Jeffery Epstein was accused of some of the most disturbing series of pedophilic acts in recent memory.
Recently, Epstine was found unconscious in his cell with marks on his neck. After which, he was put on suicide watch.
Despite not having a suicide in 21 years at MCC, despite a prior suicide attempt that should have given the MCC notice, Epstine was recently found dead in his cell, under an apparent suicide.
Today, we examine the evidence available so far, to ask the question: is this a straight run-of-the-mill suicide, or is it perhaps something more, perhaps even murder?
Tune in as we discuss the latest turn in a case so crazy it includes a place called pedophile island.
Air & Liquid Systems sold a product that was designed to be combined with an asbestos component to the US Navy. The asbestos lead to cancer.
The issue is the liability of Air & Liquid. Air & Liquid didn't sell the asbestos, but they did sell a part that was intended to be combined with asbestos in its intended use, and it was in fact used in the way intended and for the intended purpose.
The issue is essentially proximate cause. Is Air & Liquid systems close enough to the injury to be held responsible, or does the fact that Air & Liquid did not sell the part that actually caused the injury enough to insulate them from liability?
Youtube seems to be shadowbanning me. Not sure why :) Like, comment, subscribe, blah blah blah :)
Anywho, this is the case of Bacon Bitch v. Breakfast Bitch. Bacon Bitch is a successful restaurant in the Miami, FL area. A couple had such a great time there, they decided to open their own restaurant "inspired by" Bacon Bitch, called Breakfast Bitch.
Breakfast Bitch copied several elements of the Bacon Bitch concept, including several menu items and recipes.
Bacon Bitch alleges actual confusion in the marketplace, which is a trademark issue. A Yelp employee, asked by Breakfast Bitch to help set up its Yelp page, expressed confusion, and there is some other evidence of confusion in the market place.
The question therefore is: Did Breakfast Bitch illegally take elements from Bacon Bitch, to the point there is a violation of the Lanham Act?
I also express my support for both bottomless mimosas in specific and bitches in general. I want all bitches everywhere to thrive! #YouGoGirl
The Koala is a student newspaper in the style of The Onion. The Koala published an article mocking the concept of safe spaces. Two days later, the student government defunded all student media groups.
The Koala suggests the student government's move may have potentially been retaliation for the article. I am also somewhat inclined to agree :)
The 9th circuit reviews this case. Because UCSD is a public university, the first amendment is implicated. The question is whether the action of the student government was proper, and what remedy should be provided.
We also read the offending article, and review the cover of The Koala's "best of" issue.
We conclude that The Koala is awesome and that we support everything they stand for!
Tune in as we review the case of The Koala, and we realize just how funny a farce can be when the target of the farce refuses to accept it in good humor.
A young girlfriend (17) repeatedly encouraged and pressured her young boyfriend (18) to commit suicide, which in fact occurred. The repeated nature and intensity of this pressure reveals the young woman to be most decidedly not a good person.
The question before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts is whether speech alone can result in a proper criminal conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
Freedom of speech is an important principle. Today, the court deals with when freedom of speech does and should yield within the context of the criminal law.
Grab a drink - this one gets dark.
"Hot Tubbing" is apparently the practice where you call multiple witnesses at the same time, and they all can answer at the same time, and also talk / debate / "splash" (a federal judge actually used that word to describe this) amongst themselves.
This is a strange idea to me. Sounds like a chaotic mess.
We also extend the metaphor as far as we can go, discussing what, in the metaphor, "bathing suits", "chlorine", "jets", and "jill jets" are.
Also, https://patents.google.com/patent/US5920923 , if you want to learn more about the "Jill Jet".
With special guest, Tactical Bra! Thanks for joining me Tactical!
Federal law requires the federal government to apprehend certain illegal aliens and put them into federal custody "when" they are released from non-federal custody (for example, from serving time for state crime).
In some cases, the federal government did not take the person into custody immediately after they were released from state custody. In fact, in some cases the delay was ... quite considerable.
The question before the Court is whether the term "when" has a time limit, and if so, how long is it? Can the federal government apprehend someone days, weeks, months, or even years after the fact?
The court decides this issue in Nielsen v. Preap .
An Indian tribe runs gas stations in the state of Washington on its tribal land, but to get the gas to the gas station, the tribe uses tanker trucks which have to drive across public highways.
The State of Washington charges tax on fuel by in part taxing the fuel trucks that use its highways.
The tribe refused to pay the tax, arguing that a treaty between the tribe and the US government gives the tribe the right to use the highways without tax liability.
The State of Washington argues that the tax is the same tax for everyone, and that to exempt the tribe is unfair, both in that it gives the tribe's gas station a competitive advantage over non-tribe gas stations, and that since the trucks are heavy, the damage caused to the roads by the trucks would have to be paid for by people other than those that are causing the damage.
In today's case, the US Supreme Court is asked to interpret a 150 year old treaty, and decide whether the tribe owes fuel taxes or not.
As part of a copyright dispute which Oracle won, Oracle asked for and was awarded attorney's costs and expert witness costs. These costs totaled $12 million (not all attorney's get paid this much, but hey, nice work if you can get it).
The rule at common law was that each party had to pay its own costs. This rule has been modified by statutes in most states and in federal law, but the degree to which it has been modified is different in different places.
The question here is whether the copyright statute's text that allows the awarding of "full" costs includes this $12 million dollars or not.
The court considers the default rules that apply, and then considers whether this text merely invokes those default rules, or whether it changes them.
So, who pays these attorneys - the bad guys, or the client? (The attorney always gets paid, don't be ridiculous - we are just trying to figure out by who).
We find out in today's case of Rimini v. Oracle.
The person who made the accusation pleaded the fifth on the stand. All testimony is stricken. Case dismissed with prejudice.
You don't see that every day.
22 women have sued the pornography producers of GirlsDoPorn, arguing that the contracts they signed were obtained under fraud. In particular, they allege that they were lead to believe that the films would not be released in the USA and not released online.
In support of the claim, the women allege that the pornographer producer solicited the participation under ads that suggested clothed modeling, that they would remain anonymous, and that the producers paid third parties to falsely vouch that the content would not be shown in the united states, among other acts of alleged deception.
The women have alleged significant harm to them, including being continuously doxed and harassed by the general public. They have alleged being disowned by their families, suicidal thoughts, and other significant emotional distress by their content being widely disseminated.
Of course, there is a difference between legal negotiation and illegal fraud in the inducement sufficient to nullify the contract. To tell the difference, we must careful and dispassionately consider the facts and the law.
Is this an issue of regret after the fact, or is this an issue of fraud in the inducement of the contract?
Today, we take a look at the trial brief from the 22 women, which lays out the basic allegations to be proved, and we make some assumptions about the language of contract, and highlight the difficulties that are likely ahead for the plaintiffs to make their case.
Wall-Street.com published articles under a license from Fourth Estate, but declined to take the articles down once the license expired. Fourth Estate sued, arguing copyright infringement.
Although copyright exists from the moment of creation, the law requires that to bring a lawsuit, a person must obtain a copyright registration from the copyright office.
While the registration had been applied for, it had not yet been granted at the time the lawsuit was filed.
The question is whether the mere filing was sufficient, or whether actual registration was required. There was a split on this among the lower courts.
How will the Supreme Court resolve the dispute? Is an application the same thing as registration for a lawsuit? Today, we find out!
Steve doesn't like poems in court cases? Uh oh!
This is just a fun, tongue-in-cheek video. I have no beef with Steve. He is a cool cat, even if he doesn't dig the poems. :)
The good news is that this means the President's can't block people using his twitter account.
The question that is now pending is what does this mean for other politicians, on the federal, state, and local levels? What does it mean for other social media services? And if Twitter allows this public forum to exist, do they have to allow the ENTIRE public to interact with it?
If POTUS tweets, this is now a state action and a public forum?!
In Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald Trump, the second circuit held that the president's twitter account (the account, not twitter as a whole) is a public forum.
Can twitter still ban people or what now? Is that compatible with a public forum, even if run through a private company?
Is this decision even comparable with Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck ? (I'd say no - my money is on an appeal to SCOTUS, and a quick GVR for the circuit court to reconsider its findings)
The court's decision raises more questions then it answers! Let's struggle with it together and try to figure out what exactly is happening!
Remember to leave a like on this video and subscribe if you want to see more!
A group of five black adult dancers sued, alleging their place of work engaged in racial discrimination against non-white dancers.
The evidence revealed the owner (who was in federal prison for much of the time on unrelated charges). along with his son (who was running the club while his father was indisposed), engaged in repeated acts of discrimination against both dancers and customers. These acts were not what one would consider subtle.
And this wasn't the first time. This particular business had been sued (and found liable) for discrimination before.
Let's read this court case, and see what they facts are, and why these dancers just got a three million dollar payday ...
An illegal immigrant went to a shooting range and fired a gun. Unfortunately, illegal immigrants are barred from possessing firearms under federal law.
The question is: Does the government need to prove that Rehaif knew he was an illegal immigrant?
But rather than just read what the court wrote, what if a judge were to write the same thing in the form of a slam poem? How would that sound?
Internet law review attempts to find out it in this creative re-write of Rehaif v. US.