Law Questions and Answers
My husband's employer requires him (and other employees) to give up his personal possessions...?
...to know how to use the things needed for work duties (the keys to the doors, etc.) This started after another hand (on a different shift) lost a set of work keys.Does the employer enjoy the right to do that? As far as I know an employer usually is not responsible for damaged/lost/stolen possessions of their employees while they are at work (unless it is provided by the contract). What laws/regulations could I use for help out?
Answers: No the employer can not hold any person's possessions hostage because of what someone else did or didn't do. I would contact the labor board and if it is a union shop contact the coalition as well.
I'm wondering if they plan on keeping the cell phone etc if another set of key is lost. Doesn't make like mad of sense, does it?
Common law within Ontario?
My boyfriend moved in beside me Sept of 2005, and my divorce became final surrounded by May of 2006. When I did my taxes last year for the year of 2006, my accountant told me to folder as divorced to take ascendancy of the opportuntites of being divorced, such as babe bonus for my 2 kids, etc. He filed as single as resourcefully. Now, my boyfriend and I had a tot last month and I don't know how to report for my baby bonus. We are adjectives law, but I hold to enter the date that we became adjectives law. Will I draw from audited since last year I claimed as divorced? Even though we be living together?Answers: try consulting a professional or try calling a goverenment help organization
Enter the baby's date of birth as the date for common imperative status. Your boyfriend is your common canon partner by virtue of you two have a child together, rather than due to longevity of cohabitation, so it's likely for you to be divorced one year and living common canon the next.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/5000-g...
Power of Attorney Agents Minimum Age?
In the matter in connection with a general power of attorney (handling of personal matter when one is not able due to distance), does anyone know if in attendance is a minimum age limit for designating an agent surrounded by this circumstance? Every state has different statutes, but I am asking around Oklahoma if anyone knows. Thanks.Answers: In Oklahoma, the age of majority is 18 (http://dcfs.utah.gov/PDF/state_icpc_okla... ). A soul designated by power of attorney must be able to fulfill its requirements lawfully.
Can narcotic pain killer be bought legally over the Internet?
A few years spinal column I bought controlled-substance prescription diet pills from an online pharmacy and had no problems (they are no longer within business though for whatever reason). They worked fine and weren't lace with LSD or agent-orange or anything. I'm only wondering how narcotics can be bought so easily, lawfully.Answers: If you bought them without a prescription, the legally recognized burden should be on the vendor for selling them, not the buyer.
What gentle of diet pills were these? Amphetamines? Meridia? Ephedra? Adipex? I'm of late curious...I Googled "narcotic diet pills" and got these name off the top of the chronicle.
No, it's completely illegal in need an authorized prescription. In fact, the DEA is inauguration to crack down not just on the websites, but on individuals purchasing such drugs on these websites. I found a really interesting article (easy, immediate read) that you should check out.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/arti...
It's illegal to own any prescription medication without a prescription. Most online pharmacies are unconstitutional, and most of their drugs are counterfeit.
Maximum estate value in need probate?
What is the current maximum estate value you can hold without have the estate go into probate? Is it lower than $250,000?Answers: Depends on the laws surrounded by your state/jurisdiction.
It can also depend on what you classify as
"estate property"
Look to your state's probabte code or contact
an attorney.
Does anyone know a real historical event involving a congressman getting away next to crimes?
Answers: Wasnt Cheney a congressman??
On may 22, 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was attacked by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina. Using a wicker, Brooks beat Sumner comatose.
Brooks was censure, resigned his office, and be immediately re-elected. Sumner eventually recovered and resumed his Senate form.
Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. He was drunk driving go off a bridge he survived and gone the scene and the woman that was beside him drowned. You and me would of gone to jail.
Fired because Im pregnant?
I was just now hired as a Contract Admin Asst. I was something like 19 weeks pregnant when I was hired & I be up front with the woman that hired me. She be actually pleased for me & still gave me the chore. The job be easy to bar & wasnt stressful at all. My employment was to drive around to different parts of town to set up Business Lic, Handle DMV paperwork etc...only all tabloid work related work that the woman (self employed) needed help beside so that she wasnt driving all over town.I worked for a week & the CA fires begin the week after. I was sour for an entire week bc my city was close to the San Diego fires. The following week she told me to stay home bc the heavens quality be poor & didn't want me driving around town. Today I got a telephone call & she let me know that she be uncomfortable have me work for her because of my pregnancy & that she had to permit me go.
I did not sign her "Independant Asst" Contract but I did obtain paid by check for the week that I worked. Is that still official?
Answers: if you were hired as a contractor and you never signed the contract afterwards you never were in actuality a contractor. it does not matter how long you perform services or how you were compensated you do not have anything showing you in actual fact ever went to work for her. you can try to record for unemployment but i doubt you would receive anything. since you never signed a contract you be nothing more afterwards temporary serve which would give you no claim.
If you be an employee, I would doubt if the dismissal be legal. As an aside, heaps employers try to use concern for the welfare of an hand as an excuse to get ride of an unwanted worker. Even if you are on probation, the employer cannot enunciate "I'm letting you go because I don't resembling your face". The test for continued employment is suitability for the position, provided the criteria used to assess suitability can believably be expected to affect work performance. However, this is one and only the case if you are surrounded by fact an hand as opposed to a contractor.
I don't know the imperative in California, but I'd bet within is a difference between an employee and a contractor. If she hired you below a contract, it might be quite assured to get rid of you for any common sense or no reason.
Why did canada pass like sex marriage statute?
what were the conditions that fostered the convert? Also, why were they faltering to pass the statute to begin beside?Answers: I'm Canadian. Canada is not a socialist country. Immigration is not an issue of free enterprise or socialism. Same sex marriage have got nought to do with socialism any.
The government of Canada recognize that not all Canadians are Christian, and indeed plentiful of our citizens have no religion at adjectives. I'm not sure, but the percentages are probably similar to the USA.
My senate also recognizes that conjugal is two things.
1. To Christians, it is a promise before God to love, honour, and cherish your spouse for the rest of your lives. There is no unaminity among Canadian Christians in the order of same sex marriage. Many convincingly oppose it, heaps do not. Other faith communities, such as Jews and Muslims, own their own beliefs about same sex marriage ceremony, but I don't know what they are. In any case, I would expect that they are as divided as Christians are next to regard to this issue.
2. To the organization, marriage is a civil institute, conveying indubitable rights and responsibilities regarding shared property, income and assets.
I'm a Christian and a chauvinistic Canadian. It doesn't seem right to me that, solely by rectitude of sexual orientation, homosexuals should be denied the protection of the regulation in relations issues. They have like protection under the imperative in every other respect, as the rest of us do. The elected representatives governs everyone, not a moment ago those with whose lifestyle they agree. Homosexuality used to be a crime contained by Canada, until our late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (now there's a love-him-or-hate-him quality of guy) said "the government have no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
As an aside, I bristle when ill-informed foreigners (that includes Americans) criticize my country. It's not polite, and it's not respectful. I hope that by saw that I can set the tone for answers that follow mine.
Pagan Dan pretty much covered the territory.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms give constitutional rights to equality (freedom from discrimination) in several different areas, one of those is sexual orientation. Denial of the right to marry and the attending benefits be deemed to be discriminatory.
They hesitate because there are varied religious groups that protested, but it went through and the sky didn't decline. Actually it's pretty much a non-issue.
Much of the reasoning for why the same-sex marriage tenet was passed, and why within was reservation, can be found in the Supreme Court insinuation Re: Same-Sex Marriage.
In Canada, the legislature can refer a matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. A suggestion is a procedure by which the Government of Canada refers important legally recognized or factual question to the Supreme Court of Canada and asks the Court to give the Government its assessment.
The decision is here:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/20...
Same-sex wedding was originally legalized as a result of court cases within which provincial or territorial justices ruled existing ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Since next, many gay and lesbian couples hold been competent to obtain nuptials licences within these provinces. Couples (both straight and gay) do not need to be residents of any of these provinces surrounded by order to marry in attendance.
Provinces and territories near same-sex marriage back its nationwide legalization on July 20, 2005The status of marriage for same sex couples created in these jurisdiction existed in somewhat of an interim decriminalized capacity. According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of wedding is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government—this interpretation was upheld by a December 9, 2004 belief of the Supreme Court of Canada (Re Same-Sex Marriage). Until July 20, 2005, the federal government have not yet passed a statute redefining marriage to conform to recent adjectives court decisions. Until the pathway of Bill C-38, the previous definition of marriage be binding in the four jurisdiction where courts have not yet ruled it unconstitutional, but negated in the nine jurisdiction where it have been successfully challenge. Given the Supreme Court ruling, the role of precedent in Canadian ruling, and the overall legal climate, it would hold been importantly unusual for any challenges surrounded by the remaining four jurisdictions not to result contained by the legalization of marriage between same-sex individuals in that as well. Indeed, federal lawyer had cease to contest such cases and only the Alberta adjectives government remained properly opposed, threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which many decree experts argued would not have in reality worked. Ralph Klein, former premier of Alberta, later recant and Alberta now allows equal conjugal providing no government official or marriage commissioners who defy same-sex marriage are forced to act them.
Bill C-38, introduced on February 1, 2005, by Justice minister Irwin Cotler, legalized across Canada marriage between people of the same sex. Although supported by the Martin policy, it was subjected to a free vote by backbench MPs contained by the House of Commons. Defeat of the bill in Parliament would enjoy continued the status quo, and incremental legalization on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis would expected have continued via court challenge; this trend could have be reversed only through Parliament ratification a new tenet that explicitly restricted marriage to differing sex couples notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' protection of equality rights, or by amending the Canadian constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as mortal between a man and a woman", as was recommended by several conservative groups and politicians. Given the composition of the House of Commons at the time, the pathway of such a measure would hold been remarkably unlikely. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein proposed putting the question to the public at hulking via a national referendum, but this was rejected by adjectives four party leaders.
A draft of what would become Bill C-38 be released on July 17, 2003, by the Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon. Prior to its introduction, he submitted the bill as a reference to the Supreme Court, asking the court to rule on whether limiting conjugal to heterosexual couples is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if same-sex civil union are an acceptable alternative. On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage ceremony of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government have the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grant religious institutions the right to choose not to perform the matrimonial ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.
Which state are most lawyers located?
Answers: D.C.
The state where on earth a natural disaster simply happened and everyone desires to sue someone!
If you knew?
beyond a shadow of a doubt you have done good time for a crime you did not commit. The crime entail entrapment was not to be considered but in attendance must be a certain motive which you did not hold. Therefore innocence. Would you think nearby was a possibility OJ Simpson could be innocent.Answers: There is a crime contained by entrapment because the criminal mind comes from the felon unlike in instigation when in that is no crime because the evil mind belongs to law enforcers.
There is other a possibility that Mr. Simpson could be innocent.
It's what statisticians like to call upon "a very remote" possibility.
More Questions and Answers:
[1021] - [771] - [1620] - [759] - [1647] - [408] - [2512] - [2064] - [499] - [1455] - [304] - [1758] - [2037] - [2377] - [660] - [428] - [878] - [2468] - [851] - [1093]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: