Law Questions and Answers
Can anyone tell me nearly the Compact of Free Association in the Pacific?
Answers: yes
Can police arrest you after you have disappeared the seen by your license plate number?
Answers: They can no problem trace the registered owner of the car. They must next establish who was driving the motor at the time of the accident. They would not automatically arrest you until they own some proof that you were the driver.
yes, also use spell check
Legal Advice??? Injury Lawyers?
I got to work tonight and I be grabbing a box stale and shelf and someone left a bread crate contained by the middle of the floor and I turned around without seeing it stepped on it. I slipped and fell on my pay for, and somehow injuring my knee really unpromising in the drip. I was help up by some people at work and set down surrounded by my break room it took my manager almost 20 minutes before he even took any arrangements and then call my big boss. He then asked ME if I could "Drive myself to the hospital" because I couldnt work because it hurt so bad" my boyfriend have to come get me and he wouldnt consent to a coworker even drive me because he was worried around them getting back to work. He give me everything I needed to go the hospital and I departed. The hospital took X-rays and I told them I was impression a little dizzy after I fell. The X-rays come back to show no fracture but the strain is horrible. They gave me crutches and give me a knee brace. They are sending me to another the doctor surrounded by the morning. Can I sue?Answers: The 3th answerer has it right. You can sue contained by a sense, but your exclusive remedy now is through the workers' compensation system of your state. In my state, if you are dissatisfied next to the work comp award, you can appeal it to the Court of Appeals. You do have to bequeath your employer notice of the luck (I know. He already knows, but do it within writing and do it immediately to protect your rights). The employer have a right to have you examined by another doctor. The state have scheduled benefits for your type of injuries and my state have a separate work comp court system. We have lawyer who specialize in work comp cases and their fees are salaried by the employer.
yes and i would
you should have call 911
drive yourself to the hospital ? LOL the guy knows that make you look bad if you do enjoy to sue him.
Sure, you can sue for anything. I would rather you didn't, it bugs me when someone requests to cash contained by for something like this.
However, most States enjoy laws governing injuries surrounded by the workplace and usually the company has to reimburse for the hospital visit and any other treatments. Ask your HR rep or an attorney.
If you are surrounded by the US, your accident should be covered by Workers Compensation. This is insurance that your employer have to pay your medical bills and other conceivable expenses for this accident.
Ask the human resources human being at work about file a claim.
A quick cross-examine?
Some of you have see my previous questions in connection with me wanting full custody of my two youngest children from my greedy and evil ex husband in Washington. Anyway, I am not rich, so I did something. I wrote a missive to one of those TV Ministries and asked if they would pay for a advocate for me. I made sure I told them my whole story and I even give contact information. My question: Do you deduce they will say yes or no? I connote they are very well-to-do ministries and they proclaim to be people of God, so as a born again Christian myself I asked them to salary for a lawyer for me and I even offered to foot them back within payments. This may sound close to a stupid question but it is highly true and I really want your answers as to if you think they will influence yes or no and why. Thanks!Answers: It really depends on the ministry... they most likely will thieve a stance of not suing at first, so be prepared to discuss this with them further.. also they may refer you to a advocate whom they know.. just be prepared for them to pause and inquire more about some details..
Good luck surrounded by your quest,
Just remember who the people you asked for support from, remember next to whom they are currently aligned with.
I hope everything comes out the approach you anticipate.
I doubt you will even get a message in answer.
How do I redeem my straw man and own him?
what is a proper way to report a ucc 1 document,please only answer if you know the regulation, No opinions
Thank You
Answers: I'm not sure what you scrounging by a straw man. A UCC 1 is filed to surefire a valid lien, so other potential creditors can be aware of the lien. The form can be obtained from most organization supply or stationary stores. It is filed near the Secretary of State's office contained by most states. In some places it is filed beside a county or municipal clerk. I hope this helps.
Check out the wizard of Oz
I wonder what will happen to the two alleged blackmailers who hold a video of a royal engaged within a sex act.?
Buckingham Palace haven't denied the reports, and due to a police 'sting' the video video has be recovered and two men arrested to appear at court. My bet is that the tape will somehow 'disappear' between very soon and the time these men appear at court. I'd be interested to know anyone else's opinion.Answers: they will probably die contained by a car crash!
If the royal surrounded by question is dealing class A drugs, why shouldn't they frontage a penalty for it?
you can bet they won't though.
The blackmailers will bring back the most severe penalty allowable by directive. But I have no view what that might be.
No way. It will be similar to drugs; will unaccountably be "lost' during the judicial process, and copies will be sold for a fortune on the black market.
Wotan
within probably is no tape.
who do they chew over they are? You can't get away next to this sort of thing, theirs MI 5, scotland patio, local police, even the Royals have their own ruling inforcers.
these 2 are SOL that's for sure. lolololo, it's a good snigger to us Brits.
Why don't you just google it. Its adjectives over the web outside of the UK. Email me if you want to chat
Why is it a woman can exercise Right to have an abortion BUT ...?
..the FATHER of the child have NO right to adopt his own child rather the Mother hold the absolute choice to abort the child they created TOGETHER.. be it intentionally or "by accident"?i) Is there ANY Court that would product such a judicial order contained by favour of the Father to be allowed to adopt the child as soon as it is born and "force" (FOR WANT OF A BETTER WORD) the Mother to in truth give birth to the child that SHE have decided SHE does not want?
ii) Can such an issue be mediate on by independant counsellors before it get to the stage of going before a Judge?
iii) Do Fathers own ANY RIGHTS at all surrounded by THESE CIRCUMSTANCES?
iv) Can the law, AND Society REALLY be clich¨¦ that Fathers cannot bring up THIER OWN children on thier own in the 21st Century?
I FULLY appreciate that it's a woman's body, and hers' alone to desire what happens to HER body. However, accident CAN happen after sex, and when the man involved is RESPONSIBLE enuf to proposal to adopt a child NOT WANTED by that woman..?
Answers: Woman carry the child contained by their womb
its been that instrument since the begiing of time and its ALWAYS gonna be that way.
You made some excellent points though
From the time the man's gene leaves his body and infects hers he has no rights surrounded by the matter, one and only responsibilities. That is exactly how it should be.
I hope there is never any court that would consider expanding the man's rights contained by the way you describe.
males spend a few second producing 3 ml of dna
that is their involvement within the process finished.. and 999,999 times out of a million, that is the solely involvement that most men want.
abortion = her body
child support = your baby
nearby is no law that can force a woman to hold a baby. im not too sure what the satchel would be if a woman falls pregnant and her and the father would agree that she would have the child if he will then lift it. i dont think he can adopt it but they may be ways around it, for example that he will enjoy the kid because she is working or something like that. im sure if the man and woman both agree that the kid will live near the dad (without being adopted) later a court cant say anything against it.
those women you mentioned who kind a secret out of have a child are just self-centred. its not just that the father have got the right to know from the initiation but every child has get the right to know who his/her dad is too!!!! (ok if a woman was raped or the father be voilent or something like that consequently its a different story,im just speaking of "normal" cases)
There be a court case give or take a few 20 years ago where a man tried to stop his girlfriend from have a termination. She still went ahead next to it.
The man doesn't give birth, and doesn't enjoy to carry the pregnancy for 9 months. And what if he change his mind and leaves the woman?
A child should be wanted by both parents. Obliging any partner to become a parent when they don't want to be one is a no no in my book.
Bringmes is right. There be a case a few years ago when a man tried to use the courts to force the girl to save 'his' baby. I assume it went to apeal but the girl won - thank God!!
No one have the right to tell a woman what to do next to her body after all, thousands of women die within childbirth every year - and not all are surrounded by the third world.
under the tenet in England and Wales:
"i) Is at hand ANY Court that would make such a judicial establish in show partiality towards of the Father to be allowed to adopt the child as soon as it is born and "force" (FOR WANT OF A BETTER WORD) the Mother to actually present birth to the child that SHE has contracted SHE does not want?"
No, a court cannot make such an proclaim to force a woman to bear a child because the father wishes it and she doesn't.
For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/124295...
where it say, "In 1987 Oxford student Robert Carver tried to stop his pregnant girlfriend from having an abortion. The High Court ruled against him, as did the Court of Appeal."
ii) Can such an issue be mediate on by independant counsellors before it get to the stage of going before a Judge?
There is zilch to force the mother to take section in mediation, but she can choose to do so.
iii) Do Fathers own ANY RIGHTS at all contained by THESE CIRCUMSTANCES?
No, none.
iv) Can the law, AND Society REALLY be saw that Fathers cannot bring up THIER OWN children on thier own in the 21st Century?
I don't suppose it's about father not being competent to bring up children, it's about forcing the mother to shift through a pregnancy.
Is it morally right for a pensions minister to be claiming over?
lb120,000 within housing allowance when she already has a buy-to-let flat in the vicinity Westminister and is also working (and paid) for her husband although she is supposed to be a full-time MP, and when many pensioners may die this winter because they cannot afford all right heating? No wonder the Auditor General be himself running up an expenses bill of over lb356K. Gravy, anyone?Answers: Of course it's not right - but when did politicians ever care more or less rights or wrongs? They're too busy feathering their own nests to worry in the region of morals!
Most MPs have a second brief - so that's not unusual. As for the buy-to-let flat - should she be penalised for having what is simply an investment?
She is doing what any number of people would given her circumstances - craft the best of it.
So no, it's not a gravy train. She's be a shrewed, intelligent business person - of late the sort of person that we obligation to be in a segment of the parlimentary decision making process.
Look at it another track; why should somebody who is an MP essentially be penalised for being such?
This is that wonderfully departed wing, liberal minded Labour party various voted for(John Prescott crochet playing, staying at expensive hotels- in touch next to the working classes)- if this was the conservatives, it would be sleaze-but as it's Labour it's freshly their human right to have more than the rest of us. VOTE LABOUR OUT- (If Gordon Brown ever let us of course)!!please everybody- all here will be more of a poor/rich divide- a&e departments closing down and more wars where on earth the troops are treated like fodder.
Look at that Dianne Abbot- Grammar conservatory educated, later makes extra money beside Michael Portilo on tv- they are all bin liner their own pockets. Then talks in the order of the plight of inner city black kids- rubbish- she knows smaller amount about their plight than anybody. Now Blair is an expert within middle east politics for peace apparently. Cash for honours.
I'm not against free enterprise, but it's the hypocrisy of them saying that everything is fine within this country- yes it is in their cosseted world of self interest.
I cogitate the scotts have the right idea- no wonder they want to get hold of away from Brown's parliament.
Morality does not come into it. These are personal affairs of the minister involved, and I cannot see what bearing they hold on her role in organization, or why they should be a consideration when she was considered for the role. A buy-to-let flat is an investment that abundant thousands of people enjoy themselves used as a second income, and I cannot see why an MP would be barred from making such an investment because of her role.
As for the exorbitant expenses of MP's, adjectives I can say is that I am indebted that the House of Lords threw out the attempt by the House of Commons to bar ministerial expenses from the Freedom of Information Act, and that this Act will ensure that ministers will eventually be dissuaded from running up such hefty bills.
Politicians are probably reading this and laughing their fecking head of.
Do you think they precision? They couldn`t give a flying fart.
Of course it is not right. The trouble is that they are free to do as they will. Whilst they are tightening the restraints on the public such that 'perks' no longer exist they are creating greater and greater 'expenses' for themselves. Look up 'theyworkforyou.com' to see how much your local MP have its snout in the trough.
Mind you if you conjecture that is unpromising try looking up the same for the MEP's - it is far far worse.
What is a bench trial as in the court system?
can you request a jury trial at this trial?Answers: A bench trial is when a deem decides whether a defendant is guilty or a defendant is civilly liable. It applies to both criminal and civil imperative. In most cases, a defendant must request a bench trial to obtain one. For criminals, the Constitution requires that courts provide a trial by jury if the defendant wishes a jury trial, but this option usually does not apply to misdemeanors.
This is where on earth the judge decide guilt/innonence. Nope . By the time the sequence of events has reach this area, requesting a jury trial is long gone
How do you interpret "A well regulated militia?" How does it (or does it)?
affect the "Right to naked arms . . .?" How do you connect one to the other? Thanks.Answers: At that time the meaning of "Regulated" be "Trained". Which is why trained troops are called "regulars"
IMPO the query is moot- simply because the main constituent of the sentence is that "no law shall be made restricting the right to own and take on arms".
The need to train is just one of the possible justifications for that right.
Please register that at that time the right to bear arms within Europe and Asia was set to free men or noblemen. The US Constitution made sure that all US citizens be free men.
First off, an accurate quotation of the 2nd Amendment: "A capably regulated Militia, being basic to the security of a free State, the right of the society to keep and tolerate Arms, shall not be infringed."
Secondly, the word "regulated" meant exactly one and the same thing at the time of the drafting of the Amendment as it does today. Never surrounded by the history of the language have it ever been a synonym for "training."
As far as interpretation, none is required. The Amendment is without fault clear as it stands. It provides for the possession of weapons (not set to firearms, let alone specific firearms) by "the people" ( NOT a militia or the government) so that they may look after themselves against governmental oppression. The easiest opening to prove this reality is to reverse the principle components of the record as in: "A in good health regulated people, man necessary to the wellbeing of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and accept Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, this was not the intention of the Founders (who have an excellent command of the language) by any stretch of the imagination, or they would have written it this instrument.
.
More Questions and Answers:
[26] - [12] - [401] - [380] - [701] - [1999] - [1131] - [2557] - [1078] - [1944] - [841] - [727] - [2475] - [1356] - [1840] - [1344] - [2272] - [1728] - [2185] - [1729]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: