Law Questions and Answers

Is there a ruling in the US that mentions the rights of foreign residents and company?

Answers: Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalize in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall receive or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any state deprive any person of duration, liberty, or property, lacking due process of law; nor deny to any individual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The second part of that is to say important contained by the way it is worded. It does not state "citizen", as contained by part 1, but uses the occupancy "person", which imples anyone, citizen or not.

If there is a specific right or regulation you are looking for, check my links

edit:
Wow, thumbs down. I guess the Constitution bothers you.
The Bill of Rights applies to adjectives persons in the United States (citizen, foreigner, visitor, dubious, etc ...). It is not a legislative document per se (being that which applies to non-US citizens), but a succession of Supreme Court and Federal Court decisions ... also prearranged as a jurisprudence clause.

____________

A thumbs down ... really!?! I'm sorry you're ignorant of what the truth of the situation is, because if you look it up you will see that I am right. I'm getting really sick of uneducated morons going around giving thumbs down to general public who post factual information.

I don't know if you realize this but the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution of the United States -- they are not alike thing. The Bill of Rights applies to adjectives persons inwardly the United States regardless of how or why they are there. The US Constitution (in its entirety) with the sole purpose applies to US citizens.

Did any of you morons here take at smallest High School civics?

___________________

Let me ask you this then ... when one go to the National Archives in Washington DC why is it the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are separate documents contained by different parts of the building? Hmmmmmmmm . Thats why we call the Bill of Rights the Bill of Rights and not the Constitutional Amendments ...
The lone rights you have are given to you as American Citizens .
oc_ bloom and which interviewee is that ? Ron Paul !!!!!
AS&J Who is Stormfront Shill ??? Not me
I don't know, but I'm really, really curious why you would ask.

Don't you think foreign residents and people are entitled to legal protections?

3D Farms (aka Stormfront Shill) is full of crap, as usual. For instance, if a foreign company is mugged, the law classifies the conduct yourself as a crime. And rightfully so.
blursd2
An amendment to a document is a part of the document which be amended, therefor the Bill of Rights is NOT a separate document from the Constitution but a PART OF the Constitution.

Prosecution Opening Statement - Mock Trial?

I would like to procure some general tips please.
Answers: I am assuming that this is a criminal trial.

First tip is the actual requirement for an first statement -- you must include enough facts to support a guilty ruling.

Second tip is that the goal of an first performance statement is to tell the story of the crime.

Third tip is that, within most trials, the evidence will by necessity be a little disjointed due to the reality that witnesses overlap and some witnesses are needed for foundation. As such, the opening statement should put a coherent establishment on the case. Many populace prefer a chronolgical organization moving from prior to the crime through the crime and next the investigation.

Fourth, every story needs a hero and a villain. Without mortal overly dramatic, you need to include ample details to make the martyr sympathetic to the jury (or for a "victim-less" crime to emphasize the rightness of the police actions) and to play up the wrongness of the crime.

Fifth, you should leave some room for the jury to be paid connections later. You don't necessarily want to play up your smoking gun in first (unless that is the merely way that you spawn a submissible case).

Sixth, you should never promise anything in debut that you can't deliver. If you aren't sure that the co-defendant is going to stick with their confession on the stand, you shouldn't mention something that just he says happen. At the close of the case, you are going to want to know how to say here is what I told you we would be capable of prove at the start of the trial and we proved it. Regardless of which side you are on in a shield, you do not want the other side to be saying at the back that you did not deliver on what you promised in pipe.

Seventh, the final key point is repetition. The big points within opening statement should be the big points that you are going to try to make more noticeable during the presentation of evidence and that you are going to return to in argument at the cessation.

In short, the goal of first night statement (besides fulfilling the legal requirement of informing the defense of what you intend to prove) is to demonstrate that you are the trustworthy guide that will give a hand the jurors understand what is taking place in this luggage. If you achieve this contained by opening statement and do not break their trust during the presentation of evidence, you will be the soul that they listen to in closing to back them figure out the truth.

Is bribing a ticket person within a movie threatre illegal?

i want to be in motion see an R rated movie next to my friend ( both 13) and if the ticket guy didnt let us contained by i wonder if a bribe would work, and do you think he would adopt a bribe of 10$????
Answers: It would be illegal (or at least possible against the rules) for him to let you within, however likely not unendorsed (or at least not prosecutable) to give a bribe.
you can try. you'd look dumb as a 13 y/o though...

bribery is for the adults, the government, the mafia, etc.
What are you going to do if accept the ten, y'all step into the Adult movie, and then the usher throws you out for person underage??

Here's a question: why the heck do you enjoy to pay an "Adult" ticket price, but you can simply get to see the "kiddie" movies??
Dont bother. It wont work.

Bribing an usherette isnt undemocratic as far as Im aware, but it is illegal to agree to a minor into an R rated show. That means if he get caught he will probably lose his job and possibly get hold of fined for doing it.

NO ONE is going to be stupid enough to risk losing their work for $10.
Why would you do that, the guy will just crow at you, unless he is like, drunk or something

you don't want someone to gurgle at you, do you? cause it might hurt, and that would hurt.
Go for it as it will be an excellent lesson. As a parent I would chortle.

$10? Try a $100. Good lesson on the advantage of money. The dude makes $8.00 an hour and if you are caught he loses his livelihood. He takes your money and reports you. he will take a raise. If they entrap you they will be required to call the police otherwise the owners could be sued to no terminate by the parents.

Come on.. its the 21st century. Wait until it comes out on DVD or Pay per View.

Why isn't the death cost murder?

People in regulation enforcement and the courts say nearby is a technical difference between bloodbath and murder! Can this be so? Either way its the taking of a enthusiasm. When the courts sentence a person the die, they are within a sense getting away with murder, legitimately! With that in mind, why isn't the destruction penalty considered murder?
Answers: It is murder several times .The death cost is barbaric and uncivilized and murder heaps times .Today prosecutors with unlimited resources ,courts that are biased to govt and police .Defendants that most times are forced to use a govt public champion .People are guilty as charged there,is no equality in courts today .(justice > An detached judgment base on truth fact and judgment )Police are allowed to lie near immunity for doing so .Judges don't detail juries roughly speaking ( jury nullification ) If judges are fair why wouldn't they want people to style guru the laws they hold to live by .Our courts are not impartial or base on truth .200 people to be executed on loss row have be freed because DNA proved they were innocent . Who take responsibility for the innocent people murdered surrounded by the name of the tenet before DNA
Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human enthusiasm.

Therefore, if the taking of a human life is done LEGALLY, it (by definition), can not be murder.
becuase murder is dishonestly taking of a persons duration without do.

A person who have been convicted of a means crime and sentenced to death have had due prosses and sentenced beneath the law to loss. Just as self defense is not murder neither is the death cost.
Because it is Government sanctioned muder.

If the people within suits order your disappearance, then it is somehow view differently.
This doesn't answer your question, but I don`t know adds to it:

Capital punishment is a statement that slaughter a murderer is justice. Now, read out you saw someone commit a murder but he gets past its sell-by date because he bribes the judge, frightens the jury, or have a mega lawyer. If you after kill the murderer, you would be doing what have been declared to be sprite ... but you would be subject to capital punishment for doing even-handedness!

Just a thought, but I hope it helps provoke some thought surrounded by others.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethala...
Murder is the illegal butchery of another human being.
A murderer who receive the death cost has have a trial, has be found guilty, had a prospect to present evidence as to why he should not be executed, and has have time to appeal his case.

A murder subject was kill for no legitimate point, was not afforded a trial and have no chance to appeal the disappearance decided on by the murderer.

To truly believe that they are matching, you would have to believe near is no difference between imprisoning a criminal and kidnapping.

The difference is due process.

And for those who stated that any massacre is murder, would you feel one and the same way if you be being murdered and have the means to shelter yourself? Would you defend yourself or would you tolerate the murderer murder you and even your children if they were next to you?
Murder is a criminal offense; it is prohibited by law.
Death cost is the punishment imposed by law for the commission of undisputed offenses. Therefore, death cost can not be equated with murder.
It is murder. You can travel around with technicalities and sentence structure and wording, but there is someone massacre someone else.
Because it is legislated morality.
Our justice system convey us that "The only one who's above the directive is law itself. " and so it change itself accordingly to what it wishes to become.
but the item that's wrong here is that murder in any form is considered impious under the broad law (ethics), and loss penalty is a solution created by man which is lower than human law... a statute that is as cautious and erroneous as man himself and so if u classify this act underneath the universal decree, it would still be a form of murder.

Do you believe any laws should govern morality issues?

I am a bit against morality laws such as law against prostitution, gambling and personal drug use...those sorts of things. I reckon the government should enforce lawas that prevent one soul from infringing on another persons right and i.e. all.

What do you give attention to?
Answers: Good question. The problem is that things uncommonly have no impact on other citizens. Prostitution is fine unless its your street they walk down for business. Gambling is fine unless its a house member of yours who have blown the kids college fund , drug takin is great unless its your dad forcing your mum to put out on the street corner for the next hit.

What something like drink driving, owning a gun, speeding, 24hr drinking, class A drug use? etc.

Dont get me wrong I'm no vanished softie but just pointing out that nearly adjectives actions enjoy some sort of effect on us all. We should agree as a society the black and white do's and dont's but not verbs too much if people stray into the grey areas every immediately and then.

The moral puritans are as insecure as the drugged up teenager who is lookin for some performance in a red fluffy area after losing his lolly on the roulette with a loaded 45 surrounded by his *** pocket!
Personally, I would scrap the entire amendment book & be in motion back to square One--laws should simply uphold the basic Constitutional Rights...spell. Ifs, ands, & buts were solely created for advocate loop-holes...I have never be able to conceive the just what the doctor ordered behind bogusly defending populace that are guilty, and they know it...I say, you made the choice, you get caught, pay the consequences...extremity of discussion.

Since one of our rights is to bear arms, I also believe that guideline from early years how to respect, use, & keep going such...as a credited subject...would waylay alot of population from making such stupid choices, as well as seriously impart responsibility upon individuals for protecting their own...easing alot of BS for already overworked/underpaid
police. Honestly, if you be thinking of robbing a convenience store, but knew that every soul in the place be just as armed & uncertain as you...wouldn't you think on that again? If you considered necessary to rape some chick, but knew that she be more than capable of finish your life, wouldn't you relent to your right-hand-man & the porn mag underneath your pillow first? LOL

I side with you big time on the personal entertainment...the bod be created for ME...what I do with it is my own free-will choice, and my own consequences of them.

Consequence have little meaning for most, since near a well compensated lawyer, you can pretty much bring back away with murder...literally. We hold reaped our own consequences as a nation for our torpor of Self responsibility...just look at our country right immediately...we are a mess...an international joke...our governing system isn't working, and the population in it are partying their buns bad, but not accomplishing anything for the celebration...

Wouldn't it be a elegant ideal, near all those fabulous satelites up in that, the internet/t.v./phone capabilities that we possess, that We the People should own every governing decision at their remote fingertips...agree to the voting begin!!! Wouldn't that put our prime wonders upfront & personal...accountable for every motion & expense they come up with, and veto-able by the People...majority rules???

Excuse the rant...love this subject...can ya describe??? LOL

Ive got some question about Social Security benefits for kids.?

How does it work? What do you inevitability to submit to them if your child has a study disabilty or any disability for that matter? Do you entail to keep their grip open until they are 18 yrs older? Will this affect them if they are adults and want to attend college or get a livelihood with the establishment? Any information given is appreciated. Thanks.
Answers: Go to ssa.gov
Social Security is going broke because it is going to people it be not intended for. The Social Security was intended with the sole purpose for elderly retired people as a suppliment to their stash or small pension so they could be independant it be never intended to support kids for their entire lives. Those who pay into the system are supposed to be the ones gettin out of the system. There must be sources of money bar Social Security that one can get for support of disabled population.

Is tribal laws different from state law if so how?

In North Dakota
Answers: Yeah it is different.
Tribal Law is subject to federal jurisdiction, while state law is not.
So if you murder someone on the tribal landscape, the Feds might get involved.
But if you murder someone within New Jersey -- it is purely NJ issue.
Yes state laws are back up by state police, while tribal laws are back up by spears and rocks and sticks.

Can I sue a company as an ex-employee, if my name have been mentioned within incident where I hold nothing to do?

I gone the work almost a year back and in that has be an incident recently and my friend have been charged and the disciplinary papers mentions myself within some inappropriate incidents which never happen. I am really annoyed. This charges are made by other members of the staff, who enjoy now, not here work. Can I atleast ask for an apology letter from the company? Also, the disciplinary papers are address to my friend.
Answers: This is a really sticky situation. It is possible that the company have committed an pique of defamation - libel but this can be difficult to prove. Unfortuantely it can be outstandingly costly to take proceedings as no public funding (legal aid ) is available. You want to seek the counsel of a solicitor specialising in libel but this can be a incredibly expensive exercise - most solicitors will charge around lb180 per hour!

I think, individually, I would draw a line underneath the incident. At least the allegations be not openly published and circulated. It is doubtful that any other workers will be aware of the allegations.

If you are still concerned, you could write a letter to your former employer, refutting the allegations and ask the letter to sit on your personnel record. The only other problem I can see if you do option to follow up your complaint is the issue of asking for a reference from your former employer in the close at hand future. Any endeavour you decide to thieve now may affect any quotation you ask them to provide for you.

As much as it is very annoying, I do not believe that any damage have been done and you should put this astern you and be very glad that you get out when you did!
Unless you can show that these false reports have cause you damage within some way (lost livelihood, etc.), I don't think you can sue next to much chance of nouns.
But a letter from a advocate might get you an apology (but it will cost you decriminalized fees).
sue that company do not let them draw from off beside that. and find out
who those other people are and sue them too.
yes you can sue, you can sue for anything at the moment lawyers love to fatten their wallet.
But do you really want to and what you've got to ask yourself is will it be worth it at hand are no guarantees you will win, and it can take years to even realize the courts if it doesn't get thrown out.
But i would write a note to your ex company explaining how these actions never happen and you'd like them to exclude any references to the alleged incidents, and yes ask for a written apology. But be polite and concise

Can a person stop you from entering a public show minus giving you a reason when you own asked for one,?

when i asked for a reson to be put in writing i be refused ,is this against my human rights?
Answers: Yes they can, no it's not.
If it be an employee of the venue next you have no complain.

A business have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Yes they can. You probably looked resembling an a rse.

And sod your 'uman rites' - idiots shouldn't have em.
a individual working in the sign up of any public building can ask you to leave they do not own to give a apology as to why. the only time you can really complain is if they say-so a degrogative/racialist/sexist etc comment against you.
ie you can go into a public fishing rod and order a drink and they right to be heard sorry sir/madam will you please leave, they hold this right it does not infringe on your human rights
I think the entity who stopped you was person nice by not giving you the reason to cause offence you even more.

You have to ask yourself a cross-examine: Had the person any bias or unkindness against you personally or racially? If not, afterwards he/she could have a valid intention.

It is also possible that the person mis-judged you; and if you hold to make a choice: you would fairly impress him/her and embarrass him/her by being terribly polite and withdrawing than arguing and losing your temper and self-respect.

It incontestably was injustice done to you if you can suppose of no valid reason for person stopped, But then surmise of atrocities mete out to millions of people including women and children collectively contained by this world and they suffer it as a way of duration. If you have sympathy for them consequently you would not give even a second thought to the petty encounter mete out to you.
Depends who the entity is. If the person is an member of staff of the venue who is authorized by the management to impose sanctions entry, then he have every right to do so.

No, it is not a human rights issue.
it will mostly depend on you. what have you be doingto cause ancestors not to trust or want you there. most places hold the right to refuse service to anyone whom is not contained by good writ or causes a disturbance.

so answer this.. what own you done, why, when and were and to whom.. afterwards we can give you a exceptionally proper answer
I work as a bouncer, and I can say that anyone employed by the venue have the right to refuse you entry short having to explain why. Your refusal could hold been for any number of reason, ranging from what you be wearing to your physical condition(to drunk) to being a know criminal...
If you believe that you be refused on racist, sexist or other discriminatory grounds, afterwards you have a right to complain. Other than that,, its simply unlucky for you...


If ya names not down,, ya not comin' surrounded by!!!!!!!!!!

Is it good or bleak when the defendent (hartford insurance) holds out for six months before giving me a desposti

be after workcomp for almost 3 yrs, also filing fruitless faith, the attorney for hartford have had my workcomp wallet for 6 months. I finally hear from my attorney, saying that the despostion is set for subsequent month, is this good or doomed to failure, also my attorney told the opposing attorney,that it looks resembling we will have to jump all the instrument with this, since here has be no mention of settleing, the opposing attorney, stated that let's achieve this to desposition, and that the door is not been closed but about settleing, is this flawless or bad. thank you
Answers: They're giving you the run around. They are dragging this out within court as long as they can in the hopes of frustrating you into submission. They want to gross you pay for sprite through court costs. This tactic is often used by larger business that can afford to do this. Best of luck and I hope you a speedy resolution.

More Questions and Answers:
[922] - [192] - [848] - [2181] - [1709] - [2262] - [411] - [2047] - [1315] - [1824] - [207] - [546] - [238] - [1531] - [474] - [2018] - [412] - [190] - [2458] - [1864]

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

Answer question: