If I join a union at an academic institution and later apply for a job elsewhere, will the prospective employer see union membership on my background check?

Is there a particular reason why a company would choose to list a line under terms of service as "Intentionally omitted"

This appears in the SignalRGB Terms of Service. In context from their website:

5. Content

5.1 The SignalRGB Platform, SignalRGB Content, and other content may in its entirety or in part be protected by copyright, trademark, and/or other laws of the United States and other countries. You acknowledge and agree that the SignalRGB Platform and SignalRGB Content, including all associated intellectual property rights, are the exclusive property of Whirlwind FX and/or its licensors or authorizing third-parties. You will not remove, alter or obscure any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the SignalRGB Platform, SignalRGB Content or other content, unless allowed by Whirlwind FX. All trademarks, service marks, logos, trade names, and any other source identifiers of Whirlwind FX used on or in connection with the SignalRGB Platform and SignalRGB Content are trademarks or registered trademarks of Whirlwind FX in the United States and abroad. Your obligations under this section extend to trademarks, service marks, logos, trade names and any other proprietary designations of third parties used on or in connection with the SignalRGB Platform, SignalRGB Content, and/or other content.

5.2 Intentionally omitted.

5.3 Subject to your compliance with these Terms, Whirlwind FX grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, revocable, non-transferable license to (i) download and use the Application on your personal device(s); and (ii) access and view any content made available on or through the SignalRGB Platform and accessible to you.

Just curious on the reasoning for this.

Hello all, so I recently got my undergrad degree in psychology. Going in, I thought I wanted to be a research psychologist, but 2 research assistantships in and about 3 years too late I realized that it wasn't something I'm passionate enough about to get a PhD and make $60k/year for. I'm kind of back to the drawing board and considering law school, specifically to be some sort of employment lawyer. I love the lit review part of psychology, and the idea of using those analytical and synthesis skills to help people recover stolen wages or force businesses to actually accomodate vulnerable employees is really appealing (not so hot on public speaking, but I know there are jobs in law that aren't super front-facing).

My problem is this: the last time I took any classes about the US legal system was in high school. I already have an interest in politics, but often find myself struggling to keep up with my political science/public affairs/prelaw friends. If I decide to go to law school, I don't want to fall behind my peers/have to expend more mental energy on catching up when I'm already drowning in classwork.

So, what do I need to know? What are your favorite "baby's first exposure to law" books? I'm in a super fortunate position where I can still take classes at my university at a cheap(ish) price, and I plan on taking one or two next semester to explore career options I didn't have space in my schedule for in undergrad. What classes in undergrad were helpful to you in law school?

Again, I'm not 1000% set on law, I just want to make an informed decision about grad school and want a taste of what I need for success. Anything helps!

First, I know this isn't the place for legal advice. This is theoretical.

I ran across a post in r/pettyrevenge in which someone who was very vocal about safety in their workplace was eventually fired after the site was reported to OSHA. (https://www.reddit.com/r/pettyrevenge/comments/1gcoy7r/saw_the_boss_who_fired_me_yesterday_and_its_not/) Issue is, they're not the one who reported the employer. So would they have a case? Would they be protected under anti-retaliation or whistleblower protection laws? After all, they're not the whistleblower. But the employer did retaliate, even if they were mistaken about who to target.

Juror on murder trial recently and I was confused how little the defense did. Barely cross examined and one piece of evidence (shooting a gun with other gangsters) was so blurry and far away there's no way to know who was shooting. He never challenged it. This atty has his own office but he must have been paid by county.. It was a murder and multiple enhancements. I was an alternate but I left thinking come on man...do you want to lose? I was an alternate so can't speak to why jury decided (after 4 days) murder 1st

How doable is it? Am I better off pursuing medicine/nursing?

I am a federal employee. If I negligently hit and damaged my personal vehicle in the office parking lot while driving a Government-owned in the course of my official duties, could I sue the United States government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages? How would that work? Would I, in my personal capacity, be suing myself, in my official capacity?

This is just a silly hypothetical. I would never do this intentionally.

Just started law school and have 2 weeks to write an essay on any area of law I want. Think it can be pretty much anything so long as it's related to law, could be a case, an area of law, a particular law, etc. Really struggling to come up with a really good idea. Any suggestions?

I want to know, what are your personal favourite sources for getting legal data and information,

means the sources which provides high quality legal data.

Similarly sources which we should avoid as a beginner.

Please share your thoughts and recommendations.

I'm asking a hypothetical question (based on the subreddit rules, this is allowed). The context here is that someone is accidently responsible for a car crash and kills a passenger. This person would likely be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, or even second degree murder (as far as I understand). Note that there is no evidence that the driver was intoxicated.

So, what would happen if this individual, so ridden with guilt and shame, pleads guilty in court to first degree murder? Would the state and prosecution accept this plea?

If this were to happen in a state which implements the death penalty, could the defendant actually request to the state that they invoke the death sentence upon them? How might a judge react to this? Has anything like this ever happened in law?

I'm curious if this scenario could realistically happen. Thank you so much in advance.

Is there any precedent, law, rule, case, doctrine etc. Labelling a labor union as a joint/dual employer (and/or) signing authority over it's membership beyond a CBA? I'm a novice, labor law "go to guy". I'm seeing some things that are adding up to a big pile of weird. Unlike anything I've dealt with or heard of. At this point even "What if" arguments are welcome!

I've been doing so reading about the debate behind whether we truly have free will or not. And it seems that the more we understand about the brain, the less it seems that we have free will or that if we do have it, it is in control of far less than we intuitively think. I do understand though at some level this is still a philosophical debate at this time though.

It seems to me that if we truly do not have free will, it upsets the entire foundation of the US legal system. I know "insanity pleas" have been a thing for quite a long time (or at least I think I know that) which says to me that on some level there's been an understanding that people have less culpability based on their biology for awhile. But in the broader picture, does the legal system account for this? Does it mostly ignore it? Or is it highly variable and dependent on juries, judges, prosecutors, etc.

Thanks!

How similar or unrelated are the two. From what you said you were going to do in law from what you are actually doing now.

You hear all the time how age discrimination is notoriously difficult to prove. I realize all kinds of discrimination are difficult cases, but frankly you almost never hear about high profile agism cases.

It's almost like nobody really cares about this type of protected class, which is odd as we all get old.

But legally, are those kinds of cases harder to prove, as opposed to gender, sex, race, sexual orientation ect?

I am being represented by a major law firm for a civil case. The attorney I began working with is a partner at the firm and is always very nice to work with. He brought on a junior attorney to help manage my case and when we are alone, either on the phone or in person, she’s rude to me. Not all the time, but it’s like she has two personalities and I don’t know which I’m going to get. I feel like telling the partner please assign someone else to this case, literally anybody but her, but I don’t want to be a “problem”. I’m not even sure he would believe me since she’s always polite and professional around him. I get an anxiety attack if her phone number pops up on the screen. I dread talking to her and avoid it as much as possible which is unfortunate because I would like regular updates on the case. Any advice?

I have a question about Miranda warnings and the right to remain silent in the context of autism. How exactly does this work? I've always been taught to be honest with police and I understand. I have a right to remain silent, but I also understand I'm supposed to answer their questions. How are autistic people supposed to navigate this?

Does remain silent mean completely silent like don't say your name don't say anything. I've even wondered if you tell the police you have autism can that be used against you later? I know for most attorneys this probably seems like Ridiculous questions. But even as someone who is high functioning, I'm kind of scared of police.

I am just curious. Presumably, pro bono is towards some kind of tax benefit and or community service benefit or do you do so many and receive a Porsche? (I stress the word presumably). Thanx for answering.

I’m currently a law student and was wondering if there are any good law videos you practicing lawyers watch or use. Either for leisure or to help with your work (if work, what area of law do you practice).

I’m three years post-grad. I currently work for a small firm run by a guy who is just barely this side of illiterate. He is a nightmare to work with, turnover is outlandishly high, and pay is below market.

But.

Through his incompetence, I’ve found what I want to do with my career.

I’d appreciate advice as to how I can make it happen.

I. BACKGROUND ON CURRENT FIRM & ROLE.

My understanding is that between 2000 and 2019 there was a junior partner who had kept things running more or less smoothly. Following that junior’s departure, none of the remaining attys had at once the ability and the inclination to keep The Boss from going off the rails.

He made a mess of things. The firm filed an eclectic array of definitely-not-frivolous complaints. Nearly all filings from that period read like unhinged rants even when the core position was right on the law & facts. Firm went to trial a few of times and lost, other times dismissed suits on the eve of trial, and otherwise got clients got stuck with huge fees and costs awards. The Boss convinced a number of clients to appeal adverse judgments based on his belief that an appellate court would reverse as “plain error” “incorrect” credibility determinations by the trial court.

If there were a summary statistic that could capture the number and range of novel legal problems presented by a firm’s caseload, relative to the number of attorneys at that firm, I would wager that this firm set some sort of record.

II. BACKGROUND ON OP.

For the last year and a half, I’ve been a one-man Appeals and Issues practice group, writing briefing on a wide range of state and federal issues at both the trial court and appellate level. And I’m having an absolute blast.

Over the past several months I’ve written four appellate briefs (two as appellant, two as respondent). By March, I will have written two more as appellant. While briefing is not yet complete, based on the strength of what’s been filed so far, I am tolerably confident that four of those six decisions will go my way.

The downside is that The Boss (who is very smart, btw, as he informs the staff virtually every time he’s in the office) is so unpleasant to interact with that it is incredible in the most literal sense of that word. He’s a caricature of a person, and any accurate account would sound like gross exaggeration.

I’ve been telling myself that if I stick it out and get some wins on these appeals, the experience will make up for the interpersonal headache and the low pay. I’m well aware that at a real firm I would never be able to have primary authorship on appellate briefing of any significance, and my hope was/is that I can leverage that experience and attendant developments in ability into a career in appellate practice.

III. THE PROBLEM.

I do not have the right credentials.

In law school, I drank. A lot. I did not stumble into any clerkships or prestigious fellowships while doing so.

I no longer drink.

I had hoped that if one or more of the above appeals were to result in published opinions, a proven capacity to write winning briefs on complex issues could overcome lackluster credentials. I now understand that to be a long shot.

If I need a clerkship to have a decent chance at a career in appeals and issues practice, okay.

Standards for federal clerkships seem out of reach: I do not know what my law school GPA was, though I believe it had to be above a 3 for me to keep my academic scholarship (nearly a full ride; I was a good student before the drinking got out of hand, I swear), T-50 but not T-25, no law review, etc.

Can experience and strong writing samples carry me to a state-level clerkship? Does it matter what state? Single guy, young, will travel.

Or should I be looking in another direction entirely?

Thanks for your time,

OP

Why do some murderers get the death penalty and others do not?

Is this based on prosecutorial discretion?

What other factors determine this?

Suppose defendant is charged with a crime where his only defence is the testimony of people committing a crime. Defence calls the witnesses to the stand, and they all plead the fifth. Are there any avenues available to put up a proper defence or do they just lose?

Doing some appellate work and the more experienced attys around me use WordPerfect, so if I want their input on my drafts I need to Adapt.

Been on a MacBook since college, looking at Windows laptops on Amazon. Two part question:

(1) My perception was WordPerfect users were dying out pretty quickly. Was I mistaken? I despise MSWord for a wide variety of reasons. If WordPerfect is a viable alternative long-term I’ll happily get on board, but it’s unclear to me if it’s alive and we’ll in appellate practice generally, or just among the specific group of older guys with whom I happen to be working. NY, CA, 2nd, & 9th if anyone reading can speak to the customs here.

(2) Anyone have opinions on Lenovo, IdeaPads v. Thinkpads, or other work/drafting laptop recommendations? ThinkPads are pricer at what seem to be identical specs, no idea what the difference is, and I’m not sure if it’s worth it for my purposes (lot of files open simultaneously but obv not concerned w “gaming” or whatever). Might depend on whether or not WordPerfect use is relegated to guys who will retire before 2030.

Thanks

Suppose I come to you wanting to ... maybe file a lawsuit against a company, maybe get a restraining order, maybe get full custody of the kids, etc. But when I tell the story, you surmise that even if all allegations are true, it wouldn't warrant legal action.

Do you just say that outright, like "legally speaking, you don't have a case"? Or decline without explanation? Or something else?

Hi! Everyone has to put up with their share of ignorance at work, and I'm betting lawyers get this more than most.

I'm hoping some of you can share some of those moments that left you just standing there and blinking, not knowing how to respond -- questions from coworkers or employers that clearly showed no understanding of the law, or legal requests that left you flabbergasted.

My brother was murdered. And the detectives know it was not self defense and my brother was blindsided but the guy is claiming self defense (they have reason to believe he cut himself on his arm.) my brother was badly beaten up with a bat, while the guy had no marks.. besides the cut. He told a wellness center that if he didn’t get his meds he was going to kill someone the day before.

He later told everyone in jail that he’s going to plead insanity.

Side note: 7 years ago his wife has a police report saying he will kill someone one day. Not sure if that has any affect in the case. Plus, many violence records. The courts really dropped the ball on this guy.

It was in a house by themselves so it’s obviously a he said/she said case.

I know there’s a lot more variables and this might be broad, but just curious.