History Main / ArtisticLicenseLaw

19th Aug '17 6:52:36 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* FrivolousLawsuit: Lawyers are required by law to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts of every case before filing, in order to reasonably ensure that it is legitimate; if they fail to do so, they can face sanctions. In RealLife, most frivolous suits are simply thrown out of court.

to:

* FrivolousLawsuit: Lawyers are required by law to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts factual and legal merit of every case before filing, in order to reasonably ensure that it is legitimate; if they fail to do so, they can face sanctions. In RealLife, most frivolous suits are simply thrown out of court.
13th Aug '17 12:21:10 AM marcoasalazarm
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* MadeOutToBeAJerkass: A very risky move on a RealLife court of law. Even the biggest jerk in the galaxy can have an actual legal grievance, so trying to redirect the blame to make the plaintiff look like an asshole just makes the defendant look like a ManipulativeBastard--also, this is why juries are instructed and screened to try to keep bias out of the equation (although it doesn't always succeed). It can also actually be a defense in defamation cases; if the plaintiff's reputation is already so terrible that there's no more damage that can realistically be done, the "actual harm" portion of most defamation statutes may be impossible to satisfy.

to:

* MadeOutToBeAJerkass: A very risky move on a RealLife court of law. Even the biggest jerk in the galaxy can have an actual legal grievance, so trying to redirect the blame to make the plaintiff look like [[AssholeVictim an asshole that deserves whatever crime he was a victim of]] just makes the defendant look like a ManipulativeBastard--also, this is why juries are instructed and screened to try to keep bias out of the equation (although it doesn't always succeed). It can also actually be a defense in defamation cases; if the plaintiff's reputation is already so terrible that there's no more damage that can realistically be done, the "actual harm" portion of most defamation statutes may be impossible to satisfy.
10th Jul '17 9:11:06 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* EmancipatedChild: Truth in television, though less common and less easy than TV would have you believe. There has to be evidence that the parents are unfit to take care of them, that there are no relatives willing or able to act as legal guardians, that they are sufficiently mature and capable of making good decisions, and that the child can reasonably support themselves (meaning that they can demonstrate that they are currently financially self-sufficient and will continue to be, as well as being unlikely to apply for welfare or resort to illegal sources of income.) They will ''not'' be granted custody of younger siblings at the same time, either, unless circumstances are well and truly bizarre.

to:

* EmancipatedChild: Truth in television, though less common and less easy than TV would have you believe. There has to be evidence that the parents are unfit to take care of them, that there are no relatives willing or able to act as legal guardians, that they are sufficiently mature and capable of making good decisions, and that the child can reasonably support themselves (meaning that they can demonstrate that they are currently financially self-sufficient and will continue to be, as well as being unlikely to apply for welfare or resort to illegal sources of income.) They will ''not'' be granted custody of younger siblings at the same time, either, unless circumstances are well and truly bizarre.bizarre; if both parents are unfit, there are no willing, able, or fit relatives who could step up, and the petitioner is able to sufficiently care for the siblings and the court feels that it would be in their mutual best interest, they ''may'' grant it, but it's a high threshold.



* AFoolForAClient: In real life, representing oneself ''pro se'' is generally a really bad idea, but there is little truth to the notion that all ''pro se'' litigants are either crazy or have no case. Most are just people of limited means trying to resolve a problem to the best of their ability.

to:

* AFoolForAClient: In real life, representing oneself ''pro se'' is generally a really bad idea, but there is little truth to the notion that all ''pro se'' litigants are either crazy or have no case. Most are just people of limited means trying to resolve a problem to the best of their ability. Crazies and bullies exist, but they do not represent the majority of ''pro se'' litigants.



* MadeOutToBeAJerkass: A very risky move on a RealLife court of law. Even the biggest jerk in the galaxy can have an actual legal grievance, so trying to redirect the blame to make the plaintiff look like an asshole just makes the defendant look like a ManipulativeBastard--also, this is why juries are instructed and screened to try to keep bias out of the equation (although it doesn't always succeed).

to:

* MadeOutToBeAJerkass: A very risky move on a RealLife court of law. Even the biggest jerk in the galaxy can have an actual legal grievance, so trying to redirect the blame to make the plaintiff look like an asshole just makes the defendant look like a ManipulativeBastard--also, this is why juries are instructed and screened to try to keep bias out of the equation (although it doesn't always succeed). It can also actually be a defense in defamation cases; if the plaintiff's reputation is already so terrible that there's no more damage that can realistically be done, the "actual harm" portion of most defamation statutes may be impossible to satisfy.
4th Jul '17 9:01:42 AM marcoasalazarm
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ConvictionByContradiction: While a legal case has to hold together logically to some extent, "logic dictates that this must be what happened" is ''not'' sufficient for a conviction in a criminal case. In a civil case, the principle of ''res ipsa loquitur'' (The thing speaks for itself) applies, and it basically amounts to "We can't prove the specific sequence of events that led to the defendant wronging us, but there is no possible innocent explanation" or "There's no legitimate reason for the event occurring in the first place, so no matter what their explanation is, they're still liable". Furthermore, an investigation that seems to be running solely on the fact someone used the wrong grammar on his statement as "''the'' clue" would probably be dismissed as harassment.

to:

* ConvictionByContradiction: While a legal case has to hold together logically to some extent, "logic dictates that this must be what happened" is ''not'' sufficient for a conviction in a criminal case. In a civil case, the principle of ''res ipsa loquitur'' (The thing speaks for itself) applies, and it basically amounts to "We can't prove the specific sequence of events that led to the defendant wronging us, but there is no possible innocent explanation" or "There's no legitimate reason for the event occurring in the first place, so no matter what their explanation is, they're still liable". Furthermore, an investigation that seems to be running solely on the fact someone used the wrong grammar on his statement as "''the'' "'''the''' clue" (to give an example) would probably be dismissed as harassment.
4th Jul '17 8:17:57 AM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* EmancipatedChild: Truth in television, though less common and less easy than TV would have you believe. There has to be evidence that the parents are unfit to take care of them, that there are no relatives willing or able to act as legal guardians, that they are sufficiently mature and capable of making good decisions, and that the child can reasonably support themselves (meaning that they can demonstrate that they are currently financially self-sufficient and will continue to be, as well as being unlikely to apply for welfare or resort to illegal sources of income.) They will ''not'' be granted custody of younger siblings at the same time, either.

to:

* EmancipatedChild: Truth in television, though less common and less easy than TV would have you believe. There has to be evidence that the parents are unfit to take care of them, that there are no relatives willing or able to act as legal guardians, that they are sufficiently mature and capable of making good decisions, and that the child can reasonably support themselves (meaning that they can demonstrate that they are currently financially self-sufficient and will continue to be, as well as being unlikely to apply for welfare or resort to illegal sources of income.) They will ''not'' be granted custody of younger siblings at the same time, either.either, unless circumstances are well and truly bizarre.
4th Jul '17 8:13:12 AM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* BailEqualsFreedom: Bail is treated as an easy way to skip a future trial and possible sentencing. In real life, it's a monetary guarantee that the accused will show up for trial and "jumping bail" is a crime in itself, and flight risks or those who pose a clear and present threat to the community will not be granted bail.

to:

* BailEqualsFreedom: Bail is treated as an easy way to skip a future trial and possible sentencing. In real life, it's a monetary guarantee that the accused will show up for trial and "jumping bail" is a crime in itself, and flight risks or those who pose a clear and present threat to the community will generally not be granted bail.
14th Jun '17 12:09:23 PM CaptainAshTiberiusKirk
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''Film/IronMan2'', during the Senate Committee hearing, [[ObstructiveBureaucrat Senator Stern]] orders Rhodes to read a single line from his report on the Iron Man armor -- ''clearly'' out of context -- about Iron Man being a potential threat, then cuts him off before he could explain what he meant. Tony had every right to ask Rhodes to finish his statement.

to:

* In ''Film/IronMan2'', during the Senate Committee hearing, [[ObstructiveBureaucrat Senator Stern]] orders Rhodes to read a single line from his report on the Iron Man armor -- ''clearly'' out of context -- about Iron Man being a potential threat, then cuts him off before he could explain what he meant. Tony had every right to ask Rhodes to finish his statement. Naturally, Rhodey [[LampshadeHanging calls him out on this when he makes this demand]].
14th Jun '17 9:02:42 AM aristos_achaion
Is there an issue? Send a Message


## If you've already been ''convicted'', even later-proven innocence is not a defense. You don't have a right to a pardon, a new trial (unless there was a procedural error) or any reduction of your sentence.

to:

## If you've already been ''convicted'', even later-proven innocence is not a defense. You don't have a right to a pardon, a new trial (unless there was a procedural error) or any reduction of your sentence.
sentence.[[note]]Depending on jurisdiction...post-conviction relief on the basis of actual innocence varies from state to state in the US. In particular, the emergence of DNA testing has lead to many new state laws allowing for challenging one's conviction based on evidence not available at the time. The Supreme Court has ruled that that's not a right, though.[[/note]]
13th Jun '17 6:48:19 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AmbulanceChaser: Depends on jurisdiction, but on some (such as Europe) being one of these is '''extremely illegal'''.

to:

* AmbulanceChaser: Depends on jurisdiction, but on some (such as Europe) being one of these is '''extremely illegal'''.illegal''', and more lenient jurisdictions still have a very dim view of this.



* BailEqualsFreedom: Bail is treated as an easy way to skip a future trial and possible sentencing. In real life, it's a monetary guarantee that the accused will show up for trial and "jumping bail" is a crime in itself.

to:

* BailEqualsFreedom: Bail is treated as an easy way to skip a future trial and possible sentencing. In real life, it's a monetary guarantee that the accused will show up for trial and "jumping bail" is a crime in itself.itself, and flight risks or those who pose a clear and present threat to the community will not be granted bail.



* MadeOutToBeAJerkass: A very risky move on a RealLife court of law. Even the biggest jerk in the galaxy can have an actual legal grievance, so trying to redirect the blame to make the plaintiff look like an asshole just makes the defendant look like a ManipulativeBastard--also, this is why juries are instructed and screened to try to keep bias out of the equation (although it doesn't always succeeds).

to:

* MadeOutToBeAJerkass: A very risky move on a RealLife court of law. Even the biggest jerk in the galaxy can have an actual legal grievance, so trying to redirect the blame to make the plaintiff look like an asshole just makes the defendant look like a ManipulativeBastard--also, this is why juries are instructed and screened to try to keep bias out of the equation (although it doesn't always succeeds).succeed).



* PleaBargain: The reality varies widely by jurisdiction. In the US, wheret's most common, the biggest difference between fact and fiction is when it's offered; in RealLife, a plea bargain is almost never offered once the trial has begun.

to:

* PleaBargain: The reality varies widely by jurisdiction. In the US, wheret's where it's most common, the biggest difference between fact and fiction is when it's offered; in RealLife, a plea bargain is almost never offered once the trial has begun.



* RapeAndRevenge: The type of premeditated manhunts that are standard to this trope would be considered straight-up murder, especially when it's someone other than the victim themself doing it. (See also CrimeOfSelfDefense).
* ReadTheFinePrint: Contract law is as wildly varied and thorny as Self-defense law, but as a rule of thumb you must to be able to read it.

to:

* RapeAndRevenge: The type of premeditated manhunts that are standard to this trope would be considered straight-up murder, especially when it's someone other than the victim themself themselves doing it. (See also CrimeOfSelfDefense).
* ReadTheFinePrint: Contract law is as wildly varied and thorny as Self-defense self-defense law, but as a rule of thumb you must to be able to read it.



* SensitivityTraining: A regular workplace comedy trope in fiction, an actual legal necessity in RealLife. Companies that are able to show that employees were told what not to do (and yet they did it anyway) on a sexual harassment or other "emotional damage" lawsuit will be better protected that one that didn't. Depending on the jurisdiction, this also comes true to some "BreakTheMotivationalSpeaker" plots--companies that perform such things as outsourcing that can present to their parent corporations that they are at least ''trying'' to improve productivity have a higher chance of staying open if budgets need to be adjusted than those who don't.

to:

* SensitivityTraining: A regular workplace comedy trope in fiction, an actual legal necessity in RealLife. Companies that are able to show that employees were told what not to do (and yet they did it anyway) on in a sexual harassment or other "emotional damage" hostile work environment lawsuit will be better protected that one that didn't. Depending on the jurisdiction, this also comes true to some "BreakTheMotivationalSpeaker" plots--companies that perform such things as outsourcing that can present to their parent corporations that they are at least ''trying'' to improve productivity have a higher chance of staying open if budgets need to be adjusted than those who don't.didn't.



* SocialServicesDoesNotExist: In RealLife, they ''do'' -- even if their effectiveness may be hampered through such things as too many cases to deal with. As a result, events that would bring their attention to a child's plight (such as HilariouslyAbusiveChildhood) but would be shrugged off in fiction ''will'' end in someone arrested.

to:

* SocialServicesDoesNotExist: In RealLife, they ''do'' -- even if ''do''; while their effectiveness may be hampered through such things as too many cases is largely tied to deal with. budgetary limitations, they do the absolute best that they can. As a result, events that would bring their attention to a child's plight (such as HilariouslyAbusiveChildhood) but would be shrugged off in fiction ''will'' end in someone arrested.be dealt with.
3rd Jun '17 8:16:05 AM marcoasalazarm
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* SensitivityTraining: A regular workplace comedy trope in fiction, an actual legal necessity in RealLife. Companies that are able to show that employees were told what not to do (and yet they did it anyway) on a sexual harassment or other "emotional damage" lawsuit will be better protected that one that didn't.

to:

* SensitivityTraining: A regular workplace comedy trope in fiction, an actual legal necessity in RealLife. Companies that are able to show that employees were told what not to do (and yet they did it anyway) on a sexual harassment or other "emotional damage" lawsuit will be better protected that one that didn't. Depending on the jurisdiction, this also comes true to some "BreakTheMotivationalSpeaker" plots--companies that perform such things as outsourcing that can present to their parent corporations that they are at least ''trying'' to improve productivity have a higher chance of staying open if budgets need to be adjusted than those who don't.
This list shows the last 10 events of 407. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseLaw