Datasets:

vblagoje

/

Law-StackExchange-Flat

like 0

In Pennsylvania is there more legal protection in forming a LLC as opposed to operating as sole proprietor?

In theory an LLC (Limited Liability Company) offers a level of protection for the owner if being sued. I want to buy houses and rent them out, I have some fear of being sued by tenants in the future (no particular concern, but I live in the USA (United Sue of All). What if any, greater protection does having an LLC being the owner of the houses have? I would own the LLC, the LLC would own the houses and collect the rent.

An LLC is a legally distinct entity from your person. Basically, if your LLC is sued, and you lose, you can lose only what you put into your LLC. Your personal assets are untouched. A very sophisticated plaintiff may try to get around this suing both your LLC and you personally. (I've done this myself.) Even so, if you are careful to keep the business of your LLC separate from your personal business (no commingling of assets, no use of your LLC to pay your bills, but only a salary), then the law will often absolve you of personal liability for the "actions" of your LLC. The reason I warn against "commingling" is because if you do this, you can lose the protection of the LLC as a separate entity, and become personally liable for what the LLC does. This is known as "piercing the corporate veil." If you have home rental operations in more than one state, you may want to establish LLC's for each state. That's because some states are more tenant- and other states are more landlord- friendly than others, meaning that you may want to defend yourself differently in one state versus another.

In Pennsylvania is there more legal protection in forming a LLC as opposed to operating as sole proprietor?

In theory an LLC (Limited Liability Company) offers a level of protection for the owner if being sued. I want to buy houses and rent them out, I have some fear of being sued by tenants in the future (no particular concern, but I live in the USA (United Sue of All). What if any, greater protection does having an LLC being the owner of the houses have? I would own the LLC, the LLC would own the houses and collect the rent.

Note, further, that it's not only a question of whether or not to use an LLC, but also where to form that LLC. For example, Delaware is a very popular home for LLCs that are owned and operated elsewhere due to relatively unique protections , including exceptional confidentiality provisions . Savvy operators often layer LLCs to add additional protections, typically by having the initial owner invest through a "holding company" which in turn is the only legal owner of one or more "operating companies."

In Pennsylvania is there more legal protection in forming a LLC as opposed to operating as sole proprietor?

In theory an LLC (Limited Liability Company) offers a level of protection for the owner if being sued. I want to buy houses and rent them out, I have some fear of being sued by tenants in the future (no particular concern, but I live in the USA (United Sue of All). What if any, greater protection does having an LLC being the owner of the houses have? I would own the LLC, the LLC would own the houses and collect the rent.

This response reflects no knowledge of Pennsylvania law. The general rule in most states is that a creditor of an LLC may not pursue the members of the LLC directly. In other words, provided that you follow appropriate corporate formalities, the capitalization of the LLC is the limit of liability. The same would be true of a corporation, although LLCs have the additional benefit of being creatures of contract that do not necessarily require all of the formalities of the laws governing corporations. In the situation you describe, I would be primarily concerned about maintaining corporate formalities. If you do so, the corporate form has significant benefit; if you don't, it is a minor roadblock.

Is it possible to legally prohibit someone from linking to specific pages on your website?

By linking I meant to give exact instructions about how to find a specific page on the site, for a user with enough privilege. It can be a URL, or a demonstration of where you should click, etc. The site don't have to be open to everyone. But they had no informations about their user's real identity. Everything they could get is at most an "I agree" checkbox during registration. I'm not asking about whether they can remove the user posting or using the link, but is it possible to legally request removing the link itself (in other sites)? My first guess is no. I think it is not directly related to copyright as the user didn't post the content, and your terms of service cannot affect other sites. But then I feel there are some quite similar things seemed possible, and someone must be already trying to do this. So is it? If yes, what are those terms called (a part of the copyright license or terms of service, or something else)? @apsillers pointed out this may have something to do with the contract law. I think indeed this can be done between companies, or companies and employees. But (1) is it still effective if the site just let users to agree to the terms online? (2) If a user did it anyway, I think you can only remove the user in your site, or in theory you can let the user pay. But you still cannot remove things in other sites, because those sites didn't agree to the contract. Is that right? I'm thinking about a license like this: You can use the ideas in whatever way you want (they are not patented; or maybe they are, but the fact your site is describing them cannot be patented). You cannot copy the articles directly (there is copyright). You cannot refer to the explanations in this site in formal documents of a company, or prove this site has promoted this idea. Or a weaker term: you have to pay to do that. You can rewrite the whole things, or don't leave explanations, or whatever. This is indeed a bad idea which I thought it must be disallowed at first. But it seemed to be weaker than what a company can have with their employees.

No. You are correct in that this is not related to Copyright. Copyright is meant to protect expressions of an idea . An URL is simply an address, like a street address. Can you legally stop people referring to your home address? No. Can you legally stop people from passing by and looking at your house on the street? Also no. A famous case related to hyperlink is Ticketmaster v Tickets.com (2000) . Tickets.com used information Ticketmaster's website and deep-linked to there. The ruling established that: use of information is not infringing hyperlinking cannot be copyright infringement because no copying is involved. deep linking is not unfair competition If you feel that it is necessary to avoid people linking to specific pages of your site, you may consider accomplishing this technically. UPDATE It does not matter whether your site is meant to be public or not. For example, an knowledge base meant to be shared internally in an organization, but accessible on the internet since staff are geographically distributed. Again, you may think of it like a street address. A private corporate building meant for employees only. An address, like Room C, 16/F, Example Corporate Complex, 4321 Lucky Avenue can be shared like any other address. You cannot demand people to never refer to your office address. You can, however, setup a security post at the entrance and only allow certain guests to visit you. In the case of a website, you may state in your terms that one cannot share access information to any external parties . This will include the sharing of any authentication data (e.g. password) which can be used to access content.

How is "defamation" defined?

I have a recollection that late in the 20th century in the United States, A called B a "bastard." B sued A for defamation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant. Its first observation was that (at the time) one of out every four American children was born out of "wedlock," (the literal meaning of "bastard.") The judge also noted that "bastard" and similar swear words were in wide use at the time, and that people would take it as such, and not as an accusation that the circumstances of B's birth were compromised. My guess is that B's suit would have had a much better chance to succeed a century or two earlier, in the late nineteenth or eighteenth century. So what would be the standard for "defamation?" Would it be related to contemporary understanding or usage?

There are four criteria used today in the United States: The statement was false, but was claimed as true. The statement must have been made to a third, previously uninvolved party. The statement must have been made by the accused party. The statement caused harm. The first (and very important) criterion was discussed in New York Times v. Sullivan , where it was ruled that A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292. (c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283. Quoting Wikipedia and Justice Black, The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice. In this context, the phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent. In his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained that "'[m]alice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment." New York Times v. Sullivan is regarded as one of the most - of not the most - important defamation cases of the century. It was argued in 1964. If the case you discuss - which I haven't been able to find - occurred after to the ruling, then it could have been dismissed, because A did not intend it as malicious in the sense of defamation (and did not claim it was true), though it was almost certainly meant as an insult. Had this case occurred prior to New York Times v. Sullivan , things might have been different. Non-public officials Things are different for private officials . Those who are not classified as public figures are considered private figures. To support a claim for defamation, in most states a private figure need only show negligence by the publisher, a much lower standard than "actual malice." Some states, however, impose a higher standard on private figures, especially if the statement concerns a matter of public importance. You should review your state's specific law in the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for more information. Note: There are differences between defamation, libel, and slander; a quick overview is given here : "Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper."

A perimeter search damaging one's property (e.g. motor vehicle)

It appears that one's consent is not required to perform a perimeter search. When such a search is performed by a K9 on one's motor vehicle, it's apparently very common to result in multiple scratches of varying severity, probably due to the paws of the dog that was doing the search. What recourse does one have from having their property damaged in such way through a perimeter search?

The following information refers to general searches as well as those of motor vehicles, because regulations are generally similar, if not identical. United Kingdom (England and Wales) This gives a short overview of the compensation rights of people who feel that their property (in general, not just a motor vehicle) has been unfairly damaged in a search. Constituents sometimes ask whether they can get compensation for damage (for example to a front door) following forced entry by the police. Police forces do sometimes make ex gratia payments or pay compensation following such damage, for example where the raid was at the wrong premises. However, statutory guidance states that compensation for such damage is “unlikely to be appropriate if the search was lawful, and the force used can be shown to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary to effect entry.” Where a police force refuses to make such a payment, then a constituent wishing to pursue the matter further would need to obtain specialist legal advice. However, if a person wishes to press the issue, s/he can always sue the police. The Police Powers page on the Citizen’s Advice website gives the following very general information about suing the police: If your complaint is serious, you may wish to sue the police. You can sue the police in the same way that you can sue members of the public. If you want to sue the police, you should talk to a specialist solicitor. United States 42 U.S.C. § 1983 sets forth some parameters for suing law enforcement officials. Under Section 1983 damages can take the form of nominal damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages. Compensatory Damages may include lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, out of pocket expenses, pain/suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress suffered. There is no inherent “value” in constitutional rights. Damage awards for 1983 actions, separate and aside from normal tort standards, may not be based on the abstract “value” or “importance of constitutional rights" There may, however, be inferred damages, which arise in situations where the circumstances themselves surrounding the violation imply actual damages. Punitive Damages may be assessed when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected right. Punitive damages may be found even when the underlying threshold for liability is recklessness. Municipalities are immune from punitive damages. Injunctive Relief may be awarded. Nominal Damages may be awarded by the jury if they determine that the plaintiff's Constitutional rights were violated but they do not believe that they suffered substantive damages. However , the person must prove that their rights have been explicitly violated. This is often difficult to do. Two cases of interest are Cody v. Mello and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents . The latter has been widely used alongside 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to support the idea that people can be compensated for damages. In any case, to gain damages, a person must bring a civil suit to court. It may or may not be successful, depending on the circumstances.

Does the US Fifth Amendment only apply to criminal trials? Do any laws protect a person in civil court when testimony would implicate them in a crime?

Suppose someone is accused of burglary. This person is asked to appear in civil court regarding an unrelated event that occurred at the same time as the burglary but in a different location. If the person is pleading the fifth in the criminal proceedings (or plans to), can this person decline to answer questions in the civil court about their whereabouts during the events? Can they answer questions selectively? Does their role in the civil proceedings (witness, defendant, etc.) affect the answer?

The Fifth Amendment always protects someone from being forced to testify against themselves if it would implicate them in a crime (see, among others, Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17). Any person can assert the privilege, regardless of their role in the trial, with the possible exception of the plaintiff (who is the one person who wanted to go to court). Like always with the Fifth Amendment, they can answer some questions but not others (but if they do answer a question, they need to fully answer it). In civil cases, the Fifth Amendment itself does not keep the jury from making adverse inferences against whoever invoked the privilege; if you refuse to testify, they can assume that it's because testifying would be extremely damaging in that particular case. However, most states have rules against that, and so invoking the privilege in state courts generally works like it does in a criminal case (where the jury basically ignores that the question was even asked). In federal courts, if a case is being heard under diversity jurisdiction (plaintiff and defendant are from different states but the claim is not a federal claim) the state rule is supposed to apply; if the claim is a federal claim, the federal rule applies and adverse inferences are allowed. While the Fifth Amendment can be invoked by anyone, there may be consequences. In many states (where adverse inference isn't allowed), a witness who will just invoke the Fifth and answer no questions can't be called, because it's a complete waste of time. If the plaintiff invokes the Fifth to not answer key questions, then the court can potentially dismiss the case; they have the right to assert the privilege, but their lawsuit might suffer for it. In federal court, another possibility that's been done several times before is that the civil case is just put on hold until the criminal matter is resolved. Sources: “The Fifth Amendment Can & Will Be Used Against You In a (Federal) Court of Law” Taking the 5th: How to pierce the testimonial shield Plaintiff as Deponent: Invoking the Fifth Amendment

Implications with states that classify traffic infractions as misdemeanors

It appears that some states, for example, Wyoming, classify most traffic infractions as misdemeanors . Does it imply that someone who has committed a 5 mph speeding in such a state is technically a full fledged criminal , whereas another person doing the same in a state like California never is?

Your question assumes that there is a universal, legal definition of "criminal." Since there is not, it can't be answered. Infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies are all criminal offenses defined by criminal law. There may be different implications involved in being found guilty of an infraction rather than a misdemeanor, but it's not the case that one of them makes you a "criminal" and the other does not.

Drinking and Driving

In the state of California, what is the limit of alcohol allowed in bloodstream to be prosecuted under drinking and driving case? And what are the procedures used for intoxication testing (other than breathalyzer) while being pulled over?

According to the California Vehicle Code, the thresholds for driving under the influence are: 0.04% BAC if driving a commercial vehicle 0.01% BAC if under a DUI probation 0.01% BAC if the driver is under the age of 21 0.08% BAC if none of the above cases apply California law permits the blood-alcohol content to be determined through a breath test, a blood test, or in limited circumstances, urinalysis .

Relicensing software under GPLv2+ without all contributors

I have software licensed under GPLv2, which I would like to relicense under GPLv2+. Unfortunately, I an unable to contact some of the contributors. Can I proceed, or am I stuck?

Since licensing can only be done by the copyright holder, you generally need individual permission from each copyright holder to change the license of their code. (If the project is being re-licensed to the GPL from a compatible license , then no re-licensing from the copyright holder is necessary; however, versions 2 and 3 of the GPL are not compatible with one another.) Ways around this are: Remove or replace all code written by the unreachable contributors. Have contributors assign copyright to a person or legal entity that controls the project, so that there is exactly one copyright holder. (This is a preventive measure. If you have not done this already, it's too late when you cannot track down a contributor.) But if you can't do either of those things, what do you do? Historically, re-licensing of software without explicit approval from all contributors has been done before, under the advice of legal professionals. However, the legal mechanics of it are unclear and have never been tested in court. The two prominent examples appear to be: Mozilla relicensed from the MPL to a triple-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL scheme The Dolphin emulator relicensed from GPLv2 to GPLv2+. The Dolphin project produced a report about the process , but it lacks any specifics about how the legal mechanics of the switch work. They say (emphasis mine): Out of all [200 contributors], we managed to contact all or take care of the code of all but 10 of those developers. Considering that many of those accounts are now dead and the people seemingly vanished from the Internet, finding the rest is akin to squeezing blood out of a stone. That's when research provided us some much needed relief when it seemed as though relicensing was an impossibility. In 2003, Free Software lawyers consulted for Mozilla's relicensing project and stated that relicensing with the permission of just 95% of contributors was fine, as long as there were no objections in the remaining 5% . [...] [...] Instead of simply asking all of our active developers and relicensing, we made a very strong effort to get a hold of every single developer. Despite this, it simply wasn't feasible to make contact with every single person who worked on Dolphin. [...] We definitely would love to hear support from those that we were unable to contact, and if there are any concerns we will gladly address them in a prompt fashion. That posts links to a post from Ciaran O'Riordan : Someone who works with many lawyers on free software copyright issues later told me that it is not necessary to get permission from 100% of the copyright holders. It would suffice if there was permission from the copyright holders of 95% of the source code and no objections from the holders of the other 5%. This, I’m told, is how Mozilla was able to relicense to the GPL in 2003 despite years of community contributions. There is no information available about why Mozilla's lawyers believed it was acceptable to re-license without each copyright holder's permission. It's also unclear if any factors apply to Mozilla specifically that might apply less strongly to anyone else in a similar situation. In sum, we know only that: You need the permission of every contributing copyright holder to re-license a work Mozilla's lawyers believed (for unspecified reasons) it would be acceptable for Mozilla to make a good-faith effort to contract all contributors and then re-license, even if 5% of the contributors were unreachable (and none of the contributors disapproved).

Relicensing software under GPLv2+ without all contributors

I have software licensed under GPLv2, which I would like to relicense under GPLv2+. Unfortunately, I an unable to contact some of the contributors. Can I proceed, or am I stuck?

As far as I know, you are stuck unless you can somehow track the pieces of code written by every single developer, and remove those written by those you can't reach. For obvious reasons, this is seldom doable.

Do you have to obey English-only traffic signs in Toronto?

Canada is bilingual, yet some major metros like the Greater Toronto Area have all of their traffic signs in English only, without a French duplicate. Is this legal or not? Do you have to respect such signs, e.g. no turn Mon-Fri, or are they effectively informational only? What if you don't even speak any French?

Edit: There is a forum that discusses the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and this is apparently a question that gets asked a lot. To sum up the discussion, because of O.Reg 615 of the French Language Services Act, there is a possibility that you can challenge uniligual signs in French service regions like Toronto. The reality is, Toronto never adopted the option to make all traffic signs bilingual. Quoting someone who posted in the forum who tried to challenge a sign without french and lost the case: "...the prosecutor argued that City of Toronto never approval or adopted this bilingual option. He further mentioned that the City has appealed and won the case from the superior court." From the Highway Traffic Act: HTA OREG 615 52. A municipality situated in an area designated by the French Language Services Act is not required to comply with the sign requirements for such areas unless it (Municipality) has passed a by-law under section 14 of that Act. So the answer appears to be yes, you have to obey English-only signs in Toronto . You may be able to challenge signs in other areas of Ontario, but only if a municipality has passed a by-law under section 14 of the French Language Services Act. Yes, you have to obey all posted signs. Depending on the region, you could make an argument that the sign must be updated to include french, but it is unlikely you could argue that you were not required to obey it in most places. Canada is bilingual at the federal level, so all federal services must make their signs bilingual, but the provinces of Canada are not all bilingual . The laws will change from province to province, Quebec for example is technically unilingual French, so they are not required to put english on their signs, but regardless of which province you are in, you must obey all posted signs. There are a number of provinces that are unilingual English, I grew up in British Columbia, there aren't any French or bilingual signs out here except for in National Parks and on government buildings. I couldn't carry a conversation in French if my life depended on it, not many people out here could, and the ones that can mostly moved here from Quebec. Ontario has the French Language Services Act , which requires all government services (not just federal) to be offered in french if the francophone population meets a certain threshold. The areas in blue in the image below represent areas that provide french services, the dark blue indicates that the entire region is required to offer french services, the light blue indicate areas that have communities that offer french services. Toronto is a designated french services municipality, so technically, the sign probably should be bilingual, but the fact that it is not does not give you justification to break the law. Like I already said, you could file a complaint and have the city update the sign, but you're not likely to get away with a traffic violation based on the fact that the sign wasn't bilingual.

Do you have to obey English-only traffic signs in Toronto?

Canada is bilingual, yet some major metros like the Greater Toronto Area have all of their traffic signs in English only, without a French duplicate. Is this legal or not? Do you have to respect such signs, e.g. no turn Mon-Fri, or are they effectively informational only? What if you don't even speak any French?

Yes, you pretty much have to. While one person convinced one Justice of the Peace that the English-only signs were invalid in 2004 (and then pled guilty on appeal), in 2011 an attempt to argue that the signs were invalid was rejected by lower courts, and the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to hear that case while commenting that they considered the 2004 decision to be incorrect ( R. v. Petruzzo ). While refusing to hear an appeal doesn't create binding precedent that the English-only signs are OK, it means that you're unlikely to succeed in your argument that they aren't allowed.

Earliest Law Review

In what year was the first student-edited law review published, and which institution was it published by? For this question consider a law review to be: "[a] periodic publication of most law schools containing lead articles on topical subjects by law professors, judges or attorneys, and case summaries by law review member-students." -- Black's Law Dictionary 887 (6th ed. 1990).

The first student-edited law review was The Albany Law School Journal - of Albany Law School - which was published for only one year, in 1875. The first student-edited law review was the Albany Law School Journal, which lasted only one year, through 1875. This law review contained articles, Moot Court arguments, and a calendar of law school events. The first issue included a student commentary that questioned whether after a lecture it was better for a student to read the cases discussed in the lecture or to read treatises on the topic discussed. The journal was eventually succeeded by The Albany Law Review (in 1936), which proudly trumpets its heritage : Albany Law School was the first institution to produce a student edited legal periodical. During the academic year of 1875—1876, a student run group, lead by then Editor-in-Chief Isaac Grant Thompson, published the Albany Law School Journal. Although closer to a legal newspaper than a traditional academic law review, the Albany Law School Journal has been hailed as a precursor to the first academic law review published by Harvard Law School in 1887. Editor-in-Chief Thompson described the journal as a “medium of conveying to the profession of the country the latest intelligence of interest on all subjects pertaining to the law,” and he solicited “brief contributions on legal topics, notes of decisions, and items of general legal news.” The Albany Law School Journal was published weekly and mainly consisted of law school updates, announcements, and news. There was, however, a substantive component to the Albany Law School Journal. Each publication contained brief summaries of important recent decisions of the New York courts. Also, the journal contained primitive versions of the student note, a major component of many modern law review publications. For example, one student discusses in detail recent arguments on the power of the states under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments “to cut off the right of suffrage of any person for certain reasons.”

Intra-community civil actions in the EU

'A' (in an EU member state) contracts with 'B' (in another member state) who then breaches the contract. Can 'A' sue 'B' under some harmonised community-wide procedure? If not, in which state does 'A' bring his action (if not stated in the contract)?

For the first question, assuming EU legislation being applicable here, EU regulation No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 on creating a European order for payment procedure may be relevant, foreseeing a unified procedure for payment claims. On the second one, the answer is likely to be found in EU regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters . This regulation has in its Article 4 a general rule (persons domiciled in a Member State shall [..] be sued in the courts of that Member State) but of course also several exceptions to this rule. A relevant exception here is contained in Article 7: In matters relating to a contract, the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question are competent.

Intra-community civil actions in the EU

'A' (in an EU member state) contracts with 'B' (in another member state) who then breaches the contract. Can 'A' sue 'B' under some harmonised community-wide procedure? If not, in which state does 'A' bring his action (if not stated in the contract)?

Not knowing EU law, I can only answer the second question (though I would guess that the answer to the first is yes). The general rules of jurisdiction people to sue others in a range of courts, based on various questions. In this case, the plaintiff would be able to sue in the state where the contract was signed; the state in which the plaintiff lives (though he may have to get the defendant to be in the state, if only for a short time, before he can actually submit the lawsuit); the state in which the defendant lives; and, if the effects of the breach of contract somehow resonate in a third state, the plaintiff would generally be able to sue there too. It's worth noting that as we become a more globalized world, and it becomes easier for people to participate in lawsuits even if they're taking place far away, judges value less complaints regarding the choice of venue, and tend to relax standards regarding where one has to file a lawsuit.

The difference between libel and slander

I've heard people use the terms libel and slander interchangeably, but I know that they are different in the eyes of the law. What are the defining characteristics of each?

From http://grammarist.com/usage/libel-slander/ : (emphasis mine) Libel is the use of false, defamatory claims about someone in written or printed form . Slander likewise denotes false statements that damage a person’s reputation, but it is committed orally or in any other transient form So a false claim satisfying the definition of defamation would be libel if written (including on the Internet, per Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino ), and slander if made in a transient form.

Representing your own case

Are there any prerequisites to represent one's own case before a jury? Specific answer targeting Indian Law would be appreciated.

Legally, the answer will differ by jurisdiction. Practically, the answer is summed up in the old proverb: "The man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Even experienced lawyers rarely represent themselves, especially when outside their area of professional expertise. There are two reasons people hire lawyers: technical expertise, and objective advice. You need both. I have never represented myself, but I have acted for clients against self-represented (in the U.S., "pro se") litigants. I have never seen one who ever had a hope of succeeding. Usually all of the lawyers involved, and the judge, knew their case was doomed from the first hapless pleading. Usually, the pro se litigant was convinced that he was sure to prevail.

What rights do foreigners have when the CBP wants to search their laptop?

Since laptop and other electronic device seizures at US borders became legal without a warrant (including making copies of data), 7% of ACTE's business travelers reported being subject to a seizure as far back as February 2008 . Recently U.S. District Judge Amy B. Jackson has issued the government a long overdue smack-down in this regard . While her ruling is based on the particularly egregious circumstances of this case (waiting for someone to leave in order to get around a warrant, seizing the laptop without searching it and transporting it to be imaged and forensically analyzed, the flimsy tip, and the lack of any allegation of a current crime), she resoundingly rejects CBP’s assertion that it needs no suspicion to do whatever it wants at the border regarding digital devices. Americans can plead the Fourth Amendment, but what can foreigners do?

Foreign citizens are just as entitled to Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure as American citizens are. The case you cited was, in fact, a South Korean citizen who successfully had evidence suppressed from an unjustified border search.

Under what circumstances am I obliged to show ID to a police officer?

In the UK, if a police constable stops you on the street and asks for your ID, when are you required by law to give it to them? Must there be reasonable suspicion of a crime? What about if you're driving and get pulled over; are you obliged to show your driving licence and/or ID? Does it make a difference whether it's a random stop or if you were speeding, e.g.?

People in the UK (who are not subject to immigration control or other restrictions) do not have to carry any form of identification. This doesn't answer all parts of your question, but s164 Road Traffic Act 1988 is appropriate to the part about driving. a person driving a motor vehicle on a road ... must, on being so required by a constable or vehicle examiner, produce his licence and its counterpart 1 for examination, so as to enable the constable or vehicle examiner to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which they were issued. (s164(1)) So it makes no difference why you were stopped: a constable or traffic offiver can demand production of your licence if you were driving. The same power exists if you're suspected of having caused an accident or committed an offence, even if you're not driving at the time of the production demand. Non-production is an offence: If a person required under the preceding provisions of this section to produce a licence and its counterpart ... fails to do so he is, subject to subsections (7) to (8A) below, guilty of an offence. (s164(6)) However, it is a defence to produce the licence (or a receipt for a licence) within seven days of the demand (s164(7-8)). In practice, the officer will give you a 'producer' requiring you to present your licence at a police station within seven days, after which you will be guilty of the non-production offence. The implication of this is that it is not required that you carry your licence; merely that you have it available to produce within seven days. 1 Presumably the reference to 'counterpart' will go away when the counterpart is abolished on 8th June 2015.

Is there any way to bring a criminal case before the grand jury without the support of the Prosecuting Attorney?

Is there any way to present a case to the grand jury if the prosecuting attorney is unwilling to do so?

To answer the first question, the answer seems to be "generally not." In federal courts, this is explicitly not allowed -- rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the only people who can be present before a grand jury are government lawyers, the witness being questioned, interpreters, and a court reporter In state courts, the rules vary by state. However, again, private citizens are generally either completely not allowed to act as prosecutors, or are only allowed to act as prosecutors in a restricted set of situations and subject to the ultimate control of public prosecutors. For instance, in Virginia (which allows private prosecutors), the private prosecutor can't speak in front of a grand jury, initiate a criminal case, or participate in a decision to dismiss charges ( page 23 ). In New Hampshire, private prosecution is limited to misdemeanors with no possibility of jail time, and again the state can dismiss charges ( page 8 ). Rhode Island, like New Hampshire, allows private prosecution for misdemeanors but lets the state dismiss charges ( page 11 ). The justification for allowing the state to dismiss charges is generally "prosecution is inherently a governmental task, so the government must retain ultimate control."

Is there any way to bring a criminal case before the grand jury without the support of the Prosecuting Attorney?

Is there any way to present a case to the grand jury if the prosecuting attorney is unwilling to do so?

I would point to a concept that I feel to some degree answers your questions, the "runaway jury". The idea being that the jury finds itself unsatisfied with whatever it is the prosecutor is telling them, and moves on by itself. Because of the investigative powers of a grand jury, the jurors could in theory investigate a matter on their own, even without the cooperation of the prosecutor. Thus for example we have the case of a New York grand jury in the 1930s, who came to the conclusion that the prosecutor was corrupt, and went to the newspapers while continuing the investigation on their own, until a new prosecutor was appointed. Sources: http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Dodge#Runaway_grand_jury

How to prevent/protect my rights to content I write (US)

I live in the US and do writing of my own in various forms ranging from blog posts to content for handouts and trainings I might want to resell at some point in the future. What steps I should take to legally protect the content I write so that it isn't taken and sold elsewhere later on? Are there additional things I should be thinking about before, during and after writing this content?

Internationally, according to the Berne Convention, "copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared" ( Wikipedia ). However, in the United States, you can register your work with the US Copyright Office to receive additional protection and benefits , such as (if you promptly register) being granted statutory damages and attorney’s fees in case of infringement.