Law Questions and Answers
What do you mean by "PLUNDER"?
Answers: Wow!!! too complicated can we a moment ago say "STEALING by force"
Main Entry:
1plun·der Listen to the pronunciation of 1plunder
Pronunciation:
\'pln-dr\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
plun·dered; plun·der·ing Listen to the pronunciation of plundering \-d(-)ri\
Etymology:
German plündern
Date:
1632
transitive verb1 a: to lift the goods of by force (as contained by war) : pillage, sack <invaders plundered the town> b: to take by force or wrongfully : steal, loot <plundered artifacts from the tomb>2: to fashion extensive use of as if by plundering : use or use up wrongfully <plunder the land>intransitive verb: to commit robbery or looting
— plun·der·er Listen to the pronunciation of plunderer \-dr-r\ noun
Plunder, like looting, funds to steal everything--including, sometimes, people--with no finesse and with complete greed. When family refer to "plunder" they want you to think of vicious ethnic group like Vikings or pirates. Mean ones :-)
The loot that they grasp from plundering is therefore call "plunder" as well.
according to Merriam-Webster dictionary it system to loot, take by force or dishonestly. But if you want a more comprehensive definition of what it is I have indicated the regulation on Anti Plunder Law of the Philippines.
According to our Govt Republic Act 7080 of the Philippines law certain as the Anti Plunder Law it is defined as follows:
"Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies close to kleptocracy and economic treason, punishes the use of lofty office for personal enrichment, committed thru a series of act done not in the public eye but within stealth and secrecy over a extent of time, that may involve so many those, here and abroad, and which touch so copious states and territorial units. The act and/or omissions sought to be penalize do not involve simple cases of malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting contained by material break to the national economy. The above-described crime does not all the same exist in Philippine statute books. Thus, the inevitability to come up with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible reverberation of the depravities of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to succumb to the corrupting influence of power."
I have two children and my x refuse to talk to me for two years presently.?
I have to clear date for appointments and shared custody with his girlfriend. My son have adhd and there enjoy been things he wishes to make decision with me for our children. Do I freshly make these decision on my own ?Believe me I don't want to talk to him but am required by our agreement.What should I do? I hold been told to lug him to court for breech of our custody agreement but I don't want an even uglier mess.Any ideas?Answers: TAKE HIM TO COURT!!!! His girlfriend is not, nor should she be, an alive participant in this agreement. There is no drive you should talk to her roughly YOUR children or their welfare. By not forcing his hand surrounded by this you are creating an even bigger monster then you have to begin beside. Call your attorney ASAP!
How is your relationship with the girlfriend, possibly you can talk to her so she can convince him to be a more influential part. If not do the court article or at least see a attorney you ave no other choice. He sounds like a material ***.
Shouldn't we abolish the office of President?
Since it is deliberate that the position gives too much power to one man when he is competent to become a dictator while occupying that department?Answers: We all arranged have. Didn't you mind that Bush is now King George?
What?
how is he a dictator?
and gee let just enjoy anarchy get rid of adjectives the goverment people ...draw from serious, get informed, and receive involved.
Anyone know which Law Form I should use?
I was wondering if anyone know an online site or which form I should use when wanting to send an Official Letter to an individual requesting them to return a piece of artwork that they own refused to return, and I'm hoping the document would also utter something abotu consequences if the item is not returned?Does anyone have any hypothesis what form this would be? Or what part of LAW this would slop under?
Thanks!
Answers: It's not a form. It's call a "demand communication." What goes contained by it depends upon your jurisdiction and the precise circumstances (and you aren't allowed enough space on Yahoo! Answers to index enough details in the region of the circumstances for us to help you).
You hold two options. You can see an attorney. You can find one locally at the connect below. Otherwise, you can try and sue this person yourself surrounded by small claims court. The local courthouse may have the forms you stipulation to do that (it varies by jurisdiction).
You should contact the Arts Law Centre of Australia. They are a non profit body who can provide free permissible advice to artists and I am sure they would be acquainted with these sorts of problems. Search their website first for any helpful publications and telephone them for a phone consultation with a official adviser (they do not push for via email). Good luck :)
www.artslaw.com.au
EDIT-
I gave you an Australian answer because your cross-examine appeared when I selected "Australian question only" - the YA filter I use because I am in Australia. If you're contained by the US then conceivably you should ask YA how this happened :)
I dont' know if in that is an official note form but in establish to make anything "official" you want to send it registered e-mail with return bill requested in covering this goes to court. Without knowing more details it's sturdy to say what this falls below, is it a theft or an agreement that they didn't fulfill after you salaried for something? Those are two different categories for the types of ruling.
There are many websites out within that offer free forms.
I would transport a letter to the individual stating that this letter is within regards to the artwork and that this is your ultimate attempt to settle this matter formerly pursuing legal feat against them. If they lose in small claims and a Judge can direct them to reimburse the filing fees.
Again, in need knowing more details it's hard to communicate you what the consequences would be for their actions. If you can provided a few more details of the circumstance I'll stifle my response to include additional info. also.
What are San Diego(CA) laws in relation to having a gouge in your vehicle.?
IE Blade length or fixed vs non-fixed or Sheathed vs non-Sheathed. Thanks :)Answers: This is generally a situation of state law, and I do not know of any local ordinance contained by San Diego which would be different.
The merely knives which are per se bent to possess are switchblade knives next to a blade over 2 inches long. (Penal Code section 653k.) There are some place restrictions on possessing knife (e.g., public buildings, schools, etc.), but that is to say beyond your question.
It is also illicit to possess a dirk or dagger concealed on your person or within a vehicle, and any fixed blade knife can be a dirk or dagger (as can almost any other pointy piece, like knit needles). (Penal Code section 12020.) A folding cut which has a blade which is fixed contained by place when open, but is not a switchblade, is a dirk or dagger single when the blade is open and fixed within place.
A knife explicitly displayed in a sheath suspended from the waist is not concealed. Technically, this would not apply to a run through openly displayed within a sheath in some other place, but I enjoy never seen a prosecution for an amenably displayed knife contained by a sheath.
So, a switchblade is illegal surrounded by your car (or anywhere else). Any other folding cut (FOLDED UP if the blade fixes in place when open) is officially recognized, whether concealed or openly displayed. Any fixed blade cut (including a folding knife next to a blade fixed open) must be openly displayed.
I'd right to be heard the US standard length is a 6 inch pocket knife.
If it's a kitchen wound and you're busted with it surrounded by your car... Say you want it for limes.
The ninth amendment, is this true?
The ninth amendment says that the individuals have some rights that are not specifically stated contained by the constitution. You have the right to swot about HIV/AIDS prevention. When school do not teach their students around how to prevent STDs and HIV/AIDS, they are taking away their right to cram.Answers: While i'm all for school teaching the danger and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other health issues, I don't see how the 9th Amendment is involved.
Parents hold the main responsibility surrounded by this arena if you ask me.
I've been out of institution for more years than i care to own, but i'm still learning. HIV/AIDS weren't even talk about at that time. Something I have to learn roughly speaking on my own. And the government didn't prevent me from doing that.
the ninth amendment really doesn't read aloud that about hiv and such.
it seem like it be supposed to have the effect that if it wasn't one of the powers surrounded by article 1, section 8, afterwards it shouldn't be part of the federal organization.
but then the fourteenth amendment pretty much blew A1S8 out of the marine.
so it would have to be some other amendment that you use to appeal. and it's not looking probable that you can find one.
The Bill of Rights was expected to reiterate that the federal government would not be too powerful and would not usurp authority in general granted to the states or the people. The lone reason the Bill of Rights existed be to get the careful states to ratify the Constitution.
One concern about the Bill of Rights be that it might be interpreted as the ONLY rights the states and the People had, so they drafted the 9th and 10th Amendments to reiterate that the Bill of Rights be not all inclusive.
Now the current tyrranical establishment (and I don't mean Bush, I imply the Congress) is doing their best to revise and marginalize the Bill of Rights.
They may not realize they are pushing for a fight and if they push to far, they only might get one.
The Bill of Rights be a compromise that needed to be made in command to get the Constitution ratify by all the States. Opponents be worried that if they introduced a Bill of Rights, it might be misinterpreted to be meant as comprehensive (that is, race might mistakenly believe that your ONLY rights were the ones planned in the bill of rights.) As a solution, they included an amendment which essentially made the bill of rights say "Your rights include, but are not set to..."
ISNT THE USE OF MARIJUANA A VICTIMLESS CRIME? HOW HAS REEFER MADNESS OBTAINED SUCH A STRONG GRlP ON US?
Answers: potheads do not steal and murder.. I have NEVER hear of anyone committing murder or burglary or anything like that underneath the SOLE influence of marijuana. Cokeheads, crackheads, heroin addicts.. these empire will do whatever it take to get their fix. Potheads do not own to go to those extremes because they don't budge through withdrawals if they can't achieve more weed.
Now, people contained by the drug trade as big time pot traffickers may use violence. HOWEVER, the judgment that these traffickers exist is because of the war on drugs and the criminalization of marijuana. If marijuana be legal and regulated by the parliament, there would be no have need of for illegal traffickers and, in consequence, no need for anger.
That is my opinion and I make the acquaintance of any cold, hard truthful evidence to the contrary.
Absolutely. Our drug laws are primarily a political and cultural issue and certainly ridiculous. The 'war on drugs' is a travesty.
Ron Paul requirements to do away with these unnecessary law. If you want to see something done about this, support Ron Paul.
Maybe you should ask that give somebody the third degree to the victims of robbery, burglary, and theft from drug users who have need of to resort to crime to support thier habit.
Or to the mother of the child that be killed contained by a car wreck by a driver underneath the influence of drugs.
Or to the person who lately got hit by a stray bullet during a shootout over drug turf.
The drug user may not be a object, but many of the ethnic group he comes in contact beside are, and they don't have a choice.
Yes, unless you are responsible for children, or driving a vehicle, or ...well you achieve the idea.
On the other mitt, even if you enjoy your recreational dignified in the privacy of your own home, you still become an unnecessary burden on society. Smoking appendage rolled pot is damaging to your vigour (more than cigarettes) which likely will not become an issue until you are eligible for MEDICARE. Also the loss of mental competency and initiative (both well documented) not simply takes away your potential to produce something of worth, but likely will result within you becoming reliant on government or charitable handouts. So surrounded by a way, we adjectives suffer when you toke.
And then there's the drug cartel who are essentially terrorists. You're crime supports them.
Can Bush stay in bureau longer than eight years?
I read somewhere on the web yesterday that if president bush declairs a state of emergency that he can stay contained by office longer than eight years. Does anyone know a url posting this information? It would be extremely cooperative. thanks.Answers: No. He lacks any authority to suspend the see and the turnover on January 20, 2009 (noon). See Amendments XX and XXII of the Constitution at the link below.
It's a conspiracy view that relies on the fact most U.S. citizens enjoy never read the Constitution and its amendments. You can read everything for free at the National Archives' website. It should easily bring you less than two hours. Less than one if you read promptly.
Not unless he goes beyond the two occupancy limit.
And since he isnt a democrat he will respect that impede.
Don't worry in the order of it. Even we Bush supporters don't want to see anything like that.
I expect it's another conspiracy opinion though
No the winning celebration can kick him out if he refuse to leave he will be arrested.
How could anybody read out they support bush after he gives $25 million to NKorea a country he labeled an axis of evil?
He requirements to make it that approach.
If you lose a lawsuit can they take your home and cars?
If you are contained by a lawsuit and the other party win $100,000 and your insurance only covers $40,000, does the court come within and take your assets (such as your home and cars..which you still own a loan on) or do they just put a lien on your house..etc? Are they competent to just lug your vehicles and see you out of your home if you cannot pay the remaining amount?Answers: The prevailing shindig would get a decision entered against you. If the sentence is recorded contained by the public records, it usually operate as a lien against all physical property owned by the defendant. In most states, the plaintiff can then "force" the Dutch auction of the real property contained by order to repay off the sensitivity. There is an exception in some states, close to Florida, for a person's primary residence. In those states, a person's home can not be "forcibly" sold to satisfy a ruling. See an attorney to determine if your state has this exemption.
As for vehicle and other items of personal property, they normally can be sold to fill a judgment. However, any outstanding loans must be salaried off in the past the plaintiff gets any money. So, as a rule, a plaintiff will not force the sale of a coup¨¦ that has a loan because he will collect highly little money.
You should consult an attorney in your state to determine which of your assets are adjectives. Sometimes, you can take steps to prevent collection of judgment. It is well worth your time to natter to a lawyer in the order of this.
Yes, they can put a lien against your assets and the sheriff can sell it at public auction.
What precedents did the US Supreme Court rely on in Dred Scott v. Sandford?
Answers: That slavery be allowed under the constitution, and superseded states rights. It be a bad finding that set up the Civil War.
Actually the decision be a jurisdictional one. The Supreme Court determined that slaves were not citizens, hence they have no jurisdiction to hear Dred Scott's case.
More Questions and Answers:
[2080] - [803] - [1822] - [336] - [766] - [1884] - [1771] - [2119] - [2532] - [602] - [1005] - [446] - [1543] - [449] - [1753] - [1616] - [2318] - [585] - [1719] - [1048]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: