americans working for those citizens who do not want being citizens of the US. Check out the wiki page for Accidental Americans. Repudiating this citizenship is not easy and quite expensive.</p>","content_length":415,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1010,"chunk_index":7,"content_length":996,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 5: <p>That all those born in the US having citizenship being a constitutional right is generally based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which says &quot;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.&quot; There is some debate as to what exactly the &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; qualification means. It has been interpreted as not granting citizenship to the children of parents who have diplomatic immunity, and there are some of the position that it also requires the parents' presence in the US to be legal, and/or open and notorious, but that view has little support in the legal community. There is also the issue of what counts as &quot;the United States&quot;. While people in America Samoa are US nationals, courts have denied them citizenship. <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoan_citizenship_and_nationality#Federal_citizenship_controversy_(1960%E2%80%93present)\"","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":353,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Samoa are US nationals, courts have denied them citizenship. <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoan_citizenship_and_nationality#Federal_citizenship_controversy_(1960%E2%80%93present)\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoan_citizenship_and_nationality#Federal_citizenship_controversy_(1960%E2%80%93present)</a></p>","original_index":1010}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"chroma:document":"<p>There are indeed people who travel to the US late in their pregnancy specifically to give birth in the US and thus have their children be US citizens. See <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism</a> . There is also the term &quot;anchor baby&quot;, which is generally used in a derogatory manner to refer to children of immigrants who were born in the US (though not necessarily implying that the parents immigrated for the purpose of having the child in the US).</p>","original_index":1010,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":545}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 6: <p>IANAL, and this has already been well answered legally, but I wanted to give a personal example for historical context.</p>\n<p>My aunt's parents emigrated to the U.S. from Italy in 1934, having delivered their oldest son on the ship while crossing the Atlantic from Italy, and my aunt was born a year later (1935) in New Castle PA.  Her older brother was thus not born in the U.S. and had to apply for citizenship years later.  My aunt, on the other hand, was a citizen by birth, <em>even though her parents had not yet become citizens themselves</em> and never had to apply for it.</p>\n<p>My point being that this is nothing new or special in America, it has been going on for hundreds of years and has applied to many hundreds of thousands of citizens, new-born to parents who were not citizens.</p>","original_index":1010,"content_length":814,"chunk_index":10}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1010_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 7: <p>It seems worth mentioning that birthright citizenship in the United States is part of the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861–1861. Part of the outcome of the war was the abolition of slavery. Earlier the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Scott v. Sandford that negroes are not citizens, regardless of whether they are enslaved or not. Everything about the status of persons of African descent was a big issue in the aftermath of the war. Before that, different states had different laws about who was a citizen, although there were also federal naturalization laws. The 14th Amendment was intended to supersede much of that.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, citizenship","content_length":681,"chunk_index":11,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1010}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: What happens if a law contains an error of fact?","content_length":64,"chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>If a law is passed that contains a demonstrably false statement or assumption about the world, how is it generally interpreted?</p>\n<p>For example, laws will often list a category of things, and then give examples of specific things in the category. It is easy for some of the examples not to be true members of the category. You might have a law that says &quot;Only fish, such as pike, capybara, and perch, may be eaten on Fridays; animal meat is right out.&quot;</p>\n<p>Does that make the capybara legally a &quot;fish&quot; for the purpose of that particular law? How would that affect courts trying to make determinations about what other things not specifically enumerated are (legal) fish?</p>\n<p>Would an attorney be able to get any mileage out of the argument that the capybara is not in fact a fish, as noted by leading fish experts?</p>\n<p>Can a law or part of a law be struck down not for being <em>wrong</em> but just for being <em>false</em>?</p>","original_index":1011,"content_length":978,"chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":771,"original_index":1011,"chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p><a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/304/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Nix v. Hedden</a>, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) is a famous &quot;error of fact&quot; case in the US. The situation was that there was an import tariff imposed on &quot;vegetables in their natural state&quot; brought in from outside the US, but not on &quot;Fruits, green, ripe, or dried, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act&quot; which were on a &quot;free&quot; list. Since imported tomatoes were taxed, it was said that tomatoes are fruits and not vegetables. The court ruled that <em>for legal purposes</em> the terms &quot;vegetable&quot; and &quot;fruit&quot; have their ordinary meaning, and are not held to a possibly variable scientific definition.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"content_length":957,"chroma:document":"<p>Definitions were read from Webster's Dictionary, Worcester's Dictionary and the Imperial Dictionary, and witnesses with decades of experience in the produce trade were called who testified as to whether the words had &quot;any special meaning in trade or commerce, different from those read&quot;. Dictionary entries were read regarding the definition of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, pepper, potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower and so on.</p>\n<p>The court reasoned as follows based on the evidence. First,</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word ‘fruit’ as\nthe seed of plaints, or that part of plaints which contains the seed,\nand especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering\nand containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show\nthat tomatoes are ‘fruit,’ as distinguished from ‘vegetables,’ in\ncommon speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act</p>\n</blockquote>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"content_length":978,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"that tomatoes are ‘fruit,’ as distinguished from ‘vegetables,’ in\ncommon speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>and since the terms do not have a special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning. Observe that &quot;scientific definition&quot; is not even a contender in this discussion. The court observed that &quot;dictionaries are admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court&quot;.</p>\n<p>The crux of the ruling is the following observation:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are\ncucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of\nthe people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are\nvegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether\neaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips,\nbeets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at","original_index":1011}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips,\nbeets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at\ndinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute\nthe principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as\ndessert.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In other words, specialized scientific definitions are not assumed to underlie the use of words selected by lawmakers. If lawmakers list &quot;fish, such as pike, capybara, and perch&quot;, then for purposes of that law and that law alone, capybara is defined to be a fish. Explicit redefinitions are fairly commonplace in writing laws, and lawmakers universally have the power to redefine words so that &quot;and means or and or means and, as necessary&quot;.</p>","chunk_index":5,"content_length":768}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>An example of a deliberate statutory redefinition is the fact that a bee is a fish in California, for some purposes, see <a href=\"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C093542S.PDF\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Almond v. Fish</a>. In the Fish &amp; Game Code, <a href=\"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FGC&amp;division=0.5.&amp;title=&amp;part=&amp;chapter=1.&amp;article=\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">FGC §45</a>,</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>“Fish” means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate,\namphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>which means that worms and jellyfish, and insects, are legal fish. The <a href=\"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FGC&amp;division=3.&amp;title=&amp;part=&amp;chapter=1.5.&amp;article=1.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Endangered Species Act</a> §2062 then says</p>\n<blockquote>","content_length":931,"chunk_index":6,"original_index":1011,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>“Endangered species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird,\nmammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger\nof becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its\nrange due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in\nhabitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Notice that under an interpretation of the law that ignores the statutory redefinition in §45, invertebrates and a number of chordates would not be protected by law. The court notes that this was a deliberate action by the legislature in 1969, in that\nenrolled bill reports in support of this modification included the argument that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The expanded definition of fish will permit closer control and\nmonitoring of the harvest of species such as starfish, sea urchins,\nsponges and worms, and the ... Commission will be authorized to make\nregulations deemed necessary for proper protection and management of","content_length":999,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"original_index":1011}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":169,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"chroma:document":"sponges and worms, and the ... Commission will be authorized to make\nregulations deemed necessary for proper protection and management of\nthese species</p>\n</blockquote>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>When a statute presents a general category and says that category &quot;includes&quot; some specific examples, those specific examples are <em>deemed</em> to belong to that category for the purpose of the statute.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Statutory definitions are also used to expand the usual scope of <strong>a word or expression</strong>, for example:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In this section,</p>\n<p>&quot;fish&quot; includes shell fish, crustaceans, and marine mammals;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>In these examples, the statutory definition enlarges the ordinary (or technical) meaning of the defined terms by including things that might normally be thought to fall outside their denotation.</p>\n<p>(Ruth Sullivan, <em>Statutory Interpretation</em>, 3rd ed. (2016), p. 81)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>And in the U.S. textualist context:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Individual statutes often contain definition sections giving ordinary words a limited or artificial meaning.</p>","original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":976,"chunk_index":9}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":10,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>And in the U.S. textualist context:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Individual statutes often contain definition sections giving ordinary words a limited or artificial meaning.</p>\n<p>(Antonin Scalia &amp; Bryan A. Garner, <em>Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts</em>)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>But Ruth Sullivan notes, &quot;statutory definitions do not necessarily lighten the interpreter's load. Many simply add to the ordinary or technical meaning of the defined term, which must still be determined in the usual way&quot; (p. 82).</p>","content_length":550}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>There are many other competing canons and principles of interpretation. The fact that an unexpected example is listed may be read to imply that the general category is actually broader than its common meaning would normally convey. <strong>One cannot answer interpretation questions in the abstract</strong>. In <a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a>, the current approach to statutory interpretation is that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.</p>","content_length":871,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":11,"original_index":1011}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":702,"chunk_index":12,"chroma:document":"<p><em>Rizzo &amp; Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re)</em>, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 at <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/1fqwt#par21\" rel=\"noreferrer\">para. 21</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This approach has not been as universally accepted in the U.S., but given the inherent tensions between various <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Canons\" rel=\"noreferrer\">canons of interpretation</a> (same word–same meaning; <em>expressio unius</em>; etc.), it is similarly not possible to answer interpretive questions in the abstract. In all but the clearest cases (and even these would only be clear in context), to make any meaningful argument, one would need at least the full statute for examination.</p>","original_index":1011,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_13
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":13,"original_index":1011,"content_length":683,"chroma:document":"Answer 3: <blockquote>\n<p>Does that make the capybara legally a &quot;fish&quot; for the purpose of that\nparticular law?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>How would that affect courts trying to make determinations about what\nother things not specifically enumerated are (legal) fish?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>They would do their best to find a general principle. You see something similar in the efforts of Jewish legal scholars trying to apply Biblical Kosher food requirements to situations not described in the Hebrew Bible with <a href=\"https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/113425/jewish/What-Is-Kosher.htm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Talmudic arguments</a>.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_14
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":924,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":14,"original_index":1011,"chroma:document":"<p>In Catholic Canon law (from which this particular example is drawn), which presents the same fish on Friday conundrum, they have a somewhat easier task, because the Pope is someone who has the capacity to resolve such questions in an absolutely authoritative manner even without coming up for a consensus reason for the distinction. Historically, <a href=\"https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/lent-beavers-muskrats-capybaras-fish\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">what happened was</a> this:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>During Lent, many Catholics deny themselves earthly pleasures to honor\nJesus's sacrifice. Abstaining from meat has nothing to do with animal\nrights; instead, it's supposed to be a break from an ingredient\ntraditionally viewed as indulgent and luxurious. That's why beef,\npork, and poultry are considered meat but fish isn't. Fish was thought\nof as a &quot;simple&quot; source of protein in the Middle Ages, whereas meat"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_15
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"pork, and poultry are considered meat but fish isn't. Fish was thought\nof as a &quot;simple&quot; source of protein in the Middle Ages, whereas meat\nfrom land animals was considered rich and therefore more &quot;sinful.&quot;</p>\n<p>As is the case with the laws of most religions, Catholics have found\ncreative ways around this rule over the centuries. Between the 16th\nand 18th centuries, a clergyman in Venezuela wrote to the Vatican\nasking if it was alright to eat capybaras during times of fasting. The\nSouth American rodents (the largest on Earth) are certainly not fish,\nbut because they spend a lot of time swimming, the church decided to\nclassify them as such. The Vatican has also made exceptions for other\nsemi-aquatic mammals like beavers and muskrats. Reptiles that live in\nwater, like turtles and alligators, qualify as fish during Lent as\nwell.</p>\n</blockquote>","chunk_index":15,"content_length":876,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_16
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"semi-aquatic mammals like beavers and muskrats. Reptiles that live in\nwater, like turtles and alligators, qualify as fish during Lent as\nwell.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In general, it is always possible to devise a rule that includes all outlier terms in a list, although in some cases that rule will be more contrived than in others.</p>","chunk_index":16,"content_length":333,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_17
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":17,"chroma:document":"well.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In general, it is always possible to devise a rule that includes all outlier terms in a list, although in some cases that rule will be more contrived than in others.</p>\n<p>For an example from non-religious law, the term &quot;commodities&quot; in which trading in future is regulated by the independent government agency known as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (based in Chicago), includes all agricultural crops except onions. This is due to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Onion Futures Act of 1958</a> which was passed because there was a notorious incident in 1955 in which someone committed a massive market manipulation with the onion futures market that did massive harm to everyday people in the U.S. economy, even though, in principle, there is no good reason to regulate onion futures any differently from, for example, potato futures.</p>","content_length":943,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_18
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":987,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":18,"chroma:document":"<p>Similarly, even if two bottles of wine have contents that are chemically indistinguishable from each other (a client of mine is actually in the business of making exact chemical replicas of high priced wines using mass spectrometry and similar precision chemical tests) <a href=\"https://michaelfatelaw.com/articles/californias-wine-labeling-laws/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">under U.S. law</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To be designated as a “California” wine, 100% of the grapes used in\nthe wine must be grown in that state. To bear a viticultural area\ndesignation such as “Napa,” “Sonoma,” or “El Dorado County,” 85% or\nmore of the grapes used must be grown in the designated area.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So, it makes a factual distinction that doesn't really exist in a meaningful way from the perspective of a wine consumer.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Would an attorney be able to get any mileage out of the argument that\nthe capybara is not in fact a fish, as noted by leading fish experts?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_19
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":994,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>Would an attorney be able to get any mileage out of the argument that\nthe capybara is not in fact a fish, as noted by leading fish experts?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>No.</p>\n<p>The best the attorney could hope for would be that there is also a capybara fish which is not as well known as the capybara mammal. If that were the case, the attorney could argue that the reference was to the capybara fish and not to the capybara mammal. But, if that isn't the case, the attorney has no leg to stand on legally. And, if there is an argument like that to be made, the legislative history of a law or regulation, regulations interpreting a statute shortly after it was adopted, or long standing practice in interpreting a law since its inception that is never authoritatively included in an authoritative legal document, could clearly rule out that interpretation.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Can a law or part of a law be struck down not for being wrong but just\nfor being false?</p>\n</blockquote>","chunk_index":19}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_20
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>Can a law or part of a law be struck down not for being wrong but just\nfor being false?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Not really.</p>\n<p>In very rare instances, when the plain meaning of a law is absurd to the point of undermining the intent of the law expressed in other contexts the courts will interpret &quot;and&quot; to mean &quot;or&quot;, or &quot;shall&quot; to mean &quot;may&quot;, or &quot;do X&quot; to mean &quot;don't do X&quot; and will interpret it contrary to the plain reading on the grounds that it was a mere drafting error in the law. But this authority is virtually never used to invalidate a legal finding of fact.</p>\n<p>Indeed, sometimes the law compels us to ignore certain facts.</p>","content_length":718,"original_index":1011,"chunk_index":20,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_21
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":21,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"content_length":955,"chroma:document":"<p>Indeed, sometimes the law compels us to ignore certain facts.</p>\n<p>For example, even if a parole eligibility model that included race as a factor was more accurate in predicting recidivism while on parole than the best available model that doesn't consider that factor, a parole eligibility model that considers race as a factor would be invalid as a matter of law.</p>\n<p>Similarly, even if it is factually true that someone was in possession of illegal drugs, juries in a criminal prosecution for possession of those illegal drugs cannot consider that undisputedly true factual evidence if it was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment.</p>\n<p>The case of &quot;fish&quot; for the purpose of a particular law is much easier than that, however, because definitions can't be false by definition. There is no absolutely and universally true definition of any word. Instead, legal terms usually have multiple similar but not identical meanings.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_22
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The situation where a word has multiple meanings is called in linguistics and legal theory: <strong>polysemy</strong>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Polysemy—the existence of multiple related meanings for the same word\nor phrase—is a frequent phenomenon in legal and lay language. Although\npolysemy sometimes arises by accident, it also can be strategic:\nframers of legal rules can advance private and public interests by\nassigning meanings to terms that are different from—though connected\nto—the meanings that those terms carry outside the law. Understanding\nthe functions of polysemy can help us design more effective legal\nrules and can shed light on ways in which legal actors translate\nlanguage into power.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>","chunk_index":22,"original_index":1011,"content_length":728,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_23
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":998,"chunk_index":23,"original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"the functions of polysemy can help us design more effective legal\nrules and can shed light on ways in which legal actors translate\nlanguage into power.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>Daniel J. Hemel, &quot;Polysemy and the Law&quot; 76 Vanderbilt Law Review (Forthcoming 2023) available at the <a href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4264800&amp;dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_nyu%3Alaw%3Aeconomics%3Aresearch%3Apaper%3Aseries_abstractlink\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Social Science Research Network</a>.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Even if you are trying to conform to some meaningful and consistent concept in defining a legal term in a particular way, you can't really choose the correct definition until you know what the definition is seeking to distinguish from things outside the definition, i.e. the purpose of the law.</p>\n<p>Definitions that don't match the most common sense of word in plain language are common in both legal statute and regulation drafting, and in contractual drafting.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_24
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":24,"chroma:document":"Answer 4: <blockquote>\n<p>Does that make the capybara legally a &quot;fish&quot; for the purpose of that particular law?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>I actually just dealt with this issue on the municipal level. A project of mine was before the Planning Board proposing an objectionable vice use. Pursuant to the zoning conditions, such a use could not be situated within 1,000 feet of a public park.</p>\n<p>Because of the proposed vice use there was some public outcry on the matter. In an effort to kill the project, members of the public focused upon a publicly accessible walking trail immediately behind the site which the general public perceived as being a public park. After all, it was a public walkway with various amenities to facilitate the public's use of the space for biking and walking. Testimony was provided by the public that police periodically patrol for loitering. From the perception of the general public, it was a park.</p>","content_length":959,"original_index":1011,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_25
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":25,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"chroma:document":"<p>Unfortunately, the zoning ordinance lacked a definition for 'public park', so the matter was referred to the Zoning Board for an official interpretation and it was deemed to not be a public park for the following reasons:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The walking trail itself isn't actually public property, it's a private utility's right-of-way with an easement to permit the walking trail.</li>\n<li>The zoning ordinance does have a definition for right-of-ways which was likely initially crafted imagining public roads in mind, but regardless is applicable for this site.</li>\n<li>For the proposed use, the Township's Council needed to issue a letter approving the use at the specific location in order for a license to be issued <em>prior</em> to the Planning Board hearing (which the Council did). Given the conditional use requirements were set prior to the issuance of the letter, presumably, the Council did not perceive the walking trail as being a public park by virtue of them issuing the letter.</li>","content_length":998}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_26
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":256,"chroma:document":"</ul>\n<p>Ultimately, the project was approved, against the wishes of some members of the public who insist that the trail is a public park. Regardless, their perception of it being a park is irrelevant for the purposes of what it is legally defined as.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":26,"original_index":1011}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1011_27
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":27,"chroma:document":"Tags: interpretation, judicial-review, legislative-intent","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1011,"content_length":57,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Are low-speed zipper merges due to lane closure illegal?","content_length":72,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1012}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1012,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>This question is referring to law in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia.</p>\n<p><strong>Intro</strong></p>\n<p><a href=\"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zipper_merge\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Zipper merging</a> is very uncommon here. There are many that simply frown upon it as trying to &quot;get further ahead&quot; in the traffic line, whereas others believe it's the most effective and safe form of merging. Others claim still that it's simply illegal based on our <a href=\"https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/motor%20vehicle.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Motor Vehicle Act</a> and actively discouraged by our <a href=\"https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/safe/handbook.asp\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">driver handbook</a>.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":764,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Researching this so far, I found various discussions on Reddit (<a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/NovaScotia/comments/rhc0vb/zipper_merge/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1</a>, <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/yojkqx/zipper_merging_the_correct_way/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2</a>, <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/NovaScotia/comments/vyxa9w/to_all_the_people_i_went_past_on_highway_102/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">3</a>, <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/9mr9m0/psa_zipper_merge_outbound_102/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">4</a>, <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/NovaScotia/comments/puxnfj/merging_lesson_101/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">5</a>) as to the legality of zipper merges in Nova Scotia. I've linked the original discussions, but will try to summarize the points here.</p>","original_index":1012,"chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":815,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":3,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":634,"original_index":1012,"chroma:document":"<p>Some of the discussions talk about &quot;high speed&quot; zipper merges, i.e. where two lanes are reduced into one (either normally or abnormally), but there is no slow down of traffic. That's a separate case.</p>\n<p>To simplify the question, I'm primarily interested in &quot;low speed&quot; zipper merges, where one lane is <em>temporarily</em> blocked, usually due to construction. This can happen on community roads, or our <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-series_highways_(Nova_Scotia)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">&quot;100-series&quot;</a> highways. This is the most usual case I encounter in day-to-day driving.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":926,"chunk_index":4,"original_index":1012,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The scenario being that I'm driving normally on the highway (near the posted speed-limit of 100 km/h) and by coincidence I notice a backup of traffic in the alternate lane I'm driving in (heading in the same direction, either right or left). That's because the lane I'm driving in eventually comes to a temporary end due to construction, and I'm required to merge into the backed up lane to continue.</p>\n<p>What usually happens is the person in the non-blocked lane slows down immediately once they notice they backup, still far from the lane end, and tries to merge to the backed up lane as soon as possible (since that's the one that continues forward).</p>\n<p>The less-common alternative is to continue in the non-blocked lane until the lane actually ends, then someone in the blocked lane would allow you to merge in (this is the zipper merge).</p>\n<p><strong>Arguments for the Zipper merge being illegal:</strong></p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":929,"original_index":1012,"chroma:document":"<p><strong>Arguments for the Zipper merge being illegal:</strong></p>\n<p>The most common cited reasoning for zipper merging being illegal in the Reddit threads is a line of text in the <a href=\"https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/handbook/DH-Chapter3.pdf#page=20\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">driver handbook</a> that reads:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Merge as soon as safely possible. A common mistake is to approach the merge point at too high a speed in the lane to be closed, then to push into the other lane at the last moment. This causes collisions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The second oft-cited reasoning is that all construction zones have a &quot;Do Not Pass&quot; proceeding the point of the lane ending, which can even be several kilometers away from the lane end. This is also mentioned on the same page in the driver handbook:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Obey the “Do Not Pass” sign. It prepares traffic for an orderly merge.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":645,"chunk_index":6,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>Obey the “Do Not Pass” sign. It prepares traffic for an orderly merge.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/60th_2nd/1st_read/b170.htm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Motor Vehicle Act (amended)</a>, section 111A, says that the left-hand lane shall yield to the right-hand lane.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>111A (1) Where two lanes of a street or highway merge into one lane,\nthe driver of a vehicle in the left lane shall yield the right of way\nto a vehicle in the right lane unless the driver of the vehicle in the\nright lane is directed by a sign to yield to the vehicle in the left\nlane.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1012}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"to a vehicle in the right lane unless the driver of the vehicle in the\nright lane is directed by a sign to yield to the vehicle in the left\nlane.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This could be interpreted differently depending on which lane is closing, right or left. If the left lane is closing, drivers on the right would not be allowed to yield to traffic entering on the left (effectively making a zipper merge illegal). However, if the right lane was closing, drivers in the left lane would be required to allow traffic to merge from the right, thereby making a zipper merge legal. The illegality of the former case (left lane closing) does necessitate that it's never permitted for a driver in the right to yield to a driver in the left lane. I don't know if that's actually supported elsewhere in the text of the MVA.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"content_length":816,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1012}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":986,"chroma:document":"<p>One Redditor even says they were <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/NovaScotia/comments/puxnfj/comment/he80ua5/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x&amp;context=3\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">specifically ticketed</a> for attempting a zipper merge, presumably due to the no passing sign.</p>\n<p><strong>Arguments for the Zipper merge being legal:</strong></p>\n<p>The language around &quot;Merge as soon as safely possible&quot; is unclear. It doesn't mean merge as soon as you notice you <em>need</em> to merge. If you're travelling in the unblocked lane, and there's a sufficient gap in the blocked lane for you to safely &quot;merge early&quot;, then by all means do so. But if the traffic in the blocked lane is sufficiently stopped such that you cannot &quot;merge early&quot; there is no harm continuing until the end of the lane. To the contrary, stopping early to try to merge into the blocked lane could be more dangerous, as it gives drivers behind you less reaction time.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1012,"chunk_index":8,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1012,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":846,"chunk_index":9,"chroma:document":"<p>The language around the &quot;Do Not Pass&quot; sign isn't clear either. The drivers handbook has a <a href=\"https://novascotia.ca/sns/rmv/handbook/DH-Chapter2.pdf#21\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section on passing</a>. In short, it's described as moving to an alternate lane, specifically for the purpose of moving pass another vehicle (&quot;overtaking&quot;), and returning to that lane. But that's not what is happening in the scenario I described. Maintaining your current, unblocked lane is only &quot;passing&quot; the vehicles in the blocked lane in the absolute strictest sense of the word, not the commonly accepted definition of passing. The &quot;Do Not Pass&quot; sign is intended to prevent you from passing normally, assuming neither lane is blocked. The driver handbook is also not necessarily consistent with the actual law.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":10,"content_length":802,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>As mentioned above, the language in the MVA <em>could</em> be interpreted such that left-lane closing zipper merges are illegal, while right-lane closing zipper merges are legal.</p>\n<p>The Halifax Regional Police (biggest city in Nova Scotia) had a <a href=\"https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid026L7GfyYFB9AC2eiJMz8ReLJV3QdJ2PALx3Nn4aditPmR52DY79ML8TQQwQYVgfv9l&amp;id=90564450046\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Facebook Post</a> in 2016 explaining zipper merges and encouraging their use. Although the timeline isn't completely clear, this is likely before the mentioned ticket (it's also unclear if they were ticketed by HRP or RCMP). Of course, strictly speaking, a post like this even from police doesn't mean zipper merging is legal, if it's contradicted by the Motor Vehicle Act.</p>","original_index":1012}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>The neighbouring province of New Brunswick has recently been trying <a href=\"https://fb.watch/j-1Wwc-Huk/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">to educate people</a> on the use of zipper merges (of course, their law and NS laws are different, but the same logic applies).</p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion so far</strong></p>\n<p>Ergo the common conclusion is that while zipper merges are useful, they cannot legally be used in N.S., and most people here avoid them due to the aforementioned language in the driver handbook and/or MVA.</p>\n<p>After several hours of researching, it does not <em>seem</em> to me like zipper merges are explicitly illegal, but I'm by no means certain, and I don't know why someone would be ticketed for it. Hence the question. If anyone has any advice or is able to find specific and clear language in the Motor Vehicle Act that explains it either way, I'd be very interested. Thanks.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":902,"chunk_index":11,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1012}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1012_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1012,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":12,"content_length":357,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <h2>No</h2>\n<p>The law (s111A) is clear that the right lane has right-of-way (except when it doesn't). This does not make it illegal for a car to merge from the left - it just makes it illegal to do so where that cannot be done safely. In a situation where traffic is zipper merging at low speed, this is not a problem.</p>\n\n\nTags: canada, traffic"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":110,"original_index":1013,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: In any US states are there laws, other than abortion laws, which require professionals to lie?","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Several US states have laws which require doctors to lie to patients who are trying to obtain an abortion.  <a href=\"https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/a-tennessee-law-requires-doctors-to-lie-to-their-patients-were-suing\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">This 2020 ACLU article</a> summarizes several examples.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In four states, doctors have to tell their patients that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, even though that is factually wrong. Eight states insist that physicians include “negative emotional response” among the lists of risks associated with the procedure, even though mainstream medical associations have uniformly determined that this is false. Four states require doctors to lie to their patients about the risk having an abortion could have on their future fertility.</p>\n</blockquote>","content_length":856,"original_index":1013}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":867,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>These are clearly established as lies by actual medical research, e.g. obtaining an abortion objectively does not increase one's risk of breast cancer.</p>\n<p>As Martin points out in the comments, if doctors are permitted to explain that the information is false they can avoid actually lying.  &quot;I am required by law to tell you that if you get an abortion you are more likely to die by suicide or breast cancer, but that is not actually true.&quot;</p>\n<p>I am unfortunately unfamiliar with the best way to find the actual text of each state's laws, so I am unable to determine if any of the abortion laws in question forbid doctors from revealing that false information is false.  Consequently, I will broaden the scope to either being required to lie or being required to provide false information with the option of revealing it as such.</p>","original_index":1013,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Are there other examples of laws in US states that require one person to lie to or mislead another?  If some narrowing of scope is needed, I am mostly wondering about examples which are similar in the sense of a professional being required to lie to someone obtaining some service or good from them.</p>","original_index":1013,"content_length":306,"chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":513,"original_index":1013,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>A law requiring you to explicitly lie to someone would be a form of compelled speech, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment's free speech clause.  However, a &quot;lie&quot; in the legal sense would be a statement of fact that is objectively and demonstrably false.  There are lots of disclosure laws that require lots of people in different professions to do and say all kinds of things to and for their clients that might even be widely regarded as stupid, but that does not make them lies.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"<p>Taking the ACLU's claims at face value (I'm sure these laws exist but I'm not going to take the time to look them up), requiring doctors to disclose potential negative side effects of a drug or surgical procedure to a patient is clearly within the legislature's authority to do if they've determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant it.  It's ultimately up to the courts to decide, but courts generally give wide latitude to legislatures and administrative agencies in this regard unless the statute is egregiously unreasonable.</p>\n<p>Either way, the doctor does not have to assert the disclosures as statements of fact, and they are free to tell their patients that they do not believe them to be true, so there is no compelled speech involved.</p>\n<hr />","content_length":772,"original_index":1013}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1013,"chunk_index":6,"content_length":673,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<hr />\n<p>I'm not trying to express support or opposition to abortion here, so please don't start a dumpster fire in the comments.  But the ACLU article you linked is a straight-up opinion piece.  The ACLU believes that the statements are lies.  There are a lot of weasel words just in the paragraph you quoted.  Out of curiosity, I did a search on their claims.</p>\n<p>The top search result for &quot;abortion and breast cancer&quot; is <a href=\"https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this article from the American Cancer Society</a>, which contains this statement:</p>\n<blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":703,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>The results of studies looking at the possible link between breast cancer and induced abortion often differ depending on how the study was done. Cohort studies and studies that used records to determine the history of abortions have not found an increased risk. Some case-control studies, however, have found an increase in risk.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In other words, we don't really know for sure.  So it's not as &quot;factually wrong&quot; as the ACLU says.</p>\n<p>A search for &quot;abortion effects on future fertility&quot; yields <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2225607/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this study from the U.S. National Institute of Health</a></p>\n<blockquote>","original_index":1013,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1013,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>... Women whose pregnancy is terminated by dilatation and evacuation may have an increased risk of subsequent premature delivery and a low birthweight baby. Very little has been published and no conclusions can be made regarding the effects of instillation procedures and repeat abortions on future reproduction.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So there's definitely a risk from a <em>particular kind</em> of abortion (a D&amp;E, which are performed usually for mid-late term pregnancies), but no significant risk from an instillation abortion (a vacuum catheter in early pregancy).  This study is from 1990, so medication-induced abortions were not available then.  It was just the first search result that wasn't a news article.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":739,"chunk_index":8}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>And then there's the &quot;negative emotional response&quot; risk.  I'm not even going to tackle that one it's so weaselly.  What does that even mean exactly?  &quot;...Mainstream medical associations have uniformly determined that this is false.&quot;  Which medical associations?  And what constitutes &quot;mainstream?&quot;  I highly doubt there is uniformity of opinion.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Bottom line is, no, a law cannot require you to lie.  And the laws in this example are not lies per se.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":9,"original_index":1013,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":500}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1013_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":10,"original_index":1013,"content_length":19,"chroma:document":"Tags: united-states","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1014_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1014,"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":78,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Can an opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership get married?"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1014_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>In the UK, civil partnerships and marriages are both options open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.</p>\n<p>Where there seems to be a disparity between the two however is that same-sex couples have the option to <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/convert-civil-partnership\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">'convert' their civil partnership into a marriage</a> whilst it is explicitly stated that opposite-sex couples cannot do this.</p>\n<p>I suppose I can see the logic- for those in same-sex couples who formed their legal relationship before they were able to get married, they might have wished to make this correction when same-sex marriage was formalised and there's no point in taking it off the books now it is there.</p>\n<p>But why opposite-sex couples are not permitted to do this too is an unusual oversight.</p>\n<p>So, the question; an opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership decide they now want to be married. What can they do?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":961,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1014,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1014_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"original_index":1014,"chroma:document":"<p>So, the question; an opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership decide they now want to be married. What can they do?</p>\n<p>A conversion is explicitly not allowed.</p>\n<p>Can they get married whilst still in the civil partnership?</p>\n<p>Do they first need to dissolve their relationship and then get married again?</p>\n<p>What?</p>","content_length":336}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1014_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The legislation simply provides a novel conversion process for same-sex couples to convert their civil partnership to a marriage, with a date retroactive to the commencement of their civil partnership. See <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3181\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the regulations</a> and the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/section/9/enacted\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">provision of the legislation</a> allowing for this process to be created.</p>\n<p>There are no restrictions on access to marriage based on the sex of the couple. Any couple can still get married outside of the conversion process, even while in a civil partnership.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-kingdom, marriage","content_length":728,"original_index":1014,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1015_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"original_index":1015,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":345,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Why was the Dominion v. Fox case tried in Delaware?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>As reported, <a href=\"https://abcnews.go.com/US/dominion-case-fox-news-trial-judge-rules/story?id=98276968\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Fox News is sued in the Delaware courts by Dominion.</a></p>\n<p>What determines which state(s) the Dominion v. Fox case is tried?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1015_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The defendant Fox corporation (there are a variety of affiliated or formerly affiliated companies with very similar names) is organized under the laws of Delaware so lawsuits related to its activities anywhere in the world may be brought in that forum. This choice of venue denied Fox any means of contesting jurisdiction or venue.</p>\n<p>Also, the Delaware courts have a great level of expertise in handling litigation involving publicly held corporations. While this may not have been very important for a jury trial on the merits itself, this expertise was quite relevant in the pre-trial discovery phase of the trial which alleged widespread misconduct by the inner circle of a publicly held company's employees and officers.</p>\n\n\nTags: jurisdiction, delaware","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1015,"chunk_index":1,"content_length":777}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1016_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"original_index":1016,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: if a non profit uses the .com domain or a for profit uses the .org domain , would that be false advertising and suable?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Do organizations have to use domains according to their financial status and would they be liable for civil or criminal liability if they didn't use domains appropriate to their status (non profit/.org or for profit/.com). Also would using a website that has ad revenue or cookies on it automatically make one a customer or trader legally (the item traded being personal data)?</p>","content_length":536}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1016_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":978,"original_index":1016,"chunk_index":1,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>There is no law pertaining to top level domains, defining &quot;appropriateness&quot;. Instead, some organization is an administrator, and there is an understanding as to what the purpose of the domain is, but this is not legally enforceable. The TLDs com, org, net are open to anyone, whereas edu is limited in the US to accredited post-secondary institutions, however some non-educational commercial enterprises were grandfathered in. Insofar as registering a com-domain website does not entail &quot;an intent to make profit&quot; and registering an org-domain website does not entail &quot;an intent to not make a profit&quot;, there is no deception w.r.t. internet users. One would of course have to be truthful in registering the domain.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://thenew.org/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Public Interest Registry</a>, the administrator for org, does not even purport that businesses registered under org should be &quot;nonprofit&quot;.</p>\n\n\nTags: canada","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"content_length":665,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Legality of IRS requiring taxpayers to swear to statements\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The IRS requires taxpayers to swear under &quot;penalties of perjury&quot; to their statements and figures given concerning their income. Since obviously this constitutes a potential incrimination, it would appear to violate the 7th Article of the Bill of Rights which provides that noone &quot;shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself&quot;. Since perjury is a criminal offense and tax fraud is also a criminal offense, it would seem the IRS is requiring taxpayers to act as witnesses against themselves. Has this been tested in court?</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1017,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>The IRS requires taxpayers to swear under &quot;penalties of perjury&quot; to\ntheir statements and figures given concerning their income. Since\nobviously this constitutes a potential incrimination</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The privilege against self-incrimination applies to giving testimony that reveals that you have committed a crime, not to doing something prospectively in a way that does not violate criminal laws.</p>\n<p>The solution is that you may truthfully report the amount of income that you have on your tax return.</p>\n<p>Ordinarily, the information that you had a certain amount of income, without a specific description of its source, would not in and of itself be incriminating. So, it is not &quot;obvious that this constitutes potential incrimination[.]&quot;, at least in the general case.</p>","content_length":835,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1017,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>There might be some circumstance in which merely filling out the information on a tax return required by law and signing it under penalty of perjury would be incriminating, although this is far more narrow that your question suggests. In those circumstances, the solution would be to file an unsigned tax return accompanied by a disclaimer stating that you are not signing it under penalty of perjury as it would be potentially incriminating for you to do so would on a signed and attached explanation that explicitly claims the 5th Amendment privilege.</p>\n<p>There is actually an IRS form for doing that or similar things on: <a href=\"https://www.meadowscollier.com/form-8275-disclosure-statement-a-tax-practitioners-best-friend-forever\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">IRS Form 8275</a>.</p>","content_length":791,"original_index":1017,"chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":214,"original_index":1017,"chunk_index":3,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>This would result in serious civil tax penalties, but would probably protect you from a criminal tax law violation (at least for the failure to file offense, not necessarily from the failure to pay offense).</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":547,"original_index":1017,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>The underlying principle is that the Fifth Amendment does <em>not</em> protect you from being required to testify as a witness in general, even if some or all of the questions could be about incriminating matters.  Unless you are actually the defendant in the trial, you must appear to testify and be sworn, and then you may claim the privilege in refusing to answer each individual question that would incriminate you.  But you may be asked other questions that do not incriminate you, and you are still required to answer those.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":853,"original_index":1017,"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"<p>This is how it works in court, and the same principle applies on tax returns. You are not on trial, and have not been charged with anything, so the Fifth Amendment does not give you the right to refuse to file a tax return at all, nor to file a tax return containing false statements.   Rather, if the answer to one or more questions (line items) on the form would incriminate you, then you must state objections to those specific items, and truthfully fill in all the rest.  Then signing the declaration that the information on your form is true, will not in itself incriminate you, nor would it perjure you (since it is a true statement), so you have no privilege against signing it.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-schiff\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1979)</a></p>\n<blockquote>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1017,"chunk_index":6,"content_length":994,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>On appeal, the appellant emphasizes that a person filling out a tax form is a &quot;witness&quot; for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Clearly, this is the rule. See Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 656, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976); United States v. Sullivan, supra. But the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert as to each particular question that the answer to that question would tend to incriminate them are protected. As the Court observed in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965), the questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face and directed to the public at large rather than to a &quot;selective group&quot; inherently suspect of criminal activities, cf. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) (occupational and","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":309,"chunk_index":7,"chroma:document":"criminal activities, cf. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968) (occupational and excise tax on gambling). Hence privilege may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1017,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":13,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</blockquote>","original_index":1017,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1017_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"original_index":1017,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: united-states, us-constitution, fifth-amendment, bill-of-rights","content_length":69}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1018_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Title: Tax forms signature requirement violating the 5th Amendment?","original_index":1018,"content_length":76,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1018_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":976,"chunk_index":1,"original_index":1018,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>I notice that the IRS requires taxpayers to sign their tax forms under a notice that states &quot;I declare under penalty of perjury that ....[the information provided on the form is true]&quot;. Obviously there are potential criminal penalties for false statements on a tax form.</p>\n<p>So, essentially the IRS is requiring taxpayers to act as a witness against themself by compelling testimony and oaths in potentially criminal matters regarding their finances. This would seem on its face to be a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution which states: &quot;No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself&quot;.</p>\n<p>Obviously the oath requirement is indefensible from a logical point of view, so I am curious (1) what specious pretext is currently being used to legally justify the compulsion of this oath, and (2) what court cases, if any, have tested the constitutionality of taxpayer oaths?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1018_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The 5th Amendment is not a license to commit fraud. The right not to testify about your past crimes does not mean that you are allowed to be untruthful in the present.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, constitutional-law, tax-law","original_index":1018,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":235}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Title: What are some new examples of judge made law?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>What are some recent examples of judge made law? (On both the criminal and civil side.)</p>\n<p>I am not looking for interpretations in long standing common law. I am looking for development of a new principle, prohibition, theory of liability, ect. invented by a judge on the basis of reason, equity, analogy ect (perhaps to meet a new circumstance or development). Am am also not looking for new interpretaions of statutes, but purely for judge made law.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"original_index":1019,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":540}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>I am using 1960s and later as a cutoff for &quot;new&quot; in the absence of other clear guidance in the question (keep in mind that the common law goes back to before the 1600s in many cases). I'm also treating a judge made law innovation as &quot;new&quot; even if it was present in a handful of outlier cases in a handful of jurisdictions but was not widely used and widely adopted until much later.</p>\n<p>A few that come to mind are:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>The direct strict liability for defective products in torts originated in California in the 1960s.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The market share method of allocating damages for product liability in class action lawsuits when the exact manufacturer could not easily be determined because multiple manufacturers made the same defective product is a fairly recent innovation.</p>\n</li>","content_length":839,"original_index":1019,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The widespread adoption of the common law implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in cases not governed by the Uniform Commercial Code is more recent than that.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The common law practice of treating installment land contracts upon which many payments have been made as mortgages under a lien theory is relatively recent.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The generalized and widespread adoption of unjust enrichment as a cause of action is a late 20th century judicial innovation.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The concept of a trust protector for express trusts is relatively recent (maybe seeing widespread adoption in the 1980s).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The outrageous conduct/intentional infliction of emotional distress tort is relatively recent (probably seeing wide use around the 1970s or 1980s).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The negligent misrepresentation tort is relatively recent.</p>\n</li>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":885,"original_index":1019,"chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1019,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The negligent misrepresentation tort is relatively recent.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the injurious falsehood tort (imposing fraud liability when fraud directed at a third-party harms the person seeking relief)</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The intentional interference with contractual rights/business opportunity tort is relatively recent, at least in wide application.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Palimony causes of action.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Enforcement of domestic partnership agreements (previously disallowed as a matter of public policy).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The use of the contempt of court power to enforce unpaid child support and alimony judgments.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The erosion (but not complete abolition) of common law authority for someone to make decision for spouses and children as a &quot;natural guardian&quot; in the absence of a court order or written instrument.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The demise of college and university <em>in loco parentis</em> authority over college students.</p>\n</li>","content_length":982}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The demise of college and university <em>in loco parentis</em> authority over college students.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The demise of the common law defense to assault for a husband's &quot;reasonable&quot; discipline of his wife.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The demise of marital tort immunities in many states (in other states this was statutory).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The demise of the heart balm torts in states where they were not abolished by statute.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The common law choice of law rules were revolutionized between roughly the 1960s and 1980s with the &quot;most significant relationship&quot; test largely replacing rigid black and white rules.</p>\n</li>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":669,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1019,"chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1019,"content_length":995,"chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The tender year's doctrine was a common law innovation that came and went (in the face of constitutional gender equality norms that overruled it). It has been somewhat superseded by a weak primary caretaker presumption and by the concept that the best interests of the child are served by reproducing the pre-divorce/separation status quo to the extent possible.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Validating shrink wrap licensing and the theories of contract formation that go with website terms of service are fairly recent common law innovations.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Various common law legal theories of relief for revenge porn are quite recent. This is a currently developing area of the common law.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Some innovations that started with common law decisions were later widely codified:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>Putative marriage was a common law innovation before it was codified.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Time shares were a common law innovation before they were regulated on a statutory basis.</p>","chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<ul>\n<li><p>Putative marriage was a common law innovation before it was codified.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Time shares were a common law innovation before they were regulated on a statutory basis.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The concept of quasi-community property was a fairly recent innovation that was a common law concept before it was statutory.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The concept of derivatives is largely a common law innovation.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The common law reporter's privilege, in places where it does not arise from a shield law, dates mostly from the 1970s.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Implied warranties of habitability for residential real estate were originally a common law innovation although they have been codified in many jurisdictions now.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Limitations on the duration, allowability, and scope of non-competition agreements (some of which remains common law and some of which is now statutory).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>","content_length":914,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1019,"chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>Limitations on the duration, allowability, and scope of non-competition agreements (some of which remains common law and some of which is now statutory).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It is somewhat hard to stick to the question's limitation on &quot;not looking for new interpretations of statutes, but purely for judge made law&quot; because lots of constitutional law and civil procedure, for example, have a very thin statute-like touchstone but have predominantly been a matter of judicial innovation. These include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>The demise of notice pleading in the federal courts after decades without significant case law change and no new statutory language.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The dramatic narrowing of &quot;general jurisdiction&quot; after decades without significant case law change and no new statutory language.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The creation of the &quot;qualified immunity&quot; doctrine in civil rights cases.</p>\n</li>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"content_length":939,"original_index":1019}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":904,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8,"original_index":1019,"chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The creation of the &quot;qualified immunity&quot; doctrine in civil rights cases.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The creation and then limitations of the <em>Bivens</em> remedy for civil rights violations by federal officials no spurred by new statutory language.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The &quot;fraud on the market&quot; theory of securities fraud liability.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The concept of insider trading.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The definition of &quot;security&quot; in the case of investment contracts.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The narrowing of defamation law in multiple respects.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The Miranda rule.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Case law regarding reasonable expectations of privacy under the 4th Amendment in light of new technologies (infrared, drones, DNA testing, etc.)</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The &quot;major questions doctrine&quot; for judicial review of administrative action on constitutional grounds.</p>\n</li>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"content_length":965,"original_index":1019,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The &quot;major questions doctrine&quot; for judicial review of administrative action on constitutional grounds.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The development of sexual harassment claims from statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The application of existing statutes and constitutional provisions to LGBT rights with no new statutory language.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The determination that juvenile life without parole violates the 8th Amendment.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The determination that the Second Amendment creates an individual right and that this right is applicable against state and local governments and not just the federal government.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The determination that the 6th Amendment allows for non-unanimous criminal case juries followed by a determination decades later that it does not allow for non-unanimous criminal case juries based upon the experience of Louisiana and Oregon that used those options.</p>\n</li>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>The jurisdictional issues of when a state can impose sales taxes on mail order purchases (which involved a double flip of authority at the U.S. Supreme Court level).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>","content_length":194,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1019,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":10}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1019,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>See <em>Air &amp; Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries</em> <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/586/17-1104/#tab-opinion-4067382\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">586 U.S. ___ (2019)</a>. This was a maritime law tort case, where the Court explicitly acknowledged that &quot;[i]n maritime tort cases, we act as a common-law court.&quot;</p>\n<p>The Court recognized a new duty to warn for a manufacturer where:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In this case, the manufacturer's product required integration with an asbestos product.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":11,"content_length":839}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":964,"chroma:document":"Answer 3: <h2>The tort of Invasion of Privacy</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>Only … not quite yet. This is an area of law which is currently developing with two District Court judgements in Victoria and Queensland stating that the tort exists but, since both settled before appeal, we have no appellate court decisions. The High Court has said in obiter that it is not closed to the idea that such a tort might exist but it hasn’t yet been of material interest in any case they have addressed.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/sydney-law-school/research/publications/slrv43n2jun2021lerchfinal.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Aiden Lerch, ‘The Judicial Law-Making Function and a Tort of Invasion of Personal","chunk_index":12,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1019,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_13
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":52,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":13,"original_index":1019,"chroma:document":"Privacy’ (2021) 43(2) Sydney Law Review 133.</a></p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1019_14
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":14,"content_length":987,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 4: <p>In patent law there are two kinds of doctrines called “double patenting”. One is a statutory prohibition (that originates in the word “a” in the constitution) on two patents covering the same invention, the other is actually called “judicially created double patenting”. It limits patents in the case where one is obvious from the other. In that situation you can get two patents as long as it isn’t possible that the term is extended beyond what it would be for a single patent or result in an alleged infringer potentially needing to fight two different owners.</p>\n<p>It was created by Judge Rich in In re Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225 (C.C.P.A. 1963) and solidified by other cases shortly thereafter.</p>\n<p>More recently there have been a string of SCOTUS cases that have drastically expanded the meaning of “abstract” in in patent law, although Justice Thomas wrote that there was no reason to belabor over defining it.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, common-law, legal-history","original_index":1019}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1020,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Does labeling a parking space as &quot;Compact&quot; have any legal significance?","content_length":97,"chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1020,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>I have an assigned parking space, which is labeled &quot;Compact.&quot; There is another parking space immediately to the right of mine, which is also labeled &quot;Compact.&quot; I have a compact car, but the person in the next space over uses it to park a large SUV. Due to the geometry of the parking garage, this makes it VERY hard for me to get my car out.</p>\n<p>But there's a problem (or lack of a problem, depending on how you look at it). Although the person next to me frequently parks a very large vehicle in a very small space, I would have to concede that they have always kept their vehicle inside the lines. So it seems to me that the only way I could argue that they are doing something wrong is by saying that they shouldn't be parking a large vehicle in a compact spot.</p>\n<p>Is labeling a spot &quot;Compact&quot; a suggestion? A mandate? Something else? Does it have any enforceability?</p>","content_length":929}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":204,"original_index":1020,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"<p>Is labeling a spot &quot;Compact&quot; a suggestion? A mandate? Something else? Does it have any enforceability?</p>\n<p>Edit: The garage is owned by my employer, which is a non-profit organization.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>TLDR: &quot;Compact&quot; is a legal fiction to get the right to build a building.  It's pretty much useless.</p>\n<p>The &quot;compact car parking space&quot; is about <em>entitlements</em> aka the right to build, which is decided <strong>at the local</strong> level.  Cities <em>often</em> require a minimum number of parking spaces for a development. This then requires defining a minimum space size and aisle size. And builders pressure cities to allow a percentage of &quot;compact&quot; spots with smaller space and sometimes aisle size.  An example of code in Pinole, California (exurban San Francisco, and the kind of place you need a car to get by).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A.   Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the required number of parking spaces may be sized for compact cars.<br />\nB.   Compact car parking spaces shall be at least eight (8) feet in width and sixteen (16) feet in length, and shall be clearly marked, “COMPACT CARS ONLY,” “COMPACT,” or “C.”<br />","content_length":987,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1020,"chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1020,"chunk_index":4,"content_length":790,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"B.   Compact car parking spaces shall be at least eight (8) feet in width and sixteen (16) feet in length, and shall be clearly marked, “COMPACT CARS ONLY,” “COMPACT,” or “C.”<br />\nC.   Compact car spaces shall be distributed throughout the parking lot.<br />\nD.   Where a section of the parking lot is restricted to compact parking with an angle of 90 degrees, the aisle width may be reduced from the standard twenty-three (23) feet to twenty- one (21) feet. Such compact sections should be located so as to minimize the distance from the section to the appropriate building or activity.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>Note absence of state-level standard, even in California.</em>  The takeaway here is this a <em>local</em> matter and will be subject to <em>local</em> enforcement if any.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1020,"content_length":949,"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p><em>Note absence of state-level standard, even in California.</em>  The takeaway here is this a <em>local</em> matter and will be subject to <em>local</em> enforcement if any.</p>\n<p><strong>Police do not (by default) have standing to enforce on private property</strong>.  Some departments are willing to sign contracts with (larger) parking lot owners to enforce on their property - this will be the case at a large mall, typically. Such consent is a double-edged sword, and smaller entities will think twice about doing it.</p>\n<p>Even when they do, &quot;Is a car a compact car?&quot; is too vague and slippery a question, because again <em>it is defined on a local level</em>.  This is <a href=\"https://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/Getting-There-An-SUV-is-a-compact-if-it-fits-1185241.php\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">a vexation</a> to people who find Tacomas and Dodge Chargers parked in the compact spots.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":957,"original_index":1020,"chroma:document":"<p>Your best bet is to appeal to the private property owner. <strong>The host makes the rules, and they can make ANY rule they want</strong>.  And yeah, they can enforce it with towing, as long as the parker has a reasonable opportunity to know those rules, and the rule is sane enough that a judge doesn't call it a predatory tow.  Penalty tows HURT - they are many times the cost of regular old rescue tows.  They can say &quot;your vehicle may only park in the Designated Loser Spot for the next month as punishment&quot;, or &quot;pay a $60 fine <em>or don't bring the vehicle back here</em>&quot; or just &quot;banned for a month&quot;, with towing-on-sight being the penalty for noncompliance.  So it really depends on the righteousness of the property owner.</p>\n<p>Remember though - the property owner only created those spots to get a license to build. So now that they have their entitlement, they're not emotionally invested in the principle.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1020_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1020,"content_length":36,"chunk_index":7,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: united-states, oregon, parking"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1021_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Insurance claim chain of causality vehicle damages garage causes theft\n\nQuestion Body: <p>In England.</p>\n<p>A vehicle damaged the sole ingress and egress for cars at a block of flats in careless but normal use. The damage was such that the ingress/egress (a garage door) could no longer be closed.</p>\n<p>Given that it was required for access, only proper replacement of the door was appropriate in order for the site to be re-secured. The site owners acted to replace the door as quickly as possible while claiming against the insurance of the driver.</p>\n<p>The same location holds a bicycle rack for residents. Very shortly after the damage to the doors, two bicycles from inside the parking area were stolen despite being locked to the bicycle rack. Does the owner of the bicycles have any recourse against the driver of the vehicle?</p>","original_index":1021,"content_length":858,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1021_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":956,"original_index":1021,"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p><a href=\"https://hallellis.co.uk/causation-loss-damages/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">This solicitors' site</a> gives some good information and examples relating to legal causality - and in particular the difference between causality and the opportunity to suffer loss.</p>\n<p>The bicycle owner may have a claim against the owner of the garage if it could be shown there was a reasonable expectation of security. Factors affecting this would include whether the bicycle owner had been made aware the garage was no longer secure (and the manner in which they were advised : hand delivered letters to residents or their flats would work in the garage owner's favour. A big sign saying &quot;This door is not secure&quot; would not), whether the garage owner had offered alternative storage or advice (such as &quot;keep it in your flat&quot;), and whether the action taken by the garage owner was really the only - or most reasonable - course.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1021_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":873,"chroma:document":"<p>In turn, the garage owner may be able to take further action against the driver to recover the damages of that legal action. Factors in this case would include whether the driver could be held accountable for the bicycle owner or garage owner's responses to the incident, and include those points in the paragraph above. This is likely to be where a break in causation occurs.</p>\n<p>The question uses the word &quot;careless&quot; - it's worth mentioning that &quot;There was an accident&quot; is not sufficient to establish carelessness, but if there was a specific legally established carelessness this could be relevant in the garage owner's case against the driver.</p>\n<p>The bicycle owner is unlikely to be be successful in an attempt to to take direct legal action against the driver or the driver's insurer - unless it can be shown that they were the thief.</p>","chunk_index":2,"original_index":1021,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1021_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1021,"content_length":38,"chroma:document":"Tags: united-kingdom, insurance, theft","chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1022_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1022,"content_length":649,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: FMLA and Paid Leave\n\nQuestion Body: <p>There is a law called FMLA or the Family Medical Leave Act. A friend of mine makes the\nfollowing two claims about it:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>A person who has an unexpected medical problem (such as a stroke) can use this\nact to take paid time off.</li>\n<li>A person who has a son who has unexpected medical problem (such as a stroke) can\nuse this act to take paid time off.</li>\n</ol>\n<p>I believe that both are wrong. However, I am thinking both claims would be correct if you changed the word paid to unpaid. Also, in the first case the person might be eligible for disability insurance. Am I right?</p>","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1022_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>There is an FAQ at the FMLA web site here:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla/faq\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">FLMA FAQ</a></p>\n<p>In that page there is this paragraph:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Qualifying conditions (Q) When can an eligible employee use FMLA\nleave?</p>\n<p>A covered employer must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12\nworkweeks of <strong>unpaid, job-protected leave</strong> in a 12 month period for one\nor more of the following reasons:</p>\n<p>for the birth of a son or daughter, and to bond with the newborn\nchild; for the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or\nfoster care, and to bond with that child; to care for an immediate\nfamily member (spouse, child, or parent – but not a parent “in-law”)\nwith a serious health condition; to take medical leave when the\nemployee is unable to work because of a serious health condition; or\nfor qualifying exigencies arising out of the fact that the employee’s","original_index":1022,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"content_length":970}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1022_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1022,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition; or\nfor qualifying exigencies arising out of the fact that the employee’s\nspouse, son, daughter, or parent is on covered active duty or call to\ncovered active duty status as a member of the National Guard,\nReserves, or Regular Armed Forces. The FMLA also allows eligible\nemployees to take up to 26 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in\na “single 12-month period” to care for a covered servicemember with a\nserious injury or illness.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The next question is what is a &quot;serious&quot; medical condition.  That's also covered in the FAQ:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Serious health condition (Q) What is a serious health condition?</p>\n<p>The most common serious health conditions that qualify for FMLA leave\nare:</p>\n<p>conditions requiring an overnight stay in a hospital or other medical\ncare facility; conditions that incapacitate you or your family member","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":941}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1022_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1022,"chroma:document":"are:</p>\n<p>conditions requiring an overnight stay in a hospital or other medical\ncare facility; conditions that incapacitate you or your family member\n(for example, unable to work or attend school) for more than three\nconsecutive days and have ongoing medical treatment (either multiple\nappointments with a health care provider, or a single appointment and\nfollow-up care such as prescription medication); chronic conditions\nthat cause occasional periods when you or your family member are\nincapacitated and require treatment by a health care provider at least\ntwice a year; and pregnancy (including prenatal medical appointments,\nincapacity due to morning sickness, and medically required bed rest).</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>While a &quot;stroke&quot; is not specifically mentioned, the resulting medical conditions after a stroke might certainly fall under the FMLA.</p>\n<p>If you believe you are entitled to such benefits, you should start with your HR department.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":968,"chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1022_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":30,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1022,"chroma:document":"Tags: united-states, labor-law","chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Title: Is a copyright claim diminished by an owner&#39;s refusal to publish?","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"content_length":85,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1023}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1023,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":506,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Alan is aware of an obscure old book that is out of print, and republishes it.</p>\n<p>Brenda Books, Inc. objects and sues Alan since they own the copyright. This is not disputed.  Brenda Books' claim is a tremendous amount of money.</p>\n<p>The book is indeed out of print, and Brenda Books claims the reason it's out of print is the low probable sales don't justify the cost of reprinting it. &quot;We don't cede our interest in the work; it's just not profitable to reprint it.&quot;</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1023,"chunk_index":2,"content_length":895,"chroma:document":"<p>Thus it is a &quot;dog in the manger&quot; scenario (in which the dog beds down in the cows' food trough, neither partaking of the cows' food not allowing the cows to do so either; thus maliciously wasting the valuable resource to no profit for anyone.)  Note that this is a not a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault\" rel=\"noreferrer\">&quot;Disney Vault&quot;</a> scenario where the definitely-profitable resource is made artificially scarce to increase its value further: this is a book that the conventional publisher doesn't really have a pathway to make money on.   But setting aside the social or moral issues...</p>\n<p>How does the fact of Brenda's unwillingness to print the book, affect the damages?  Can Alan diminish damages by showing Brenda Books wasn't doing anything with the work anyway, and thus, doesn't really have any lost profits to claim against Alan?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1023,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"content_length":543,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <h2>When you own something, you get to decide what you do with it</h2>\n<p>There is no obligation to make a copyrighted work available and the fact that it isn’t is not a defence to a copyright infringement.</p>\n<p>Brenda Books is entitled to either damages or an account of profits. Arguably, they have suffered no damage, so Alan’s profits are the better target. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, statutory damages (a set dollar amount for each infringement) is available even if there are no damages or profits.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":808,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1023,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <h2>In the contrary: Copyright can be strengthened by not publishing</h2>\n<p>Unpublished works are protected the same as published works and usually, that is the author's death+70 years. In <a href=\"https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/c.php?g=158548&amp;p=1486030\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>some cases</em></a> - unpublished and author unknown - it is creation+120 years and corporate published works are 90 years.</p>\n<p>While copyright lasts, the law dictates that it is the absolute <strong>exclusive</strong> right of the copyright holder to make prints outside of some exceptions. Whether they are printing the work or not does not matter: as long as the right lasts, it's exclusive. The act of refusing to sell a published item does nothing for the strength of their claim in itself.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":960,"chroma:document":"<p>On the other hand, refusing to publish an unpublished work <strong>does</strong> strengthen their claim for damages, as an unpublished work that Alan illegally brought to market does not need to be registered - it is still unpublished for the courts!</p>\n<h2>Fair Use?</h2>\n<p>In the context of the question, the work has been published, but not offering it does not lessen Brenda Books' claim that it was an infringement.</p>\n<p>To overcome the infringement claim as the defendant, there <em>might</em> be a fair use argument by satisfying the balancing test, but the copyright owners' rights in the text are not diminished by there possibly being <em>some</em> ways that allow republishing part or the whole of the work within the confines of <a href=\"https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">fair use</a>/<a href=\"https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/academic-integrity/copyright/fair-dealing\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">fair dealing.</a></p>","original_index":1023}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The problem for Alan is, that unwillingness to grant a license and then not being able to prove fair use/dealing means he should be well aware that he is infringing, possibly even stepping his problem up to wilful infringement in case fair use/dealing is not found. in the US can be penalized with 150 000 USD plus attorneys fees.</p>\n<p>A rough estimation of the <strong>fair use</strong> factors:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Making copies <em>for sale</em> would weigh extremely against Alan, for <em>archival purposes</em> it would weigh for Alan. (see <a href=\"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., (2d Cir. 2015)</a>)</li>\n<li>The amount taken, impact on the market, and nature of the work count against Alan - making a finding of fair use <em>very</em> tricky.</li>\n</ul>","content_length":875,"chunk_index":6,"original_index":1023}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1023,"content_length":928,"chroma:document":"<li>The amount taken, impact on the market, and nature of the work count against Alan - making a finding of fair use <em>very</em> tricky.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>But.... how did Google get away with copying the whole books? It hinges on the whole copy being searchable, very much transformed, and that the users <em>can't</em> get access to the full text as long as the work is under copyright. From the court of appeals' judgement on the Google case:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>A rough look at the <strong>fair dealing</strong> factors:</p>\n<ul>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":520,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>A rough look at the <strong>fair dealing</strong> factors:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The purpose of the copy might cut against Alan most of the time, the mere usage type cuts against, use is ongoing, the whole book is copied, the means are not exactly required, the nature of the book cuts against <em>and</em> it is market usurpation...</li>\n</ul>\n<p>In short: I don't see how Alan might manage fair dealing unless it would be very much the Google Books example. Making copies even for a 0 profit would not fly.</p>","original_index":1023}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":987,"original_index":1023,"chunk_index":9,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 3: <h2>It Doesn’t</h2>\n<p>There are many reasons why a copyright holder might want to take books out of print.  The descendants of Theodor “Dr. Seuss” Geisel, for example, recently took a couple of his books out of print on the grounds that they thought some of the lines had become inappropriate by modern standards.  The Arthur Conan Doyle estate has never allowed the original version of the first Sherlock Holmes novel to be published, on the grounds that it would only damage the author’s reputation.  Mark Twain left instructions for how many years after his death to keep some of his writings from being published, based on how much longer he expected the people he wrote about (and their children) to live and how controversial what he said was by the standards of the time.</p>\n<p>In cases like that, the fact that a <em>samizdat</em> version would be popular and widely-read would, from the perspective of the author’s heirs, be the harm they were trying to prevent.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":911,"chunk_index":10,"original_index":1023,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>In cases like that, the fact that a <em>samizdat</em> version would be popular and widely-read would, from the perspective of the author’s heirs, be the harm they were trying to prevent.</p>\n<p>As you know, a trademark can be lost if it is not used and defended, but this cannot happen to a copyright.  So, when DC acquired the rights to Captain Marvel from Fawcett Comics, and allowed the trademark to lapse, Marvel Comics was able to create a different character named “Captain Marvel,” it took the trademark for itself, and now DC has to call the original, “Shazam!”  However, no one but DC can reprint the original Captain Marvel comics, which remain under copyright.</p>\n<p>Proving “A-ha!  You let the book go out of print because you thought it wouldn’t sell well, but it did!” would not do someone any good when the jury awards damages.  Under U.S. federal law (17 U.S. Code § 504(b))</p>\n<blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.</p>\n</blockquote>","original_index":1023,"content_length":290,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":11,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":12,"content_length":782,"original_index":1023,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>So, if the pirate edition sold well, the legitimate rights-holder is still entitled to all the profits from it.  If the rights-holder claimed a large amount of damages from lost opportunities to sell the book, but the other party can show that the publisher really believed it would not make them any money, that might be helpful.  However, the injured party could still claim statutory damages.  In a case like this, it’s risky, but the pirates might try to claim that the public deserved to have the work available.  When someone infringes copyright knowingly, “the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000,” (17 U.S. Code § 504(c)(2)) so it matters how sympathetic the judge and jury are to them.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_13
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":13,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1023,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":831,"chroma:document":"Answer 4: <p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<p>Copyright explicitly applies &quot;whether published or unpublished&quot; (<em>Copyright Act</em>, <a href=\"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-42/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-42.html#sec5_smooth\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s. 5</a>).</p>\n<p>However, in the fair dealing analysis, the fact that a work is unpublished (if not confidential) weighs in favour of finding that what would otherwise be infringement is a fair dealing (see <em>CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/1glp0#par58\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2004 SCC 13 at para 58</a>):</p>\n<blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_14
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1023,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>The nature of the work in question should also be considered by courts assessing whether a dealing is fair.  Although certainly not determinative, if a work has not been published, the dealing may be more fair in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work — one of the goals of copyright law.  If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.  See <em>Beloff v. Pressdram Ltd.</em>, [1973] 1 All E.R. 241 (Ch. D.), at p. 264.</p>\n</blockquote>","chunk_index":14,"content_length":586,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_15
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":533,"chunk_index":15,"original_index":1023,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a> <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-kingdom\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-kingdom-tooltip-container\">united-kingdom</a></p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_16
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":16,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1023,"content_length":467,"chroma:document":"<p>The situation is the reverse in the U.K. and U.S.: &quot;[i]n the United Kingdom and the United States, if a work is unpublished, it weighs <em>against</em> fair dealing&quot; (Giuseppina D'Agostino, &quot;Healing Fair Dealing? A Comparative Copyright Analysis of Canada's Fair Dealing to U.K. Fair Dealing and U.S. Fair Use&quot; (2008) <a href=\"https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2008CanLIIDocs166\" rel=\"noreferrer\">53:2 McGill L.J. 309</a> at p. 358).</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_17
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1023,"chroma:document":"<p><strong>For works that were previously published but now out of print, this weighs in favour of fair use in the U.S.</strong><sup>1</sup> See e.g. Revision Notes to <a href=\"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title17/pdf/USCODE-2021-title17-chap1-sec107.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">17 U.S.C. §107 at p. 28</a>. See also <em>Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.</em>, (2d Cir. 2015), which affirmed a fair use finding. The district court said (see <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/authors-guild\" rel=\"noreferrer\">954 F. Supp. 2d 282</a> (S.D.N.Y. 2013)):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p><sup>1. As always for fair use, <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7683/in-the-us-when-is-fair-use-a-defense-to-copyright-infringement\">simply as one of the several factors</a>.</sup></p>","content_length":950,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":17}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1023_18
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: copyright","chunk_index":18,"original_index":1023,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":15}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Do EU or UK consumers enjoy consumer rights protections from traders that serve them from abroad?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Bob lives in Manchester, or alternatively in Lyon. He purchases a product or service from a vendor in the USA, or perhaps Timbuktu.</p>\n<p>Do European or British consumer rights legislations bind the American/Malian trader to protect Bob, as the GDPR would?</p>","original_index":1024,"content_length":394}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":903,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1024,"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>In theory, what Dale says.  However, in practice:</p>\n<h2>Nope, and that's <em>why</em> the trader is in Timbuktu.</h2>\n<p>And I apologize profusely to the Malian people, I have every reason to think it is a fine country in which citizens obey international laws and honor claims, <strong>unlike certain other countries</strong>.  In anglo/Five Eyes nations, Timbuktu tends to simply be used as a metaphor for &quot;a country far, far away and different in its ways than us&quot;.</p>\n<p>If Bob is regularly buying things in the USA or Timbuktu, then either Bob works for Aperture Science and is using portals, or more likely <strong>Bob is using mail order.  And now, we get to the nut of it</strong>.</p>\n<p>Most mail order sales are done by mail-order sellers who deal in volume. Those people choose their jurisdictions and venues carefully. <em>And they have help</em>.</p>\n<blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Most mail order sales are done by mail-order sellers who deal in volume. Those people choose their jurisdictions and venues carefully. <em>And they have help</em>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Do European or British consumer rights legislations bind the American/Malian trader to protect Bob, as the GDPR would?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>No! That's WHY they're in Timbuktu!</strong> (or, wherever they actually are; generally behind what I'll call the Red Curtain.) <strong>The point of being there is to be untouchable by civil action or government penalty</strong> due to that government's non-enrollment in international agreements, and outright obstruction of such actions.</p>","original_index":1024,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":678,"chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Yes, they and their legal team have crunched the question of &quot;what happens when a European or Briton sues us? What happens when an Anglo or EU government tries to action us?&quot; Their companies are structured so they slough those off at minimal real loss.  Ever notice how many sellers have a company name that looks like they rolled their face across a keyboard? That's a sockpuppet shell company, and they have thousands of them. If their other layers of defense fail, they simply fold that company and create another. Their government lets them do this, because they chose jurisdictions wisely.</p>","original_index":1024,"chunk_index":3,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":611,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1024,"content_length":783,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"<p>A huge fraction of mail order sales are done on this basis, typically through web sites which purport to be &quot;only a marketplace connecting buyers to sellers&quot;... even though some of those marketplaces also provide warehousing and shipping services to the third party (&quot;only a warehouse&quot; and &quot;only a drop-ship firm&quot;)... and even though they are known for selling their own products, and use the smallest text on the page to mention that this particular item is from a third party.  <em>Not mentioning any names</em>.</p>\n<p>This type of &quot;be fully complicit in selling junk, while the seller of record hides behind the Red Curtain and uses arrays of shell companies to limit exposure&quot; has become systemized in much of the mail order world.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":555,"original_index":1024,"chroma:document":"<p>Another scheme I've seen is to trick American consumers into being the seller of record; these people end up &quot;holding the liability bag&quot;, and are typically not insured and not collectible in any practical way.</p>\n<p>Of course you have lovely companies like Eaton, Midnight Solar, Harsco Rail, Roshel, ILSCO, etc. who will meet GDPR simply because it's the right thing to do, even if they don't have feet on the ground inside the EU or UK against which those governments might action.  But nobody asks if they're subject to GDPR, do they?</p>","chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"content_length":471,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <h2>Yes</h2>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Consumer Rights Act 2015</a> applies to most contracts between traders and consumers that are subject to the jurisdiction of English and Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish courts. All this requires is sufficient nexus between the contract and the jurisdiction - if either the trader or the consumer is located in say, Nottingham, that’s sufficient.</p>","original_index":1024,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1024,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The Act cannot be contracted out of so even if the contract is to be governed under the law of another jurisdiction the CRA still applies. This is not an uncommon occurrence in the modern world. For example, an English trader sells to a person in Australia using a contract under Californian law (because most of their customers are American) will be subject to the UK Consumer Rights Act, Australian Consumer Law, and Californian contract law. Depending on the temperament of the judge, this will either be the best or the worst case of their life.</p>","content_length":556}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1024_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8,"chroma:document":"Answer 3: <p>Under UK law there is a very useful consumer protection provided by section 75 of the consumer credit act 1974.  If I buy an item or service that costs between £100.01 and £29999.99 and use my <strong>credit card</strong> to pay for at least £0.01 towards the purchase and the supplier <strong>anywhere in the world</strong> fails to deliver then the UK based credit card company is liable to return the entire cost of the purchase, <strong>not just the part that was charged to the credit card</strong><br />\nAs a result there is no need to sue the supplier that is not under the jurisdiction of UK law.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-kingdom, european-union, consumer-protection, jurisdiction","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":695,"original_index":1024}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1025_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":806,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1025,"chunk_index":0,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: What is the &quot;public interest&quot;?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Prosecution as in England must only be undertaken if they are required by the public interest. What is this public interest and how is it understood?</p>\n<p>Can these decisions not become quite politically loaded? For example, suppose an anti monarchist protestor breaches the public order act. A monarchist sympathetic prosecutor may more likely deem prosecution in the public interest. Suppose a monarchist then assaults him. A republican may deem the protectors prosecution ass contrary to the public interest and the assailant's as required by it.</p>\n<p>But that is not really the public interest but rather the interest of a given specific political cause. What is the public interest when it comes to political masters?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1025_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The &quot;public interest&quot; from a charging perspective is <em>not</em> the same as public popularity. From the <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/charging-directors-guidance-sixth-edition-december-2020\" rel=\"noreferrer\">charging guide</a>, prosecutors:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>should consider each of the questions set out in paragraphs 4.14 (a) to (g) of the Code to determine the relevant public interest factors for and against prosecution. These factors, together with any public interest factors set out in any further relevant guidance or policy issued by the DPP, should enable prosecutors and police decision makers to form an overall assessment of the public interest.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Those public-interest factors are listed <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors\" rel=\"noreferrer\">here</a> (and each is further elaborated):</p>\n<ul>\n<li>How serious is the offence committed?</li>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"content_length":949,"original_index":1025}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1025_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":417,"chroma:document":"<ul>\n<li>How serious is the offence committed?</li>\n<li>What is the level of culpability of the suspect?</li>\n<li>What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?</li>\n<li>What was the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence?</li>\n<li>What is the impact on the community?</li>\n<li>Is prosecution a proportionate response?</li>\n<li>Do sources of information require protecting?</li>\n</ul>","chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1025}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1025_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":63,"original_index":1025,"chroma:document":"Tags: criminal-law, england-and-wales, legal-terms, prosecution"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Title: Whence arises the idea that how to rent in England ought to be served *at the start of the tenancy*?","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"content_length":116,"original_index":1026}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1026,"content_length":832,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Gov.uk's preface to the web version of the guide states that the LL or LA should give the current copy of this guide to the tenant &quot;when a new AST starts.&quot;</p>\n<p>Yet the enabling provisions seem to be to be found in statutory instrument 2015 No. 1646 The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) regulations 2015, particularly regulation 3, Requirement for landlord to provide prescribed information.</p>\n<p>3(1) says that LL &quot;must give the tenant under that tenancy the information mentioned in&quot; (2).</p>\n<p>3(2) specifies that the information is how to rent in England.</p>\n<p>3(3) specifies when it may be in what format.</p>\n<p>3(4) clarifies the lack of requirement to re-serve updated versions published subsequent to original service during a tenancy.</p>","chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"<p>3(3) specifies when it may be in what format.</p>\n<p>3(4) clarifies the lack of requirement to re-serve updated versions published subsequent to original service during a tenancy.</p>\n<p>3(5) makes 2 exemptions for certain LLs and where the presently current version <strong>upon the first day of a tenancy</strong> has already previously been served in respect of a previous tenancy where the LL, tenant and premises let are all the same.</p>\n<p>3(6) references the appropriate statutory definition of a replacement tenancy.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":532,"original_index":1026}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>3(6) references the appropriate statutory definition of a replacement tenancy.</p>\n<p>Apart from 3(5) which alludes to a definition of this idea (IE, of &quot;the start of a tenancy&quot;) albeit for another purpose-context (that is, defining a relevant point in time as a threshold for the earliest time there could have been updated versions of HTRIE published for certain other aspects of the requirement to take effect), nowhere else does this idea that the requirement is to be fulfilled &quot;at the start of the tenancy&quot; seem to appear, much less does it seem to anywhere be more clearly defined. (ie upon the signing or agreement of a written or verbal lease? On the first / &quot;move in&quot; day of the lease itself? Upon handing over the keys to the tenant? Etc).</p>","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1026,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":787}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"<p>Of course, s21B(3) of HA1988 provides the restriction on usage by LL of s21(1)  or s21(4) until they are no longer in breach of regulations referred to by 21B(1). While 21B(2)(b) refers vaguely and non-specifically to &quot;the time the requirement applies,&quot; this is again in the context of defining criteria for ascertaining what version of a document must be served and not per se in that of setting out when to serve it. And this is the closest that anywhere else in s21B comes to touching on the matter.</p>\n<p>So, while we have a statutory provision laying out the consequence for not serving the document in a timely way (no allowance to use s21), we are left with no statutory source for the oft-repeated, yet apparently ill-defined idea that this booklet is to be served &quot;at the start of a tenancy&quot;. What is this idea's basis or origin?</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":866,"original_index":1026,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":766,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1026,"chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The beginning of the tenancy is defined in <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/45\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 45(2) of the Housing Act 1988</a> as:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>the day on which the tenancy is entered into or, if it is later, the day on which, under the terms of any lease, agreement or other document, the tenant is entitled to possession under the tenancy.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(This applies to the statutory instrument because it is made under section <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/21B\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">21B</a> of the 1988 Act, and definitions carry over from primary to secondary legislation in this way.) The definition probably matches what people would expect.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1026,"chroma:document":"<p>Section 21B, and the 2015 Regulations, just say that the landlord has to give this information to their tenant. But it follows that if the tenancy has begun, then the landlord's obligation also begins. It binds from day 1. Therefore, the government is justified in saying in the booklet:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The landlord, or the letting agent, should give the current version of this guide to the tenant when a new assured shorthold tenancy starts.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Because of all the other paperwork involved, it's most common for the booklet to be given as part of the bundle of documents when the tenancy agreement is signed - so, along with the inventory and so on. This is typically not too distant in time from when the tenant is entitled to actually move in, and landlords will often only sign on the day itself even if the tenant has completed their part of the formalities earlier.</p>","content_length":901}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":873,"original_index":1026,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Perhaps your doubt is about whether it is &quot;OK&quot; for the landlord to provide the booklet before the actual start date of the tenancy, as opposed to waiting until the tenancy is in effect. In the same way, we could imagine a prospective tenant wanting to see the energy performance certificate well before agreeing to sign anything. Does the landlord have to give them another copy on day 1 of the tenancy, even though it's the same as the copy they already have?</p>\n<p>In fact, there <em>are</em> specific different rules for those other items of information.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The most recent gas safety certificate must normally be given &quot;to any new tenant of premises ... before that tenant occupies those premises&quot; (<a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2451/regulation/36/made\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SI 1998/2451 reg.36(6)(b)</a>)</li>","chunk_index":7,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1026,"content_length":747,"chunk_index":8,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<li>The EPC must be given to any <em>prospective</em> tenant at the earliest opportunity, and in any event must have been given to &quot;the person who ultimately becomes the buyer or tenant&quot; (<a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3118/regulation/6/made\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SI 2012/3118 reg.6</a>, and compare the definition of &quot;prospective tenant&quot; in <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3118/regulation/3/made\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">regulation 3</a>).</li>\n<li>The EICR must similarly be given to new and prospective tenants before they occupy the premises (<a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/regulation/3/made\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SI 2022/312 reg.3(e)</a>).</li>\n</ul>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":817,"chroma:document":"</ul>\n<p>So these are meant to be given before the tenancy begins. They are part of what the prospective tenant should know before deciding whether to sign the agreement. The government's <a href=\"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1084131/Model_agreement_for_a_shorthold_assured_tenancy.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">model tenancy agreement</a> has checklists for landlord and tenant in relation to these documents, plus the &quot;How to rent&quot; booklet. That is consistent with the idea that the tenant is meant to have this information on the day that the tenancy is to begin, whether that's because they're just being given it now, or because they've already seen it. Armed with all the knowledge, they can now proceed to signing the agreement.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1026}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1026,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Indeed, the content of the &quot;How to rent&quot; booklet makes it less useful if it's provided after the agreement has started. A lot of the material is about searching for a property, making sure that you are prepared to sign, and avoiding bad behaviour by potential landlords. Even though it would meet the letter of the law to only get this information after signing (but still on the day), it also meets letter and spirit to get it on the day, <em>before</em> signing. Or if you had it even earlier, it would be a bold argument to say that the landlord hadn't given you the information just because they emailed it to you a week before the tenancy actually began - especially if you have checked the appropriate little box on the tenancy agreement to say you received it.</p>","chunk_index":10,"content_length":784}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":421,"original_index":1026,"chunk_index":11,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Nonetheless, because the only practical consequence for landlords is their ability to serve a s.21 notice, it's also common for them to play it safe and send another copy of the booklet before sending the notice itself. They will also often send updated copies as they arise, even though the regulation doesn't require it; some insurers ask for this just to really cement the chance of making a proper s.21 notice.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1026,"chroma:document":"<p>I'm not aware of judicial precedent on <em>early</em> delivery of the booklet, but we can get some guidance from a recent Court of Appeal decision on s.21A, <a href=\"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Approved-judgment-Trecarrell-House-Ltd-v-Rouncefield-18-06-2020.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Trecarrell House v Rouncefield [2020] EWCA Civ 760</a>. This case examined the nature of breaches and remedies that prevent serving an eviction notice. The conclusion was that if the tenant received a gas safety certificate &quot;before or with&quot; the s.21 notice, then the landlord has fulfilled their obligation - they are not irreparably in breach just becuse they did not give that information at the beginning. What matters for the Housing Act is that the tenant received it by the time that it was needed for the s.21 process. Likewise, it would seem that if the tenant had the &quot;How to rent&quot; booklet from the landlord before the beginning of their tenancy, then","chunk_index":12,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":996}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_13
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":13,"original_index":1026,"content_length":358,"chroma:document":"by the time that it was needed for the s.21 process. Likewise, it would seem that if the tenant had the &quot;How to rent&quot; booklet from the landlord before the beginning of their tenancy, then the landlord is not in breach - because the tenant has the information the whole time even though the act of giving the booklet predated the tenancy itself.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1026_14
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Tags: england-and-wales, landlord, assured-shorthold-tenancy","original_index":1026,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":14,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":60}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":124,"chunk_index":0,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Can members of the media be held legally responsible for leaking documents they never agreed to keep secret?"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Larry the Leaker is high up in the US government, and has access to highly classified information/documents. He goes to John the Journalist, and tells him to publish all of it. Obviously, Larry has agreed to a bunch of stuff telling him not to leak or talk about any of that stuff, so Larry has no hope. But John never signed anything. So does John face any solid legal repercussions for wholesale publishing everything he got from Larry?</p>\n<p>In the case of Edward Snowden, I'm pretty sure The Guardian (and its journalists) didn't face any repercussions. But Snowden was ultimately a whistleblower reporting on unethical conduct in that case. <strong>I want you to make no such assumptions about what Larry and John are doing.</strong> For example, perhaps Larry literally told John the identities of undercover agents in Russia, and John posted it just for the clout. Will John face any legal repercussions, even though he literally never signed anything?</p>","content_length":982,"chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Edit: To be clear, I'm not asking about Larry the Leaker (the government employee) whatsoever. I'm asking solely about John the Journalist, who publishes the information, and what legal ramifications he might face. Also if I'm allowed a follow-up: if Nathan the Netizen retweets/reposts John's article and evidence, is Nathan also subject to legal ramifications?</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":369,"original_index":1027,"chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1027,"content_length":826,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>It depends on the nature of the documents. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798\" rel=\"noreferrer\">This law</a> specifies that it is illegal to disclose or publish etc. classified information</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or\ncryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>and there are 4 such subcategories. Violation results in imprisonment up to 10 years. This is an ordinary prohibition. Government employees may also be given access to classified information whose disclosure is not criminal in the general case, but would be illegal for the government employee to disclose owing to his position, under <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924\" rel=\"noreferrer\">this law</a>.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>While there are narrow exceptions, the general rule is that a member of the media who receives leaked material that the media member did not solicit is free of legal liability.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government\nfailed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint\ninjunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on\nsignificant, substantive matters.</p>\n<p><em>Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free\npress is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving\nthe people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign\nfevers and foreign shot and shell.</em></p>\n<p>— Justice Black's opinion in <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States\" rel=\"noreferrer\">New York Times Co. v. United","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"content_length":933,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"content_length":901,"chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>— Justice Black's opinion in <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States\" rel=\"noreferrer\">New York Times Co. v. United\nStates</a></em>, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (a.k.a. the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Pentagon Papers</a>\ncase).</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(via the Pentagon Papers link).</p>\n<p>There is also a non-binding Justice Department policy of not prosecuting reporters in connection with leaks of government information and of <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-garland-announces-revised-justice-department-news-media-policy\" rel=\"noreferrer\">not trying to obtain information in their cases from reporters except in a few narrow kinds of cases</a>.</p>\n<p>As user6726 notes <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/91622/9517\">in another answer</a>, this immunity from liability isn't absolute.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"chunk_index":6,"content_length":772,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>As user6726 notes <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/91622/9517\">in another answer</a>, this immunity from liability isn't absolute.</p>\n<p>But protections from liability for reporters who do published leaked confidential government information is also much broader even than in most countries that have strong protections for freedom of the press.</p>\n<p>Very few members of the media have been prosecuted successfully for leaking confidential information since this landmark 1971 ruling, although many government officials and members of the U.S. military have been successfully prosecuted and convicted for leaking confidential information to members of the media in the same time period.</p>\n<p><strong>The Related Issue Of A Reporter's Privilege</strong></p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"chunk_index":7,"chroma:document":"<p><strong>The Related Issue Of A Reporter's Privilege</strong></p>\n<p>Closely related to this question is the issue of whether there should be a <a href=\"https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-privilege/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">reporter's privilege</a> (a.k.a. &quot;shield laws&quot;) allowing them to not disclose their confidential sources which is recognized in some, but not all, U.S. jurisdictions.</p>\n<p>Many reporters have been incarcerated for contempt of court for refusing to disclose their confidential sources, despite being compelled to disclosure this pursuant to a valid subpoena, in various U.S. jurisdictions when courts determine that the reporter lack a reporter's privilege.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/LVv9d.png\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/LVv9d.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p><em>The image is from the &quot;reporter's privilege&quot; link.</em></p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":923}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027,"content_length":948,"chunk_index":8,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p><em>The image is from the &quot;reporter's privilege&quot; link.</em></p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.rcfp.org/introduction-to-the-reporters-privilege-compendium/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">federal courts haven't reached a perfect consensus on the issue</a> in the wake of an ambiguous ruling on the question by the U.S. Supreme Court known as the <em>Branzburg</em> case was decided in 1972 with a fractured ruling on an only partially related issue.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>in the decades since <em>Branzburg</em> was decided, most federal appellate\ncourts have recognized some form of a qualified privilege for\njournalistic materials. The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and\nEighth Circuits are the only circuits that have not yet definitively\ndone so. But the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth,\nTenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have recognized a privilege in at\nleast some cases, derived from the First Amendment. And at least the"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":238,"original_index":1027,"chroma:document":"Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have recognized a privilege in at\nleast some cases, derived from the First Amendment. And at least the\nThird Circuit has also described the privilege as arising from federal\ncommon law.</p>\n</blockquote>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":9}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1027_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":88,"chunk_index":10,"chroma:document":"Tags: united-states, us-federal-government, non-disclosure, journalism, freedom-of-press","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1027}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1028_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"content_length":605,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Can the Indian Government make laws contrary to the Directive principles of state policy?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The directive principles of state policies are embodied in part 4 of the Indian constitution.</p>\n<p>in article 37 it is stated</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The provisions contained in this Part shall not be\nenforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid\ndown are nevertheless fundamental in the governance\nof the country and it shall be the duty of the State to\napply these principles in making laws.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>but can a government pass a law contrary to those ?</p>","original_index":1028,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1028_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Yes, it can. <a href=\"https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1058/Relation-Between-Part-III-And-Part-IV-Of-Constitution-Of-India-Changing-Trends.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">This analysis</a> is IMO very informative of the role of Part IV in Indian law, especially considering a comparison to the related concept of constitutional (fundamental) rights. Fundamental rights are justiceable, directive policies are not. Contraventions of rights can be rescinded by courts, but the courts cannot declare any law to be void because it violates these directives. The directives neither give nor take away legislative power: they are suggestions.</p>\n\n\nTags: indian-constitutional-law","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1028,"content_length":697,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1029,"content_length":76,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Are there or can there be human rights to have access to AI?"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1029,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>While I am doing math, computer science or programming, I am greatly benefiting from the use of GPT4 (ChatGPT4) and I don't want that some governmental agency removes access to GPT. I have not had the privilege to access top schools, top teachers, top professors, but GPT4 gives me excellent answers to my questions - both very specific and very general. I consider the access to GPT4 (or any other LLM if there will be one) as necessary condition for my professional and personal growth, for access to good job, education and material conditions. Hence - I consider access to AI, GPT or Large Language Models (LLMs) to be the matter of human rights. And AI could automate physical jobs and hence reduce the exploitation. Governments usually state that they should press people to have physical work because some should do it. Governments usually state that there are no sufficient funds for education, health etc. But AI can boost those incomes too. So - having access to AI (both","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":999}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":459,"original_index":1029,"chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"physical work because some should do it. Governments usually state that there are no sufficient funds for education, health etc. But AI can boost those incomes too. So - having access to AI (both individually and collectively) should not only foster the growth of individual, but also preserve and guarantee his or her dignity as a person and provide for the practical resources for the implementation of other human rights, including social human rights.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1029,"chunk_index":3,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>I acknowledge that there can be concerns about privacy and other threats that AI can cause, but we should acknowledge that there should be human rights to access AI and that we should concert those private and threat factors not as the issues of isolated matter, but in the balance with the human rights to access AI.</p>\n<p>What is the literature on this. Or maybe this question is the first suggestion about human rights to have access to AI?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":451}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>What is the literature on this. Or maybe this question is the first suggestion about human rights to have access to AI?</p>\n<p><strong>Information added</strong>. Some commentators have stated that my question involves expression of policy preferences. With all due respect, I should acknowledge that the stated expressions about exploitation, work and accumulation or resources are not my policy preferences but the aspects of the future of the work that are considered in the NBER working paper <a href=\"https://www.nber.org/papers/w30172\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.nber.org/papers/w30172</a> titles &quot;Preparing for the (Non-Existent?) Future of Work&quot;.</p>\n<p><strong>Information added</strong>. Some simple experiments with ChatGPT+/4 shows that this kind of AI could be sine qua non resource for jobs and education, something like social human rights, not just access to telephone or libraries.</p>","original_index":1029,"content_length":926,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p><strong>Infromation added</strong>. Actually there is concept about <strong>digital divide</strong> and there are programs that tries to close the digital divide/gap and such program involve social program for providing access to computers, high-broadband internet network and also the relevant computer literacy programs. And there have already been calls to extend human rights so that they can reduce the digital divide, e.g.  <a href=\"https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/digital-divide-and-human-rights\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/digital-divide-and-human-rights</a> So, actually access to AI can be part of this movement. Of course, AI can be and will be costlier and also AI-enchanced society could multiply the harmful consequences of digital divide, hence bringing respective rights to the list of the most important rights.</p>","chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":906,"original_index":1029}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":442,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"original_index":1029,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>There's no such right, but a government could create such a right just as it's possible to guarantee a right to telephone service or to public libraries.  Some governments do this, some don't.  Rights of this nature are not so fundamental as to be found in documents such as the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":862,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>It depends on what country you are in, naturally. In the US, you have a right to access an AI, at least as long as you correctly understand what that right is. It is not illegal to access an AI, though there is no guarantee that you will <em>provided</em> access, free or otherwise. If you can find an AI and find a way to access it, you will not be punished in any manner.</p>\n<p>The government can by law restrict your freedom to exercise rights, even in clearly-articulated constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as that right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Rights in the modern legal view are not absolute, they can be subordinated to other governmental concerns. You have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit, with some exceptions such as setting your house on fire without a burn permit (depending on local ordinances).</p>","original_index":1029,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1029,"chunk_index":8,"content_length":674,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Restrictions on your exercise of your rights, especially those that are constitutionally protected, require a compelling government interest. Your right to access an AI follows from First Amendment, as does your right to read books, watch movies, buy a computer on which to read and write books and watch or produce movies.</p>\n<p>Note, however, that this depends on a particular Natural Law understanding of rights, as facts intrinsic to being a person, and not as a boon from the sovereign, which is the more traditional view of the notion of &quot;rights&quot;. Both perspectives exist in legal systems, and the choice between these viewpoints is purely political.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":830,"original_index":1029,"chunk_index":9,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 3: <p>In <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a>, the <strong>freedom of speech</strong> is matched by a <strong>freedom to listen</strong>, the right to inform oneself &quot;from publicly available sources.&quot; (<a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Art. 5 GG</a>)</p>\n<p>These freedoms are not unlimited. Just as speech can be limited by a prohibition of slander, there is no right to play heavy metal at maximum volume when normal people want to sleep. Yet no limitation of these freedoms may touch the &quot;core&quot; of a freedom. Notably, the words of the freedom <em>of</em>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":10,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":948,"chroma:document":"speech imply that the speaker would be a human, while the freedom <em>to</em> listen does not imply that the speaker must be human. But ChatGPT is much too young to have created established legal precedent.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, there is talk in Europe of banning or more likely regulating AI. Such regulations might well be constitutional if they are seen as necessary and proportionate in the protection of <em>other</em> constitutional rights. I can see two issues here:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The owner of the AI, not in Europe, may be <strong>unwilling to comply</strong> with regulations because doing so would be incompatible with the business model. AI may have started as a research project, or a proof-of-concept, but sooner or later owners will have to monetize it to afford the operation. Their model could be paywalled access, or targeted advertising, or the generation and sale of user profiles. The latter two might become prohibited.</li>","original_index":1029}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1029,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<li>The owner of the AI may be <strong>unable to comply</strong> with regulations because they require things the AI is unable to do. For instance, there are suggestions that any decision by an AI which affects humans must be documented in a way that is comprehensible to human auditors. The owner of the AI might be unable to keep the AI from prohibited actions, and the system might be incomprehensible to humans.</li>\n</ul>","chunk_index":11,"content_length":426}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1029_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":12,"chroma:document":"Tags: human-rights, artificial-intelligence","original_index":1029,"content_length":43}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":380,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1030,"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Does the law make exceptions for Good Samaritans?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I know very little about the law. When I watch court television shows, it seems like if a Good Samaritan breaks the law to stop a bad guy, the law/court turns a blind eye.</p>\n<p>Are there cases where the law recognizes wrongdoing for the well-intentioned but minimizes or ignores the issue?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"content_length":981,"original_index":1030,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Depends on where you are, and what law would be broken and why.</p>\n<p>In <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a>, there is the concept of <em>rechtfertigender Notstand</em> (justifying emergency). If there is a present danger to a <em>Rechtsgut</em> (legally protected interest), one can take necessary and proportional steps against another legally protected interest.</p>\n<p>Say I walk through a winter landscape and there is a person who has broken through the ice of a lake (a present danger of the loss of life). Nearby is a yard with a ladder leaning on a shed. I would be allowed to enter the yard (normally trespas) and take the ladder (normally theft) in the rescue attempt (life counts for more than a ladder, using a ladder is necessary/appropriate for an ice rescue).</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>The details are, as usual for Law SE, complicated.</p>","content_length":57,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1030}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1030,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>While the question asks generally about &quot;necessity&quot;-type defenses, there is a need to distinguish between two separate concepts.</p>\n<h2>Good Samaritan laws</h2>\n<p><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Good samaritan laws</a> &quot;offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or whom they believe to be injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated&quot;.</p>\n<p>The typical example would be attempting CPR on an unconscious person and breaking one of their ribs. Breaking someone’s rib would usually be a tort, but as long as the rescue attempt was done in a &quot;reasonable&quot; manner, the rescuer will not be on the hook for medical costs. What is &quot;reasonable&quot; varies across jurisdictions.</p>","chunk_index":3,"content_length":814,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Those laws usually imply a subjective element. If a random person at the site of a car crash moves an unconscious body on the curbside to free the road for traffic, that’s probably reasonable. If a first-aid instructor does it, less so (such a person would know that trauma victims should not be moved unless strictly necessary). If the same first-aid instructor moves an unconscious body away from a riverside bed during heavy rain, that might be reasonable; even if it later turns out the rain subsided and no flood occurs, that was a reasonable concern at the time the decision had to be taken.</p>","content_length":604,"original_index":1030}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":996,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"<p>At <a href=\"/questions/tagged/common-law\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;common-law&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;common-law&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-common-law-tooltip-container\">common-law</a>, those laws only apply when the rescuer has no duty of care. For instance, suppose a ferris wheel I was riding suddenly catches fire. The ferris wheel operator stops the wheel, sets up mattresses below and asks patrons to jump down onto them to get to safety. By doing so, I break my rib. The ferris wheel operator might not be on the hook for my broken rib, assuming the &quot;jump onto mattresses&quot; rescue plan was the only one available at the time. However, the ferris wheel owner still had a duty of care towards patrons, and should have provided a safe environment that did not require jumping from the height of the wheel. I can therefore still sue for medical expenses. The Good Samaritan law does not &quot;erase&quot; liability caused by","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1030}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1030,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":256,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"a safe environment that did not require jumping from the height of the wheel. I can therefore still sue for medical expenses. The Good Samaritan law does not &quot;erase&quot; liability caused by creating the dangerous circumstances in the first place.</p>","chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"original_index":1030,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":848,"chroma:document":"<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/civil-legal-system\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;civil-legal-system&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;civil-legal-system&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-civil-legal-system-tooltip-container\">civil-legal-system</a> would roughly follow the same principles (no tort during a reasonable rescue attempt). The only significant addition is (in most but not all civil law countries) a duty to rescue. The rescue only need be &quot;reasonable&quot; - for instance, if you see a child drowning in the river, you must call the emergency services, but you usually do not have to try to go into the water yourself (because that would put yourself at risk). However, the risk calculation changes depending on whether you are an eighty-year-old teacher or a thirty-year-old Olympic swimmer.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":802,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8,"chroma:document":"<p>Those laws are about limiting the liability of the rescuer towards the rescued. They do not cover relations with third parties (such as a bad guy on the scene).</p>\n<h2>Self-defense</h2>\n<p>Self-defense is the act of defending against a threat via violent (and otherwise illegal) means. The exact scope of self-defense varies across jurisdictions, but to my knowledge it always extends to defending <em>others</em> against a &quot;bad guy&quot;, not necessary oneself. (The English &quot;self&quot;-defense is a bit misleading in that respect. The French, Spanish or Italian term translates to &quot;legitimate defense&quot;; the German or Dutch term translates to &quot;necessity/urgency defense&quot;.) The scope of what is allowed under which circumstances depends a lot across jurisdictions.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1030}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":9,"original_index":1030,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":594,"chroma:document":"<p>In general, the defense requires a reasonable subjective belief that the threat is imminent (you don’t get to shoot a murderer fleeing the scene), and that the countermeasures taken be proportionate (you don’t get to shoot a brat who is tickling your child).</p>\n<p>Some jurisdictions and circumstances require that no otherwise-legal course of action be reasonable (typically, when defending against a threat to yourself, that you cannot flee the scene). Others allow it regardless. Some jurisdictions and circumstances allow lethal action against a threat towards goods; others do not.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":986,"chunk_index":10,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 3: <p>One of the reasons the US Constitution protect the right to a jury trial is that juries will sometimes recognize their right and duty to acquit people who have violated a statute whose enforcement in the case before them would be offensive to principles of justice and freedom.  If all twelve jurors, seeing the defendant's actions, would be inclined to admit that they would likely have done the same thing in the defendant's situation, they should unanimously vote for acquittal regardless of what the statutes may say.</p>\n<p>Judges and prosecutors don't want jurors to be aware of this right and duty, but it nonetheless may influence decisions about what cases to prosecute.  If the public as a whole would believe that the defendant behaved in a manner contrary to statute, but justice and freedom would be ill served by a conviction, prosecuting the defendant could attract attention to the jury's rights and duties--attention that prosecutors really don't want.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1030}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1030_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":57,"chunk_index":11,"chroma:document":"Tags: criminal-law, court, rules-of-court, good-samaritan","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1030}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1031_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1031,"chunk_index":0,"content_length":494,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Are products made from illegal software also illegal?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Say a piece of software was aquired, and used, completely illegally, like a license key was hacked online or something, and many other products (say, for example, videos) were made with this illegal product. Are all of those products now also illegal? </p>\n\n<p>For example, if they are videos, would they legally have to be removed from YouTube, since they were made in an illegal way? Why or why not?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1031_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1031,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Presumably by &quot;is illegal&quot; you mean &quot;violates copyright law&quot;. Copyright infringement is simply &quot;copying / distributing without authorization&quot;, which refers to the original work and not some other work. The act of originally writing a book is not &quot;copying&quot; (likewise &quot;taking a picture&quot;, etc), so the act of writing a book using pirated software is also not copying and not infringement. Nevertheless, the scope of remedies for the original infringement is not limited to just the cost of the infringed work. Under <a href=\"https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">17 USC 504(b)</a>,</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered\nby him or her as a result of the infringement, and <strong>any profits of the\ninfringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken\ninto account in computing the actual damages</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>","chunk_index":1,"content_length":980,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1031_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"original_index":1031,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken\ninto account in computing the actual damages</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This is sufficiently open-ended that profits from the sale of an original work created using infringed software could be attributable to the infringement.</p>","content_length":304}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1031_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1031,"content_length":25,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"chroma:document":"Tags: copyright, software"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1032_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1032,"chunk_index":0,"content_length":841,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Need clarification for legal relationship containment for multiple spouses\n\nQuestion Body: <p>According to US law, can a person have a husband and a wife at the same time?</p>\n<p>If so, how is their property distributed after death?</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>Currently there is nowhere in the USA where polygamy is legal.  So regardless of their sexual or gender expression or orientation, being married to MORE THAN ONE person at the same time is illegal.</p>\n<p>If, however, it turned out that someone had more than one spouse at their death, I'm sure that property distribution would be a matter for the probate court to sort out.</p>\n<p>As far as legally-married &quot;trans spouses&quot;, for lack of a better term, I don't see why that would that impact inheritance in any way?</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, marriage, inheritance","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":805,"chroma:document":"Question Title: If one leaves the US to commit an act illegal in the US but legal in the country they travel to are they guilty of a crime?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Before anyone asks this is part legal curiosity, part proving for 'loopholes' that I could have villains in a story exploit, I don't need 100% accuracy so much as general guidelines, and any unique situation or known 'loophole' is also interesting.</p>\n\n<p>I'm curious about how the US handles travel to other countries to activities crimes that are illegal within the US but legal in the country they travel to.  At first I thought that this would be legal, but I know sex tourism at the least is restricted, They actually make us take a training at work about how sex trafficking is bad in case we couldn't figure that one out on our own.  </p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1033}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>A quick scan online tells me that the sex tourism thing is specific federal law.  Outside of sex tourism of individuals under the age of 18 are there other situations where one can be punished for traveling to another country to commit a crime?  If so are these specific laws that address only a few unique situations, or is there some general law that addresses many crimes committed by traveling to another country?</p>\n\n<p>I can think of a number of theoretical odd situations as fodder for story telling, I'll likely ask a few of them in more detail in later questions depending on the answer in this one.  If someone wants to touch briefly on a few odd situations below in their answer I would be interested, but if any of these situations is too complex I'll ask them as a later follow up question.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"original_index":1033,"content_length":811}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":827,"original_index":1033,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"<ol>\n<li>how does dual citizenship work in situations where it would be illegal for a US citizen to travel to country X to do activity Y, but the individual in question is not only a US citizen but also a citizen of X?</li>\n<li>How much does 'premeditation' apply to these rules?  For instance my quick scanning of sex tourism law refers to an individual traveling to a country \"with the intent to ...\", does that mean if someone travels to a country and only then decides to do an activity it would be legal (ignoring the difficulty of proving it wasn't premeditated)?</li>\n<li>Is a non-US citizen within the US (for instance with a visa, or even an illegal alien who lives in the US) still subject to these sort of laws if they leave the US with the intent of doing something illegal within the US and then return?</li>\n</ol>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":651,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1033,"chroma:document":"<p>Edit:  ...also Id love at least <em>one</em> other instance of an activity that would be a crime if someone travels elsewhere to do it.  I'm thinking of potential loophole abuse questions I could ask, but I <em>really</em> don't want to ask them in context of the sex tourism law.  Rather or not it's just a theoretical question to explore legal oddities I really don't like even hypothesizing the sort of situation that leads to someone trying to violate that particular law.</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>Like many US legal questions, there is a <a href=\"https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf\">Congressional Research Service report</a> about this.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Like many US legal questions, there is a <a href=\"https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf\">Congressional Research Service report</a> about this.</p>\n\n<p>It is not generally a violation of US law to do things in another country where the only connection with the US is that the offender is a US citizen. However, there are a number of general situations where the US has jurisdiction over federal crimes if either the victim or offender is a US citizen: if a place isn't within the jurisdiction of any country (e.g. Antarctica); a place used by a US government entity (like an embassy or airbase); crimes by American soldiers and those employed by or accompanying the military; etc. These are considered to be within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US.</p>","content_length":797,"original_index":1033}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":935,"chroma:document":"<p>Other laws apply if they say so. For instance, any US national committing war crimes inside or outside the US can be punished under US law; ditto for treason. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal for a US national to bribe a foreign official anywhere outside the US for business reasons (if it's inside the US, there are more requirements). For instance, you aren't allowed to pay kickbacks to a foreign government's acquisition officer to buy your product. The CRS report has more (it doesn't include the FCPA, but that appears to be an oversight).</p>\n\n<p>Note that extraterritorial jurisdiction doesn't just apply if the person is a US national. US laws can also confer it if the victim is a US national, if the offense has a significant US component, if it's directed towards the US, if it's in violation of international law and the offender later <em>turns up</em> in the US, etc.</p>\n\n<p>For your scenarios:</p>","original_index":1033,"chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":592,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"original_index":1033,"chroma:document":"<ol>\n<li><p>Dual citizenship doesn't matter. A US citizen is a US citizen, and is required to obey all laws that apply to US citizens, unless those laws explicitly exempt dual citizens. A dual citizen isn't treated differently by the government; as far as the US government is concerned, their US citizenship is all that matters (except for certain specific purposes like security clearances). In <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/717/\">Kawakita v. United States</a>, a US-Japanese dual citizen was convicted of treason against the US for aiding Japan in WWII.</p></li>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":7,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<li><p>Depends. Plenty of these laws have no requirement that anything related to the crime actually happen in the US; for sex tourism, the subsection about traveling in foreign commerce for the purposes of engaging in illicit sexual conduct is followed by a subsection about <em>engaging</em> in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. \"Travel with the purposes of X\" or \"with intent to X\" means you must have intended to do X at the time you traveled, but most extraterritorial laws don't control travel with intent to X (they cover X directly).</p></li>","original_index":1033,"content_length":558}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":8,"content_length":613,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<li><p>Depends on the law. Some laws (like child sex tourism) apply to any permanent resident of the US as well as any citizen. Some apply to anyone, because they're based on a conspiracy started in the US. Others apply just to US nationals; a noncitizen isn't bound by them (for instance, no one but a US national can be charged with treason against the US, for obvious reasons). Still others apply to anyone who later turns up in the US, even if that is literally the only connection between the US and the offense (this is basically reserved for crimes against international law, like genocide).</p></li>\n</ol>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1033}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1033_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":9,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":33,"chroma:document":"Tags: united-states, criminal-law","original_index":1033}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Title: USA school law. Is a charter school a public school?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I am trying to understand the main, basic tenets of USA public vs. private school law. (See <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/91556/usa-private-school-law-could-disrespect-of-state-regulation-be-constructed-as-a/9155\">my previous question</a> of a series).</p>\n<p>Is a charter school a public school?</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">I see</a> that there is  debate on whether charter schools should be described as private schools or state (hence, public) schools.</p>\n<p>So my question is, by which general criteria could I decide whether a charter school has to be considered public?</p>\n<p>Also, in the case that they are not to be considered public, is the relationship student/school a contractual one?</p>","original_index":1034,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":870,"chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Each state has its own system of designating different kinds of schools, but the term &quot;charter school&quot; generally refers to a public school that is subject to less central administrative supervision than an ordinary public school.</p>\n<p>But the relationship between a student and a school in a charter school, unlike a private school, is not primarily contractual in nature. The charter school has a contractual relationship with the school district (of which the students may sometimes be third-party beneficiaries), but the student does not have a contractual relationship with the school.</p>","original_index":1034,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":618}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":766,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>In Washington, <a href=\"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28A.150&amp;full=true\" rel=\"noreferrer\">RCW 28A.150.010</a> answers the question as follows:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Public schools means the common schools as referred to in <a href=\"https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents/WAConstitution.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Article IX\nof the state Constitution</a>, charter schools established under chapter\n<a href=\"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28A.710\" rel=\"noreferrer\">28A.710 RCW</a>, and those schools and institutions of learning having a\ncurriculum below the college or university level as now or may be\nestablished by law and maintained at public expense.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So, yes, they are &quot;public schools&quot;.</p>","original_index":1034}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The question of whether a school is &quot;considered private&quot; is likely to mislead a person investigating laws regarding schools, because law &quot;deem&quot; or &quot;declare&quot;, but also do so in specific ways and for specific purposes. The primary consideration underlying charter schools is the fact that the states have all assign to themselves the duty to provide &quot;free public education&quot;, which is built into state constitutions. The Washington Constitution says &quot;The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools&quot;, and it also mentions &quot;common schools&quot;, whereas Delaware's Constitution does not mention &quot;common schools&quot;. Nobody's constitution spells out explicitly what a &quot;public school&quot; is – that's where specific laws come into play. By defining charter schools to be a kind of public school, the legislature has brought those schools within the scope of the state's duty, in a manner that does not","content_length":999,"original_index":1034,"chunk_index":3,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":231,"chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"specific laws come into play. By defining charter schools to be a kind of public school, the legislature has brought those schools within the scope of the state's duty, in a manner that does not exist for e.g. Catholic schools.</p>","original_index":1034,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1034,"content_length":468,"chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>There are states (e.g. North Dakota) that don't have charter schools at all. Among the states that do have such schools, the very concept presupposes access to public funds (in North Dakota, would-be charter schools are simply 'private schools'). It is not essential that a legislature declare a charter school to be a public school (as opposed to a common school), what is essential is providing public funding, and <em>some</em> level of government oversight.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1034_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: school-law","content_length":16,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1034,"chunk_index":6}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":165,"original_index":1035,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: If someone committed copyright infringement and was able and willing to endure all maximum fines and prison time, could they still practically do it?"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1035,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":538,"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Let's say an already obscenely rich individual in the US (whose wealth is unrelated to any crime) decides to reproduce unauthorized copies of a copyrighted work for a profit and gets caught. This person has illegally distributed enough of the work to incur the maximum amount of fines and prison time and just... agrees to all of it without a fight. And as soon as the fine is paid and the time is done, the individual repeats distribution of the same copyrighted work again, and repeats this process multiple times.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>It'd be clear that because this person can continue doing this practically indefinitely due to their obscene wealth and willingness to endure punishment, it'd on the surface seem infeasible to prevent this person from continuing distribution due to copyright infringement having a codified punishment ceiling (to my knowledge a maximum of both 10 years in prison and $250,000 per offense, <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1852-copyright-infringement-penalties-17-usc-506a-and-18-usc-2319\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">source</a>).</p>\n<p>In such a hypothetical case, do the law and/or the copyright owner actually have any teeth to stop this person from continuing to distribute, or can they just ride out the punishments and continue in perpetuity?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":790,"original_index":1035,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":3,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>If you have sufficient grounds to fear that someone is about to infringe on one of your rights, you can go to court to obtain an injunction against that person. This is a court order to refrain from some particular action. In many cases, the point of this is just to have the legal debate on whether the anticipated action is actually legal or not before it happens rather than after. However, the punishment for violating the injunction is set by the relevant judge based on how important it is to dissuade the target from actually doing the thing, and how extensive the punishment needs to be in order to achieve this.</p>\n<p>After a few rounds of your guy doing the copyright infringement, getting an injunction against him doing it again should be quite straight-forward. And if he violates that, it would be reasonable to ask for a significantly higher fine next time, and then more, and more.</p>","content_length":915,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1035}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":159,"original_index":1035,"chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Injunctions could also involve preparatory actions, eg prohibit the guy to even approach a computer, if this is deemed necessary to prevent reoffending.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":995,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p>do the law and/or the copyright owner actually have any teeth to stop this person from continuing to distribute, or can they just ride out the punishments and continue in perpetuity?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Most copyright enforcement is not criminal.  Typically, the copyright holder will sue for damages rather than depend on a prosecutor to bring criminal charges.  Civil damages may be calculated from actual profits of the infringer and losses of the copyright holder or they may be awarded according to a statutory scheme where the maximum is $150,000 (<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504\" rel=\"noreferrer\">17 USC 504</a>).</p>\n<p>Even if the enforcement in a particular case <em>is</em> criminal, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2323#c\" rel=\"noreferrer\">18 USC 2323(c)</a> requires the court to award restitution to the victim.  The maximum financial cost to the infringer, therefore, is greater than $250,000 per offense.</p>","original_index":1035,"chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":6,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1035,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Even the $250,000 limit for the criminal fine may be exceeded if the infringer's profit or the copyright holder's loss exceeds $125,000, thanks to <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3571#d\" rel=\"noreferrer\">18 USC 3571(d)</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Alternative Fine Based on Gain or Loss.—\nIf any person derives pecuniary gain from the offense, or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss, unless imposition of a fine under this subsection would unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Even though the infringer may be able to afford this without any difficulty, the copyright holder will receive at least as much income from the restitution or civil award as would have been due under a license for the copyright.</p>","content_length":909}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1035,"chroma:document":"<p>But at its root, this question seems to be more about the ability of the courts to enforce <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502\" rel=\"noreferrer\">injunctions</a>.  Courts' ability to enforce injunctions is discretionary, so if the statutory maximum fine for a felony seems insufficient to deter a billionaire from committing copyright infringement, the court can issue an injunction and enforce it with a fine that would be sufficient.  <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401\" rel=\"noreferrer\">18 USC 401</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":858}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1035_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8,"original_index":1035,"content_length":520,"chroma:document":"Answer 3: <h2>Of course</h2>\n<p>Providing you are willing to accept the sanction, you can do anything you want: murder, genocide, making tea the way Americans do, and copyright violation.</p>\n<p>This sign:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/IvQdm.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/IvQdm.png\" alt=\"No Parking\" /></a></p>\n<p>Merely advisory providing you don't mind being fined, having your car clamped and possibly towed.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, copyright, intellectual-property","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1036,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Does Justice Roberts Obamacare opinion contradict itself?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in <em>National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius</em> upheld the ACA individual mandate as a tax. Disagreeing with the joint dissenters (Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia), Roberts, in part III-C of his opinion, demonstrates that the labels used by Congress can not be controlling. (Penalty versus tax.) The \"question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise.\" (Roberts quoting Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.)</p>\n\n<p>Since this levy is within the Taxing Power, the characterization (label) Congress gives the exaction does not effect to its constitutional status as a tax.</p>\n\n<p>Yet in Part III-D</p>","content_length":825}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1036,"content_length":929,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Since this levy is within the Taxing Power, the characterization (label) Congress gives the exaction does not effect to its constitutional status as a tax.</p>\n\n<p>Yet in Part III-D</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>JUSTICE GINSBURG questions the necessity of rejecting the Government’s\n  commerce power argument, given that §5000A can be upheld under the\n  taxing power.  Post, at 37. But the statute reads more naturally as a\n  command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a\n  command if the Constitution allowed it.  It is only because the\n  Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary\n  to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a\n  duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A\n  can be interpreted as a tax.  Without deciding the Commerce Clause\n  question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction.</p>\n</blockquote>","chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1036,"content_length":234,"chroma:document":"<p>the Chief Justice seems to say that only a strained reading of Congress's \"label\" and the doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance allow the mandate to be upheld as a tax. Isn't there tension between these two parts of the opinion?</p>","chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1036,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":549,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Isn't there tension between these two parts of the opinion?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There is perhaps some tension, but the resolution of that tension is clear.  There is certainly no self contradiction.</p>\n<p>The most obvious tension is between the chief justice's line of reasoning and Justice Ginsburg's.  It may be described thus:</p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>Justice Ginsburg would uphold the statute by interpreting it as a tax, avoiding the need to consider whether it is authorized as a command under the commerce clause.</p>\n</li>","chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":661,"original_index":1036,"chroma:document":"<ol>\n<li><p>Justice Ginsburg would uphold the statute by interpreting it as a tax, avoiding the need to consider whether it is authorized as a command under the commerce clause.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Chief Justice Roberts notes that the statute reads on its face as a command and says that this requires the court to find that this &quot;more natural&quot; reading is &quot;not authorized&quot; before it can consider other interpretations under the &quot;duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible.&quot;  Only by following this line of reasoning may the court consider whether the provision may be upheld under the power of taxation.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</li>\n</ol>\n<p>The reasoning paraphrased in the first paragraph of this question explains that the court may go beyond congress's labels -- the claimed basis of its authority -- when it interprets a statute.  The quotation from the opinion explains that it is however necessary to consider congress's claimed source of authority first, before moving on to other possible sources.</p>\n<p>There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg nature to this: if we don't consider (and reject) the commerce clause argument, we can't justify the statute as a tax, but if we can't justify it as a tax, we have to consider the commerce clause argument.  Ginsburg's reasoning would avoid this paradox.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1036,"content_length":680}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Therefore, to the extent that a chicken-and-egg paradox is &quot;tension,&quot; yes, there's internal tension in Roberts' reasoning, but not outright contradiction.  The more significant tension is between Ginsberg's desire to avoid considering the commerce clause justification and Roberts' reasoning that requires it.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":326,"original_index":1036}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":7,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1036,"content_length":503,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>There is no contradiction.</p>\n<p>Congress's invoked authority cannot be read as taxing authority, strained reading or otherwise. Congress intended a penaltly / command, there are no two ways around this. Roberts found that the penalty as such is unauthorised but Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. allows a statue to be upheld on constitutional authority other than which Congress invoked. Nonetheless, Roberts in Part III-D limits Woods v Miller's implications to only saving constructions.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>As first resort one must always consider the invoked authorities, which Roberts says &quot;reads more naturally&quot;. (Not that his saving construction is a &quot;less natural&quot; or &quot;strained&quot; reading of the invoked authority. It in fact altogather disregards Congress's intended invoked authority as Woods v Miller allows. But Roberts considers the most &quot;natural&quot; reading of a statute's authority, and thus the required first resort, to be that which follows invoked authorites.) Only afterwards may other options be considered.</p>","content_length":560,"chunk_index":8,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1036}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1036_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1036,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":69,"chroma:document":"Tags: constitutional-law, tax-law, us-supreme-court, health-insurance","chunk_index":9,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1037_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1037,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Alberta&#39;s Traffic control signals - Green arrow with green light\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The link <a href=\"https://www.alberta.ca/traffic-control-signals.aspx#:%7E:text=clear%20the%20intersection.-,Solid%20green%20light,when%20turning%20right%20or%20left.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Traffic control signals</a> says &quot;Drivers facing a traffic control light with a green arrow and solid green traffic control light may enter the intersection and proceed without yielding in the direction indicated by the arrow. Drivers facing the green light may also proceed in the other directions when it is safe and legal.&quot; What does &quot;other directions&quot; it refer to in this case? Any direction other than straight and left? Thank you!</p>","chunk_index":0,"content_length":758}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1037_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Yes, &quot;other directions&quot; refer to the layout of the roadway beyond the traffic signal appropriate for vehicles facing the aforementioned traffic control light. One could have a right turn lane immediately after the traffic control light and realistically, there could be a green arrow for that lane as well as a green arrow for left turns (more common).</p>\n<p>When crossing traffic from the other direction is not a factor, the green arrows provide for movement of vehicles that might otherwise be required to be detained.</p>\n<p>Your linked site references a flashing green signal, which I have not seen in the USA, probably because it is the equivalent of a non-flashing green signal.</p>\n\n\nTags: traffic","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"content_length":729,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1037}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1038_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"content_length":369,"original_index":1038,"chroma:document":"Question Title: How can I learn information about the purpose, background, and other context of recent U.K. legislation?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Suppose I would like to know the purpose of an Act, or how it relates to other Acts or international obligations.</p>\n<p>How can I learn information about the purpose, background, and other context of recent U.K. legislation?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1038_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"original_index":1038,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Since 1999, <a href=\"https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4985/explanatory-notes/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">explanatory notes</a> have been included with most Acts. Explanatory notes are:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>created by the government department responsible for the subject matter of the Act to explain what the Act sets out to achieve and to make the Act accessible to readers who are not legally qualified. Explanatory Notes were introduced in 1999 and accompany all Public Acts except Appropriation, Consolidated Fund, Finance and Consolidation Acts.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>They &quot;provide a summary of and background to the bill and explain its various provisions.&quot;</p>","content_length":696,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1038_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":505,"chroma:document":"</blockquote>\n<p>They &quot;provide a summary of and background to the bill and explain its various provisions.&quot;</p>\n<p>You can look up any U.K. public Act <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>. Those with explanatory notes will provide a link titled &quot;explanatory notes.&quot; For example, <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a> are the explanatory notes for the <em>Equality Act 2010</em>.</p>","chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1038}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1038_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":3,"original_index":1038,"chroma:document":"Tags: united-kingdom, legislative-intent, legislation","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":53}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1039_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1039,"chroma:document":"Question Title: To what extent was the Equality Act 2010 shaped by or did it “implement” legal provisions of the EU?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The DPA 2018 was passed pursuant to the EU GDPR to achieve uniformity across the EU in relation to matters of personal data. The unfair contract term regulations too were passed to implement EU directives and I gather that the legal situation across the EU would be fairly uniform in that area as it is designed to be.</p>\n<p>But what relation to the EU did the EA2010 have?</p>","content_length":514,"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1039_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>From the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">explanatory notes</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li><p>Domestic discrimination law has developed over more than 40 years since the first Race Relations Act in 1965. Subsequently, other\npersonal characteristics besides race have been protected from\ndiscrimination and similar conduct, sometimes as a result of domestic\ninitiatives and sometimes through implementing European Directives.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The domestic law is now mainly contained in the following legislation (where applicable, as amended):</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>the Equal Pay Act 1970;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Sex Discrimination Act 1975;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Race Relations Act 1976;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003;</p>\n</li>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1039,"chunk_index":1,"content_length":983}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1039_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"original_index":1039,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":882,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"</li>\n<li><p>the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Equality Act 2006, Part 2;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li><p>The main European Directives affecting domestic discrimination legislation are:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal    treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin;</li>\n<li>Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;</li>\n<li>Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods\nand services;</li>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1039_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":745,"chunk_index":3,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<li>Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods\nand services;</li>\n<li>European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal<br />\ntreatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation<br />\n(recast). Also relevant in this context is Article 157 of the Treaty<br />\non the Functioning of the European Union.</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>...</p>\n<ol start=\"21\">\n<li>The Act does not itself implement EU Directives for the first time. It replaces earlier legislation which has implemented EU Directives, most of which is set out in paragraph 4 above.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1039}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1039_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":89,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: united-kingdom, european-union, discrimination, equality-act-2010, european-council","original_index":1039,"chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":301,"original_index":1040,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: What is the difference between the respective doctrines of de minimis and frivolous claims\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Some claims are dismissed as de minimis while others are said to be frivolous. Are these two notions completely synonymous? If not then what’s the difference between them?</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Some claims are dismissed as de minimis while others are said to be\nfrivolous. Are these two notions completely synonymous?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>No. they aren't even that similar in meaning.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If not then what’s the difference between them?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>Frivolous</strong> means not having a basis in the law or a sincere and reasonable effort to extend the law. Sometimes the term frivolous is also used in a broader sense to include not having a factual basis, even though it would be a valid lawsuit if the facts alleged were true. But a narrower definition calls something without a factual basis <strong>groundless</strong> and calls something without a legal basis <strong>frivolous</strong>.</p>","content_length":762,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1040}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>For example, a lawsuit for breach of contract in circumstances where you are suing over a contract you wanted to enter into with someone even though you acknowledge that they didn't agree to that contract would be frivolous. You can only sue for breaches of contracts that are actually entered into and it is frivolous to bring a lawsuit when you don't argue that a contract was formed.</p>\n<p>A lawsuit alleging that a contract was entered into with someone and breached when, in fact, the other party to the alleged contract never interacted with the person bringing the lawsuit would be groundless, and within a broader sense of the term, frivolous as well.</p>\n<p><strong>De minimis</strong> means that the magnitude of the harm is so small that the courts won't entertain a lawsuit to address the wrong even though the harm would otherwise be something that someone could bring a lawsuit over.</p>","content_length":905,"chunk_index":2,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1040}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1040,"chroma:document":"<p>For example, if you sued someone for negligence for slightly bumping into when you were walking down a crowded sidewalk, even though you suffered no physical injury, and you weren't even made to fall or drop something as a result, that might be a lawsuit that is dismissed because the harm was <em>de minimis</em>.</p>\n<p>Whether a claim can be dismissed for alleging only <em>de minimis</em> harm varies by the nature of the cause of action. Some legal theories will award nominal damages (e.g. $1), if you prevail on the other elements of the claim but show only nothing more than <em>de minimis</em> harm.</p>\n<p>For example, in Colorado, proof of damages are not necessary to prevail on a claim for breach of contract or negligence <em>per se</em>, and nominal damages will be awarded even if you fail to show damages.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"content_length":829}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":938,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1040,"chroma:document":"<p>Other legal theories make a showing of more than <em>de minimis</em> harm one of the elements that must be proved as part of the cause of action for there to be any legal liability at all.</p>\n<p>For example, in Colorado, a showing of more than <em>de minimis</em> damages is necessary in a negligence claim.</p>\n<p>This is a distinction which matters a lot in cases where an award of costs and/or attorney fees depends upon which party prevails on particular causes of action.</p>\n<p>In the federal courts, there is an additional subject-matter jurisdictional threshold of &quot;standing&quot;, as a matter of constitutional law, which requires a showing that the person bringing a claim suffered &quot;actual injury&quot; which arguably involved more than a <em>de minimis</em> harm. But federal courts have recognized that at least for some kinds of lawsuits, standing is present even when the claim is only for nominal damages.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1040,"chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"<p>A lawsuit seeking a remedy for a <em>de minimis</em> harm would rarely be considered to be frivolous.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":108}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1040_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":6,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1040,"content_length":35,"chroma:document":"Tags: legal-terms, any-jurisdiction","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1041_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Do any other consumer rights laws have extraterritorial applicability to international organisations that cater to British or European customers?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The GDPR purports to bind any organisation, wheresoever it may be based, that serves individuals based in the EU, or (as the case may be) the UK.</p>\n<p>The GDPR governs the obligations of organisations and businesses to the individuals they serve, much as consumer rights legislation governs (likewise asymmetrically) the relationship, rights and obligations between traders and consumers. Meanwhile, anti discrimination laws similarly govern those between individuals and <em>service providers</em>.</p>\n<p>But do any of these other types of legislation, in either the UK or the EU, have such extraterritorial jurisdiction/reach?</p>","chunk_index":0,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":816,"original_index":1041}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1041_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>There is nothing extraterritorial about these laws. If a company sells a good or provides a service to individuals based in the EU, then this good or service has to comply with EU laws.</p>\n<p>This concept is self-evident for physical goods that are produced anywhere in the world and then sold in the EU and the GDPR just applies this concept to services provided over the internet. The same legal concept also holds in all other major jurisdictions.</p>\n<p>The only thing that makes this more complicated for the GDPR is the actual enforcability of these laws but that is a technical issue not a legal one.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-kingdom, gdpr, european-union, jurisdiction, extraterritorial-jurisdiction","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":1,"original_index":1041,"content_length":715,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1042_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1042,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":827,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Is unwanted touching ever legal?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>As a general matter, unwanted touching of one person by another is not lawful.</p>\n\n<p>But is there ever an exception?</p>\n\n<p>For example, when limited available space requires it. Like, for example:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>In a crowded elevator?</li>\n<li>In the bleachers at a crowded football game?</li>\n<li>On the sidelines of a crowded parade?</li>\n<li>Other crowded or enclosed spaces?</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>To the <strong><em>letter-of-the-law</em></strong>, is that still illegal? Or is there an exception made <strong><em>in the law</em></strong>?</p>\n\n<p>For clarity, I am not referring to <em>inappropriate</em> touching. I'm just talking about the normal kind (brushing and bumping elbows, shoulders, hips, etc.).</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>To use Texas as an example:</p>","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1042_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>To use Texas as an example:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>Sec. 22.01.  ASSAULT.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:</p>\n  \n  <p>(1)  intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;  </p>\n  \n  <p>(2)  intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse;  or</p>\n  \n  <p>(3)  intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If no reasonable person would think the contact is offensive, and no injury is involved, no assault was committed. This is a fairly common definition of \"assault.\"</p>\n\n\nAnswer 2: <p>This has been a long-considered matter. Under common law, unwanted incidental touching - say, in the context of a public space - is not illegal per se.</p>","original_index":1042,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":944}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1042_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"original_index":1042,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":713,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>This has been a long-considered matter. Under common law, unwanted incidental touching - say, in the context of a public space - is not illegal per se.</p>\n\n<p>In <em>Cole v. Turner</em> (1704) 87 ER 907, Holt CJ said that:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>First, the least touching of another in anger is a battery.<br>\n  Secondly, if two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently, it will be no battery.<br>\n  Thirdly, if any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude in ordinate manner,  it will be a battery; or any struggle about the passage to that degree as may do hurt, will be a battery...</p>\n</blockquote>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1042_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":998,"original_index":1042,"chroma:document":"<p>Now, I'm not sure how far American common law has diverged from English common law in this respect; it's possible that some US court has held that even such trivial contact is battery. However, I would think it unlikely, as such contact happens in the course of everyday life - a test later applied by English courts - and to make such contact tortious would likely be extremely detrimental to the functioning of modern society.</p>\n\n<p>There's some discussion in comments about whether the fact that some contact is <em>incidental</em> or <em>deliberate</em> makes a difference - I submit that it does not, on the basis that unless we are incapacitated and unable to make decisions regarding the movements of our own bodies, all actions we take are deliberate.</p>\n\n<p>It is also not simply a case of <em>implied consent</em> because then one could just hold up a sign purporting to withdraw such consent, and then bring actions in battery against everyone who brushes past them in a crowd.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1042_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":607,"chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"<p>As for specific criminal statutes, I can't prove a negative, but I haven't found anything that would criminalize the incidental touching of another, even in crowded places. As in Texas law, criminal assault generally requires some element of intent to harm or provoke, or the knowledge that such actions are likely to harm/provoke.</p>\n\n\nAnswer 3: <p>Actually, as a general matter, unwanted 'touching' or if you prefer, incidental bodily contact, is most certainly NOT unlawful.</p>\n\n<p>You have no valid expectation of a sphere of invincibility in public.  </p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, criminal-law, tort","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1042,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1043_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":929,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Copyright claim / fair usage\n\nQuestion Body: <p>We are a sports website covering news and have found a user on YouTube copying our written content and images and pasting it in whole in their videos.</p>\n<p>We have put in a copyright claim and got some videos taken down but they have put in a counter claim saying it is fair use and they will <em>sue</em> is if we don’t remove the initial claim.</p>\n<p>Where do we stand on this? They are using 100% of our article content including images, and not even putting in any original content of their own.</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>First, I don't know what \"Sir is\" means - I assume it is a typo of \"sue us\" and answer on that basis. Also, you don't tell us where you are and local law differs - I will assume US law.</p>\n\n<p>They can't sue you successfully - that's not how the \"Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act\" works.</p>\n\n<p>The way it works is:</p>","original_index":1043}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1043_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":653,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1043,"chroma:document":"<p>They can't sue you successfully - that's not how the \"Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act\" works.</p>\n\n<p>The way it works is:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>You give the \"online service provider\" (YouTube) a notice of the claimed infringement that complies with section 512.</li>\n<li>YouTube must expeditiously remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material and take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action.</li>\n<li>The alleged infringer then has the right to object to the takedown.</li>\n<li><p>If they do, you have 14 days to bring a lawsuit in the district court alleging breach of copyright:</p>","chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1043_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":995,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<ol>\n<li>If you don't then YouTube will restore the material - essentially you have given up your claim that the material infringes your copyright,</li>\n<li>If you do then the court will decide if the material does or does not breach copyright. The alleged infringer can raise a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">fair use</a> defense if they like and they may or may not be right. If you win, you get damages, if you lose, you pay damages. In practice, you and the alleged infringer may opt for an out of court settlement instead.</li>\n</ol></li>\n</ol>\n\n\nAnswer 2: <p>Copying of entire articles, as you've described, doesn't fall within the fair use exception.  Since you've already sent a DMCA takedown notice and received a counter notification, your next step is to file a copyright infringement lawsuit, or at least have a lawyer send a cease and desist letter threatening as much to the infringer.  The counter notification should have included </p>","original_index":1043,"chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1043_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1043,"chunk_index":3,"content_length":529,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n  <p>(D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.</p>\n</blockquote>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1043_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1043,"content_length":647,"chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>That information tells you which district court to file suit in and the alleged infringer has waived any argument that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.  17 U.S.C. 512(g)(3)(D).  Further, the statute allows you to seek statutory damages in lieu of actual damages.  Statutory damages are set by the court and range between $750 and $30,000 per infringed work with the potential to be increased to up to $150,000 per infringed work when the infringement is found to be willful.  17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)-(2).  You may also be able to recover your costs and attorneys fees, but this is at the discretion of the judge.  17 U.S.C. 505.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1043_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1043,"content_length":374,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>There are some circumstances where the hosting site can also be liable for the infringement, but those claims are difficult to win.  Ultimately, you should consult an attorney to discuss your claim in more detail.  You definitely have not forfeited or waived your claim, nor does the amount of time you've waited so far create an estoppel claim.    </p>\n\n\nTags: copyright","chunk_index":5}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1044_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":599,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1044,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Are laws requiring fees and classes to practice 2nd Amendment constitutional?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Would laws requiring citizens to pay for training courses and permits costs be ruled as unconstitutional if they were challenged?</p>\n\n<p>I only ask because, in Minnesota where I live I need to pay for a $60 - $100 dollar 5-hour course, then pay a $100 dollar fee to the sheriff's office every 5 years in order to carry.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/Permit-to-Carry-FAQ.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">MN Carry Laws Source</a></p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1044_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":789,"chunk_index":1,"original_index":1044,"chroma:document":"<p><a href=\"https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/Permit-to-Carry-FAQ.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">MN Carry Laws Source</a></p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>It is unlikely that those requirements would be held to be unconstitutional. A fundamental right such as the right to bear arms can only be restricted in specific ways (<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\"strict scrutiny\"</a>) – compelling government interest (keeping people from getting shot accidentally), being narrowly tailored and the least restrictive. If, for example, the law also required passing an exam on the history of firearms, that would be overly broad. If the registration fee were $2,000, that would be too restrictive. But the law says that</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1044_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"content_length":936,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1044,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n  <p>The sheriff may charge a new application processing fee in an amount\n  not to exceed the actual and reasonable direct cost of processing the\n  application or $100, whichever is less. Of this amount, $10 must be\n  submitted to the commissioner and deposited into the general fund.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The application fee is not just for the actual cost of applying for the permit, it also includes what looks like a $10 revenue source, and that sort of looks like an unnecessary restriction. I expect, though, that the state would argue that this $10 is necessary to defray actual long-haul expenses that could not be recovered given the $100 limit imposed by the law.</p>\n\n<p>The law does not actually require a person to pay for a training course, it just requires a person to take a course (or hold employment as a peace officer in the sate within the year). </p>\n\n\nTags: constitutional-law, human-rights, firearms"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1045_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":589,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1045,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Can two or more different entities simultaneously be data controllers for the same data?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Suppose Alice is a customer of a business ACME who holds data on her like email correspondence. ACME uses a third party to manage their email, suppose Fastmail.fm. Fastmail.fm in turn delegates their data storage to a fourth party like Amazon’s AWS or Microsoft’s Azure, or to make it even more fun, perhaps Snowflake stands in between Fastmail and Azure.</p>\n<p>Can Alice SAR any of those entities for her correspondence with ACME, or only one or some of them?</p>","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1045_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":888,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <h2>Not in the example</h2>\n<p>Alice is a customer of ACME. ACME is the Data Controller. ACME contracts Fastmail as a <em>Data Processor</em>.</p>\n<p>Data Processors are different from Data controllers.</p>\n<h2>Yes in general</h2>\n<p>Let's say Alice is a customer of Amazon Prime and watches Twitch. The accounts are linked. Twitch and Amazon are joint Data Controllers on some data (though one is a subsidiary of the other).</p>\n<p>Now, Alice links her account for a game. Both Amazon/Twitch and the game now are both data controllers on <em>some</em> data (usually: user name on both platforms and some kind of ID are shared), but they don't share <em>all</em> data either has.</p>\n<p>The game and Amazon as well as Twitch are Data Controllers, each with different data amounts and in some cases, jointly administring <em>some</em> data.</p>\n\n\nTags: gdpr, data-ownership, data","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1045,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":0,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Post Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine standing","original_index":1046,"content_length":63}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":941,"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>PETA spends significant amounts of money trying to get people to voluntarily not eat meat. If the government had outlawed eating meat, people would be forced to not eat meat, and so it would not have been necessary to spend money to convince them not to. Given that the government's inaction has caused PETA considerable expense, and taking Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA as precedent, does PETA have standing to sue the government for failing to outlaw the consumption of meat?</p>\n<p>EDIT:</p>\n<p>AHM v FDA holds that if a group advocates a position, and incurs expenses doing so, and there is some government action that would have decreased or eliminated those expenses, then that group has standing.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>One way an organization can establish standing is by identifying specific projects that [it]\nhad to put on hold or otherwise curtail in order to respond to the [challenged action Tex. State","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1046,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":936,"chroma:document":"<p>One way an organization can establish standing is by identifying specific projects that [it]\nhad to put on hold or otherwise curtail in order to respond to the [challenged action Tex. State\nLULAC v. Elfant, 52 F.4th 248 , 253 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal marks omitted). This is not a\nheightening of the Lujan standard, but an example of how to satisfy it by pointing to a non\nlitigation-related expense. OCA,867 F.3d at 612. Plaintiffs need not identify specific projects\nthat they haveplaced on hold or otherwise curtailed. La Unión del Pueblo Entero v.Abbott,No.\n5:21-CV-0844-XR,2022 WL 3052489 , at *31 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2,2022). Rather,this is simply\nthe most secure foundation to establish organizational standing. 13A Charles Alan Wright &amp;\nArthur R. Miller,Federal Practice and Procedure § 3531.9.5 (3d ed. 2022). Furthermore, [a]t\nthe pleading stage , we liberally construe allegations ofinjury. Bezet v.United States,714 Fed.","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"original_index":1046}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Arthur R. Miller,Federal Practice and Procedure § 3531.9.5 (3d ed. 2022). Furthermore, [a]t\nthe pleading stage , we liberally construe allegations ofinjury. Bezet v.United States,714 Fed.\nAppx . 336,339 (5th Cir.2017)(quoting Little v. KPMG LLP, 575 F.3d 533,540 (5th Cir.2009)).\nHere, Plaintiff medical associations have standing via diversionary injury . Because of\nfailure to require reporting of all adverse events , Plaintiffs allege FDA's actions have\nfrustrated their ability to educate and inform their member physicians ,their patients ,and the public\non the dangers of chemical abortion drugs .ECF No. 7 at 12. As a result,Plaintiffs attest they have\nSee Lujanv . Defs. ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555 ( 1992) .\nAtthehearing, Danco arguedElfant held there was no standing where organizations failed to identify specific\nprojectsputon hold. ECF No. 136 at 125. This is incorrect. The FifthCircuit inElfantassumed withoutdeciding the","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1046,"chunk_index":3,"content_length":934}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1046,"chroma:document":"projectsputon hold. ECF No. 136 at 125. This is incorrect. The FifthCircuit inElfantassumed withoutdeciding the\nplaintiffspled an injury-in- fact but heldthey did not have standingbecausethe causation and redressability elements\nwere notmet. See 52 F.4th at 255.\n12\nCase 2 :22- cv- 00223- Z Document137 Filed 04/07/23 Page 13of 67 4435\ndiverted valuable resources away from advocacy and educational efforts to compensate for the\nlack of information.See ECF No. 1at 91. Such diversions expend considerable time,energy,and\nresources,to the detriment of other priorities and functions and impair Plaintiffs ability to carry\nout their educational purpose.Id at 92; N.A.A.C.P. v. City ofKyle, Tex.,626 F.3d 233, 238 (5th\nCir.2010) Similarly, Plaintiffs allege their efforts to respond to actions have tak[en]\nthem away from other priorities such as fundraising and membership recruitment and retention.\nECF Nos.1-4 at 6, 1-5 at 11. Consequently, Plaintiffs have re-calibrated their outreach effortsto","content_length":995,"chunk_index":4,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1046,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"them away from other priorities such as fundraising and membership recruitment and retention.\nECF Nos.1-4 at 6, 1-5 at 11. Consequently, Plaintiffs have re-calibrated their outreach effortsto\nspend extra time and money educating their members about the dangers of chemical abortion\ndrugs.Combined,these facts are sufficient to confer organizational standing.See OCA,867 F.3d\nat 612 (finding organizational standing even where the injury was not large ); Fowler, 178 F.3d\nat 356 (injuries in fact need not measure more than an identifiable trifle ) (internal\nmarks omitted).</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It is to this that I am referring: given the legal argument here, does it give PETA standing? I am not asking about cause of action or anything else, nor am I advocating that PETA <em>should</em> have standing. I am simply asking, if PETA does not have standing, why logic would distinguish it from this case.</p>","chunk_index":5,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":908}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1046,"content_length":995,"chunk_index":6,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>There is no parallelism between <a href=\"https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmojgodvr/ND%20Texas%20Abortion%20Pill%20Ruling%202023-04-07.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the Texas decision</a> and the proposed lawsuit. In the anti-mifepristone lawsuit, there exists a statute granting the FDA authority to regulate and review new drugs, and a <a href=\"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-10/subpart-B/section-10.30\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">petition procedure</a> whereby citizens can state ground for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to consider a regulatory action. There is no statutory basis on which a ban of meat-eating could be created by executive action. Congress cannot be sued for not passing a law (failure or refusal of Congress to pass a particular law is not justiciable). If, for example someone were to submit a petition to the FDA urging such a regulation, the petition would have to be denied because the FDA does not"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"to pass a particular law is not justiciable). If, for example someone were to submit a petition to the FDA urging such a regulation, the petition would have to be denied because the FDA does not have statutory authority to issue such a regulation.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":251,"chunk_index":7,"original_index":1046}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1046,"content_length":272,"chunk_index":8,"chroma:document":"<p>As argued <a href=\"https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/mifepristone-and-the-rule-of-law-9c4\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>, the anti-mifepristone plaintiffs lack standing in that case, so one can expect that to be a substantial issue in the subsequent appeal.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1046_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":9,"content_length":14,"chroma:document":"Tags: standing","original_index":1046}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1047_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Do homophobic governments successfully subpoena LGBT dating sites?","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":82,"original_index":1047}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1047_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>I live in a very homophobic country and I'm afraid my state's police will eventually get unleashed and start prosecuting LGBT people for engaging in &quot;criminal offenses&quot; only because they identify as LGBT and want to hook up. They don't do it currently, or rather I haven't known of any case when people got punished with real prison terms. Unfortunately, being an LGBT person, I have to use dating platforms showing no sign of care about their users's privacy. They require full-fledged set of information about the registrant including government-issued ID, commonly known as mobile phone number. As you can see, I don't trust those people who care only about profits from data mining. I must use their services because there are no alternatives</p>","chunk_index":1,"content_length":778,"original_index":1047,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1047_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":2,"original_index":1047,"chroma:document":"<p>Has it already happened that an LGBT dating site released information upon request about one of its users to a government of homophobic country so it can prosecute or harass their citizens? Note that I talk about data requests to service providers through subpoenas. I am not interested in cases in which dating sites users voluntarily shared their data to everyone who has access to the dating platform as registered user. Consider that dating platform's owner and servers located outside those homophobic countries.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":524,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1047_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1047,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The basic legal principles are as follows. First, a government may pass a law criminalizing an act, for example <a href=\"https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2023/03/01/Motion_Seeking_Leave_of_Parliament_to_Introduce_a_Private_member%27s_Bill_Entitled_%27Anti-Homosexuality_Bill%27_(1).pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this Ugandan law</a> which penalizes homosexual acts, their attempt, and aiding and abetting same. Second, a government has the subpoena power to compel a party to provide evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, unless there is some specific restriction enacted in the country – I find no applicable restrictions in Uganda. In principle, the government could subpoena records of an internet service, in order to find violations of the law.</p>","content_length":770}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1047_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":487,"chunk_index":4,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1047,"chroma:document":"<p>Enforcement of the subpoena is relatively simple within the country, but enforcement against a website in Norway, for example, would be virtually impossible, in that Ugandan courts do not have authority in Norway and Norwegian courts will not recognize such an order. Uganda is not a party to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Service_Convention\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Hague Service Convention</a>, so the Norwegian courts will simply not consider the subpoena.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1047_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>If being homophobic is in the nature of a government, and in the nature of a majority of voters (irrelevant in a dictatorship) then they can change laws according to their prejudices. So they might not be able to subpoena such a dating site successfully today, but they may be able to change laws so that it is possible in the future.</p>\n<p>Note that many western governments had homophobic laws in the past, which means it would possible to them to create homophobic laws again, except at this point in time they wouldn't get support from their voters. In 1950 there were no LGBT dating sites, but if there had been, I'm quite sure there would have been subpoenas.</p>\n\n\nTags: international, harassment, subpoena","content_length":727,"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1047}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1048_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1048,"chroma:document":"Question Title: What is the color of caution or warning of hazard sign?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Is the following caution or warning of hazard sign orange or yellow? My impression is that it's color yellow, but the <a href=\"https://www.alberta.ca/sign-shapes-and-colours.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">link</a> says it's color orange. And even though the aforementioned link says caution or warning of hazard sign only has one color, in this other <a href=\"https://www.alberta.ca/warning-signs.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">link</a> there is more than one color (yellow, green). In addition, there is more than just one shape (diamond shape, rectangular). Thank you!</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/tqFmF.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/tqFmF.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>","content_length":835}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1048_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":798,"original_index":1048,"chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p><strong>The picture you posted is of a yellow sign mislabeled as orange.</strong></p>\n<p>While some tints can be distorted depending on computer screens and color settings and individual perceptions may vary, verification of this specific example can be made by the context provided in your link.</p>\n<p>Below you can see the published example of a construction area sign:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/D6LjO.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/D6LjO.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>Several places below that is the one you posted in your question:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxbIO.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxbIO.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1048_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1048,"content_length":428,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":2,"chroma:document":"<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxbIO.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxbIO.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>As you can clearly see the colors are distinctly different, yet the color description is the same.  It's apparent that the graphic artist who created this copied their work and changed the color, but forgot to change the text.  <em>Trust your eyes!</em></p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1048_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: traffic","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1048,"content_length":13}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1049_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1049,"chunk_index":0,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Why 12 Jurors, why not 11, 10, 9, 1?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The question might seem basic, but why do juries in the United States consist of 12 members? </p>\n\n<p>Was there an experimental determination of this number? </p>\n\n<p>Would the addition or removal of a juror operate more effectively?</p>","content_length":309,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1049_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"original_index":1049,"content_length":679,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>The <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trial_by_jury_in_England\" rel=\"noreferrer\">origin of the jury</a> is a complex mix of Saxon, Danish and Norman custom which morphed and melded along with English Common Law, which is the basis of the law in all ex-British colonies including the USA.</p>\n<p>Danish towns in the north and east of England had hereditary “law men”, often 12 in number who decided legal disputes. In parallel the West Saxons (Wessex) in the south and west charged 12 theigns in each area with keeping the peace. When the Normans conquered (who were also of Viking origin) they adopted and adapted the existing legal structures.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1049_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1049,"chroma:document":"<p>In the 12th century, Henry II established that a jury of 12 should decide land disputes. Meanwhile other juries of various sizes were formed to investigate crimes and bring charges - this is the origin of the Grand Juries that still live on in some jurisdictions in the USA although they have been replaced by a judge in other common law jurisdictions (and some states in the USA).</p>\n<p>Ultimately the jury that brought charges and the jury that decided guilt were split and the size was standardised. However, it is incorrect to say that it is always 12: some jurisdictions have different numbers for different purposes. For example, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_48\" rel=\"noreferrer\">rule 48</a> of the US Federal rules for civil procedure sets the number at not less than 6 and not more than 12.</p>\n<p>The jury system continues to evolve with various jurisdictions adopting different numbers, majority verdicts and judge only trials.</p>","chunk_index":2,"content_length":969,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1049_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":239,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>The jury system continues to evolve with various jurisdictions adopting different numbers, majority verdicts and judge only trials.</p>\n<p>There is nothing special or “scientific” about 12: it is what it is because it is what it is.</p>","original_index":1049}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1049_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1049,"chunk_index":4,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":754,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>It isn't 12, for federal trial courts it's at least 6 and no more than 12. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_48\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_48</a> For grand juries it's more <a href=\"https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries</a>. In az it's 6,8, or 12 depending on the matter being considered. <a href=\"https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title21/00102.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title21/00102.html</a>. I can't go through all the states but it's not always 12. </p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, jury, legal-history"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0,"content_length":596,"original_index":1050,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Can someone summarize the ruling in Texas Mifepristone ruling?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I started reading the ruling in <a href=\"https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/court-decision-invalidating-approval-of-mifepristone/0bb045930a649567/full.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA</a>, but it's 60 pages long and full of the expected legalese.</p>\n<p>Can someone summarize the argument of the plaintiffs and the legal basis of the judge's ruling in plain language? How can a judge with no medical background invalidate the FDA's approval of a drug?</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1050,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>Some interesting reasoning about standing aside (which antivaxxers etc. will love though, because it stipulates that the FDA refusing to collect <em>all</em> side effects statistics [even starting 16 years later] gives standing to sue on the original approval), the Texas' judge estimation of success on the merits is essentially relying on the finding that &quot;Pregnancy is not an illness&quot; (p. 40) and essentially repeated on p. 44 as &quot;Chemical Abortion Drugs do not provide a Meaningful Therapeutic Benefit&quot;, so that in the Judge's estimation drugs for terminating pregnancy can be held to a [much] higher safety standard than the FDA decided by itself. This ultimately phrased as (p. 57):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Court does not second-guess FDA's decision-making lightly. But here, FDA\nacquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns in violation of its statutory duty based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":987,"chunk_index":1}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns in violation of its statutory duty based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It's followed by another finding that there was likely political interference by the Clinton administration with the FDA's decision.</p>\n<p>This a rather partial summary since the order involves several FDA decisions, the details of which which I'm glossing over here (like the fact that the decision to not collect all side effects stats for mifepristone is rather more recent, being taken in 2016--but nonetheless the judge found that consequently the original 2000 decision was reopened as well, and can the object of the suit too.)</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":725,"chunk_index":2,"original_index":1050}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"chroma:document":"Answer 2: <h2>This is an order for a preliminary injunction</h2>\n<p>It requires the FDA to temporarily suspend its approval of the drug until the case is resolved on its merits; nothing of substance has been decided yet.</p>\n<p>The judgement is well laid out and easy to follow with headings telling us what each part is about. It starts with background facts and the legal issues to be decided are in the first paragraph on page 6. The judgement then goes onto issues of standing (the plaintiffs have standing), if the action is too early or too late (no), if the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits (yes), if there is a substantial risk of harm (yes), if an injunction would serve the public interest (yes), if what the plaintiffs asked for is the appropriate solution (no), therefore the injunction is granted (in part).</p>","content_length":838,"original_index":1050,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>I can’t see anything that indicates bias. I can see a judge that is pissed off that the FDA apparently failed in its statutory duty to respond to complaints in the time the law requires. That was, rightly, held against the FDA in their arguments that the proceedings were time barred - you can’t delay a process by your own inaction and then say “you can’t sue me because you’re too late.”</p>","chunk_index":4,"original_index":1050,"source":"Law-StackExchange","content_length":396}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 3: <p>Contrary to how much of the media has been been presenting it, the judge was not ruling on the medical safety or effectiveness of the drug. There were 2 main issues that the plaintiffs claimed:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The FDA did not follow the proper processes when they approved the drug and subsequently relaxed the conditions for dispensing it (increasing the availability from the first 7 weeks of pregnancy to the first 10 weeks).</li>\n<li>They violated the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Comstock Act</a> when they approved sending abortion pills by mail.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>KFF.org has a summary of this decision, as well as the contrary ruling in Washington state, <a href=\"https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/q-a-implications-of-two-conflicting-federal-court-rulings-on-the-availability-of-medication-abortion-and-the-fdas-authority-to-regulate-drugs/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":5,"content_length":945,"original_index":1050}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Yesterday (April 14, 2023), the Texas ruling was put on temporary hold by US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. One of the contentious issues is whether the plaintiffs have standing to make this complaint.</p>","content_length":213,"original_index":1050,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":6,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1050_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1050,"content_length":37,"chunk_index":7,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Tags: texas, federal-courts, abortion"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":591,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Is a sent email in someone else’s inbox subject to data subject rights of the sender?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Suppose Bob emails Alice, and both use Hotmail for their e-mail provider. Bob then deletes the message from his sent mail folder. Could Bob issue a subject access request (SAR) to Hotmail for the message (provided it is in fact still) held by Hotmail in Alice's inbox?</p>\n<p>Or suppose Charlotte emails Dave, who uses a different email provider from him. Could she submit an SAR to Dave’s email provider for the message she sent to him, provided it is held by them?</p>","original_index":1051,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1051,"chunk_index":1,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>An Art 15 Subject Access Request (SAR) “shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others.”</p>\n<p>It would be a grave violation of privacy for an email provider to search its users' account contents. It is therefore likely that the email provider would refuse to fulfil that subject request, unless required to perform a search via a court order. Instead, the SAR could be directed to the account holder (Alice or Dave), if they are subject to the GDPR.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":482}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Depending on the exact legal framework, emails might be protected under confidentiality of communications rules, making such searches similarly illegal to wiretapping. At least in <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a>, I am fairly certain that an email provider would be criminally liable if they were to disclose emails from their users' email accounts to a third party.</p>","chunk_index":2,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":564,"original_index":1051,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>I am not a lawyer and I am not aware of such a case being decided in court yet. So this i my interpretation of the law:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Suppose Bob emails Alice, and both use Hotmail for their e-mail provider. Bob then deletes the message from his sent mail folder.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You are assuming the inner workings of Hotmail. The law does not care what is visible in your &quot;sent mail&quot; folder. The law cares about what is in Hotmails databases.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Could Bob issue a subject access request (SAR) to Hotmail for the message</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes, Bob could. If this email Bob wrote is still saved in Hotmails system in connection to Bobs personal data (in this case their email address in the &quot;from&quot; field clearly identifying it as valid personal data).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(provided it is in fact still) held by Hotmail in Alice's inbox?</p>\n</blockquote>","original_index":1051,"content_length":918,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>(provided it is in fact still) held by Hotmail in Alice's inbox?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Again, you are assuming Hotmails data structure is an exact copy of your user interface. I can guarantee you, it is not. Whether it is visible in Alice's inbox is not relevant here. The only relevant point is whether PII was saved. It was, so an SAR should be able to retrieve it. Even if the email is no longer visible in <em>either</em> persons inbox, if it is still held in Hotmails database, it is subject to an SAR.</p>\n<p>So with the SAR, no data about Alice would be given out. As the sender (or even receiver) of the mail, you already know it's contents, and you will only get to know whether hotmail still holds a copy of it. That says nothing about whether Alice read it, deleted it, printed it out and put it on display. Anything. It doesn't even say if Hotmail ever delivered it to her or if their email address even exists at Hotmail. Privacy of Alice is not breached here.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1051,"content_length":992,"chunk_index":4}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1051,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":394,"chroma:document":"<blockquote>\n<p>Or suppose Charlotte emails Dave, who uses a different email provider from him. Could she submit an SAR to Dave’s email provider for the message she sent to him, provided it is held by them?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes, she could. Assuming she can prove that the PII (email address in the &quot;from&quot; field) is hers, she should get that email as a reply to the SAR.</p>\n<hr />","chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1051,"chroma:document":"<p>Now, these were the clear cut cases. Where obvious PII in a field to hold that PII was concerned. It does get muddier down the road. What if Alice forwards the mail, and her mail program puts Bob's original sender email in the emails message text like &quot;forwarded from Bob@example.com:&quot;. Is that still PII? It certainly still is Bob's email address that identifies Bob. But it is not in a field that identifies it as an email address to Hotmail. Hotmail is not required to search their customers non-PII fields (so any field that the provider did not ask for PII and is not using for purposes that would make it obvious they expect PII, for example &quot;favorite pizza toping&quot; or &quot;message text&quot;) for accidential PII insertion. A SAR is about what <em>Hotmail</em> knows about you, not what Alice or the person she forwards this information too, knows about you. To Hotmail, this is message text. Could it potentially contain PII? Sure. Literally anything <em>could</em>.","content_length":998,"chunk_index":6,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"you, not what Alice or the person she forwards this information too, knows about you. To Hotmail, this is message text. Could it potentially contain PII? Sure. Literally anything <em>could</em>. Do they know it does? No. That is what counts.</p>","content_length":245,"original_index":1051,"chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":608,"chroma:document":"<p>Lets take an example here. 1673. That is a random number I just typed. By the nature of 4 digit numbers only being available for 10000 unique instances, I can practially guarantee you that this is somebodies credit card PIN. So is it PII? If I enter it into a field where the data holder <em>knows</em> it's a credit card PIN, sure. Right now, in this post? No. Even if someone reads this post and goes &quot;what, wait, how did they know <em>my</em> PIN?!?&quot; It's not PII. It's just a number. Only the accompanying information that this number indeed <em>is</em> somebodies PIN would make it PII.</p>","chunk_index":8,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1051}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>A good example of this might be Facebook or other invasive no-privacy corporate entities. If they <em>do</em> parse message texts, and they <em>do</em> have a table that says &quot;this message from Alice contained Bob's email address&quot; then that could be part of an SAR. I guess a judge would have to decide where Alice's rights to privacy end and Bob's start to take priority. My personal guess is that if Alice <em>agreed</em> to have her data spyed on this way by their message service, they would side with Bob, who is not even a party to that contract and had his PII taken and saved without his consent.</p>","chunk_index":9,"original_index":1051,"content_length":621}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1051_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1051,"content_length":57,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":10,"chroma:document":"Tags: gdpr, data-protection, data, subject-access-request"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1052_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1052,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Title: Home Appraisal Appeal\n\nQuestion Body: <p>We recently applied to have our PMI dropped, and the bank hired an appraiser to do an appraisal on our home. The comparisons they used were nothing like our home and were not in our subdivision, and the homes he did use to make their assessment were near a trailer park. We had our realtor do a market analysis for us and by his estimation, the home is worth $120,000 over what they quoted. We filed an appeal but were wondering what to do if they deny our request. Can I hire a real-estate lawyer and fight their appraised amount?</p>","content_length":592,"chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1052_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":1,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>It is possible. Your basis for legal action would be the <a href=\"https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/manuals-guides/federal-consumer-financial-protection-guide/compliance-management/lending-regulations/homeowners-protection-act-pmi-cancellation-act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Homeowner's Protection Act</a>, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-49\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">12 USC Ch. 49</a>, which requires removing the PMI requirement in circumstances that relate to the 80% interest threshold. The specific requirements are in <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4902\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">§4902</a>. One of the triggers is the <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4901\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">&quot;cancellation date&quot;</a>, which relates to the initial amortization schedule, basically the day when by making regular payments the loan is reduced to 80% of the initial value (not the loan amount). This","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1052,"content_length":990}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1052_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":790,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"date&quot;</a>, which relates to the initial amortization schedule, basically the day when by making regular payments the loan is reduced to 80% of the initial value (not the loan amount). This completely ignores later appraisals, though the bank can require proof that the value of the property has not declined (and that evidence is &quot;of a type established in advance and made known to the mortgagor by the servicer promptly upon receipt of a request under paragraph (1))&quot;). The law excludes inflationary changes in equity, where e.g. one has an initial 5% interest that swells to a 20% interest over a few years because of inflation. Refinancing is always a legal option, but maybe not the ideal financial choice depending on interest rate differences and refinancing costs.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1052,"chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1052_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":60,"chroma:document":"<p>If this is about Canada, there may be different laws.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":3,"original_index":1052}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1052_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1052,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":28,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":4,"chroma:document":"Tags: real-estate, insurance"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_0
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":89,"source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1053,"chroma:document":"Question Title: Publishing personal data obtained on a Swedish server - GDPR implications","chunk_index":0}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_1
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Question Body: <p>Imagine a small social media chat platform is hosted in Sweden and subject to GDPR. Party A sends personal information to party B using the platform, using a private message. The information was provided directly to party B, and was not collected using any automated means. Party B publishes this personal information on the same platform in the form of a public message. Neither party A nor party B are in a country subject to GDPR.</p>\n<p>Does party A have any recourse against the platform through the GDPR?</p>\n<p>Consider a <em>hypothetical</em> series of events:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Alice contacts Bob in a private message over Platform and provides him with her full name</li>\n<li>Alice pisses Bob off and Bob, in a petty act of revenge, publishes Alice's personal information in a public space on Platform to &quot;name and shame&quot; her</li>\n<li>Platform refuses to delete the message Bob posted as it is not against their terms of service</li>","original_index":1053,"chunk_index":1,"content_length":966,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_2
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1053,"content_length":276,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<li>Platform refuses to delete the message Bob posted as it is not against their terms of service</li>\n<li>Alice is gets angry at this action and tries to take legal action against Platform, claiming a GDPR violation for Platform's refusal to remove the information</li>\n</ul>","chunk_index":2}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_3
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":3,"original_index":1053,"chroma:document":"Answer 1: <p>I don't think that GDPR applies here.</p>\n<p>There are three actors: Alice, Bob, and the Platform. Bob published Alice's personal data through the Platform. Then, we have to consider who of them would be the data controller for this processing activity. Only the controller would be responsible under GDPR for compliance and for handling data subject requests.</p>\n<p>I will take it as a given that the scenario involves the processing of Alice's personal data.</p>\n<p>I also want to highlight the detail that neither Alice nor Bob are in a country where GDPR applies.</p>\n<p>Clearly, the Platform is the data controller for most aspects of their service. However:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Controller is whoever determines the purposes and means of processing (Art 4(7)).</li>","content_length":777,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_4
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>Clearly, the Platform is the data controller for most aspects of their service. However:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Controller is whoever determines the purposes and means of processing (Art 4(7)).</li>\n<li>The GDPR does not apply to processing by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity (Art 2(2)(c)), which includes “social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities” (Recital 18).</li>\n<li>The GDPR would only apply to processing activities that occur in the context of an European establishment of the controller, or when those activities are related to the offering of goods or services to people who are in Europe.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>This leads me to the following conclusions:</p>\n<h3>Only Bob is the data controller for message contents.</h3>","original_index":1053,"chunk_index":4,"content_length":805,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_5
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1053,"chroma:document":"</ul>\n<p>This leads me to the following conclusions:</p>\n<h3>Only Bob is the data controller for message contents.</h3>\n<p>When Bob posts a message, the Platform does not exert control over the message contents. The Platform is controller for how they process Bob's and Alice's messages, but it does not control the purposes and means for processing conducted via such messages.</p>\n<p>Bob used the Platform for the processing activity of publishing Alice's personal data, and is the controller of that activity.</p>\n<h3>Alice cannot rely on GDPR against Bob due to issues of territorial scope.</h3>\n<p>In a nutshell, Art 3 GDPR says that GDPR can only apply if one end of the subject–controller relationship is in Europe. Since the Platform is EU-based, both Alice and Bob are protected by GDPR with respect to the platform's processing activity.</p>","content_length":851,"chunk_index":5,"source":"Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_6
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"content_length":747,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>However, this is irrelevant when considering the Alice–Bob relationship. Bob does not have an European establishment, so is not subject to GDPR per Art 3(1). Bob does not offer goods or services to people who are in Europe, so is not subject to GDPR per Art 3(2).</p>\n<p>Even if Bob were to offer goods or service to people in Europe, Alice wouldn't be covered by GDPR because Bob's processing of Alice's data wouldn't be “related” to such offering, unless perhaps this Platform is some kind of marketplace.</p>\n<h3>Bob might have to comply if he was EU-based.</h3>\n<p>If Bob was EU-based, things would be more interesting. Now, Bob would clearly be in the GDPR's Art 3 territorial scope, but we must also consider the Art 2 material scope.</p>","chunk_index":6,"original_index":1053}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_7
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":7,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":870,"original_index":1053,"chroma:document":"<p>If Bob was EU-based, things would be more interesting. Now, Bob would clearly be in the GDPR's Art 3 territorial scope, but we must also consider the Art 2 material scope.</p>\n<p>If Bob is an individual and not a company, Bob might invoke the household exception that exempts normal social media use. However, taking into account CJEU case law from <em>Rynes</em> and <em>Lindqvist</em>, making the data public is unlikely to fall under this narrow exemption.</p>\n<p>So in this alternative scenario, Bob might be in scope of the GDPR as a data controller, and would then have to comply with its requirements.</p>\n<h3>Even if GDPR were to apply, deletion may not be required.</h3>\n<p>“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”, and the GDPR is very much not a Sith. It is based around foundational principles in Art 5, and these must be carefully balanced with other rights.</p>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_8
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1053,"content_length":872,"chroma:document":"<p>“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”, and the GDPR is very much not a Sith. It is based around foundational principles in Art 5, and these must be carefully balanced with other rights.</p>\n<p>Bob might have an Art 6(1)(f) <em>legitimate interest</em> in publishing a “name and shame” post. This would depend on the specific context, though.</p>\n<p>Bob might be covered by an Art 85 GDPR exception for <em>freedom of expression and information</em>, in particular if the data was published for journalistic purposes. However, such exemptions must be provided by member states.</p>\n<p>Bob might not have to fulfil an Art 17 erasure request if none of the deletion criteria are met, in particular if Bob's legitimate interest in publication would override Alice's objection, or if publication is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":8}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_9
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","original_index":1053,"content_length":943,"chunk_index":9,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>These carve-outs for freedom of expression are important, e.g. to prevent a public figure from abusing GDPR to silence public criticism.</p>\n<h3>The Platform <em>might</em> have an obligation to provide safety features.</h3>\n<p>As discussed above, I don't think that the Platform is a controller regarding Bob's publication.</p>\n<p>However, data controllers have general obligations to ensure the compliance and security of their own processing, which requires the adoption of appropriate technical and organizational measures. In particular, the Platform must ensure data protection by design and by default (Art 25).</p>\n<p>Perhaps this could be interpreted to require safety features on the Platform, such as content visibility settings and moderation flags. However, it is not reasonable to interpret this in a way that would force the Platform to censor or delete otherwise-legal content.</p>\n<h3>GDPR is the wrong mechanism here.</h3>"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_10
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chunk_index":10,"content_length":537,"chroma:document":"<h3>GDPR is the wrong mechanism here.</h3>\n<p>GDPR is a fairly high-profile law, and is sometimes used in ways that it wasn't designed for. For example, the right to access is sometimes used as a kind of Freedom of Information device, and misunderstandings about the GDPR's territorial scope often see international data controllers being wrongly threatened with it.</p>\n<p>This scenario is different in that it could be legitimately viewed as a data protection issue between Alice and Bob, if that relationship were subject to GDPR.</p>","dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","source":"Law-StackExchange","original_index":1053}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_11
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"chroma:document":"<p>This scenario is different in that it could be legitimately viewed as a data protection issue between Alice and Bob, if that relationship were subject to GDPR.</p>\n<p>But it is not appropriate to use the GDPR against the Platform here, since the Platform is not the data controller for the processing activity in question. Instead, Alice would have to find some other reason why the Platform would be liable in some way. For example, if Bob's message were to constitute some kind of illegal doxxing, and Swedish rules were to hold platforms liable when they are informed of illegal user content, then Alice would likely be able to get Bob's content taken down.</p>","source":"Law-StackExchange","chunk_index":11,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":667,"original_index":1053}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_12
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"<p>Alice could also consider whether some other rights were violated by Bob's message. For example, if Bob's message was defamatory, violated personality rights, or breached some duty to confidentiality of communications, then Alice might be able to get Bob to take the content down. But this would depend primarily on the laws in Bob's location.</p>\n<p>Someone mentioned the issue of copyright. Mere data such as a name is not covered by copyright. However, if Bob published material written by Alice, and this publication is not covered by a copyright exception, then it might be possible to get Bob's post taken down. There is a small hiccup here that Alice might have already given the Platform the necessary rights to publish her writing via the Platform terms of service.</p>","chunk_index":12,"original_index":1053,"content_length":781,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}


created_at: 2025-08-10 11:10:58
topic: persistent://default/default/70d56a6d-0948-470f-9724-d32144d699a0
id: doc_1053_13
encoding: FLOAT32
metadata:
{"original_index":1053,"dataset":"ymoslem/Law-StackExchange","content_length":473,"chunk_index":13,"source":"Law-StackExchange","chroma:document":"Answer 2: <p>Edited. As the question was initially asked, I assumed that Bob had simply re-posted the message from Alice with personal details. Since that is not the case, the copyright to the original message does not help here.</p>\n<p>What is left is a case of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">doxing</a>, and it should be irrelevant <em>where</em> Bob got Alice's contact details and that Alice is also a user of the platform.</p>"}


