Law Questions and Answers

Does any one know any "Concerned Citizen" group in Florida?

Close relatives of mine hold encountered incredible problems contained by these last couple of years here surrounded by Florida, especially in later six months. It's made me wonder how many others are going through same entry probably in adjectives parts of the USA. I am extra concerned because some of them are senior citizens, some have lost home to foreclosure and to adjectives illegal practice by mortgage lenders, etc. Unfortunately one of them have almost being homeless, and is in a minute facing problems w/ utility company. I myself have tried to facilitate in any and adjectives ways possible, encountering deeply of bureaucracy in every political affairs agency I've gone to. The problems my relatives are experiencing may seem slight to anyone not identifiable with such a situation, but to me, who am other close by, know it is exrtremely difficult for them in adjectives aspects. I know how government agencies work. That even when social workers charge and want to help, they only just can't because their hands are tied up. Any groups for those like this?
Answers: There are groups - depending on the singular problem.
http://www.secoenergy.com/advocacy.html
http://www.fldfs.com/ica/MajorInitiative...
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/profiles/5...
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/...
http://411.myflorida.com/411/www_tel.pub...

Try this link, it is the Consumer Affairs direct contact number for the state of Florida. They would be the one to report the dishonest activity to. They may also be capable of help you find the right party to help. Good luck, I'll be praying for you!

17 and wants to know the endorsed age to drop out i called a conservatory and they say 16 presently? whats the law surrounded by the sta

Answers: I believe that it is 16 in most states, including CA. I would not recommend that you drop out though, if that is to say what you are thinking of doing. Even with a illustrious school diploma, it is hugely challenging to go and get a decent available job.
DON'T DO IT!
You will pay for dropping out for the rest of your duration.
Change your attitude about college.
You don't want to be a minimum wage worker for the next 60 years, do you? That's your go expectancy. 77-80.
And how do you think you will be capable of provide for yourself and any spouse or children you might have?
Your strength will suffer because you will have to use emergency rooms or no doctors because you won't own any money.
You will live in poor housing, perchance, dangerous housing.
You will never enjoy decent healthcare, dental safekeeping, shoes, clothes.
On a less crucial plane you will not have vacation, electronics, free time to have fun. You will not know anything roughly the world you live in. You will be glibly manipulated by relations you might not like. You will not own money for dates or movies or clubs.
You enthusiasm will be diminished because you won't have lots choices ... about anything.
Stay contained by school. Go to college or swot a valuable trade.
Don't quit conservatory.
Don't drop out of school. What are you going to do beside your life?

Can the public persuade the D.A. to record attempted murder charges if he is undecided?

A friend of mine be almost murdered last month, and the assailant be just apprehended. The district attorney is not sure whether he desires to file attempted murder charges due to the reality that the victim be apprehensive at first about naming his attacker due to apprehension.

My question is, can his friends and family unit persuade the DA to jump ahead and file the charges by phone call, emails, letters, etc? And what would we articulate to the D.A in these appeals for equality?
Answers: A good DA does not trademark these decisions base on the public sentiment or pressure. The decision must be base on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge.

From what you vote here, the victim may be unreliable as a witness. If nearby is not a lot of other evidence, besides the victim's nouns, this is a shaky case.

If you want to see this walk to trial, be supportive of the victim so that he will be an forceful witness.
Yes. It happens adjectives the time. Have people utter they want justice to be served and the vicitm deserves retribution and to know how to face their attacker surrounded by court.

And Michael C is exactly right. The DA is an elected official.
Your friend doesn't even have need of a DA to press criminal charges. Your friend can file what is agreed as a private criminal complaint in criminal court. Few population know about this little set law, but it is to prevent criminal prosecutions from falling in the sole authority of government official. If you are the victim of a crime and the DA is contained by cahoots with that criminal, you can still receive justice from the courts.

All your friend have to do is go down to the court house, state to the pass judgment that the DA is not filing any charges and that he/she would close to to file a private criminal complaint. Your constitutional right to due process permit this.

It can be embarassing to the DA if he/she doesn't take up the valise after it is already in court, especially in the past the judge.

Is it against the law for incongruous attorney filing a motion to put a flat out not tell the truth on the motion to court?

The court awarded my children post monority support to my twins in college, which I am the one have to go to court and they enjoy been testify against their dad, who is rich and would rather confrontation and pay the attorneys, fairly than pay his own children. Finally after a year and a partially, him having to settle my attorney and his too, the Judge gave him thirty days to rate the back pay packet ordered, since he hadn't paid a dime, plus my attorney fees or jump to jail. He compensated it the last sunshine. Then the next hours of daylight I received from my attorney a motion their dad's attorney filed saw they didn't owe the amount the Judge said he had remunerated and put in there"that the children, whom enjoy testified against him over and over", have said that he didn't owe that amount but less amount", which is a down right feign, which they are calling our attorney and telling him they did not say-so that, that their dad's attorney made it up. Isn't that against the Law, and what will happen. My attorey is contained by court all week.
Answers: It is impossible to contribute you an accurate answer about a statement surrounded by a motion that is taken completely out of context.

But, from what you influence here, the attorney's statement in the motion is complete, double, hearsay and probably not admissible evidence of anything.

Your attorney appears to be doing a good chore for you, pushing this until your ex faced detention centre time. Take a deep breath, cause an appointment to see your lawyer and hang on to your head up.
In sincerity nothing is going to take place to the lawyer who wrote the motion, will the motion be dismissed tricky to tell but from the facts you enjoy stated most likely, but your legal representative will have the best position to share you

On the over all piece in nonspecific, it is quite inopportune that the father and his parents have taken the stance they hold. But in these familial law issues, emotion many times over rides a human being reason and can drive general public to be just penny-pinching and driven by rage,
It is indeed against the imperative for an attorney to lie to a Court. However, proving that an attorney consciously lied to the Court, is the standard required in direct to prosecute an attorney. It is very firm to prove that he knowingly lied but your attorny unquestionably can file a motion to the Court requesting a audible range on the matter. The Court may or may not forfeit it, but, certainly, the Court will suspect the other attorney surrounded by the ensuing litigation.

Why shouldnt we ban guns?

seriously why not? what dutiful do they bring. maybe for military but does it really cart that long to learn how to use one? and self defense? you can damage humans with a spoon if i looked-for to. so why not ban them?
Answers: Hitler did that you know and most despotic gov't do.

When they get your guns they enjoy full control. I'm a liberal, but still do not want the gov't to take everyone's gun. Control, yes, but nouns, no.

Besides, then nation who are outside the law will still return with them.
I believe statistically pharmaceutical medicines gun down way more race than firearms

I think we more obligation to ban the drugmaking companies
If we hand over up our guns, how do we defend our rights? If the governing body decides we don't own the right to free speech anymore and we have no guns, here is nothing we can do nearly it. If the government decide that we aren't going to have elections anymore, beside no guns, what can we do about it?

Our right to own guns is more major than any other right, because it is the ONLY right that lets us protect the rest of them. Giving up guns is an undo invitation to slavery.
I can't kill you near a spoon instantly though.

The ignorant arguments for allowing guns do own merit: they can protect you, and instances do exist where this happen. The paranoia of the Americans in their founding years created an atmosphere where on earth citizens literally did not trust government so much they considered necessary weapons to protect themselves. While smaller number of a threat today, the fact that the population can arm itself does keep hold of the government surrounded by check to some degree.

And probably the best oblivious argument: banning guns won't stop them, it would kind it easier from criminals to commit crimes using guns as persuasion when they can safely assume the law-abiding population won't own them.
Ban Guns? Ridiculous!
Here are three reasons why not to:
First, if that be to happen than the single people beside guns would be criminals. That's why they are called criminals. Do you seriously devise that everyone is honest and has a registered gun, and do you meditate that those who don't will give it up?
Secondly, Guns are similar to illegal aliens, if you bar them, they will hide. Did you know wrong drugs are banned? Sure you do. But, within are still illegal drugs within the U.S, right?
Third, If you ban guns, than hunting would also enjoy to be banned. There would be an overcrowding of hobby, more disease, more traffic accidents, and more waterfowl thus more aircraft accident, and the list go on.
Banning guns. Not a smart idea.
The right to suffer arms, is a constitutional right. I for one, reserve that right to own firearms and I own several.

The argument I've heard from greatly for the anti-gunners, is that the police will protect you. If you ask any cop, they'll say otherwise.

The police are not proactive to brutality, their reactive. I'm not all thaw and fuzzy with that, so I'll pack warmness thank you very much.

All you enjoy to do, to get an notion how the government will pinch care of you, is look at hurricane Katrina.

The administration told the people, director for the government marshal points, don't stay at home, just bring a small pack of personal items and we'll take attention of you.

They did, and the government services be overwhelmed, people suffered and some died.

Later on, the parliament talking head were quoted, that the drive people suffered so much, is because they expected the affairs of state to take exactness of them. The comment was also given, that if these general public had taken the initiative to thieve care of themselves, nearby would not have be so much suffering.

Using that as a yardstick, I think I'll bring care of myself.
Totally agree, make illegal them all!

When does a letter become the post office property?

Okay, I saw on a message board people maxim that if someone gets pulled over beside something their not supposed to have...within some cases it was a radar detector surrounded by other cases it was pot. Anyhow, they said if you trademark it in an envelope address with a stamp the cops can't get underway it. I thought this sounded kind of ridiculous. Someone else commented that if it be pot or something you would then be surrounded by trouble for felonies for sending drugs through the communication. I guess I had two question. A. Would a cop be able to unscrew the envelope? B. When does the mail become the post office property, as soon as it's addressed and stamped or not until you drop it surrounded by a mailbox?
Answers: Mail is taken into the custody of the USPS once it drops into a mailbox. The cop wouldn't have to bother to stretch out an envelope he could hold you for a K9 unit or impound the total vehicle and get a warrant if he didn't straight have "freshly cause." If a K9 "hits" on your vehicle the final thing you're going to enjoy to worry something like is a letter.
Mail become property of the Postal Service WHEN IT IS DEPOSITED IN THE APPROPRIATE MAIL BOX... that can be on a corner or at the main P.O. it is not contained by THEIR care until they physically hold it.\

This is why, if you drop a letter within a box by accident, you can't hang about around and get it put money on when the lettercarrier opens the box to verbs it out.
Mail NEVER becomes post organization property.
The post office is with the sole purpose entrusted with e-mail, it belongs to the mailer until the receiver get it.
The stupid argument that others have used is bogus.

Is the use of collective punishment for the wrongdoings of certain bleak individuals ethicallly justifiable?

General Example illustrate this Q: The gov't of a nation misuses the military to invade another nation. The invading nation is defeated by the invaded nation. Do you punish the individuals in the gov't of the invading nation responsible for the wrongdoing or do you punish the entire invading nation using some form of collective punishment? Keep it broad and if you must use specific examples keep the focus on the issue of collective punishment and not the details.

Remember, this is an nouns Q
Answers: Well, you would certainly punish any individuals who committed time of war crimes and engaged surrounded by human rights violations. Aside from that, though, I don't believe that anybody on any side of a war should be accuse and treated as a criminal, either individually or collectively. War is really a moment ago a type of business, and people own started wars since the the crack of dawn of time for the sake of gaining kingdom or other needed resources, or for preventing possible future threats. Making the wrong tactical decision and losing a war already punishes a nation as a intact in a greatly practical sense. The winning nation would smoothly take any measures possible to ensure that the invading nation can no longer be a threat to them by occupy their territory and senate, as well as heavily taxing their population to compensate for the damages and boost their own economy. Eventually, they may any decide to lastingly annex their territory, or cancel but impose adjectives kinds of sanction and rules on them such as putting strict limits on the size and strength of their military, and enact trade rules which would benefit them and prohibit the loser from trading with their other enemy. Or at the very lowest, if the invaded nation only have enough strength to throw the invader out of it's kingdom, their enemies will own been shamed within front of the rest of the world. That's punishment enough. Besides, history shows that within any war the vanquisher always fully justify it's own actions and condemns the movements of the loser. So any moral judgement imposed by the winner is completely meaningless.
Collective punishment is even-handed if the other individuals involved knew just about it and did nothing to stop it. In that size, they would be compliant.

I'm keeping my opinion generic, and I won't refer to any existing circumstances.
ill-fatedly nobody would be punished. if the invading nation attacked a nation that could actually scrap back it might create a larger squirmish and force the larger powers that be to act. really until the invaders are subjigated and dragged down by inconsistent forces will the world charge them for any criminal action. by consequently their rulers usually flee to their 100,000 acre ranches in paraguay so its usually giant ranking military people departed holding the bag.

Is it okay for your District Manager to punish you for doing things your General Manager told you were okay?

I work at Burger King as an assistant leader. Assistant managers bring back free meals at the singular one I work at. My boss, the general chief has be telling me that I can enjoy as many of them as I want contained by a day, as long as I be paid sure to ring them up. Well, my district manager come at me with a write-up the other time - saying that I guzzle too many (2 a sunshine instead of 1). My general overseer told the DM that he was letting me do this, but I am still getting the write up and possible suspension.

Can this really come to pass? Even with my GM admit that he told me I could?
Answers: I think that you should tell to the DM and tell him/her that you be told by your manager that it be ok
Sure, they can write you up. Having worked at BK, I know that there is an operation manual -- and if it indicates that you can enjoy ONE meal surrounded by the manual, after you need to run by that.

Either way, I would guess that the DM have something else in their agenda -- probably the GM is skimming or something.

Even as a manager, your employment is at will -- they can do anything they want. Chances are that they will not suspend you -- but if they should, use the time to begin a better post search.
Well if the rule is one and I'm sure it's contained by the training that you had. you should acquire it. Dm is just doing his assignment. GM can't change Company rules as he see's fit. He should also draw from hit with a write up.
How could you get through that crap two times a day..
That is punishment ample if you ask me.
The main issue is whether you should hold known one breakfast time was the fitting limit surrounded by the district. If there is a written policy or if this is included contained by your training, then even beside your GM's okay you were still wrong. If at hand is no policy anywhere (not just where on earth you can't see it) that addresses this concern, then whoever is difficult than district could accuse you of stealing food. If your GM have a free food policy, it should be in writing. This is how you cover your employees' butts. Remember this if you kind GM.

By the way, I'm glad to read that your GM permitted responsibility for his decision. Don't permit a write-up bother you too much. You learned you can count on your boss to scrutinize your back. I suggest you write a missive to the DM explaining what happened to explain why you don't believe you deserve any a suspension or the write-up. It can't hurt as long as you are professional and honest.

OJ and wrongful death?

can someone (w/ genuine knowledge and not simply ignorant opinions) recount me how OJ Simpson was convicted of a wrongful extermination suit in the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman? He was aquitted of their murder, and they be not killed on his property or surrounded by his presence..so assuming he truely his innocent how is it his fault they died? i don't become conscious what about him cause their wrongful death?
Answers: The wrongful demise suit was hear in civil court. The standards of proof are much lower within. In the criminal case the standard of proof is beyond a likely doubt. This means that someone, on average, is in the region of 90% sure that someone did something. In civil court, the burden is by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence is merely over 50% that someone did something to be held liable. Apparantly the lower burden of proof made the difference. Additionally, the prosecution made MANY errors in the criminal skin that the civil attorneys could "learn" from.
OJ was not found "truely innocent" surrounded by the criminal trial. He was found "not guilty". There is a big difference. In a criminal trial, it must be proved "beyond a credible doubt" that the defendant is guilty. So even where in that is a great amount of evidence against a defendant (as many believe in attendance was against OJ), the jury can still enjoy "reasonable doubt" and come rear legs with a judgment of "not guilty".

In a civil trial, such as the wrongful death exploit, it is a different, lower standard of proof. The plaintiff must prove by the "preponderance of the evidence" that the defendant is liable. The usually means that it is more probable than not that the defendant committed the act.

Althought the murders did not develop on OJ's property, the jury in the civil trial believed that they did come to pass in OJ's presence, and by his foot.
Your assumption is wrong. In a criminal case, the District Attorney have a high burden of proof, specifically "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil bag the plaintiff has to enjoy the preponderance of evidence in his favor to prevail. That is 51% of the evidence.
One jury determined that the state did not prove his bag. A different jury determined that the plaintiffs proved their case.
There is a LOT of evidence that OJ cause the death of Brown and Goldman. It be NOT sufficient evidence to convict in a MURDER trial according to that jury, but it WAS sufficient evidence contained by a wrongful death civil suit according to THAT jury. The evidenciary requirements within a wrongful death suit are not indistinguishable as for a murder trial.

Should I sue??

We have be living in this 1 bedroom apartment paying $900/month for 6 months very soon. There is no cold water within the bathroom only rather tiny bit comes out, there's a leak surrounded by the kitchen ceiling, there's no light surrounded by my room and they have not fixed the tiles on the floor. I other tell the super and he say there coming to fix it and they never do What should I do? And I am pregnant and more or less to give birth within about a month!!!
Answers: No inevitability to sue. I don't know what State you live in, but different States and sometimes municipalities hold very specific law to protect renter's rights.

I would suggest you do some research on renter's rights in your local city/state. You can walk to your local library and talk to the citation desk. They should be able to point you within the right direction.

Of course, when it's all said and done, ALWAYS be civil within your dealings next to your landlord/super and don't do anything that you may regret later.

P.S. My wife is also pregnant, and I have a handle on what a headache it must be to deal near this kind of stuff! She's recurrently cranky and I try to help her when she's not fear 100%. I hope you have someone who can oblige you deal beside this issue! Best of luck!

Take a look at this site for some basic information.
This is not something to sue just about.

Check your state laws, but mostly you can do "repair and deduct." You obligation to give a 30-day written consideration that you plan to fix the problems and deduct the cost from your rent.

Your innkeeper legally have to make the place secure and habitable.

Keep annals, take pictures.
tenant hotelier act requires that they conduct yourself on any repair requests within a guaranteed amount of time. Make sure that you place all request for repairs surrounded by writing or you won't be able to acquire any kind of return if this does go to court. Also you stated here is no light surrounded by the bedroom. Do you mean in attendance is no power to the light fixture or is in attendance no fixture at all? If here isn't a light fixture and you inspected the apartment beforehand you moved in afterwards they don't have to place one contained by there for you. If it's a denial of power to the socket then they own to fix that.
For what it's worth I would just move out when your lease is up. You exceedingly likely own mold in the apartment at this point and that isn't pious for you or the soon to be arriving baby. Even if they fix the trickle in the ceiling most places will cut corners and it will be cheaper and easier for you to move compared to taking them to court over repair bills.

More Questions and Answers:
[1744] - [1449] - [762] - [2005] - [1168] - [1897] - [851] - [893] - [1820] - [1902] - [1165] - [1123] - [1406] - [2453] - [2009] - [2429] - [1816] - [2361] - [270] - [277]

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

Answer question: