Law Questions and Answers
Why would you assume a Police Officer is a fighter?
I grew up contained by Pensacola Fla and the sailors that just finished principal allways thought that 9 weeks or so made them bad. To be a lawful bad guy you own to train allways and you have to fracas. I do not mean four empire taking someone down at gunpoint and cuffing them and then deliver a couple of shots after they have be cuffed. I mean stand up contained by front of a guy that may or may not have you a moment or two nervous and stir to it whether you are going to win or not. Fighting when you think you might loose or are outnumbered to be precise the mark of a discouraging guy. When is the last time you saw a cop do that.Answers: ... silly goose ... you tickle me ...
I be going to answer your question, but around half-way into it I ran out of breadcrumbs ...
Talk give or take a few a rambling, incoherent stream of consciousness ...
what is the thing with you?
Their profession is not to duke it out.it is to enforce the law..
correction officer are the same.you obligation more pay for what you want..one of my friends is a court officer.and an last fighter...so what.it is a assignment..
you want tough,,,force recon,seals,,,,,special forces..different type of living.
Can i sue if the apartment complex if they lost my money orders for my rent?
I go to the apartment complex to renew my lease. I paid 691.00. My unusual lease turned out to be 755.00. They told me to pay the rest until that time the 5th of the month. A day latter a note is at my front door axiom that i have to wage the 65.00. I headed to the rental department and payed the 65 dollars. The manager said that she stapled the two money information for 691.00 to the paper. I be furious. Anybody could have tooken them! I told them that be careless. They are still motto that I have to pay cheque the 691.00. I have documents showing that i already hold paid. I want to sue.Answers: You hold no grounds to sue yet. A money proclaim is just resembling a personal check. You need to turn to the bank where on earth you got the money instructions, show them the receipts, and ask if the money orders enjoy cleared. If they have cleared, you call for copies of the fronts and backs of the money advice, and you will have your proof of pay-out. If they have not cleared, after you need to stop settlement, have them re-issued, and bring the fresh money orders to the organization and demand a unloading. You also should look into getting a checking account, which would enjoy greatly simplified getting proof of payment or re-issuing the checks.
Then sue. Take your paperwork to the nearest Small claims Landlord Tenant fragment. Inform them that you have proof that you remunerated rental charges and that they were not properly credited.
They hold forms you can use. Most only charge a few dollars for them.
Then ask for motion papers and do a motion to earnings your next months rent to
the Court, for them to hold surrounded by escrow until this matter is settled.
(And money it to the Court BEFORE it is due to the landlord)
So was the money command stolen, or not?
If not, then no wound, no foul.
If so, then if you enjoy a receipt, afterwards you are in the clear. Just pay cheque the $65. If you have your M.O. reciept too, you may want to beckon the company who issued it and see if there is a track to stop payment.
If you kept the money proclaim receipt next that's all you call for.
I don't understand the factor about the Manager maxim she stapled the two money orders for the 691? What does that be going to?
If you have shown them the documents, and they will not honor that, and the dune has cashed it, afterwards you are in the clear. If not, yes steal them to small claims court. The filing allowance is only $35. Who know, if they see that they are being sued, the landlords only might drop the whole article.
claim the money from the place where you get the money order...they utter they didn't get it...carry them in trouble ..
Hey, the money decree receipts, properly filled out, are adjectives you need. If they are blunt with next to their finances, that is their blemish, and does not affect you. There is no way they can prevail contained by a court of law..
What law would you specialize within if youre interested in decree in the hype, ie. consumer protection..?
deceptionfraud
tobacco/alcohol public relations
trademark and copyright
Answers: Commercial law.
If this is for a audition answer, then fraud.
http://www.employment.com
http://www.employment.ca
fraud
Intellectual Property Law for trademark and copyright.
My fiance is an intellectual property attorney.
None of the above. Criminal Law.
For believers in restricted gun ownership.?
For adjectives of those people who are anti-gun ownership or believe within strongly restricted ownership...I don't see why you believe this. Please, someone explain to me why you would want to be an advocate of this. All it is is another restriction to our freedoms. Do you really want smaller quantity freedom? It makes no sense to me why someone would believe contained by this.And don't even try to tell me that it will kind for a safer society, because it wont. If no one have guns, what is to keep a cat-burglar from robbing someone's house or a mugger from jumping someone on the street? Just resembling nukes...the more there are, the safer the world will be. If you dont believe this, you stipulation to realize that there hasn't be a large period of war since the atom bomb was invented.
Answers: Freedoms should be restricted insofar as they tend to interrupt on other people's freedoms (such as a right to life, or not anyone shot at). Doling out guns for everybody will encourage more shoot-outs.
The mentality that everyone should hold guns to prevent gun-related crimes reflects the treacherous Cold War concept of deterrence. If you believe in relaxed gun restrictions, later you must necessarily believe we should give out nukes to Iran and North Korea to ensure that we don't engross in nuclear time of war. After all, if every country (including ones that support terrorism) have nukes, then we would adjectives be safe right?
BTW, the Cold War spawned the Vietnam War, the Korea War, the overthrow of Mossadegh within Iran, and the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala. Not to mention the Bay of Pigs fiasco. People still died, democracy be still suspended, and a nuclear war narrowly averted. Deterrence is illusory.
I don't advise anti-gun ownerships, but I do advocate restrictions. For example, mandatory sanctuary training questions. Yes, some society have adjectives sense about the danger of guns but not everyone. Also, why do gun owners need to draw from their gun within 2 hours? There should be some perspective checking and other analysis before hand a gun to someone. For example, VT hopefully wouldn't have happen if the gun laws weren't so laid fund. Ironically, it might have completed better if the students were allowed LEGALLY to fetch guns on school property. (I hear that rule changed roughly speaking a month prior to the incident.)
Preventing anyone to own guns isn't great either. People who are going to behave improperly are going to get their guns without permission. But that doesn't mean America shouldn't support who gets them lawfully.
Its simple.
Too many whackos are running around next to guns shooting innocent people, thats why.
They dont own a clue about gun safekeeping and are irresponsible.
I'm all for responsible home owners...who preference to keep a gun fundamental their bed at night.for protection. I myself enjoy one.
but i dont believe they should be giving out gun permits approaching candy, and some sort of regulation does need to be surrounded by place.
Same with guns for hunting...(which is embarrassing, but thats another poll)
I am not actually for gun restriction, but I won't own them in my house.
And do you seriously believe that more nukes make a safer world? You must not have grown up during The Cold War.
Please don't try the older "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will hold guns" That doesn't hold water.within countries with more stringent gun control, death from guns are minuscule, where within our country there are surrounded by the tens of thousands every year.
Frankly, I think the gun epidemic have nothing to do near gun control at all, it have to do with the mindset of the American public (fight at adjectives costs) because in Canada, per capita in that are many more guns, but their gun death are less than 10% of ours.
I'm lately sayin'
(Like I said, we need to vary our mindset, not ban guns.)
*********Yes, I construe that no war broke out, childish man. But diplomacy would have be much less fearful for us to live below than worrying constantly that a bomb was going to drop. Unless you lived through it, you couldn't possibly know, and really have no deportment on whether it was polite or bad because you be not there. If we would enjoy been clothed to each other instead of getting into a p*ssing contest, natural life would have be much more pleasant for all of us. Same next to guns...who wants to verbs about getting shot simply walking down the street because guns are everywhere? Not I. And like I said, it is our mindset (My "gun" is bigger than yours") that cause the problem. Let's not ban guns, let's alter our attitude.Try again, dear*************
I can say this...my sister feel much safer when someone broke into her house with a 9mm within one hand and her cell phone contained by the other dialing 911.
The 9mm gave her an instant awareness of security while the police arrived.
Muggers, murderers, crooks don't bother registering and buying a firearm rightfully so why punish the honest citizen from gun ownership?
I believe in stricter gun control law because basically those are idiots, they are not in control of their emotion and will shoot you without a second thought.
If folks be just a tad more sane and sensible after it would not be a problem, I was raise around guns and owned my first one when I was 7.
But Mr. Suit after 3 martinis at lunch is merely a fool who can pass a exam and background check. He is surrounded by a hurry and has no compunction more or less shooting you if you are in his road.
I witnessed a shoot-out on my street between 2 grown, well-dressed men and I live in the burbs. One have passed the other and the fight be on. I called the cops and they both go to jail but it be a scary few moments.
Indeed and you live within a world where you can purchase a gun at 15 as long as you own your drivers ed. identity, over the counter at Wal-Mart, yet are forbidden from buying Cigarettes or Alcohol until you are 21.
I guess someone up at hand figured cigs and booze may be precarious.
Guns are fine in the right hand. Sadly the incompetence of many owners enable the minority to steal them and then intimidate the majority. It's too unforced to get guns. By adjectives means hold them but ensure the controls are water tight, not wishy washy and available to the loons who will harm them.
I'm a gun owner, and DO believe in restrictions on ownership and the guns that are for public sale.
Felons should NOT have guns, and if found within possession should be immediately be returned to prison. Automatic artillery should not be for sale or possession of the nonspecific public. There should be waiting periods and environment checks for handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Those who SELL handgun illegally should be prosecuted, fined, and confined. I would also like to see an ORDERLY program for the issue and license of concealed-carry permit.
Make the penalties for crimes harsher... murder and rape should return with the criminal the chair.
AND, if I shoot an intruder, the Judge who agrees that the intruder can sue ME should be shot.
your belief rulles 'for you'..no one can modify your mind
But it is not necessarly mine.
I want you to prove your are really sane and well balenced.to own your guns today.
you can own guns but when does it become your paranoia..
Your fad on the point you make here,, Is okay overt!!!
there have not been a gun within my house for 40 years
the cost is insane hundredes for the gun and ammunition more than a dollar each Nonsense...
No insult intended merely my reply to your ????
Dude have you hear of non violent armaments. It utilizes pellets resembling rubber bullets as projectiles and electric guns to knock outlaws out. Use of these non hostile and relatively safe firepower is gonna make that restriction into more effect!
I have a neighbor who is building a UGLY shack contained by his backyard, can I sue him?
I have a neighbor who is building a UGLY, and I be determined U-G-L-Y shack in his backyard, and although it's location is up to code, it is still hugely close to the property line (10 feet) It will surely lower my property effectiveness & I'll lose money! I called the city code enforcer and if they can't reasonably help me, the being I talked to said I could folder a civil suit. What kind of civil suit would fit this scenario?Answers: You can TRY to sue for nearly anything. Prevailing surrounded by court is another matter entirely. And obviously what you choose to argue, sue, or fight over tell a lot something like your character. I'm already starting to see who the desperate neighbor may be in this situation and he's not the one beside a "shack".
Then again, you could just mind your own business.
Are you planning on selling your place anytime soon? If not, why do you concern so much about your property meaning?
If it's up to code, then no I don't believe in attendance is anything you can do about it. I notably doubt a civil case would do anything for you... except cost you money.
I'm sure you can try a civil suit, but depending on your location, I'm not sure as to the possibility of a jury siding with you.
Another fine example of a frivolous law-suit
Ugliness is not a grounds for suit.
If he is complying next to all statutes and is on his side of the splash, you're out of luck.
If you're that concerned with your property values, you might consider paying him to transport it down and refrain from building for as long as you own your home.
If it really bothers you that much confer to your neighbor and offer him a few hundred bucks to get it look pretty or take it down. Be nice almost it and honest; tell him you dont want your property importance to go down and you would be predisposed to dish out a hundred bucks or so so that he can make it look nice. Like hold out to help him paint it sometime or something. Its not fair, but sh*t happen, thats life.
Wrongfull Death suite.?
louisiana, as they use nepolic laws I am not sure of spelling, who does this( Fact Statement) nouns like it is accusing?( The delayed John Coleman, was admit, to defendant, hospital on aug 24th 2001, for a Mirtral Valve replacement and CABG.
At the time of admittance Mr. Coleman's vigour was average for a lenient of 70 years of age. The record reflect antecedents Mr, Coleman was insulin dependant diabetic and have undergone previous hospitalization for a variety of medical complaints. Plaintiffs/appellants states on the journal that there be never any suggestion and/or allegation the Mr, Coleman's treating Physicians, Surgeon, pre-operative and post -operative Nursing care prior to Sep 2nd 2001, have not breach any standard-duty of care due to Mr, Coleman as a tolerant of defendant hospital,) Does this sound approaching everyone is being blamed prior to Sept 2nd 2001, or not individual accused prior to Sept 2nd 2001?
Answers: Louisiana have a normal wrongful extermination statute like the other 50 states of the Union. The quoted verbal communication indicates that the pt. was gravely ailing, notwithsanding the statement that his health be average for his age. Truth is that a 70-y-o man is no longer in warranty, and this 70-y-o man have a cluster of conditions. Mitral valve replacement (presumably for endocarditis) is a foremost thoracic procedure, even without a simultaneous bypass.
This grip appears to be going down due to a failure to prove that the protection received by the decedent departed from the standard of care. "Standard of Care" is a possession of art in negligence cases. To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that he (or the decedent) be harmed by a person who owed him some duty of perfectionism; that the defendant was imprudent; that the carelessness be of such nature that the aid received fell short of the standard of care (e.g., the kind of steps taken by health thoroughness professionals in dealing next to this partcular illness and set of procedures) and that the lack of wisdom resulted in wound.
Even if negligence was shown, the problem is that a human being this sick was not going to live to a specially ripe old age, so the damages would hold been bare. The case be a dog, and thje quoted language sounds close to the family poured like mad of money down the hole for an appeal after the case be dismissed (though whether the dismissal was since or after trial is not evident from the quoted statement).
I grasp LA following Napoleonic law but I'm not sure that it applies within this situation... the facts are;
Mr. Coleman was an elderly man within not the best of health when he go in to the hospital for a focal heart surgery which his aged and ill body probably could not withstand.
All proper procedures be followed by all of the safekeeping provider's "had not breach any standard-duty of thinking due to Mr, Coleman as a patient of defendant hospital."
Mr. Coleman be probably warned of the danger of undergoing this type of surgery at his age and surrounded by his current health situation and I am sure that he signed a waiver stating he be aware of all potential problems including disappearance.
So it does not appear anyone is responsible or liable for his death.
A hospital is a amazingly unhealthy place to be even beneath the best of circumstances and the older we carry the more dangerous procedures become especially when messing around next to major organs close to the heart.
"Had not breach any standard duty of care due to Mr. Coleman as a patient" looks approaching it is NOT accusing. NOT being blamed. I'd influence given Mr. Coleman's circumstances the risk of heart attack, stroke, blood clots or death during surgery be probably discussed when he signed the consent form.
What it looks like to me from your interrogate.
Valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting surgery for an insulin dependent diabetic aged 70 near previous hospitalization for a variety of medical complaints?? There's other risk with any surgery - even if you're 30 and contained by perfect form.
I work for a company and they pay current employees more afterwards the employees that own worked there longer?
is this allowed????Answers: People don't "marry" companies and make a trade to one place like they did years ago. I have college professors that actually recommended we skip jobs every 4-5 years. It allows you to hold on to up with marketplace value of your position. It's the gloomy but true reality.
It's definitely legal. There is a difference between current employees; the company sets what the clean starting salary requirements to be based on what other companies are paying for similar job. At the time that you were hired the income base for this situation was most plausible lower and that's why that is scheduled; the company would not increase every ones pay to this untried level since the cost would be too large. You would get your make higher if applicable during your normal review period.
Think of it this way, if you moved to another company for this same chore I guarantee you that you would get compensated more there. You would be a different hire and also someone with experience. It's distinctly not illegal and it happen in adjectives jobs.
Maybe you should quit and bring rehired?
Why wouldn't it be legal? A company have a right to hire and pay want wages they want UNLESS the income scale is discriminatory. Maybe the company feel the new hires are better trained and enjoy more recent, updated education? Or conceivably the "old" employees hold not been aggressive plenty to ask for raises?
Seniority is not a "right" or one of the constitutional amendments. Owners still hold a few rights left that sue thrilled employees and union have not taken away... it's their money and wage dialogue is still legal.
Its the employers' prerogative and is lawful , to pay what they grain fit for the current situation. Current employee may hold more in their assignment scope , to knob newer , sophisticated equipments , while back consequently may be the manual type. Eg. Telephone operator are becoming redundant to the current telephone receptionist + to feel the PC + greet in company + to stuff the letters surrounded by the envelopes, all inside the working hours.
Inflation also plays a part - Today, if you clear peanuts - you get monkeys.
it depends on the company policy and the type of work. I indicate u can hardly expect the doorman (who have worked many yrs) and a latest manager to win the same recompense.
so it is legal
Who were the prosecuters, fortification, and judge surrounded by the case of Brown v. Board of Education?
Answers: Since it be a civil trail and not a criminal trial, they were the plaintiff and defendant.
The plaintiffs be thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their twenty children. The named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown be a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African American.
The defendant be the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas
The suit ended up surrounded by the supreme court headed by chief even-handedness Earl Warren.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v_boa... for more information.
I know that Thurgood Marshal, who would become the first African American Supreme Court Justice, was one of those representing Brown.
Government is haraasing me in India?
Hello iam sandeep.I live contained by india.
from 1999 trains have started harassing me till very soon. Trains belong to central organization . I don't mean trains. I scrounging government is harassing me . I don't know why
Answers: You are not alone surrounded by this regard,but one of frequent million such victims.The only entity every govt in this rotten democracy does is to worry,exploit,overtax and loot its own people.Hope things will advance in adjectives if some honest pesons enter politics.
You got to permit us know , whose toes you stepped !!!!!!!
You can't clap with one side appendage !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SORRY i cant help u if u discuss this problem afterwards i cud do smthing dat time bcos dat time i ws d prime minister of india now i resigned $om d popst sorry guy nw god can comfort u gud luck?
If I sell a product to a client and they influence they won't pay for it but they throw out to send it wager on to me but..
If I sell a product to a client and they right to be heard they don't want it and won't pay for it but they shun to send it vertebrae to me; insisting that I COLLECT it from them: What are my rights? I don't want to have to pick it up. By keeping it are they accepting that they are bullish with it?Answers: Tricky interrogate. What does your sales agreement read aloud - is there any notation in the order of returns within 30 days etc? You may find your answer on row by looking in your state's law (sometimes called statutes or revised statutes). It would appear that they accepted delivery and are now responsible for returning the item - approaching a mail decree. If this is a "client" in the sense that it is a repeat or long residence customer - or if you hand deliver the product to begin beside, you may want to just pick it up. Your other recourse would be to sue surrounded by small claims court.
I thought allot about this. when the DVD club sends you the months pick because you didn't bring up to date them not to do you have to retribution for it, that's kinda like servitude you shouldn't own to pay for anything you didn't ask for a lawful business would have said check the box if you want the CD/DVD not check the box if you don't what a scam
More Questions and Answers:
[109] - [2561] - [2414] - [1147] - [1018] - [591] - [442] - [1941] - [2127] - [1563] - [343] - [804] - [403] - [867] - [1449] - [776] - [1313] - [417] - [2251] - [1021]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: