Law Questions and Answers
Please Help!!!?
Below, read the first 10 of Hammurabi's laws. You will call for to use your dictionary to understand some unknown words.Select 3 laws that you believe are interesting. Compose a full paragraph (10 sentences or more) on each of the law you selected. Each paragraph should include the following: (a) Your interpretation or "translation" of the imperative into everyday, simple American English (not slang), (b) A few sentences telling whether you assume the law is devout or bad and why it is honest or bad, and (c) several sentences of your judgment of how this law could or could not be used today.
The Code of Laws
1. If anyone ensnare another, putting a proscription upon him, but if he cannot prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to departure.
2. If anyone bring an accusation against a man, and the accuse go to the river and leap into the river, if he sinks surrounded by the river, his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accuse is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt,
Answers: I'm not doing your homework!! :)
pious luck
Job benefits?
Duh! I had an interview, but never asked going on for benefits, and the employer did not mention anything about them. I hold been offered the position (but they do their hiring thru an employment agency), the employment agency is the one who call you to tell you that you enjoy been hired. I hold to make a finding soon about whether or not I want the position. What do I do now more or less asking about benefits? Is it to behind schedule? Thanks.Answers: It is never to late to ask. And because the commission is being siphoned through an employment agency, I would find out who the paycheck comes from.
You can other take the brief, and ask HR about benefits as all right. For most employers, benefits tend to be standard and not base on a worker by worker status. You could receive benefits without ever have asked for them.
Simply call the employment agency and ask. They should enjoy that information and if they don't they should get it for you.
If you think Blackwater is immune from sprite?
Another common myth is that contractors are above the imperative. True, the June 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 exempts contractors (and other diplomatic personnel) from local prosecution. But that doesn't mean that contractors own been granted blanket imperviousness from prosecution. In fact, the directive clearly states that this immunity is constrained only to act necessary to fulfill contracts. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians--as alleged contained by last month's incident--are not covered.Contractors are also subject to numerous U.S. statutes and regulations, as capably as international treaties. Just last year, Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include contractors. Contractors can also be prosecuted lower than the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which permits charges to be brought surrounded by federal court for crimes abroad.
Answers: I don't believe anyone is immune from sprite. But I also believe everyone gets their daylight in court.
Don't know satisfactory about the Blackwater situation, but it should be thoroughly investigated past judgment is passed. Then, if the evidence warrant it, the appropriate people should be punished properly.
Trial by sensational, yellow journalism doesn't constitute equality to me.
Answer: No one is above justice...be that surrounded by the here and now or beyond.It appears YOU enjoy appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner..."attacks on civilians--as alleged within last month's incident--are not covered".
You own, without adjectives testimony, inferred a stretch...
And YOU are dead WRONG!...Like other I believe!
Mutlitrack timescale?
I have freshly commenced proceedings (papers forwarded to court last week). It is for an amount within excess of lb50k, hence multitrack and not fasttrack. Anyone been through it who is competent to give me an impression of time?Answers: Sorry.
Why do some states still make you foot support after you find out you are not the father?
FYI not me i am married and I know the baby is mine because she looks approaching meIn some states if you go to court for support and you don't contest paternity (for doesn`t matter what reseaon you really believe the child is yours etc) Later you have a check done and the child is not yours you still pay support till the child is 18 unless the mom go to the court to have it removed. That is so wrong they right to be heard you had the occasion to find out and did not to bad so miserable. That is horribel
Answers: Because otherwise taxpayers would be paying for the child (welfare) and they don't want that.
The argument that is most commonly used is that by not contesting the paternity you enjoy "adopted" the child if it turns out not to be yours.
I don't feel this is right, but there's not much I can do going on for it except remind everyone that condoms are very cheap and children are completely expensive.
The reason for this policy (with which I disagree vehemently) is that it's within the child's best interest to have a father, and that the father should own contested paternity in a timely deportment.
I agree with you that it's horrible.
Its the States mode of making sure they do not pick up the bill!
Move or shoot the *****!
I would suppose if it were really an issue for someone that be paying support they could find an attorney that could fight the inventive ruling and get it changed.
I suppose it's thought of this course: If at first the man did not contest paternity he probably thought he was the father and thus established some helpful of bond to the child. If that is the satchel, then the child wishes supporting and the presumed father should pay it.
People stroke as if child support arrangements are some plot by former wives and girlfriends. It's not - it's about the children and their interests. Men are impregnate women and leaving children around adjectives over the place. They need to step up and be responsible for them.
There are two issues from the stated post.
First, a right not exercised is lost. In your post you state "...and you don't contest paternity...".
That is the switch. It's called a failure to pay adjudication and although the defendent have the right to contest paternity upon a finding of reasonable doubt the child is his, his inaction results surrounded by a finding, either judiciously or administratively, that the child is his by decree.
You don't get to read aloud at one time, "It doesn't matter" and then, when the verdict is against you, come back subsequently and say "Oppps, never mind, presently I say it does issue."
Therefore, if given a chance to contest paternity, the defendent must ALWAYS avail themselves of the prospect or lose it.
Secondly, There are many ways for a persumed or adjudicate father to contest paternity. However, the right to do so is an assertive one. Because there is single one situation wherby paternity is foisted upon a man without endeavour of either the courts or the father, (that one a child of the marriage is considered, by regulation, to be the product of the married couple) the father must assert he is not the child's father by petition of the courts for DNA testing.
Again, anticlimax to act results contained by the court finding in a non-attendance adjudication for paternity because the father did not assert rights to which he is entitled.
Once such mediation is made, the only process to appeal is on fraud or mistake of law. And as to both, at hand is a very slim timeframe surrounded by which to assert either of the two, usually 60 to 120 days.
There is no pity here contained by my office for a father who ignore or, as you say "doesn't contest paternity" when the cross-examine comes before the court. He is choosing to consent to his rights lay dormant. Rights that cannot then be revived.
First - agree to me say this - excluding an instance of forcible rape if a woman cannot say next to 100% certaintly who the father of her child is she should be taken out front of the courthouse for a public flogging, and then she should be taken to the nearest hospital for emergent sterilization!
It is RIDICULOUS that women are sleeping beside so many men so close together they cannot determine the paternity of their own child OR that they suffer no ramification when identifying a WRONG father!
That man said - in an assinine round around way these law are set up to protect the best interest of the one innocent victim contained by the case - the child. To assure that even a child from a promiscuous lying mother can be care for until the age of majority. Like I said it is sad that within this day and age a woman cannot be held more adjectives for her inability to keep her knees together!
Smoking freedom of choice?
what has happend to our FREEDOM of choice, beside the ban on smoking surrounded by public places.what are your veiws and how would you change it to suit everyone..
why enjoy we all took this lying down...subsequent thing they will be shifting the laws on how much we are aloud to drink within pubs
Answers: I totally agree with you. This is the wiry edge of the block. When I hear all the anti smokers maxim they are so happy immediately they can have a dinnertime in a restuarant etc in need smokers spoiling it makes my blood boil. Smoking have been excluded in restuarants for several years, or at least have designated areas for smokers. It has also be banned for years within cinemas, on all public transport, hospitals, most workplaces. In certainty there be few places that allowed smoking apart from bars and clubs. I totally agree that non smokers own the right not be subjected to the smoke produced by others. What I totally disagree with is that my right to a smoking nouns has be taken from me. Outside in adjectives weathers be not the answer to this problem. There are sufficient ways of air conditioning, areas could enjoy been set aside, rooms surrounded by pubs could have be made smoking or non smoking. Pubs and bars could hold been given the leeway to be one or the other then the public have the choice which to frequent. As it is many of us hold no choice. As to why we have taken it lying down? Thats because we British are apathetic, we transport everything lying down! Look at all the other things we purpose to and let affairs of state get away near eg, opening our borders, introducing the distressing human rights act, the detail is endless but you carry my drift. We as a nation have allowed our public servants, thats what they are, to become our masters! Time to stand up and be counted.
I outstandingly much agree!!
Now there's a new F*cking stoppage that you have to be 18 and over to smoke!!
What happen to 16!?
Now you've got to look 21 to drink! Used to be 18 to buy alcohol!
Its getting ridiculous!
What you are forgetting is that your 2freedom of choice" to smoke directly impinge on everybody else's right to be able to breath unpolluted nouns. You are unable to exercise both freedoms, so your freedom is curtailed to an extent. You may smoke anywhere within an open space, or surrounded by the privacy of your own premises, or on private premises where the owner permit you to. Smoking has not be made illegal. I'm sure you'd be upset if I arranged to practise a hobby of filing down lumps of asbestos within a public place where you be trying to mind your own business and breathe. Same thing.
Typical unkind, ill-educated argument you'd expect from a drug addict.
if the tenet had come surrounded by 20 years ago there would enjoy been riots similar to when the poll tax be introduced, changing times I guess. I believe in attendance are too many law now thats why everyone beside any sence is moving away from this miserable country.
I am a smoker and I have stopped smoking within my flat, not because of public pressure but just because it make my flat stink.
If you want the right to pollute your lungs then fine- but you don't own the right to pollute other people by smoking contained by a closed space eg a pub.
Smoking areas within a pub do not work as the smoke simply waft over into the non-smoking section, and what something like when a non-smoker goes to the hotel to order a drink?
i agree, we should be revolting<some would articulate we are, as we smell like ashtrays> but seriously. have to stand outside like lepers when appeasing your addiction is brutal contained by the scottish climate, not to mention the mess left contained by smoking shelters outside workplaces.WHY DO WE ACCEPT THESE BIG BROTHER RULES FROM OUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT.
Freedom of choice is ok,providing you are not making the choice for someone else.This is what we do when we light up surrounded by pubs,restaurants and anywhere else.Lack of consideration for others is what has brought this situation give or take a few.I was a smoker so i know.We moved out a mess everywhere we went ,started forest and brush fires throwing lit butts away,call for i go on??
Well I meditate its right that they should have no smoking areas,but not to the extent that they enjoy gone to.
I mean,its only just silly that pubs cant even have no smoking areas inside.
They disqualified smoking on the first of July and you're only asking this interview now? Survey have been done showing pub takings up and banister staff healthier. Get over it.
I meditate that seeing as stress is one of the biggest killers within the world that we should cut down the working hours in respectively day and still bring paid indistinguishable. It may be a little naive when it comes to shopping but then again it is far more considerable to have us live long lives.
you couldnt metamorphose it to suit everyone
there would still be someone complaining
contained by my opinion tho pubs and clubs should enjoy been made to hold a designated smoking or non smoking room
in certainty there is more inhabitants outside avin a smoke than are left inside so see them out haha lol
Driving kills and is a pollutant they hold freedom of choice. I could leave 10 cars running adjectives day outside and not a soul would complain, Light one cigarette and I will have society screaming around me thinking they have 10 second to live
Majority rule (govt propaganda fed)
(you might not remember but musicians could conserve in pubs imperturbably in the corner. It really added to the atmosphere and they still can contained by Ireland but oh no license needed now etc etc so it does not develop anymore)
Legislation has kill the public house/gathering place
What are they afraid of, plots of revolution?
I raise my cup to Watt Tyler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler
I am a non-smoker, but my gut reaction to the smoking rule out is that it was wrong. Where are adjectives these diktats going to lead.
I dream up there should be rooms within public places where inhabitants can smoke if they wish to. Take pubs for example. most barmaids I enjoy seen and certain were smokers surrounded by any case, so how a smoking prohibition helps them make me wonder.
I think it is a short time ago government wanting to interfere surrounded by peoples lives. To be honest, what has it get to do with the political affairs if kids or adults are eating endorsed substances, food to you and I, if they were drinking illegal substances, consequently it has something to do next to the Police.
Why don't these people lately get out of our face.
It all boils down to the reality that these people enjoy wonderful, high remunerated jobs and they must be see to be doing something to justify those wonderful, elevated paid job.
Once upon a time pubs had smoke rooms - what be wrong with that ?
Smoke extractors and fan would stop it getting to everyone else. I object to have to stand in a tent. I suppose the subsequent thing will be some uproar almost it being a fire risk !
Latest stupid stories I hold heard are that smokers are to blame for a rise within the amount of litter ( outside pubs etc) so why don't they provide ashtrays then ?
And the other hours of daylight I heard it be going to brought in th at you can't smoke within your car - same reasoning as why you can't use a mobile phone, one foot off the tiller and all that, funny how we can do admin to change gears ok but suddenly it's too distracting to smoke !
Just another erosion of personal liberty.
Basically, every person's 'freedom of choice' infringes upon someone else's 'freedom of choice' - in my casing the freedom not to inhale lunfuls of second hand cigarette smoke while have a pint - hallelujah that I am now competent to. There will never be a situation where it will 'suit everyone', life's not close to that. The will of the majority needs to prevail as far as possible contained by a democracy (which IS what we live in - if you want to live within a society where the will of the minority is imposed upon the majority, next I'd suggest China as a suitable place to go and live). The majority of general public are non-smokers therefore their will wishes to be observed.
Debi - actually you are wrong roughly the smoking in a sports car issue - it has merely been raise to heighten awareness of the rule that you must be in full control of your vehicle at adjectives times and a large number of goings-on can be considered by the police to constitute that - trying to get a sandwich out of a polythene wrapping, space a CD covering to put a new disc in your stereo - fumbling roughly speaking lighting up a cigarette - all those could head to a policeman deciding that you are not contained by full control. And what happens if you accidentally drop your ciggy while driving? Now that's DEFINITELY gonna result in an accident, mainly if it ends up somewhere it's burning you. However, as such, smoking while driving is not illegal, nor is it 'something like to be'.
All these smokers who bleat on about losing their rights..its ridiculous! Anyone who seriously think it sensible to put a burning substance in their mouths and inhale the smoke doesnt deserve to hold an opinion as they are apparently stupid!! The wishes of the majority rule, and in this instance correctly. If you want to inhale smoke so much oil lamp a bonfire in the local park and stick your pave the way over that!
you can still smoke, just not indoors where on earth it can harm other family wishing to use the airspace, pubs enjoy set up well ventilate outside shealters for smokers to use so i dont see what the problem is- junkies have be going into toilet cubilcles out of the way to embezzle THEIR drug for years.
seems adjectives sense to me
I am a beneficary in a will?
i own the right to live in a house for ten yrs ( stated contained by will) paying rent .However i have discovered that another ancestral member put money into the house for myself .he have since died but i have note signed by him which was obtain from the building society stating who the money was for and who should benefit ( mortal under indication that property was bought for me). The will is remarkably complex and also states that after ten years the property passes to my cousin . The wording of the member involving myself is (i) " the property" means adjectives my share and interest in my house (ii)" the beneficiary" myself (iii) " the trust period" starting next to the date after her death . Does anyone know where on earth i stand in decree ??? i am beating my person in charge against a brick wall with lawyer .Answers: Can you clarify the question a bit?
Is your dub anywhere on the deeds.?
Who, if anyone, has possession of the house at present?
What does the executor of the will voice?
Do you actually want to live surrounded by the house?
To whom would you be paying the rent ?
This sounds like some nature of trust. The only believe I can suggest is writing to the property section of Saturday's Daily Telegraph, who hold experts to answer this kind of ask.
Here is the contact Send your property problems to: Property Clinic, The Daily Telegraph, 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT email property@telegraph.co.uk
IF you live in the U.S. the memorandum is worthless. The will controls. Therefore, you have no other recourse than to report a very expensive and length will contest on the hopes that this 'letter' is somewhow treated as a codicile to the inventive will.
Since the writer of the letter be not the original will originator, (from your wording of the post) your chances of in the lead are basically non-existent.
You own a limited time estate and that is adjectives.
The law on property is comparatively complicated as your involvement with lawyer has shown. What can go past under respectively will is only the rights the departed person have over the property, so you first need to establish who owned what.
The other family unit member putting money into the house may enjoy established a right - but this depends on what the money was used for and whether in attendance was a written agreement. If the right could not be proved on the first annihilation, it is not valid now.
Parental rights lost to the state?
i know the laws enjoy changed since i was infantile.mainly im sure because of the number of wacko's out at hand.but come on how far are they going to go.population need to stand up and influence and do something about it.i be raised up mature school and i focus most people out in attendance were. i wasn't thump i just get a beating when i deserved it .no grades were vanished on me,i'm not emotianally messed up,i turned out pretty good.anything happened to the righteous old a-s woopin,is it not permitted?i know there altternative's besides that but isn't it my god given right to want ? i've personally go to web sights to try to find out my state law and all i receive are run arounds no details.any one know these laws enihgten me.Answers: State by state spanking law:
http://cbs4.com/seenon/local_story_02215...
I AGREE! However part of the problem is that parents hold ceded their rights contained by a round about opening. In the rush to stop corporal punishment, they formed agencies like CPS and give them carte blanche to ruin family on the slightest whisper of "abuse". And the kids are told over and over that they can't be spanked or paddled anymore. So in a minute our kids are out of control and adjectives the parents are sitting around scratching their head and wondering what happened???
When I be a kid and the school call and told my parents that I did something wrong, as far a s my parents were concerned I DID IT! Now when the college calls, the parents vote - "Oh no my child wouldn't do that. I asked him/her and they said they didn't do it and my child wouldn't lie to me".
Come on parents WAKE UP! Your kids fib all the time. Especially when they know they can receive away w/ it and have their parents fooled. I know a LOT of parents freshly like this. They want to be their child's "friend". What a bunch of crap. It's purely like mortal the boss, you can't be your subordinates friend and boss at the same time. You will lose control.
Now how do you spank someone and expect to bring results and not leave grades? What do you spank them w/ - the proverbial "wet noodle"?
Do what you own to do, and take responsibility for it.
If you hold to check the laws I feel you have a problem
Look up "VOCAL" Victims of child swearing laws
They will enjoy the information that you need.
This is a parental rights group that go against the abuses of the state child "protective" services.
Did you know that state agencies capture a bonus for every child they place so it is in their interest to cart your child if your child is marketable rather than a crack babe?
--------------------------------------...
Do The Math! Approximately 7,600 reports of child abuse turn out each hours of daylight and over 7,200 are eventually classified as false allegations. Since only 400 are confirmed as valid cases, why are over 3,000 children taken from parents respectively day? Thats over 1,000,000 children every year. Why are billions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours emaciated investigating false allegations of abuse? Why are kicking, screaming children forcibly removed from loving, responsible parents and placed contained by foster care where on earth they are ten times more likely to be physically and/or sexually abused? The threat to the condition and welfare of families is physical, epidemic, and must be dealt near through effective Family Rights legislation.
I hold read what you wrote, are u trying to justify if it is truly ok to okay as u put it a_s woopin your child ? I mean i remember the righteous ole belt, but nowadays its call child abuse. If you consistency that urge to woop, maybe you should try and cooperate it out first.
Good Luck
C-
I too was spanked almost once a month till I was 12 or so. Sure striking a child (or anyone) have immediate effects: you will see instantaneous behavior modification. But look at the bigger picture: spanking may not produce appropriate results over the long run. Plus, like you, the child may revise that hitting somone is an acceptable and primary method of conflict resolution. Is this what you want?
Spanking should be and is an opportunity, but it's a tool in your tool belt. Don't use the tack hammer when a flyswatter or conversation will produce better long-term results.
Internet records, crimes, and lawsuits?
I just this minute learned a music industry company is suing 750 nation a month for years for file-sharing songs. They are set to begin sending out pre-litigation form packages in February of 2008 where on earth the receivers can convey in pay-out for their violations and call a halt the lawsuit leaving others to clash it out with lawyer if they so choose. **Cited from WIRED magazine this monthDo you think this trend will verbs?
Answers: It probably will continue. I muse suing people is how some individuals make their living.
It will verbs, its worth it not for the ones they get but for the ones who read roughly speaking it
How can i stop neighbour directing cctv at my home?
Answers: speak to them first, and tell them your concerns and report them feel not detrimental without their CCTV. if they don't catch the hint, explain to them that you'd aim legal counsel.
it's probably wise if you check beside CAB what they could advise you
if none of this works, receive a massive poster of this
http://www.tormedia.info/two%20fingers%2...
and place it right in front of their camera
Call the police - it is a gross invasion of your privacy.
If they can't help out then speak to a solicitor - you may own to get a court injunction on him.
Go round and break it!
build a big wall
why would it bother you ?
Do a celebration in front of it holding up signs so he know whats going on while hes busy watching this get some local hoolys to break surrounded by cosh him and nick his telly laverly jaberly.as they voice int smoke.
I agree with adjectives three of the first answers. However, I think a stop by to the citizens advice buro (I can't spell that word!) would be a especially good belief.
my aunt and uncle had this problem beside neighbour a few years ago. it took a very long time near complaining to the council who forced this guy to take it down. unbelievably slow i think it took 8 months to finally sort out. moral luck stay with it.
Write him and say aloud that he is deliberately invading your privacy and your human rights. Give him 10 days to remove the device and consequently tell him that you will sue him for these offence. Point out that all costs will be met by him as you own a clear cut case. Get photographic evidence of how the cctv is set up.
ANF have the right idea. Or, you could mount a false cctv aimed at his front door and see what his antipathy is. Is he trying to catch you doing something you're not supposed to be doing?
When its clearly at you, whirl, stop and smile. He will soon get the picture. Make sure everyone does it.
Or pace out with hood over your frontage and stare at it.
Get a fake one and direct it fund.
Talk to them.
Its not nice.
I think this is a grip for the Local Authority rather than the Police.
You (and the Police) would own to prove they are committing a criminal offence.
Local Authorities will hold powers re. the siting and use of cameras.
A questions still remains though. Are they watching you for a source, eg. are you a criminal, an illegal or if you a handsome female, do you undress contained by the full glare of the world. Just a thought.
Being practical and sensible, you necessitate to look at this.
Where is the camera pointing? at your front door? your drive way? your way? OR into a window??
In the UK this is a grey nouns. If the camera is covering any part of your property afterwards it is an invasion of privercy but the case is meagre.
But, if its directed into a window of your house, the grip is stronger.
Write to your neighbours a polite and concise letter explaining the regulation and askthem to repossition the camera so it doesn't cover your property.
If they refuse, you could jump to court but trust me - courts have better things to do near their time and it will cause you more problems than it is worth - I HAVE BEEN THERE AND SO HAS MY PARTNERS PARENTS!!!
You could put up your own camera pointing onto their property, thats a righteous way round it.
More Questions and Answers:
[686] - [951] - [870] - [1399] - [455] - [123] - [1721] - [28] - [1924] - [706] - [1445] - [1427] - [1878] - [1046] - [1215] - [2559] - [1773] - [1648] - [208] - [2530]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: