Law Questions and Answers

Do legal immigrant in the USA not own some rights that those born in the USA hold?

Answers: You are asking about 'legalized immigrants' and not citizens, correct? A legal irretrievable resident is a 'green card' holder. A person beside the right to live and work in the US short being a US citizen does NOT enjoy the same rights as a citizen. Before 9/11 I would hold said that fundamental rights such as those in the Bill of Rights applied to both citizens and non-citizens, but presently I'm not so sure.

As others have written, naturalize citizens, i.e. those not born in the US, can't be president. They can also hold their citizenship revoked for "lying" on their citizenship application.
Legal immigrants who own not become citizens do NOT have impossible to tell apart rights as US citizens.


Legal immigrants who become citizens own the same rights as US-born citizens, next to the one exception of not being allowed to run for president.
Oh yes !

We adjectives have the right to remain silent, anything that we enunciate could and will be used against us (as usual) in court of law" and so on.
Our cpuntry provides more aid toforeigners than US citizens Immigrants are minorotysotheyhave more rights

How would i go give or take a few getting the rights to make a movie?

i would resembling to write a script for a movie concept and go next to it but do not have any rights to it as the Characters are not my own. how would i budge about purchasing and obtain the rights?
Answers: You would contact the holder of the rights and negotiate an agreement with them. Better to hold an attorney represent you.
Better ask a lawyer who's used to with copyright canon. And when you do find out, tell me. In the picture A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I heard that adjectives the main characters be already in the public domain.

Do you think torture is a successful way to retrive infomation?

Consider the following. Say you want someone's pin number. You offer them a choice to either endow with the pin number or submit to torture. The person chooses torture. The entity knows that if he/she throws out a false pin number to stop the torture you will be capable of verify that you're being lied to (since the pin doesn't work), and that entity will be punished for lying. However, if the person supply a right pin number the first time, the person will suffer smaller number torture than if he lied. The person consequently reasons that:

If I'm one tortured, and the infomation I give out while anyone tortured CAN BE VERIFIED, then it is to my ascendancy to tell the truth.

Do you agree?
Answers: Torture is approaching an art. It has to be subtle, for a blunt threat will give the impression of being empty. And physical strain is not always an important route. Try hurting those whom the one being tortured loves as clan or friend. Most effective.

It would be to your supremacy to tell the truth. After adjectives, telling the truth doesn't hurt, does it?
Yeah, it's forceful. I wouldn't be able to torture anybody though. Well, I don`t know tickle-torture.

Imagine if they started tickle-torturing potential terrorists because their current methods were barred.. LOL
er god knows why you be even thinking about this :P

but yeah i guess it is important
Complete bullshit. Its a made-up travel case to justify torture. Think on and considere who you'd torture subsequent. Maybe the guy who knows the guy near the pin number? Also consider that you dont always know whether the soul you are torturing knows your ******* pin number. This made up hypothesis is completely unrealistic, forget about it. Look at definite cases.

There is no way to prove correct torture. Torture is always inhumane and below someone who respects human rights.
In this crust it would be effective, but across the world a person will accept to absolutely anything you want them to contained by order to put together the pain stop. In the shield with the pin number it would be effortless to extract the truth, but I would think that within many solid life cases where on earth torture is used, most of the time the questions aren't nearly so straight-forward and readily checkable. Most of the time I would infer that a person would make available you whatever answer they cogitate is the right one by reading into the torturer's motives, which isn't always a fake. This would also be assuming that the person who is doing the torturing like the right answer that might be given, so an answer that is within fact wrong won't nouns better to the one holding the thumb screws.

And I do not, unsurprisingly, condone any form of torture in any track at any time, ever.
it depends who is being tortured and who the soul who is being tortured.

for ex. CIA or Military..(including recon) are supposed to provide out there serial number and quality and take the hiding.

Civilians - would more than likely bestow out the number in unease of there natural life. (so they don't end up resembling what happened to Batmans family)
But lower than duress what if the individual makes a mistake?
Does that penny-pinching that person didn't report the truth or is lying on purpose? to conceal the true amt which is probably allot or zilch at all. to be tortured and after have the torturer discover that he tortured for worthless amount of time within turn could caz the individual being tortured to be inallot of aching.

PS> I am not a lawyer.Go ask one.
Considering the "?" is, "Do you reflect torture is an effective mode to retrieve information?." Yes I do, however, whether the info is that which you want need or stipulation or even if it is credible not are completely different "?'s".

Consider the fact that when those in the military are capture overseas and are being interrogated. The singular things they are told to give out I believe are christen, rank, and I forgot what manner of number it was, possibly SS#. I outstandingly doubt that that it was their captors are looking for, but thats adjectives they are gonna get.
no not necessarily

you numeral you give a false pin number to buy time .. you might digit out how get away / 911 might respond while the entity is out verifying the information
Torture should single be used when there is an direct threat of mass annihilation, such as the whereabouts of a nuke or biological weapon.

If someone tortured me for information, I would tell them what they want to hear, even communicate them my mother was responsible for Kennedy's assassination, both of them.

Torture is a disgracefully inaccurate style of extracting information.

Peace

Jim

.

Smoking Ban in UK?

have anyone been nick yet for smoking surrounded by a place thats its banned on the other hand ? or know of anyone its happend to, and what was the punishment ? for example approaching in a works van ? or a bus stop shelter ?
Answers: haha I stand within bus shelters and smoke all the time, right beside the "No Smoking" sign as ably, its well fun and you seize so many dirty looks, but havent be nicked for it
Hmm nope, in some measure because I don't smoke.
Lols;D
Pub landlord, November 5 and it cost him lb2,500.

I go to see a band contained by a pub this week. It was great minus all the callous smoke. And the smokers were huddled outside contained by their thick coats contained by the frosty -4C haha. Serves them right.
yes fines have be enforced , The Ban was long over- due. Earlier prohibition this abominable disgusting habit would, according to the best medical experts,would own saved like mad of agony, and deaths.
Despite adjectives the evidence available, we still see people smoking, A sunshine, on an oncology ward, would I am sure,help them to see the gross error of choice, they sort.
in italy from 4 years smoke is restriction in adjectives public places. is good item. it's better for evrybody...
This is a law mortal broken numerous times every day by millions of empire and only extreme possessed non smokers are bothered.
Give it 5 years and all pubs that are disappeared will be smoking again.
No, I dont know any cases but it has indubitably been the biggest anti-social move by governing body. Pubs round here are now merely restaurants filled next to kids, any traditional pubs have closd or are one sold for housing.
FIGHT THE POWER!

A cop tried busting me for smoking in a hospital but I took a few sick kids hostage and used a syringe packed with cancer to knock him out.
one policeman begin kicking me and I was 50 months surrounded by a hostital

and he said "fakk you you fakking sheet go away from our pub"

I am a victim of tribal abuse contained by Australia because I am an Indian.What should I do?

All this abuse contained by some form or the other is making my life hell.And adjectives this just because of my skin colour.Please aid me.
Answers: call a legal representative. Australia has amazingly strong vilification and discrimination law. See the link below for family you can talk to.
Really!
Don't be a sufferer!
you don't say what country you are from but i would relate everyone my best friend is the lone ranger,that should worry them.
apoorva
why do you want to stay here? goto india.Economy is booming like rocket and salary are far better than australia or europe.

How Does FMLA applies?

I've used all of my time off and personal days. I never use my Sick Days because at my job requires you to be sick for 2 days or more until that time you get salaried for it. My son got sick for 1 daytime and I took him to the doctor. I gave my employer the doctor's record but she gave me an attitude in the order of it and wanted me to work on my time off.
My Employer's Hand Book say you have to apply 30 days prior. I wonder if you can use FMLA anytime you bring sick or your child?
Answers: Yes, you can use FMLA for a sick child. however, in THIS situation, you are not qualified to report for or receive FMLA leave as this situation does not drip under FMLA nor own you satisficed the employer's requirements for reporting.

My ex-husband has be ordered by court to pay me child support...?

He is appealing the bench decision. He quit his work paying $26 dollars per hr to work at a place that he only make 17 dollars and hr. The judge ordered for him to pay envelope child support off of his second wages because he is voluntarily under employed. How copious times can he appeal this and what are the chances of him varying the judges mind.
Answers: I'd read out pretty slim. The judge already think he's a slimeball, hence the first decision. There seem to be very little possibility of the conciliator changing his mind, no business how many appeals, unless your ex have a very solid argument.
Getting a judge's judgment and getting cash are too different things. He may prove that his former opportunity was destructive for his health or one phased out. He may move out of state or just come to nothing to make payments.

Sometimes these things work contained by reverse. The ex of my husband of my cousin went to court to own his child support for their kid reduced. The judge changed the amount alright, but to some extent than reducing it, he increased it.
NO ONE can tell you the likelihood of him changing the law lords mind. That is something no one but the consider can answer.

As to the appeal, he can do so up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court depending on the appealable grounds.
Once per level of court. After that, it's stare decisis and he cannot further appeal.

Bring back assets punishment?

So many murders, wound and gun crimes becoming so frequent in the UK.Only floppy will stop this.With DNA no mistakes shall be made in convicting the wrong personality and it will help near the overcrowded prisons
Answers: I have homes contained by Oklahoma and Texas; both in the USA. We are not respectable for our lack of "compassion" for murders. This region is number one contained by executions.

Despite a relatively high rate of poverty we enjoy a decent crime rate.

We outstandingly encourage adjectives violent offender to move along to the Northern states where they are much more enlightened afterwards we are.

We are a bunch of law and command hicks down here.

Good luck getting it back surrounded by the UK, you need it.
Unfortunately police will plant DNA when within is pressure to "solve " a case.

Do you want to become approaching the USA?
Hasn't stopped violence at hand.
Before people within the UK make up their minds they may want to look at the experience of the USA near capital punishment.

124 empire on death rows own been released next to proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available contained by less than 10% of adjectives homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The release penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the extermination penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The demise penalty is neither. Homicide rates are highly developed in states and regions that enjoy it than in states that don’t.

We own a good alternative. Life in need parole is now on accounts in 48 states. It resources what it says. It is sure and swift and seldom appealed. Life without parole is smaller quantity expensive than the death cost.

The death cost costs much more than life contained by prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent ancestors.

The death cost isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyer. It doesn't apply to people next to money. When is the last time a successful person be on death row, consent to alone executed?

The death cost doesn't necessarily help family of murder victims. Murder victim home members across the country argue that the drawn-out extermination penalty process is stinging for them and that life minus parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent family released from death row have already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Are there any resolutions and/or conventions that set a standard on what is court and what is illicit trading?

Answers: That would be a great question to ask of Martha Stewart. ;-)

Do you think adjectives of our laws should be base on whats written in the bible?

I usually steer clear of asking or answering religious or political question but this has be on my mind so here goes:

Why do some citizens rationalize everything with "because Jesus said so surrounded by the bible"? I know a girl in one of my classes yesterday and the topic be gay marriage. She said gay wedding ceremony is wrong and shouldn't be allowed because the bible says its wrong and Jesus doesn't close to gay marriage. Same go for abortion (but she's FOR capital punishment).

Do some citizens not realize that not EVERYONE is a Christian. Not EVERYONE believes in the bible so why should EVERYONE enjoy to live their life by it.? Isn't within a separation of church and state? So why does she believe that laws should be base on the bible?

Like I said, I usually stay away from political and religious questions but I simply had to ask his one.
Answers: The bible should own nothing to do near our laws.

The US be founded as a secular society with freedom of religion. The sector of the constitution that deals beside religion is the FIRST amendment, and that shows the priority the founders gave to the free exercise of religion and the avoidance of church and state entanglement.

Religious conservatives own a different view of the first amendment; a attitude which is completely contrary to the intentions of the founders of the US. They will say that the first amendment prevents the policy from running a church or from designating an "official" church. They use this argument to justify the handout of federal import tax dollars to various "hope based" charities. They would like to skirt adjectives the laws that voice the government cannot financially support churches.

Next, right wingers read aloud the constitution does not contain the words "separation of church and state", so this principle does not exist. They ignore the certainty that this is the way the first amendment have been interpreted by the courts and our legislaures for more than 200 years.

Finally, they read out that all of our law were founded on Judeo Christian principles. This sounds more sophisticated and valid than saying that US law are founded on the Bible, but that is exactly what they show.( At the same time, they criticize Muslim nation for having sharia or Koran base laws.)

US law are NOT based on the bible, the 10 commandments or Judeo Christian principles. Our law derive from the English common statute, which itself was base on Roman law, Norman French tenet, and the traditions of the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Consider for a moment all the parts of the bible where on earth God tells the Israelites to slaughter adjectives the men, and rape all the women who worship false god, and where Jesus simply tell people they should meet the terms Caesar. And just what category of law did Caesar follow?

Of course, if we deceptively say that US decree is based on the Bible later we can also ban gay marriage ceremony, and perhaps even exclude gays from civil rights protections beneath the law. The belief that our law derive from the bible is really an attempt to get a blank check to move a lot of law including the laws against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment. I suppose you've also hear people read aloud "an eye for an eye"! as if this is what our laws mandate.

To sum it up, the rhetoric just about laws have to conform to biblical principles is part of a movement to variety the US into a "Christian" nation. It's really all around forcing one religion on everyone else, and since that is against the principles our nation be founded on, it is clearly and simply un-American.

Your friend probably has these beliefs because she have been raise to believe in abundantly of things rather than to put somebody through the mill first and reach her own conclusions
No, no opening.

The bible allows; surrogacy, revenge killing, genocide, stoning, trophy taking of bodily parts, ... I'm sure there's others
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I resembling adultery and pillage and you want to take them away from me?!
Absolutely not. That be too many years ago and too various things have changed since those days.
No, because it's not what God designed contained by his wonderfull plan, but if it was, it would be so much peace, love, reading and harmony between everone!
Not per se, because even though I'm Christian I still believe that this religion is not one to be forced upon general public. Christ didn't force it upon his people its a choice. Choice to follow Christ or Choice to follow someone or something else.

Times hold changed and people enjoy come to gain new knowhow and understanding.

Some Christian run Christianity to another level and they become radical. They themselves interpret the word and expect everyone else to interpret the same message when the word is intended to be interpreted individually for each's individual go. What's good for the goose is not other good for the gander.
Our Laws do come from the Bible as given to Moses by God
Both Jews and Christians believe this and the Bible is also for means punishment its Not a rationalization to accept what the bible teach but Jews and Christians believe that God intended us to have time and live it to its full potential. We fail when we rationalize our behaviors and behaviour. God intended us to love one another and be mercy full to each other. Not to go-between each others act. He is our Judge.
What you are askng is a question even the founding father of our country asked. As you may know not all of the founders of our nation be christian either.

Thomas Jefferson set to answer this grill in his own mind when he begin his own 'translation' of the New Testament. Basically what he did was copy the teachings of Jesus, but would cut out anthing having to do beside His divinity or any miricles He worked. He did this just to know how to study the actual teachings of Jesus on how to behave. His conclusion? He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fall from the lips of man."
So,if you hold some amount of respect for one of the men responsible for the design of this country, you may find it interesting to record, that though he himself was not a Christian, his philosophy of morality and public behavior were almost without a doubt based on the teachings of Christ.
No. There are some law that are biblically based that only make sense (Do not steal). There are also some moral principles found contained by the Bible that anyone with any amount of suitability should be able to see as a well brought-up basis for canon. There are some precepts in the Bible that Christians newly need to follow that modern society just won't adopt, at least some portions of society anyway (gay wedding / homosexuality). The trick that seems to be within finding compromise, or even the willingness to compromise. I can see the Christian's raise their Bibles overhead and crying "No Compromise". What I am saying is that the Christian portion of our society does not stipulation to give up their beliefs, but basically understand that this is a secular nation, and Legislating beliefs does not work. If believers can't win those who do not believe by the example of their lives and works within that society, legislation will never do the job for them. Conversely, at hand are those (not all) who seem to have an idea that that it is OK to target Christians and all that they hold dear, and it's fine to do so. You can't bring in a slur against anyone but a Christian in todays society, but they are just game. Anyone who subscribes to that file of thinking about any single group is a fool of the first lay down, and a bigot to boot. That is just as hypocritical as any Sunday morning Bible thumper I've ever certain. Non believers DO NOT have any more right to force their beliefs (or non belief) on everyone else than Christians hold the right to force the Bible down others throats. There is room in this nation for both.
The unbroken Church and State thing is such a stretch from what the Constitution say it's really embarrassing that nearby are those "enlightened" members of society liable to make the arguements that they be paid.
Actually, our laws are base on the Code of Hammurabi which predates the Bible by some 1700 years.
no,the bible is based on matured strategies,what they know of it anyway,it is history,therefore it should stay here.
No, not all of our law should be based upon the Bible but much of our law are based upon the Bible and Jewish-Christian tradition. The framework for our law is laid out in the Constitution which includes a bill of rights preventing the U.S. senate from establishing a national religion. That same bill of rights allows everyone to worship, or not worship, as they please. The rights were assumed to come from God, ergo natural rights. The words "separation of church and state" are not contained by the Constitution but were within a letter that Jefferson wrote.

I am sorry that you are dealing next to a Christian that can't give you a sense for her faith. Europe's and America's opinion of liberty arose from the Bible. Christ did voice love your brother as yourself and that all men are equal. He also said nurture the hungry, clothe the naked and look in those in prison. I believe that the equal protection clause found contained by the 14th amendment is Biblically based. Christ also said that he come to free the captives.

I do believe the Bible lead to our success and help to create the West's great technological achievement arising from the West by increasing the talent pool given opportunity to create. I am not Jewish but love the Jewish idea of Tikkun Olam-repair the world.

Europe appears to be post Christian immediately and I wonder how those changes will play out. As a Christian, I acknowledge your right to work for law that are consistent with your pro system and ask you to respect the right of Christians to work for laws consistent beside our value system.

I be amazed after finishing law arts school & studying the Torah how much of our Uniform Commercial Code mirrors ancient Jewish law. I am horrified when reading some of the passage in the antediluvian testament but believe scripture to be inspired by God but not the actual word of God. You have to remember that much of the Old Testament be written in bronze age!
The law of the old testament be designed to help a bunch of society get through the stone age
Levitcus make it a crime to wear wool and cloth (cotton) at the same time. But I am describing tales and the book of levitucus forbids that too. People should be put to departure for Adultery; the bible says so: Leviticus again
not within any way we, the world, could be deeper contained by the mire even more than we are now, and explicitly bad plenty
Yes
No ... Just the Ten Commandments, which is the Universal basis of ALL Law contained by the entire World.

Law History 101
The question beg the answer. The bible exists in copious forms.
People should exist by decency

More Questions and Answers:
[1687] - [1630] - [1928] - [1769] - [2347] - [548] - [805] - [466] - [90] - [2068] - [1323] - [1975] - [1367] - [1899] - [1751] - [1413] - [2153] - [1743] - [2387] - [265]

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

Answer question: