quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
Yeah, what TS Debutante said, and what are the legal mumbo-jumbos that are keeping DC from publishing well deserved TPBs of The Legion? What's up with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Portfolio Boy:
Could the Siegel Estate's qwest to reclaim their copyright to Superman (and what is the status of that anyway) have any effect on Superboy, and such characters (i.e. the Legion) directly inspired by him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightning Lad:
Here's one for you Quis. Don't know if you know the answer or not.

All of these court shows on TV where, say, the plantiff wins the case and is awarded their $5000 (or whatever). How is that enforced? Do these participants receive a numeration for appearing on the show and then if they lose their case their 'pay' is applied to the awarded amount?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
If you represented Charma's estate and wanted to bring action against those who caused her death, how would you do so?

---

If I remember correctly, Charma was put into a female prison and the other inmates attacked her and beat her to death, right?

Well, first I would go after the deep pockets aka the government. The actual inmates woould not be worth suing as most likely they would not be able to pay any judgement.

I would argue that the government was negligent in putting Charma in with a population that would result in her being killed or severely injured.
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Varalent, are you part Craggite?
 

---

Posted by MLLASH on :
 
How long would Holt and Mekt have to have been together before Holt could sue Mekt for palimony in the event of a breakup?
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
Varalent, are you part Craggite?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MLLASH:
How long would Holt and Mekt have to have been together before Holt could sue Mekt for palimony in the event of a breakup?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MLLASH:
[qb] Side note: Rule of thumb - This phrase comes from the old law that a man could beat his wife as long as the stick was no bigger around than his thumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
Still with the Charma question: if your goal was reform of the system so similar things wouldn't happen again, would you still go for the money? Is that the only remedy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
... at the end of six months, the case goes back to the Superior court for a new ruling consistant with the opinion. (The original superior court ruled that the prohibition was legal, basically)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MLLASH:
What about Space-Palimony?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Varalent:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
... at the end of six months, the case goes back to the Superior court for a new ruling consistant with the opinion. (The original superior court ruled that the prohibition was legal, basically)

---

Why do they even bother doing things like this! The lower court has come to a different conclusion based on the facts presented. I find it unlikely in most cases that the higher court's ruling is going to change the other judges' opinion. So in effect, they are being instructed to rule contrary to their belief or opinion. Seems wrong to me. Just overturn and leave it at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
Is the law a nass?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
Is the law a nass?

---

 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Well of the shows you mentioned, I've only watched Night Court and as that was a comedy (and I wasn't a lawyer when I watched it) I wouldn't be looking for accuracy.

I like Law & Order (Although I hate how in the opening they go "Law" and show the police and then "Order" and show the lawyers when the police actually represent Order and the Lawyers Law) In one of the earlier episodes, the older cop (not Jerry Orbach) puts two suspects in the back of the car, leaving the dorr open. He then says he has to make a call and leads the younger cop away. The younger cop asks what's up and the Older cop says "Do you think they have a 'reasonble expectation of privacy'"? I saw this episode shortly after reading the Supreme Court case that coined the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy". I do think Law & Order gets it right (I don't know about the spin off Law & Order shows though)

Now, I caught the end of the Jim Carrey film "Liar Liar" and there they got the rule of law about voiding contracts (in this case a pre-nuptial) wrong. (Just one more reason for me not to like Jim Carrey.

Now just after I took "Property", I went to a Halloween Schlockfest of bad horror movies. One called Thirteen Ghosts (A remake was just released) had a family inheriting a house from an uncle but only if they never sell it. I immediately thought "That's restraint of alienation" (meaning that you can't prohibit anyone from selling property) I immediately then thought "No, no, thats just a plot device to get them to keep the house."
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Portfolio Boy:
What if Comet, the Super-Horse broke up with his long-time girlfriend?

Is there such a thing as Palamino Palimony?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Portfolio Boy:
FWIW, I have never seen the show, but I have heard that the mid-'60s series The Defenders was very, very well done and that it was about as close to real world proceedures as it was possible to get.

The show starred a young, pre-Brady Bunch... um, the father, what was his name.

IIRC, it also had a tengentat legion AR as some episodes were written by William Woolfolk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
I remember that episode of Law and Order. I believe Paul Sorvino was the "Old" cop who did that. I like your point about who is "The Law" and who is "The Order" too. Law & Order is a funny (not ha ha, but weird funny) show for me... TNT use to run it during the noon to 1:00 hour and I would watch it then, but whenever it is on in prime time, I just can't get interested in it.

Thanks for responding, I appreciate your insight.

I just realized that I am in danger of becoming smarter (only one way for me to go I guess) because of this thread. Who woulda ever thunk it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis, since on my homeworld Grrggr, the legal age of being an adult is 16, does that mean that I don't have to pay child support for my daughter Umber, who is 17? Does the fact that she doesn't know that she's my daughter yet affect this? Thanks!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
Another point came up over on the main board, something about DC issuing a cease & desist for certain fan based sites like the Legion of Super Resources page.

Portfolio Boy asked Scott:

"SO, how long do you suppose before this place (meaning this message board) gets the 'ol C&D?

Has anyone contacted you yet?"

and

He Who Wanders asked:

"I wonder why they C&D'd him (LSR). Listing links to various fan-related sites sounds not only harmless to me, but also beneficial to DC, as it promotes their characters (and DC didn't even have to pay for the service!).

Just what's the difference, legally, between what LSR did and what LW does?"

Since it seemed an appropriate topic for this thread, Can you shed any light on these questions for us? What are DC's motives for shutting down (what I assume to be a) not-for-profit site like The LSR?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightning Lad:
Easy answer as to why my site and Legion World haven't gotten hit and probably wouldn't. We don't make money off the sites.

Michael, unfortunately, went the way of a 'free' website when he originally created his list. This caused him to have pop-ups and other ads. That is what got him C&D'd. And since he was targeted I believe even after removing the ads or to a site that doesn't have them it wouldn't help.

He wasn't the one making the money of course. But the legal eagles take any form of earning where their copyrights are concerned very seriously.

We should continue to be okay but I believe that with the recent hiring of Gregory Noveck to DC's position equivalent of Avi Arad (sp?) we'll see more DC fan sites cracked down on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis, since on my homeworld Grrggr, the legal age of being an adult is 16, does that mean that I don't have to pay child support for my daughter Umber, who is 17? Does the fact that she doesn't know that she's my daughter yet affect this? Thanks!

---

Cobalt,

Well if you have become a resident of Legion World, you become subject to our laws, including the age of majority. (this is based on the idea that if you avail yourself to the benefits and protections of a state, then you are subject to its law. And by Living and working in a state, you do "Avail yourself" of its protections and benefits without any conscious actions on your part. see American Shoe) Assuming that Legion world operates on the basic laws of the US (Very Ameri-centric of me, I know) then you are responsible for child support until Umbra is 18 (the age of majority in the US)

The fact that Umbra does not know you are her father does not affect your obligation and someone else could bring action against you on Umbra's behalf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Whew! Just checked the laws of Legion World and the legal age of being an adult is 17! I'm in the clear! Altough I'll never be able to recover from the fact that I missed her childhood, as I did my son Numf-El and my four evil sons that I was forced to destroy...

But that's not a legal question! Here's this one: if my interns at the security office sign a contract that acknowledges the fact that I will consistently hit on them throughout their employment, and then I accidently fail to hit on them one day, can I be brought up on charges for not giving them the proper amount of harrasment that the security office has promised it's employees?

---

well, you might still owe for pass due child support payments for when Umbra and the others were under the age of majority. It depends on the statute of limitations how long a person can file a claim against you.


Regarding your other question:

See my post on Void Contracts. As harassment is an illegal act, that part of the contract would be considered void, and so you can not be held liable for that part of the contract. I would watch out about actually harassing your employees as you may find yourself subject to a lawsuit for harrassing them .
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Thanks Quis ! It's never really harrasment, just steamy love affairs in the Security Office!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Thanks Quis ! It's never really harrasment, just steamy love affairs in the Security Office!

---

Sure, it is all in good fun ... until someone's eye gets poked out!!!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Hey Quis, have you ever heard of the band Me First and the Gimme Gimmes? This was just recomended to me, and knowing that you have good taste in music (i.e. They Might Be Giants ), I was curious! Um, I'm out of legal questions for the moment
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Hey Quis, have you ever heard of the band Me First and the Gimme Gimmes? This was just recomended to me, and knowing that you have good taste in music (i.e. They Might Be Giants ), I was curious! Um, I'm out of legal questions for the moment

---

You really should not be using up the Legion World retainer with these no legal questions. I hear Stu is very dollar conscious.

No, I haven't heard of them. Let me know what you think of them.

[ December 15, 2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq ]
 

---

Posted by Blockade Boy on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

In a Criminal Trial, if you are believed, then you would get off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blockade Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

In a Criminal Trial, if you are believed, then you would get off.

---

Okay that's new. I could try it.

Now would they be able to get me for public exposure or would that be like double jeapardy or seeds of the spoiled fruit or ipso facto or some such seeings how I prevailed in the criminal trial?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

Massachusetts can charge you under their kidnapping statute. After the trial in which you are acquitted, you loudly proclaim "HA HA HA I Did it!" Then the Federal government can charge you under the federal kidnapping statute, but Massachusetts can't re-try you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blockade Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

Massachusetts can charge you under their kidnapping statute. After the trial in which you are acquitted, you loudly proclaim "HA HA HA I Did it!" Then the Federal government can charge you under the federal kidnapping statute, but Massachusetts can't re-try you.

---

Ooh, no fair. BUT! If I do not take someone over a state line, THEN I can proclaim "I did it" and not be retried?

Wow, is RJ Brande in trouble. He could be held responsible for taking Shikari across dimensional, universal,galactical, solar systemal, planetary, AND state lines. Plus she's probably a minor.

That old fart, I knew he was a perv.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
1.) If Legion World (the comic book one) is in Earth's orbit, do they come under Earth law?

The U.P. seems to be like a United Nations (or perhaps the European Union?) i.e. an association of planets each with their own laws but maybe some common declarations or constitution. Whose laws apply on the grounds of the U.N. - American law in NYC, Swiss law in Geneva?

2.) Ra's al Ghul did a bit of damage when he escaped on Legion World, maybe killed some Sci Cops. Could he be sued by a family member of someone he killed? Or sued for property damage? Or would the Legion be responsible since it was their turf and their (M'onel's) decision to bring him there? Or would the Sci Cops be responsible for not guarding him properly?

3.) If Garth and Jan were considered dead, and their estates distributed to heirs, will the heirs have to give it back now? Or is Jan dead but Garth isn't, or vice-versa, or could Garth claim Jan's estate, or vice-versa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
Now, I caught the end of the Jim Carrey film "Liar Liar" and there they got the rule of law about voiding contracts (in this case a pre-nuptial) wrong. (Just one more reason for me not to like Jim Carrey.)

---

And here I always thought it was a mess because if the pre-nuptual agreement was voided because of her age, the marriage would have been too? Plus any problems caused by altering her documents in the first place.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Quinn M. on :
 
Wow, Quislet, I'm impressed!

Could Lana Lang have sued to gain standard membership in the Legion rather than honorary or reserve or whatever they gave her?


 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Quinn M.:
Wow, Quislet, I'm impressed!

Could Lana Lang have sued to gain standard membership in the Legion rather than honorary or reserve or whatever they gave her?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
As a member of the Church of the Last Son, am I obligated to be on Monitor Duty on Christmas Day, even if it's not my turn, so that Christian staff and/or legionnaires may take the day off? And why can't I get Last Son Day off, even if it isn't a statutory U.P. holiday?

---

I've read a quote by a law professor to a graduating class. "Three years ago, when asked a legal question, you would have had to answer truthfully 'I don't know.' Now after years of hard work and studying, you are fully qualified to answer the same legal question with 'It depends!'"

And that is the answer to your question. It depends. Do you have an employment contract or are you an at will employee. If you have an employment contract, your contract would determine the answer. If it isn't spelled out in the contract, then you would have to negotiate with your employer.

An at will employee does not have a contract. As an at will employee, you can quit at any time without notice. But your employer can also fire you for reason or no reason at all. Despite that there are certain reasons that an employer can not fire an at will employee. These are called the public policy exceptions. They are few though and usually tough to prove. Discrimination is one of the public policy exceptions. You would have to prove the discrimination in order to prevail, which might be harder if your employer provides other reasons for firing you (i.e. down turn in business, insubordination, refusing to perform the work). Also for religious discrimination, you must show that this is a deeply held belief and not just some fly-by-night dealy. (like the difference betweem Muslim women wearing head scarfs compared to a person saying "My church has a holy day this Friday called, um ..um.. um.. Holy Day, yeah that's it, Holy Day and I need it off."}

FC, for your particular problem, your best solution is to work out an agreement with your employer regarding which days you will work and which days you can have off. Unfortunately for you, your employer has the right to set her/his schedule as he/she sees fit (including last minute changes). If in this situation, you decide to refuse to work when you are scheduled or if you don't come in on a particular day, then your employer could fire you . You can then sue for wrongful termination, but as stated, it is difficult to prove.

You always have the option to quit and find employment with a more accomodating employer.
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
Better yet, buy them out and make 'em work on Christmas but give him Last Son Day off!

Quis, if I don't catch you on the boards tomorrow, I hope you have a wonderful holiday! I'll be gone from tomorrow night until late Sunday and may not have access until I get back home.

[ December 23, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Varalent ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Hey! Who's the lawyer here?

Don't make me report you to the Legion World Board of Bar Overseers for practicing law without a licence.

[ December 23, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq ]
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
[qb]You always have the option to quit and find employment with a more accomodating employer.

---

Well, I hope the Fatal Five are hiring!
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 
I slipped and fell in SHAKES. Can I sue the proprietors?

(Please let me know as soon as possible. I also slipped and fell in Café Cramer and the Starfield Lounge, so I want to be able to sue as soon as I can. Oh yeah, and I got scalded by some hot cocoa at chocolatte. Oh, and I got struck by some falling equipment when I was walking through The Beacon (still under construction)...)
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Fortunately, we are well covered thanks to Policy Pam. Deal with her until the lawyer gets back.
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 


Pam and I have been-- how shall I put this? Let's just say she's been underwriting me for the last couple of months...
 

---

Posted by Poveneezer Scrooge on :
 
Covering for all your liabilities, is she?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:
I slipped and fell in SHAKES. Can I sue the proprietors?

(Please let me know as soon as possible. I also slipped and fell in Café Cramer and the Starfield Lounge, so I want to be able to sue as soon as I can. Oh yeah, and I got scalded by some hot cocoa at chocolatte. Oh, and I got struck by some falling equipment when I was walking through The Beacon (still under construction)...)

---

First, in general you have about three years after the accident in which to sue. So if the fall just happened you don't have to crawl on your injured legs (If that is what was injured) to the courthouse.

As for whether you could successfully sue, it depends. What were the circumstances that caused you to fall? Was it a loose carpet? Some food on the floor that wasn't cleaned up? or was it a some liquid on the floor that you yourself made?

In a slip and fall case you are looking to prove negligence. When looking at whether a person (or a business) was negligent, you have to show that there was a duty of care, there was a breach of the duty, the breach was the actual cause of the injury, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury, and that there was an actual injury.

Showing a duty in this case is easy as business owe a duty to not allow injuries on their premises. Whether there was a breach is another question. There we use the reasonable and prudent person standard. The reasonable and prudent standard is what a reasonable and prudent person (or business in these cases)in the same or similar circumstances would do to avoid foreseeable harm to foreseeable people or property. An example of a breach of duty would be if a restaurant didn't promptly clean up a spilled drink because a reasonable and prudent person could foresee a customer (a foreseeable person) slipping on the liquid and hurting him/herself.

Next comes Causation. First, Cause in fact. here the "But for" Test is used. But for the ice cube on the floor, I would not have slipped. But for the the hot cocoa, I would not have burned my tongue.

Then Proximate cause. This is a trickier concept. It goes back to foreseeablility. You can forsee that a piece of ice on a floor could cause a person to slip and fall. Could you foresee that pushing a person onto a moving train would dislodge an unmarked package from his arm which would explode when it hit the tracks (because it contained fireworks) causing a sign 40 feet away to fall and strike a person on the head? Also there is what is called "intervening acts". Say you slip and fall in a restaurant and as you shakenly leave the restaurant and limp across the parking lot, a car sideswips you and takes off. Now your leg is broken rather than sprained. Here, the intervening act of the driver, prevents you from suing the reastaurant even though you can say "but for my slipping on the ice, I would have had two good legs to stand on and have been able to leap out of the path of the car."

Finally, you have to show that you were injured in some way. A doctor's report is good evidence of this.

Now the restaurant can try to show comparative negligence. That is that you did something to contribute to the accident. EX: He ran across the lobby after coming in from the slushy snow covered street. If the trier of facts finds you comparatively negliegent, the amount of money is reduced by that percentage of comparative negligence. Say, you have $10,000 in doctors bills but are found 20% comparatively negligent, then you would only collect $80,000. If you are found to be more then 50% negligent, then you collect nothing.

For your injuries from being at the Beacon's construction site, the defendant can argue that you "assumed the risk" because it is known that construction sites are dangerous places and you assumed the risk of injury when you when onto the site.

As for the hot cocoa at Chocolatte, I am assuming you have in mind the McDonald's hot coffee case. Some points regarding the McDonald's case. First McDonalds had their coffee brewed at a temperature too high for immediate comsumption (this was so that coffee taken away would still be hot when you reached your destination). McDonalds had warnings in the form of other people who had been burned by their hot coffee. And the woman who was burned had 2nd degree burns over a fairly large area of her body, which required her to be hospitalized for two days. So to successfully sue Chocolatte, you would need to show that Chocolatte purposefully made their hot cocoa too hot. We can assume that the McDonalds case would have been sufficient warning about the perils of making their hot cocoa too hot.

[ December 24, 2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq ]
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 
Oh my gosh! Thanks for the very informative and very thoughtful advice, Quis!

That's a lot of different factors to keep in mind -- I'm sure the average person has no idea that so many different considerations go into this kind of case.

Anyway, based on your advice, I suppose I probably don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. Based on the idea of "comparative negligence," those businesses could say that I was kind of... under the influence... when the slip and falls occurred...


 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:
Oh my gosh! Thanks for the very informative and very thoughtful advice, Quis!

That's a lot of different factors to keep in mind -- I'm sure the average person has no idea that so many different considerations go into this kind of case.

Anyway, based on your advice, I suppose I probably don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. Based on the idea of "comparative negligence," those businesses could say that I was kind of... under the influence... when the slip and falls occurred...

---

Actually, I doubt a restaurant or bar that serves intoxicating beverages can use the fact that you were intoxicated as a defense (Unless you came in intoxicated). Such establishments have a duty to make sure you don't get too intoxicated, possibly based on specific statutes. In that case there is negligence per se. That's why bars cut people off.
 

---

Posted by Semi Transparent Fellow on :
 
About STU's alleged slip and fall in SHAKES:

1. Since SHAKES is subject to California law, he has only one year from the date of alleged injury to file suit.

2. STU is an employee of SHAKES (official mascot), therefore, his alleged injury is an employment related injury. His sole recourse is Worker's Compensation (Bwaaah haa haaa haa - evil laugh). The statute of limitations for WC claims is likely shorter than one year.

3. Third, STU is a well known booze hound. If he fell, there is no doubt that he contributed significantly to his injuries.

4. Fourth, we are well insured. Please submit your claim to our carrier. Their claims adjuster, D. Nyem Awl, will contact you shortly.

[ December 24, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Semi Transparent Fellow ]
 

---

Posted by icefire on :
 
Hey Quis just checking the place out!!!!
 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 
if my brother is inhabiting the body of a person not related to me, is he still my brother?


 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow:
About STU's alleged slip and fall in SHAKES:

1. Since SHAKES is subject to California law, he has only one year from the date of alleged injury to file suit.

2. STU is an employee of SHAKES (official mascot), therefore, his alleged injury is an employment related injury. His sole recourse is Worker's Compensation (Bwaaah haa haaa haa - evil laugh). The statute of limitations for WC claims is likely shorter than one year.

3. Third, STU is a well known booze hound. If he fell, there is no doubt that he contributed significantly to his injuries.

4. Fourth, we are well insured. Please submit your claim to our carrier. Their claims adjuster, D. Nyem Awl, will contact you shortly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by icefire:
Hey Quis just checking the place out!!!!

---

Icey,

Would you like a private tour of my orifices er... I mean offices?

 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekt Ranzz:
if my brother is inhabiting the body of a person not related to me, is he still my brother?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
That being said, have you reported these butt pinchings to the proper Legion World authority (ies)? If so, what was their response?

---

I reported it to Nighty. He responded by pinching my butt!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Well, it sounds like you have a case.

If you would like to pursue it, I would be willing to represent you.

My fee is $950.00 an hour. You will also be responsible for paying the expenses of any expert witnesses, legal research, filing fees, postage, and copying. I'll require a retainer of $100,000.00, to be replenished on a monthly basis as needed.

How much is Legion World and/or Nightcrawler worth, by the way?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Oh wait, STU. I just realized as I am on a retainer to have this thread on Legion World, there is a conflict of interest. I can't represent you.
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
How much is Legion World and/or Nightcrawler worth, by the way?

---

Registering the Legion World domain name: $100

Maintaining the Legion World server: $250

Seeing Nighty flustered and flabbergasted: priceless
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
STU,

You might want to be careful that Nightcrawler doesn't file a harassment suit against you for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

A court on its own could fine you for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Defined in this case as one meant only to harass.
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 
Oh, I meant seeing Nighty flustered and flabbergasted by other stuff -- not necessarily by a lawsuit.

And I probably won't sue him for pinching my butt anyway. I kind of, well, encouraged it... by wearing such tight jeans.
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Quis, since my salary in infinite, I think I can make us both some money by asking you legal questions

First, can a judge tell anyone in the courtroom that their being held for Contempt of Court (if that's what it's really called)?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis, since my salary in infinite, I think I can make us both some money by asking you legal questions

First, can a judge tell anyone in the courtroom that their being held for Contempt of Court (if that's what it's really called)?

---

quote:

---

Contempt of court -Willful disobedience of a judge's command or of an official court order

---

quote:

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT: An action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court. Disrespectful comments to the judge or a failure to heed a judge's orders could be considered contempt of court. A person found in contempt of court can face financial sanctions and, in some cases, jail time.

---

quote:

---

contempt of court
n. there are essentially two types of contempt: a) being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge; b) willful failure to obey an order of the court. This latter can include failure to pay child support or alimony. The court's power to punish for contempt (called "citing" one for contempt) includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions"). Incarceration is generally just a threat and if imposed, usually brief. Since the judge has discretion to control the courtroom, contempt citations are generally not appealable unless the amount of fine or jail time is excessive. "Criminal contempt" involves contempt with the aim of obstruction of justice, such as threatening a judge or witness or disobeying an order to produce evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Continuing the contempt of court theme...

1) If I'm appearing in court pro se, may I refer to any lawyer present as 'My learned friend", or would that be considered flipping the bird, since I'm not a lawyer?

2) I've noticed every time I talk to you, it costs me money. But since I'm living in Canada, and all my assets (such as they are) are in Canada, can you collect if I refuse to pay?

Your learned friend, FC

---

1) I think it would depend on your tone. Lawyers are a cliquey group (You have to pass a test and pay money to be a lawyer. We call ourselves Doctors having gotten a Juris Doctor degree.) So the lawyer on the other side would probably get annoyed with you no matter what your tone. Now whether the judge thinks it is a contempt of court for you to address the opposing lawyer in such a manner depends on how cliquey the judge is and-or how much the judges likes or hates the opposing lawyer.

2) I could go to a Canadian Court and ask them to enforce the contract between us. That contract being that you would pay for each question answered. Because you are a Canadian citizen , the Candian court would have jurisdiction over you. Even though I am not a Canadian citizen, I would still be able to appeal to a Canadian court, just as you could go to a US court to sue me.

Now if a Canadian court ordered you to pay me and you refused, then the court could hold you in contempt of court. Also the Canadian court would also be able to use it power to seize your assets in order to pay any judgement against you.
 

---

Posted by He Who Wanders on :
 
Hey, Quis,

Going back to a Legion story of yore, suppose someone sued Brainiac 5 for the damage his creation, Computo, caused. Would they have a good case?

I'm thinking primarly of ADVENTURE # 340-341, here. Though would the postboot Brainy also be liable for damages caused by Computo and Robotica?

[ December 29, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: He Who Wanders ]
 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 
let's not read too much into my economical phrasing, my learned friend.


 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
Hey, Quis,

Going back to a Legion story of yore, suppose someone sued Brainiac 5 for the damage his creation, Computo, caused. Would they have a good case?

I'm thinking primarly of ADVENTURE # 340-341, here. Though would the postboot Brainy also be liable for damages caused by Computo and Robotica?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekt Ranzz:
let's not read too much into my economical phrasing, my learned friend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow:
So, Quis, how's the law firm going? You seem to have a lot of business. If I may offer some advice, don't take contingency cases. Get good hefty retainers upfront.

BTW, your advice demonstrates your wide breadth of legal knowledge and sound reasoning. Keep up the good work.

---

Semi,

Thanks for the compliment. (But please feel free to set things straight if I mis-state something)

Seeing as Thriftshop Debutante requested this thread, I am sending all the bills to her. I think I have properly padded the bill.

Quislet, Esq.


*Gives secret lawyer handshake*
 

---

Posted by Semi Transparent Fellow on :
 
I'm sure you meant you sent your bill in a padded envelope. A fine legal establishment such as yours would never need to pad a bill.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Um Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. a padded envelope so it won't break in the mail.
 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
And sometimes admissions can be very costly. [/QB]

---

such as hospital admissions?



 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekt Ranzz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
And sometimes admissions can be very costly.

---

such as hospital admissions?


[/QB]

---

Mr. Ranzz,

There are costlier admissions then hospital admissions.

Rest assured that I would not use your admissions/statements against you (except if you tried to sue me for malpractice) However there are others who would use your words against you. Hence my advice to you about being careful in what you say.

For example, regarding your statement that your "brother" is inhabiting the body of another. If you were to attempt to settle your brother's estate, this person who is alleging that he is your brother may attempt to stop you. His lawyer could use your statement to prove that you do not believe that your brother is dead (and therefore should not be probating his estate) and further that this person alleging to be your brother is in fact your brother and that you admit to such a fact. In this case your admission would cost you your share of your brother's estate.

I hope this clarifies my advice to you.

I wish you well.

Quislet, Esq.
 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 
oh, quislet, it's not always about the money. why would i want anything of garth's?


 

---

Posted by Rody the Super-Rat on :
 
Mr. Human Lawyer:

I often feel discriminated against in your human eating and drinking establishments. When the patrons or proprietors see me, they often start screaming scurrilous slurs against rodents and, sometimes, even attacking me.

It's nothing I can't handle with my heat vision or super-strength, but I am curious: do I have any recourse in a human court of law for being treated in this fashion?

I realize that some rodents have poor hygienic habits, but I assure you that I bathe at least as often as the typical human, and I am certainly more intelligent than many humans, as well.

Is it fair to treat me based on an inaccurate stereotype of how some rodents might be?

Signed,
Curious Super-Rat
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Mekt (If I may call you Mekt),

In the law, it is always about the money. Well, not always, but it is always put in terms of money.

Re-reading your original question, I do see that it was more of a philosophical question than a legal question.

Whether you accept your brother (whether he is in his own body or his essense is in another's body) is purely up to you. You know your feelings towards him. You know what type of a relationship you want with him.

We don't choose our biological family. We can and do choose who our friends are and who we accept as family.
 

---

Posted by Lightning Lad on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekt Ranzz:
oh, quislet, it's not always about the money. why would i want anything of garth's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
I have been commanded to open this thread.

Please post your Comic Book related legal questions and I will attempt to answer them.

Disclaimer: I will not be giving any legal advice that you should take. The information I give is for entertainment and education purposes only. If you have a real legal issue, you should consult a lawyer in your own area of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rody the Super-Rat:
Mr. Human Lawyer:

I often feel discriminated against in your human eating and drinking establishments. When the patrons or proprietors see me, they often start screaming scurrilous slurs against rodents and, sometimes, even attacking me.

It's nothing I can't handle with my heat vision or super-strength, but I am curious: do I have any recourse in a human court of law for being treated in this fashion?

I realize that some rodents have poor hygienic habits, but I assure you that I bathe at least as often as the typical human, and I am certainly more intelligent than many humans, as well.

Is it fair to treat me based on an inaccurate stereotype of how some rodents might be?

Signed,
Curious Super-Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Excuse me, Mr. Doctor Learned Friend, esquire, but I don't see any mention upfront about fees. Now you start charging - isn't that misrepresentation of some sort?

Also, haven't you broken client-attorney privilege by divulging that it was TD who asked you to open this thread?

Finally, you say we should not take any of your advice - yet you're charging for it? And even if some judge orders that we should pay, certainly we should only pay at the rates that lawyers charge for entertainment, which should be about minimum wage, I expect!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightning Lad:
What makes you think you're in my will? Besides, the security cameras at Legion World already caught you admiring yourself wearing my costume so you'll be lucky just to go back to having a supervised life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightning Lad:
What makes you think you're in my will? Besides, the security cameras at Legion World already caught you admiring yourself wearing my costume so you'll be lucky just to go back to having a supervised life.

---

i repeat: why would i want anything of garth's?

may i remind everyone that the pamphlets aren't non-fiction.

if they weren't, i'm sure we'd all be interested in why "garth" was reviewing tapes of the men's room.


 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightning Lad:
What makes you think you're in my will? Besides, the security cameras at Legion World already caught you admiring yourself wearing my costume so you'll be lucky just to go back to having a supervised life.

---

You sound like you have an action for either trespass to chattels or conversion here. Both involve the interference with your personal property. Conversion occurs when the property is so damaged that it can't be returned.

---

what's-his-face alleges that i wore a facsimilie of the live wire costume. this is not correct. but even if it was true, and even if it was live wire's actual costume/property, this person would have to prove he's live wire to file a complaint, correct? ha, ha, ha! caught in your own web!


 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Those Ranzz guys don't need a lawyer, they need a family counselor. Or their mom. Notice how Ayla just stays out of it? Clever girl.

Okay, back to the lawyer stuff. Couldn't Rody the Super-Rat get the SPCA or PETA or just Friends of Rody to appear on his behalf and fight for his rights? If you don't have any rights to begin with, if you're not even allowed in court , how do you get your case heard? (Should we move this to 31st century law? Or just invoke the Law of the Jungle, which would make Stu the Lion the judge....?)
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Those Ranzz guys don't need a lawyer, they need a family counselor. Or their mom. Notice how Ayla just stays out of it? Clever girl.

Okay, back to the lawyer stuff. Couldn't Rody the Super-Rat get the SPCA or PETA or just Friends of Rody to appear on his behalf and fight for his rights? If you don't have any rights to begin with, if you're not even allowed in court , how do you get your case heard? (Should we move this to 31st century law? Or just invoke the Law of the Jungle, which would make Stu the Lion the judge....?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
If a certain Security Officer constantly harrassed a certain rodent for using non-tolerant establishments, could said Security Officer find himself in serious trouble with the law?

---

It depends.

If the unnamed rodent is a citizen, then the unnamed Security Officer could face a law suit for the harassment as well as internal discipline (if not being terminated) And intoxication would not excuse the harassing behavior

You would have to be more specific in what you consider harassment.

[ December 31, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq ]
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Could you open a real-world law office and call it Super Law Firm of Space, or would the Bar association pay you a visit and suggest that you find a more dignified name? It would be a hoot, but some people have no sense of humour...
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Could you open a real-world law office and call it Super Law Firm of Space, or would the Bar association pay you a visit and suggest that you find a more dignified name? It would be a hoot, but some people have no sense of humour...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
Wow! What a fountain of information is available in this thread!

Thanks, Quis, for answering my question, re: Computo. To continue with Brainy for a moment, do you think he would have gotten off using the insanity defense for the damage wrought by his other creation, Omega? And if so, could they prove he was insane at the time he created Computo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
Is it true that Tusker has you on retainer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MLLASH:
EXCUSE me! "Super Law Firm... of SPACE!" would be the *first* law firm I would turn to if I killed somebody or, like, embezzled all their money!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
The earliest is the M’Naghten Rule. With M'Naghten, you have to show that the defendant didn't know he/she was doing something wrong.

---

M'Naghten! What an unusual name. The apostrophe and spelling make me think of something Legion-related.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
Then there is the Durham Rule and the MPC Test.

---

Speaking of Legion-related, I first read this as the "Durlan rule"...
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
The earliest is the M’Naghten Rule. With M'Naghten, you have to show that the defendant didn't know he/she was doing something wrong.

---

M'Naghten! What an unusual name. The apostrophe and spelling make me think of something Legion-related.

---

The case is from 1843. I believe that the defendant's name is just a varient spelling of "McNaughton" Here is a link to the opinion of the case. M'Naghten's case
 

---

Posted by minesurfer on :
 
A new question for the esteemed Mr. Esquire...

A few action figure customizers on another board/mailing list I peruse have wandered about the implications of selling (on ebay) their custom figures based on the intellectual properties of others (DC and Marvel most notably).

There have been many rumors like as long as you don't sell more than three customs of a figure within a year, you are not violating any copyrights. This led to the question of whether a custom Bruce Wayne was the same as a custom Batman. Another rumor that surfaced is that you can sell as many as you want as long as you are not mass producing them (like on an assembly line I guess). Some have said that selling one is a copyright infringement, while others have said as long as you don't make so much money that the big companies notice, you aren't violating anything.

As you can probably tell, most customizers have no legal knowledge... Could you share any insights you might have on this topic please.
 

---

Posted by He Who Wanders on :
 
Sounds to me like Brainy had an "irresistable impulse" to destroy the world.

I've heard this phrase before, and I've often wondered how it can be used effectively to defend someone against, say, murder. For example, I may have an irresistable impulse to go to the restroom, but that's at least a physiological impulse. To have such an impulse to commit murder seems far-fetched to me.

What exactly constitutes an "irrestistable impulse"? Could any super-villain, for example, claim they had an irresistable impulse to take over the world?
 

---

Posted by Leap Year Lass on :
 
Regarding APAs...

I gathered that these didn't veer into trademark infringement lawsuits because DC (or any other company) saw it as a beneficial arrangement: no one was making money from APAs and they served to maintain enthusiasm (therefore sales, therefore money) for the DC product rather than compete with it.

But what about selling old APA issues on eBay, or anywhere?
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
A new question for the esteemed Mr. Esquire...

A few action figure customizers on another board/mailing list I peruse have wandered about the implications of selling (on ebay) their custom figures based on the intellectual properties of others (DC and Marvel most notably).

There have been many rumors like as long as you don't sell more than three customs of a figure within a year, you are not violating any copyrights. This led to the question of whether a custom Bruce Wayne was the same as a custom Batman. Another rumor that surfaced is that you can sell as many as you want as long as you are not mass producing them (like on an assembly line I guess). Some have said that selling one is a copyright infringement, while others have said as long as you don't make so much money that the big companies notice, you aren't violating anything.

As you can probably tell, most customizers have no legal knowledge... Could you share any insights you might have on this topic please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
Regarding APAs...

I gathered that these didn't veer into trademark infringement lawsuits because DC (or any other company) saw it as a beneficial arrangement: no one was making money from APAs and they served to maintain enthusiasm (therefore sales, therefore money) for the DC product rather than compete with it.

But what about selling old APA issues on eBay, or anywhere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
Sounds to me like Brainy had an "irresistable impulse" to destroy the world.

I've heard this phrase before, and I've often wondered how it can be used effectively to defend someone against, say, murder. For example, I may have an irresistable impulse to go to the restroom, but that's at least a physiological impulse. To have such an impulse to commit murder seems far-fetched to me.

What exactly constitutes an "irrestistable impulse"? Could any super-villain, for example, claim they had an irresistable impulse to take over the world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...

---

Well the "Twinkie Defense" is part of a broader defense called "Diminished Capacity", which I think (They say that the day you take the bar exam is the day you know the most law) is just a form of the insanity defense and goes towards whether a person was able to form the intent to commit the crime.

The actual case where we get the term "Twinkie Defense" was from Dan White's trial for shooting and killing SF Mayor Moscone and City Councilman Harvey Milk. White's defense said that he suffered from depression and consumed a lot of junk food. The sugar from the junk food, worsened his depression and gave him diminished capacity. The jury agreed with this explanation. I believe he got a lesser sentence because of it. He didn't get off scott free.

While I believe that there is such a thing as diminished capacity that could mitigate a crime, I have a hard time accepting the "Junk food made me do it" argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
What you say makes sense to me. A copyright is a copyright, and the rumors I reported sounded like people trying to justify soemthing to me. I told the person that asked the question on the other board basically what you said.

From my experience with DC/ebay on the subject (I have watched other people's custom auctions, but have never sold my work), I think DC has been trying to shut down the custom figure selling based on their properties at the Ebay source.

Let me say that a little better... I think DC is trying to get Ebay to police the custom figure sales, and not trying to go after every individual customizer.

I also wanted to give a quick note of thanks to Mr. Esquire, for giving his time to such a thread.

Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow:
I've met Dan White's lawyer - very nice guy by the way. He actually received death threats after the verdict in that case. I've also met the prosecutor from that case, and discussed the case with him. He's now retired and also a very nice guy. Much has been made of the so-called twinkie defense, and most of it is inaccurate. A google search of "twinkie defense" will provide further information. Here is a typical exerpt:

"The media, who get paid to keep track of these things, got it screwed up too. She's talking about the infamous "Twinkie defense," a term that entered the national vocabulary two decades ago following a brutal double murder in 1978.

It all started on November 27, 1978 in San Francisco. Dan White, an ex-policeman who had recently resigned as city supervisor, climbed in the basement window of City Hall to avoid metal detectors, walked upstairs to the office of mayor George Moscone and demanded his supervisor job back. When Moscone refused, White shot him twice at close range, then stood over the body and put two more bullets into the mayor's brain to finish him off. Then he reloaded, went down the hall, and killed Harvey Milk, a popular supervisor who was also America's first openly gay public office holder, shooting him five times.

At trial, White's lawyer argued that he was suffering from "diminished capacity," a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn't blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food use as proof of White's mental state--in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White's problems. But the media and public immediately--and misleadingly--dubbed the defense's argument the "Twinkie defense." "
The Straight Dope

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
When Legion World (theirs not ours) was first created, it was hidden through various means of intentional deception - it wasn't just in a remote corner of the galaxy, behind a large rock. Would they be guilty of avoiding property assessment and taxes, not to mention building codes? (There may be parts of the galaxy in the 31st century without building codes, but I can't believe that any sector will go untaxed.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?:
If a creature for which there is dispute over its sentience is killed, would this question require a definitive answer before trial could proceed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis, do you think you'd be able to repress a smile if suddenly someone in the courtroom yelled:

"I'm out of order? You're out of order! This whole damn court is out of order!!!"

---

Well seeing as I have never really seen the movie that quote is from, I would say yes. Also I have already had to suppress smiles while doing intakes for the legal group I volunteer with. We deal with homeless clients and some have mental health issues.

I do remember from my Trial Practice class having to say "Objection!" for the first time. I wasn't the only one to giggle after saying it.

I do have a couple of stories from my Trial Practice class and will relate them if people would be interested.
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Very interested! Trials are better when they're funny and silly !
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Well Trial Practice was set up in a courtroom at the law school. Basically we were given case information (witness statements, evidence, etc.) and would be assigned to either examine or cross-examine a witness (played by another classmate)

One of the first witnesses I had to examine was the victim of a purse snatching. Within the case information we were told that when the defendant was captured, the victim was shown his, and only his, mug shot. (Not good for identification purposes). I and a couple of other students went up for questions after class. The professor (a retired judge) said that we would have to come up with another means of getting the identification before the jury. So I thought about it.

When my turn came to examine the witness, I said "Ms. Gale, do you see the man who attacked you on the night in question?" "Could you point him out?" "Your Honor, may the record show that the witness pointed to the defendant"

One of my classmates later said that as I was doing that, he thought it sounded hokey. However the professor made a point about how important in court identifications are and how juries eat them up.

[ January 09, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
My other big moment in Trial Practice was at the end of the semester. We were to examine and cross-examine an expert witness.

Now by this time in the semester, quite a few of the students were leaving the class as soon as they had done their bit and not staying for the professor's comments. In preparing us for the expert witness, the professor said that as the side calling the expert, you had to establish the witness's credentials (education & professional experience) and that you should go throough it even if the other side would stipulate to the credentials because "juries eat up that stuff".

So, I was the side to cross-exam the expert. When my classmate started in on the asking about credentials, I interrupted and said that I was willing to stipulate that the witness was an expert. My classmate, who hadn't stay in the previous class, said "Great, now I don't have to ask these questions" and started to turn to his other questions. The professor interrupted and again stated how important it was to establish the credentials of the expert witness.

I did maintain my composure, but inside I was like "YES!!!!!!"
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Ha, good stories Quis! Trial Practice seems like it was one of the fun parts of being trained as a lawyer, something that I'm sure could use a few more fun aspects
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Sits in office, feet on the desk waiting for more clients.

Thumbs through old issues of the Legion
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
The Lost Legionnaires came back after one year and demanded their back pay. According to them, they didn't know the Legion had been disbanded and were operating under the assumption that they were still on Legion business, fulfilling our mission of bringing peace and security to all sentients.

However, some administration people say that they shouldn't be paid for the time they weren't here; nobody else was. (The people helping to build Legion World and keep it hidden were paid out of R.J. Brande's personal fortune that he had squirreled away in some golden parachute deal with McCauley.) Who's right?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
The Lost Legionnaires came back after one year and demanded their back pay. According to them, they didn't know the Legion had been disbanded and were operating under the assumption that they were still on Legion business, fulfilling our mission of bringing peace and security to all sentients.

However, some administration people say that they shouldn't be paid for the time they weren't here; nobody else was. (The people helping to build Legion World and keep it hidden were paid out of R.J. Brande's personal fortune that he had squirreled away in some golden parachute deal with McCauley.) Who's right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoopid Cat:
**Purr**

How do we get all Dogs Banned from Legion World?

**Purr**

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Mr. Q, Esq I hope you can keep this confidential. I am a member of a group, and when election time came, the leader nominated me to be the next leader and lobbied on my behalf. Perhaps even strong-armed the other members to vote for me. Some time after that, he invited me to supper; it was all very innocent and friendly. But then he showed up at my quarters late one night and said, "Jazzy, it's time to pay up and put out." I was horrified but felt so pressured to comply with his demands, that I gave in and slept with him. Now my powers are malfunctioning, I believe from the stress of this situation. I'm so distressed. What are my options? Can I file a harassment complaint against him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
Who owns the name "Legion of Super-Heroes"? Yes, DC in our universe, but what about in the Legion's universe?

Suppose half the team had a disagreement over the team's purpose, their compensation, or the allotment of pluberry desserts, and decided to split off from the main group and form their own Legion. For argument's sake, let's say that one of the two remaining founders, Saturn Girl or Cosmic Boy, went with this faction. (We won't include "Jarth" since we don't know what his official status is at the moment.) Which half of the Legion could continue to call itself Legion of Super-Heroes -- the half that "stays" or the half that "goes"? And if both Cos and Saturn Girl both left, could they legally force the others to stop using the name?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proty II:
Have you seen the stars tonight? Would you like to go out an A-Deck and look at them with me?

Ken

---

Proty II,

Welcome to Legion World. It is always good to see new people around here. There are many great threads to read and post to. The premiere thread to flirt in is Shakes, a fine drinking establishment. (Harbringer pounds out great songs on the piano there) You might also want to try out the Beacon too.

As this is an office, I like to keep the flirting to a minimum. Feel free to ask any legal related question here. I try to answer all questions to the best of my ability.

Disclaimer time: I don't offer legal opinions or advice here. You need to consult a local attorney for that.
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
The specifics of what power the elected Legion World leader have never been laid out. If the leader were to harrass the founders of Legion World, resulting in his being "BANNED!", could he, as the elected leader, find some way to use his ambiguous power to stop this banning? Do we have the possibility of a potential dictatorship on our hands? Do we need a Legion World Senate?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
The specifics of what power the elected Legion World leader have never been laid out. If the leader were to harrass the founders of Legion World, resulting in his being "BANNED!", could he, as the elected leader, find some way to use his ambiguous power to stop this banning? Do we have the possibility of a potential dictatorship on our hands? Do we need a Legion World Senate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proty II:
Have you seen the stars tonight? Would you like to go out an A-Deck and look at them with me?

Ken

---

Proty II,


As this is an office, I like to keep the flirting to a minimum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
I really prefer fantasy cases, but here's a question from real life.

I drove by a gas station yesterday, and the prices posted on the sign all read 0.0, on both sides. Now if I had gone and filled up the tank, could I have claimed that I thought it was free gas, maybe a promotional deal? Assuming there was a price reading on the meter where you actually fill up, which price would have been considered the right one? What if the price on the meters also read 0.0? Would I be told that I should know that gas is not free, and that the standard price in the region is 78.9/litre?

(In a grocery store, if there is a dispute about price, you get the lower price. If there is a scanning error, you get the item for free. I don't know if that is a law, or just a policy adopted by most large stores.)

---

The price on the pump would probably prevail in a dispute over the price. The most persuasive argument for the station owner is that it is known that gas is not given away for free.

IF there is no price listed, a judge would probably decide that the price needs to be the average price in the area.

The thing with the stores giving the lowest price or a mis-scanned item free, does sound like a store policy.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Taking it easy at the office today.

*Put's feet on desk. Takes a sip of that delicious Cramer's Cafe blend coffee. Opens the newspaper and see what's happening*
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 


the Office will be open tomorrow for legalish questions.
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Is evidence against evil doers obtained by covert methods acceptable in a court of law?

Is exile a legally recognized punishment?

(Just planning ahead.)
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
Prior Planning Prevents Poor Punishments!
 

---

Posted by His imperial majesty, STU on :
 
Dear Quislet,

I'm a Leader who was legally and rightfully elected in a fair and above-board election.

I've done my best to make these boards warm and friendly for everyone -- by welcoming new members, responding helpfully to questions and queries, and opening up my own home for the enjoyment of the entire populace.

Now, the people that I've worked so hard and selflessly to serve for the last couple of months are threatening to depose me, and even worse.

What sort of legal recourse do I have in preventing the greedy, ruthless usurpers from carrying out their foul schemes?

Signed,
I Am Not A Crook
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Is evidence against evil doers obtained by covert methods acceptable in a court of law?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:

Is exile a legally recognized punishment?

(Just planning ahead.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by His imperial majesty, STU:
Dear Quislet,

I'm a Leader who was legally and rightfully elected in a fair and above-board election.

I've done my best to make these boards warm and friendly for everyone -- by welcoming new members, responding helpfully to questions and queries, and opening up my own home for the enjoyment of the entire populace.

Now, the people that I've worked so hard and selflessly to serve for the last couple of months are threatening to depose me, and even worse.

What sort of legal recourse do I have in preventing the greedy, ruthless usurpers from carrying out their foul schemes?

Signed,
I Am Not A Crook

---

Well, STU if these people have engaged in any illegal activity, then they can be charged with those illegal activities. The government in bring those charges must prove by a preponderance of evidence (In some cases like for murder, the standard of proof becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt") that the defendant did commit the illegal activity. The Defendant then can offer evidence that they did not commit the activity or that even if they did, that there were mitigating circumstances.


Just to clarify though, expressing disagreement with government policies or actions and advocating a change in administrations (through legally accepted means) are not illegal activities. Also if a leader exceeds his/her/its authority, then the people have a right to demand that the leader stop doing such unauthorized activities and/or be removed from office.
 

---

Posted by Sanity or Madness? on :
 
Quick question - if you ask for a fried egg sunny-side up, and your egg is NOT sunny-side up when it comes and they refuse to replace it, can you sue the establishment for false description of their products?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?:
Quick question - if you ask for a fried egg sunny-side up, and your egg is NOT sunny-side up when it comes and they refuse to replace it, can you sue the establishment for false description of their products?

---

Most likely not. Even if you could, what would be your damages? The cost of the egg? The filing fees would cost more than that.

You could refuse the proferred egg and refuse to pay for it. Of course the restauraunt would argue that they did prepare an egg for you and therefore you are liable to pay.


Now don't tell anyone I said this because I may get disbarred for it. Not every dispute should be settled through litigation.
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 


I can't believe you said that! Hope no one heard you!
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Quis,

As Chief of Security, I have been given the term for life, and I cannot be deposed unless I willingly resign or no longer live on Legion World. Since I haven't resigned, I'm still Security Chief, albeit without an office. The Royal Inquisitor has thus no legal reasoning for acting as Security Chief, and if we, of Legion World, submit to him, we are actuallly validating him and the dictatorship of Stu.

However, one of my powers as Security Chief is to be able to act as a judge in emergency matters of law. If, in theory, Fat Cramer hired you to present all the evidence agaist Stu, could I technically ensure that all the evidence could be used in the trial and then proceed to judge whether Stu must be deposed? Would then we be in the legal boundaries of our jobs?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis,

However, one of my powers as Security Chief is to be able to act as a judge in emergency matters of law. If, in theory, Fat Cramer hired you to present all the evidence agaist Stu, could I technically ensure that all the evidence could be used in the trial and then proceed to judge whether Stu must be deposed? Would then we be in the legal boundaries of our jobs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doctor Mayavale:
Quislet, my old friend!

Here's a purely hypothetical question for you:

Suppose certain citizens of Legion World had committed some rather horrendous crimes against another citizen of Legion World in their past lives. Would said victim of such crimes have any recourse against the perpetrators in this lifetime?

I'd just like to know, in case a situation like that ever came up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abin Quank:
Quis,

How does one go about having a statue declared Hazardous to public health? or safety? or Morality? or ANYTHING that will cause it to be removed from Legion World and Never EVER seen again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greybird:
When will Legion World start issuing marriage licenses for triads, quads, and other groups? My bi quad wants to start booking a wedding chapel and a caterer!

(LW already issues legally recognized licenses for same-sex couples, and has always done so. We're far ahead of the rest of the United Planets on such matters of common sense.)

---

Greybird,

You seem to have forgotten the Carggite Treaty of 2983, in which the United Planet recognized group marriages as well as inter-sentient marriages. The treaty passed due to the politicing of Tinyo Wazzo of Bgtzl. It was rumored that his daughter had eloped with a Carggite.

So book that reception hall and save me a piece of cake! Cramer's Cafe has great cakes.

[ February 19, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq ]
 

---

Posted by Leap Year Lass on :
 
Hey Quis, what do you plan to do about the threat of...The Unbillables?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
LY Lass,

well the only law I am practising right now is unbillable (pro bono)
 

---

Posted by Leap Year Lass on :
 
For good?
 

---

Posted by Varalent on :
 
I'll bet Quis hopes it's not for good!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Actually, when we had orientation at my law school, the dean explained what pro bono work was and I sat there thinking "That's what I want to do full time"

As for looking for paying legal work, there are a couple of things that are preventing me from looking.
 

---

Posted by Sanity or Madness? on :
 
Will you be required you recuse yourself from your lawyer duties here for the duration of your campaign (and term, if elected)? And if so, who is to be your locum tenens?

[ February 24, 2004, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Sanity or Madness? ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?:
Will you be required you recuse yourself from your lawyer duties here for the duration of your campaign (and term, if elected)? And if so, who is to be your locum tenens?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
Okay, so the LSH and the L. of Sub. H. have always been on good terms (once the LSH knew about the Subs anyway).

If the LSH didn't want their organization's name to be followed so closely by the Subs, though, what would you recommend?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MLLASH:
The All-Pinch-Hitters Squad!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
"The Sour Grapes" - now that would be a great name for the Appeals division of your Super Law Firm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invisible Brainiac:
Then, could the LSH have successfully sued the LSV for the same thing? Now that would be one hell of a Legion story!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis,

Is it bribary to offer the leader of Legion World a large collection of rare live CD's of "They Might Be Giants" as a peace offering between any annimosity that may have been created during the Legion World elections?

Sincerely,
C of S

---

As co-leader of Legion World, I have to be careful not to show even the appearance of impropriety. As such, any gifts from any foreign diginitary, I can accept, but they become the property of Legion World. For gifts from family members, I can accept any as long as they would have been normally given as if I wasn't leader. All other gifts must be under $100.00 in value.
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Sounds good to me! Here they are Legion World!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
*Looks over CDs*

Hey Cobie,

I think you got ripped off. These say "There May be Giants" not "They Might be Giants"
 

---

Posted by Leap Year Lass on :
 
They might be fake. They might be lies. They might be big big fake fake lies!

It's time for a Copyright Minute again, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

 

---

Posted by Leap Year Lass on :
 
Quit chucklin', lawyer-man, and lay down the LAW!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
Quit chucklin', lawyer-man, and lay down the LAW!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
Plus they are villians. Can't let villians get what they want, can we?

---

and what about rogues?


 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Make that LOVEABLE rogues - big difference.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
Quixotic Quislet Qontracts. Perhaps that can be your niche in the Legal World?

Oh, I've a few questions to add to the deposition list:

1. Why is the world in love again?
2. Why are we marching hand in hand?
3. Why are the ocean levels rising up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekt Ranzz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq:
Plus they are villians. Can't let villians get what they want, can we?

---

and what about rogues?

---

Rogues can get all the rouge they want. (As soon as we amend the Legion Constitution to allow it)
 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 
to think sentients call me strange.


 

---

Posted by The Mighty Quinn M. on :
 
Hi Quislet!!

You're not serious about the rouge thing, are you? Do you remember Roxxas? Eep! Blush abuse is no laughing matter!!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Quinn M.:
Hi Quislet!!

You're not serious about the rouge thing, are you? Do you remember Roxxas? Eep! Blush abuse is no laughing matter!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
I can't remember this being asked...

Is it true that you can "beat" a photo enforced ticket by claiming that you want to question your accuser (the camera)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
So Quis, what magazines do you have in the actual (as opposed to this virtual version) Super Law Firm Waiting Room...of Space?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
Say, Quis, what advice would you give to aspiring Space-Lawyers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
What about the Space part?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
What about aspiring Space-Lawyers who were kicked out of space law school? Any advice on alternative career paths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Wow! I hadn't even thought of what the well dressed aspiring space-lawyer should wear! Any fashion tips, Quis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
If a Legionnaire signs a contract using her or his "code name" rather than her or his legal name, does that make any difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by UTS:
Everywhere Angela Lansbury visited in "Murder, She Wrote," people seemed to get killed in disproportionately high numbers.

(In fact, the murder rate in her tiny hometown of Cabot Cove, Maine, was something like 65%.)

Would the authorities have any reason to investigate this itinerant angel of death?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leap Year Lass:
So Quis, let's say someone destroys a comic book you own. You sue. Sometime between the day it was destroyed and when the case is heard in court the market value of the book very suddenly and dramatically changes. If the case goes your way and the judge wants to order the defendant to cover the loss, how does she figure the dollar amount?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
And could there be some compensation for the mental anguish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis,

Let's say that the Green Goblin grabs my girlfriend Gwen and hurls her to her death off a bridge. I try to grab her with my web shooters (bare with me), and actually help kill her faster by snapping her neck.

Am I liable? What if I'm in a masked costume and run away? Does that make it worse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow:
Quis, the first item on your list should be to get a hot receptionist. He should flirt with all the clients and be named something like Chad. It'll really help business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Quinn M.:
I am afraid I am going to have to be stern and stuff, Quislet!!

If your Space-Lawyer license lapses then there is no Super Law Firm!! This is one case where you can't build your outfit around the accessories!!

---

I am good at least until December of this year
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 
You're always good.
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 
OK, here's a question for ya:

Do you think the U.S. is becoming more litigious? One often hears about cases on the news that seem completely frivolous.
 

---

Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
 
STU, I'm suing you for implying that!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:
OK, here's a question for ya:

Do you think the U.S. is becoming more litigious? One often hears about cases on the news that seem completely frivolous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
(Hope the Super Law Firm of Space is not closed for summer vacation!)

While I have no desire to curtail individual liberties, I would like to take the appropriate measures to limit axe-hurling to specified, clearly marked zones of Legion World. These axes flying hither and thither are dangerous! In fact, I believe Stoopid Cat's tail is 2 inches shorter than it was a week ago - although that's his legal problem.

How could I proceed? Money is no object.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
In fact, I believe Stoopid Cat's tail is 2 inches shorter than it was a week ago - although that's his legal problem.

---

Maybe his secret Manx heritage is finally asserting itself.
 

---

Posted by STU on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bicycle Repair Man on :
 
Quislet:

When you have a few minutes, please review the "Making Triplicate Girl (Triad, whatever) More Effective" thread in The Legion forum. I would appreciate any insights you would care to share.
 

---

Posted by Mekt Ranzz on :
 
just how firm is space-law?


 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekt Ranzz:
just how firm is space-law?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
Quinn, I am planning on having 5 hunky guy receptionists. Would you consider managing them for me?

---

I would be more than happy to manage them for you Quis!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Varalent:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
Quinn, I am planning on having 5 hunky guy receptionists. Would you consider managing them for me?

---

I would be more than happy to manage them for you Quis!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:
I'd like to apply for the job!

Do you think I'd enhance the professional image of Quislet, Esq. & Associates?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?:
Quislet - under LW law, is there a penalty for excess bumping?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?:
Quislet - under LW law, is there a penalty for excess bumping?

---

Well after spending 8 hours in the Legion World Law Library, I thought I should start to look to see if there is an answer to your question.

From what I can tell there is no penalty for bumping nor is there a limit to the number of times a person (or alt id) can bump. The closest thing I could find was an obscure law stating:

Whosoever bumpeth and grindeth on a day ending in "y" shall be sent to the home of the leader of Legion World for a period of one night and a day to perform said routine for whomever the leader wants

I hope this helps.

My bill is in the mail.

---

Why couldn't you have discovered this when you & I were Co-Leaders!

[ August 24, 2004, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Varalent ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Varalent:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanity or Madness?:
Quislet - under LW law, is there a penalty for excess bumping?

---

Well after spending 8 hours in the Legion World Law Library, I thought I should start to look to see if there is an answer to your question.

From what I can tell there is no penalty for bumping nor is there a limit to the number of times a person (or alt id) can bump. The closest thing I could find was an obscure law stating:

Whosoever bumpeth and grindeth on a day ending in "y" shall be sent to the home of the leader of Legion World for a period of one night and a day to perform said routine for whomever the leader wants

I hope this helps.

My bill is in the mail.

---

Why couldn't you have discovered this when you & I were Co-Leaders!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis,

If someone were to decide that they have too many bills and just left the country and hid in Mexico for a few years, what would happen to them if they were caught?

-C, from Mexico

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SoM:
Quis,

I have reason to believe that certain members of the security team are conspiring to put mind-control chips in people's heads. If you feel the need to agree with them on anything, drop a note to the Office of the Leader, and we'll see about getting that chip removed...

SoM

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
See, even Kippers agrees! My job security is being threatened b/c I'm a father!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Quis,

Does this sound like a threat to you? If so, say the word and I'll have him arrested.

-Cobalt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Now he questions your ability to act on your own free will? Your judgement?

---

No, I'm saying that you're preventing him [and others] from acting on their own free will.

My reasoning for this is that, after the fracas with you at the weekend, I felt compelled to leave you alone over it. My higher brain functions and huge mental capacity rebelled however, and I peformed various scans on myself - AND FOUND A CHIP.

Of course, I had it removed immediately, but then it was signed "Cobalt Kid".

You've overstepped your boundries here Cobalt Kid. If I have to stop you alone, I will.
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Liar!

Either someone placed that chip inside your head, or you're lying about it!
 

---

Posted by SoM on :
 
Someone placed that chip inside my head alright, and it was all in the name of "Security"!
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Well, then I'd like to know who it was myself! But I can guarantee it wasn't me.

May I see the chip?
 

---

Posted by SoM on :
 
What, so you can destroy the only evidence of your perfidy?

Dost thou think of me as an idiot?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Alright already! This is a place of business here. If you are just going to bicker back and forth, you can both leave.

Where's that spearman Faraway Lad gave me? I think his name is Bruce.

Cobie, there is no specific protection against discrimination based upon parental status, so all the government needs is a rational basis for the discrimination (discrimination meaning being treated differently that others in the same or similar situation). However as you have a contract (you do, don't you?) for the position of Security Chief, you have your contractual rights. However, It would seem that SoM does have the right to re-organize the government structure which would allow for the appointment of a Security Minister who you would then report to. Unless there is some clause in your contract.

SoM, The fact that the chip you extracted from your head has "Cobalt Kid" written on it does not prove that the chip is Cobalt Kid's or that he placed it in your head (even if it is his chip). I would advise that you be careful that you don't violate any sentient's right to personal autonomy while searching for additional chips.

[ August 26, 2004, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq. ]
 

---

Posted by Miss Troia on :
 
Quislet can I sue the father of my (so far 13 - more on the way) children, born of an unwedded union, for child support and vandalism to my pristine virtue?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miss Troia:
Quislet can I sue the father of my (so far 13 - more on the way) children, born of an unwedded union, for child support and vandalism to my pristine virtue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tneK:
QUISLET!

I got an elections fraud case for ya!

you interested?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abin Quank:
Mr Quislet,

As a result of some underhanded shenanigans at the recent Legion World Sadie Hawkins Dance, I now have a Daughter, Opal Janell Quank.

However the mother of that beautiful baby girl is attempting to deny me my parental rights and has been publicly running around with other men. (not that I care much about the second part, but it is smear material)

I have decided to sue for custody of my daughter, and I would like to retain your firm to represent me in this battle. I also plan to retain the esteemed Semi Radiant Fellow, and any and all other Space Lawyers on legion World.

If you are willing to represent me please obtain a restraining order Post-Haste!

P.S. As the Official Legion World janitor, I have a long standing High Paying Job, plus I know where all the other posters money cashes are, so money is no object... So SIC HER!!!!!!!

---

Mr. Quank,

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter.

First, you do not want a restraining order. You want the court to award you sole custody. You also want to get custody immediately. For that you would need to file a motion to be awarded temporary custody.

To get sole custody, you need to prove that the other parent is unfit to raise the child.

To get temporary custody, you would need to show that the child is in danger. Even if you get temporary custody, the other parent can request visitations until her/his parental rights are terminated.

If you can't show danger to the child, you still have parental rights. And as such you can also request that the court grant you visitation rights.

Please see my receptionist, Bruce the Spearman about signing a retainer agreement and payment of the retainer. We will need to have a conference to discuss whether you can get sole custody or if a joint custody arrangement can be worked out.

[ September 21, 2004, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq. ]
 

---

Posted by Abin Quank on :
 
Ummm Quis?

I gave two sacks of Valentian Walking Money to your cute receptionist and I'll be ready for the conference as soon as he moves the point of his spear away from my back...
 

---

Posted by minesurfer on :
 
That's not his spear...
 

---

Posted by Loser Logan on :
 
I think he was just excited to see your...um...sacks...
 

---

Posted by Abin Quank on :
 
It... Isn't... ???
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Mr. Quank,

If you are quite through with Bruce, please come into my office.

I have been doing some research while you were paying your retainer. I don't see that the mother of your child has denied you access to your daughter.

Might I suggest that before we initiate any court proceding you first talk to the mother. I have some private conference rooms suitable for just such personal conversations. I also provide mediation services and think a fair and reasonable plan for raising your daughter can be worked out between the two of you.
 

---

Posted by Loser Logan on :
 
I wouldn't stop suddenly on your walk back to the Conference Room. Sounds like you've already got enough relationship troubles without giving the Spearman the wrong idea...
 

---

Posted by Abin Quank on :
 
I don't think he understood what the money was for...

[ September 21, 2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Abin Quank ]
 

---

Posted by HighPriestessViviane on :
 
Dear Quislet,

Umm...I don't quite think anyone grasp the situation. That father has not been denied access to the child, I just find the man to be a pig, you see he cheated on his wife with me. I feel that this man is unfit to raise a child and as I stated before: I'm the Lady of the Lake, I'm a demi-goddess. I'm powerful, I run my own dimension which has a nice island. I train priestesses. I can provide the ultimate protection. And I'm rich.

And this isn't my first child, I have had 34 other mortal children that all lived out happy and prolonged lives.

[ September 21, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: HighPriestessViviane ]
 

---

Posted by Kent on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tneK:
QUISLET!

I got an elections fraud case for ya!

you interested?

---

Please provide more details.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighPriestessViviane:
Dear Quislet,

Umm...I don't quite think anyone grasp the situation. That father has not been denied access to the child, I just find the man to be a pig, you see he cheated on his wife with me. I feel that this man is unfit to raise a child and as I stated before: I'm the Lady of the Lake, I'm a demi-goddess. I'm powerful, I run my own dimension which has a nice island. I train priestesses. I can provide the ultimate protection. And I'm rich.

And this isn't my first child, I have had 34 other mortal children that all lived out happy and prolonged lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tneK:
QUISLET!

I got an elections fraud case for ya!

you interested?

---

Please provide more details.

---

Er...since I couldn't reach you, we've settled out of court in the meantime. Reboot may now need some... creative assistance in justifying LW expenditures during the inter-administration audit, but that's no longer my affair.

sorry to have bothered you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Quislet, with the bankruptcy of the Twinkie (and Wonder Bread) company, will there be a new junk food chosen to replace the Twinkie Defense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
(A physical altercation erupted at the annual ABA meeting. Gun fire was almost exchanged in Texas)

---

However, the Texas incident was later revealed to have nothing to do with the Twinkie defence, and everything to do with the fact that they hadn't pulled a trigger in a few hours

*waits for people to try and hit him*
 

---

Posted by Abin Quank on :
 
Quis, on the advice of my better half I am dropping the planned court actions against HighPriestessViviane. If the retainer I gave Bruce doesn't cover costs please bill me.
 

---

Posted by HighPriestessViviane on :
 
I new Abin wasn't the villain I hoped he was (will I ever get to blast someone and not get in trouble for it?)
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighPriestessViviane:
(will I ever get to blast someone and not get in trouble for it?)

---

Only if it is self-defense or the defense of others. You cannot have provoked the attack that you are defending yourself against.

Also you can't use excessive force. For example if you are the Persuader and Ma Kent (The Silver Age Elderly Ma Kent) suddenly started hitting you with her fists, it would not be self-defense to use your atomic axe on her. But Ma Kent could use a shot gun against the Persuader if he attacked her.

I hope this information is helpful for you in your quest to "blast someone".
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Agh, I fondly remember when Quis handed me a warrant for the Royal Inquisitor's arrest, and I was able to use excessive force to bring him in with Fat Cramer and Blockade Boy.

Quis, do you still hold the same position in the Government as you did during Stu's term as leader? If not, should I inform the next leader that you will be available for it?
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
And is R.I. still rotting in the dungeon?
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
He was until Space Ranger broke him out a few months ago during the short lived Alt ID rebellion. Space Ranger still has to answer for that, which is why he's temporarily not a security officer.

The Inquisitor has sent letters and notes to Legion World repeatedly, although he hasn't stepped foot in the city--otherwise we'd catch him. He's continued to elude my agents out in the field right now.

However, it's been evidence has proved that he was responsible for the whole 'chip in the head' plot that SoM was worried about, and he may have been attempting to get revenge at Blockade Boy, yourself and me. Like last time, I'd like to see him try

(How can I ever forget how you weakened him with your poetry, FC?)
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:
Agh, I fondly remember when Quis handed me a warrant for the Royal Inquisitor's arrest, and I was able to use excessive force to bring him in with Fat Cramer and Blockade Boy.

Quis, do you still hold the same position in the Government as you did during Stu's term as leader? If not, should I inform the next leader that you will be available for it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
Please see my receptionist Bruce the Spearman for the prices of being mentioned and the prices of not being mentioned.

---

"For playing, he charges twenty-five dollars an hour."
"How much does he charge for not playing?"
"Fifty dollars an hour!"
...
"For rehearsing, he charges one hundred dollars an hour."
"How much does he charge for not rehearsing?"
"You couldn't afford it!"
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Quis, I think this amount will sufficient to be mentioned in your memoirs. And this extra amount will make sure it's in a good way

As always, I'll still defer to you when I am no longer sure if I've gone to far in my role as Security Chief. Which is kind of a rarity though
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Checking in on the office for post 3500.
 

---

Posted by Semi Transparent Fellow on :
 
Congratulations, Quis.
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 
Congrats Quis! I'm sure I'll think of some weird question for you soon enough...
 

---

Posted by Vee on :
 
Congrats Quis!
 

---

Posted by Pizzazz on :
 
YAY! for Quis!
 

---

Posted by RTVU2 on :
 
Way to go Quis.
 

---

Posted by Semi Transparent Fellow on :
 
Quis, I'm writing a brief and all I really want to say to opposing counsel, is "F*** you, it's not my client's fault that you committed malpractice. Hope you get sued big-time a******.!" Can you think of a nice way to say this and make the judge like me at the same time?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow:
Quis, I'm writing a brief and all I really want to say to opposing counsel, is "F*** you, it's not my client's fault that you committed malpractice. Hope you get sued big-time a******.!" Can you think of a nice way to say this and make the judge like me at the same time?

---

Do you really want to put it nicely?

As for the judge, I suggest a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates. Just hope the judge isn't a diabetic with hayfever.
 

---

Posted by Semi Transparent Fellow on :
 
Sage advice as usual, counsel.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
My definition of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.
 

---

Posted by Zombie STU on :
 
Congrats on 3500, Quis!

Plus, it's cool to be online at the same time as you.
 

---

Posted by Myriad on :
 
Quis,

I got a bad elvabird egg omelette from Breakfast at Tiffany's. Any chance I could end up with all of Miss Spiffany's daddy's dazzle gems?

Misty
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myriad:
Quis,

I got a bad elvabird egg omelette from Breakfast at Tiffany's. Any chance I could end up with all of Miss Spiffany's daddy's dazzle gems?

Misty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zombie STU:
Certain LWers have broken my heart.

Can I sue?

---

You can always sue. Whether you will be successful is another story.

From a quick glance, you can no longer sue for breach of promise to marry. However, you can sue to recover gifts given for the engagement.
 

---

Posted by Faraway Lad on :
 
Dear Super Lawyer.....of Space


If the head of the sexcurity office gets drunk and fires all the staff on a whim in one night can they claim compensation for the loss of their jobs.

And as a supplementary question. Can he REALLY use security office funds to pay child maintenance like he claims he can.?
 

---

Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myriad:
Quis,

I got a bad elvabird egg omelette from Breakfast at Tiffany's. Any chance I could end up with all of Miss Spiffany's daddy's dazzle gems?

Misty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faraway Lad:
Dear Super Lawyer.....of Space


If the head of the sexcurity office gets drunk and fires all the staff on a whim in one night can they claim compensation for the loss of their jobs.

And as a supplementary question. Can he REALLY use security office funds to pay child maintenance like he claims he can.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faraway Lad:
Dear Super Lawyer.....of Space


If the head of the sexcurity office gets drunk and fires all the staff on a whim in one night can they claim compensation for the loss of their jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faraway Lad:

And as a supplementary question. Can he REALLY use security office funds to pay child maintenance like he claims he can.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myriad:
Quis,

I got a bad elvabird egg omelette from Breakfast at Tiffany's. Any chance I could end up with all of Miss Spiffany's daddy's dazzle gems?

Misty

---

Quis, since I witnessed what really happened, would my testimony, if it didn't line up with Myriad's, be of any use in deciding the outcome of this case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faraway Lad:
Dear Super Lawyer.....of Space


If the head of the sexcurity office gets drunk and fires all the staff on a whim in one night can they claim compensation for the loss of their jobs.

And as a supplementary question. Can he REALLY use security office funds to pay child maintenance like he claims he can.?

---

Well, I've never paid a dime for any of my children, since they all usually end up older than me for some reason...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightning Lad:
Hey Quis. You still answering questions? I've got a trademark one that I could use your help with.

If someone has a trademark on a term (let's use Legion World as an example) can I trademark LegionWorld (exactly as spelled)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
I figured it would come down to something like that. The one Legal Aspects course that I had to take in college filled my head with just enough legalese to be dangerous but not helpful. It seemed to me that an argument could have been made for my scenario, but I wanted a more informed opinion. Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minesurfer:
Another one I've been thinking about here lately... and I don't want to get into the politics or beliefs, but I want to know how the law reconciles the following:

How can Scott Peterson be convicted of two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for the fetus inside his wife? I guess what I'm having trouble with is how is the death of the Peterson fetus different LEGALLY from abortion? How does the law differientiate between Scott Peterson's actions and a Doctor performing an abortion? To me it seems like both actions result in the same thing, and if Scott Peterson is charged with murder, then the Doctor could be charged with the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by STU:
In Identity Crisis, [the killer] was thrown in Arkham Asylum pretty much solely for the fact that he/she did something "crazy": killed, or directly caused the death of, multiple people for a given reason that sounds largely ridiculous to the average person.

Is it ever sufficient to say that a killer is "criminally insane" just because "no sane person would have done that, for that reason"? Seems kind of circular to me.

---

Nope. There are actually a couple of insanity defense standards. The earliest is the McNaghten rules, which holds "...is not guilty of a crime if, at the time of the crime, they either didn't know what they were doing, or didn't know that what they were doing was wrong." So if a person takes an axe and strikes you with it because he thought you were Adolph Hitler, he would not be legally insane because he recognized you as a person and it is wrong to strike a person with an axe. If he had thought, you were a tree on the other hand, the defense would work. The killer knew Sue was a human, therefore, no legal insanity.

Another insanity defense is the irresistable impulse, where a person may know they are doing wrong but because of a mental impairment, can't control their actions. There is no evidence that the killer couldn't control his/her actions. Beyond that, the burning of Sue's body, hiring Captain Boomerrang, and sending Jack Drake a gun, don't sound like uncontrolable actions.

Then there is the Durham test, which is when "... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect". This was later modified to "severe mental disease or defect...[which causes a defendant to be] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [their] acts."
The killer was able to appreciate that attacking Sue was wrong. He/she knew that such an act of harm would cause concern.

The last insanity defense is the Substantial Capacity Test, in which is "a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior. Substantial capacity is defined as: 'the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] act, or to conform...behavior to the...law.' " It is a combination of the McNaghten Rule and the irresisitable impulse.

While it doesn't look like the killer could raise an insanity defense successfully, that doesn't mean that he/she couldn't have ended up in Arkham to serve his/her sentence. However, it doesn't look like the killer had a trial. Rather, _____ just had him/her committed (which also wouldn't have happened so quickly).
 

---

Posted by Doctor Mayavale on :
 
Suppose a certain person, we'll call him Doc-- uh, Professor Mavayale, lost $50 to a certain other party, call her Skinny Cosmo, in 1883. While Professor Mavayale had every intention of paying his debt to Skinny Cosmo, he was prevented from doing so by his untimely murder by another party. Now Mavayale's current incarnation would like to repay Skinny Cosmo's current incarnation the debt he owes her, with interest. He also notes, however, that the current incarnation of the party responsible for his death is quite wealthy.

Could Mavayale sue the current incarnation of the party responsible for his death for the interest on the debt originally incurred to Skinny Cramer... uh... I mean Cosmo?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Well Doctor Mayavale,

I am uncertain about the law in regards to reincarnation. As it stands, Skinny Cosmo would have had to sue for repayment within the statute of limitations or else the debt would not have to legally be repaid. In general, the statute of limitations for a contract (including verbal contracts) is 7 years. Assuming the Skinny Cosmo did not get a judgement against you ... er I mean Professor Mayavale, then he is free of the debt. Seeing as the debt does not have to be repaid and there doesn't seem to have been any provisions that interest would accrue anyhow, this other party could hardly be held liable.
 

---

Posted by Kid Prime on :
 
Quislet, old friend, I need to secure you as my counsel in the upcoming courtroom LMB leadership battle between myself and Yellow Kid.

Will you consent to act as my representation? The vey future of the LMB could depend on it... I must regain LMB leadership so that I can enact the measures to safeguard us from horrible evildoers like the Red Bee. Just look at what has happened today.
 

---

Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
 
Quis, I think all of LW would be better off if you either recuse yourself or serve as judge.

KP's blatant power-grab is liekly to be a bloodier mess than the rest of the recent stories combined.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kid Prime:
Quislet, old friend, I need to secure you as my counsel in the upcoming courtroom LMB leadership battle between myself and Yellow Kid.

Will you consent to act as my representation? The vey future of the LMB could depend on it... I must regain LMB leadership so that I can enact the measures to safeguard us from horrible evildoers like the Red Bee. Just look at what has happened today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Dear Mr. Esq.,

Someone has been poisoning the honey in my café, causing several patrons to become ill. Isn't that like restraint of trade or something? Of course, I have liability insurance, but I think I should be able to sue the culprit for damages once he's caught.

FC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Red Bee:
Dear Mr. Esq.,

Will it be self-incriminating if I reveal that the honey in Cafe Cramer is not the only thing on Legion World to be poisioned?

<evil grin>

Regards,
The Red Bee

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Dear Mr. Esq.,

Someone has been poisoning the honey in my café, causing several patrons to become ill. Isn't that like restraint of trade or something? Of course, I have liability insurance, but I think I should be able to sue the culprit for damages once he's caught.

FC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Dear Mr. Esq.,

Someone has been poisoning the honey in my café, causing several patrons to become ill. Isn't that like restraint of trade or something? Of course, I have liability insurance, but I think I should be able to sue the culprit for damages once he's caught.

FC

---

What would happen in a case like this is that those patrons who ingested the poisoned honey (or their heirs if they died) would sue Cafe Cramers for either battery (an intentional harmful or offensive touching) or negligence. The heirs could also add a wrongful death suit. Cafe Cramers could then add the person responsible for the actual poisoning (if known) as a third party defendant, basically saying to the court "if we are guilty, it is really because of this person and he/she should pay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Dear Mr. Esq.,

Someone has been poisoning the honey in my café, causing several patrons to become ill. Isn't that like restraint of trade or something? Of course, I have liability insurance, but I think I should be able to sue the culprit for damages once he's caught.

FC

---

What would happen in a case like this is that those patrons who ingested the poisoned honey (or their heirs if they died) would sue Cafe Cramers for either battery (an intentional harmful or offensive touching) or negligence. The heirs could also add a wrongful death suit. Cafe Cramers could then add the person responsible for the actual poisoning (if known) as a third party defendant, basically saying to the court "if we are guilty, it is really because of this person and he/she should pay.

---

But I don't wanna sue Cramer! I wanna sue Red Bee!

PleasePleasePlease can I, Mr. Esq.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
1. Do we have a noise by-law on Legion World? 7:15 a.m. is a tad early for banshee screams. Of course, that's only a personal opinion and I defer to the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
2. If someone could argue (effectively) that a guy who dresses like a bat is insane, would any evidence he collected (legally or illegally) be thrown out of court? Like if he's nuts, maybe his evidence isn't believable or trustworthy? And if someone won this argument, would past convictions obtained with Batman's evidence be reversed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luna:
Quislet, Esq.

I have recently been under the verbal harassment of Space Ranger of the Security Office, I wish to employ you in the possibility that I shall have to take this person to court.

Luna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
If somebody opposing me in a court case put a voodoo hex on me, could I claim that they're interfering with my right to a fair trial? (Hasn't happened, but I was reading that sometimes dead chickens are placed on courthouse steps to influence a trial, according to voodoo beliefs.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:
Voodoo helps my cases in court; I haven't gotten a speeding ticket that's stuck since 1991!

a lot of officers miss traffic court due to stomach cramps, if you get my drift.

I recommend a houngan even over an attorney.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:
Being forced to miss 'Smallville' for traffic court is also irresponsible and causes me harm. Can I sue the cops and the courts?

---

You can always sue. That doesn't mean that you'll be sucessful or not subject to a frivilous lawsuit charge.
 

---

Posted by legionadventureman on :
 
I'd sure like to have a law passed that would prevent sporting events and TV shows from being edited for no good reason (apart from the World Trade Center bombing - now THAT was a shocker, all right...)
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by legionadventureman:
I'd sure like to have a law passed that would prevent sporting events and TV shows from being edited for no good reason (apart from the World Trade Center bombing - now THAT was a shocker, all right...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:
But I don't want the flute back!

-- I mean... what if the seller doesn't want the flute back?

---

The seller could then give the flute to the buyer. However, the seller still has to refund the purchase price.
 

---

Posted by legionadventureman on :
 
As punishment - send him to Band Camp!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
OK, it's time to redecorate the office. Are there any budding interior decorators out there that want to showcase their talent in exchange for some virtual legal services?

The office will remain open during the redecoration, so please feel free to submit any questions.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Ok, so we have Lex married to wealthy and dying Gertrude. She starts to sign the will, dies mid-signature, Lex finishes it for her, and viola he inherits her fortune. Or does he?

Well yes and no.

Certainly the will is invalid. At a minimum you need at least two witnesses to the signing of a will. (some states require 3) So without those witnesses, that will is invalid. Her family cries "Hurray!" Although they do so a little too soon.

Assuming Gertrude had a previous will, that will would be rended void by her marriage to Lex (he did have on a wedding ring). A divorce also can render a will or parts of it void. So Gertrude would have died without a will or as we lawyers like to say "intestate". Now each state has different rules for dividing an estate that is intestate. Assuming that Metropolis is in New York State, their rule of intestate inheritance is as follows: If there is a spouse and children, then the spouse gets $50,000 and half of the estate and the children divide the other half. If there are no children, then the spouse does get everything.

So the question is did Gertrude have children or not? If she didn't then Lex didn't need to fiddle with a will. If she did, then Lex would have only gotten half of the estate, unless he also got rid of any children and any children they might have had and any children they might have had, etc.
 

---

Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
 
Well, based upon Lex's map, Metropolis is where NYC would be, so the manision/residence would probably have been in New Jersey.

Although to complicate matters, the villaian's white van had New South Wales license plates.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Well, I tried looking for the New Jersey Statutes and found that their statutes are not as user friendly as New York's or Massachusetts. So let's just say that Gertrude's prinicple property was on Long Island, OK?
 

---

Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
 
nope. According to the maps shown, there is no Long Island; Metropolis is the southernmost point in New York State.

PS I was wrong about the NSW plates - they were Metropolis - at an initial quick glance LIS looked like LES, and as a plate I've never seen before, I assumed. My Bad.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Well, even without consulting the New Jersey statutes, I can say that they probably have similar intestate distribution of estates. The main difference between New York's & Massachusetts' is that Mass give the widow $200,000 while New York on gives $50,000 (beyond half of the estate)
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
A new avatar for post number 8000
 

---

Posted by Thriftshop Debutante on :
 
8K posts = how many billable space-hours?
 

---

Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
 
remember... time goes by faster in space when there's no gravity.
 

---

Posted by Seth Gaterra on :
 
Quislet... I'm tempted to give you a legal Gordian knot, from LSH canon. Should I?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seth Gaterra:
Quislet... I'm tempted to give you a legal Gordian knot, from LSH canon. Should I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
8K posts = how many billable space-hours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seth Gaterra:
Quislet... I'm tempted to give you a legal Gordian knot, from LSH canon. Should I?

---

Go for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seth Gaterra:
Okay... postboot Mano, thanks to McCauley's manipulations, didn't receive any sort of trial; in fact, he was not even officially arrested. Yet he was placed among the "Fatal Five"; the five most wanted criminals in the UP. And after his aiding the Legion in stopping Tharok's megabomb launches, Mano was simply locked up again in Takron-Galtos; again, no evidence of a trial or even arrest.

Who could he sue, why... and would the crimes he actually committed at Luna and/or Takron-Galtos "negate" any of this in the eyes of the court?

(I'm leaving out the argument about what liability McCauley would face for Angtu itself, since I'd figured he'd started immediately after Mano made himself known to destroy any "paper trails" in his corporate records. So between that and Angtu's destruction... most likely, there's insufficient evidence.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tamper Lad:
I require an opinion on Space Law on behalf of one of my clients....

Dear Mr. Quislet,

Since the destruction of Krypton several decades ago, my planet has suffered from periodic meteor showers composed of the radioactive element kryptonite. This has resulted in escalating costs in our healthcare and enviromental remediation budgets.

Now with the emergence of Ka-El as the self-styled last son of Krypton and since he is the sole survivor and the heir of all things Kryptonian. Can we sue him for the damages I suggest above? I believe that we should be entitled to royalties from the licensing and trade of Kryptonian technology.

L. Luthor

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reboot:

Reboot Principal Office
Mainframe
Legionworld
LG10 NET

Quislet,

Apologies for not being in when you called - I presumed you hadn't heard me asking to meet with you.

I was just wondering, but - in a purely hypothetical scenario, of course, given the nature of a letter - I'm wondering what the position would be of a prominent citizen of LW if they, through the murder of a powerful figure on another world or similar, caused a declaration of war by that power on LW. And, continuing the hypothetical thought, if, say someone high up in the Security Office aided and abetted this murder and the concealment of his part therein. And that, through hypothetical time travel, I had hypothetically acquired proof of this. What would the legal position of the two figures in question be, hypothetically?

Yours Faithfully
Reboot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Sounds good, Quis, but would there be a separate thread for jury tampering and bribing the judge?

---

That's what ex parte PMs are for.

Give me a couple of days to think of a good one.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Actually, I have one in mind now. I may have mentioned it before, but what the hey. It was an actual case that was occurring when I had Family Law. The names are made up.

Mary discovered that she was pregnant. She thought that Joe was the father. Mary & Joe were not married nor did they ever get married. When Little Suzy was born, Joe signed the parternity papers and started paying child support. Joe also held himself out as the father and had regular visitations with Little Suzy, who considered him her dad. When Little Suzy was 7 years old, Mary went to court to ask for more child support money. Joe did not want to pay the increase and started to raise doubts as to whether he was Little Suzy's father. He asked the court to take a paternity test. The court said "no", but on Little Suzy's next visit, Joe had a paternity test performed. The result of the test was that Joe was not Little Suzy's biological father.

The question is, should Joe be required to continue making child support payments?

there is one point of legal information that I will provide after people make their ruling. I also have to say that initially, I felt one way, but things the professor said did change my mind.

[ January 16, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq. ]
 

---

Posted by Lad Boy on :
 
Joe accepted the responsibility of paternity at Suzy's birth and reinforced that responsibility by abiding by a child support order for 7 years. His actions may have discouraged Mary from later attempting to determine Suzy's true biological father and seek support from him.

I don't know whether there is an analog to a common law marriage, but 7 years of holding oneself out as the father should come with some security for the child equivalent to an adoption.

He should be required to continue making the child support payments.

[ January 17, 2007, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Lad Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Kid Prime on :
 
I disagree.

The new information (namely, that Joe is not Suzy's father) voids the contract he made with Mary 7 years ago, since that contract was entered into under false pretenses. The fact that Mary may have been discouraged from determining Suzy's biological father is not his problem.

A contract is not legally binding if entered into under false pretenses.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
I'll let this stand over night for others to comment. Then I'll post the actual outcome.
 

---

Posted by Vee on :
 
In order to have a paternity test or any other medical treatment/testing done on a minor (Suzy is only 7), one must be the parent of the child and sign paperwork attesting to that. Joe must have signed such papers in order to have the test done. By doing so, he was attesting that he was in fact, the parent.

If he did not believe himnself to be the parent at that point, then he had no legal standing to contract with the lab in order to have such tests done and he illegally entered into a contract with the lab. The results of that test were therefore void because he entered into it under false pretenses and was not entitled to "profit" from that contract (by receiving the results of the paternity test.)

Because of this, the court should not recognize the results of the test as a valid result. Therefore there is no proof that Suzy is not his daughter and the court has already ruled on the need to order such a test.

I would think that besides losing the case concerning paternity, he might also be guilty of contempt by contravening an express order of the court in this case that no paternity test would be done.
 

---

Posted by Thriftshop Debutante on :
 
It seems unlikely that a court would find it in the best interest of the child to (1) sever a parent-child relationship that Suzy has known all her life and (2) discontinue financial (and other tangible or intangible means of) support. I'll agree with Lad Boy; Joe may not be the biological father, but he is the legal father.

Motion denied!
 

---

Posted by Tamper Lad on :
 
Is there such a thing as a 'common-law parent'?

By not challenging his paternity years ago and in-fact acting like the daddy of Suzy all these years, I think Joe is on the hook as the papa regardless of actual biology.
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Joe signed the paternity papers. He could have requested a paternity test at the time, but waived his rights (if that's a right). Mary did not outright deceive him, although she obviously hid the possibility that there was could be a different father. So, eyes wide shut, he became the legal father and should be required to continue support payments.

Little Suzy should sue Joe for emotional damage, or something like that. But that's another case.

BTW, can paternity tests be in error - or are they 100% accurate?
 

---

Posted by Eryk Davis Ester on :
 
I suppose I find the argument that he has effectively taken on the responsibility of being Suzy's father by acting as such for all these years, and is thus obligated to continue financial support. However, I'm not completely convinced that it's in the child's best interest to have someone who is not her biological father be forced to continue to play the role of her father against his will.

I guess the ideal scenario would be to locate the actual biological father, and if he is willing and able to do so, have him take over the responsibilities of paternity. Barring that, Joe should continue to do so.
 

---

Posted by Eryk Davis Ester on :
 
Oh, and I believe paternity tests can only exclude potential fathers, but can't establish with certainty that someone is in fact the father.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Nice discussions people.

Eryk, I think DNA testing can prove paternity close to 100%. Of course, what did happen was that Joe was ruled out as the father.

Initially I and the whole class were of the "Well he isn't the biological father so he should have to pay" side of the argument.

One point the professor made (as did a couple of you) was the effect on Little Suzy of Joe suddenly not being her dad. Although in thinking about this case last night, I also thought of just what Eryk said about how good a father Joe will actually be considering what he had already done.

The clincher that changed things for me was when the professor showed us the paternity form. Right were you would sign is a big warning saying "Don't sign if you have any doubts about the paternity. Signing will bind you to legal obligations regarding the child. If you have any questions regarding your paternity, have a paternity test before signing." (or words to that effect)

So the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Joe is the legal dad and is legally required to provide chld support.

[ January 17, 2007, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Quislet, Esq. ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Here's another case:

Max went fox hunting with some friends. Spotting a fox, Max shouted "Tally-ho" and gave chase. MAx chased the fox for about a half an hour, occassionally taking shots at it, but not hitting it once. Then Max lost track of the fox.

Sam was in the forest communing with nature. Suddenly a fox jumped into his lap. Sam thinks "Hey there is a bounty for foxes and I just made a fast five dollars." Just then Max rides up and says "Hey! That's my fox! My friends can tell you how I have been chasing it for over a half an hour." Sam replies "I don't see your name on the fox."

The land upon which Max was hunting and Sam caught the fox is unowned.

So who's fox is it?

(Note: The real case was financed by the fathers of Max & Sam and cost more than the fox was worth)
 

---

Posted by Kid Prime on :
 
Possession is 9/10 of the law. Sam gets the fox.
 

---

Posted by Vee on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kid Prime:
Possession is 9/10 of the law. Sam gets the fox.

---

Ditto
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
In thinking about this one I realized that most people will just go with Sam. Can anyone think of a reason to give the fox to Max?
 

---

Posted by Vee on :
 
Pity? Based on his "shooting" it's unlikely he'll ever catch one that way!
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
I'd also say Sam gets the fox, since the land is "unowned" (does that mean government land?) and nobody owns the fox, so it's finders keepers.

That's until the SPCA files an amicus brief on behalf of the fox.

For Max to get the fox? Maybe the practice of fox-hunting, that he was part of an organized hunt (not just walking by and spotting the fox), that he demonstrated intent to capture the fox by pursuit and shooting gives him prior claim to the fox - so Sam was interfering with Max's obvious, declared and legal intent. If a jurisdiction promoted fox-hunting, they might have a law which favours the hunters.
 

---

Posted by Lad Boy on :
 
The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property in it accrues to him which cannot be divested by another's interfering and killing it.

Max pursued the fox to its exhaustion. The chase brought the animal into control.

Max's fox.

[ January 18, 2007, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Lad Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Well, this happened in colonial times (or around the time of the Revolution) The land was just unowned forest.

Sam did get the fox. The court ruled that if Max had injured the fox, then he would have had a proprietary interest. But because he didn't, he had no legal claim.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
OK, this wasn't an actual court case but a hypothetical from my Ethics class.

As you know (or should know) Lawyers have the duty to keep what is said to them in strictest confidence. The main exception is this:

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal such information:

(1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another;

So the hypothetical goes like this:

A client of yours comes to you and says that her boyfriend was arrested for being in a barroom fight. She asks you to go help him. In the police station, he tells you that he is HIV positive. He wants to know if that would change the charges against him for the fight. He also tells you that he hasn't told anyone yet.

The question: Do you tell his girlfriend - your client about his HIV status?
 

---

Posted by Kid Prime on :
 
I'm much more interested in knowing how HIV status could change criminal charges for someone, but the way I would interpret this scenario is that nondisclosure of HIV status in a relationship is neither a criminal nor a fraudulent act. It's certainly not a crime to have consenting, unprotected sex.

So, while unprotected sex with this man would/could result in your client contracting HIV, I don't think you could justify telling her. A case could be made that nondisclosure of HIV status is fraudulent, but I think that gets into invasion of medical privacy.

Sucks, but I think you have to be quiet.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kid Prime:
I'm much more interested in knowing how HIV status could change criminal charges for someone, but the way I would interpret this scenario is that nondisclosure of HIV status in a relationship is neither a criminal nor a fraudulent act. It's certainly not a crime to have consenting, unprotected sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kid Prime:
I'm still very concerned with this "charged with spreading HIV" stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
From a reading of the statute, it would seem that even a person, who disclosed his/her HIV positive status, could be found guilty under this law even if his/her partner consents to sex & knows the HIV status. For example. Say there is a couple. He's is HIV positive. She knows and still has unprotected sex with him. Her mom finds out and charges him with assault. The statute is under the criminal code, so the victim doesn't have to be the one to charge him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kid Prime:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
From a reading of the statute, it would seem that even a person, who disclosed his/her HIV positive status, could be found guilty under this law even if his/her partner consents to sex & knows the HIV status. For example. Say there is a couple. He's is HIV positive. She knows and still has unprotected sex with him. Her mom finds out and charges him with assault. The statute is under the criminal code, so the victim doesn't have to be the one to charge him.

---

Well, why don't we throw them all in a leper colony and be done with it?

This really, REALLY disturbs me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
FC, what would you do if after discussing it with him, he still said "no don't tell her"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
FC, what would you do if after discussing it with him, he still said "no don't tell her"?

---

I would still tell her, but that's partly based on the bodily harm thing and partly thinking that I would want to know if a sexual partner were HIV positive. Now if there's no sex involved, it's a different story. I assumed.

However, thinking about it further, where does the "telling" stop? What if, six months later, the lawyer sees this guy with a different girl and learns that they're living together - assume a sexual relationship - does he tell her? It could get to be like people - or cops - identifying a child molester who's moving into the neighbourhood, or people who publish, vigilante-style, information like that. I'm not entirely comfortable (or clear) on that; where are the limits? What about people with TB? The clap?

Was there a consensus in your class? Or is there a specific guideline for lawyers beyond what you posted about confidentiality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Concord, the Ultra Man:
Mr. Quislet, Esq. I wonder if I might break up your most interesting discussion of legal theory for a moment in order to obtain your legal opinion on a matter that has recently come to my attention?

Gladys, a sentient disco ball employed by the Security Office, was recently shall we say... "involved with" Lardlad during one of his frequent binge drinking episodes.

Now being as Sentient Disco Balls, as a species, communicate via pulsed light bursts, and humans as a species communicate via sound, communications between the two species are difficult at best.

Gladys, on three separate occasions, has requested that the security office provide her with a translation device. All three requests have been ignored.

I would like you to interview Gladys, in the presence of a translation robot, in order to determine whether or not she was a willing participent in Lardlad's Drunken Debauchery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Concord, the Ultra Man:
Mr. Quislet, Esq. I wonder if I might break up your most interesting discussion of legal theory for a moment in order to obtain your legal opinion on a matter that has recently come to my attention?

Gladys, a sentient disco ball employed by the Security Office, was recently shall we say... "involved with" Lardlad during one of his frequent binge drinking episodes.

Now being as Sentient Disco Balls, as a species, communicate via pulsed light bursts, and humans as a species communicate via sound, communications between the two species are difficult at best.

Gladys, on three separate occasions, has requested that the security office provide her with a translation device. All three requests have been ignored.

I would like you to interview Gladys, in the presence of a translation robot, in order to determine whether or not she was a willing participent in Lardlad's Drunken Debauchery.

---

While I would gladly sit down and discuss the matter with Gladys, I would have you know that such cases do not always resolve upon the statements of just one of the parties involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
A new case for you from the world of torts. (And I don't mean the yummy kind you eat)

Battery is the intentional touching of another that is harmful or offensive.

Nationally known anti-smoking advocate Randy J Reynolds was at radio station WONK to be interviewed by Joe Opinion for The Great American Smoke Out. Another WONK employee, B J O'Blowhard purposefully blew cigar smoke in Reynolds' face several times. Reynolds sues both O'Blowhard and WONK for battery.

What do you think?

---

Since health officials have repeatedly concluded that smoking is hazardous, and so is second-hand smoke, I'd say Reynolds was correct in suing O'Blowhard. And since O'Blowhard was (1) an employee of WONK, (2) purposefully blowing smoke in the course of working for WONK, and (3) (adding in an assumption on my part here) based upon his name, his employment behavior conformed to the typical (especially morning) radio controversial/zany/hype mold, then I fully agree WONK is also liable...

UNLESS the company (A) had an employee policy fstipulating a code of conduct, (B) this policy was actively and uniformly enforced prior to the incident, (C)O'Blowhard was educated about this policy, AND (D) WONK initiated disciplanary proceedings against O'Blowhard for violations in writing prior to the commencement of Reynolds' suit... in that case, I would say that O'Blowhard should be responsible for WONK's share of the damages as well as his own.
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
I'd say O'Blowhard is liable but not WONK since O'Blowhard was acting on his own initiative and not in the performance of his job - he was not the one interviewing Joe Opinion.

WONK sends O'Blowhard to sensitivity training, to no effect, and all involved benefit from the publicity.
 

---

Posted by Lard Lad on :
 
Yay! 500th post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, Quis rocks!
 

---

Posted by Pov on :
 
I liked your robot better, you milestone whore, you.
 

---

Posted by Thriftshop Debutante on :
 
So Quis! How about giving your lawyerly perspective on a few recent Legion-y situations?

1. The Lightspeed Vanguard appears (unbidden?) to rescue a ship from certain peril. They are successful. They then present the person in charge with a bill. When the bill isn't paid, the LsV then appropriates the ship's cargo in lieu of the cash.

2. As Ayla tells the assemblage in issue 26, she and her twin brother Garth both had the "job" of keeping surveillance on their older brother, who was said to have a severe psychological disorder. (Who assigned this job is unknown at this time. Whether or not older brother had reached the age of majority at time of the incident in question is also unknown at this time. The twins were clearly minors.) IN this incident, the presence of the two younger siblings led to all three being gravely injured; while all three survived and eventually recovered following weeks in intensive care, there could very well have been fatalities if the oldest sibling hadn't managed to transport them all to a medical facility.

Just how many lawsuits could we possibly have here? Yikes!


Man, those Ranzz kids always have something going, don't they?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
So Quis! How about giving your lawyerly perspective on a few recent Legion-y situations?

1. The Lightspeed Vanguard appears (unbidden?) to rescue a ship from certain peril. They are successful. They then present the person in charge with a bill. When the bill isn't paid, the LsV then appropriates the ship's cargo in lieu of the cash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
2. As Ayla tells the assemblage in issue 26, she and her twin brother Garth both had the "job" of keeping surveillance on their older brother, who was said to have a severe psychological disorder. (Who assigned this job is unknown at this time. Whether or not older brother had reached the age of majority at time of the incident in question is also unknown at this time. The twins were clearly minors.) IN this incident, the presence of the two younger siblings led to all three being gravely injured; while all three survived and eventually recovered following weeks in intensive care, there could very well have been fatalities if the oldest sibling hadn't managed to transport them all to a medical facility.

Just how many lawsuits could we possibly have here? Yikes!


Man, those Ranzz kids always have something going, don't they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
A new case for you from the world of torts. (And I don't mean the yummy kind you eat)

Battery is the intentional touching of another that is harmful or offensive.

Nationally known anti-smoking advocate Randy J Reynolds was at radio station WONK to be interviewed by Joe Opinion for The Great American Smoke Out. Another WONK employee, B J O'Blowhard purposefully blew cigar smoke in Reynolds' face several times. Reynolds sues both O'Blowhard and WONK for battery.

What do you think?

---

Since health officials have repeatedly concluded that smoking is hazardous, and so is second-hand smoke, I'd say Reynolds was correct in suing O'Blowhard. And since O'Blowhard was (1) an employee of WONK, (2) purposefully blowing smoke in the course of working for WONK, and (3) (adding in an assumption on my part here) based upon his name, his employment behavior conformed to the typical (especially morning) radio controversial/zany/hype mold, then I fully agree WONK is also liable...

UNLESS the company (A) had an employee policy fstipulating a code of conduct, (B) this policy was actively and uniformly enforced prior to the incident, (C)O'Blowhard was educated about this policy, AND (D) WONK initiated disciplanary proceedings against O'Blowhard for violations in writing prior to the commencement of Reynolds' suit... in that case, I would say that O'Blowhard should be responsible for WONK's share of the damages as well as his own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
I'd say O'Blowhard is liable but not WONK since O'Blowhard was acting on his own initiative and not in the performance of his job - he was not the one interviewing Joe Opinion.

WONK sends O'Blowhard to sensitivity training, to no effect, and all involved benefit from the publicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
And so, there doesn't seem to be any basis for any lawsuits. [/QB]

---

I fear for your bar membership. The torts, they should be a-flyin'.

Let's figure the Winath system of jurisprudence to be similar to what we have in the US at this time.

AYLA & GARTH (or, more likely, a parent/guardian or another adult acting on their behalf, because they are minors) could file against someone or something (their parents? a Dapartment of Health or some organization that either by omission or comission led to A&G being somewhere where they shouldn't have been?) for their medical bills (if not already covered) and pain & suffering?

MEKT (or, again, an adult on his behalf if he was still a minor) could do the same.

THE RANZZ PARENTS or GUARDIANS (the elder Ranzzes haven't been mentioned) might also hit the govt. that subtly or outright encourages this sort of thing and thus fails to provide trained care for a citizen deemed to be mentally ill and dangerous (if only to himself). The kids were out of commission for awhile, unable to help around the farm.

MEKT and/or THE TWINS/PARENTS (or another party, possibly depending on who owned the vehicle in question?) could go after the cruiser manufacturer. Malfunction due to a relatively small amount (maybe 200 lbs.) of weight? Hello, failsafes?

I could also see any Solo-Rights activist groups(such as may exist on Winath) or perhaps progressive (from some points of view) psycho-medical professionals filing actions -- even if the filers don't expect the action to go very far, they might do so anyway if only to draw attention to written or unwritten policy and to stimulate public discussion of the issue.

That's not to mention possible criminal charges of endangering the welfare of children.


I'll go watch some TV, maybe come up with some more.

[ April 16, 2007, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Thriftshop Debutante ]
 

---

Posted by Thriftshop Debutante on :
 
Now, if Earth and the UP survives the Dominator attack/invasion, what do you think Mekt's chances are at collecting back pay?


 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tamper Lad:
Quislet Esq.,

I have a question regarding my recent trip to Earth. I was in New York when a friend suggested we go to London England for lunch. Being a tourist I consulted Google Maps' Get directions feature for directions.

I asked for directions from Broadway to Picadilly Pl in London and the system gave me this output.

1. Head northeast on Broadway toward W 94th St 0.1 mi 1 min
2. Turn left at W 96th St 0.2 mi 1 min

Skipped to Step 10 Through Connecticut and Mass

10. Merge onto I-84 E Partial toll road
Entering Massachusetts 40.7 mi 38 mins
11. Take the exit onto I-90 E/Mass Pike/Massachusetts Turnpike toward N.H.-Maine/Boston Partial toll road 56.0 mi 56 mins
12. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi 1 min
13. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi 3 mins
14. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi
15. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi

16. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi 29 days 0 hours

Arrive at Le-Havre France and continue through Normandy through the Chunnel into England. (48 steps)

65. Turn left at Vine St 75 ft

My question is. If I were foolish enough to attempt step 16 could I sue Google because the Maps service is supposed to be an authority on giving direction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
Now, if Earth and the UP survives the Dominator attack/invasion, what do you think Mekt's chances are at collecting back pay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:
And so, there doesn't seem to be any basis for any lawsuits.

---

I fear for your bar membership. The torts, they should be a-flyin'.

Let's figure the Winath system of jurisprudence to be similar to what we have in the US at this time.

AYLA & GARTH (or, more likely, a parent/guardian or another adult acting on their behalf, because they are minors) could file against someone or something (their parents? a Dapartment of Health or some organization that either by omission or comission led to A&G being somewhere where they shouldn't have been?) for their medical bills (if not already covered) and pain & suffering?

MEKT (or, again, an adult on his behalf if he was still a minor) could do the same.

THE RANZZ PARENTS or GUARDIANS (the elder Ranzzes haven't been mentioned) might also hit the govt. that subtly or outright encourages this sort of thing and thus fails to provide trained care for a citizen deemed to be mentally ill and dangerous (if only to himself). The kids were out of commission for awhile, unable to help around the farm.

MEKT and/or THE TWINS/PARENTS (or another party, possibly depending on who owned the vehicle in question?) could go after the cruiser manufacturer. Malfunction due to a relatively small amount (maybe 200 lbs.) of weight? Hello, failsafes?

I could also see any Solo-Rights activist groups(such as may exist on Winath) or perhaps progressive (from some points of view) psycho-medical professionals filing actions -- even if the filers don't expect the action to go very far, they might do so anyway if only to draw attention to written or unwritten policy and to stimulate public discussion of the issue.

That's not to mention possible criminal charges of endangering the welfare of children.


I'll go watch some TV, maybe come up with some more. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tamper Lad:
My question is. If I were foolish enough to attempt step 16 could I sue Google because the Maps service is supposed to be an authority on giving direction?

---

No, because dead people can't sue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizrdprnce:
Hey, Quis. How can I become a partner in this firm?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dedman:
Dear Quislet Esq.......

I am running for leader.
Is there anyway I can legally force....ummmm, persude people to vote for me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Lad:
Quis...can the LMB sue Gary Concorde to get Stoopid cat back? If so, would you take the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Everyday Girl:
Ohmygod! Mr Quizzy-Poo, you know that the fuzzball is a person!

And I'm in the security department, but like Mr Cobalt and Gramps have decided that I'm not allowed to go to that weird club where Ol' Stoopid is...

So I want to like sue for my independence from Gramps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Quis, in the current Legion comic Tenzil is a Special Prosecutor. At what age could someone become a Special Prosecutor today? Right out of law school?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:
Quis, why is it illegal for Green Lanterns to be on Earth on Mondays?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caliente:
Two divorces seems an awful high number for someone my age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caliente:
I just feel like Frio needs my help more now. If I abandon her, who will be left to look out for her? The LVMBP? Not exactly the most trustworthy folk.

---

Well Frio is an adult, like you are, and must make her own choices. As much as it pains you, you have to give her that freedom. And you can never abandon her if you leave a door open for her to come back into your life.
 

---

Posted by Caliente on :
 
Sage advice, Quis. I'm just so worried. She hasn't been herself, you know? Where's the fun? Where's the party? I can't let her go until I know she's going to be all right... and how can I know that when she's so different?

Well, anyway, thank you for all the help! You're still my favorite lawyer, of course. Now I guess I just have to figure out what to do. Bleh. Be seein' ya!
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Wow! It has been almost a year since anybody's been to the Law Offices of Space.
 

---

Posted by Pov on :
 
Guess nobody's been in trouble.

Have you offered Cobie help with a pre-nup?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
I think Lady Cobalt is the one who wants a good pre-nup.
 

---

Posted by Pov on :
 
Are you saying she has the bigger assets?
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
Our Cobie is no fool.
 

---

Posted by Pov on :
 

 

---

Posted by Exnihil on :
 
<again, Exnihil appears from another time. He bends over and cups his palms over his eyes>


Ahhhh! This has to stop! I think I'm getting sick.


<breathes deep to regain his composure. Catching his breath he rises again and looks around his surroundings. He is an empty office building, after hours>


OK... it's Quislet's place, this time.


<goes to a desk and peers at the open day planner>


February 16th... just a month ago.


<moves around the the back side of the desk and rifles through the contents, looking for the his third target. He finds it... a third pocketwatch. Again he simply removes it, winds it and replaces it back in the drawer, under a pile of paperwork>


Not that anyone could find anything in there... this is the most disorganized office I've ever seen.

OK, Phineas! "Three o'clock"


<again Exnihil disappears>

[ March 21, 2009, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Exnihil ]
 

---

Posted by Phineas B. Fuddle on :
 
<as Phineas B. Fuddle activates his celestial mechanism in his Orrery, a whiteout of chronal regression begins to spread across this establishment>

<Legion World is dying>
 

---

Posted by Arm Fall Off Boy on :
 
Hey! Can we arrest these guys for trespassing?
 

---

Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
 
Is it their fault Quis left the door open while he was out during his own posted business hours?
 

---

Posted by cleome on :
 
Hey ! There's a piece of glass chipped from each of the glass IBA* awards on Quis' desk !

I never appreciated the true depths of Fuddle's eeeevil until just now. Even the 3003 Obelisk wasn't spared. [seethes]

*Interplanetary Bar Association

[ April 02, 2009, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: cleome ]
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phineas B. Fuddle:
<as Phineas B. Fuddle activates his celestial mechanism in his Orrery, a whiteout of chronal regression begins to spread across this establishment>

<Legion World is dying>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legolas:
Greetings, all.

I, Prince Legolas, have taken temporary possession of six Legion World properties.

In each of those six you will find a form that looks, acts and talk like me. In all ways of perceiving, whether scientific, magickal or psionic, all six will seem equally identical. All your detection techniques will identify all of them as me - or none of them.

Of these six, five are elaborate simulacrums, constructs that will totally suck the life (and other) energies of any who interfere with them, whether by touch, distance attack or even a simple mind probe. These are based on the magickal technologies of the Z'xyc'hians, and you may recall the spatio-temperal implosions of their own doings that ended their very existence.

Tamper with me at your own peril.

this is the fourth of six.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante:
Oh, Quislet! I think it's time I gave people some legal problems. Whatcha got?

---

A good one is intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The case we read to illustrate that involved a local department store. A guy had a charge account with the store and it was past due. The store, in an attempt to collect, began to repeatedly call his mother and harassed her about the debt. The thing was, the mother was not a cosigner of the charge account and if I remember correctly, he didn't live with her.
 

---

Posted by Fat Cramer on :
 
Most supervillains could be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but none have been.
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
hmmm... A class action suit against LuthorCorp.
 

---

Posted by cleome on :
 
Jeez, look at all the Diet Dr. Pepper empties stuffed in this file cabinet!

mr_cleome swore to me that it wasn't an IBA*-ordained addiction. I guess he lied.

*Intergalactic Bar Association
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
 
OK so I have taken the train cross-country 3 times now. Twice to San Diego and once to Seattle. And now I am feeling like I need to take another long distance train ride. I'm thinking about taking the train to Florida. What do people think?
 

---

Posted by dedman on :
 
Thats a great idea Quis! I was only in florida once but thought it was an awesome place.
 

---

Posted by Lardi on :
 
I think you should take a midnight train to Georgia, personally.
 

---

Posted by Stealth on :
 
No. No. Take the night train to Mundo Fine.
 

---

Posted by Dev Em on :
 
Take the last train to Clarksville.
 

---

Posted by Stealth on :
 
Take the "A" train.
 

---

Posted by cleome on :
 
And make sure your train don't carry no gamblers, crap shooters, or midnight ramblers.
 

---

Posted by Stealth on :
 
Train kept a-rollin' all night long.
 

---

Posted by dedman on :
 
take that d-train
Take it down to brighton beach
 

---

Posted by Eryk Davis Ester on :
 
Quislet,

So I have this friend, let us call him "ML", who is about to get married to an individual, let us call him "JS", who, pending the outcome of a lawsuit, stands to inherit a significant property.

Suppose JS is bitten by a zombie and turned into one of the Walking Dead. Under what conditions would ML still be able to make a claim on the significant property in question?

Though this is a purely hypothetical question, I would appreciate a rapid answer.

Thanks,

EDE
 

---

Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
 
Well, hypothetically, if Josh Sieg.. er I mean JS becomes a zombie, his ambulatoriness might poses a problem. His hypothetical attorneys could argue that JS is not dead seeing how a dead person does not walk about. Also hypothetical zombies can be referred to the Living Dead to further muddy the waters. Hypothetically, your friend ML should, if JS is actually a zombie, lop off his head. Making sure not to cut the hypothetical head in such a way as to make identification impossible. My understanding is hypothetically that this will cause the zombie to stop moving about. But I am not a hypothetical expert on zombies.

My fee (which is not hypothetical) is all rights to False Pretenses Lad.
 

---

Posted by Shining Son on :
 
So, hypothetically, if this ML had, however inadvertantly named me his son, and therefore his heir, would I be jeopardizing my cut inheritance if I were to hypothetically sex up my supercute future stepdad?

If the answer changes re: whether only oral or anal is involved, please specify the difference in outcomes.

Am I right in thinking that kissing alone is not legally actionable?

And um, do zombies have palimony rights of any sort?
 

---