adebtlawyer

It is possible to be denied a bank account based on overdrafting and abandoning prior accounts. This is not based on credit score with one of the 'big three' agencies, but another agency called Chexsystems that only deals with your conduct towards your bank accounts. Poor people frequently have this problem - an old overdrafted account prevents them from getting another one, even at a different bank.

The gag is that you'd think $11,000 would be enough to fix this problem. Usually people who have it couldn't put a few hundred together to close out the old account.

They could exist without protection from the legal system, but to the extent that they are protected by courts, they are a legal construct. In the US, there is more to them than 'things you aren't telling anyone' and you are not necessarily without legal remedy if someone finds out your trade secret.

Yeah with only $11,000 he'd probably get hit with all kinds of fees if he tried to open a bank account. And forget about checks, you can't even write a check that big.

I'm not saying the cash was evidence of wrongdoing, but the elaborate excuses this thread is making for this guy's behavior are only highlighting how absurd it was.

> their rental income is usually taxed at a lower rate than ordinary earnings.

Not in the US. Rental income is income. I think you may be referring to deductions, which exist, but are not nearly as advantageous as taxing rental income at a lower rate outright.

Zoning won't allow it - the suburbs are not built up intentionally.

No. Military service is still an option. The education benefits are excellent.

I'm not familiar with Alice. As far as I know, you're right, non-obviousness is different than patentable subject matter. Sorry to elide them together like that.

I never claimed to be patent lawyer.

I said 'in-house.' That means lawyers on staff on salaries, not fees to outside counsel.

Work costs money, sure, but I'm skeptical of 'millions of dollars.'

> It costs millions of dollars to run these operations

Are you sure? Litigation isn't always expensive if you're doing it in-house.

No. You usually can't pick judges unless the forum is so tiny they only have one. You can't pick the forum unless it has jurisdiction over the matter.

The key word is 'routine.' Patentable subject matter is supposed to be non-obvious, in other words, innovative.

> I'm sure most public defenders are marvelous public servants.

Why? The horrible pay and insane workloads don't attract bright people.

Your statement "other evidence to meet balance of probabilities" is concise but so abstract it's useless. Like most legal questions, there is no abstract way to reason about this. The answer is always "it depends on the context."

In my experience, it's not unusual, though not common, for people (usually parties) to refuse to testify in a civil case based on the 5th amendment. The other side can ask the court to draw an adverse inference from this. I know an aggressive litigator who sometimes has his clients do this. He says "you won't win your case with your adverse inference."

That may be true, but the 5th amendment seems like a risky civil strategy to me. Usually the other side won't be entirely dependent on your testimony to prove their case. There can be other evidence out there that you might want to explain with your testimony, or you may otherwise wish to make your case with testimony.

It's worth knowing that in a civil case the 5th amendment is much less powerful and has risks as well as benefits.

I have reason to think oral statements about your financial condition aren't actionable as fraud by your creditors in bankruptcy. I know nothing of liability to investors, securities law, etc.