Felons Allowed Banking License &amp; Right To Discriminate Against Other Felons? Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co., Barclays PLC, and The Royal Bank of Scotland are all American Felons. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/five-major-banks-agree-parent-level-guilty-pleas As a felon you cannot become a lawyer, doctor, or pharmacist. In some states you cannot vote. Public service jobs are out (police ff,emt). Banking jobs as well. So, how are these banks still in business, legally?
They are still in business because they went to the agencies that regulate them and sought exemptions and waivers from the requirements that they not have criminal convictions. Certain highly regulated industries, like the banking and securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) industries require the companies, their executives, and individual people be licensed. Usually, individuals and companies with a history of "bad behavior", are denied licensure. Each industries regulations and laws define what that bad behavior is, but a felony conviction for a financial related crime certainly meets that definition. However, being denied a license or booted from the industry is not automatic. The agencies that enforce these regulations, have the ability to continue to license someone who has a felony conviction. I know I am speaking in general terms, but let us look at the securities industry for a specific example. Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, companies that manage investments/mutual funds, like J.P. Morgan &amp; Chase, Co. must be licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. To paraphrase, Section 9(a) of the 1940 Act, it says that individuals cannot control or manage an investment company if they had a felony conviction on the past 10 years. It goes on to state that those same requirements apply to companies meaning they are denied a license. But, section 9(c) allows “people” (which includes companies) that are prohibited from being licensed to get an exemption from these rules through the SEC's administrative process. Here, JP Morgan and the other companies mentioned in the press release are big players in the securities industry. All of them manage mutual funds and buy/sell securities for clients. Therefore, they each applied and received this exemption at the same time or right before they pleaded guilty so it wouldn’t disrupt their business. Here are the administrative orders from the SEC’s website dealing with this exact issue. J.P. Morgan Chase &amp; Co., et al. - Notice of Application and Temporary Order Release No. IC 31613; File No. 812-14466 The permanent order: SEC Release No. IC - 31674 If you’re interested in the law that applies, these orders are a good place to start. Also, here is a less detailed article on this issue in the NY Times.
Under United States law, it is not illegal to simply make an account on a forum where criminal activity takes place. The closest thing I can think of would be misprision of felony (AKA failure to report a crime), which requires active concealment (see United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977)). Simply observing evidence of criminal activity and not reporting it would not qualify. However, if that forum also contains material that is illegal to posses (such as child sexual abuse material), downloading that (even by simply viewing it using your browser) could be a crime. I would note that I am specifically not advising you whether or not doing any of the other things, like making and publishing tutorial videos on how to access such sites, is likely to get you into trouble with the law. If you want that sort of legal advice, you should contact a lawyer, as the advice is going to be very specific to the exact details.
In Texas, as in most of the US, the law is "Employment at Will". This means that an employer is free to fire people at any time, for any reason, or none, as long as it is not for one of the few reason forbidden by law, such as racial or age discrimination. Hourly employees are entitled to overtime pay in such cases, but "exempt" employees are not. Nor are they entitled to comp-time as a matter of law, that is at the option of the employer. (The question seems to imply that the employee in question was "exempt" but does not actually say so.) The only really effective recourse against that sort of "death march" is to quit and find a better job, or to threaten to do so while they still need you, unless the conditions return to acceptable ones. I have heard of people in such a situation who "get sick" every day at 5:30pm, because local law forbid requiring ill employees to work. But that is pretty much inviting an arduous and possibly expensive administrative and/or legal battle, and will depend on the specifics of the state/local law. In any case, it is too late for the person in question to try that. On the facts as stated, there might be a valid claim of age discrimination. But additional facts would be needed to establish this, and it would be in my view unwise to try it without consulting a good employment lawyer. Such a lawyer could advise exactly what must be proved and how, and what the probable chances of any recovery would be.
Your understanding of “legal tender” is flawed There is plenty of case law to show that governments can place reasonable restrictions on payment by legal tender up to and including excluding it entirely. Picano v Borough of Emerson explains this very succinctly: Finally, there is no basis for concluding that defendants violated 31 U.S.C. § 5103. Section 5103 provides that &quot;United States coins and currency . . . are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.&quot; None of the cases cited by plaintiff stands for the proposition that § 5103 requires a local government (or any other entity) to accept payment in cash, and no court has so held. The refusal by governments to accept pennies (or any other small denomination) has withstood challenge multiple times. 31 U.S.C. § 5103 does not create a requirement to accept cash.
the first two highlighted parts seem to contradict each other. No, in this case they do not. The first highlighted portion refers to works or items produced "for or under the direction of the Company", whereas the second highlight refers to your creations that satisfy conditions (a) and (b). Where contradictions actually exist, the doctrine of contra proferentem entitles you (the non-draftsman of the contract) to adopt the portion or reasonable interpretation that favors your legal position. Also wondering how valid those statements actually are They are valid and become enforceable as soon as you sign the contract or your subsequent conduct reflects your acceptance thereof. it's a matter of privacy. So the question is what I can do or what the reality is of the situation The reality is that you are asked to sign a contract that is abusive and ridiculous. One vulnerability from describing your inventions (presumably in Appendix A) is that the employer gets "irrevocable, worldwide, etc" rights on them as soon as you "use or disclose any [items listed in Appendix A] when acting within the scope of [your] employment". This means that if instead of reinventing the wheel you share or apply any portion of your prior creations so as to enhance your productivity, you knowingly and irreversibly grant to the employer perpetual rights to those items. Legal disputes regarding APIs can become extremely intricate. And, since judges usually have no decent background on IT, even those few judges with integrity are unlikely to grasp the key subtleties that would lead to a correct ruling. "not useful with or related to any Company Interest" is very vague. The company could be interested in literally anything these days. Clauses which are too vague or excessively wide-encompassing are supposedly stricken as unconscionable, unenforceable, etc. However, I personally would foreclose upfront the risk of judicial hassle and decline the abusive contract. Legal issues aside, keep in mind that you are offering your expertise (in terms of supply &amp; demand, you are on the supply side). This fact has a less derogatory connotation than "asking for a job". Accordingly, the relation between the parties should be more leveled.
Police can lie However, in the United States they have to read you your Miranda warning (most other democratic countries have similar warnings): You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. They have told you everything they are required to tell you - effectively “we are not on your side.” After that, they can lie their asses off. Of course, they wouldn’t ask you for a DNA sample - they’d ask you if you’d like a glass of water. Then they’ll take the DNA from that.
Note: IANAL Does the placement of a sticker stating, "We accept XYZ credit cards," essentially obligate a business to accept that card? It depends on whether you mean whether they are obligated to provide goods/services to someone who presents the card, or whether, having provided goods/services, they are obligated to accept the card as payment. For the first question, the answer is "no". The credit card brand could theoretically go after them, however, as names of credit networks are trademarks, so claiming to accept a card but not doing so is trademark infringement. For the second, the answer is "pretty much". Since they misrepresented their establishment, there is no mutual assent and therefore no contract. If they try to use "defrauding the innkeeper statutes", those require fraudulent intent. If you fully intended to pay for you meal by a credit card, and it was their choice to refuse payment, then you have no fraudulent intent. The only avenue I can see for them is some sort of equity argument, but that would be problematic, especially if they ask for the retail, rather than wholesale, price, and not worth the hassle of collecting. So, legally, you can just walk out, but in practice if they have a bouncer they might make trouble for you.
&gt; What does that last sentence mean? It means that federal law does not provide premium pay on Sundays and Holidays the way MA does. &gt; Should I be getting paid more than I am? No. Check out G.L. c. 151, § 1A: the hours so worked on Sunday or certain holidays shall be excluded from the calculation of overtime pay In other words, take your eight hours on Sunday and subtract that from the total hours for the week. That number minus 40 is how many OT hours you get. This calculation is called crediting - basically the employer credits your time-and-a-half Sunday work against your total hours for the week. Crediting is allowed and it is why you do not get the Sunday pay on top of your overtime. If you want to get in the weeds take a look at Swift v Autozone where the MA Supreme Court describes why crediting is allowed. Also see 29 U.S.C. 207(h)(2) which tells us that extra compensation is creditable..