History Main / ArtisticLicenseLaw

17th Feb '17 10:10:00 AM higgledypiggledy
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** In UsefulNotes/{{Canada}}, in an Ontario Superior Court case named ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joly_v_Pelletier Joly v. Pelletier]]'', Joly sued a wide variety of private, government, and foreign parties for discriminating against him on the grounds that he was a Martian. The deadpan judge ruled that, since only persons and corporations have standing to sue, and a person is "an individual human being," then, since Joly's whole argument was that he wasn't a human being, his suit had to fail. As a result, there is actual legal precedent that extraterrestrials have no standing to sue... at least in Ontario.
15th Feb '17 7:33:50 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Sole legal and physical/residential custody with no visitation/parenting time.[[note]]The terminology is inconsistent across jurisdictions.[[/note]] In fiction, it's a quick-and-easy way to give a manipulative ex the ultimate triumph and to show how broken family law is; all that is needed are a few fabricated abuse statements and boom, the kids are all theirs. In real life, it does ''not'' happen without a ton of evidence to suggest that anything less would be likely to bring undue harm to the kids. Yes, family law is an ugly field and divorce is one of the ugliest aspects of it, but the courts are loath to completely cut off a parent and hate to give one parent exclusive access to the child unless it really is the best option. (This can get a bit confusing, however; a parent can have sole physical/residential custody, but then the other parent can have overnight visitation/parenting time for a substantial fraction of the child's time, e.g. alternate weekends. Some places would call this "joint" or "shared" physical/residential custody, but others would not, reserving that terminology for arrangements that call for a 50/50 split or something like that.) If someone receives it, there was absolutely no doubt that the other parent was grossly unfit; sole custody is reserved for the ex-spouses of nonfunctional addicts, [[TrashOfTheTitans the absolute worst hoarders]], serial physical or sexual abusers, the nonfunctional mentally ill, and other people whose behavior or lifestyles are completely inimical to the wellbeing of their children and who should absolutely not be around them under any circumstances.

to:

* Sole legal and physical/residential custody with no visitation/parenting time.[[note]]The terminology is inconsistent across jurisdictions.[[/note]] In fiction, it's a quick-and-easy way to give a manipulative ex the ultimate triumph and to show how broken family law is; all that is needed are a few fabricated abuse statements and boom, the kids are all theirs. In real life, it does ''not'' happen without a ton of evidence to suggest that anything less would be likely to bring undue harm to the kids. Yes, family law is an ugly field and divorce is one of the ugliest aspects of it, but the courts are loath to completely cut off a parent and hate to give one parent exclusive access to the child unless it really is the best option. (This can get a bit confusing, however; a parent can have sole physical/residential custody, but then the other parent can have overnight visitation/parenting time for a substantial fraction of the child's time, e.g. alternate weekends. Some places would call this "joint" or "shared" physical/residential custody, but others would not, reserving that terminology for arrangements that call for a 50/50 split or something like that.) Indeed, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the United States), access to one's children is seen as a fundamental human right, on par with the the freedom of conscience and the right to a fair trial. If someone receives it, there was is absolutely no doubt that the other parent either agreed to the arrangement, was grossly unfit; sole custody is reserved for unfit, or was otherwise a danger to the ex-spouses of child. In general, only the most nonfunctional of addicts, [[TrashOfTheTitans the absolute worst hoarders]], serial physical or sexual abusers, the nonfunctional mentally ill, and other people whose behavior or lifestyles are completely inimical to the wellbeing well-being of their children and who should absolutely not be around them under any circumstances.circumstances will be barred from seeing their children. Even then, the bar is often temporary; for instance, while it is common in cases where one parent of a child has successfully obtained a permanent or long-term domestic violence restraining order against the other parent for the abuser to be barred from seeing the child as part of the order, the usual thing is to allow that parent to prove him/herself capable of handling visitation (including overnights) by completing psychological assessment, counseling, or other psychiatric/psychological treatment (if necessary).
15th Feb '17 7:22:52 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Sole physical and legal custody. In fiction, it's a quick-and-easy way to give a manipulative ex the ultimate triumph and to show how broken family law is; all that is needed are a few fabricated abuse statements and boom, the kids are all theirs. In real life, it does ''not'' happen without a ton of evidence to suggest that anything less would be likely to bring undue harm to the kids. Yes, family law is an ugly field and divorce is one of the ugliest aspects of it, but the courts are loath to completely cut off a parent and hate to give sole custody unless it really is the best option. If someone receives it, there was absolutely no doubt that the other parent was grossly unfit; sole custody is reserved for the ex-spouses of nonfunctional addicts, [[TrashOfTheTitans the absolute worst hoarders]], serial physical or sexual abusers, the nonfunctional mentally ill, and other people whose behavior or lifestyles are completely inimical to the wellbeing of their children and who should absolutely not be around them under any circumstances.

to:

* Sole physical and legal custody. and physical/residential custody with no visitation/parenting time.[[note]]The terminology is inconsistent across jurisdictions.[[/note]] In fiction, it's a quick-and-easy way to give a manipulative ex the ultimate triumph and to show how broken family law is; all that is needed are a few fabricated abuse statements and boom, the kids are all theirs. In real life, it does ''not'' happen without a ton of evidence to suggest that anything less would be likely to bring undue harm to the kids. Yes, family law is an ugly field and divorce is one of the ugliest aspects of it, but the courts are loath to completely cut off a parent and hate to give sole custody one parent exclusive access to the child unless it really is the best option. (This can get a bit confusing, however; a parent can have sole physical/residential custody, but then the other parent can have overnight visitation/parenting time for a substantial fraction of the child's time, e.g. alternate weekends. Some places would call this "joint" or "shared" physical/residential custody, but others would not, reserving that terminology for arrangements that call for a 50/50 split or something like that.) If someone receives it, there was absolutely no doubt that the other parent was grossly unfit; sole custody is reserved for the ex-spouses of nonfunctional addicts, [[TrashOfTheTitans the absolute worst hoarders]], serial physical or sexual abusers, the nonfunctional mentally ill, and other people whose behavior or lifestyles are completely inimical to the wellbeing of their children and who should absolutely not be around them under any circumstances.
15th Feb '17 2:49:38 PM FordPrefect
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Just so non-law students are clear on the difference: Intent or purpose refers to ''what'' a particular person wants to have happened ('I meant to kill him. I wanted him dead'). Motive refers to ''why'' ('He was an abusive jerk'). Motive, unless it's a recognized defense such as self-defense, duress, necessity, etc., does not in itself matter at all whether someone is found guilty or not as a matter of law. Confusingly, however, motive can be used as ''evidence'' of purpose: For instance, in an arson trial, the prosecution can counter a defense that the the fire was accident by pointing to evidence that, say, the defendant knew her drunk, cheating husband was asleep inside the shack. The point of this evidence isn't that wife ''needed'' a reason for burning down a building to be convicted of arson; instead, the fact that the wife ''had'' a reason to burn down the shack is circumstantial evidence that she set the fire on purpose instead of it being an accident.

to:

** Just so non-law students are clear on the difference: Intent or purpose refers to ''what'' a particular person wants to have happened ('I meant to kill him. I wanted him dead'). Motive refers to ''why'' ('He was an abusive jerk'). Motive, unless it's a recognized defense such as self-defense, duress, necessity, etc., does not in itself matter at all whether someone is found guilty or not as a matter of law. Confusingly, however, motive can be used as ''evidence'' of purpose: For instance, in an arson trial, the prosecution can counter a defense that the the fire was an accident by pointing to evidence that, say, the defendant knew her drunk, cheating husband was asleep inside the shack. The point of this evidence isn't that wife ''needed'' a reason for burning down a building to be convicted of arson; instead, the fact that the wife ''had'' a reason to burn down the shack is circumstantial evidence that she set the fire on purpose instead of it being an accident.
15th Feb '17 2:45:25 PM FordPrefect
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Even if it doesn't violates the rules ''per se'', it's assumable that in RealLife a judge would allow the witness to keep on talking in the face of such a blatant act of {{Jerkass}}ery.

to:

*** Even if it doesn't violates violate the rules ''per se'', it's assumable it can be assumed that in RealLife a judge would allow the witness to keep on talking in the face of such a blatant act of {{Jerkass}}ery.
14th Feb '17 9:04:36 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Again, this does not always apply to RealLife (or in all jurisdictions): Ferdinand von Schirach, a criminal law attorney and crime author from Germany, insisted that whether or not the client ''says'' he did it (yet still instructs his lawyer to mount his defence regardless) is ultimately secondary; What matters is the factual and legal position, to which the defendant's own version of events, while indispensible, is yet another testimony among many others, with the same assumption of inaccuracy and dishonesty as with the rest.

to:

** Again, this does not always apply to RealLife (or in all jurisdictions): Ferdinand von Schirach, a criminal law attorney and crime author from Germany, insisted that whether or not the client ''says'' he did it (yet still instructs his lawyer to mount his defence regardless) is ultimately secondary; What matters is the factual and legal position, to which the defendant's own version of events, while indispensible, indispensable, is yet another testimony among many others, with the same assumption of inaccuracy and dishonesty as with the rest.rest. This is true in many jurisdictions; for instance, in many if not most common-law jurisdictions, particularly in the U.S., the court will refuse to allow a defendant to enter a plea of guilty if the defendant does not testify to facts sufficient to support such a plea.
14th Feb '17 7:51:26 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Just so non-law students are clear on the difference: Intent or purpose refers to ''what'' a particular person wants to have happened ('I meant to kill him. I wanted him dead'). Motive refers to ''why'' ('He was an abusive jerk'). Motive, unless it's a recognized defense such as self-defense, duress, necessity, etc., does not in itself matter at all whether someone is found guilty or not as a matter of law. Confusingly, however, motive can be used as ''evidence'' of purpose: For instance, in an arson trial, the prosecution can counter a defense that the the fire was accident by pointing to evidence that, say, the defendant knew her drunk, cheating husband was inside the shack.

to:

** Just so non-law students are clear on the difference: Intent or purpose refers to ''what'' a particular person wants to have happened ('I meant to kill him. I wanted him dead'). Motive refers to ''why'' ('He was an abusive jerk'). Motive, unless it's a recognized defense such as self-defense, duress, necessity, etc., does not in itself matter at all whether someone is found guilty or not as a matter of law. Confusingly, however, motive can be used as ''evidence'' of purpose: For instance, in an arson trial, the prosecution can counter a defense that the the fire was accident by pointing to evidence that, say, the defendant knew her drunk, cheating husband was asleep inside the shack.shack. The point of this evidence isn't that wife ''needed'' a reason for burning down a building to be convicted of arson; instead, the fact that the wife ''had'' a reason to burn down the shack is circumstantial evidence that she set the fire on purpose instead of it being an accident.
14th Feb '17 7:47:08 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Under the statutes of most states, the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive. It only needs to prove the defendant acted with ''intent'', or something similar like "prior calculation and design" (as Ohio puts it). As noted, motive sells the case to a jury better though.
** Just so non-law students are clear on the difference: Intent refers to ''what'' a particular person wants to have happened ('I meant to kill him. I wanted him dead'). Motive refers to ''why'' ('He was an abusive jerk'). Motive, unless it's a recognized defense such as self-defense, duress, necessity, etc., does not matter at all whether someone is found guilty or not as a matter of law. Most juries will gladly factor it in when determining the level of punishment, but even then, the law usually limits what juries are allowed to take into account.

to:

** Under the statutes of most states, the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive. It only needs to prove the defendant acted with ''intent'', or something similar like "purpose" (the term used in the Model Penal Code and states that use it, e.g. New Jersey) or "prior calculation and design" (as Ohio puts it). As noted, motive sells the case to a jury better though.
** Just so non-law students are clear on the difference: Intent or purpose refers to ''what'' a particular person wants to have happened ('I meant to kill him. I wanted him dead'). Motive refers to ''why'' ('He was an abusive jerk'). Motive, unless it's a recognized defense such as self-defense, duress, necessity, etc., does not in itself matter at all whether someone is found guilty or not as a matter of law. Most juries will gladly factor it Confusingly, however, motive can be used as ''evidence'' of purpose: For instance, in when determining an arson trial, the level of punishment, but even then, prosecution can counter a defense that the law usually limits what juries are allowed the fire was accident by pointing to take into account.evidence that, say, the defendant knew her drunk, cheating husband was inside the shack.
14th Feb '17 5:43:25 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** In the US, a disproportionate number of criminal cases are for the possession of contraband--i.e. drugs, followed by illegally-obtained guns. In such cases, a trial is a positively gigantic waste of everybody's time and resources, since once the judge rules that the evidence of the contraband is admissible, there's really no doubt how the case will end up.

to:

*** In the US, a disproportionate number of criminal cases are for the possession of contraband--i.e. drugs, followed by illegally-obtained guns. In such cases, a trial is a positively gigantic waste of everybody's time and resources, since once the judge rules that the evidence of the contraband is admissible, there's really no doubt how the case will end up. Even in cases where the offense is not possession of contraband, very often the evidence for the prosecution is so overwhelming that no defense attorney could expect that a jury would acquit at trial. It is true that there is a chronic problem in the U.S. of overworked and inattentive defense lawyers that accounts for a substantial part of the large portion of cases that end in pleas, but frankly in the majority of run-of-the-mill criminal cases, the evidence really is that one-sided.
14th Feb '17 5:11:11 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AFoolForAClient: In most works of fiction, pro se litigants are usually portrayed as crazy or devoid of a valid case (ergo, they're going pro se because no self-respecting attorney would take it). In real life, representing oneself pro se is generally a really bad idea, but there are some cases where it's common, namely in small claims court or to appeal fines. In cases where the stakes are higher, people do still sometimes do it and the courts tend to be somewhat more accommodating with them (as they may not know how to properly behave in court or have full knowledge of courtroom procedure), but blatantly disruptive, abusive, or just plain bad faith behavior will not be tolerated. Lastly, there is little truth to the notion that all pro se litigants are either crazy or have no case (though anyone who has worked in law can tell you that the stereotype of the unstable or mentally ill pro se querulous litigant is hardly untrue), as this would be thrown out in summary disposition or judgment; the reality is that most are just people of limited means trying to resolve a problem to the best of their ability.

to:

* AFoolForAClient: In most works of fiction, pro se litigants are usually portrayed as crazy or devoid of a valid case (ergo, they're going pro se because no self-respecting attorney would take it). In real life, representing oneself pro se is generally a really bad idea, but there are some cases where it's common, namely in small claims court, in family court or (where many litigants are too poor to retain counsel, but because family cases are civil suits, do not have a right to a lawyer at government expense), and to appeal fines. In cases where the stakes are higher, people do still sometimes do it and the courts tend to be somewhat more accommodating with them (as they may not know how to properly behave in court or have full knowledge of courtroom procedure), but blatantly disruptive, abusive, or just plain bad faith behavior will not be tolerated. Lastly, there is little truth to the notion that all pro se litigants are either crazy or have no case (though anyone who has worked in law can tell you that the stereotype of the unstable or mentally ill pro se querulous litigant is hardly untrue), as this would be thrown out in summary disposition or judgment; the reality is that most are just people of limited means trying to resolve a problem to the best of their ability.
This list shows the last 10 events of 345. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseLaw