13 Hours Left to Support a Troper-Created Project : Personal Space (discuss)

History Main / ArtisticLicenseLaw

17th May '16 1:26:54 PM moloch
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Speaking of the Irish Constitution, when Ireland voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, gay-rights supporters around the world celebrated but many were offended by the idea that the civil rights of a minority population were up for popular vote, especially those in the United States due to the country's own [[UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement turbulent civil rights history]]. However, Irish law works a little differently. The most desired outcome was to enshrine marriage equality into the Constitution, which can ''only'' be changed by popular vote. But since the majority of Irish citizens support gay rights, the outcome was never in doubt.

to:

*** Speaking of the Irish Constitution, when Ireland voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, gay-rights supporters around the world celebrated but many were offended by the idea that the civil rights of a minority population were up for popular vote, especially those in the United States due to the country's own [[UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement turbulent civil rights history]]. However, Irish law works a little differently. The most desired outcome was to enshrine marriage equality into the Constitution, which can ''only'' be changed by popular vote. But since the majority of Irish citizens support gay rights, the outcome was never in doubt.doubt, and without ''another'' referendum, it can't be banned or removed, California-style.
20th Apr '16 7:16:07 AM Duffan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There is, in addition to the Miranda warning, a similar admonition to police or state/local level public employees, called a Garrity warning. This basically boils down to "We can ask you anything we want, and compel you to answer truthfully, but any compelled statement cannot be used against you in a criminal case." This means that incidences of police misconduct have to be divided into criminal (where Miranda applies, and the risk is a fine or jail time) and administrative (where it doesn't, and the risk is getting fired) proceedings. When Eliot Stabler or another CowboyCop asks to speak to a union rep, they are effectively invoking Garrity and refusing to give a statement unless waived of criminal liability. (Federal employees have Kalkines warnings, which acts the same).

to:

** There is, in addition to the Miranda warning, a similar admonition to police or state/local level public employees, called a Garrity warning. This basically boils down to "We can ask you anything we want, and compel you to answer truthfully, but any compelled statement cannot be used against you in a criminal case." This means that incidences of police misconduct have to be divided into criminal (where Miranda applies, and the risk is a fine or jail time) and administrative (where it doesn't, and the risk is getting fired) proceedings. When [[Series/LawAndOrderSVU Eliot Stabler Stabler]] or another CowboyCop asks to speak to a union rep, they are effectively invoking Garrity and refusing to give a statement unless waived of criminal liability. (Federal employees have Kalkines warnings, which acts the same).
19th Apr '16 4:38:23 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Bankruptcy Law and Patent law also require specialized backgrounds with accounting and engineering training respectfully.

to:

** Bankruptcy Law and Patent law also require generally requires specialized backgrounds with accounting and training, typically needing the lawyer to have had at least a minor concentration in engineering training respectfully.or the natural sciences as part of his/her undergraduate education. Contrary to what you might expect, however, many other highly-technical areas of law do not require similarly specialized backgrounds; if you aren't especially intimidated by the occasional encounter with numbers, there is no reason why someone whose background is in philosophy and foreign languages couldn't be a bankruptcy lawyer, or why an English major couldn't become a tax attorney. Having taken some accounting classes ''helps'', but it is far from necessary.
4th Apr '16 12:09:06 PM marcoasalazarm
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** 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.
27th Mar '16 10:55:25 AM billybobfred
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Additionally, you will probably be told you are disinherited for "reasons you are aware of." Putting in their actual reasons would give you an angle to contest it: you could claim that the reason given was false, and they aren't around to defend it.

to:

** Additionally, you will probably be told you are disinherited for "reasons "[[YouKnowWhatYouDid reasons you are aware of.of]]." Putting in their actual reasons would give you an angle to contest it: you could claim that the reason given was false, and they aren't around to defend it.
9th Mar '16 1:42:34 PM justanid
Is there an issue? Send a Message





!!Subtropes:



[[/index]]

to:

[[/index]]
[[/index]]
----
19th Feb '16 5:42:32 PM zeldafanjtl
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Does this even apply here? Congress isn't a court and has its own rules and procedures.
15th Feb '16 6:47:26 AM rjd1922
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[WeAllLiveInAmerica We All Live in Common Law Jurisdictions]]: It is extremely common to see media assume trials are the same everywhere, and it is often the case that trials in inquisitorial jurisdictions (i.e, anywhere with Civilian Law or the Napoleonic Code) are depicted on television as being exactly the same as adversarial trials, just with a different flag on the wall. This is all kinds of wrong.

to:

* [[WeAllLiveInAmerica We All Live in Common Law Jurisdictions]]: It is extremely common to see media assume trials are the same everywhere, and it is often the case that trials in inquisitorial jurisdictions (i.e, anywhere with Civilian Civil Law or the Napoleonic Code) are depicted on television as being exactly the same as adversarial trials, just with a different flag on the wall. This is all kinds of wrong.



** In most European/civilian law jurisdictions there is nothing like an Executor to a will. Moreover, an Estate (everything a dead person left behind) isn't even a legal entity. In Germany, by law, you and your brothers and sisters own your parents' earthly belongings, beginning the very second the last of them are declared dead. This is because in the common law, there is a strong preference for the free "alienability" (transferability) of property, even at death: the theory is "if it's yours, you can give it to whomever you like." Because of this strong preference, there are more ways a decedent[[note]]Legalese for "dead person"[[/note]] can distribute his/her property at death and therefore more potential for conflict--hence the need for probate. On the other hand, in the civilian tradition, there's a sense that the person "owes" their family the property, and there are stark restrictions on what can be willed away.

to:

** In most European/civilian European/civil law jurisdictions there is nothing like an Executor to a will. Moreover, an Estate (everything a dead person left behind) isn't even a legal entity. In Germany, by law, you and your brothers and sisters own your parents' earthly belongings, beginning the very second the last of them are declared dead. This is because in the common law, there is a strong preference for the free "alienability" (transferability) of property, even at death: the theory is "if it's yours, you can give it to whomever you like." Because of this strong preference, there are more ways a decedent[[note]]Legalese for "dead person"[[/note]] can distribute his/her property at death and therefore more potential for conflict--hence the need for probate. On the other hand, in the civilian civil tradition, there's a sense that the person "owes" their family the property, and there are stark restrictions on what can be willed away.
13th Feb '16 6:36:53 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ChewbaccaDefense: A lawyer is ''supposed'' to zealously represent their client to the best of their ability. That being said, there is a right way to interpret "zealous" and a wrong way. As anyone in the legal field can tell you, unconventional defenses do sometimes occur, and they sometimes do work. However, they have to be within the realm of reason and have to have actual substance; judges do ''not'' look kindly upon sophisms or otherwise ridiculous, bizarre, or downright abusive or vexatious defenses. To provide examples, dilatory tactics are allowed and often expected in a limited fashion (particularly in foreclosures) if the client really does need to buy time, leading witnesses to prove that they are lying, incompetent, or just have too nebulous a recollection to be reliable is sometimes fair game, and suing opposing counsel for malicious or abusive behavior in the representation of their client is also allowed and usually encouraged. Unreasonable and excessive delay to exhaust patience and financial resources, tearing into witnesses in a way that is clearly nothing more than an attempt to break them down just to be a dick, and suing opposing council for no reason other than to attempt to force the creation of a conflict of interest and make them have to relieve themselves of the case, on the other hand, are all clear Chewbacca Defenses and will accomplish nothing other than getting you hit with sanctions and contempt charges. Judges have no tolerance for lawyers who take "zealous" to mean "be a complete asshole if you think it'll accomplish something", and they will act accordingly if they feel that you are doing just that.

to:

* ChewbaccaDefense: A lawyer is ''supposed'' to zealously represent their client to the best of their ability. That being said, there is a right way to interpret "zealous" and a wrong way. As anyone in the legal field can tell you, unconventional defenses do sometimes occur, and they sometimes do work. However, they have to be within the realm of reason and have to have actual substance; judges do ''not'' look kindly upon sophisms or otherwise ridiculous, bizarre, or downright abusive or vexatious defenses. To provide examples, dilatory tactics are allowed and often expected in a limited fashion (particularly in foreclosures) if the client really does need to buy time, leading grilling witnesses to prove that they are lying, incompetent, or just have too nebulous a recollection to be reliable is sometimes fair game, and suing opposing counsel for malicious or abusive behavior in the representation of their client is also allowed and usually encouraged. Unreasonable and excessive delay to exhaust patience and financial resources, tearing into witnesses in a way that is clearly nothing more than an attempt to break them down just to be a dick, and suing opposing council counsel for no reason other than to attempt to force the creation of a conflict of interest and make them have to relieve themselves of the case, on the other hand, are all clear Chewbacca Defenses and will accomplish nothing other than getting you hit with sanctions and contempt charges. Judges have no tolerance for lawyers who take "zealous" to mean "be a complete asshole if you think it'll accomplish something", and they will act accordingly if they feel that you are doing just that.
12th Feb '16 7:56:09 PM gothMoth
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that laws vary across different countries and jurisdictions. What may be therefore seen as an example of this by people from one region may actually be valid legal procedure in another, and vice versa. (This can also be noted for historical works- most legal systems have been fine-tuned over centuries; go back 200 years and chances are court procedures are comparatively sloppy.) Also note that as with all AcceptableBreaksFromReality, this can get out of hand, particularly when it's the substance of the law, not the procedure, that the the creators are screwing up.

to:

Note that laws vary across different countries and jurisdictions. What may be therefore seen as an example of this by people from one region may actually be valid legal procedure in another, and vice versa. (This can also be noted for historical works- most legal systems have been fine-tuned over centuries; go back 200 years and chances are court procedures are comparatively sloppy.) Also note that as with all AcceptableBreaksFromReality, this can get out of hand, particularly when it's the substance of the law, not the procedure, that the the creators are screwing up.
This list shows the last 10 events of 269. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseLaw