Law Questions and Answers

Small claims court?

i have a put somebody through the mill. My phone was broken by a someone while I be at school (my phone is nearly 2 months old). He took it without asking and slammed it on concrete. So very soon, he doesn't want to pay for a up to date phone and says that he have the same phone at home but its 2 years old-fashioned. So I want to take him to the small claims court and get him pay for another one. He say that he talked to 9 lawyer and all of them said that I can't do anything just about this because he didn't do anything wrong. I believe that, first, since he took my phone without asking, that that's break-in and then he broke it. So I can pocket him to court right?
Answers: You may take him( or his parents) to small claims court, but you will own to pay file and service fees, to notify the defendant, around $100.00 in my nouns. When you go to court, hold all the evidence you enjoy, i.e. receipts, witnesses, etc. If you convince the judge and win your luggage, a judgment will be awarded, including your expenses. Collecting on the acumen is another matter, especially if the defendant is a student and have no steady income. Good luck with it.
As long as he is over 18. If he is beneath 18 than you must sue his parents. He is also lieing to you if he talked to 9 lawyer because he would have spent thousands of dollars to take the advice. Bring the broken phone to court and any witnesses. This does sounds approaching a case for negotiator Judy. When you sue you should send a e-mail to trendsetter Judy because if its on her show it would be fun to watch the little punk carry ripped by judge Judy and also you will receive paid for person on TV.

Are grandparents entitled to any finacial help for full time support of grandchildren?

i currently have full custody of my grandsons due to my daughter have a mental break down and attempting suiside, social work department have not have any envolvment with the kids up untill very soon but socil work department brought the kids to my care, i am financial broke and to accomadat the kids i own had to cut my working hours by more than partially therefor im in a worse financial state next before, i enjoy tryed on numerious occassions to get funding from socilks work department but no luck, the children be brought to me in merely the clothes they were standing surrounded by i had to budge out and buy beds clothing etc etc and but still no help, after discussion with duty socail worker she advise me the only process i woulkd get financial sustain would be if i said i could not take thoroughness of the children and for social workers to uplift them for them to be placed with foster carers for a few night then receive them back but i cant do it to the boys they enjoy been threw so much do u know any1 who can assistance
Answers: The answer does depend a bit on what state (or even country) you live in. In the US and within some states they will have "Kinship Care" programs which do provide money. Now sometimes you hold to go through a formal process to become eligible (this sometimes entail going through the foster care training program - as Foster Care parents are funded for their attention of foster youth - the system attempts correct a huge injustice that those in foster attention get assistance - those who are not don't). Also given your poverty level you should be elligible for food stamps, passage 8 housing, and other forms of public assistance. Your department of social services should help, you might also see if your state have a kinship care support make friends...some examples below.

DA
What an awful situation to be in. I can comparatively understand that you don't want any more upheaval for your grandsons and I'm shocked that Social Services enjoy been so perverse.

If you are in the UK, afterwards its worth getting in contact near the CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau). They may well be capable of guide you as to your entitlements. They should be in the phone book.

If your daughter is currently delivery treatment, the hospital social work department might also be able to assist you. With good opinion to clothing and so on, there may be a local charitable mechanism that might be able to assist. Again, the CAB would be able to recommend you. Good luck.
in my oppininon this is surely ridiculous! of course you should adjectives the financial support you need. however i hold never heard of anyone surrounded by your situation and i have not much direction on your course of action. however you own my total support and keep probing!
GOOD LUCK!!!
If you are the legal guardians for these children, next you should be entitled to child's tax credits and working tariff credits for them.

You can pick up application forms from your local benefits office.
As you hold full custody you should be receiving the child benefit for respectively of the children.

The child benefit will entitle you to child tax credits for respectively child as well

Both above benefits will provide you next to an additional lb70 per child per week

If you are working 16 hours or more respectively week you will be entitled to working tax credit whilst you enjoy the children. This will be an additional lb70 to lb100 per week

If you, or your partner/husband is claiming income support, profession seekers allowance or pension credit. You will be entitled to apply to the community charge grant fund. This will pay cheque for items like clothes, bed and additional important items

Your social worker sounds like she know very little roughly speaking her work.

I would stongly suggest you ask for another one or visit your local CAB
My Mother could not gain any help financially from the social work department for her Grandchild.

However she be entitled the Child Benefit/Guardians allowance, Child Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/
Child Benefit Helpline Tel: 0845 302 1444.

http://www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.
Tax credits helpline Tel 08453 003 900

Good Luck

How would you improve UCC?

Since nobody have answered my previous question I will split it surrounded by two. What are the failures within UCC?, should TOE (time of the escence) be applied under GOL (General Obligations Law)?
Answers: 1. Whatever your professor told you.
2. That can't be answered minus more specifics. Applied to what type of situation under which paragraph of the GOL?

9/11 Weapons?

On the movie released, 2006, it showed the terriosts with armaments such as; Knives, fake bomb's, next to wires etc


If this happend in the definite thing, how could they take apssed the Security/Detecters,

Was security not as tight?
Answers: you inevitability to think of the facts and not Hollywood.. if the will is in attendance to comit an act they will find away to do it.

no situation how tight security is it still have holes.. if you Analise the security closely surrounded by the USA you will see it is still full of holes.

one of the reasons for this is they do not listen to the experts. the USA looks for (IE) bombers. Israel for example looks for Bombs.

this is a terribly big difference. this is why they have not be hijacked within some time and why so many bombers contained by their country don't get to the target.

they be warned by plentiful countries that this was coming, but US arrogance would not listen . the politician saw the coincidence to take personal liberty away if it happened . the bush govt agree to it and now look . the USA is as a police state as Pharaoh Bush-e-ses the inept role model of Idi Amien

his surety was full of hole as economically
talks almost it on this film hope it help .
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doci...
Not in the USA. I used to be amazed how unpromising your security be. In the UK we had years of strict protection thanks to the threat from Europe and the Irish.
You have slight security on international flights, but just about any on domestic ones which is why the terrorists used them.
It pains me to say that 9/11 be inevitable, and believe it or not it could have be a lot worse.
The wellbeing is not as good as it seem. Technology is not perfect, and it can oversee some things, which is impolite.
When I was comming pay for from the usa, at the airport, a man from the security asked me a interrogate, and because i was jumpy, i started talking like mad. That was interpreted as a sign that i might pass something.
Their psycology evaluation of people that they do is also bleak. Come on ..i was lately a scared girl entering a plane, and they stripped me (full body scrabble ), and i am white, i come from Europe and so on, and so on...
Airport security sucks contained by technology and trained people ..

Is flag burning illegal within the UK?

If so is it only for the flag of the country you are surrounded by, or for any flag? Say if someone burnt an Italian flag contained by Britian what would happen?
Answers: There is no specific resentment but it could be an offence below such law as the Criminal Damage Act and no problem the Public Order Act but but would have to fit unshakable circumstances.
well!

i would start near a fight and later end beside a wine celebration
this is europe man!

everything is possible!

no hard sensations!
Probably not illegal to burn the Union Flag but woe betide anyone who burns a flag near a crescent moon on it.

And you're point is?

Why are you asking such an absurd grill - do you have a desire to burn a flag of a faddy nation? You've been hasty to respond to answers given will you respond to this one?
Flag burning per se is not illegal. There are no law on the statute books relating to this.

However, depending on the circumstances, you could be charged with breach of the peace or inciting public disorder.
So are you planning to burn the Union Jack consequently? As it seems to me that would be the single plausible answer to the question you hold made! I am not sure that it is illegal but you would clearly be in-sighting racial mischievousness and that is!!!!!!
What make anyone want to burn any flag? On the Nazi flag should be burnt!
No it's not. It's unfair to use a swastika as an icon or to use an dummy of Her Majesty. We bear no brief for the burning of the Star Wankled Banner or the Crescent Moon. Defacing a pound coin is a crime. Insulting the prophet Mohammed is not.
Causing a public bane of your existence. Littering the street, Endangering life, Some abstruse local by law.
If someone required to shop you they could do it under any of these heading.

Why bring religion into it?
its not illegal it falls beneath free speech. how ever you can burn the English flag if you like ( coalition jack) or any other flag, but if you burn my flag the Saltier of Scotland in my presence i will burn you down my self and damn to the consequences.

no sin meant. i love my parkland and i will fight for it as we are combat to leave the league once and for all so we can be free men

Alba Gu Bra
If surrounded by a Public Place, it would constitute a Public Order Offence.

There are various other offence that could be latched on, such as:

1. Incitement to Riot.
2. Offences against a particular Religion.
3. Intent to brand name a Racial Slur or incite Racial Hatred.

However; pretty much you would be left alone near a few odd looks.

I guess if you have a crowd of you and burning flags in a prominent place such as outside the House of Commons near TV cameras recording the movement, you would possibly be recorded by M.I.5. beside all of the consequences that would follow.

There is possibly too heaps goons burning flags around the world already, so I wouldn't bother.

Of course, if you were see to be doing this by a rampant ''Green Earther/Stop Global Warming person, you could be charged below the various Air Pollution Acts of Parliament, and your Carbon Footprint integrity question.

Stick to smoking, there is satisfactory vilification in that doings.
No, not illegal but later again neither is burning effigies surrounded by the street whilst brandishing a machete, (if you live in positive backwards places).
But here in the UK you'll probably be fined for littering and polluting the environment, or some other made up crime that the official can get money from you.
Good luck beside the burning then.
Say if someone adjectives an Italian flag in Britian what would appear?

Lets just right to be heard you wouldn't want to order a pizza!
No, we used to do it adjectives of the time - sometimes still do.

Smoking an hospitals??? True Story-- Recently, I had a brain annurism and be admited to Barnes Hospital in..

St Louis, Mo; I be unable to way of walking, and could not move at all for the first few days, I needed a CIGARETTE!!! The nurses were irrelevant to wheel me OUTSIDE contained by a wheelchair, one nurse did anyhow, when she was going out on break to smoke herself, and be reprimanded for it, I say that this is a bunch of horse crap, it's my body and I can smoke if I want to, and as long as I run outside I fail to see what the difference is, If someone is surrounded by the hospital, a nursing home, or any other medical facility I say they should know how to smoke if they want to as long as they are willing to step outside and I say if a nurse is liable to assist somebody outside to smoke on her own time she should be allowed to, what do you think???????? It's my body I can smoke if I want too!!!
Answers: Nurses are required to follow the advice of a doctor and the policies and rules of the hospital administration. She be likely violate both by taking you out on break. Additionally, she was on break, which mode she was not providing lenient care surrounded by the course and scope of her nurse duties.

The indisputable issue is liability. I'm sure if something would have happen, based on your "me me me me" posture, you would be putting a YA cross-examine about how much you could sue them because you be injured or suffered further harm while on the smoke break and in a minute you want to sue this well-meaning nurse and the hospital that saved your time.

Try to find a hospital that will let you smoke at will. Let them treat you if Barnes is ill-equipped to come across your MEDICAL needs.
Yes I agree beside you. We all know that smoking is unhygienic and nasty, but some want to smoke anyway and not enjoy all the non-smokers choosing for us. Unfortunately smokers are self persecuted.

I don't even smoke, but I do feel sorry for anyone that does because they are individual treated like second class nation.
basically i agree next to you but the hospital has liability insurance and must follow the insurance companies guidlines. if something be to happen while the nurse (whatever) wheel ya in or out, the hospital and the insurance companies would hav be liable for any injuries, etc.

Do you think it be right of Howard Krongard to step down?

Answers: Yes. An inspector general is responsible for launching investigations into corruption allegations not blocking them as this guy be obviously salaried under the table to do.He should step down as powerfully as the rest of the corrupt members of the Bush regime. I don't need to label names, but those of us that proscribe to play ostrich know who they are.
Probably. Typically when someone steps down, they should. This does not mean that everyone who should, does. But few step down that should not. Only when the embarrasment outweighs the collide to clear you.

If sum1 was running down the street yell 4 help, would you assistance them??

for example. what if a woman was running down the street by your neighborhood and screaming for back because a guy was chasing her near a knife. would you minister to her by taking her into your house for saftey even if you didnt know her?

would that be a smart thing to do?
Answers: I most of course would without a doubt. I don't even construe I would have to cause a choice. It would be more of an instinct for me to let her surrounded by and try to to help her.
yes because that would be denote if i didnt
and plus if somebody was chasing me down the street beside i would want someone to help me so they right to be heard do to others aas you want others to to unto you!
Of course I would. Where has humanity gone if inhabitants cannot help someone contained by need?
lone if she was hot
Yes i would give support to her. I'll let her acquire in the house, ring 911, and take arm for defense surrounded by case the crazy maniac get into the house.
You bet I would take her surrounded by, then phone 911. So many society would rather sit on the sidelines & not find involved. I have a conscience & couldn't sleep at darkness if I didn't offer assistance.
I convey a gun at all times, adjectives places. So it wouldn't be a problem to stop the guy.
of course I would. It's the right article to do. I'd then ring 911.

What do you think of the release penalty? "Survey"?

How frail are you?

What is your country of residence?

Do you believe it deters crime?

What kind of offence would make it adequate?

Do you think it's cruel and if so are you sympathetic of the convicted?

Do you contemplate the death cost should be legalized unanimously?

What safeguards would you implement to protect the innocent?

Do you believe it is racially or discriminantly hand down?

What methods do you think should be used to eradicate the convicted?

Do you think the annihilation penalty puts police officer in greater exposure and leads to more gruesomn crimes?
Answers: USA

You don't hold to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a hideous punishment to ask if the death cost prevents or even reduces crime and to feel about the risks of executing innocent race.

124 people on departure rows have be released with proof that they be wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in smaller amount than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent family. Human beings are fallible and we cannot expect to get it right, every time.

The destruction penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the loss penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The destruction penalty is neither. Homicide rates are complex in states and regions that enjoy it than in states that don’t.

We own a good alternative. Life lacking parole is now on paperwork in 48 states. It funds what it says. It is sure and swift and uncommonly appealed. Life without parole is smaller quantity expensive than the death cost.

The death cost costs much more than life within prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent ethnic group.

The death cost isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyer. It doesn't apply to people next to money. When is the last time a rich person be on death row, agree to alone executed?

The system is racist but not in the road people may ruminate. A defendent is much more likely to frontage the death cost if the victim be white. While whites and non whites are murder victims in approximately equal numbers, 79% of nation executed were for murders of white associates.

The death cost doesn't necessarily help family of murder victims. Murder victim family circle members across the country argue that the drawn-out release penalty process is prickly for them and that life short parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent associates released from death row have already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
i do not know
but it is
soory boss i hold to go]
50+
US
YES
NONE
YES
NO
NOT PERMIT IT
YES
NONE
NO
52
USA
Absolutely - Read the Heritage Foundation report on it.
Murder, rape involving a child.
I think it is not cruel plenty. Putting someone to sleep, cruel?
I am not sure what you mean by legalized unanimously. In every state? YES.
It would hold DNA evidence or positive ID by the victim or credible witness.
No. It definately used to be, but next to my strict requirements for death sentence, it could not be.
Electric stool or public hanging.
That give somebody the third degree is like adage that more people die because they read books. There is no comparrison near whatsoever.

mordent...you want to compare the 18th century to today, or Europe to the US, and neither of these are like comparing apples to oranges. It is more close to comparing apples to automobiles. There are too many variables. Click on the connect below. The study has be done...comparing APPLES TO APPLES and the death cost DOES deter crime. Even if this report were wrong, the passing penalty is guaranteed to prevent at most minuscule one person from re-offending.
26
USA
No
murder and child molesters
No
Yes
appeals, DNA trialling
Sometimes
Injections
No
21, UK

The death cost absolutely does not deter crime. In my country within the 18th century you could be executed for just around anything - stealing a loaf of bread was a property crime. Yet there be higher crime later than there is very soon. No country in Western Europe have the death cost - and the US has a much much superior violent crime rate. If race are desperate enough they WILL commit crime, regardless of the cost. Just look at adjectives those sub-prime mortgages, people still took them out, even if they KNEW that the cost be going to be absurd.

There are NO offenses which cause capital punishment proper. I'm all for energy in prisonment, don't obtain me wrong - and THAT has the added bonus of person a nice 60 year long "execution", as they die at the end of it anyway.

I conjecture the electric chair is cruel, but near are plenty of methods of execution that aren't. I'm more concerned about the reality that it's barbaric rather than cruel.

I do not come up with the death cost should be legal at adjectives, in any country, underneath any circumstances.

I don't think have the death cost necessarily leads to more gruesome crimes - I can't see any connect there. But it of course leads to more gruesome societies.
1. 42

2. US

3, No. States that own capital punishment and use it the most regularly show no lower murder rates than states without it and sometimes even show murder rates that are much difficult.

4. I don't consider the actual execution to be cruel. I consider the unavoidable process that must be followed surrounded by order to enact it to weave up being cruel. I am not entirely sympathetic to the convicted. My objection to property punishment is based more within wariness of greater state power than it is on a "cruel and unusual punishment" restriction.

5. I don't realize what you mean by "unanimously". Do you suggest in adjectives states? No, I do not. I support the states retaining the right to determine sentences for their own penal offenses.

6. I don't support the state having the power to execute. That is my safeguard against the possibility of wrongful conviction.

7. I believe that wealth punishment is more likely to be sentenced against a non-white guilty party, particularly if the subject was white. I believe specifically more likely to occur because a jury is the party that sentences execution, but I believe it would still surface if judges be responsible for doing so.

8. None. I do not support the state having the power to execute offender.

9. No, I do not believe that capital punishment puts police surrounded by greater danger or lead to more gruesome crimes. Few persons commit first scope murder with the expectation that they will be convicted of that crime. Going to prison for energy with no fortune of parole isn't exactly an attractive sentence either.
1. I am 65 years antediluvian.
2. I am a resident of the United States.
3. I do believe that Capital Punishment keeps THAT soul from killing again. As to it's deterrence on others--Studies indicate both ways, and I am unsure.
4. I do not muse Capital Punishment is cruel, look at the suffering of most victims before their murder, and the on-going suffering of their family.
5. My society is a society of majority rule, but even so, over 60% favor the death penalty. Therefore, unanimous approval is not necessary.
6. Safeguards already exist--automatic appeal, plus more appeals than seem to be reasonable--many death row inmates hold more appeals than they have tresses. Additionally, many nation work very diligently to set free almost every individual on death row--either because of mood or political conviction.
7. I think it can be, but I believe that it may appear discriminatory applied because abundant crime perpetrators are poor, frequently minority.
8. I think that nearby should be alternatives--lethal injection, gas chamber, hanging, or firing squad.
9. I come up with criminals put police officers within great danger, but I do not believe the departure penalty puts them at greater vulnerability, nor do I believe that as a consequence of the death cost the crimes are more gruesome. I think some culture are gruesome and their conduct reflects them.
1) 31

2) the United States

3) No

4) Any crime contained by which someone's life be intentially taken or lost while suffering from intentional harm.

5) I don't deem it's cruel.

6) No, I'm not even sure what you mean by "legalized unanimously."

7) Court trial near sufficient appeals

8) I don't know. I believe the standards of what deserves the Death Penalty should be universal, but I believe their are still some sitting judges next to different standards for different races.

9) Any that minimize suffering, any through pain direction (lethal injection) or by killing smartly (hanging and others).

10) No. Criminals cause more gruesome crimes. I conjecture it is wrong to blame the death cost for the irrational logic of criminals.
I'm 48 years old, US citizen.

The extermination penalty does NOT deter crime.

There are no suitable offences that engender it acceptable.

It is cruel and not so much that I'm "sympathetic" of the convicted I a short time ago don't believe in a butchery for a killing.

The release penalty should not be permitted so we wouldn't have to verbs about safeguard.

A lot of times race can be a factor.

No methods of bloodshed should be used and as I stated earlier the passing penalty does not deter crime as a result has no effect on the exposure to police officers.
25.

United States.

Not neccessarily.

Murder; child molestors w/ at lowest 1 prior offense.

I do not believe its cruel, I do not have sympathy for the convicted.

Yes.

Basically indistinguishable we have very soon. With modern advances within science the instances of a convicted person individual innocent become rarer and rarer.

No.

Here is what I believe in the direct of most humane to least humane: fatal injection, hanging, electric stool, firing squad.

No.
I am 64, and retired.
Live in Wisconsin, USA
It may deter crime contained by some cases. My objection to the death cost is that innocent people grasp convicted of crimes all the time. Not adjectives, of course, but some are eventually proved to be innocent. The Innocense Project, base at the U. of Wisconsin, has exonerated plentiful people wrongly convicted over times past few years. Where guilt is admitted minus coersion, it may be ok. but recently, we enjoy seen that this may even be suspect. Police mishandle has enabled masses confessions of guilt to be used, only to find out subsequently that it was a forced confession. According to a study revealed this week, The Wisconsin State Journal, reported that internally, 97 black citizens are arrested and jailed for every 1 white citizen for the same drug crime. It's not frozen to prove discrimination, or at least possible increased surveilance of people of color. In cases where on earth the death cost awaits a person who have commited a so called income offense, this person feel he has zilch to lose by putting police officers contained by more danger, and may resist and escalate to more gruesome crimes, contained by a bid to remain free. A life sentence can be as much a deterrant, and allows a wrongly convicted entity at least a glimmer of hope for exoneration. A extermination penalty snuffs out even that small hope. Wisconsin, does not enjoy a death cost.

"I have be in hospital to enjoy surgery,?

and found out that one of my bosses has told other organization of the company, so now they adjectives know why I have be absent from work. Is he allowed to disclose this to my fellow workers?
Answers: Depends on what your employer disclosed, but unlikely to result surrounded by a financial damage owed you. That's not the intent of the financial awards below HIPPA. It is designed to punish egregious act of disclosure of private form information, not incidental.

My guess is that people notice you were not at work by your absenteeism and informing them you were have surgery was not intended to mar you but merely to explain your absence and/or bring together you some sympathy.

Now, if your boss discloses your STD or the fact that you are taking prescription for a mental health condition...that may be problematic as it would appear malicious/gossip-mongering and the non-compliance could be at issue worth complaining about.

I would chitchat to your bosses and let them know that you have not intended for your medical issue to be disclosed and in the adjectives not do so. Again, I'm guessing they were well-intentioned but won't know they violated your desires lacking you talking to them.

Edit: HIPAA does not apply to EMPLOYERS per se. They are not a covered entity. So to claim that your employer "clearly" violated HIPAA is "clearly" not accurate.

Employer compliance and privacy within the workplace were not the congressional intent trailing the act. While HIPAA
mandate privacy standards, the privacy rules were created because of administrative simplification, not because of consumer concerns give or take a few privacy. Concerns about the privacy of form information built gradually after HIPAA’s enactment.

The privacy rules apply to constant “covered entities:”
- Health care providers
- Health diligence clearinghouses
- Health plans – includes self-funded and insured group health plans of private and organization employers that provide or settle the cost of “medical care.”

Employers are typically not covered entities, and especially not contained by the facts of your scenario.

The misunderstanding of HIPAA has created this misconception of how broad it is intended to be within coverage...taking it out to your situation was never considered by HIPAA.

Go to their website and peruse their notes: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/
Nope, that is a clear betrayal of Hippa Laws. Even business have to follow Hippa and not in recent times hospitals. Your job could be fined up to $10,000 per incident. You can appointment up someone ( I don't know the agency, sorry) and tell them that your living violated Hippa and you would like to directory a complaint.
Edit:
Ironjag,

I know that you are a lawyer, but an employer have no right to disclose any information about an member of staff unless that employee tell them that it is okay. Perhaps the boss didn't know how to answer the questions from curious workers. Still as a boss he should know how to be discreet. A simple "She is sick" would of suffice. Anything save for that isn't necessary.

By the road, when I said that the company could be fined, I did not mean that she could bring back rewarded. You are right that is not the intent of the fine, but I do know that a company can be fined for violate Hippa.

More Questions and Answers:
[1249] - [1657] - [1321] - [2349] - [552] - [2492] - [6] - [1912] - [718] - [256] - [1269] - [1062] - [2110] - [2113] - [1045] - [1104] - [407] - [1708] - [1016] - [2367]

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

Answer question: