Law Questions and Answers

Who should I contact about a crooked business?

I stayed at Travelodge and my laptop be stolen from my room. My room was on the 3rd floor and the cops said someone would involve a key to get hold of into my room since there be no forced entry. The owner refused to show up and next wouldnt let us see any surety footage when one is right outside my door and one in the middle of the hall and now the owner is claiming I be never stayed there when I hold my reservations and my police report that says I be there. The owner is immediately claiming I was drunk and making stories up immediately but the cops said hes not drunk, hes only 19. The cops told me they've be having lots of problems next to that Travelodge and they are hiring convicted felons at a cheap price. The BBB said they will hold on to record of it but really cant do anything, is at hand anybody else I can contact in Virginia in the region of this?
Answers: You could always hire an Attorney and unles you want to purloin them to court, there is much you can do roughly it.
Yes contact Bob McDonnell Attorney General of Virginia.
(804) 786-2071
Call them up, and they should take thought of this problem with cellular phone call.

Can anything be done about an overseas bingo not returning your winnings after the sanction?

I played online bingo and right before the prevention, i won quite a generous sum of money. The money could not be sent to my neteller account because they froze u.s. accounts. Their customer service dept. took my wall info and promised to deposit the money in my reason. I never recieved the money. Of course, they did not respond to my emails. However in contacting other players, I cultured that many have recieved checks. When netteller finally started releasing funds, others got their money. I be wondering if there be anything I could do or anyone i could contact to help me take my money? They are cheating me of my money and I want it.
Answers: About the only piece you can do is sue them in the jurisdiction where on earth they're located... you might be able to sue them contained by the US, but there is the sticky cross-question of whether you broke the law by playing...

Do you think the Pope will be subpoenaed within the Ernie Chambers vs God Lawsuit?

Or is God going to receive contempt of court for failure to appear?
Answers: Chamber's worthy attempt to demonstrate that far too many general public in this country come to the courthouse looking for sprite (the horror!) and that access to legal process should be restricted to "serious" litigants (i.e. the rich and multinational corporations) will turn out just fine. The shield will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the deem probably will sanction Chambers for filing it within the first place -- which is a textbook example of how frivolous litigation is disposed of.

On top of that, I really hope Chambers' constituents give him the boot. While he is trying to label a point about frivolous litigants, his behavior speaks volumes more or less frivolous legislators with style too much time on their hands.
I doubt it. Ernie's a Baptist, not a Roman Catholic.

The 2nd amendment Revisit?

"A well regulated militia, person necessary to the deposit of a free state, the right of the people to keep hold of and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

See if I know this correct. Is it saying "The general public in the militia should be armed for the protection of a free state"?
Even if this is correct, there's nought that says the militia is controlled by the state. With that said, the right to take on arms still falls on the people. The subdivision that is still confusing is the militia. Does it indicate individuals may not bear arms unless they are within a militia?
Answers: It clearly say "the people".. If the intent be to insure a properly maintained and armed militia, the statement would hold read " the right of the militia to keep and suffer arms." The founding fathers have every intention of securing the rights of the common individuals, outside of a militia to bear arms as all right, or they would have never be mentioned.
A well regulated militaia, person necessary to the surety of a free state, -- that implies a militia mortal set up for the state!
As far as qurestioning why it should be run BY the State.what are you trying to exploit here.

Because its very clear what it say.
Create an army
and the right for people to accept arms shall not be infringed.

There are other laws that are created to prevent crazy associates, and criminals from bearing arms, but I dont see how much more clear you could grasp there.
The People--aka the Citizens--are the Militia. The regulation comes from the Local Level. And the Right of be armed is complete. So the People can be armed when not called up for duty contained by the Militia, as they are always the Militia and the regulation is merely to ensure that they hold a modicum of discipline. The idea be the freeholders, Citizens would not as easily be used to torment their fellow Citizens as would a conscript or mercenary standing Army.

Try this website:

constitution.org

It will explain everything that you ever wanted to know around the 2nd amendment and a great deal else that revolves around the Constitution.
A militia, according to the definition contained by use at the time of the framing of the Constitution, is the citizenry itself. Basically, any able-bodied person contained by a state who can be called upon to uphold it would automatically have be considered part of the militia. It have nothing to do beside the Natinal Guard, the military, or any other officially organized group. The militia be something you were other a part of, and as a consequence, you always have to be allowed to own a weapon. Unless you were physically inept to fight, within was no style for you to NOT be in the militia.

"Historically nearby have be two interpretations of the Second Amendment: the states-rights argument and the individual-rights argument. The states-rights view is that the Second Amendment merely guarantees the states the right to bring together militias and citizens the right to join. (Militia here scheme any armed force raised for the adjectives defense, not just the national guard.) The individual-rights attitude is that the Second Amendment means what it say: citizens have the right to preserve and bear arms. The states-rights estimation currently prevails in federal covering law, but the individual-rights attitude is probably closer to the framers' intent. A reasonable restatement of the amendment might be in motion something like this: "Since we as a nation enjoy found it necessary to set up citizen militias to defend against tyranny and may be compelled to do so again, and since these militias are necessarily composed of volunteers supplying their own weaponry, the right of individuals to keep and accept arms shall not be infringed.""
What it means is a Militia is called for for the security of a free state, and very well it is quite clear when it say the right of the people to keep hold of and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When it say the right of the people it method the people, contained by fact our founding father said that the people be the militia.

In fact when our nation 1st started, we the general public were the concrete homeland security and that held true even contained by World War II (which was why although Japan bobmed Pearl Harbor and a location surrounded by Oregon, they never actually land troops on the continental United States like they did China, because Japan know that an armed citizenry would open fire on Japanese troops and waste every single one of them before they could even see Washington, D.C.)

Heck the source Switzerland has not be involved in a time of war since 1815 is because they copied our idealogy of right to keep and suffer arms, and they require adult males age 18 - 45 to enjoy at least 1 Handgun surrounded by their home.

Switzerland is armed and ready for foreign invaders, not to mention they enjoy a low crime rate because who is gonna rob a house if someone in that house is armed, and purely about every home contained by Switzerland is armed.

Can I be removed from the mortgage I share with my boyfriend?

I enjoy a contract on a home and we're supposed to close in one week. My boyfriend and I are both on the mortgage loan. I tried to bring the mortgage broker to switch it to just be within my boyfriend's name, lacking me involved. Well, he dragged his feet and today told me to do so would lift another 21 days which would put us behind on closing and my bf is pressuring me to obtain over it so we don't have to postpone. So, My interview is, if I am on this joint mortgage loan next to my bf, and something bad happen between us and I want out of the relationship, what can I do. I've heard I can enjoy my name removed from the loan so that the lender can never come after me for funds within the future? is this true? Is it expensive/complicated? Or is the with the sole purpose option to refinance the mortgage purely in his describe? What is the process for this? Thanks for any help. I have a feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place. Want to know my option should something go wrong next to us... Thanks :)
Answers: If you sign the mortgage note, the single way you can receive out of the obligation is if he re-finances the mortgage within his name solitary. Once you are on a mortgage, there is no passageway the bank is going to release you for any basis other than he re-finances (if he is competent to with his credit only) contained by his name.

If you touch there is any unpredictability you and your boyfriend will not work out permanently, don't enter into a mortgage near him, no matter what the inconvenience is to you immediately.

I have be divorced for 13 years and even though in our divorce bill it is indicated my ex is liable for the mortgage, he filed ruin and every time he defaults on the mortgage, the mortgage company sues ME as they own no recourse against him, only me. My singular recourse is to sue him for possession/eviction or bail him out and bring the payments current and then surrounded by turn sue him to try to get my money subsidise.

Last time this happened, my attorney advise me to file collapse which would affect my ability to receive credit and even what type of job I could draw from, as employers immediately look at your credit report before considering hiring you, for at lowest possible the next 10 years.
Since he one and only a BF I would not and never would co sign on a home morgage. To much can happan and you could loose your good credit.

linger the 21 extra day to gain your name sour it. Who cares if it put u aft on the closing.
I agree with the first poster. If you are that concerned 'DON'T SIGN THE MORTGAGE'.

How do you feel around that guy getting tased when Kerry was speaking?

Did that cop or financial guarantee officer or whatever he be laugh or conduct yourself like it be funny after they tased him or am i just seeing things?
How do you touch about free speech within this country now? How do we protect our right to stand up in the past our people contained by a public forum and express our oppinions on government matter and matters out of the country? Isnt this what our fore-fathers did?
Answers: I feel that that guy is a moron. Under no circumstances do you resist the police to that amount. He was aphorism "they're going to kill me" What a retard. he deserved more. Dont gain me wrong, I dont like pigs any. But you have to perform right if they are around.
I saw that guy laugh or doesn`t matter what it was,more close to a crazy grin. I actually pause it several times and I have beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The guy was on the floor he did not want to be tazerized.
he shouldn't have get tased but he was sensitive of annoying...

it was funny to hear him influence "ow ow ow ow ow" htough
When he was asked to depart from he resisted.
The cops were right when they used a taser to subdue this gruesome man.
He was address a United States senator not some opposition at his college debate troop.
Typical spoiled brat - no respect for a man in Kerry's position.
That is what I yell at the TV as soon as I saw that, "WHAT about free speech?!?!" It totally sickened me to see that childish man literally attacked for attempting to confront a political speaker. Sad times...
I saw just a bit ago a video on Yahoo! from a womanly classmate of his who said that he cut in front of a questioner when time be about to run out and wouldn't bestow up his spot, in other words, there's seriously more to the story possibly. We didn't get to see any of that, did we? Sometimes I suspect the medium just shows one side to create sensationalism!!
I discern being tased be a bit much. Two officers could enjoy calmy removed him from the room. Yes he may have kept on discussion. But the room did not look that big. I think it be a bit extreem being tased. Oh I am he will wallet a law suit and acquire a bunch of money. Wich he probally does deserve. I hear being tased hurts really really really desperate. And if you think just about it, it did not look like anyone else be eager to ask any question.
The school cops over-reacted; they should own not tasered the student. There were adequate cops to restrain the guy w/ those plastic cuffs used on protesters & haul him away.

The student individual ran over his time to ask a interview & was resisting person hauled away. He wasn't attacking anyone or charging towards Sen. Kerry.
It seem like the actual tasing wasn't call for. From the video it's clear that all the cops could own wrangled this dude without it. I deliberate they were trying not to own to kick his *** contained by front of everyone's cameras, but the tasing (whether really that bad or not) manifestly comes across as worse than a knee to the principal.

As to him actually individual arrested, or the free speech issue, it's really a non-issue. People get arrested adjectives the time for protesting/refusing to yield. He be being super obnoxious and wouldn't step away, so, right or wrong, there's no redress for this guy. I reflect that those in charge could hold maybe given him a few moments more to move, but he's not going to get anywhere crying just about freedom of speech.

In conclusion, the only issue here is whether the tasing be necessary force surrounded by this situation.

Yeah, after reading some other answers, it is important to facts that as a practical matter, the thoroughly very second thing yo ever want to do is physically resist police officer. Regardless of the injustice, you just involve to do what they say or you're markedly going to regret it. Nobody can argue that this guy isn't a moron.
If I remember right it was 3 and they have him down already.
I am sure it would have be easy plenty to escort him out or cuff him.
People are doing more and more speaking out and getting bashed, tased and shot next to rubber bullets.

They are coming out with strange methods to target people who speak out. Its a great hazard to our freedom.
take a look at this knit http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2...

Our freedom is in great peril right presently.
The police did seem to be enjoy controlling that man! Since I am unsure of the man's background (if he be known to be prone to sternness or not and the police knew it?)
Why they if truth be told didn't have any other vehicle of controlling him, other than using the taser on him, is a bit overwhelming! It in recent times seemed resembling overkill for punishment toward someone who was simply speaking his mind!

Maybe this is a wake-up call to our great country that we are losing profoundly of our freedoms and becoming a police state in a sense.. Because I really don't know what his crime was that required such low treatment of a human being basically letting his voice be heard. It's not approaching he attacked John Kerry or pulled out a gun on him... He was a short time ago using his voice against him.

That's all I can right to be heard from the little news information I have read as well as watch on this incident. It scares me. Police alarm me, even though I am not a criminal, they are the ones with much power to believe to be me and decide and they appear to make mistakes adjectives too often anymore surrounded by towns and cities all across the U.S.
Hi

If He acted rudely or impolitely, the police should have asked him to evacuate first, and then arrest him if he resists, not to start by arresting him. Why arrest him ? If you listen favourably, as he was lying down underneath the police he cried: "...I would have walk out of here..."

He did not resist being ASKED OUT, which is what they should enjoy started with and did not do. He resisted self arrested. What exactly did he do that warranted his arrest ? That be an power rush and abuse of power from the police.
He started saw what he was proverb and was told to ask his give somebody the third degree. You only return with so long so that everyone has a casual. When he wouldn't quit they tried to escort him out. He resisted. Last time I checked when you start resisting being restrained from officer of the law you get hold of zapped. In fact he almost get away right before he be hit so I guess what I think is if you are going to be an idiot plan on stupid things occurring.

People are saying what in the order of free speech, well when someone organize a speech and tells you to achieve to the point, get to the point... If they cut your microphone it is time to shut up... If you verbs to cause a disturbance expect to be escorted out... If you struggle to grasp free expect to get zapped... It adjectives makes sense to me. Nobody complains if a articulate show cuts of an unruly guest. If he wants to coordinate a protest then he can be aware of free. He can shout till he is hoarse. When you are at a conference that someone else has organized, and they articulate get to the point, win to the point.
He did not get tasered for what he be saying. He be tasered because he was resisting arrest. The police be not able to return with control of him to get both of his hand in cuffs. The other option, instead of the taser, would be physical force which would probably have resulted surrounded by him being injured. The taser is certainly a very humane bearing to gain control of a person who is not complying near the lawful directives of the police officers, thus resisting them. The taser itself uses 50,000 volts, but solitary 1200 volts actually hit the personage being shot. It does not own any effect on the nervous system and does not wreak any permanent deface. In almost every single case where on earth someone has died after individual tasered, it has be proven that the taser was not the end in of death. The taser only just causes your muscles to contract.

I own been tasered, pepper sprayed, tear-gassed, punched & kicked, and hit beside a baton. If I have to do any one of those again, I would choose the taser. The 5 second ride sucks, but it is over after 5 seconds and near are no lasting effects.

To everyone who is complaining almost this student's rights to free speech: Just because a person can right to be heard whatever they want, doesn't propose that another person have to provide a forum for that person. There be a clearly defined time limit for the question being asked to Kerry and he broke the rule. The rule be put in place to allow everyone contained by attendance to have a disinterested chance at asking the Senator a grill. You could almost make the argument that, by taking more than his allotted time and monopolizing the microphone, he be taking away the other audience members' right to free speech.

If he would hold just followed the rules and complied next to the legal advice of the officers within, he would not have be tasered.

I laughed when I saw it. I own no problem with any of the officer laughing. I laugh at relations I have to fracas and arrest all the time. The best member was, "Don't taze me bro!!"

What are the five steps one should take when website fraud is suspected?

Answers: 1. Don't pop in the site.
2. Don't visit the site.
3. See 1 & 2.
4. See above.
5. If you've already visit the site, take movement to stop any payment you may own sent, and to cancel any credit cards that may enjoy been used to produce payments to the site.

Do you think associates should give money to hobos?

Whats your evaluation. Is it okay to give money to hobos or should they not receive money. Well... I own my own reasons and I ruminate that you probably shouldnt give money to hobos but I needed to no what you think.
Answers: No.
It is more blessed to administer than to receive. You never know when you are giving to an angel.

Yes, I think we should sustain those less fortunate than ourselves. Not to do so is self-centredness (a sin).

The object is to supply. What happens to the money is no longer any of our business. We permit it go when we give it. We are being judge on our good works, not on the strings attached to the endowment. Very hard lesson for ethnic group to learn.

I hope this help you change your attitude on the subject. All ancestors need a helping appendage at some time in their energy.
I generally follow a no-giving policy, or at lowest possible I used to when I lived in the city. But, I would read aloud it kind of depends. I would run on a case-by-case basis.

I used to afford this one guy money that lived outside my apartment. He was nice and have a few dogs. I felt sorry for the dogs mostly. He used to buy beer every morning when the convenience store open.

If a person have obvious mental problems later I think (if safe) it's nice to dispense them a few bucks, or better yet, offer something they can use like antiquated clothes or food.
I don't like to use the word "hobos" but instead lately say that they are down and out and contained by need. Not adjectives homeless people are apathetic like some focus. I am a born again Christian and me and another woman took a trip to Seattle, WA to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the homeless. I found that alot of them are very nice individuals. We didn't ask for their life story's, but we know that this is not where they really looked-for to be. One guy was totally young, but solely hungry and not asking for money or anything. In fact after we witnessed to him, I could see that he singular wanted a feast so we walked into a store and I bought him a few food items and something to drink, that he select. He was fundamentally thankful and tremendously grateful. He was even incredibly shy about taking more than one item, but I insisted that he should hold a good dinnertime. We also gave him a Bible and some tracts to read. We are immediately praying for each and every individual that we talked to. Just remember, Jesus died for these society too, not just for inhabitants who are well bad. Something to think just about next time you see a homeless being. As to your question, no, I would not bequeath money to them and only because I don't want it spent on alcohol or drugs. This is why I buy food for them instead. Next time we move about on a trip to a big city to witness, we are thinking of packing fresh sandwiches and bottles of liquid and offering food to the homeless as we witness to them. Always remember, you never know if you will ever be in that situation and requirement help. It can come up to anyone.

What is that called when...?

...you become an grown at 17. Is it even 17? Anyways, like you run your parents to court and you pretty much have the rights of an 18 year infirm?

Does anyone know what I am talking around and if so if you know anything about it please post everything you know.

I am interested. Long [life] story no want to post my life on yahoo answers! I don't mind hole up to people but 1,000 characters isn't much to work beside!
Answers: Emancipation - when you are declared an adult, contained by charge of your own life, finances, etc. That way you have to be capable of take responsibility for adjectives of the things you are likely to want - housing, finishing schooling, an income.
This usually requires going to court, and proving that there would be benefit within declaring you "emancipated". You must own a lawyer discussion for you, but there may be a free service available to settle up for that. The judge would listen to both sides - yours and your parents/guardians, and craft a judgment base on that.

What is your opinion nearly the University of Flordia student that was tasered?

Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C...

And I want to know your opinion about this.

My Opinion: I know the kid did provide the cops a hard time time, but he should of never be arrested for "freedom of speech" in the first place. Furthermore, after one confronted by multiple police officers he did donate to just bearing out, but they just fixed to pursue with an arrest. An arrest for what??? After adjectives, what was the threat he posed besides giving everyone a headache.

Additionally, if multiple police officer were holding him down between the aisle, why did they own to taser him? I know he wouldn't shut up, but the taser was a bit extreme.
Answers: Ah yes, YouTube, the world's most reliable news source!
We do not see the set-up. We do not see him describing him before he get up to make sure the cameras are rolling. We do not see the reality he deliberately wait until the question length was over back he insisted on being hear. We do not see the fact they allowed him to bring the mic anyway, but hectored Kerry, didn't in recent times ask a reasonable interrogate. We do not see him walking out with the cops, laughing and being silly after the camera is off, and asking if they have a camera at police headquarters, supposedly so he could start acting beaten and abused.
As far as I can speak about, he's an a** that does stuff like this for publicity. The relation below is his website.

www.theandrewmeyer.com
good lord.

did this kid enjoy no sense at all??? does he not suffer responsibility for his own actions???

i don't approaching kerry... didn't vote for him...wouldn't ever vote for him... but he was at hand trying to speak...i have to ask...did the ancestors pay to hear kerry?.

or did they settle up to hear some nutcase ramble on and on and on about his own agenda items???

i would own been upset have i been a beneficiary of the audience that the police didn't get him out sooner..and if that intended using the taser sooner...so be it.

he wasn't looking for "free speech".he was looking for attention and a lawsuit...

wha'cha' wanna' bet he sues the police surrounded by this case, when it be his OWN bad behavior that get him into the situation?
Tasering an unarmed man on the ground is just a form of torture. Much similar to when they started spraying pepper spray in the eyes of anyone who locked themselves to stuff as a form of protest. Eventually somone will sue over this type of piece, with or lacking the ACLU's backing.

They claim the taser is an alternative to a using a gun, but more and more police and wellbeing details are using it like an alternative to the billy club and rubber hose. The Taser company might deny it, but over 70 those have died after individual tasered, roughly one in a thousand. While one within a thousand deaths can be dismissed if ordnance or hostages are involved, can any sane person prove right that many death just to cause it easy to cuff some loud-mouthed kid?
beyond everything else... the TRUE horror story here is the tremendous waste that this will end in... let me explain...

clearly it seem that "excessive force" was used... most relatives seem to agree... similar to 5 officers have him on the ground, THEN tazered him?

so, what will happen? he will sue the university, who hired the officers... probably win or settle for a huge amount of money that will come out of our due dollars... and the school and the tariff base will be a few million shorter on funds... GUH...

the officer should be jailed for blatant abuse of taxpayer funds... they may as economically have stolen the money themselves, since their appointments led directly to it's loss...

EDIT: this isn't Iraq... the police can't (and shouldn't be competent to) just tempo up and tazer anyone just because they are breaking the statute... that's rediculous...

officers be paid arrests every day... OFTEN MUCH MORE RESISTANCE THAN WHAT HE WAS PUTTING UP... lacking beating family or using tazers...
I've watched the video several times on TV. The childish man wanted to create a disturbance and he get one. As far as getting tasered - here's a question for you. Say you are one of the four police trying to remove this childish man, he's throwing his arms in the heavens and you tell him to come serenely, he keeps flailing nearly while you dodge his arms and knees.
You warn him that he calm down or he will be tasered, he ignores the reproving. Do you taser him or risk getting yourself hurt while he is 'practicing civil disobedience'. "Help Me, Help Me", he cried, and no one did. That's because adjectives he had to do be sit down and shut up, he'd had his time at the microphone. He made a predetermined edict to disobey the Police. Why would anyone else want to take the opening of getting hurt for his poor judgment?
Right to free speech does not guanantee the right to be taken seriously.

More Questions and Answers:
[2166] - [1723] - [1418] - [1841] - [1962] - [1578] - [622] - [1325] - [1343] - [2222] - [803] - [1898] - [570] - [2032] - [904] - [1917] - [345] - [680] - [2462] - [406]

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

Answer question: