>> illegal efforts
Yet to be determined by a court. Precision in language is important, no matter how heated you are about a situation.
Yet to be determined by a court. Precision in language is important, no matter how heated you are about a situation.
Let's go with "immoral efforts." I think that's precise enough language.
If you can trespass for 20 years (varies by jurisdiction) without getting ejected, it's legal. And you now own the property.
If you don't enforce a trademark, it is void. There are statutes of limitations on a lot of crimes and torts, including those involving violence. So there is quite a lot of precedent involved in unenforced, flagrantly-violated laws becoming void.
One way around that is to elect government attorneys that will prosecute those laws, and government cops that will investigate suspected violations of those laws.
I can make claims about my worldview. I say the sky is blue. you say the sky is white (cloudy). we can argue about it, but there's no reason for either of us to change our opinion till we look out the window and see what color the sky is.
The problem with your standard of saying nothing is illegal till a court rules on it, is we require someone accuse another to trigger the court determination of fact.
in my very humble opinion it's perfectly reasonable to call something illegal if you genuinely believe it's illegal, regardless of status as a lawyer. But once the court has ruled, you need to change your opinion, or you're a crackpot. (Or, perhaps, the court is corrupt, but that's well off into crazy person land)
As someone who is involved in multiple IP lawsuits and one other major civil matter, this is exactly how it works. I don't claim people are doing illegal things. I am filing lawsuits against them alleging improper behavior and I let the courts do their job, which is determining legality and harm to parties.
Laymen don't get to decide what is or isn't legal, nor is it a wise decision to accuse people of illegal activities when no fact finding group has found that to be true. Trust me on this one when I say courts really, really don't appreciate that kind of language.
Conversationally, saying "I think this is illegal" instead of "this is illegal" freely surrenders to those who disagree with you to use appeals to authority to bypass conversation without addressing what you said. I think this is a bad strategy if you're levying a case in the e-court of e-opinions.
sounds like breach of contract, not crimes though. shrug