Author Topic: Hypothetical legal questions (looking in Roy's general direction perhaps)  (Read 59327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #120 on: February 19, 2015, 10:50:07 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
One of the best descriptions that I've read on the issue came out shortly after citizens united -- at least as it relates to campaign financing (which is, after all, what the case was about).

Quote
On one side are those Justices who view the world of politics as fraught with corruption and undue access for the wealthy; they worry that voter confidence gets shaken by each new campaign finance scandal. On the other side are those Justices who see any limitation on money in politics as overt government censorship that violates the First Amendment; they fear that incumbents will squelch criticism in a replay of the Alien and Sedition Acts
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2010/07/01/what-the-court-didand-why/
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #121 on: February 19, 2015, 10:51:46 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
If PETA can spend money to influence an election than so can Nathan's Famous Hot Dogs.  It's that simple.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #122 on: February 19, 2015, 11:04:14 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
undue access for the wealthy? I have missed the part of the Constitution that deals with that.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #123 on: February 19, 2015, 11:19:04 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Is that because you skipped over the part where only white landowners could vote? :D
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #124 on: June 07, 2015, 07:47:13 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I was in a restaurant/bar today and ordered with food a beer cocktail and their weakest beer and the guy came out to tell me they couldn't do that because according to a 100 year old MA blue law which also exists in CT it's against the law to serve someone two drinks at a time. He stated it would be legal to serve a beer and wine but they would never do that. I think he's full of it. I have researched pretty hard on that. Does anyone know if this is really a law and exactly what law he's referring to?

All my research is pointing towards it being against the law to serve someone MORE than two drinks at a time. Also you can't serve a pitcher of beer to a single person. Has to be a party of at least two
« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 08:17:05 PM by eja117 »

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #125 on: June 07, 2015, 08:16:18 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58538
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I was in a restaurant/bar today and ordered with food a beer cocktail and their weakest beer and the guy came out to tell me they couldn't do that because according to a 100 year old MA blue law which also exists in CT it's against the law to serve someone two drinks at a time. He stated it would be legal to serve a beer and wine but they would never do that. I think he's full of it. I have researched pretty hard on that. Does anyone know if this is really a law and exactly what law he's referring to?

http://www.mass.gov/abcc/pdf/faqfinal_2013.pdf

See #27 and #28. This link says it's illegal to sell more than two drinks at a time (excluding wine).


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #126 on: June 07, 2015, 08:17:46 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Thank you. That's what I thought

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #127 on: June 07, 2015, 08:19:08 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58538
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #128 on: June 07, 2015, 08:19:43 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
I was in a restaurant/bar today and ordered with food a beer cocktail and their weakest beer and the guy came out to tell me they couldn't do that because according to a 100 year old MA blue law which also exists in CT it's against the law to serve someone two drinks at a time. He stated it would be legal to serve a beer and wine but they would never do that. I think he's full of it. I have researched pretty hard on that. Does anyone know if this is really a law and exactly what law he's referring to?
This is a weird one cause I have and seen other people order shot and beer or mixed drinks and beer. But never wine and beer at same time. However I have been told can't order two beers at one time for myself but could buy a pitcher. Go figure

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #129 on: June 07, 2015, 08:22:16 PM »

Offline JohnBoy65

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 916
  • Tommy Points: 132
Sort of on the same topic. I'm from New York and am 22. I've been to TG Garden twice since I turned 21. They won't sell me a beer because I'm out of state and not over the age of 25. Not sure what that's about.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #130 on: June 07, 2015, 08:41:28 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47892
  • Tommy Points: 2906
Sort of on the same topic. I'm from New York and am 22. I've been to TG Garden twice since I turned 21. They won't sell me a beer because I'm out of state and not over the age of 25. Not sure what that's about.

Same exact thing happened to me when I visited in 2012. The guy said it was a TD Garden policy not a law, iirc.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #131 on: June 07, 2015, 09:22:31 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
Sort of on the same topic. I'm from New York and am 22. I've been to TG Garden twice since I turned 21. They won't sell me a beer because I'm out of state and not over the age of 25. Not sure what that's about.

Same exact thing happened to me when I visited in 2012. The guy said it was a TD Garden policy not a law, iirc.

Man, now that I've lived in Florida for a few years, I have forgotten all about Massachusetts' strange alcohol laws. It wasn't too long ago that Sunday sales were off-limits.

I am not a heavy drinker, but I really appreciate happy hours and drink specials that other states have, especially Florida. It seems so arbitrary.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #132 on: March 26, 2016, 05:06:06 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
So if it can proven that Roger Goodell knowingly and purposely lied about the danger of concussions to his players that's essentially no different from lying to a miner about the danger of a mine right? And that's essentially highly illegal right? So Roger can go to jail for that right? Is there something I'm missing?

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #133 on: March 26, 2016, 05:24:27 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #134 on: March 26, 2016, 05:36:33 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.