#Legal precedent

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

[Image description: a tweet from @LeadingReport, dated 12/23/24 1:37 PM."Breaking: Biden administration has officially withdrawn its student loan forgiveness plans for approximately 38 million Americans. Descriptoion ends]

Reminder: the Headline is not the article.

Also, the people suing the administration to prevent these loans being forgiven are all the people who make money servicing these debts.

Even the centrist Democrats are not your enemy.

WHAT???? Fuck him

[davidaugust]

Edit: seems I fell for some bad information. The pardoning mentioned by George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter are errors: they did not pardon family (despite some articles from otherwise typically reputable sources saying so, like Esquire). I apologize and commit to being more careful about checking things before I share them. I’m sorry about this.

[alwaysbewoke]

[tmarshconnors]

The Nuremberg Principles

 In the aftermath of World War II, the world grappled with the question of how to hold individuals accountable for heinous crimes committed during the conflict. Out of the ashes of war and genocide, the Nuremberg Trials were convened in 1945-46 to prosecute leading Nazi officials for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other atrocities. From these landmark trials emerged the Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines that would forever shape the course of international criminal law.

What Are the Nuremberg Principles? The Nuremberg Principles are a set of seven legal standards that arose from the judgments at the Nuremberg Trials. They were formulated by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950 and have since been a cornerstone in the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Principle I: Any person who commits an international crime is responsible and liable to punishment.

Principle II: Being a Head of State or responsible government official does not exempt a person from responsibility.

Principle III: Acting under orders is not a valid defence if a moral choice is possible.

Principle IV: Individuals have a responsibility to disobey unjust orders that lead to international crimes.

Principle V: A fair trial is guaranteed to the accused.

Principle VI: Defines the crimes punishable under international law, including crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Principle VII: Complicity in these crimes is itself a punishable offence.

Historical Context: At the time of the Nuremberg Trials, the world was witnessing something unprecedented: the prosecution of individuals, including heads of state and military leaders, for atrocities committed during a war. This was not merely a trial of Nazi war criminals; it was an assertion that individuals could be held accountable under international law, regardless of rank or office.

This shift marked the emergence of a new framework of justice, in which moral responsibility transcended national borders and "just following orders" was no longer an acceptable excuse.

Key Cases: Highlight some of the key cases from the Nuremberg Trials, such as the prosecution of Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, and Albert Speer. These cases set critical legal precedents, particularly around the concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The Legacy of the Nuremberg Principles: The Nuremberg Principles laid the groundwork for future international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002. Their influence can be seen in the prosecution of war criminals from conflicts in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and more recently, in cases related to Syria and Myanmar.

Additionally, the principles continue to resonate in discussions about justice and accountability, from military interventions to human rights violations.

Challenges and Criticisms: While the Nuremberg Principles are widely hailed as a milestone in international law, they have not been without controversy. Critics have pointed out that the Nuremberg Trials were essentially "victor's justice," as only the defeated Axis powers were tried, leaving the conduct of the Allies unexamined.

Furthermore, the enforcement of these principles remains inconsistent, with powerful nations often shielding their leaders from international prosecution or exerting political pressure to avoid trials.

 The Nuremberg Principles represent more than just a moment in history they serve as a moral and legal foundation for how the international community responds to crimes of the highest order. Despite the challenges in enforcing these principles universally, they remind us that justice, though complex and often imperfect, is essential for peace and human dignity.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The Supreme Court creates train wreck over Texas immigration law.

Over the last forty-eight hours, the Supreme Court has made a monumental mess of its review of a Texas law that seeks to assume control over the US border. If the consequences weren’t tragic, it would be comical.

The Texas law is plainly unconstitutional. It is not even a close question. But the Supreme Court created a situation in which enforcement of that law was stayed and then permitted to go back into effect multiple times in a forty-eighth hour period. It was like the Keystone Cops—all because the Supreme Court does not have the fortitude to control the rogue judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here's the bottom line: As of late Tuesday evening, the Texas law cannot be enforced pending further order of the Fifth Circuit. See NBC News, Appeals court blocks Texas immigration law shortly after Supreme Court action. As explained by NBC,

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 2-1 in saying in a brief order that the measure, known as SB4, should be blocked. The same court is hearing arguments Wednesday morning on the issue.

The appeals court appeared to be taking the hint from the Supreme Court, which in rejecting an emergency application filed by the Biden administration put the onus on the appeals court to act quickly.

I review the complicated procedural background below with a warning that it may change in the next five minutes. For additional detail, I recommend Ian Millhiser’s explainer in Vox, The Supreme Court’s confusing new border decision, explained.

Let’s start here: The federal government has exclusive authority to control international borders. The Constitution says so, and courts have ruled so for more than 150 years.

There are good reasons for the federal government to control international borders. If individual states impose contradictory regulations on international borders that abut the states, the federal government could not promulgate a single, coherent foreign policy—which is plainly the job of the federal government.

Texas passed a law that granted itself the right to police the southern border and enforce immigration laws, including permitting the arrest and deportation of immigrants in the US who do not have the legal authority to remain in the country.

Mexico immediately notified Texas that it would not accept any immigrants deported by Texas. (Mexico does accept immigrants deported by the US per international agreements.)

A federal district judge in Texas enjoined the enforcement of state law, ruling that it usurped the federal government's constitutional role. Texas appealed.

When a matter is appealed, the court of appeals generally attempts to “maintain the status quo” as it existed between the parties prior to the contested action. Here, maintaining the status quo meant not enforcing the Texas law that allowed Texas to strip the federal government of its constitutional authority over the border.

However, the Fifth Circuit used a bad-faith procedural ploy to suspend the district court’s injunction, thereby allowing Texas law to go into effect. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit did not “maintain the status quo” but instead permitted a radical restructuring of state-federal relations in a way that violated the Constitution and century-and-a-half of judicial precedent.

In a world where the rule of law prevails, the Supreme Court should have slapped down the Fifth Circuit's bad-faith gambit. It did not. Instead, the Supreme Court allowed the Fifth Circuit's bad-faith ploy to remain in effect—but warned the Fifth Circuit that the Supreme Court might, in the future, force the Fifth Circuit to stop playing games with the Constitution.

The debacle is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit. The reason the Fifth Circuit acts like a lawless tribunal is because the Supreme Court has allowed the Fifth Circuit to engage in outrageous, extra-constitutional rulings without so much as a peep of protest from the reactionary majority on the Court.

John Roberts is “the Chief Justice of the United States.” He should start acting like it by reprimanding rogue judges in the Fifth Circuit by name—and referring them to the Judicial Conference for discipline. Until Roberts does that, the Fifth Circuit will do whatever it wants.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dosesofcommonsense]

[redgearguru]

Recent Supreme Court Rulings and Their Impact on Gun Rights

Did you know that over 40,000 lives are lost each year to gun violence in the U.S.? This sad fact has sparked intense debates on gun rights and laws. Recently, the Supreme Court has made key decisions that have changed how we see gun rights in America. These rulings have shaped our understanding of the Second Amendment, sparked discussions on gun laws, and affected our constitutional rights. The…

[seemabhatnagar]

"Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiff’s Failure to Prove Readiness and Willingness"

In a suit filed for #SpecificPerformanceoftheContract, #plaintiff is obliged not only to make #specificstatements and averments in the #plaint but is also obliged to #adducenecessary #oral and #documentaryevidence to show the #availabilityoffunds to make #payment in #terms of the #contract in #time. ➡️The *Case I am sharing today relates to a suit for the specific performance of a contract based on an agreement of sale entered on March 3, 2005, for a property with a total sale consideration of ₹30,00,000. → The petitioner-R Shama paid ₹12,50,000 as earnest money when executing the agreement. → The petitioner alleged readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, while the respondent-G Srinivasiah refused to execute the sale deed. → The petitioner filed a Civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the Defendant which was allowed by the Trial Court. → Against the trial court's decision, Defendant filed First Appeal before the Karnataka High Court and the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court holding that the petitioner failed to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract. → Feeling Aggrieved the plaintiff is before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court.

➡️The primary legal issue in this case was whether the petitioner demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to the 2018 amendment). → Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court's decree of specific performance. ➡️The petitioner contended that they were always ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations. → Claimed that the defendant's refusal to execute the sale deed was unjustified. ➡️The defendants argued that the petitioner failed to establish readiness and willingness. → Asserted that the trial court's judgment was flawed and contrary to the evidence. ➡️The Apex Court observed → Specific Performance, under Section 16(c,) cannot be granted if the plaintiff fails to aver and prove readiness and willingness. → The distinction between readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) was emphasized. →The High Court's finding that the plaintiff did not establish readiness and willingness was upheld as the finding of fact, which was not perverse or erroneous. → The plaintiff's conduct and evidence did not convincingly demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. → The High Court's appreciation of evidence was sound and based on legal principles. ➡️The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reiterating the critical importance of proving readiness and willingness in specific performance suits under the Specific Relief Act. *Case R Shama Naik v. G Srinivasiah Before the Supreme Court of India SLP(Civil)13933/2021 Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Mahadevan J

[todayworldnews2k21]

Three judges dissent, uphold 1967 ruling denying minority tag to AMU | India News - Times of India

NEW DELHI: Three judges on the seven-judge bench penned powerful dissents to the CJI D Y Chandrachud-authored majority opinion on behalf of four judges and were unanimous that the 1967 Azeez Basha judgment had correctly decided that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was not a minority educational institution.Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish C Sharma faulted the decision of a two-judge…

[ninjakittycomics]

It is not a mark of honor to be forced off of a site yet again.

It isn't a proud thing to say "i can't exist in yet another public forum because of my existence (queer, poc, disabled, whatever the trolls are force attacking now)

People keep saying, oh i left that place where my livelihoods/friends/government services/emergency services communications were cuz the new owner os such a tool, and doing another illegal thing again.

Like it's cool that we're being run off again.

Our spaces are becoming increasingly online. And it's not just companies that you boycott.

It would be like someone bought Denver itself and said, no queers allowed to live here anymore.

Fight for it. You deserve to exist.

You deserve to be allowed to be, without being run off again.

Make legal complaints.

Get your international friends involved. We're all here, and we all have laws that are there to protect us, that are being violated.

And we all deserve better.

[legalstudiesin1]

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, also known as the Minor’s Contract Case, is a landmark legal case in Indian jurisprudence. The case was decided by the Privy Council in London in 1903 and has had a significant impact on contract law in India. The case involved a minor named Dharmodas Ghose who mortgaged his property to a moneylender named Mohori Bibee. At the time of entering into the mortgage…

[pad-wubbo]

Oh my god. Like, retroactively obtaining a patent just to sue a legitimate competitor into the ground? They must not win this case.

If they do, that sets the most awful precedent. Like, they could then retroactively patent "character jumping high in video game" and sue anyone who dares to make a platformer.

Nintendo is, at this point, undoubtedly more evil than Disney, and you should try to actively avoid supporting them whenever possible. I feel bad for liking Splatoon at this point.

Seeing the insane pokemon patent news has reminded me to publish some cutting room floor notes I had from my IP series about video game patents and how they're categorically wrong.

[therobotmonster]

The Fae Thought He Had Her, but She's Had Lots of Practice

Actual Title: "On Foreign Soil."

The fae was having a grand old time with his latest toy. Mortals were easily befuddled with the magic of contract-and-courtesy. He'd taken pretty much all he could from the family: several names, the mother's attention, the son's concept of friendship... Even the life of the father.

He'd taken that one taking just the right moment of his time, the one where he moved just out of the oncoming car's path. That also took out the youngest daughter and making a new neverwas to lurk in the pockets of lost time around the home.

The tricks made him strong. The sense of betrayal and regret humans had when they realized how screwed they truly were was like honey: rich, sweet, and immune to spoilage. If anything, in the last sixty-some-odd years he'd been home the humans had gotten more petulant and even easier to trick.

It was a veritable buffet.

So when the eldest daughter returned home from college, he expected her to be easy pickings. The young were always foolish and prideful, and very often rude. They gave him so many opportunities.

So when she threw open the door, and stared at him with cold green eyes, he immediately laughed in delight. His face took on a distinctively 'David Bowiesq' aspect, a trick he found worked well the last time he'd been to the mortal lands.

"Oh, hello. May I have your name, lass?" He cooed in a cocky-yet-soothing voice.

"My name is Alex, and no." She said.

He raised a brow. She was canny, or at least half-canny. She knew enough to object to him taking it. Still, she had answered, and by the laws of the fae, the latter objection did not override the former offer.

So why wasn't he Alex now?

It was odd, but sometimes mortals were a little resistant to magic. He worried for a moment she was a skeptic, but she couldn't be. Her response meant she knew, or at least suspected, what he was. Moreover, he didn't feel the painful chill and sluggishness empiressence caused, nor the crushing weight of the explicable upon his bird-hollow bones.

No, she was just lucky, or was carrying an iron horseshoe, nothing he couldn't handle in his, or someone else's sleep.

"And what the fuck are you calling yourself, asshole?"

He blinked.

The impudence hit him like a slap. She'd just given him the opening to do anything he wanted, but the raw temerity of the insult, it's artless crudeness, it's utter lack of respect stunned him too much to enjoy it. His rage and petulance rushed into the hole left by his shock, and he sputtered.

"You rude little beast, you have no idea what you've brought upon yourself!"

He raised one pale hand, the flesh fading from it to leave nothing but blackened bone, and he pointed the index finger at her in a silent gesture. He let fly his curse. Not just any curse, but his, the one he had made for just such an occasion.

Alex stared at him. Arms crossed. Her hair was the color of the fae's own rage.

"What's the matter, cat got your brain?"

The fae's confidence wavered and the flesh returned to his hand.

"Where are the spiders?" He said. "There... there ought to be spiders! There should be spiders!"

She rolled her eyes.

"You broke the laws of courtesy and decorum! I can do as I please as a wronged noble! You should be spiders!"

"Whose laws?" It was Alex's turn to smile.

"Why, the only ones that matter, the laws of Faerie, as laid down by Oberon and Tita-"

"And Titsforbrains, yeah. I was five once and I can read. I know your dumb politics. Slight problem. Where are you now?"

"The mortal realm?"

"More specifically?"

"The Earth. The United States."

"Exactly." Alex smiled. "And while you might come the land of the platonic ideal of inbred nepobabies, in the United States of America, no law says I can't call a fuckface a fuckface. Fuckface."

The fae tried a different curse, yet Alex was not being twisted into any sort of goat, ironic or otherwise. "But, that doesn't matter! We're a higher form of being, our laws override yours."

"No they don't." Alex said with a confidence reserved for honey badgers and humans of age three. "Now undo all your bullshit and get out of my house."

"Nuh-uh!" The Fae's cocky smirk returned. With a flourish, he pulled out a deed. "It's my house, I got it off your mother, fair-and-square. She traded it for the heart your little brother so foolishly traded me. So you should get out of MY house."

"Contracts signed under duress are non-enforceable." She said in a bored, dismissive tone.

The Fae started to object, but the contract was already crumbling into dried daffodil petals in his hand. He tried to pretend this wasn't terrifying. Inexplicable happenings were supposed to be caused by him, not happen to him. "Are you a wizard?"

"Don't be stupid. I just know my rights." She said. "I'm betting you didn't disclose the full terms of the contracts either?"

The Fae shook his head, more from fear than as a response to the question. Of course he hadn't. If the mortals didn't do their due diligence and couldn't read Linear-B, that wasn't his fau-

The thirty years he stole from the youngest boy ripped themselves out of his body. A half dozen other deals began popping at the seams.

"How are you doing this?" He gasped.

"I'm not doing it. You are. You're idiot who runs on rules and laws who decided to come scam innocent people for your own profit and amusement."

"But it always worked before-" The Fae ran his mind through all his previous romps. Every single human had whined and begged about how unfair things were. Why was this one different?

He ran through those memories again. They were among his favorites so it was easy for him to see every detail. An old man trying to argue Fae law with him. A shepherd girl trying to use her own word games to trap him. A hippie saying almost the exact same words about non-enforceable contracts.

Almost.

He ran through the memories again and again. Always impressed or terrified or blinded by greed, the mortals always argued on his terms, always went back to his wording of the deal or contract, always appealed to the laws of his people and his own noble position.

None of them had ever argued jurisdiction. Once one of them had, it applied, not just now, not just to these toys, but retroactively, and, from how it felt, with interest.

"Oh." Was all the Fae could say.

"Yes. 'Oh.'" Alex smiled like the cat that ate the proverbial canary. "Children can't sign contracts, either, you know."

Everything the Fae had done to the boy snapped back at once. It felt like every seventh tendon in his body had been snipped simultaneously with tiny scissors.

"Nor can someone sign away the right to kill them to someone else, or sell themselves or others into slavery."

Alex's father reappeared in the living room, looking dazed. In his lap was Alex's youngest sister, now remembered by all present as a person that existed. The return of the father's moment was a minor loss, but there was one less neverwas in the Castle of Paradox, and the Baron would blame him for its unmaking.

"Also, names aren't transferable between people, nor are they the whole and sum of a person's identity in this country. The closest thing we have to that is a social security number. And if you steal one of those, well, identity theft is a crime here."

Mr. Baxter, Mrs. Baxter, Julie and Sam's lights all turned on at once, though they were still groggy and half-asleep and would be for hours to come.

A fortune in names, first, middle, last, with nicknames and pet-names and all between, all vanished from the Fae's purse. He could feel its lightness in his pocket.

The Fae turned on his heels. "I fear I must take my leave, so sorry for the inconvenience!"

He was halfway to the door. The impact on the back of his skull knocked him forward off his feet, sending him slamming into the polished wood floor. The projectile that laid him out bounced and landed by his head.

He'd been right about her having an iron horseshoe.

"You don't get to walk away." She said. He felt her steel-toed boot, soles made of entirely synthetic rubber and cleats of cold steel, press against the base of his spine. His hollow, bird-bone spine. "You don't get to fuck with people, say 'my bad' when you get caught, and run."

"Y-your law!" He gasped. He felt his bones cracking. He wanted to turn into something else but he couldn't focus. She was pressing down harder now, because she was half-kneeling. Her hand picked up the fallen horseshoe. "You have to let me go, or arrest me, turn me over to your police, right? You can't just murder me!"

"What are you?"

"I- I'm a Faerie of Arcadia, a sub-Prince of the House of-"

"So not a human. And not an animal." She kept him pinned.

"No!" He growled. Blood the color of an oil slick on the highway began to fill his mouth. The pain made him forget his fear for a moment, and he bared his true face, something between a bug, a wax store mannequin, and a pug-dog. "We-we're a higher form of life! Far beyond anything this miserable pile of dung you call a planet has to offer! You will pay for this impertinence the moment you break the law that holds me!"

"You're a lot of things. A bully, a pest, a liar. But you're not human. And you're not an animal. In fact, as far as the laws of this land are concerned, you aren't real."

Alex lifted her boot to kick him onto his back, then pinned him again.

"Th-then you can't kill me!" He laughs. "You can't kill something that's not real! You've trapped yourself! You'll have to let me go!"

"You haven't been to our 'pile of dung' in some time have you?" Alex asked. She nodded to a strange white book-shaped object that sat unopened, upright, next to the television, next to a pair of white and black crescent-moon shaped objects studded with small white and black buttons.

"What's that supposed to mean?"

--

Six hours later, a notification popped up on Alex's dorm room computer.

[rockturbot]

The good old days when evidence law was still longer than three (3) pages😌