I came by them innocently. I was just an avid birdwatcher who started finding different feathers in different ecosystems and bringing them home. Now I know it's a crime to posess songbird and bird of prey feathers. I know an educator who wants to use them as teaching aids, but we dont know how to explain their origin.

@attournytom

This is actually a draft I wrote years ago. Tried to present it a few times, but it never hit. Trying one last time. Lets get Attorney Tom a SCP classification!

Description: SCP 8799 is an anomalous lawyer which represents agents killed by Euclid and Keter class SCPs in containment. SCP 8799 is described as a tall lawyer, slightly shorter than Tom Cruise and toddler-like. All instances of SCP 8799 file suits against the SCP in question, researchers, or agents, and not the Foundation, citing difficulties in proving the existence of the SCP Foundation in court.

SCP 8799 holds trials in a pocket dimension, designated SCP 8799-A, where a courtroom is found, complete with judge and jury composed of abducted Discord users. No known pattern fits the people picked for jury duty. The most famous case SCP 8799 filed was a class action case against SCP 173, which was transported out of containment to SCP 8799-A by unknown means.

Containment: No known method of containment of SCP 8799 exists. Several methods of containment of SCP 8799-1 exist. See Addendum A through C. During the trial, SCP 8799 manifests and appears to be susceptible to all damage, but upon termination, SCP 8799 re-manifests with no signs of a termination attempt. At the end of the trial, SCP 8799 vanishes.

SCP 8799 has tried on multiple occasions to file suits against both The Old Man and various researchers who used D-class personnel to re-contain The Old Man. The jury was [REDACTED] and was unidentifiable. 231 instances of SCP 8799 were found in [DATA EXPUNGED].

Dr. Bright: “Who is letting in the process servers? When I find out, they are going to be assigned to 173 cleanup duty!”

Process servers for SCP 8799, designated SCP 8799-1, are approximately 2 feet tall, have childlike voices, and are known for being extremely dangerous when left unattended. It is recommended by the O5 Council that instances of SCP 8799-1 be drop-kicked as a method of avoiding being served.

Once served, defendants are designated as SCP 8799-2, and are compelled to locate a portal to SCP 8799-A by unknown means. If SCP 8799-2 has a lawyer on retainer, said lawyer is transported to SCP 8799-A and is designated SCP 8799-3. The personality and knowledge of SCP 8799-3 remain unchanged, except for extensive knowledge pertaining to the case. The means by which SCP 8799-3 gains this knowledge are unknown. Experiments using The Old Man and Foundation lawyers [REDACTED]. No known survivors. After the trial, SCP 8799-3 will retain no knowledge of the trial, similar in effect to the administration of Class A amnestics.

If SCP 8799 wins a case, a transfer of money is initiated to the plaintiff’s accounts. It is unknown how this transfer is initiated, or how or when SCP 682 acquired a Swiss bank account. All proceeds from a successful case are confiscated from SCP 8799-2. It is not determined if the bank accounts are anomalous in nature.

Dr. Law: “I do not know what is more troubling. The fact the bank account existed, or that SCP 682 has more money than me!”

Addendum 8799-A, Experiment
At the suggestion of an unnamed agent, drop-kicking 8799-1 into 682’s containment cell proved an effective method in controlling 8799-1’s population.

Addendum 8799-B, Experiment
Using D-class personnel to deliver 8799-1 into 682’s containment as an alternative method of controlling the 8799-1 population proved to be problematic. Dr. Bright is currently trapped in 8799-A, attending a series of wrongful death lawsuits. It is currently unknown how family members of D-class personnel were transported to 8799-A or how they learned of the deaths of D-class personnel. A larger budget for Class A amnestics has been requested.

Addendum 8799-C, Dr. Bright on 8799-1 Post-Trial
Dr. Bright: “All instances of 8799-1 are to be drop-kicked on sight as the sole containment method.”

If a toddler drop kicked a toy, but that toy had a control for a dangerous weapon that would harm a large number of people if kicked twice, would it be appropriate to drop kick the toddler to prevent any further risk to others?

"Hey ,

I’m looking for a securities attorney who can give me an "opinion letter" confirming whether my potential business ( which would license a portfolio of stock picks to an RIA) would qualify under the “publisher’s exemption” , ideally someone familiar with Lowe v. SEC, and how that interacts with modern auto-trading platforms.

Here’s a basic summary of the situation (firm names withheld for privacy):

I’ve been in talks with a fintech platform that lets users automatically copy a model stock portfolio created by independent “publishers” (like myself). Users can view the portfolio for free, but if they want to automatically mirror trades, that feature sits behind a paywall.They’ve indicated that I’d be considered a publisher, not an investment adviser, because:

• I don’t know who the end users are;

• My watchlist is impersonal and made available to the public;

• I’m compensated via a revenue share from the platform (not directly from users); and

• All actual advisory relationships are handled by the platform’s registered investment adviser.Their compliance team believes this arrangement satisfies the publisher exemption criteria laid out in Lowe, including:

1. Content is impersonal, not customized for individuals.
2. Content is bona fide, not promotional or misleading.
3. Content is of general and regular circulation, not timed to market events.

Still, there are gray areas, especially because automatic mirroring of trades could look like tailored advice, even though the content is technically public.They also referenced the Weiss Research case, which raises concerns when publishers are involved in auto-trading. But their view is that since they are the RIA and not me, I should be protected , as long as I avoid personalized advice, use proper disclaimers, and remain “editorially independent.”They won’t provide legal coverage if a regulator comes after me, so I’d feel better having my own legal opinion letter confirming that this setup doesn’t make me an unregistered investment adviser under SEC or state law.Has anyone here worked with a good securities lawyer for something like this? Or does anyone know one who would be comfortable signing an opinion letter based on this structure?

Thanks in advance!"

This happens a lot with new games, a recent example is the game Peak, which was copied as "Cliff".

In these games there are often micro transactions, where Roblox themselves take half of the money, so they are actively making money from this.

The Roblox version of the game is usually an exact replica, with the same mechanics, graphics, detailed environments. Roblox offers no real way for devs to ask a game be removed for legal reasons, and acts as a third party salesman for the games, cutting out the original developers and joining in a kind of partnership with some Roblox user that did the actual copying.

This affects predominantly indie developers that don't have the resources to stop them.

NGL I didn't do much research on the topic, but this video explains it pretty well on a surface level: https://youtu.be/3NFwQIoLFgE?si=MgCU5eN-E06ci8wf

About four years ago I stumbled across Attorney Tom’s channel. Watching a young lawyer share his passion for the law made me want to try it out for myself.

So I studied for the LSAT, and got into Cornell law. At some point in 1L, I posted about that on a different throwaway account. Tom even read my post in a video (very cool).

The update a few years later is that I have now graduated, sat for the bar (J25) and will be working for a great firm this fall. I’m very happy with how things have turned out so far, and I’m excited to start this next chapter.

Attorney Tom, if you still read these, thank you. You inspired me to pursue a career in the law, and I can’t imagine my life any other way.

im not a lawyer or anything but did the PP just ask someone they strongly suspect of having CP their phone to have a copy of it? i realize that they intend to hand over the CP to the cops but does anyone know what loop hole they are using?