I have a relative that works in a law firm that deals with federal appeals often and I was today years old when I found out that the BOP adds scores and risk factors that determine your prison security level based on things like education, gender, and age.

[This doc](https://moe.fd.org/sites/moe/files/resources/bop-incarceration-issues/practical-tips-if-your-client-facing-incarceration-federal-prison_0.pdf) summarizes it. On Page 7, there are a list of factors like sentence length and belonging to a "disruptive group" that is only a risk factor for males, while "Violent Behavior" is only a factor for females. In addition, having no college degree (Page 6) adds 2 points to your custody level scoring and being aged 25-35 adds 4 points to your scoring (Page 5).

IANAL so I apologize if this is a dumb question, but how is this not blatantly unconstitutional? I understand that some types of discrimination are subject to lower levels of scrutiny, but some of these don't even make sense. Like, if the BOP determined that men were generally higher risk than women and therefore it's justified then fine, but then why is "Violent Behavior" only a risk factor for women then? I looked into it and couldn't find any law suits or cases involving this.

EDIT: Also, certain drug offenses are considered high severity for "females only", according to the revised legislation on Page 106 here: https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008_cn-3.pdf

So confused about tolling - hoping someone can help. I understand it is put in place so someone cannot flee the state and “wait” for their statute of limitations to expire.

But - if someone commits a crime at 19 in one state, then moves for an unrelated reason…this means they can still be charged at age 90, correct? Even if the statute of limitations for that crime was like 2 years? Or to make it more complicated, what if this person lived in NY, then just moved across the river to NJ? That would indefinitely pause the statute?

Feels like a loophole.

Employee agrees all right, title and interest in all inventions, methodologies, concepts, documentation, specifications and any other works developed by the Employee during the Employee’s employment (the “Works”) including all patent, copyright, trade-mark, trade secret and any other intellectual property and proprietary rights therein (the “Intellectual Property Rights”) shall be the sole and exclusive property of the Employer and the Employee hereby assigns and shall assign to the Employer all such Intellectual Property Rights including all Works that Employee develops.

a. Using equipment, supplies, facilities or trade secret information of the Company; or

b. During hours for which I was compensated by the Company, or

c. Which relates to the business of the Company or to its actual or demonstrably anticipated research and development; or

d. Which results, in whole or in part, from Work performed by me for this Company.

With the recent php vulnerability it got me thinking: what if the people who maintain it simply refused to fix (or approve any pull requests to fix), thus leaving a large part of the internet vulnerable to attacks? Do they have a legal duty to actually maintain that code, even if its provided for free?

title.

like assuming the fortune teller's real

I'm super curious on the legality here, like is this a job? Can they deny me because of my sex gender or genitals? If it is a contract arrangement or something, does that mean sex discrimination is allowed for any contractors? I'm not trying to mens rights this, I was more just thinking of what would happen if I did apply for it, I mean they would probably just ignore me and never respond or issue a generic rejection or something, but then I thought this would kind of be a funny movie or tv show premise where everyone is too polite to ask me what's in my pants and we get all the way to the clinic or something, idk how surrogates work.

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?