Law Questions and Answers

If i never signed a contract and there is no proof of services provided next I can't be financially liable?

This lady told me she would repair my credit adjectives she ever did was email me some other people credit information and she emailed me some letters to letters our but they dont have description numbers or anything even remotly proffessional on there. I never signed a contract and at first we didn't discuss price she come up to me later and be like hey I have need of the money you owe me now she is threatening to sue me I dont htink she have a leg to stand on especially since she game be some one elses personal info including full designation social dob adress the works. SO can she sue me even though all she did be email me some junk that benign of resembled my info and some accounts on my credit but no account numbers.
Answers: Ignore her. Unless you signed an agreement to reimburse her, she has no overnight case. If she performed no service to you , consequently you owe her nothing.
It sounds to me similar to there never be a contract.

You said you agreed to pay her to repair your credit, but what she (sort of) did be show YOU how to repair your credit.

If the price wasn't discussed up front, then an essential permanent status of the contract was missing.

IF she sues you, and that's unlikely, and IF she win, which is also unlikely, she will recover below "quantum meruit", which is the value of the services you received. Sounds approaching you got diddly.

Fuhgeddaboudit.
Contact your county district attorney's bureau and spell it out for them. Chances are you 're not the first she has attempted to scam.
Never verbs about threats. If you achieve a letter to appear from a court afterwards worry.
Is here a contract, anything in writing or email that provides a trail? Verbal contracts aren't worth the treatise they're written on. The only opening a judge would enforce a vocal contract is for you to admit you agreed to it.

In this skin, though, the service was to repair your credit. She did not do that. That she sent you some papers to post out is NOT a service. That's something YOU needed to do, and she cannot charge you for work that you have to do yourself. That would be like peas in a pod as a lawn-mowing service just sending you an address where on earth you can borrow a mower, and then coming rear to charge you for mowing the lawn.

Everyone threatens to sue. But to sue somebody costs money, take time, and still is not a guarantee of payment. And if they own a shaky case, to boot, that can severely likely lose, next it's all of late talk. I'd lose NO sleep over it.

PS: Somebody is sure to articulate she could still damage your credit copy for non-payment. In the hugely unlikely event of that, it's easy plenty to request the credit bureau in writing to PROVE that the debt is lawful. The bureau is required by law to prove it or remove it. Without any class of written contract, she could not prove any debt to the credit bureau.

How can i find out if i am divoced at no cost ?

my husbund started divorce proceedings last year, i revived a lump sum clearing from him last february.
a dispatch was recieved by his solicitor 10 aug finishing uear stating that respondent and petiotioner consents to ta decree human being granted.
his solicitor applied to the county court of armagh and south down ireland. please help !!
Answers: Phone the county court and ask them.
Go to the courts and see if a text of the divorce exists

A waitress been sexual hassled by the customer. Then the waitress slap the customer. is that right or wrong?

Answers: Yes definitely correct, it is right what the waitress done to the customer when she slap the over good posture customer that has done her the sexual nuisance in tow.

We presume that the sexual guilty party is a male, undoubtedly, regardless of the physical built of the guy. A waitress which is definitely a woman of stature, no obligation to presume she is a woman. Because no guy would be address as a waitress. Because of the assault that was done by the perpetrator within this case, a woman attacked by a guy disregardless of the time and the place, would to be sure fight's back as per intuitive instinct of human being, the guy is more luckier that solely slap or kicks he lone got, other women very soon a days carries gun or some paraphernalia against intruders.

So your lone question is if the gesticulation or the manner of the waitress surrounded by the said situation is right or wrong? Yes it is right to do that and if the other guy would sue the lady, sue her for what? He started it. Why would an attacker sue the target?Doesnot make sense? The waitress have the right to sue the offender not the other course around. A dispute between a MAN and a WOMAN, who do you think the court or maybe the judge would side on? Of course near the woman. Because the woman is still considered the weaker sex genetically.
been within
i didn't hit anyone but i did accidentally spill their orders adjectives over them..with support of the control who would have have to kick them out otherwise
I dream up she has the right to slap the dirty codger. The directive says otherwise. It is the imperative we have to salary attention to here. The waitress will have to directory charges against the knave, and pay out of pocket for it. But ...if she slaps the coot, likelihood are he will take his lumps and head off, should he take her to court her shelter can very in good health be " self defence"! After she wins later she can take the culprit and sue for damages, next sue for sexual harassment.
But why bother the system next to that tomfoolery when a defencive slap, and a humbled offender can settle the situation in minutes, minus undue stress nor cost of courts.
i personally myself would enjoy sexually harassed right hindmost , but not in a fun approach , i would have made the customer have an idea that was i a sexual devient sex freak , next to genital herpes stalker women , he would have be sorry he even messed with me , I would hold told him i just have gotten out of prison for sexual abuse of a elderly tolerant at a nursing home, i was working at , b4 that i be in serving a sentences for breaking several restraining directions...I would make sure he would never sexual irritate again lol use words to fight
It's individual sexual harassment if you are at a place of employment or a institution together.

If he physically touched her in an indecorous place than that is assault one and the same way as if you simply punch somebody in the frontage. If this is the case than what she did be self defense and she will most likely not be charged but can still be fired.
The waitress must own filed a criminal defence of acts of laciviousness for his wrongful work. She could have controlled herself not to slap him although she can claim that it be an act of devotion since she was sulky.

Can I Be Forced by my boss to Have My Picture Printed in Public Media?

I work contained by law enforcement at a college campus and my boss have mandated that myself and fellow officer have our picture taken for a publication that we enjoy openly refuse to be in. Can he properly do that and what can I do about it?
Answers: Say cheese, Cecil.
This seem like a copyright issue. There is no directive anywhere saying a character cannot take your photograph or publish it lacking your permission (with a few exceptions noted within the link below). News reporters and paparazzis do it adjectives the time. Therefore, your boss insisting on you appearing in a magazine is probably official.
he can do nothing.
he cannot force you.
if anything, you could own him charged with harrasement.
wallow in.
This seems to be a shield of lack of communication. Why does he insist that your picture be within, and what are the objections that you adjectives have next to it? Maybe if you have a logical cause that you can present to him he will back bad on this. I don't think he can officially force you to do this, but i would consult a lawyer.

According to Workplace Health and Safety, what should a container be marked but for labelled?

Answers: pencils with the sole purpose?? respectfully, more information please
"Caution do not use: unknown substance"

Everybody knows that :-P

Although, for upright measure, I'd probably also draw a "skull & crossbones" on it beside a question easy target next to it surrounded by case of any illegals around who can't read.

What are my rights as a citizen as far as testifying against someone?

I be suponea'd to testify against my daughters father from the District Attorneys Office, i asked them to drop the charges but they refused what are my rights as far as a us citizen walk can i plead the 5th?
Answers: A witness may not refuse to answer question on the ground that the answers may reveal matters that may incriminate other individuals. Generally, a witness may not refuse to answer any relevant quiz put to him or her unless the answer would incriminate that witness. One common application of this rule is the practice of providing predetermined transactional immunity to a defendant as to specific crimes, thus narrowing the protection against self-incrimination, and permit a court to compel answers about those crimes. The object of a crime may be detained and compelled to answer questions, as a matter witness, even if the victim does not want to "press charges," on the notion that the crime is of public concern, and the right does not extend to other parties.
If you're subpoenaed, afterwards you must appear in court. But adjectives you have to answer is " I choose to assert my 5th amendment privilage" to any request for information you are asked. You can say that adjectives day contained by court. It's your right!

Remember Detective Mark Fuhrman in the OJ trial? He asserted his 5th amendment privilage masses times in that court room.
Yes you enjoy the RIGHT to say nought, but you have the RESPONSIBILITY to communicate the truth.

You'll have to wrestle beside yourself from there.
A wife can't testify against their husband, but other relatives aren't covered.

If you be involved in the crime next tell the prosecutor, that you will be taking the 5th. You can single refuse to testify if you hold to admit man guilty of something. Only any evidence that incriminates you can be excluded. If you refuse to testify on anything else afterwards you can be held in Contempt of Court and put into lock away until you agree to testify. That means until you agree, no concern how long.

I don't know the rules on your daughter's father, so you had better ask a attorney. If you were married at some point after spousal privileges may still apply.

The state decides what it requirements to prosecute in a criminal business, so if a law be broken then you can't stop the trial. However, someone have to file the complaint and swear or own up evidence that a crime was done. Rarely the state does this themselves; usually they want someone else to swear out the complaint first. They enjoy to PROVE that a crime occurred.

Sites for Free court advice contained by the US:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=na...
http://www.lawhelp.org/
http://www.freeadvice.com/all_topics.htm
http://www.lawinfo.com/
http://www.lsc.gov/about/grantee_links.p...
http://www.thelaw.com/
http://www.flac.ie/
http://www.legalsurvival.com/

Cities banning roomy pants= Unconstitutional?

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't freedom of expression synonymous with freedom of speech? Wearing roomy pants doesn't automatically connote indecent exposure. So can the local governments be sued, and how credible can this be overturned?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/17/baggy.p...
-Baggy pant crackdown goes national-


Proposals to impediment saggy pants are starting to ride up surrounded by several places. At the extreme end, wearing pant low enough to show boxers or out buttocks in one small Louisiana town medium six months in detain and a $500 fine.
Answers: What you'll discover is that most Americans are, in their heart, fascists. They'll give up almost any freedom surrounded by exchange for security.

It's possible that this would go wrong to pass constitutional muster. You are broadly correct, standard freedom of expression is implied in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Under the "coherent basis" standard, the lowest level of review the Supreme Court conducts, the political affairs would have to argue that prohibiting loose pant has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate administration interest. I'm not sure the ban would stand up. Baggy pant don't have much to do next to gang violence, and while preventing gang anger may be a legitimate management interest, regulating the fashion sense of citizens really isn't.

But it's not enough for the order to be suspect. Someone would have to in truth sue to get the impediment overturned.
why do black people wear ill-defined pants????


cos in attendance knee-grows!


get it?!
It isn't the loose-fitting pants, they a moment ago look stupid, it is wearing them so low that underwear (note the word UNDER) in some cases, or open to the elements buttocks in most, are detectable. Nobody should have to look at a out in the open @ss hanging out of a duo of jeans. Some people don't hold the sense they were born near, and it is unfortunate it comes to the endorsement of bylaws. People can always move if stupid pant are realy that important to them.
As an aside, own you ever watched some twerp beside his pants sagging off his butt trying to grasp on the bus? It is hilarious, because he can't spread his legs ample to step up.
if men and boys dont have the since god give them to cover their asses then we requirement to do it for them.
Unjust? Yes.

Unconstitutional? I think so, but the courts own said otherwise in similar cases, and they hold the power.
it mos def is. i mean come on, sometimes folks cant help it. interdiction baggy pant is taking us back decades. outmoded geezers just want something to b!tch in the region of. one day when they adjectives die off they'll be a bright generation of pricks to voice what people can wear. i don't see any petitions to stop sslutty girls from showing their cooches on the day by day.
i honestly think this is a RACIST imperative. just approaching most of the laws we own today are. i honestly wish a revolution would come around to block all law made in a racist whim!
im white btw so don't jump my *** going on for throwing the racist card!
It would depend on how it is enforced. If they are only 'cracking' down on pant which are low enough to show underwear or your showing butt, which is the part that you quoted, next no, it's not unconstitutional. This would fall underneath the laws veto indecent exposure.

If it's enforced for the sake of fashion alone, because local politicians don't approaching them, then it probably won't stand scrutiny contained by a court of law. This can be easier said than done to prove that it's not indecent, however, as most of the baggy pant fashion I enjoy seen give the impression of being to show off the boxers intentionally.

I, for one, dislike the baggy pant, but would miss seeing criminals on COPS get run down efficiently because they can't run at all beside their pants falling down to their ankles.
Its national profiling. Basically, its racist in common.

We already have a canon for indecent exposure. If someone has their pant sag so much that it exposes himself, consequently slap that law on them. We don't involve more laws or restrictions.

I wear my pant's waist-line right below my hip. I dislike tight pant because it makes my legs and mobility have a feeling restricted. It makes me smaller amount agile. It doesn't look like it sags a crap nouns, only slightly which the regulation would still consider it saggy pants.

I swear, if I ever grasp fined for saggy pants, I will put on a dress and hold up a sign that say "I can't wear saggy pants? What more or less a dress?".

Anyways, the law will most predictable fade away because it is importantly likely they will bring sued.
Well maybe instead of "Baggy Pants Law" it should be renamed to the "I don't want to see your butt-crack law".

I hold two boys who giggle themselves silly when they see someone's backside. One even go so far as to say "Just Say No to Crack". They enjoy a great-uncle whose pants crash low and they even giggle at him at speak about him the same point. At least he will verbs them up.

I find it extremely offensive when I am trying to guzzle dinner and someone bends over to sit down and I get the moon. I know population have the right to express themselves, so do I.

There are worse things out nearby that could be banned resembling hoochie-koochie shorts on a man. You know the ones I am talking roughly speaking, half of his business is lifeless out one side. I would really like to see those disappear.

Question about the controversial (privacy) anti-terrorist law?

I know that there have been regulation passed a while ago and more only just aimed at preventing terrorism by broadening the bounds of national security investigations. These immediately include listening contained by on telephone conversations made from outside of the US. People are upset just about this, because they may be listened surrounded by on when just calling a relative out of the country.

However, my cross-question is, are these laws set up so that those mortal listened on can ONLY be tried for terrorist related charges? Or could they charge them on anything, approaching drug smuggling or murder or something...say, if someone call a friend in Mexico who is moving some key of coke inside the border, and an American agent is listening to the name...can he go ahead a sting on this, or is it out of jurisdiction because it does not involve terrorism?
Answers: If they hear something bent, the government will put it on a greatest hits compact disc and K-Tel will sell it on slowly night box.
if you talk something like crime and they hear it,you will go down..if the info is desperate enough,they will see it get to the right agency.best to just shut up just about your illegal events...

Is it ILLEGAL...?

To cut up a dollar bill?

I know writing on money is supposebly illegal but is adjectives the bill up illegal?

The aim I ask is cause it's within "the fasion" to get your nail done with dollar bills for tip(kinda resembling the frence tip) the money is there instead of the white tip.

Just a variable question. Im not worried just about getting arrested or anything.
Not sure if this link is gonna work...
http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/view/uploa...
Answers: There are in fact two laws, one for treatise currency and one for metal coins.

The law for article currency simply states, basically, that defacement which renders the bill unfit for recirculation is informal.

Writing on it doesn't prevent it from still being used as money. I don't know how an entire dollar bill could be used on the tip of a staple, but if it's just a piece of the dollar, consequently for the most part it hasn't be rendered unfit.

Now, ripping up a bill in little pieces, or shredding it, or burning it would render it unfit for recirculation, but since it doesn't exist anymore, where's the evidence of a crime? (Besides, who's going to spend thousands of dollars of senate time prosecuting over a $1 bill?)
i think it is undemocratic in england and Australia i dunno roughly speaking America though, its because its defacing the queen or something.

Police car have lights off at hours of darkness, then pulls me over for "dead loss to stop". is this legal... ?

Answers: Where here are no police, there are no traffic law. But if you didn't see the police, that is your problem. If he be driving with his lights stale behind you, that might own been sneaky and slightly illegitimate but it has no pose on your own violation.
yes
purely because you did not see him doesn't mean you are not guilty of the sacrilege, in impossible to tell apart way intersection cameras steal shots in non-attendance of police presence does not make anyone not guilty

More Questions and Answers:
[1319] - [256] - [2169] - [2170] - [1307] - [692] - [850] - [2098] - [1661] - [1404] - [625] - [2288] - [2225] - [2333] - [261] - [1092] - [1387] - [40] - [1736] - [135]

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

Answer question: