Law Questions and Answers

Ebay dispute gone crazy?

Ok so i sold a few phones on ebay recently. I have several problems that delayed the shipment of them so one day the buyer call me up asking about it. I started bad nice and reasured her it would be in the communication that day (and it was) Anyway while she be on the phone she wouldnt take "it be on the way" for an answer. She got irrate and started demading things. I didnt blame her because i wouldve be upset that it was in arrears but it ended up next to her stating "that her husband is a federal marshal and he is going to show up at my door if she doesnt receive the phone soon". I laughed at her and said what does it concern if hes a marshal i be a deputy marshal and i did presidential indemnity in the upper air force. then i hung up on her. Next article I know her husband calls me and say he is a marshal and he desires the marshal service to investigate me for impersonate and possibly an ebay scam since i sent the phone late. is that silly or does it hold sea. he is actually a chief within the marshals

Answers: If I'm not mistaken, an Ebay dispute is not in the Marshal's jurisdiction. He's being a joggle and throwing his weight around. If you own proof of shipment, you should be fine.
***edit: about the phone conversation - you made the comment surrounded by response to her "threat." You didn't impersonate an officer - you simply told a lie...I still estimate you're okay. It's not as if you showed up at her door in a uniform and threatened her near charges.

Boy what a jerk, no he cannot do anything concerning the ebay phone being sent a touch late. It is sent and unless you could not prove to ebay, not the steer, that you had sent it next ebay could get on your luggage for fraud. They just nouns like a couple irate race trying to use their title to scare relatives into bowing to them.

At Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing who do you reckon lied? Clarence or Anita Hill?

I think that Anita Hill be telling the truth and the canon makers be over compensating for a black man hoping to show that they were not prejudiced by confirming him.

Answers: One piece that isn't often reported in the region of the case is that Anita Hill didn't *want* to testify or come forward near her story.
That makes me quality that she is the more truthful. She had no vested interest surrounded by testifying, and be reluctant to do so. People who charge that she was "out to get" Thomas are incorrect.

Why would she formulate this up?

If there is one article the last 6 years showed is the Republicans' proficiency to lie and prove correct their own sexual scandals while condemning others (check out the stories give or take a few Foley, Haggard, Craig, Allen, Murphy, Gingrich, and so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ansell...

Edit - I disagree with those who read out this isn't relevant. Remember that Thomas has be all over TV the concluding few days pushing his book. He has be 'explaining' his side of the story to anyone who would listen. While there is little we can do nearly THomas being on the court, we can net sure the truth about him isn't obscured.

I ruminate Thomas lied.

This was also underneath HW Bush, and they really wanted Thomas on the court. He's proven to be the most conservative partaker there, so they get their way.

I believe Clarence Thomas lied!
So regularly in a world still so much ruled by the mannish gender, a woman recounting the truth is not going to convince a party of NOT her peers roughly speaking her innocence.
For most people protect and aid their own!

I agree. That picture of Thomas smoking a big ole stogie after his confirmation, said it adjectives.

He hasn't had any intelligent design since he's been in that.
.

Thomas was lying!

Nobody could be so psycho that they be willing to subject themselves to the kindly of press that Anita Hill got as a result of stepping forward. She wasn't merely clerical help; she be a law university professor.

This was a armour of sheer pandering. Justice Marshall retired, and if President George H.W. Bush had bungled to nominate another Black he'd have be vilified.

I details that the ABA was split between "qualified" and "not qualified" on Justice Thomas when asked for an feelings. Surely in a manor of over a quarter million people, the President of the United States could verbs up a nominee whose qualifications be unquestioned.

Remember, his confirmation was 52 to 48. 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm. 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against.

Let's review: The Republican president get this nomination through a Democrat-controlled Senate. Too bad they didn't hold.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr...

Which of Hill's contradictory version of events do you believe?

I guess I just don't follow how one "believes" someone who says X, after not X but Y, then not Y but Z, roughly key facts, adjectives within the space of 48 hours.

I guess I only just don't understand how they worked near dozens of people nonetheless nobody else heard him voice or saw him do the things alleged - and all she could produce be one person whom he'd fired to vote "oh, he would have said those things" - if she's unfolding the truth. Keep in mind some of her allegations be of things he was supposed to own said in front of other populace. How come nobody else backed her up? I know, he's powerful - but this be the EEOC, a liberal haven (I interned for my state's CAD when a Republican was governor, believe me, nouns commissions, no matter which gala is in organization, are leftist havens), and he's a conservative - - - - yet NOBODY back her up..

I guess I also just don't read between the lines how she produced one fresh complaint witness who placed the fresh complaint six months BEFORE she'd even started to WORK for Thomas - - but who then, after a break, changed her nouns - - - yet we're supposed to believe..

...what are we supposed to believe????

And after there's the phone calls, every time she be in DC.

First she didn't receive them.

Then she made them but she was individual responding to his calls (which would receive him clairvoyant since she was staying at one of the dozens of hotels contained by the DC metro area).

THEN she admitted, yeah, I call him, he was my long-time boss, it be good for my occupation to keep contained by touch and even go and see him, but that doesn't scrounging it didn't happen.

No, it doesn't - but the reality that she lied about it, after lied about it again, THEN admit it, THAT means a LOT - given the reality that all we hold to go on is her word.

George Will said it best - to believe Anita Hill told the truth process to believe that dozens of people near no apparent motive to sprawl did so.

I was a liberal Democrat at the time the hearing were going on. I couldn't believe how any commonsensical person could believe her given the above. It seem like pandering - adjectives these politicians trying to keep "the women's vote" or avoid have to run against a female entrant, by saying that they believed something they have to know wasn't true.

I left the Democrats over this - still considered myself a liberal, still hadn't researched the issues on economics / incomes - so I have zero axe to grind.

This be character assassination pure and simple.

And even the don world knows it - why do you presume the only livelihood a former law professor can get hold of is in the "women's studies" program at Brandeis within eastern MA, the bluest part of the bluest state?

And no, she DIDN'T "want" to testify - because she of late wanted to inform her version to the FBI who be doing a background check so that Bush wouldn't even nominate him. She didn't certainly want to get call on what she said.

Oh, but wait, mommiedearest say "look at her facial expressions."

THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!!!!! Too many populace see her in a blue suit and read out "oh, she LOOKS credible" - - - WTF does that mean?

See, what I do, is I READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT THEY SAID. And guess what? If one of them say X, and then not X but Y, and afterwards not Y but Z, in the space of a few paragraph, and then asserts that the other entertainment did something in front of the together office - but nobody else contained by the office corroborates it - - - - I hold a big problem believing that witness!!!!!!

It has zilch to DO with their color or masculinity, or whether they "look" credible - whatever that funds.

When the objective evidence is inconclusive, fine, I know you go to body verbal skill etc.., at least if you HAVE to put together a determination - - but when the objective evidence is CLEAR, WHICH IT IS IN THIS CASE, I don't know the notion of trying to read it in his or her frontage.

This is why we believed the finger-wagging, it's why we believed the "checkers" speech... Because you people "believe" base on what you see rather than an ambition, rational analysis.

If you vote X, then you influence not X but Y, then you voice not Y but Z, and the topic is your own past appointments, guess what - YOU LIED AT LEAST TWICE!!!! BY DEFINITION!!!!

Here's what we know- Whether or not Anita Hill was lying or not, she still agree to the most liberal, pathetic Justice find into the Supreme Court. But at least Cheif Justice John Roberts will maintain him in check from in a minute on!

God Bless America!

Owe money to a bank they can debit your report. Ask congress change statute, make bank use courts like others ?

Answers: They can just debit your account when it's theirs. To obtain money from an account near a different bank, they do hold to use the courts. Remember, a bank picture is an agreement between you and the bank, so it belongs to both of you.

When you start an account near a bank, you sign an agreement that say they can debit any money you owe them from your account. There's nought illegal going on for it, since you agreed to it before appendage, and a new ruling wouldn't change your handiness to enter into a contract with a mound.

Now that the defense dept. has come out and painted a much gloomier picture the Petreus testify..?

doesnt the make the common lok more and more like a political hack that Bush used to stockpile behind? If he doesnt know if we are any safer by one in Iraq afterwards what the heck are we doing there?

Answers: Yes, and the piece that makes me the batty and sad at indistinguishable time is that the surge was never roughly military gains, it be about giving the Iraqi parliament breathing room to reconcile the their differences and oil revenues sharing. Being their administration as well as our took of the unharmed month if Aug. that was a farce as all right. So the. "We will stand down when they stand up." is just another, "Mission Accomplish" is a moment ago anther public relations stunt, while our brave boys are giving life and appendage and the treasury is being pillaged at the rate 9 million dollars a month

What is the bill of rights?

compare it to codes of ethics

Answers: The first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Their purpose be to limit the powers of the federal parliament in writ to keep it from growing into the monster that it is today as we chose and still choose to look right through and rationalize them away.

Codes of ethics apply to inhabitants or groups of people to dictate what proper behavior of the member of the group should be.

They are similar because they both place limits.

Bill of Rights - first 10 amendments to US constitution
comparison is up to you
***

What are your views?

What are your view on the idea that everyone should be automatically on an organ donor detail and should have to opt out if they do not want to?

Do you believe that this is unfair and that no-one should be on the enumerate but can opt to be on the organ donor list if they will?

Or do you think that the Health Service wants these donations to save lives and everyone should be automatically put on an organ donor detail?

Answers: I think this is a subject that empire tend not to want to think just about when they are fit and healthy.. it's simply when something happens that they realise the difference one on the register can make.

In my assessment, the 'opt out' system is a good solution, providing it's made smooth (and free) for people to opt out if they yearning to.

There is no 'forcing' involved, and it wouldn't be compulsory - if people be aware of strongly about it they can opt out. It's only changing the beat on who needs to register their sensations on the matter.

All this will do is include relatives who can't be bothered to opt out - and I imagine that this would be plenty to save thousands of lives.

To formulate it automatic is tantamount to compulsory having to surrender your body to the rule when you die. Thats crazy. You should have the right to donate lone if you wish. Also, what in the order of all the citizens who don't realise they have to opt out? Its too overdue when you're dead and your relatives own to deal beside your body being cart away without your say-so.

I agree with organ donating, but its a personal right.

I regard as everyone should be an organ donor.
When you are dead you wont obligation them anymore, I cant see the problem of helping somone after you die.

It would be nice if everyone was inclined to share whats left when they shed this mortal coil

but if inhabitants still think within is a magic cloud city name heaven you infer you can convince them they wont need their heart or kidneys? ... possibly

On balance, I meditate the opt out option would be best.
I estimate that the majority of people would consent if they be asked, but by the time that it comes to asking relatives, feelings are instinctively running high and it is a difficult query to ask.
There could be so many populace given a better life if organs could be respectfully made available.

As for carrying a doner card, this does work, but I imagine there are still a few complications if and when it comes to using the organs of a card possessor. (not sure on this bit, but it seems to ring a few bells).

I instinctively think it should be a requirement by hospitals to capture you to sign up to the list when you are surrounded by hospital or just visit. You can then give an account them face to frontage why you would like to be excluded from the detail.

I guess i won 50,000 dollars. all i hold to do is send contained by 200 dollars... should I?

something from nigeria... anyway i could sue these jerks?

Answers: No sorry, within is no law aginst it at hand. That is why they use that area. There be a special on the scams that come out of nigeria on 20/20 closing week. There is really nothing we can do till in attendance government starts cracking down on this crime. The problem is they already enjoy enough to verbs about and no man power to do it.

Do us both a favor. Send me the $200.

This is a scam. Don't be stupid.

Can one challenge the ministry of external affirs or the police authority for glitch in issuing a passport?

it have been one month after police endorsement of my background and address proof have been done still i hold not received my passport.The status of my passport when checked on line suggests that police endorsement is still pending .what should i do to trade name them hurry a bit. (p.s. i have not bribed any police officer should i regret it?).It have been 2 month since file an application for a passport.

Answers: contact the concern passport office for the update information on ur overrun port if they say police validation than go directly to the concern police confirmation deptt and ask them wat the problem with the certification ask him to do the verification soon, I dream up you know the trick of how things work fast within such type of deptt.

I think it is newly the process - my friend is still waiting for her 10 year old daughter's passport (8 months now) - she is born and raise in the US and everytime she checks the status it is essential the end - once they told her she would enjoy it by the end of the week.

Call up to the passport organization and ask if there is someone else you can speak near - considering it has have the same status for 2 months.

Good luck

Man you cannot do in the region of police verification but you can still flout the passport office for rescheduling in issuance of passport by giving it out surrounded by some news rag. But better check the status in near web site Whats your file's status

California child labor laws and wal-mart!?

ok so agree to me give you guys the run down: i am 16 years out-of-date, and i work at wal-mart. so basically admin screwed up and i clocked out 2 mins past 9:00pm and they said i be breaking child labor laws and they could bring fined. now looking at my work voucher that is not the satchel since i can work up to 12:30 am on a friday night (which it happen to be) so now i want to articulate to them about "laws" my give somebody the third degree is, is it unlawful for them to make minors push shopping cart? if so can i get proof of it somewhere? because my parents meditate it is, but i'm not sure.

Answers: Of course they can get minors to push shopping cart. It may suck, but its not illegal.

No it's not unlawful for minors to push shopping carts, you purely can't operate machinery. And he probably said that they could get fine because perchance you worked over 28 hrs that week or your work permit say that you can only work 18 hrs a week. If they travel over the maximum hrs on your work permit, they can go and get in trouble.

And if you detest the job, only quit. I've had "three" first job before I found one that I in truth liked. Just don't put Wal-mart on your subsequent job application if you enjoy only be working there for a short amount of time. No one have to know.

First I am not sure about the hours you can work, I know surrounded by Minnesota if you are under 17 you can just work until 9 during the school year. You can work after that during the summer though.

Second, minors can push in shopping cart because pushing shopping carts isn't considered hazardous by the U.S department of labor. For hazardous job you need to be over 18.

The intertwine is for the department of labor child labor index. You can probably find all you want there

Backstabbing?

I was suspended because a guard at my charge said i said something immpropriate. He reported 2 weeks later. I stop discussion to him way formerly he reported me to my boss. My boss that hates me be very confusing on telling me what I be suspended for. They did not give me a opening to defend myself. I enjoy two bosses and neither like me , because I speak up. They suspend me over the phone and it be not that call me. I beckon them the brush me off the phone. Each boss tranfer me to the other. This is when my boss claims this guard said that I said something immpropriate. My afterwards tells me you will be rotten for a while until an investigation is done. Now keep contained by mind they did ask me anything. I live in Michigan and it intricate to find work. I am a mom. This guy lied on me and waited two weeks to do it, because I lone work weekends. So can some one tell me whats going on. Is my brief trying to trip me up. The word is going around on the job the he said, I sexually harrassed him. This is a fiction. What can I do.

Answers: Not what you want to hear, but find a new opening and learn to be more of a troop player.

If someone says something indecorous, file a report IN WRITING near HR as soon as it happens. If they want to protect themselves within Court, they have suspend and investigate the criminal as soon as possble.

If you don't/didn't file a complaint at the time it happend, you will be see as the troublemaker/not a team player, especially if the other hand is more valued in the business setting than you.

Keep contained by mind in most states that most employment arrangement are "at will" and you can quit or be fired for any plea or no reason at adjectives. To collect unemployment, you enjoy to be able to prove you be terminated through no fault of your own and actively seeking full time employment.

move to Texas
I used to live surrounded by Michigan but I am here now
pack the uhaul voice asta la vista
baby
those empire are intimidating you , and the best thing would be to quit,

You state "you speak up." How much do you "speak up."
It sounds close to you're not making any friends, so . ,maybe you should be more watchful how you ' speak up."

Can he back it up? Is nearby any documentation, or any reprimands that you signed that are in files?

If one of my team misbehaves, there is a procedure explicitly followed. A verbal admonition with witnesses, later if the behaviour continues a written off-putting, with a consultation, signatures of myself, the employee, and two (another director and the owner) witnesses. The employee is free not to sign, but is requested to write their own report (which I will sign as 'received' and kept on profile for two years.) Come three warnings, the member of staff is fired.

All this is made clear in the hand package when the hand is hired. The employee is other free to consult the appropriate authorities.

Two words: Legal Aid.

Usually sexual harassment requires a witness.

You could hold been fired for no inflict at all, which within turn you could sue the company for wrongful termination.

There are Legal Aids for underprivileged individuals. If you contact Social Services they should be able to offer you a phone number for Legal Aid.

I have be sexually harrassed by people at work and not a soul did a damn thing almost it and you get suspended and/or fired.

More Questions and Answers:
[1707] - [293] - [1123] - [266] - [590] - [582] - [943] - [1827] - [1694] - [113] - [1799] - [982] - [1346] - [519] - [2304] - [2210] - [16] - [1967] - [1566] - [1992]

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

Answer question: