Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
dwilawyer

Legal Round Up

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, CECAA850 said:

I'm certain my daughter was vaccinated for it when she was little.  I don't remember if I was or not 

So it didn't work?  Unbelievable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

So it didn't work?  Unbelievable!

I don't know if that's a disease that requires a booster shot from time to time or not.  We've always taken all my kids to the Dr for all the routine inoculations.  Hopefully we're both immune now.  I wouldn't want to go through that again.  Odd that my wife and other 2 kids didn't catch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

KGI wins big in a portion of a tradmark/patent infringement lawsuit. 

 

https://e-discoveryteam.com/2018/09/23/second-circuit-uses-klipsch-to-speak-loud-and-clear-on-e-discovery-misconduct/
 

 

=== even after reading the attatchment I couldn’t find the subject of why Klipsch filed the suit? Help me here, layman speak please —

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read the article, it looks like Klipsch Group, Inc. filed a lawsuit against ePro E-Commerce Ltd. for counterfeiting Klipsch products. Then ePro destroyed or hid documents, causing extra legal fees incurred by Klipsch Group, Inc. The court judgement in the article requires ePro to pay the large legal fees caused by ePro interfering with the discovery process of the original lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good one to ponder:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-cheerleader-first-amendment/2021/04/25/9d2ac1e2-9eb7-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html

 

"Small leaks sink great ships."  ref: First Amendment rights of public school students.

 

If you don't like something that your current employer does, and you say something about it publicly (or even not publicly), it's generally okay for the employer to fire you for that.  However, you can also go find another job elsewhere. 

 

But how about public school districts?  Do kids have a right to go elsewhere without a big financial penalty and burden on their families (who may have 11 other children at home, also going to school)?  This is a problem, it seems. 

 

School kids are, de facto, denied First Amendment rights to anything they say--because they are public school kids.  And they can't just change public schools or public school districts if they disagree. The system as it's currently constituted doesn't allow for that.

 

Perhaps kids who disagree with school districts or are punished for free speech off-campus (i.e., they can't say anything that some school administration says they don't like) should be able to take their educations elsewhere--and the money that sends them to their current school--should be applied to a new school, it seems. Otherwise, the school districts have far too much power over student's freedom of speech (and I've seen some really bone-head decisions by school districts before).  Where does this lead?

 

This is an interesting Gordian Knot for the Supreme Court to unravel.

 

Chris

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be very careful about saying anything about the Supreme Court. I made a comment several months ago about the Supreme Court and was banned from this forum for quite some time. Tread lightly…

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2015 at 12:48 AM, dwilawyer said:

Oklahoma must deal with its Ten Commandment Statute. This issue was decided over a decade ago, it will be interesting to see if there are any changes.

Oklahoma Supreme Court must address challenge to its ruling against Ten Commandments monument

http://flip.it/DYS8G

 

Lived in Broken Arrow (Tulsa area) for 13 yrs., and can tell you there's not shortage of over the top religious nut jobs in that state. Religion has a direct affect on a good number of laws, both common sense laws and some bordering on asinine.  Some really believe Jesus roams around the Oral Roberts campus at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

I’d be very careful about saying anything about the Supreme Court. I made a comment several months ago about the Supreme Court and was banned from this forum for quite some time. Tread lightly…

 

Gone... no soup for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

 

Gone... no soup for you.

That’s a relief....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chris A said:

it's generally okay for the employer to fire you for that.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but Isn't it ok for an employer to fire you for any reason that doesn't break the law. Just like it's equally ok for you to quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chris A said:

Here's a good one to ponder:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-cheerleader-first-amendment/2021/04/25/9d2ac1e2-9eb7-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html

 

"Small leaks sink great ships."  ref: First Amendment rights of public school students.

 

If you don't like something that your current employer does, and you say something about it publicly (or even not publicly), it's generally okay for the employer to fire you for that.  However, you can also go find another job elsewhere. 

 

But how about public school districts?  Do kids have a right to go elsewhere without a big financial penalty and burden on their families (who may have 11 other children at home, also going to school)?  This is a problem, it seems. 

 

School kids are, de facto, denied First Amendment rights to anything they say--because they are public school kids.  And they can't just change public schools or public school districts if they disagree. The system as it's currently constituted doesn't allow for that.

 

Perhaps kids who disagree with school districts or are punished for free speech off-campus (i.e., they can't say anything that some school administration says they don't like) should be able to take their educations elsewhere--and the money that sends them to their current school--should be applied to a new school, it seems. Otherwise, the school districts have far too much power over student's freedom of speech (and I've seen some really bone-head decisions by school districts before).  Where does this lead?

 

This is an interesting Gordian Knot for the Supreme Court to unravel.

 

Chris

 

My understanding is that literacy rates were higher before public schools

The example I recall is the State of Massachusetts (also the State hardest for me to spell)

apparently they had some way of keeping records at that time

Why have mandatory public schools, if literacy rates drop ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 10:32 PM, wvu80 said:

Attn Jeff and @dwilawyer.

 

Did you see this?  It backs up perfectly your point, and makes me feel a little small about my contention that the legal system "get it right."  I don't care if the drug dealer was guilty of that crime or not, but what the cop did is deplorable and inexcusable.  This should never happen.

 

 

Planting and manufacturing evidence by the State should always be strongly discouraged.

The State has so much power and resources compared to the individual, it's a stretch to call it a level playing field.

It's one of the reasons Juries are critical in protecting the individual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JL Sargent said:

 

I'm not a lawyer, but Isn't it ok for an employer to fire you for any reason that doesn't break the law. Just like it's equally ok for you to quit.

I think that only falls under "right to work" states, such as Nebraska is along with the following

 

"Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri (effective August 28th, 2017), Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia (not currently in effect due to pending litigation), Wisconsin, and Wyoming."

 

https://www.workplacefairness.org/unions-right-to-work-laws#:~:text=These states include%3A Alabama%2C Arizona,Utah%2C Virginia%2C West Virginia (

 

Even with that, its still a tricky subject to fire someone for "no reason" or at least in NE it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Even with that, its still a tricky subject to fire someone for "no reason" or at least in NE it is. 

We're in a right to work state.  It's better to fire someone and not give a reason than it is to tell them why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're in a right to work state.  It's better to fire someone and not give a reason than it is to tell them why.
Most companies around here want to go through the "manage them out" philosophy, usually they end up hanging themselves. Which my guess prolongs them to claim unemployment benefits, whereas "for no reason " they are eligible right away.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 6:00 PM, jimjimbo said:

I’d be very careful about saying anything about the Supreme Court. I made a comment several months ago about the Supreme Court and was banned from this forum for quite some time. Tread lightly…

Really? Was it about the Court or the confirmation of a judge, campaign issue.relating to the Court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CECAA850 said:

We're in a right to work state. 

Yes we are, but the doctrine you are referring to is "at will" meaning you can be terminated for any reason, or no reason as long as it is not because of the persons gender, race, religion, national origin, being over 40, or.a recognized disability under the ADA.

 

You have to pay unemployment benefits (which are insured)  and face increased rates unless you terminate "for cause."

 

"Right to work state" refers to an employer not being allowed to deny employment to someone because they are not a member of labor union or other labor organization. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JL Sargent said:

 

I'm not a lawyer, but Isn't it ok for an employer to fire you for any reason that doesn't break the law. Just like it's equally ok for you to quit.

Yes, every state but Montana is an "At Wil" state. However, regardless of the state, If you are a member of a labor union or are a government employee than "at will" may not apply depending on whether there is a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the labor union, or if there is a civil service system for a particular government job. In addition, if you have an employment agreement/contract than "at will" doesn't apply either, the terms of the contract control.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 5:54 PM, Chris A said:

Here's a good one to ponder:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-cheerleader-first-amendment/2021/04/25/9d2ac1e2-9eb7-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html

 

"Small leaks sink great ships."  ref: First Amendment rights of public school students.

 

If you don't like something that your current employer does, and you say something about it publicly (or even not publicly), it's generally okay for the employer to fire you for that.  However, you can also go find another job elsewhere. 

 

But how about public school districts?  Do kids have a right to go elsewhere without a big financial penalty and burden on their families (who may have 11 other children at home, also going to school)?  This is a problem, it seems. 

 

School kids are, de facto, denied First Amendment rights to anything they say--because they are public school kids.  And they can't just change public schools or public school districts if they disagree. The system as it's currently constituted doesn't allow for that.

 

Perhaps kids who disagree with school districts or are punished for free speech off-campus (i.e., they can't say anything that some school administration says they don't like) should be able to take their educations elsewhere--and the money that sends them to their current school--should be applied to a new school, it seems. Otherwise, the school districts have far too much power over student's freedom of speech (and I've seen some really bone-head decisions by school districts before).  Where does this lead?

 

This is an interesting Gordian Knot for the Supreme Court to unravel.

 

Chris

Looking forward to that argument tomorrow. I have read all of the briefs and it will be interesting which issues come to the forefront.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...