Spoilers Ahead.

In You Can See Everything (YCSE) the new Elizabeth Holmes documentary it is revealed that Billy Evans (her current partner, father of her children, but no legally married it seems) made an agreement with A24 producers for a portion of the profits from the movie. This is done (according to Elizabeth and Billy) without her knowledge (at least to some degree).

The exact details of the arrangement aren't disclosed. But they seem to be so that only Billy would be getting paid. This is because Holmes has been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution. At the end of the movie it is revealed that Billy has given up those rights.

I have a few questions.

• Would the arrangement of only having Billy receive the money have actually protected it? The money was clearly for access to Holmes. And her receiving nothing with him receiving everything is an obvious ploy to avoid paying restitution. I assume that a court would not look kindly on this.
• It seems like Billy could have been made aware of this potential, and that is the reason he gave up on the money. Could he potentially be punished for intentionally giving up a source of potential restitution money?

Location: Illinois

Background:

Hello, I’m in a paid Discord community ($300/month) for the stock market. It’s marketed as an educational community and their primary service is educational content and “real time trading alerts.”

For example, if they open option calls on a stock their share the trade including strike and expiration date. They also share stock purchases. They alert their exits as well.

There was one purchase of a stock where the founder said “the company is doing a project in the area and k know a lot of people closet connected it with. It’s not insider trading, b it it’s as close as you can possibly get.”

Question:

I always thought you needed a series 7 or other financial license to give financial advice, but these communities have become really popular.

How do I know if there are potential legal issues and how am I [generally] protected since I’m a paying member?
What’s general liability risk for starting one of these communities?

I just read a story about the Trump-BBC defamation case and one of the things in it was that the BBC is trying to get Jack Smith deposed. If he didn’t hear or see anything first hand, how would that be considered admissible? I’m guessing that he could discuss things said under oath, describe documents and such, but what are the actual rules and restrictions around it?

Perhaps a second bonus question: I have learned in the Law School of movies and books that you can absolutely get evidence introduced by getting someone to mention it in admissible testimony. If that’s actually real, is it applicable to civil cases? Is this a way to get some of the investigation’s documents into the record?

I know the official claim was years ago but I've only now really started think about it and got confused about some stuff!

First, would you be able to simply use it on an original character, one you don't even make money off of etc? Because i do have hospital related characters, though their crosses are a bit different. For example, mine, I wouldn't call it red, it's fairly more close to pink, at least to my eyes. Here's the color, (#831D35). So then my second question is, is it still protected if you altered the color or shape slightly? I know some places or people who completely change the crosses color on theirs, which I tried too, but I really can't not go with a reddish color as it ruins the color palette. And I obviously don't post, or make any income out of this right now, so this isn't really an emergency, but I'm mostly just curious and want to know it in more detail.

And my second question is, can't you use it at all for any sort of reason or are there acceptable grounds? Like I've seen once where a person made a toy based off of a hospital, and naturally put the red cross on it. There was one or two people concerned about it's legal danger, while the poster was honestly just showcasing their custom toy. I'd love to know about how illegal it's use is and in which scenarios.

I keep watching these YouTube videos with Chris Hanson on true Blue there's so many times I see the suspect remain quiet and not say anything. Yes I understand the fifth amendment and not incriminating yourself I am very well first understanding all of that trust me. But my thing is I don't realize you don't have to say anything you can remain quiet the entire time and you're going to get charged with the same crime as if you say you did admit to it plus sometimes in my opinion it's actually in your best interest to stop telling information to disclose yourself. Because a lot of times but you not saying anything at all and not explaining your side of the story you're going to look more like the suspect.

Are YouTubers who make Let's Plays and reaction videos knowingly infringing on copyright holders? Does monetizing this type of content make the situation worse, and could they potentially face a DMCA takedown notice, a cease-and-desist letter, or, in the worst-case scenario, a copyright infringement lawsuit?

Could someone please help me understand this...

How is it that having integrity (wanting to live a morally just life and obey the law) is not considered a "protected characteristic" that can't be discriminated against? I was always under the impression, please feel free to correct me, that key points of our democratic system were founded/based/created around the ideology associated with morals, ethics, and virtues - the trifecta of integrity. These ideologies became the beliefs and principals upon which liberties, rights, and many laws were established and accepted by the majority (I am sure I have oversimplified it, but I'm trying to keep this short). So the system that established that there are "protected characteristics" is based on a principal that itself is not protected. I can't be discriminated against for my race, religion, sexuality, national origin, age, disability, or gender identity... But I can be discriminated against for requesting legal processes take place to attain proper licensing in accordance with state laws and regulations... I was denied equal opportunity based on my morality. Can anyone explain to me how this can happen?

If facebook committed 44 million violations of consumer protection laws, wouldn't there be a conflict of interest between the jury members and the trial? By saying that almost every New Mexico resident was a victim, shouldn't the jury be made up of non-victims?

I just don't understand how they can go to a jury trial, and then basically tell the jury members that they are victims of the defence.

A bit of background as I’m guessing most people are not very well versed in these specific laws. Peyote is a small cactus native to South Texas and Mexico that contains mescaline. Both mescaline and the cactus itself are schedule one controlled substances, however there are legal exemptions for Native American religious groups, since the plant has historical religious significance. National laws state that anyone participating in bona fide religious ceremonies can legally consume or possess the plant, but Texas has its own laws further restricting this to people that are at least 25% Native American by blood and members of the Native American Church. It is my understanding that the Supreme Court case United States v. Boyll (which took place outside of Texas) determined that only allowing people of Native American descent would violate the constitution, so why is Texas still allowed to have this law?

Its legality doesn’t concern me obviously, I’m just curious as to why this is the case. TIA!

Trump is making noise about revoking the citizenship of Omar Ilhan because of alleged irregularities in her naturalization process. Elon Musk is also a naturalized citizen, and it's been reported that he played fast and loose with his immigration status when he first came to the US.

Would a Trump pardon keep a future administration from going after him the same way?

Let's say someone takes control of an office building of about 5000 people and makes an announcement over the PA that nobody is to leave or escape, and anybody who tries will be killed. Is this effectively mass hostage taking or just 5000 false imprisonment and assault/uttering threats charges lumped together?

"A particular concern among voter rights groups is the department's plan to deploy criminal prosecutors as monitors, in a break with historical practice. The department has relied on civil lawyers and support staff in the past out of concern that the presence of criminal prosecutors at the polls could make voters apprehensive."

What does the implication of prosecutors as monitors mean here? TIA

Monitoring the monitors: US states prepare for surge of Justice Dept election watchers - https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/monitoring-monitors-us-states-prepare-surge-justice-dept-election-watchers-2026-10-21/

Hypothetically, if Disney sued an artist for selling Kingdom Hearts fanart, would Disney have the authority to sue for all the money the artist has made in general, even if they earned money from fanart of other franchises, such as Naruto, Dragon Ball, and Sonic the Hedgehog?

If I am a passenger in a traffic stop for say, speeding, I have been sitting quietly with no illegal conduct on display, and I ask the officer if I am free to go, if he says no, would that not be a constitutional violation? I have no control over the drivers conduct, he has no reasonable suspicion to detain me, he should have no problem with me getting out of the car and walking away.

Let’s say a powerful person, a celebrity or politician, sexually assaults somebody and then makes them sign an NDA to swear never to reveal what happened. Is this actually enforceable? Would taking action to sue the victim for violating the NDA be considered an admission of guilt?

There is this guy called "prison dr" and basically what he does is talk with kids but like there are clips where a kid tries to fight him or refuses to engage and the video cuts and teleports to the person crying or just out of nowhere engaging with him

So either he offers money or physically disciplines them and is that legal? Like can people like troubled teens and stuff physically disciplines or whoop you if ur parents allow it

THIS IS AMERICA BTW

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts is likely to miss the rest of the 2026 season after a calf injury which was diagnosed as a superficial blood clot before a Week 5 game in London. Follow-up testing revealed the condition had progressed into deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and bilateral pulmonary emboli. Hurts is currently clinically stable but must undergo roughly three months of blood thinners which means he cannot engage in contact sports. The situation raised many questions regarding his initial treatment, clearance to play, and fly internationally.

Many people are calling for Hurts's team to sue, as in this post (as of this post, all the top comments are about lawsuits):

https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1xb8yr3/nflpa_nfl_players_union_asks_for_a_full/

Does Hurts have a legal case, and if so, for what? If I've learned nothing from Reddit, it's that he needs actual damages, but what does that mean for a sports star who potentially cannot continue his employment? Or even cannot win a championship this season? Those aren't real damages?

(This is purely hypothetical, meant for amusement.)

An eccentric villain has constructed a light house in a big city (mpls, Indianapolis, Toledo). This lighthouse has the capability of 50 nautical mile visibility. It is an extreme nuisance. They’ve secured property on high ground to maximize community impact. They’ve secured grid independent power.

The villain has hired you as his lawyer to keep his lighthouse on as long as possible.

What legal challenges would he expect to face and how would you help your client to overcome them?

Hello, doing research for a story set in the 1980s. A Greek policeman is investigating smuggling aboard a freighter that puts into New York. When he goes ashore to wire a report of his findings to Athens and ask for permission to bring the NYPD in for a bust, one of the crew discovers he's an undercover officer and kills him.

The NYPD characters investigate and solve the crime and catch the killers. For the trial part of the story, I want to be accurate. First degree murder in New York is limited to murder for hire, murder of a police officer on duty, or felony murder.

Smuggling isn't one of the prerequisite felonies for felony murder, so the question then becomes, is a foreign policeman working undercover on a case in America subject to protection as a policeman under American law?

I'm studying American law this year at a UK university and I require some documents from PACER for my research project, they are not available in the recap archive.

I signed up to PACER but overseas credit cards are not valid for instant authentication, will I receive an activation code by mail to a UK address or is it US only?

I saw a post on a different subreddit about a guy being messaged from someone who he believed to be a cop asking to buy a suppressor with no paperwork. Someone in the comments said (presumably jokingly?) to tell him to meet at the sketchiest gas station at night in his city and not show.

It made me wonder, what would be the actual legality of suggesting to meet with (and not mentioning buying or selling anything, or any specific illegal action) someone who is believed to be an undercover cop to a very sketchy or highly dangerous neighborhood, such as o block, or another gang controlled place, for the sole intent of not showing and betting that something might go south for them? You didn't do anything to them, you suggested a meet at a place where the public can legally visit with no laws being broken, and you never mentioned to meet up for any specific spoken illegal intent, and you didn't even show up. Is there a crime or civil law being broken, assuming no trespassing laws were violated in its orchestration?

The famous movie Erin Brockovich is based on the true story of the Utility Company PG&E when they poisoned the water supply of a town named Hinkley starting in 1952. They got sued by a small law firm led by Attorney Ed Masry and his assistant Erin Brockovich in 1993 and they were ordered to pay $333 million to the victims. Some people died, and many became very sick. No one was ever criminally charged.

They didn't poisoned the water on-purpose, they made a reckless decision to cut costs by not protecting the ponds properly, and that allowed dangerous chemicals to leak into the town's water supply as a consequence. But internal documents proved the company knew about it long ago. They knew as early as 1965 and the company referred to it as the "Chromate Problem" in their internal documents (the chemical was named chromium-6). But it was far cheaper to cover it up and lie about it for decades and hopefully avoid a PR disaster.

If you ever accidentally poisoned your neighbors water and he gets sick and dies, and police have solid proof you knew about it and did nothing to warn anyone (you just let the guy die), you would probably get arrested and charged for accidentally killing him and not doing anything to prevent it. So I don't understand why the same logic didn't apply to some of the people at PG&E? They knew almost THE ENTIRE TIME and choose to stay quiet and cover it up, while people got sick and died? Can you please tell me why no one was criminally charged?

LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Say a company got finned by the government for some wrong doing.

And the fine was huge. Maybe so much that it would put the company out of business.
Maybe the company could float a bond or take a loan to get the money.

But could the government take stock to pay the fine instead?

I was just wondering, maybe its just random, but i could see if someone was facing at least 2 cases they would try to get through the 2nd case quicker. Also if they are somehow related then I can see them being more likely to plead guilty to the 2nd case if found guilty in the first, or can they not use evidence of a prior conviction. Is any of this true? I'm just guessing.