Law Of Obligations Puns

About 3 weeks ago (middle of September) my MIL had asked her husband if they could do something after church that Sunday. FIL suggested they go for a drive on some back roads. MIL happily agreed. It had been a while since they’d spent some good quality time alone together.

Unfortunately, once they began their drive, FIL began casually talking about how he hadn’t been happy in a long time. He started talking about he hadn’t loved her for years. He talked about how he knew it was a mistake to marry her when he did, but he did it to get away from his own abusive mother. After a while he decided it was the right thing to do to stay..so out of obligation he stayed, but he didn’t love her as his wife, and he has my husband is wondering if it was the same for him as his son.

FIL just kind of started rambling... and over the last few weeks there were many things that he communicated to her. He confessed to being unfaithful 20 years ago with a close family friend. He said she deserves better. He said she was a good wife. He said they could be friends still. He said they could maybe DATE(?!) in the future. He also told her she needs to get over him, emotionally.

FIL casually mentioned it to my husband in passing the next day at work. Pretty much to the extent of, “your mother and I are getting a divorce so, I’m not kicking you out, but you guys need to get a place soon.”

The man, from all appearances, who loves her and her son, and now daughter-in-law and granddaughter, and has worked himself tirelessly ill for the betterment of “the family”...no matter the cost... and sometimes it was at the cost of emotional connection and relational investment with his wife and son (he has said all these things to me personally over the last few years. His words, not mine). All the while my MIL and now husband is living in a hellish nightmare, she remained faithful to him. She loved him. She supported him and did not spread an ill word about him.

She never wanted to betray the man she loved and devoted her life to and made a family with.

I know we aren’t the only people out there going through this and was just wondering if anyone has any advice I’m willing to listen.

Also we have a GFM set up, we are trying not to do it too much on Facebook bc FIL is on there and pretty active. I’ve posted on r/Charity, Pinterest, Twitter, but we don’t have a lot people we know that we can send it to and I’m trying to find the best way for us to broadcast this without literally go

Is there any truth to this?

Does anyone know corporate law?

See the claim in bold, for example, from a Reddit comment:

>The management of private corporations have a "Fiduciary Responsibility" to the owners of the company to maximize profits. They do this by paying workers as little as possible, not properly disposing of waste products from manufacturing processes, or any other means they can find to increase profits. Relocating factories to Third World countries with lower wages and loose environmental regulation, with little to no thought on how these profit maximizing measures affect workers and communities, is standard practice in private corporations.

Note that there are claims (see this article) that corporations do not maximize shareholder value, which would suggest that any "fiduciary responsibility" laws (if they exist) are not being obeyed/followed/enforced:

>there is little evidence companies have been maximizing shareholder profits in the last two decades. The average real return to shareholders since December of 1997 is 4.8 percent. This compares to a longer-term average of more than 7.0 percent. (I went back to 1997 instead of taking the more natural 20-year average to avoid distortions created by the stock bubble. The twenty-year return has been just 3.6 percent.) These relatively low returns are especially striking since corporations have gotten so much assistance from government tax cuts over this period.

>Rather than maximizing shareholder returns, it seems more plausible that CEOs have been maximizing CEO pay, which has risen 940 percent since 1978.

For those people from countries that are not in EU, they can also answer some laws that they think would be the biggest problem to accept.

For Croatia, we had really big problem when trying to enter with EU asking us to deliver our Wartime Generals and Heroes to ICTY for prosecution, most of us then were against EU, based solely on that, it worsened when some of them were convicted and that mistrust of EU stayed true until they were released later. I was openly against EU, that changed when most of our heroes were released, then I let go of my mistrust and started to see good things in it.

Now most of us would stay in EU, but sometimes we still have problems with accepting some decisions from EU, last such big example that caused uproar was EU plan about every member state receiving migrants/refugees, every few months there is news about where that center for them should be built with local people openly protesting against it and cursing EU, then it silently gets decided to build the center somewhere else.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong we would still like to stay, but some ideas are hard to accept, well harder than others, we understand compromise, but some plans are non negotionable, I'm asking for those stories from your countries.

EDIT 2: I've noticed that I'm constantly getting upvoted and downvoted, thus staying around 0, I'm not trying to promote why we refuse it or why we did in the past, there is enough topics on internet about that, I'm just trying to get a sense of other nations, what they really see as something that stops them from creating a closer EU, only by understanding what troubles others can we make a better EU, I'm actually all for worldwide integration, not just as EU but as UN, truly UN for the sake of progress of humanity, but there are differences between us, and we need to acknowledge them, so if you are downvoting, at least please comment why do you find my question "negative".

This is comes up because of the situation with the current POTUS, but the question is not directed at the specific situation. Please do not infer a partisan interest in asking the question; it is simply an academic curiosity.

There are many concerns regarding Presidential travel within the United States, outside of Washington. These visits seem to stretch the manpower and budgets of local jurisdictions.

What are the obligations of local and state law enforcement regarding the protection of the POTUS? Where is this defined? Can a local jurisdiction simply decline to provide additional support?

Edit: Thanks all for your replies.

For those in the class, how'd it go? Personally, I'm hoping for a curve lol. Brutal.

Essentially just the title. I was thinking about situations where following the law would lead to using other people as a mere means, or actions that cannot be universalized. However, if one was to break the law, one would be making an exception for themselves which also could not be universalized. This has been confusing me for a while now, so I thank you for your help.

I have three children, boys and a girl, who are dual national citizens of USA and Germany. My oldest is a 19yo girl, and I have 17yo and 10yo boys. We have always lived in the USA.

What obligations do they have from their German citizenship? For example, in the USA, men have to sign up for Selective Service when they are 18. I know Germany no longer requires military service, but is there something else they must register for? What about women?

Thank you!

Most laymen claim that they obey the law because it’s the law. But how does restating the law of identity create a moral obligation? Isn’t asserting that the law “is what it is” just a tautology?

Even if this is your fundamental axiom I fail to see how it provides a context independent obligation to obey the law.

For example, what Hitler did to the Jews was perfectly legal under the Nuremberg Laws. Does that mean that the Jews had a moral obligation to obey laws that oppressed them? And we’re the Jews that escaped Auschwitz immoral for not obeying the authority of the state?

Moral obligation to obey the law will either be based on consent or it will be non-voluntary. If it’s based on consent then people can just choose whether or not to obey the law. But if it’s non-voluntary, then the Jews had a moral obligation to obey the Nuremberg Laws. In my opinion both consent and non-voluntary theories of legal obligation fail to provide a valid context independent obligation to obey the law.

Or am I just confused?

Title says it all but I will give some more details without being too specific. Former close associate of mine has an arrest warrant, Local police came to my house asking if I knew where said individual was, I said “no” they then asked to search my house I said “not without a search warrant” and closed the door. Next day basically had the same conversation and noticed I was being tailed by undercover cops. Day after, I get a visit from a federal government agency asking if I knew their whereabouts, again said no and they informed me that if I know where he is and don’t tell them I can be charged with being an accessory after the fact and harboring a fugitive. I again said I don’t know anything and no you can’t search my house. That’s where I am at right now.

The following is the definition of such a crime in CA: In Penal Code 32 PC, California law defines "accessory after the fact" as harboring, concealing or aiding a person whom you know has committed a felony, in order to protect him or her from arrest, trial, conviction and/or sentencing.

Under that definition am I aiding said individual by simply not telling the police the location of the person of interest?

To be clear, I did not participate in the crime at all or know the crime was going to take place. I did not see said individual after the crime had taken place. I did not provide money, cars, shelter or anything else to said individual after the crime was committed. I am not even 100% sure of the location of said person. However, knowing this person as closely as I do, I would say there is a 95% chance I know where they are hiding.

With all that being said, I’ve had difficulty finding relevant case law and the legalese has been tough to understand so I was hoping for some help.