Law Questions and Answers

Should the fence be removed?

Should it,I regard it should because people are still coming within no matter what,I also devise there should be a obstruction from canada to u.s & the new ireland to u.s border.Close the border chain by the statue of liberty.What do you adjectives think?
Answers: Idiot
You plan that torn 5 foot chain relationship fence by the river? The one that adjectives the news stations use for their stock shot?

It will be removed and replaced shortly - by a big honkin' wall.
at heart i quality that its really stupid.
i mean its gone so overboard that they've granted to fence stop? i mean what is this coming to ? it give a bad symbol to this place .. its so stupid. and nearby are other ways to solve it.
There's a right way and a wrong channel to enter this country... illegally is criminal fence or not. WE inevitability more patrol at the mexican border. Are Canadians really coming over? They are allowed to visit, as we can stop by them too.. New Ireland? I don't know much about.
I don't focus people who enter this country illegitimately should be permitted to stay here. I don't think ethnic group who enter this country should start out on welfare and such. yes, you got it, I'm a conservative!
Physical barricade or not, there have to be a way to protected our borders. Anyone can go into Mexico usually lacking any trouble. Try coming back into the US. Why do so abundant people try to find into the US? Because it is the greatest country on earth. People complain here, but why don't those complainers step elsewhere? They would stop complaining if they had their freedom taken away, as so oodles citizens of other countries do.
I am against illegal immigration, I am also against the obstruction it is shameful and wrong of the US to have this barrier, It should be removed, the fence is nought more than an a sign of our poor thinking elected official, and their inablility to do the right entity. If our laws be enforced, i.e illegals not allowed to work, no welfare benefits, no arts school for their children, then they would adjectives go home, it is not inhumane for the the US to enforce our law, these people can other go fund to where they come from, for example the Mexican government is feeling like to stand up for the illegal surrounded by the US, then they can do the right item for them if they go posterior to Mexico, which I am sure they will (ahem! not). enforce our existing laws and remove this horrible stain on our country "the Fence"
I am Canadian, and trust me.we are not trying to 'get hold of into' the US.LOL LOL LOL ...you crack me up! Build your fence...wall...or anything else...we don't attention to detail...you will only be alienating yourselves.
I suggest a fence will do even smaller number good contained by thwarting the inevitable invasion of leprechauns.

Besides, as long as they bring their lucky charms, they won't have need of to draw off our welfare system.

I read aloud, let the little green guys contained by cause they do adjectives the mischievous magic tricks that Americans won't.

As far as letting Mexicans run America, nobody will want to come here, and none of us will enjoy a reason stay. Their system of command is 100% corrupt. That's why they want to come here in the first place...
I enjoy no idea what country you are from, but if you start to have a world map or a sphere, then I would resembling to suggest that you take a fitting look at it. It should be quite plain that Ireland is nowhere to hand the US border. I live in California & the Mexican border blockade serves a very biddable purpose of keeping out abundant UNDOCUMENTED people that use Mexico as a instrument to enter th US illegally. Not adjectives of these illegals are Mexicans. The US is currently at war & we necessitate to secure our borders better. Someday you might infer this better.
Btw, the Statue of Liberty sits in the Ocean. What could they possibly do to close an nouns of open sea? That idea lately borders on silly & far too expensive to accomplish.

People die every day trying to cross the deserted stop that takes them to American soil. If the fence make them guess twice about putting their lives at risk, later they have served a fitting purpose in self there. Many are exploited by COYOTES & this is solely one small part of our border problems & issues.

NO. THAT FENCE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED. IT SHOULD BE EXPANDED & MAINTAINED.
What is the New Ireland border? As far as closing the border by the Statue of Liberty, especially few aliens are illegally entering this country by stowing away on ships.

I know Border Patrol Agents on the US/Canadian border. So few ethnic group are illegally entering from the northern border that they individual catch a handful per year, compared to several hundred thousand on the southern border. The 9/11 terrorists rightfully entered through Canada. In reality, Canada has drastically loose immigration laws, making it easier for terrorists to naturalize within and legally enter the U.S. A blockade isn't going to stop people crossing through established ports of entry.

As far as illegals crossing through Mexico, you may argue that anyone should know how to come here who wants to, but do you honestly consistency that we should have to collectively settle for the healthcare, education and public housing of everyone who enter? That's what's happening. Yet, illegals transport $24 billion back to Mexico respectively year. That's money earned immorally, with no taxes remunerated on two-thirds of it.

In the meantime, 43% of food stamps in the entire country are distributed to off the record aliens, and 41% of all welfare recipient are illegal aliens. 60% of public housing is for unconstitutional aliens. Over 40% of students in California school don't speak English, meaning American children can't revise as much as they used to because the curriculum has to be modified to accomodate the children of illegitimate aliens.

I'll spare you and not even delve into the criminal aspect.

Personally, I'd rather reward a few cents more for fruit and get rid of the financial burden the illegals hold placed on Americans. The southern fence may not stop adjectives illegals, but it will inarguably curb the influx.

You receive fraud with logo amalgamated nation?

Answers: Even if it was physical it would still be a fraud.

Could you name some countries that don't hold right to bare firearms and is not oppressed or third world?

My neighbors teen sons were shooting birds beside a be be gun. I made a comment to a coworker about how stupid those are for senseless killings of animals, when they enjoy a hard satisfactory time just surviving, I will all guns where on earth ban. That's when he asked me that sound out. I would very much close to to come back near the answer.
Answers: Well, In Norway you have to prove a call for in command to buy firearms legally: Hunting or sport. And if my administration isn't running a heavy propaganda contained by order to intimidate its minions, we still are a stable democracy in the western Europe.
France, I don't consider we should be called oppressed or Third world country. To jump hunting, you must have a travel document and many birds are protected by a european canon (voted in 1979 if I'm not mistaken).

I thought it be also forbidden in Australia?
France for sure but I believe most of the western European countries hold very tight gun control law. Only hunting rifles and shotguns are allowed.

And if your co-worker responds by saying that Western Europeans are oppressed, ask him how come they're not flocking to our borders asking for refugee status?

Proposal for another child support law?

In the special, but never-the-less existing circumstance that a woman "tricks" a man into getting her pregnant (and you'd have to justifiably prove this had happen, which is no easy exploit in and of itself), if she tries to claim child support, that the guy in actuality pays child support until the child is 21.

At that point, the mother's fraud comes "due", as it were, and she is responsible for paying off all that he remunerated for child support, plus interest. That is, if the frauded guy sues, he is entitled to damages.

If the intent is to protect the child at all costs, as soon as the child is no longer a child, the mother's fraud take center stage.

Is this justice?
Answers: As a human, you must know that it is a FACT that everyone lies. When within a relationship, even a one night stand, it is the responsibility of the delegation NOT wanting a child to ensure birth control of some type. If the female provides "imitation reports from doctor's or a written statement WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT BEING FALSE" stating she can NOT become pregnant then I believe that the mannish SHOULD be off the hook and the feminine charged with exhortation. That's only my thought.
It takes two to tango. Even if she lied roughly speaking not being competent to have kids (which would be the individual way she could cheat a guy), there is still the possibility of pregnancy. Yes, the guy should hold to pay for support and individual until the child reaches the age of 18. That's when they are considered adults. Not 21 approaching some states require. Holding the mother responsible for fraud is absurd.

Clarification:

Ok. I stand corrected. Absurd be used for the lack of a better word. I currently rate support for 2 of my 3 daughters. My oldest lives with me. The solely time I think that fraud can be involved for child support is when the mother tell the guy that the child is HIS and in adjectives actuality it belongs to another. Then I would have to agree that the mother should own to pay spinal column any support with interest. Other than that, I don't see how anyone can be tricked into getting someone pregnant.

How can i write my will without an attorney?

I want to write my will short haveing to go to a attorney, is there a style? thank you
Answers: You can go to a bookstore resembling Barnes & Nobel...they sell a Will Kit so that you can write your own will. If you own a ton of money, property, or naming a guardian for your children...I would go to a attorney. Even the best written wills can be contested upon your death...so you want to receive sure that there are no legalized loop holes.

Also...if you're not afraid of the will being contested.my advocate advised me to mark a separate guardian for my children and a trustee for the money. That way the best interest of the child will be see too because every time the guardian will need money the trustee have final say. (just contained by case someone is better near kids than money).

Good luck.
It depends on your state. But generally, if you imbue in a printed form by paw, it will not be valid. Generally, a handwritten will that is signed by witnesses is not valid.

Every state have technical rules for doing this. Wills don't cost greatly of money to do. See a lawyer.

Has a terrorist attack been carried out on US soil post 9/11?

If so, own any US casualties been reported from such a terrorist achievement [post 9/11]?

If not, why has no terrorist attack on US Soil happen post 9/11?

Note: it seems to me a single misguided soul could do great damage at ANY populated nouns in the US [mall, bureau bld, concert, etc] It took the US Gov. alsmost 1 month to catch the DC nouns sniper a few yrs back...

Last, what civil rights are / hold been taken away by the US Gov., to date contained by the name of home come to rest security and anti terrorism? Wire tap, imprisonment w/o charges, video cameras at intersections, etc?
Answers: Since 11 September 2001, within have be about 68 reported terrorist attacks inside the United States including attacks beside biological weapons. This number is through 2006 and does not include any statistics for 2007. Since terrorism is not other clearly defined many act may go unrecognized and file with common crime reports. It is also important to remember that not adjectives terrorist are the Islamic fundamentalist variety. There are hundreds of groups, copious domesticaly based, operating inside the United States.
yes ,
virginia tech for example
a small group of Islamics intent on dangerous the world trade center succeeded on 9-11-2001 then the Idiots contained by Washington over reacted and declared period of war on a idea(something you cannot win or lose at).and have spent a yawning sum of our money to protect us from the dead(the ones who succeeded on 9-11)

If you look on amazon there is a book written by some professor that explains surrounded by much fuller detail.
if what ever Bush is doing seems to be working.
if Dem's force rule change and were hit subsequent year.
who gets the blame.
i don't of any court luggage of civil rights violation
Check word reports on the TEXAS-MEXICO border.

The invaders are shooting.and bringing drugs as well.
I can one and only remember 3 terrorist attacks on American soil by foreign nationals contained by my life time but Americans and our embassies, airliners and military are frequent target and have be for a long time. As you point out a one or two individuals can cause disruption and destroy almost at will, like Oklahoma city bombing or the DC sniper, and within is little law enforcement can do to prevent it. My son, who met seriously of foreign students in conservatory, thinks it is because American society seduces inhabitants from other countries , and after being here for a while they no longer revulsion us. Therefore terrorist groups can not send one or two relations alone but can only mount attacks near large groups that they maintain isolated while preparing to attack. But such large groups are easier to stop, so most of the attacks on us pilfer place on our people and institutions within other countries.
I am not sure I'm right but it fits the evidence.

Edit: I forgot about the incident at th U of NC be a Iranian student deliberately run his car into a group of student to avenge his "Muslims brothers". Was this a terrorist attack of merely a messed up mind like VA tech??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Re...

Am I exempt from overtime pay?

I be hired for a white-collar job within IL. The compensation paid is net (not hourly). The type of work I do is mainly at a desk using a computer. For the brief I was hired, it is clear to me that I am not eligible for overtime reimburse.

Now, due to recent changes within my employer's needs, I'm temporarily doing blue-collar work contained by a factory. I'm glad to help out and don't mind this, but I'm in recent times curious if I should be getting overtime pay for the hours worked over 40.

By imperative, am I elible for overtime pay while I do the factory work?
Answers: Probably no, you aren't. What matter for the decision as to whether or not you are eligible for overtime is what work you if truth be told *do* (Job titles, etc, are utterly irrelevant as to who is, or is not, exempt.) "Brief, temporary" assignments to other duties can be taken without making you eligible, but if it's more than a few days afterwards you are now eligible for overtime.

Incidentally, basically because your regular job is "white collar" at a computer doesn't take home it exempt. "Most" computer jobs, except programmers, are clerical contained by nature, and thus non-exempt.

ADD-ON..

The above answers really illustrate why the DOL estimates that over partially the people contained by the USA who do not get overtime are denied it illegitimately. "Salaried" does NOT mean "no overtime" - salaried workers are JUST as entitled to overtime as are hourly ones. The ONLY thing that govern whether or not you're entitled to overtime is the nature of the work you do.

Richard
Overtime underneath Federal Law is governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Your state, approaching California, may have rules which are stricter and shift beyond Federal Law.

The question usually asks whether you are exempt or non-exempt (in language of FLSA).

Exempt employees typically require professional training or instruction, determine how they handle their each day chores, and they don't get docked hours for doctor/dentist visit.

Non-exempt employees earn overtime and typically do not enjoy professional training, do not determine how to manage their on a daily basis chores, get docked for doctor/dentist visit.

Under Federal Law, you earn overtime after 40 hours of work during a week. Under California Law and some other states, you also earn overtime after working 8 hours in soon.

See your HR department to determine how the classified you as exempt or non-exempt.

The answer has nought to do with whether you are salaried or hourly. If you are salaried, that basically means you other work 40 hours per week.

If you are performing factory (assembly line) work, you are probably non-exempt and, therefore, eligible for overtime.
You might want to check beside the state labor board. Some states have not long passed laws to protect exempt workforce from not being remunerated ot for hours worked in excess of the 40 hours an non-exempt member of staff would work for.

Don't be too obvious though, Having a opening that pays well contained by this day and age may be worth more than putting up near 2 part time job at $8.00 an hour.
From what you say here, no.

Sometimes exempt salaried workers hold to pitch in and do the dirty work. But if this situation continues more than "temporarily", I would reassess.
I'm not convinced, but it sounds to me that you should not be overtime exempt, unless you are in a admin position.

It may depend in portion on what state you're in, too. In California, we enjoy stricter laws in connection with overtime exemption than the feds do.
You say your earnings is less that $100K a year. It is expected that whatever your earnings it is much higher than the regular "blue collar" workers would receive. If you be paid the hourly rate of the regular factory workers including overtime, it would probably result within a cut in clear.

I am no expert on labor laws, but surrounded by most states when you are salaried you are not entitled to overtime. However, salaried workers are also not supposed to be limited contained by their sick days or personal days that may be required.
are you still under the artistic contract, are you still salary?

hourly = overtime possible
net = no overtime.

Has the United States given an official apology for slavery on the other hand?

Just wondering.
Answers: I doubt it very much, the Emancipation Proclamation is a close to an apology as politicians will return with. Politicians don't actually issue apologies, they freshly mumble some sort of incoherent ramblings and pretend everything is alright. But honestly what good will an apology serve? The injury has be done and would be quite hollow if an apology be to be made.
Why the F--- should we???????????
Those responsible for it are long head, those artificial buy it are long dead,
What would amend.?History happens and cannot be changed.
That would be approaching the indians telling you, that YOU call for to apologize to them for what the government did to their ancestors.
Think in the order of it.
Yeah, maybe the U.S. Government should apologize, but since adjectives the slaves are dead and their owners too, who will they apologize to?
Also, how going on for the black African tribes who sold rival tribes into slavery?Have they apologized yet?
It depends on what you consider to be "an civil servant apology".

Who would be the "official" doing this? Congress? The President? The Supreme Court?

The people by a vote?

What form does the "apology" own to take? Can you consider the Emancipation Proclamation to be an apology? Or the verdict in Brown v. Board of Education? Or the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The history of civil rights surrounded by America is long and complicated. A simple apology is both not enough and too much.

Small claims court, legal suggestion needed ,thanks,,,,uk?

Hiya,i enjoy been going through a official process for the last 4 years,
its complicated but,i be being taken to court initially for 15000 pounds,afterwards it got put to the small claims court which finances it is less than 4000 pounds.
My legally recognized bills are approx 1600 pounds.The claiment passed away in september,departing his mother to deal next to his affairs.He died bankrupt and on benifits,he also get legal aid,
His solicitor immediately tells me that they no longer aspiration to persue there claim as long as i do NOT CLAIM MY COSTS,
The later thing i would do would be to upset even more a mother who have lost her son,by asking for money.
But i have receipts for almost 1600,any suggestions serious answers merely...thanks
Answers: The entity is were you within the right?
If so I think you must try to claim your court costs from his estate.
The claim against you will die with him but even if he died out of business there may be some assets surrounded by his estate.
it really depends how strong your case is.

if your sure your going to win it may be your just option.

however, if your not sure your going to win afterwards it might not be worth chasing , you could end up next to court costs and paying back the money you owe.

i would call for more details to work with but if you want to provide them in poor health be more than happy to minister to
Take the lb1600 on the chin.

There must have be a debt for the plaintiff to claim lb15000 in the first place, so I suspect that his solicitor be confident of securing a liability order against you. Remember they enjoy stopped persuing you, you have not successfully defended their claim.

If you persue them for your costs, and you lose, your costs will increase and own their costs for resisting your application added.
Hello Marki,

It is difficult to answer your question because you do not vote whether you actually owed the 15K to initiate with.

On the strength of that and it be you who were taken to court I can just assume that this is a debt that you do owe.

If this is the case my direction would be to accept the conditions laid down by the behind son's solicitors and accept their present.

If it was me and I owed lb15.000 and it be brought down to lb4.000 or less, I would hold accepted that and come to an arrangement to earnings this off to the claimant.

That debt have now be virtually wiped from your slate and you own been departed with an overall payoff of lb1.600.

All in adjectives I feel that you own done very powerfully.

The lb1.600 has already be paid as you own the receipts, so in effect the other lb13.400 have been written sour and is a profit for you.

With regard to the mother, as you voice she has suffered the loss of her son and she presently has to settlement with trying to retrieve money owed to her unpunctually son.

I assume his mother has contracted that she does not want to pursue the claim and is prepared to drop the whole event.

If you did owe 15K to begin next to which eventually ended up within you only paying lb1.600, why do you option to put his mother through more anguish and try to make her retribution back the costs incurred by you.

My warning is to quit while you are well ahead.

If, in opposition you were combat the claim because you did not owe the original sum, this is a issue for you and your conscience.

If a relatively small amount (nowadays) of lb15K has taken four years of decriminalized wranglings and has still not be resolved, is it really worth even more hassle and time to fight it.

On top of that you may economically find you are paying even more money to the 'fat cats' solicitors and may still wrap up up with nought.

It seems to me that the lone people feasible to come out of this with a bigger sandbank balance are the solicitors dealing next to both you and the mother.

My honest opinion is to adopt the loss of lb1.600, whether you owed the intial amount or not and let the mother try to pick up the pieces and bring on with her enthusiasm.

After all it is not her blemish.

Poseidon
in my experience it does not situation if you feel you are contained by the right, if you lose money proving it - you've lost. You can't get blood out of a stone - if the funds are not in attendance, you will not get your money, no business how much you are in the right.
lf l be you l would write off the lb1,600, hike away and put it down to experience. if you owe lb15,000 or even lb4000 you are still quids in - go away it at that. in the lapse - only the lawyer win!
Hi marki, I would present the bill to the person dealing next to the Estate of the deceased.
If after the annihilation of a claimant in any claim the lead to of action survives, but no proclaim is made substituting as claimant any person contained by whom the claim vests or, as the case may be, the personal representatives of the departed claimant, you may apply to the court for an order that unless the claim is proceeded next to within such time as may be specified contained by the order the claim shall be struck out. (RSC Ord 15, Rule 9)

It is more probable than not that the claimant did not make provision for the claim to be pursued against you after his or her departure, or alternatively that the family of the departed no longer wishes to pursue it. The difficulty is that you simply do not know the reason. If it is the former consequently you would win by default, as it be, and you can claim your costs against the deceased's estate. If it is the latter then you risk prolonging the claim.

In any event you should ask the court to make an instruct that the claim be proceeded with in say, 28 days, that will protect your interests. At duplicate time write a letter to the claimaints solicitors, on a short prejudice basis, stating what vocabulary you would be willing to settle the issue - either that respectively party bear its own costs, or the claimaints estate pays part of your costs. Whatever you prefer make sure that the settlement is final and that no further claims, contained by any form or manner whatsoever, can be pursued or resurrected after the settlement. It is probably better to record a consent order to that effect near the court to make sure.
I'd cut my losses and give up it at that. The view would be that you unavailable a lawyer at your own behest, you weren't grateful to. The only instrument you would have get your costs covered would have be if the court found in your like better, and from what you say you wouldn't hold stood a snowball's chance of getting any money out of this man anyway.

Accept the volunteer, but insist as a condition of your acceptance that you receive certified confirmation that the case have been struck out.
Hiring a advocate for minor legal problems can be expensive, but in attendance are websites like LawGuru, FindLaw and other places where on earth you can get free legitimate advice. I found this website adjectives - http://www.uelp.org/freelegal.html

In Bad News Message ….?

In Bad News Message ….

a) Your job is to terminate the message on a more upbeat note
b) A logical outcome of the reason prepare the audience psychologically to receive it
c) You admit your readiness to complete requirements
d) None of them
Answers: D. because I do not understand your query
b

More Questions and Answers:
[1600] - [661] - [2358] - [737] - [121] - [655] - [639] - [1700] - [1661] - [1874] - [2163] - [1496] - [1261] - [757] - [684] - [65] - [1002] - [2444] - [2466] - [2278]

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

Answer question: