@rii - If it is not yours technically yes. If the message is not harassing though I doubt any police officer is going to do anything more that give a warning about it.

@Upnorth - The comment should have been assumed to pertain to the question exclusively... I shouldnt have to explain that though... troll along please.

You cant take Blizzards copy written information in any way with out their approval unless you have licencing that says otherwise.

@notstoreboughtdirt - I do not know the answer to this which is why I proposed the question. But for instance the exemption for the ACA applies to congress for life.

@NateEldredge - No because the law is not restricted to Government officials. This benefit is available to all citizens. Now if they passed a law that said members of Congressional staff or family members of the are the only ones that do not have to file a return then yes.

Here is the California one. Its similar in all states it seems based on the google results

@NateEldredge - It is illegal in most if not all states to register or licence a vehicle that displays fraudulent manufacturer information. The gm is a bad example but you could remove the AMC information form an old Pacer and put a Porsche logo on it. Yeah you get in trouble for that. Thats why if you ever see a kit car they do not have the trademark logo's on them.

Your example would be more appropriate if you filed the patent yourself and then sold the patent to the company and they subsequently removed your name from the patent as the author. You are not going to get your name added to the patent. You might be able to get the patent invalidated if you can show that you did the work before the patent was applied for by claiming prior art.

You do not have to be indigent to get a PD. Anyone can request a PD if you have charges against you. All you have to do is say you can not afford an attorney. It is not uncommon for defendants to replace their PD with private counsel after they meet them and find that the PD is worth exactly what they are being paid.

@DidIReallyWriteThat - Possibly but that part was never challenged in court since the defendant was able to retain counsel. The defendant is entitled to representation by counsel. Had the defendant not been able to secure private counsel, and the court forced the defendant to act as his own attorney, then that rule may have applied.