darkoshi | Entries tagged with legal stuff

(Sigh. I am slightly tempted to use LLM to put my thoughts into a better format rather than struggling to find the right words and put them into the right order myself. But no, I won't, and I haven't so far.)

My initial reaction on reading an email sent to me about this lawsuit was (what's the word? with slightly raised eyebrows, like are-you-kidding-me?).

The lawsuit contends that Clif Bar & Company (“Clif Bar”) made certain statements on the labels of various original Clif Bars and Clif Kid ZBars (“Class Products”) that are allegedly misleading because the statements suggested the bars are healthy, whereas Plaintiffs allege the bars are unhealthy because of their added sugar.

It sounds like a frivolous suit to me. So many products claim to be healthy or good for you in various ways despite added sugars and other ingredients. Why single out this company to sue? (On further thought I can see the logic in trying to reduce questionable claims on product labels, by going after some of the big companies first. But I don't feel personally misled by the words on their packaging. When I originally started buying Clif Bars, it was because they were vegan as well as a tasty snack for on-the-go. I don't buy them often anymore for a few reasons.... one of which, them being rather sweet and full of sugar and ergo not healthy, hah!)

So my initial thought (again) was to ignore it and not submit a claim for a payout that might be $5 or more, if the suit succeeds. I'm not interested in suing the company for that.

But the suit will go through regardless. If it wins, the company will have to pay the money, regardless. So why shouldn't I sign up to get a portion of that money? (Other than it not being worth the time and effort, which is a separate consideration.)

Class Action .org lists some other class action lawsuits you can sign up for. There's a privacy-related one against Patreon and Facebook. That sounds like one I'd want to join... Ah, I did get an email about that one back in October but simply starred the email. I must not have had time to deal with it yet.

I'm finding it hard not to like these AI-generated videos. Even though I think it is wrong and probably illegal to use the actors' likenesses without permission and compensation. Or at least... I find the videos quite interesting, and the redneck twist is different. It is hard for me to tell which clips of people (if any) are real recordings and which are generated.

As for the Harry Potter one, I don't want to watch or share anything that will benefit the author. But after watching several of these videos, I doubt the entities who made these videos got anyone's official permission to do so. So I also doubt any royalties are getting paid. Correct me if I'm wrong? Maybe YouTube somehow funnels money to the correct people?

Harry Potter - Redneck Wizard 2 (Official Music Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG4XeBOVBw4

Star Wars - Revenge of the Redneck (Official Music Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtvlCyJNWPE

Matrix - Redneck Reloaded (Official Music Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CJTWOoS8Qs

I am curious if it is legal for various political fund-raising groups to send email and paper communications which imply they are written by or at least written with the approval of a certain candidate, and containing their supposed signature at the end, when the same mailing contains the legal blurb "This communication is not authorized buy any candidate or candidate's committee."

Is there no law against pretending to be a public person and sending mail in their name?

In this case, the mail is from the Democratic National Committee, and while Joe Biden probably doesn't disapprove of the fund-raising mailing, I still don't understand how it can be legal for them to print his signature (along with the text "With gratitude, Joe Biden, President of the United States") if he didn't "authorize" it.

Okay..... I now remembered that Biden isn't a "candidate" anymore. But I still wonder if he specifically authorized them to send that message with his signature. I suppose it is possible.

A few years ago I created an email folder where I move political donation appeals rather than deleting them right away. I often don't trust them; it seems an easy way for scammers to get people to send them money, by pretending to raise money for a certain cause. If I wanted to donate, I would instead go to the official website to do it. But I created the email folder to track how often the same senders spam me and if they continue to do so after I unsubscribe.

That folder now comes in handy now to check how often the above occurs. I only found one or two examples where the email is purportedly written by the candidate and also has the "not authorized by..." clause.

There are several examples where instead of "Not authorized by", it actually says "Authorized by [the candidate]" or says "Paid by..." without mentioning if it is authorized or not.

Related info:
When Words Are Not Enough: FEC Fines Candidate Committee for Omitting Disclaimer Box in Mailings (March 2007)

If the public communication is authorized by a candidate, his or her authorized committee or an agent thereof but is paid for by any other person, the disclaimer must clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other person and is authorized by the candidate, committee or agent.
...
If the communication is not authorized by a candidate, his or her committee or an agent thereof, the disclaimer must state the full name and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication, and that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

I suppose that emails and mailings sent to a specific person may not be considered "public communication", so maybe that is why not all of the ones I get mention if they are authorized or not. And maybe some of those really are from scammers too.

...

WAIT! Now I see that this paper mailing has another paper in it which is purportedly written and signed by Kamala Harris, which ALSO has that blurb on it, "This communication is not authorized buy any candidate or candidate's committee"! So I'm back to my original question.

The courthouse my recent Jury Duty was at doesn't allow people to bring any bags or purses inside. When I got in line to enter the building, someone else told me they weren't going to let me inside with that, pointing to the purse. I was almost incredulous; that's something they should let people know in advance! I then saw a sign indicating the same thing. So I grudgingly walked back to my car to swap things around. It wasn't that bad for me, but I could imagine it being very inconvenient for anyone else who may have worn something without pockets, and who might have needed to bring tampons and feminine napkins, etc. Luckily my pants have pockets and I already normally carry my keys on my belt. I didn't want to have to carry my book in my hand, so I left it in the car. I also left both pairs of glasses in the car (which I'd brought just in case) as I didn't have a cord for carrying them around my neck.

We had to show up at the courthouse from Monday through Thursday at 9am. There were two trials that week, both traffic related. I was not chosen for the juries. We were dismissed between 10:30am and noon each day.

There was a different judge each day. When one of them was asking jurors who met various criteria to stand, I heard her address a couple of them as "the young lady". I figured those jurors must look fairly young. Then she got to the part where she asked anyone 65 years or older to stand up. She addressed those two women as "the young lady" too, and I realized that she was calling everyone either a "young lady" or a "gentleman". Thinking about it, maybe she felt addressing people as only "the lady" would sound rude.

The court room had speakers out of which occasionally static noise would play. I realized it was to help cover up potentially private conversations the judges were having with jurors who had come up to speak to them. The static noise didn't turn on very consistently though.

There was a bookshelf in the jury assembly room, with books and magazines. It still had a sign on it saying not touch the items on the bookshelf due to COVID restrictions. I'm pretty sure the sign still being there was an oversight, but I didn't feel like pointing it out to the people in charge. Nor did I want to disobey the sign, so I didn't touch any of the books.

There was a side room accessible via a door. The room had a sink and a vending machine with only a few items in it, none of which looked vegan except possibly the apple turnovers. There must have been more machines with more options in the past: On the 3rd day, the clerk brought water bottles into the assembly room to hand out. She apologized to the group of us, saying she hadn't realized the vending machines had been removed from that room!

In other news, the SC state legislature is getting ready to completely outlaw abortion here. I am so disgusted. I have started contemplating the possibility of moving somewhere else.

For various reasons, California came to mind. But with all those wildfires, and what else was it? Weren't there some other big disasters there lately, why can't I remember...

And then also the cost of living. While I'm rather well off here, I might not even be able to afford it over there.

I compared Google's upcoming Terms of Service (effective 2022/01/05) to their current terms. Among various other differences (none of which concern me much) they changed this text:

Warranty

We provide our services using reasonable skill and care. If we don’t meet the quality level described in this warranty, you agree to tell us and we’ll work with you to try to resolve the issue.

Disclaimers

The only commitments we make about our services (including the content in the services, the specific functions of our services, or their reliability, availability, or ability to meet your needs) are (1) described in the Warranty section, (2) stated in the service-specific additional terms, or (3) provided under applicable laws. We don’t make any other commitments about our services.

And unless required by law, we don’t provide implied warranties, such as the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement.

to:

Warranty disclaimer

We built our reputation on providing useful, reliable services like Google Search and Maps, and we’re continuously improving our services to meet your needs. However, for legal purposes, we offer our services without warranties unless explicitly stated in our service-specific additional terms. The law requires that we explain this using specific legal language and that we use capital letters to help make sure you see it, as follows:

TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE LAW, WE PROVIDE OUR SERVICES “AS IS” WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON’T MAKE ANY WARRANTIES ABOUT THE CONTENT OR FEATURES OF THE SERVICES, INCLUDING THEIR ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, OR ABILITY TO MEET YOUR NEEDS.

(Boldness added to text by me.)

I never thought about there being a specific law about disclaimers needing to be in capital letters...

law.stackexchange.com : Do disclaimers need to be capitalized?

Do they have to use all caps? Well, no. It's just that companies feel that's the easiest way to make the text "conspicuous" which is required by the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly in § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties.
...
The term "conspicuous" is defined in § 1-201. General Definitions.

"Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.

So you could make the text all bold and italic. You could make the font color purple. It's just that most companies use the caps lock key, whatever their individual reasons may be.

What happens if a U.S. presidential candidate withdraws (or dies) before the election is over?
part 1
part 2

It sounds like it would be a mess. Those pages don't even discuss all possible scenarios, like if both the presidental and vice-presidental candidates die or become incapacitated, or if one or both disappear without a trace.

The section about the 20th amendment in Part 1 doesn't make sense to me, because we no longer have separate votes for the president and the VP. So "if the President shall not have been chosen" then we won't have a "Vice President Elect" yet either. Right?

I'm sure there are some better articles on the topic out there. But the few others I've glanced at also make it seem murky and uncertain.

Several news articles were posted to the Yahoo Androgynes list recently about legislative progress on allowing people to get identification documents that specify their gender as "non-binary".

California moves closer to recognizing third gender - ... The state Senate passed a bill that would allow Californians to choose gender non-binary for identifying documents like drivers licenses and birth certificates...

Oregon becomes first state to allow nonbinary on drivers license - ... Beginning July 1, Oregonians will be able to choose "X" for sex Instead of "F" or "M" on their licenses and identification cards...

D.C. to allow gender-neutral driver’s licenses - At the direction of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the city’s Department of Motor Vehicles will begin allowing residents to choose a gender-neutral “X” identifier on driver’s licenses and other city identification documents on June 26. ...
on the same day that six members of the D.C. City Council introduced a bill that would enact the gender neutral I.D. policy proposed by the mayor administratively into city law. ...

Activist vying for non-binary birth certificate taking N.L. to court

While reading the first 2 articles, I wondered if it's possible that in the not-too-distant future, I could even get a driver's license here in South Carolina which says non-binary. It seems quite unlikely to happen here, but then again, that's what I thought about gay marriage.

But with the Republicans in control of the federal government, it seems likely that there will be some kind of backlash first. Like a "defense of gender act" which would make it illegal for states to issue IDs with non-binary markers.

When the second article mentioned the California legislation again, it suddenly hit me. I was born in California. If the bill passes, I could conceivably get my birth certificate updated. !!! I wouldn't have to wait for SC to pass such a bill, at least not for my BC.

But then that might present other difficulties. Like, "You can't renew your driver's license (or sign up for XYZ), because we only allow M and F, and your BC says X, which isn't a valid value."

I wonder how non-binary gender IDs will affect things that are segregated into M and F. Obviously, there's the bathroom thing... if a state like NC has a law saying that you have to use the restroom which matches the marker on your DL, and your marker is X, can they legally keep you from using both restrooms? And what about prisons... For a non-binary person who is convicted of a crime, how will they decided whether to send them to a men's or women's penitentiary?

For that matter, what about selective service? That will be a can of worms. Suppose that anyone could get out of the draft by changing their gender marker to X or F, because only males are required to sign up? (I'm against the draft and selective service in the first place - I don't think anyone should be required to join the military, regardless of their sex or gender.) I imagine that they'll eventually change the selective service rules to require everyone to sign up, regardless of gender.

Another problem - what about sporting competitions? Will non-binary people not be allowed to compete in men's or women's competitions? But that's already an issue for trans athletes, even without considering non-binary people.

This page on the Apple.com site: Government Information Requests
states: In the second half of 2016, Apple received between 5,750 and 5,999 National Security Orders.

Apple's Transparency Reports - contain details on the various customer information requests received by Apple from 2013 through 2016. The number of national security orders received by Apple increased from less than 500 in 2013, to between 8500 and 9000 in 2016.

See below for the difference between "National Security Orders/Requests" versus National Security Letters.

In this prior post, I linked to another article which stated: the FBI issued nearly 13,000 NSLs in 2015 alone. But that number must have been way under-estimated. Indeed, one of the below articles indicates that over 48,000 NSLs were sent in 2015.

A Decade-Old Gag Order, Lifted (November 2015):

relying on changes made by the Patriot Act, the FBI began issuing hundreds of NSLs demanding credit reports, banking information, or records relating to Internet activity. Some of the NSLs sought information about terrorism suspects, but most sought information about people who were one, two, three, or more degrees removed from anyone suspected of having done anything wrong. According to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the FBI issued a staggering 143,074 NSLs between 2003 and 2005. And every NSL was accompanied by a categorical and permanent gag order.

That link and this one: Doe v. Holder describe a decade-long court battle to get a single gag order lifted. It mentions some changes made to the laws regarding the gag orders during that time, but I'm not clear on the final outcome. I assume that most other NSL recipients are still under similar gag orders which haven't been changed.

Newly published FBI request shines light on National Security Letters (November 2015):

In 2007, the Office of the Inspector General reported that the FBI issued approximately 40,000 to 60,000 letters per year. President Obama’s Intelligence Review Group reported more recently in 2013 that the government issued an average of nearly 60 NSLs per day.
..
Companies can only report NSLs in bands of 1,000, if they're separated from FISA court order requests, or in bands of 250 if reported as a broader "national security request."

The "national security orders" referenced on the Apple.com page must be the broader category, including FISA requests in addition to NSLs, as they are listed in bands of 250. But the last link below indicates there are less than 2000 FISA request per year, so that doesn't explain the large discrepancy in numbers.

Even the above article implies that in 2013, a total of 365*60 = 25,550 NSLs were issued, while twice as many were issued 6 years prior. I doubt the number would have decreased that much over time, if there were no legal changes governing the issuance of the requests.

US foreign intelligence court did not deny any surveillance requests last year :

The court received 1,457 requests last year [in 2015] on behalf of the National Security Agency and the FBI for authority to intercept communications, including email and phone calls. ... The court did not reject any of the applications in whole or in part, the memo showed.

The total represented a slight uptick from 2014, when the court received 1,379 applications and rejected none.
..
The memo also stated that 48,642 national security letter (NSL) requests were made in 2015 by the FBI.
..
The majority of NSL requests, 31,863, made in 2015 sought information on foreigners, regarding a total of 2,053 individuals, the memo stated.

The FBI made 9,418 requests for national security letters in 2015 for information about US citizens and legal immigrants, regarding a total of 3,746 individuals, it showed.

The FBI also made 7,361 NSL requests for only “subscriber information”, typically names, addresses and billing records, of Americans and foreigners regarding 3,347 different people.

The following parts of the newly posted LiveJournal User Agreement concern me:

7.4. User shall be subject to Article 10.2 of the Federal Act of the Russian Federation No. 149-ФЗ if more than three thousand Internet users access the Blog (the Blog’s page) within 24 hours.
7.5. User who posted comments in Blog and User keeping such a Blog shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of such comments.
...

9.1. By posting Content, User shall:
...
9.1.3. Mark Content estimated by Russian legislation as inappropriate for children (0 −18) as “adult material” by using Service functions.

9.2. The User may not:
...
9.2.6. without the Administration’s special permit, use automatic scripts (bots, crawlers etc.) to collect information from the Service and/or to interact with the Service;
9.2.7. post advertising and/or political solicitation materials unless otherwise directly specified in a separate agreement between User and the Administration;
9.2.8 perform any other actions contradictory to the laws of the Russian Federation ...

11. Liability
11.1 User shall be liable for breaching the terms and conditions hereof, including the requirements to Registration and Content posting, as well as for violation of applicable laws committed by User, including the laws of the Russian Federation and the laws of User’s residence;

Regarding # 7.4, info in English on that Russian Article 10.2 can be found here:
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ru/ru126en.pdf

In skimming that document, much of it seems reasonable. But certain parts of it make me uneasy too.

What most concerns me is that in using LJ, one must now agree to abide by Russian laws. Considering it is owned by a Russian company now, that makes sense. But as an American, I am not likely to know much about Russian laws. I could break those laws without even remotely realizing it. Furthermore, there are certain Russian laws that I have heard about, which I do not want to be bound by. Specifically, their gay propaganda law.

So, henceforth I will not cross-post to LJ anymore. I'm still keeping my account for now, for reading friends' pages and commenting. Eventually I may delete that as well.

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/693446.html

HHS Issues Regulations Banning Trans Health Care Discrimination

Federal Register page with link to PDF (scheduled to be published on 05/18)

It even mentions protections for non-binary identified people.

... OCR recognizes that sex stereotypes can include the expectation that individuals consistently identify with only one of two genders (male or female), and that they act in conformity with the gender-related expressions stereotypically associated with that gender. Sex stereotypes can also include a belief that gender can only be binary and thus that individuals cannot have a gender identity other than male or female. OCR recognizes that an individual’s gender identity involves the interrelationship between an individual’s biology, gender, internal sense of self and gender expression related to that perception; thus, the gender identity spectrum includes an array of possible gender identities beyond male and female.

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/652494.html

Why hasn’t Obama closed Guantanamo Bay?

Kafka at Gitmo: Why 86 prisoners are cleared for release but might never get it

Guantanamo Detainees Cleared For Release Take Part In Hunger Strike

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/513375.html

I've been thinking of an analogy in regards to how the media announces the presidential election winner before all of the votes have been counted, in fact before all the votes have even been cast.

It's like a sports game is in progress - let's say American football (forgive me if my terminology is off; I don't pay much attention to sports). Suppose Team Hackensack is playing against Team Puckenball. Suppose the game is in the beginning of the fourth quarter, or maybe even in the middle of the third. It's as if, while a player is in the midst of throwing the ball across the field, the loudspeakers blare out, "The game is over! Team Hackensack has won! Congratulations to the Hackensacks!" The spectators jump up, cheering in glee and/or groaning in dismay. Then they start filing out of the stadium. Meanwhile, the players on the field are left standing and scratching their heads, wondering what happened.

I mean, really. Even if one team has a large lead, and the other team has a poor track record, it's standard practice to wait until the game is over, before announcing the results. Even if there's no way that the losing team could possibly win enough points in the time remaining, to gain the lead, the winner isn't announced until the end. The media may say that one team is winning, and is nearly certain to win the overall game. But they don't announce that the game is over before the game is actually over. Whereas, with the presidential elections, they do.

---

(The below was a comment I posted on another journal, but I originally intended to post about it here on mine.)

I came across the below document, which fascinates me and also disturbs me in how precisely legislative districts are drawn to meet desired criteria. From what I was able to glean from it, there was a lot of redistricting going on in the 1970s and 80s. Somewhen in the 80s or early 90s, the Department of Justice told the SC legislature that it had to create more black-majority districts. This was subsequently done by means of racial gerrymandering. A district court then declared the new districts invalid, as districts should not be drawn on the basis of race, except under certain conditions which were not met.

Smith v. Beasley opinion

"Gerrymandering has been a part of our political system since the word was coined more than 175 years ago. The drawing of district lines for political purposes has often been criticized, but it is not illegal. However, the Supreme Court has determined that gerrymandering which divides voters according to race violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Miller, the Court explained, "When the State assigns voters on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race, because of their race, 'think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates in the polls.' "

"Constitutional prohibition against dividing or segregating citizens by race applies equally to districting cases, and state's assignment of voters according to race is subject to court's strictest scrutiny under equal protection clause."

"Both the Senate and the House had sophisticated computer equipment that was maintained for the purpose of drawing election district lines. These machines were equipped with software that showed precincts, streets, population and racial composition of all areas based on the 1990 federal census data base. Technicians could show legislators how moving district lines could increase or decrease the racial makeup of a particular district."

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/491553.html

Dang. How did several apparently complete strangers come across my youtube vids already? I didn't think I put anything interesting enough in the titles or descriptions to make them show up high in any searches. Not sure I like this.

This morning, I thought, what if someone I work with came across one of the vids, especially the shirtless one? I didn't like that idea. It's one thing with strangers, or people I've never met in person watching them, but co-workers seemed to be another matter.

Then today at work, I starting thinking, why should it matter? What's the big deal? Why should I feel so affected by society's rules about which body parts it is ok to let other people see, and which body parts it is not ok for. People like Madonna aren't bothered by that sort of thing, so why should I be? It was a somewhat liberating thought.

But now this... having people subscribe to my channel, and for a couple of them, seeing that their favorites appear to be full of vids of scantily clad females... ick. Hmmm. Something to ponder.

...

Something else I was thinking about. Isn't it strange that in the U.S., it is illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, but it's legal to pay them to have your baby (surrogate mothers)?
At least, it is legal as far as I am aware.

Profile

Darkoshi

Darkoshi's Enchantment

May 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

class action lawsuit payouts; claims of "healthy" products
Redneck AI video movie songs
"not authorized by any candidate" ... ahh, never mind
Magistrate Court jury duty
ashes and smoke
there's a law for that
election murk
non-binary
national security letters
no more cross posts
good news on the health care front
guantanamo limbo
elections, voting districts, and gerrymandering
(no subject)

Active Entries

Style Credit

Base style: Abstractia by chiming
Theme: Violet Night by nornoriel

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Thursday, May 22nd, 2025 09:45 am