Law Questions and Answers
What happens if the Queen of England refuse to sign a law?
Like...since she can't form any laws, but they still enjoy her sign--what would happen if she disagreed completely and refuse to sign it?
Answers: Parliament will pass another statute abolish the need for the Queen's signature. Then they'll ratify another one abolishing the monarchy.
The monarch of England could in theory take more power if he/she required it. They have done so within the past, even though if they did so immediately, it would probably not be to the liking of the politicians surrounded by Parliament. However, I don't see why the King or Queen couldn't get the support of the ethnic group because the politicians are definitely not outstandingly regarded.
The Queen is still organizer of state and has the right to deny to sign laws. However, she doesn't ever use it. Unlike contained by America, where unitary executive theories are popular among presidents despite one blatantly illegal, such a view would be perfectly lawful in England, which have no Constitution, meaning that everything is at the mercy of Parliament.
Prince Charles, the current descendant to the throne of Britain may be far more of a ruler than most recent British monarchs have be. It is believed that he will increase the power of the monarchy and he'd probably have the popular support to do it (since adjectives of England's politicians are equally awful).
What does it mean when its said an affidavit should be notarized?
what does it anticipate when its said my affidavit should be notarized?Especially if am outside the u.s who is very eligible to notarize an affidavit for me?Answers: There are two kind of acts those refer to as 'notarization:" one is certifying the identity of a signatore to a document. The second is taking the oath a soul that certain nouns -- either speaking or written -- is true. Written testimony is call an "affidavit."
So, in your suitcase the person making (signing) the affidavit must swear it is true in the past a notary who must affix his signature and seal that it be sworn to before him.
Whether or not a non-US notary's ticket will be accepted by someone surrounded by the US or in within a US proceeding depends upon many factor, -- none of which you related. In a court proceeding affidavits of any kind are largely not acceptable unless adjectives parties agree or some specific statute make them so. If the purpose is to record property verbs documents, the safest procedure is to have a US Consular legitimate act surrounded by place of the notary. (Yes, that means standing on dash at the US Consulate). But many states endorse non-US notaries if certain requirements are met. If you post the intended use of the affidavit, soemone here may know how to give you a more definitive answer.
no·ta·rize [ nt rz ] (past and bygone participle no·ta·rized, present participle no·ta·riz·ing, 3rd person present singular no·ta·riz·es)
transitive verb
Definition:
certify justifiably: to certify something such as a signature on a legal document as authentic or lawful by affixing a notary's stamp and signature
--call the U.S. Embassy
A notary's function is to certify the identity and witness the signature of the person signing a document. So, surrounded by a foreign country, some official who perform that function should be satisfactory---possibly a court clerk or similar.
But, if you visit the U.S. consular service within the country where you are, they should know how to assist in this concern as well.
All notorization resources is that you swear what the document says is true past the notary public. This is kind of silly, because society lie adjectives the time. Besides, if it were presented surrounded by court by itself, it is practically USELESS, because the judge CANNOT cross examine a piece of thesis.
Legality of a trust fund requiring college graduation?
In the United States, Is it legal to put a stipulation into a trust fund that say, the beneficiary has to graduate from college in the past they can get any of the funds?If you're a advocate, please say so within your answer. If you're not, please provide a link supporting your claim!
gratitude!!
Answers: A trust provision is legal if a court is prepared to enforce it. A court is likely to enforce a requirement to graduate from college lower than most circumstances. If there be some sort of catastrophic brain injury to the beneficiary that made college impossible, then a court might be predisposed to modify it.
Requiring a college education doesn't nouns unreasonable.
The trust fund is basically a grant. The person making the offering can attach all the strings they resembling, so long as the requirement itself is legal.
So, it is legalized to require someone to be 21, or to go college, or complete a stint surrounded by the Navy, or any other legal piece in charge to receive the gift. But it would not be lawful to require them to kidnap the president, or steal a vehicle, or something else illegal.
A condition on a trust is valid unless it violate public policy. Apart from requiring illegal act, which is against public policy by definition, certain other things -- approaching restraints on first marriage, requiring divorce, or grand race-based or ethnic conditions on a trust or an estate -- have adjectives been held to violate public policy. Requiring the beneficiary to graduate from college clearly is not against public policy, and if the trust is otherwise valid, the court will enforce the condition.
Unlike what some inhabitants have answered, "reasonableness" is NOT the applicable standard here. A condition entail not be reasonable. The donor can condition the offering on you composing an epic poem in Sanskrit, if he requests to. The only requirement that a condition must join is that it must not violate public policy, as I've stated above.
In light of that certainty, I would say the condition would be enforced even if some circumstances beyond the recipient's control made it impossible for him to graduate from college, such as a massive brain injury. That would require the court to impute to the donor an intention to donate the money if the receiver could not go to college -- and probate courts are loathe to impute anything. Unless the trust instrument itself dispenses next to the condition under indubitable extraordinary circumstances, the court will enforce the trust as created regardless.
Re: FBI arrests of local NJ officials for taking bribes to award contracts, how prevalent is this problem?
Do you regard your local government have a similar problem? Would you know how to report it? Would you?Answers: 100 public officials convicted surrounded by the past 5 years. I'd read aloud it prevalent, at least within NJ.
Got a word for you Chicago.
That should say it adjectives.
the govt is corrupt. period.
cheers!
Lemon Law/Manufacturer Buyback, I bought a car, next found THAT on the title AFTER!!!!!!?
Lemon Law Buyback??? I bought a used car.. found THAT on the title AFTERwards.?I bought a used vehicle (2006 Pontiac GTO) about two months ago and JUST lately found out that the title has a lemon law/manufacturer buyback on it. It be a defect surrounded by the paint supposedly. It claims that the defect be remedied, then sold at auction.
next over the course of the past year it have been retitled, but the lemon imperative thing still pops up..
SHOULD the peddler have told me more or less this in WRITING when I purchased the vehicle, or have they gone against the statute???? (I'm from Illinois)... I've been reading here and in that that if a car be previously bought back because of a defect/lemon tenet that it should be presented to you in writing at the time of public sale if the car get resold later. The dealership never told me ANYTHING!
Am I competent to do something about this, resembling take the dealership to court or hold them buy it back or something???
Answers: I am aware of no provision within law that requires this. Is in attendance some problem with the sports car?
If you are looking for a way out of the saloon, I am not sure this will do it. If the defect be fixed, then you really own no problem. I understand you are frustrated by the spot coming up on the new title, however I cogitate you should start with the state and ask them how this come to be. I assume that when you bought the car two months ago, nearby was nought on the title. If that is the skin and you re-titled it, then you should speak beside the motor vehicles division of your state.
How much does a private defense attorney make a year?
Answers: They adjectives make exactly duplicate. Those that defended O.J. make equal amount as those who defend DUIs on Moberly, Missouri. The amount, however, is a stealthy.
Depends on how much trouble your clients get into respectively year (and how much money your clients have).
... if you're defending joe-schmoe and he maybe get a traffic ticket or two each year... you're not going to net much.
...if you're Lindsay Lohan's attorney... {{ka-ching!}} ... $$$$$
heck of alot. I believe around 200,000
Why Indian police do not have any gun? why they use wood stick, Indian affairs of state do not have money to provide
adjectives Police guys need one gun.Answers: The sophistication required previously you arm an average policeman with firepower In India, simply does not exist.
This is not because we do not have the intelligence and competence but as with anything else surrounded by India----just bad direction.
Neither is this required in India.Our mind set(thank God) is not resembling as in US unless u want to Believe Bollywood Idiots trying to ape everything Holli wood.(pretty comical and shameful btw)
Indian Police have be kept powerless and disorganised for a reason - that motivation is that anti-national people can other get their own road. It is a very big strategy. Police are never allowed to organise or achieve strong. Delhi Police is a particular target.
If you identify, the entire country has this disease and it can clearly traced spinal column to the anti-national constitution written by an anti-Hindu, british-fed non-pedigreed person, to please his British masters.
This is also the common sense that Hindus cannot get organised and become one big potent body to pocket care of adjectives the S.C.U.M. in this topography.
With the kind of things that travel on in the police station, i dont contemplate we need every police man to be carrying a handgun. As it is sovereign imperviousness has prevented prosecution of masses policemen in india for misuse of power including custodial violence. Since criminals hold the money to pay the bribes the police will not shoot them they will start shooting helpless citizens approaching you and me with the guns provided by the rates payers money.
Only those who need guns should be given the guns. If every policmen is given a gun the first people they will shoot beside these guns are the public who paid for them. It is better they batter the public with their stick next shoot them with their guns and zilch can be done by anyone as it is almost impossible to prosecute a policemen for an act done while he is on duty.
The policemans assignment is a stressful job and not everyone who is given a gun have the mental maturity to control his caprice to shoot the person who irritates him. Do you own any idea roughly speaking "fragging" it means soldiers shooting their collegues and superiors because they cant knob the stress.
Knowing all this do you really want adjectives your neighbourhood policeman carrying guns beside a license to shoot and kill ?
This can be a huge answer, so Ill hold on to it short. Fewer guns indicate a civilised society as a policeman's uniform is sufficient.
Policemen are humans, they can misuse guns. They run under stress as most contained by India are not properly trained, especially the officers.
They hold a uniform to keep culture at bay, would you even if near 3-4 friends cross a traffic signal if a cop was watching you? Would you try something contrary if one cop was watching you? Would you own given him the same respect if he be in civil clothes & you did not know he be a cop?
When under threat policemen may fire at individuals rather than bring the situation lower than control. So guns should be far & few.
Do you want this to become a police state with no freedom, as happen in several countries. So it's the right item, guns only where on earth there are threat perception, those will be seperate divisions - trained to use correctly.
they should not provided sticks either because they use them on the poor populace of this country if guns will be provided them they will use them for the rich people by landing them
the police belongs to India my country they are not supposed to butcher the people here duty is to control them
Where they will use the gun? Police force is to protect the civilians. Maintain law and instruct. Regulate traffic and crowd. All these places bullets are useless.
Because many Police Men hold no idea to use th eGun Properly. These type of military capability need apposite temprament and wisdom. In recent days we heared butchery of many population including officers by frusted Jawans. So it is better to enjoy lathis or wood stick in their hand.
What does the 'Right to a soveriegn currency' mean exactly ?
who have this right and is it inherent and can it be lost?Answers: sovereign means people/population
currency is money
so...does that answer your cross-question?
the people hold the power to control the currency, but they have that right if they live within a location where that right is given.
I looked it up online and come up with this thesis, it's appears to explain your question. It's a pdf directory so you'll have to hold a pdf viewer to read the rest of it.I don't further or detract from any opinion there surrounded by though, just thought it might back.
The Economic Viability of Universal Guarantees in Sovereign
Currency Nations
by
Pavlina R. Tcherneva*
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Economics Department
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110
Email: TchernevaP@umkc.edu
Abstract: This article evaluates the strategies of guaranteeing unconditional primary income against those of
guaranteeing employment. It is argued that, moral justifications notwithstanding, an open-ended
completing of these universal guarantees does not stand a casual without a clear grasp of their
macroeconomic effects and institutional aspects. Drawing on the tax-driven approach to money (also
particular as ‘modern money’) the paper explains that governing body funding for either proposal is not
‘operationally’ constrained. Financing, however, is exalted as it produces disparate economic outcomes,
depending on the program design of the wide-reaching guarantee. A modern money critique of the basic income
proposal reveals that, within a monetary production economy, the unconditional supply of the monetary part is
inherently inflationary. By contrast, job guarantees can provide an high-status safety lattice by simultaneously
stabilizing prices. Additionally, job guarantees submit an institutional vehicle for achieving other social
goal that are important to adjectives advocates of all-inclusive assurances. The paper offer further points of
comparison and concludes that, to provide for all member of society, a joint policy way out is necessary.
Thus, the broad contours of what such a policy might look resembling are herein advanced.
Man pleads guilty in butchery : Gets 1-year sentence.DO YOU THINK THIS IS FAIR!?
A Glen Burnie man pleaded guilty to manslaughter yesterday, admitting he kill a man who tried to rob him in an adjectives drug deal gone unpromising.In exchange for his guilty plea, Ronald Francis Dawson II, 23, of 8082 Green Bud Lane, Apt. 32, was sentenced to one year contained by jail, to be followed by five years probation, for the November bloodbath. Dawson's attorney, Peter S. O'Neill, said that because his client was arrested within New York last December he should be released from the Ordnance Road Detention Center inwardly two months.
"That's exactly why he accepted the plea," said Mr. O'Neill, who repeatedly said he thought his client would own been acquit at trial.
Assistant State's Attorney Jennifer Alexander said Dawson shot and killed 18-year-old Taveon Jawon Watson at 7:30 p.m. Nov. 24 at the rear the teenager's Norvelle Court home. She said Maima Hill, a friend of Mr. Watson, called Dawson to the house that hours of darkness under the guise of a drug concord. Ms. Hill said Dawson was a marketer, Ms. Alexander said.
But when Dawson arrived at the home, he found Mr. Watson wearing a bandanna over his face, Ms. Alexander said. She said Mr. Watson and two other men afterwards tried to rob Dawson.
Ms. Hill was charged May 14, 2007, beside conspiracy to commit robbery in nouns with the incident. That trial is in anticipation of.
Family members said they don't believe "T.J." be trying to rob Dawson. They said they were disgusted beside the plea agreement and the legal system, but still be willing to stir along with the prosecution's recommendation.
"He got past its sell-by date," said Jonese Hodges, Mr. Watson's aunt.
"To sit here and take this plea - it's munificent of crazy to me," said Londa Sanders, his mother. "I guess this is justice."
Dawson apologized to Mr. Watson's inherited and he admitted he shouldn't hold been carrying a gun that darkness. He said he didn't expect any trouble and was a short time ago going over to hang out.
"I'm sorry for what happen. I didn't want this to happen," he said.
Circuit Court Judge William C. Mulford II repeatedly noted an "epidemic" of crime - "How plentiful young black men die on a day after day basis surrounded by this state?" he said - and lamented that he can do zilch to stem the violence.
"There's never sprite in a murder overnight case because you can't get the target back," he told the teary-eyed loved ones.
Judge Mulford sentenced Dawson to five years in reformatory, but suspended all but one year.
He said the plea agreement seem appropriate, but warned Dawson that he wouldn't pause to send him to prison for another four years if he violated his probation.
"Mr. Dawson, you've be given a break," the judge said. "Take plus of it."
Next Top Story
Answers: (*laughing*) ... you're expecting some sort of CONSISTENCY in sentencing within the U.S. justice system???!!
Oh my... you've appreciably not been paying a intact lot of attention to things of late -- look at the sentences hand down to men versus women who commit heinous crimes (like child molestation & murder) ... women almost always take lighter sentences and are almost *never* killed when sentenced to departure.
There *is* no consistency...
Here's a worse one: Two years ago, here where I live, a 17 year behind the times punk hit and killed a bicyclist, later drove away. They gave him a thump on the wrist and let him dance.
This past weekend, this same (now 19 year old) punk be drinking and speeding, and killed two more bicyclists.
Guess they'll ask him not to do that again and tolerate him walk.
The "victim" be a would be armed robber who lured Mr. Dawson to the scene of the crime so he could be victimized himself. That Mr. Dawson was selling drugs is not stuff, as his assailants would have be equally willing to rob the pizza confinement man had Mr. Dawson not be available.
He was defending himself from armed felon. I do not understand why he be punished for more than drug offenses.
Considering that he took out a robber, It was a public service. Here contained by the South the defense is informally referred to as "he needed killing".
Glassblowers; what is Right to a soveriegn money mean exactly?
Answers: No one really know; it is just a maxim.
More Questions and Answers:
[1868] - [908] - [1025] - [1911] - [82] - [2249] - [428] - [1360] - [2532] - [1817] - [1815] - [534] - [595] - [2142] - [822] - [589] - [1525] - [1035] - [1829] - [1487]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: