Which shows you have absolutely no understanding about what people with law degrees (not all of them practice law) actually do, are trained in, and what their skillset allows them an inherent ability to accomplish.
as an example: Look up "Risk Management", "Strategic Management".. and the word "Proactive" then take a giant leap forward and actually THINK about it all.
You have basically just stated Blackstone's ratio which is the principle that governments and courts MUST err on the side of presumption of innocence.
"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." - William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", 1765.
I believe your John Adams also stated something similar and maybe even expanded on the principle for the USA structures with:
"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever [emphasis added]
So Horace B. Edwards is now the legal guardian ad litem of the US is he?
So he wont mind being criminally charged under War Crimes and other International treaties for the crimes that the US Govt, its citizens and proxies have committed (with torture being but one of the charges) towards the rest of the populace of the planet then.
Good on him.. I hope he plans to NEVER travel anywhere else on the planet whatsoever (or any of his agents who would also be vicariously liable too)
This is a dual edged sword for the LAPD since if they have police body cam of an event from their viewpoint (and this is all about CYA) they are not allowed to release it whatsoever even if there is other video evidence shot by a third party that states another viewpoint (or part of one) that the body cam video might be able to disprove or at least show FULL context.
In any event the ubiquity of citizen video devices is at the point now that body cams are not going to be the only video evidence that will be available and the LEO's cannot control the one they never took.
The heir never sold the statue.. The heir died and their heir sold the statue.. a totally different situation and one where placing a vicarious liability on the seller (heir of the heir) is both dangerous and unconscionable (frustration) and where privity has no basis
A non party to a contract cannot be sued for any non performance or non compliance to that contract.
This is absolutely established law and no matter how the Academy tries to spin it they are still beholden to that. Otherwise I for one will now create a contract with Donald Duck and sue Disney for there non compliance.
Whether the Academy has within the terms of the contract this condition is absolutely moot in this instance.
Ah I see your problem... you are conflating the UK Common sense approach to dealing with minors with the US syste,m of destroying children's lives because of 'someone must be punished and blamed' or other idiotic reasons
The trademarks for the Australian companies are soley Australian trademarks, the USA companies (as the anon below states) receive absolutely nothing and were last past the post in the trademark application.
The licensing agreement is not financial and is only to allow each to advertise online in their respective markets and NOT outside of them.
Wesfarmers like Coles when they owned them are under no legal obligation whatsoever to the American corporation nor should they be.
It's very much rated R which means it is actually a criminal offense to sell/supply it to a minor (under 18yrs).
This doesn't mean that poarents cannot purchase the product and allow there children to play it (supervised or not) just that like tobacco (16yrs) and alcohol (18yrs) and Porn Videos (18yrs) it is highly controlled. Though NOT illegal for the minor themselves to play/consume/smoke
He's talking about the ass kicking being self defense. Self defense is not only when the victim defends themselves it is also when someone else defends them against violence by stopping it in a reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances way.
Also the laws of Japan allow a LOT more 'reasonable force' than is currently in most other nations when the violence is being committed against a female.
The Time magazine article (linked) says that he was forced to leave Australia. Why wasn't he arrested, charged, and prosecuted? Surely there must exist ample evidence that he committed crimes under Australian law while on Australian soil.
He wasn't arrested nor charged with a criminal offense since his actions did not rise to the level of incitement.