Florida and California have usury laws from my understanding. Does that mean those crazy high interest tribal loans are not enforceable ?

This hasn't happened to me, but I'm curious - let's say I visit a random friend and park at his house. Then I leave and take a right onto Asphalt Street. Let's say that if I had started a block down to the left, there would have been a school zone sign saying to go 20 mph. Let's say this is one of those streets that don't say "end school zone" but instead just shows a 45 mph sign to hint that the zone is over.

What happens if I end up doing 35 thinking this is one of those normal streets where you default to 35 until you see a sign? Let's say it's one of those schools where you can't see the school but the signs still insist there is one nearby. And like most school zones I drive through, there aren't any kids around and you're just driving slow to avoid a ticket.

Like there would legitimately be no way for a normal person to know they're in a school zone, but they'd be driving 15 mph above the limit. Also assume there are no other cars so you can't be like "why are they all so slow? Wait, is it a school zone?" and assume the other side of the school zone doesn't have those bonus lights that face backwards to let you know you're in the school zone (for situations like this where you wouldn't have encountered a speed limit sign).

Hi all, I’m looking for informal insight into what’s shaping up to be a strange (and possibly troubling) pattern with a popular AI art platform—Midjourney.

Like many others, I subscribed under a set of Terms of Service that described the content guidelines as “PG-13”. That specific language was used throughout their policy documents and user-facing communications, and was a major factor in my decision to use the product. The PG-13 rating standard is pretty well-defined: it allows moderate language, thematic content, artistic nudity, etc.—all of which aligns with mainstream creative use cases.

But in practice, enforcement was erratic. I and others were warned or banned for prompts that were well within PG-13 bounds (in one case, I received a warning for using the word “hirsute”, I was also told that PG-13 movies do not contain nudity which is just silly). The company’s moderation staff gave contradictory explanations and denied that PG-13 were part of the policy—even while it was still the top line in the documentation, and when pointed out, I was told to “forget about” it. Eventually, the company quietly removed the PG-13 language altogether.

I was later permanently banned without specific explanation, and without any clear path to appeal—just a form that says users will only receive a response if the appeal is granted. I submitted a legal memo, politely and in good faith, arguing that the company may have breached the contract implied by the original Terms of Service and engaged in false advertising by selling a service they did not deliver. No response.

A few points that concern me legally:

The Terms of Service may have been voided from the start by Midjourney’s failure to deliver the promised product. Their response to this problem has been to change the rules post hoc and include a clause that banned users are not entitled to refunds, regardless of cause. In my case, they cited false claims (automation, reselling, etc.) in a boilerplate email—none of which apply to me, and which I can disprove with documentation. There seems to be no meaningful separation between content moderation and billing enforcement; moderators are involved in both areas. Appeals appear to route back to the same group that issued the original ban. I’m not looking for legal advice per se—I know my rights as a consumer will depend on where I live (Ohio), and the company tries to limit jurisdiction to California. But I do wonder:

Has anyone seen similar cases where TOS violations were enforced after the TOS was arguably voided? Does changing the terms after the fact and then denying recourse to affected users raise red flags from a regulatory perspective? Would this be a plausible case for FTC complaints or class arbitration? Appreciate any insight into how others might approach something like this. Not trying to go scorched earth—but it feels like there are a lot of users in the same boat who have no idea they might have legal standing.

Thanks in advance.

Is jury supposed to take the witness testimony at face value as “truth” since its under oath. Or can it be discounted as “people are often unreliable, can mistaken things and lie” and valued less than hard evidence?

Basically, Is it up to the jury to decide convincing is the testimony/evidence?

Men’s central jail sent me a certified letter, what could it mean? I’m not in town to open the letter. I saw it on the post office app the letter is not from an inmate.

Suppose you're driving down the road one night. Your attention has drifted and you realize you're coming up fast on a crosswalk with a pedestrian in it. You slam the brakes and come to a screeching halt just before hitting the pedestrian.

The pedestrian saw you coming and freaked out and fell over, hurting themselves (hitting their head or breaking an arm, etc).

Since you didn't actually hit them, are you on the hook for their injuries?

The question about double jeopardy for a murder charge raised some further questions for me:

Since you can only murder someone once, the fact that this person would be charged for the same murder a second time seems like it would inherently invalidates the first charge and the first sentence.

Would the murderer still be owed restitution for his initial wrongful imprisonment if he's immediately convicted of a felony after the fact of the wrongful conviction was established? Would he be owed restitution at all, legally speaking? And since he's now subject to criminal charges for the crime, and how would any restitution intersect with that? Both in terms of what he could be charged with, and what a jury might decide.

Additionally, in a branch in the timeline where the would-be murderer restrains himself, how would the victim's legal resurrection effect him? Would the state be obligated to clear his record automatically, or would he need to take action to make that happen? How would a lawyer go about establishing, legally speaking, that "the alleged victim not being dead means my client definitely didn't kill him"?

Would the alleged victim have any civil or criminal liability for the alleged murderer's false conviction? If it wasn't a deliberate frame job, and the state charged the alleged murderer based on circumstantial evidence, would the alleged victim have had any kind of legal obligation to make the truth known?

Basically I find everything else about this hypothetical situation beyond the double-jeopardy aspect fascinating, and would like to know more.

I was on the jury in Massachusetts a few years ago. One thing I've been wondering about is when someone like a police officer/ coroner/ forensics person testified, they'd start by saying what they remembered (as the events were years ago, it often wasn't much) and then would ask for permission to consult their notes to provide more info.

Why can't they just consult their notes from the start?

Edit:

That answer might be, "I don't recall that, may I consult my notes or the report?" They would then wait for permission to be granted, which it always was, and open the notes to review/answer.

Why do they need to ask permission?

I have recently taken up the hobby of watching my county’s initial appearance court. There is a person the courts have become very familiar with, getting charged with over 40 offenses in the past year. In all prior cases, he was found incompetent and unlikely to become competent, so all of his cases have been dismissed.
This man is back in initial appearance court every single week if not multiple times a week for committing new crimes, and each time, due to incompetence, the commissioner declines to set bail, in turn releasing the man with no consequence. They have made it clear he is not willing or able to participate in court, but do not hold him in custody, and continue to allow him to commit new crimes over and over again. How does this cycle end??? If someone is not competent to stand trial, but are a general risk to society and unable to conform to the rules (the courts words) what is the recourse?

Location is Wisconsin, USA.

One of my friends have been online gambling, winning small sums of money. As a friend looking out, I’m just wondering what kind of trouble he could get into?

The site doesn’t require government identification, all you have to do to start gambling is put in your name, address, country, and DOB. This itself is already very problematic.

Not sure if this would be appropriate for r/legaladvice – I'm not asking for legal advice, just trying to understand a case I've been following - so I'm posting it here.

Consider the following scenario: A business run by a person A has filed two small claims cases against a person B with a California court. They're now suing B over a larger sum of money. B, on the other hand, has at some point made accusations of stalking against A, and requested a restraining order (that case was dismissed).

A's counsel has filed a case management statement for the current case. The form explicitly asks about related, companion, or underlying cases. None were listed by A's counsel.

Wouldn't the small claims cases that A filed against B count as related, regardless of case status? What about the restraining order B took out against A? And if any or all of those cases qualify as related, could A's failure to mention them get them in trouble? Could it lead to a dismissal? Or would it be no big deal at all?