Salem Legal Follies

Yes, see, I was thinking along the lines of Dior creating a gorgeous dress, expensive material, etc. Label says Dior. And somehow Chanel comes up with the same design, expensive material, etc. with the label saying Chanel. Both are saying this is their ORIGINAL DESIGN. How would one decide which is counterfeit?
 
Poirot, if something like this ever happened, all a person could do is to listen to the evidence from both sides and make up his/her mind. There would be no assistance from a court because, as I said in earlier posts, fashion designs are not copyrightable. As for identical designs from two fashion houses, one of them could be a "copy." Goods are regarded as counterfeit if the are given a false attribution. This would be the case if Clyde and Orpheus decided to swindle status-seeking Salem men by selling them cheap suits that had the Armani label. Imagine EJ strutting around the Town Square in his new "Armani" suit and proudly showing off its label only to be told by Xander: "Give it up, mate, that's a cheap copy. Can't you tell tacky knockoffs from the real thing?"
 
Ah, Dr. B.....this morning my son called me. He is a beekeeper (on the side) & couple years ago came up with an idea for a tool pouch, attached to a belt, after he lost 2 or 3 hive tools out in the field. Worked so well for him, he made a little video, to show others how it worked, they could make one for themselves. Went over so big, he agreed to make a few for those unable to do so, and boy, he sure got a lot of positive responses. Well, this a.m. he got an e-mail or video clip or something, from one of his customer admirers......who is now making his own........yep, same as my son's design, but he did add an extra magnet. Now my son was laughing, he really did not care, wasn't much interested in continuing to make them for anyone (his full time job doesn't leave him much time), so he did not much care, except the guy used his design. And I immediately went into Dr. B's comments regarding no designer copyright, etc. Gave you all the credit, tho I had to explain the story reason (woman's comment about seeking a lawyer re: design stealing) . Am sure that would apply to beekeeper tool belt design as well. LOL So thank you, Dr. B. (he wasn't planning on suing, but Mom had to impart the info, just in case he might have changed his mind in the future)
 
Shawn's unbelievably stupid move in bringing the awful Jan into his and Belle's marital home raises the question; does this give Belle grounds for divorce? Belle could have a good cause of action for mental cruelty because Jan's past actions toward her are so terrible that the very idea of Jan under her roof would cause Belle extreme mental anguish. Even EJ would likely have no trouble winning this case. (As an aside, Jan is lucky that Shawn didn't stick with Willow Stark. Willow would grab Jan by the scruff of her neck and pitch her out the front door and into the gutter.)
 
Today, Chad was loudly threatening to file libel suits against Leo and the Intruder. Apart from the possible factual problems mentioned by Sonny this is bad idea on practical grounds.
  • Even if Chad won a case against Leo, he'd never get a dime since the grifter seems to have no money.
  • To win a case against the Intruder, Chad would have to show more than the story was false. Because Chad is a public figure in Salem, he'd have to also prove that the paper knew that the story was false when it published it.
 
Eric usually has a hurt look on his face and sometimes he actually has a good reason. He definitely got the short end of the stick yesterday.
  • A little research showed that removal from the priesthood occurs only as punishment for the gravest of offenses. Doing an unauthorized emergency exorcism on one's niece in the middle of a possession epidemic hardly meets this standard.
  • A little checking also showed that a priest who is to be removed is told of this at a meeting, not by some quickie phone call to a pub.
  • Eric has been victimized to further "da plot." Him being ousted from the priesthood is an obvious ploy to cause trouble for the Rafe-Nicole romance. (He could easily have been shown contacting Bishop Wright about Allie's plight and asking for permission to do an exorcism.)
 
Since Kate seems to have little to do these days except meddle in Lucas's affairs, she might want to pick up a quickie degree from Salem University School of Law. Her analysis of a possible defense for trigger-happy Lani was better than anything that might be offered by bumbling Belle and hapless Justin. Ms. Blue Chunk wasn't far off the mark. It could be argued that Lani seeing TR apparently about to strike her beloved mother and the shocking sight of Abe lying on the floor in a pool of blood caused temporary insanity, which resulted in the shooting of TR.
 
Everyone seems to think that Lucas is now toast for kidnapping Sami. This might be true in Salem, but what about the real world? Sure, he's confessed to anyone who will listen, but is there any corroborating evidence? When anyone wants to "prove" Lucas did it, they say that Abiail knew he did. This is the functional equivalent to "How do you know?" --- "Abigail told me so," which simply wouldn't fly in court. If no other "evidence" turns up, and If Ted Laurant was still around, he could enhance his legal street cred and perhaps score a night in the sack with Kate, by saving Lucas from the kidnapping rap.
 
In a recent episode, faux lawyer EJ was trying to impress Ava with his knowledge of the law by blathering on about the hearsay rule and the Rules of Federal Evidence. If Ava knew more about the law than breaking it, he would have exposed his woeful ignorance. Any case involving the Gwen jailbreak would be tried in state criminal court where the Illinois Rules of Evidence, not the Federal Rules of Evidence would apply. Elsewhere, foolish Sloan appeared to think that a good way to represent Leo was to start bickering with Rafe. If she wants to ably assist her eccentric client, she should save her debating skills for a meeting with Melinda Trask who would be in charge of prosecuting the case.
 
For those who were unimpressed with the Kritter's case at the custody hearing, here's list of the kind of evidence that should be presented, which came from one of the many websites dedicated to the subject.
  • All communication with your child’s other parent, such as emails, text messages, voicemails, and letters
  • Journals
  • Photographs
  • Videos
  • Audio Recordings
  • Schedules – including any times your child’s other parent had to cancel or reschedule visitation
  • Records – including medical, school-related, financial, and police reports.
  • Social Media Posts
If the clueless Kritter had done any research, she'd have known that showing up and just making wild accusations won't float the boat.
 
Some things I don't understand..... well, most of it is ridiculous but still....
If I die and I own Robinsnest and in my will my company splits in equal shares to my 3 heirs, okay this I get.(reality)

now for what I don't understand:
Now heir one marries and he disappears, goes off to swim with the dolphins and never at least till now returns, but he didn't leave a will
Heir two remains single and continues working at Robinsnest
Heir three is on wife #4 and dies but his will wasn't changed since wife #1 and no one knows where she is for all we know she's with Heir 1 swimming with dolphins...
I return from the dead just because.....

Do I get all of my stock back?
Who controls heir one's shares? me or his wife since he is missing not declared dead and no will?
Heir two continues working and controlling his shares? or are they mine now?
Heir three.... Wife #4 wants to control his shares but the will states wife #1 has them but well where is she
 
Seems there would be a sort of guardian "for the time being", of the shares, to protect them, invest them, until a court decides to declare the owner dead, and how distribution of the shares shall be distributed.
 
robinsnest here's a go at your hypotheticals (which looks like something from a tricky law school exam) assuming that the three heirs are siblings and that they outlived the person making the bequest. Persons who died before the person making the bequest, can't inherit.

Now heir one marries and he disappears, goes off to swim with the dolphins and never at least till now returns, but he didn't leave a will
Heir two remains single and continues working at Robinsnest.

Heir three is on wife #4 and dies but his will wasn't changed since wife #1 and no one knows where she is for all we know she's with Heir 1 swimming with dolphins

If heir one was declared dead and left no will, his estate would be covered by the intestacy statute. Since heir one had a spouse, that person would take his entire share.

Heir three's will would fail because the only beneficiary has been missing for years. Without a valid will, the current spouse would get the entire share under the intestacy statute.

Under the intestacy statute if a person dies without a spouse or a will, the estate would be divided with each surviving child getting an equal share, meaning that here heir three gets a one-third share.

Finally, if heirs one and three do a Stefano-like resurrection and reappear they would be out of luck. They would have been declared dead and their property distributed. To my knowledge, there is no provision in law covering the property rights of a person whose estate was distributed after he was declared dead. The closest example to this situation outside Salem was the Tom Hanks character is Cast Away. He was presumed dead, and by the time he got back, his true love was married and had a child, meaning poor Tom was out of luck in the love department.
 
Last edited:
Interesting........when my dad was ill, he had a meeting scheduled with his lawyer, as he had not updated his will in some years, and wanted to do so, to make sure his children got a third. Alas, he passed away, his original will prevailed, (his 2nd wife inherited), and when she passed away a couple years ago, it all went to her brother, who had been managing her finances. Was not my dad's plan at all.
One should think very carefully when making a will. (of the future, and the what ifs, ands, etc. )
 
Thanks DrBakerFan...I can't believe there isn't standard law dealing with dead/newly resurrected people... seems to happen all the time in Salem... not that I've even encountered something like that....

In my case, my dad died, leaving his estate and everything to his current wife, my stepmother, as she is blind and I was going through all of his life insurance making claims and such the largest policy.... had NEVER been changed, it listed my mother as beneficiary.....it was also the oldest and the payment to keep it going had been paid annually and was less than $100 it had been written when he enlisted he changed his mother as chief beneficiary to my mom when they married then I guess promptly forgot about it. As the wording in the policy stated wife and any issue, I just had to prove my siblings and I qualified and we split the money. Everything else will eventually go to my stepbrothers as my stepmother has redone her will, I was allowed to be a witness to the event because I'M NOT MENTIONED in it.
 
Poirot, robinsnest: There are many stories about the unfortunate consequences of neglecting to have a will. That said, some of the biggest offenders are lawyers. My old law school once had a professor who was the big expert on wills, estates, etc. When he died, he had no will. One day in class, the professor told of an experience aboard a plane that had hit severe turbulence. On passenger was going up and down the aisle looking for people to witness his will. He was a lawyer. My former neighbor, also a lawyer, waited until he and his wife were about to take a vacation flight to show up at our side door to ask us to witness their wills. Based on these anecdotes, the least likely people in Salem to have wills are EJ, Belle, Justin, Melinda, and Sloan.
 
During her nasty encounter with poor Chloe, the Kreepy Kritter expressed the belief that her presentation at the custody hearing was brilliant and that she'd have won a slam-dunk victory if not for the devious diva's machinations. Talk about kidding herself. The Kritter's case consisted of wild accusations without a shred of proof to back any of them up. If anything, the Kritter's bizarre presentation proved that she wasn't even fit to care for an ant farm, much less raise a child. (If Sam Waterston's crew of ADAs in the new Law & Order, acted like the Kritter, their cases would be thrown out of court in a New York second.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top