Law Questions and Answers

What happens if you sue someone, but they dont enjoy the money?

like, right to be heard for example if i was really rich and have a ferrari, and i was driving surrounded by a city, and some hobo kicked it, and put a huge dent in it. immediately, i would sue the homeless man for the blank number of million dollars it would cost to fix. now, how would i achieve that money? obviously the hobo doesnt enjoy that money, so what would happen?
Answers: More than credible, you would have a judgement against this hobo and it would show up on the hobo's credit report. Hobo's are usually homeless and nomadic, so more than plausible you would have gone to the time and expense of sueing and getting nil but a judgement that can't be satisfied. So what's would be the point? The individual recourse you would have would be to report to the police and hold the hobo charged with malichous mischeif, which is a misdermeanor within most states. The hobo would more than likely serve penal complex time in lieu of a fine. He probably would not mind because he would be getting free room and board. So what's the point?

Like one answerer already said, turn into the insurance company. Let them pedal it and move on.
Some individuals are so poor that it makes no sense to sue them. Happens adjectives the time. Sometimes people will sue them anyway basically for vindication, or in hopes they they'll inherit something or win the lottery. They will not jump to jail (debtor's prison be done away with ages ago).

Another entity that might make sense is to sue them and win so you can get an insurable interest in that entity, and then buy a energy insurance policy in the hobo's entitle. When he dies in a gutter, chaCHING!
You would enjoy insurance to cover situations like that.
The homeless guy is what we beckon "judgment proof"; no concern what they do, you cannot collect any money from them because they don't have any.
nobody ever pays.
perfect question i normally wonder this.
TUFF SHITSKY! No soup for you.
they would probably have to jump to jail, it adjectives depends on the judge, and if they aren't homeless, in recent times really poor, they might have to find a mode to pay it wager on in the duration of the time the style guru says.
im pretty sure that the money is taken out from their wages until it add up to the total ammount that you ued them for
After you win, you file a judgement against the individual. It lasts as long as the statute of limitations within your state. You can then renew the judgement, for as long as you live. You can also hold chasing after the bum. Maybe he eventually wins a lottery.
that entity would have to spend time surrounded by jail.
You could profile what is called an asset audible range. The person would hold to disclose to the court all items of utility that they own. AThe court would then demand them to sell these items and recompense you the money.
I would find that hobo and shake his hand. individuals who sue others over stupid pathetic crap resembling that can kiss my A

Oh, and there is no debtors prison
You would be wasting your time and money and the due payers money, as the "hobo" would need permitted aid.
Remember the saying "you cannot grasp blood out of a stone"
You wouldn"t they do not have debtors prison. If he is a hobo he does not own any money. It is like whipping a dead horse it won't shift.
If a homeless person tatty your car that would be a road threat with your insurance. If A creature owes you a large amount of money you can sue them surrounded by a civil law suit for gift and win the ability to attach nearby bank justification or a share of there wages and here tax returns also a lien can be placed against the character and they can not sell or buy property short paying you. Like in the crust of OJ Simpson and a book he wrote and he lost the rights to the book over money he owes.
When you sue someone, you end up getting a verdict against them. When you get a taste, you use that judgment to side dishes wages, take money out of their ridge accounts, put a lien on their home, etc...

If someone has no money, after you can't collect at all.

If someone have money, but is able to directory bankruptcy, next you can't collect.

What are my legal rights?

I own my home beside my boyfriend and his mother.I am in th process of moving out.because the flea market is so bad I know we would be inept to sell at this time.I am a short time ago wondering if I can loose any rights because i am leaving the home near our children. I am going to continue to pay packet my part untill we can vend my children will still have thier room to come to when the call round there grandmother and father. Just wondering if anyone can assist with my examine in regard to my legal rights to the home.
Answers: As long as your cross is on the deed, you would necessitate to sign any paperwork to sell the home. The rest that you mentioned would be considered rent or keeping fees. As long as you are still paying your part of the mortgage payments, zilch changes. The problem I would hold with this arrangement would be if another entity moves in (paying rent). You would necessitate to address this type situation before you be off. Personally, I would ask if they would like to buy you out.
natter to a lawyer, In some instances when one spouse or partner have left they be accused of forsaking and lost all rights to anything pertaining to any assets

Should what you do in private be held against you..??

Duane Chapman.. You know the bounty hunter.. DOG.. Has have his show pulled by his network because of "a private" phone conversation he have with his son be posted online for everyone to hear.

His son was the one that posted it..

This get me to thinking... Should what we say or do within private be help against us...?

And NO I do not imply the perverts that like little kids or really doomed to failure things like that..

I be thinking.. I have said some really really raunchy and tastless things contained by the privacy of my house and on the phone to very close friends..

Should that be back against me or anyone. or should it be a way to negotiator who a person is..

I know someway all of us hold said or done something that we wish we could embezzle back..

Again I am not explanation someone that is a pervert or discourteous.
Answers: Should it - in most cases no. The issue next to Mr. Chapman's situation is that it didn't stay in private and as a public numeral people are interested contained by what he has to read aloud. His network have to worry in the region of the potential problems that it might cause to put him fund on the air.

This be a private conversation between Tucker and his father -- the boy was motionless wrong to sell it to the medium, but Mr. Chapman was late wrong to use that word. Even more disturbing was that he said the children contained by the household use the word. As parents we are responsible to teach our children better.

People don't spout the "N" word unless it's within them. Some people can't even utter that word because they own been skilled the deep repugnant meaning and it is considered taboo. Mr. Chapman used the word similar to it other people the word "the"! So while I still suggest he son was wrong (and probably have lost his entire family over this!) I deliberate that his father was in recent times as wrong for even allowing that word to be in his vocabulary.

You can be depressed with something in need being disgustingly vulgar.

Should they lose their entire profession over it --- That's a tough one. Do I think smaller number of Dog now - undeniably, but I don't think he is evil. I regard it is incredibly sad that his mistake have cost the careers of his friend Tim, and his sons Leland and Duane Lee. The three of them be integral parts of the show, and have done nil wrong.
No, it should not be held against us what we do in private stays as private as much as possible. Unless..unless it is needed within a criminal cases which has a intent to or related to the case at appendage, so the private life of a creature could be dig deeper by the prosecuting attorney.

Should women be allowed combat role in the military?

please logically evaluate your grill and write a valid argument please tell me whats on your mind??
Answers: yeah
women should be capable of do whatever men can. i don't precision if they are superior physically. besides, the army is desparate anyway.

but only if she requests to. you can't have a girl out surrounded by combat with cramps and stern ache. not cool.
Yes ofcourse women should be allowed combat role contained by the military. I truely dont understand how after so copious years of fighting for equal rights that once we finally hold achevied some level of it that we would assume it would be ok for women to not be allowed a combat role.
I have a great friend surrounded by the army right now and is amazing. Strong and so dutiful at her job! And man a woman doesnt make her smaller amount amazing
In a country the size of the USA, you would be lucky to get a nouns of women ready, predisposed and able to move about in o combat. This country have been brainwashed by Hollywood to product them think that Women can be front string soldiers. However Alias, Chuck, and all the other shows where on earth women can knock out a dozen men at a time with out ever getting even a gash is just fiction.
When it become time for a fight, adjectives these bold women suddenly cower and find excuses to get out of the brawl.
If it was comfortable for women to fight, consequently don't you think they would enjoy both women and men register for the draft. Don't you think the military would warmth women disabling IED's under gunfire near such severe shortages of soldiers as it is. It is a logical idea, but women as a group are not that brave.
No.

1. Instead, they belong contained by a kitchen. Or else an office, or something.

2. They denial the upper body stength, along with the voice and the psychological kind up required to be effective warrior.

Could you imagine a woman screaming at a criminal to "DROP THE GUN!"?
He would screech at her. Her voice lacks command presence.

3. War is not politically correct, and there is no "affirmative action" contained by it. If I meet you on the battlefield, hon, masculine chivalry is out the window, because of your precious feminism which you hold demanded (you've come a long way, b*tch!), and you will be getting a hot white nouns from me before you die, horribly.

So, consequently, in conclusion, the battlefield is no place for women. Instead, permit them remain in the kitchen.
Yes, women should be allowed to be contained by combat. The story that women are somehow too "weak", or "too sensitive" to handle combat situations is lately a myth - shown by all those gang-banger gun-totin' gals surrounded by every major City (and some of 'em even use knife, instead). Those who are prone to taking offense at certain comments: Please transcribe that I did NOT say that adjectives gals in trunk Cities are gun-totin' gang-bangers.

Allowing women to be in combat might also cut the number of actual shooting wars, too: If you want to keep hold of the ladies from getting killed, don't start the period of war.

Men and women fighting along side respectively other could lead to the men warfare harder to protect the women - and vice-versa. And in a combat situation, in attendance just won't be time for sex...

Probably the best sense to allow women in combat: They own every right to fight along side the men. When the men die, their children are not here without a father - why not quit some without a mother? Those kids will still enjoy their father...just resembling those whose father is killed will still own their mother. In each overnight case the kids will be left next to only ONE parent - and near really is no proof that mothers are always better than father.
Yes.

There is little serious doubt that women would be effective contained by combat; while there are manifest physical differences, training, equipment, and tactics can be used to exploit the positives women possess. For example, during house to house search, a women is probally bettter at preventing escaltions. Being smaller might be of an advantage contained by certain roles, such as swordfighter pilot.

In terms of self able to take out a wounded comrad, even a small woman could carry out another women, and would be confident to carry out herself. In a critical situation, most women own the capacity to fetch quite sizeable loads.

Technology has made physical strength much smaller number important contained by the past, so that within most roles it's largely irrelvent.

Women should be in combat roles, so they may assert that control in other areas as okay. The idea that women are within some ways "second class" is still widespread, as can be see by wage and position disparites. Once women have held combat roles, it become harder, and riskier to treat them poorly. It's one thing to remuneration a women 30% less than adjectives her male coworkers when she is a defenseless women, but comparatively a different thing when she be Army sniper.

Consider the 1960's civil rights movement. It became chancy to put in the picture the combat experienced killer that he have to sit in the hindmost of the bus, drink from a different water fountain, and own his go to a second class academy.

To a certain extent, equal rights hold always flowed from service contained by the military.

Therefore women should insist on being allowed to argument in combar roles.
My christen is Manda and I am doing my Junior research project of the topic "Should women be allowed to fight contained by military combat" and would love some feed fund from anyone with military experience or only just a strong opinion and of a mind to back it up. If you would close to to contact me please do so by e-mail...

Nikkiluv2sk815@aol.com
or
Sk8erchk09@YAH00.com
or if you want to contact me during the day @
cherry69camaro@gmai1.com


Thanks to adjectives and I will contact you if I decide to use your quotes.


-Manda

Want does formally removed mean? A court charge to 'kick someone out their own home?

They don't similar to you?
Answers: Actually "removed" in court converse means that a skin was removed from state court to federal court (USC 28 1441). In eviction matter, the formal process is usually referred to as an FED. That stands for Forcible Entry and Detainer.
EVICTED

Was abolishing the extermination penalty perfect or bad?

Answers: Hi, Good give somebody the third degree. When we had the destruction penalty we inopportunely didn't have the technology to ensure that we have safe convictions, resourcefully not in every covering. James Hanratty was hang for the A6 murders, his conviction was particularly controversial and lots of books have be written about it. Today we own DNA testing, so you could say-so that we have a pious case for bringing the demise penalty put a bet on. My personal opinion is that we should own it if the case is 100% airtight, DNA etc and it is for premeditated crimes which involve murder.
Well i would similar to to say appropriate and i believe in my heart i.e. the case, but in that have be times when i think resembling a lot of populace that it should be reintroduced, but it didn't work then, and proved so plentiful miscarriages of justice that are purely coming to light that I'm sure it would never be brought hindmost.

It's not a deterrent and never has be.
The arguments against the Death Penalty are obviously that if you grasp the wrong person, you cant bring them final. This is a strong argument,which needs to be weigh against the fact that a sizeable majority of murderers/rapeist go on to re-offend once released!

Personally, I see the Death Penalty within extreme circumstances the correct thing!
The Bible clearly states an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Individuals who hold killed should contained by deed loose their lives- as long as the evidence against them is more or smaller amount water tight.
This would aid free up spaces in UK prisons
The disappearance penalty is institutionalised barbarism.
Better to consent to them rot the rest of their natural lives surrounded by prison.
The problem is the authorities let them out after a few years.
hello
devout morning
how are you ?
my name is babak
i'm from iran
i want a g.f
suitable luck
bay
They should never enjoy abolished it.
You necessitate an ultimate deterant against crime.For lifers that will never be aloud within to civilisation again and that there is no cross-examine of guilt it would make sense,not simply that it would free up jail space, recover the tax payer money within keeping this scum alive and work as a warning to others what could surface if they went down the wrong side of the road.
Unfortunately the left wing p.c brigaid that run this country are to concerned beside the rights and feelings of the criminal and not the target.
I believe it was fruitless, The forensics and technology available these days engender it so much more likely that the right being be found guilty.
I believe If it is obvious, they should bring back the death cost, look at Ian Huntley, one example for instance,he is costing the country thousands to be incarcerated.
Although some states have outlawed income punishment, it hasn't been locally abolished. I presume it would be tragic to wipe it out completely. Criminals are being granted more and more rights contained by the judicial system, and it gets tougher to hold them adjectives for their crimes.

I say, execute more criminals, and publicly. Televise them on pay-per-view to angle money for more prisons. Enough with convicts rotting contained by a cell on the taxpayers' dime for 10 years awaiting execution. Once the sentence has be decided, it should be served. No more than one appeal should be allowed to save the courts tied up in costly and frivolous hitch tactics.

And satisfactory with the humane death! Sterilizing the needle of a syringe that injects poison into your bloodstream? Tie a blindfold around his eyes, pass him a last request, and file him up before a firing squad.

Public executions serve as a haunting deterrent to other would-be criminals. I garauntee you would see a sharp decline contained by crime.
tortue them first like tickle them to destruction or throw them in a ditch and throw sh!t at them if they own just raped an inocent girl
afterwards execute them

its good because you can use their organs for organ transplants
and it strkes fearfulness into crimnals that they might get caught.
it would also free space inside of prison.

believe about it we wouldnt hold to do animal testing anymore
its more reliable on humans and plus they more later deserve it.
It was a moral thing to abolish the annihilation penalty because contained by the past it be often difficult to prove certainly that a person committed the crime. However very soon we have CCTV, DNA conducting tests, etc I think we can prove beyond doubt somebody's guilt. Therefore, I reason the death cost should be reintroduced for the most serious offences.

The contradiction is that society say we're a Christian country, and so how could we enjoy the death cost?
with good opinion to domestic murders, or crimes of passion as the french would occupancy them ,a good entry

with good opinion to all other category's of murder-in furtherance of robbery, serving Police/prison officer, crimes of a sexual nature et al, you may be interested to know that of adjectives persons released on licence over 80% commit a further murder
not a soul hung for one of these offences have gone on to murder anyone else
you decide which is best for society
it's never be abolished.

My boyfriend has a gun, should i ask him to receive rid of it?

I asked to see his passport and there be a gun in his sheltered and i don't like guns, would it be wrong to ask him to provide it?
Answers: Whats the problem?
The gun was without risk and properly stored.
It's his right to possess it.
Is there anything around him that makes you believe
her can't be trusted next to it?
Maybe you should learn to shoot?
Then you might even close to guns.
depends, He might feel highly strongly in the 2nd amendment. as long as he isn't some criminal no, but if he is I wouldn't utter 'get rid of it' I would a moment ago break up with him and bring away from him asap.
There is nothing wrong beside guns, guns don't kill, empire do. You're probably uncomfortable because you've never shot a gun, its really not adjectives that scary once you've done it a couple of times.
but if you really focus this is your future husband you and him are going to hold to work thing out. He should follow but by no means will he gain rid of it trust me...well he might if you really insist but it won't be early i can tell you that.
If he isn't breaking any law, and legally owns it, no.
He have it in a locked, this suggests that he might be a responsible gun owner.
This is a crazy world, that weapon just might accumulate your life someday.
I grew up next to guns, and I own a firearm...I am not a violent man.
I am a heavenly man that will defend himself, or someone that I love.
If he asked you to return with a boob job, would that be wrong? It might be that he doesn't approaching small (or big) boobs.

It depends a lot on your reason for not liking guns, girl. Just remember: A gun does not slaughter unless the person holding it pulls the trigger.

And since he keep it in the secure, it shows that he is a RESPONSIBLE gun owner who would not leave it out for a child to play near.
You shouldn't ask him to sell it but you should speak to him about it. You'll cram something about him and can establish from there how comfortable you perceive with him. Ask him why he have it, what he knows roughly gun safety, how recurrently does he use it, does he carry it around, ever use it when he's be drinking, etc. These are all momentous things for you to know. You might decide that one with a fully grown, responsible gun owner who is ready to protect himself -- and you -- isn't doomed to failure at all. Or you might prefer that he's a yahoo and leave him.

If you ask him to trade it, one of four things will happen.

1.) He'll do what you enunciate and sell it, which will prove him to be a spineless wimp. You may assume it would be noble of him to do that for you but you don't want to be next to a spineless wimp, whether you know it or not.

2.) He'll say no and confer on you because you're too controlling.

3.) He'll say no and not go away you. In this case, the ruling of what to do will be yours.

4.) He'll lie, voice that he sold it but will keep it.
If it make you uncomfortable, after you should definitely explain to him how you feel. The certainty that he seems to be responsible near his gun by locking it away should put you at ease, though. It's not as though he's keeping it loaded on his coffee table.

I'm within law enforcement, so I'm required to enjoy a gun. I live alone and leave my gun out, but when my girlfriend visit, I lock it up so she doesn't feel self-conscious. I've also taken the time to show her how to tell when a gun is undamaging (unloaded) or not, and have taken her to the scope a few times to make her grain more at ease around guns.

It sounds as though your boyfriend isn't individual careless beside his firearm. I urge you to carefully check your atmosphere to decide if you are react the way you are because you faithfully feel unsafe, or because you've be conditioned to feel that adjectives guns are dangerous, and since you may/may not know how to operate one they upset you.
i think yes because he can be put surrounded by jail

So is anyone investigating this school contained by Nebraska where the professor ran away near an illegal immigrant? How?

did he enroll surrounded by school contained by the first place?
Answers: from what i read the boy was contained by school. contained by mexico 12 years old is of consenting age. that's probably why she go to mexico. ant one who messes with a child beneath the age of 18 is a sick, sick puppy. they are scum of the mud. she is in detention centre now and the boy is living near relatives in mexico. he wasn't justifiably here.
You don't need a visa or social shelter card to enroll in elementary/middle/high academy. All that is needed is a birth pass and immunization story. All children have a right to instruction, even those not legally within this country.

FYI--the town of Lexington NE where this took place is over 50% hispanic--the town would just exist if it wasn't for the hispanic population.

Emergency measures, is that like homicide bombing?

The right wing is crafty resembling the left, dont agree to either procure lose
Answers: Of course it is. And soon it will be "no soldier left at the back.." but I think the dems will come up beside that one.

Is it ok to fire a military spouse from a job a short time ago b/c she has to set out in 5 months???

I received a chore offer from a hotel as a receptionist, I go in for an interview and told them up front I am a military spouse and my husband is deployed for anouther 5 months and they know i was from a diffrent state. The second week I come into work and my employer pulls me to the side and tells me she have to let me turn. Her boss had told her to do so b/c he be looking for a permanent employer. I never said I be going to be leaving he only just assumed it. There was nothen I could utter to anyone I denied leaving but I have lost the job. I even mentioned to him that at hand was no approach of being sure anyone would be unwavering. Is there anything I can do give or take a few this? Can I get job loss or sue them??
Answers: Unemployment you can get.. but what they did is totally official. These days they could tell you they be firing you because they found your shoe laces coarse.. at least they be honest.
Your husband is currently deployed, he is due to return in 5 months - and your "permanent" home is within another State. Gee, how is anyone to guess that you might not leave the nouns when your husband comes home?

Seriously, when an employer says they are looking for someone to steep a PERMANENT position, that is what they want to carry: someone to fill a PERMANENT position. In 5 months, you might move fund to your permanent home contained by that other state. If there is any definite chance of you departing after only 5 months - and you own admitted that in attendance is - then you are not really a enduring employee.

You might be capable of swing unemployment - but the employer is inwardly his rights to give you your "walking papers".
Legal? Yes. Ethical? No. Report it the labor board? Yes. Unemployment?? In MOST state you would enjoy to be employed for 6 months or more to apply. Let the local military family liason's bureau know of this, problem. And write a letter to the Company President. Let him/her know you read that it was trial, but it stikes of a lack of flexiblity to military family, which in the eyes of various Americans ( Myself included) as unpatriotic and unrealistic. Who has held a undertaking as a hotel receptionist for more than a few months to a couple of years?????

More Questions and Answers:
[1580] - [681] - [13] - [920] - [1289] - [1391] - [19] - [2141] - [2499] - [718] - [1602] - [96] - [124] - [586] - [26] - [697] - [1239] - [1445] - [2431] - [2]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: