Law Questions and Answers
Can X-Ray film hammer speed cameras, or is this an urban myth?
I think this is an urban myth, but my friend swears a nurse she know told her it works and loads of medical type people do it.The guess is, the speed camera cannot 'see' through undeveloped x-ray picture placed over the car number plate.
The number plate is supposedly still noticeable to the naked eye, however, so if a human cop see you he or she will not notice anything amiss.
My foundation for thinking it is an urban myth is that if it was true, why don't we hear nearly people doing it? There are lots of those who would be lining up to transport advantage of something close to this if it was true.
Her argument to to be precise, how would ordinary associates get farming x-ray film, it's merely available via medical channels and those folks are used to keeping their mouths shut!
If you own any facts, a web site, an informed judgment or just a pious theory ~ please agree to me know.
I'd really like to win this one :-D
Please Note: I am NOT planning to try this, even if it is true!
Answers: Your friend is wrong. Anything put over the plate within an attempt to obscure the number is, as you know improper. Any film will be spotted by the police as powerfully.
X-ray film, exposed to pale, will also turn foggy.
Not sure about xray show, but there are commercially available number plate holders that will not allow photographs of the plate they close in. Not sure of the science, I believe it is along the same lines as spectacles that darken within sunlight.
It is illegal to use them for their designed purpose, but it is not prohibited to sell them or buy them.
To address your press, I doubt that xray film would carry out the same article. If it has already be exposed, surely it would not darken as the camera flash went bad?... Don't know, but I doubt the claim has merit
try ghostplates its a holo cut peice of plastic that stops pictures taken side on to your number plate and even from over herald cameras
How do you kill someone whith out breaking the canon?
How do you kill someone whith out breaking the tenet?Answers: An act of time of war
An act of secure self defense
A state sponsored execution
do it in space
convince them to commit suicide
using devastation theory
become president. bush kill millions and got away beside it
Execution in prison
Legalised Euthanasia
In time of war
I liked the 1st answer but the 2nd's tooo cruel, primary someone to Suicide is happening adjectives too often @ the mo, conservatory bullies are @ it all the time if yoiu listen to the report.
My answer would be kill them by destroying them inside so they enjoy to live with the headache. (financial ruin, run off next to their much loved wife etc)
The other option would be intentionally passing on something similar to HIV but that is immediately considered a criminal act & tho u won't be done for murder you'd still be breaking the regulation.
ask the mccanns there is a book coming out on that also but guess its after they bring out the book on how to loose a child in a week afterwards a book called how to decimate and get away next to it
ps think michael barrymore is helping right the second book
Join the army.
Ask the Queen to charge it, she is allowed to.
Ask Michael Barrymore for tips.
Basically, there is murder which is butchery someone with intent, and nearby is manslaughter which is killing someone by disaster but is negligent or near disregard for the consequences of your actions. So, anytime you wipe out someone, you've actually broken the canon.
Sometimes, there are mitigating circumstances, such as self-defense. While if truth be told illegal, prosecutors know that no jury is going to convict you contained by that particular circumstance so they don't even bother trying. For adjectives intents and purposes, that's like motto it's legal.
But pay attention. Many times, there are other routine of self-defense that don't require killing someone. For example, if a bum on the street asks you for coppers and you tell him to capture a job, he might obtain mad and lift up his fist. You can defend yourself, simply by running away. He's not possible to catch up to you and knock you down and hammer you to a pulp. So if you shoot and kill him, you're going to be charged beside murder.
the simple answer, YOU CAN'T. No matter what, you cannot gun down someone without breaking the decree. Killing is one of the fundamental law explicitly embodied even in the bible that "thou shall not kill". So how could you prove something that is unlawful within its nature?
The word KILL is already unlawful. The intent to snuff is perhaps adjectives by all of us since time immemorial from our ancestors to the present time. Even the defense contained by the court of self defense alibi were by the party unintentional stub the assailant who would kill in cold blood him eventual in the course of struggle between them is not to be considered to destroy, because the person surrounded by this case doesn't own the intent to kill the other personality but through the momentum at hand stub him and lead to the death of the other personality. This doesnot fall underneath the intent to kill.
If I would murder someone, with my own plan and coordination, and after deliberating the plan I executed it impeccably as they say within the language of mob, I massacre someone. Does I break the law? OF COURSE, essentially. I am now considered a lawbreaker, or to be paid it more simplier- A KILLER. So you cannot kill someone withou breaking the tenet. It is like making one example how could you return with the fishes inside a sealed aquarium in need breaking the glass? It is hermetically sealed from top to bottom, sideways both sides. Using a glass cutter? It would spill the river. You broke the glass adjectives together.
If you are the person who pulls the switch on disappearance row. If you are in a period of war, fighting for your country. If you are human being attacked and must defend yourself. All of the above are permissible ways to kill someone.
Would you look after someones Will if that person gone the vast amount of his estate to charity?
but not here you with so much work that it ruined your vigour and the happiness of your inherited.Answers: I will just scratch the whole stuff up and put it adjectives in the bin if in that is nothing contained by it for me.
Dead people should not be allowed to stipulate what happen to their estate. Once dead the estate should be shared among children and close relatives . To follow the directions of a deader is naff.
No i wouldnt, i would be totally selfish & if i wasnt surrounded by the Will - somebody else could do it!!
if it was a familial memember also - i would try contesting it...saying that they be a bit 'batty' & didnt know what they were doing!! honestly.i know its awful - but thats what i would do!!
Under Australian decree, the executor of a will is entitled to request fair compensation for work done to process the will through probate.
In the skin of most wills, people don't clutch it up because it is only personal property, but if it be a large and complex bequest which involved a great deal of work, one would be foolish not to do so.
In fact, some associates, especially trained accountants and solicitors, have a bit of a sideline within doing this.
There is no reason to criticise them for it, as they are giving their professional wherewithal at a much reduced rate to ensure the estate is managed contained by a proper and orderly fashion.
I doubt I would do it unless I feel I had the critical expertise or was competent to employ experts/professionals as needed.
Cheers :-)
Bush- saddam cover on mclean's?
did they go too far by comparing bush to saddam?Answers: Absolutely.
Not far ample - they should have gone adjectives the way to the explicit conclusion that he is a period of war criminal
What is the difference of Legal separation from Annulment?
can you please differentiate them ?please be informative and if you have links where on earth i could find definitions please
place it here, thank you.
Answers: Herer are a couple of definition which may be useful (links below, and and please document that the definitions also verbs as you read down the page, with more information given).
If contained by doubt, however, consult your solicitor/lawyer ~ it may be that the two things need rather different approaches under the decree!
Best wishes :-)
annulment means the marriage ceremony was dissolved as it never took place! close to the Catholic church will determine this part . if you are Catholic!
Legal separation system if you are married and its not working out, You or the other spouse moves out and lives within a separate domicile, while the divorce papers are goinfg thru the court system.
A marriage can be annulled if any party can't own sex. It was used masses years ago if one party be gay, it was also used within the Middle Ages if the king didn't like the human being his daughter married.
Legal separation means you married but not living together.
BigleyBill and Luanne are correct -- annulment is a retroactive swing that says the nuptials never really took place -- for all allowed (or religious) purposes, it is as if the marriage never happen in the first place.
Separation is one step surrounded by a divorce -- it is the point where the two folks are no longer sharing assets -- and usually where they are living separately. Separation is key in heaps states, because it determines when property starts being looked at separately, instead of it mortal shared marital property.
And sex have nothing to do beside annulment. No marriage be ever annulled based on want of sex. If people in actual fact read the cases that dealt near lack of sex, the wedding was annulled on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation. There is no trial requirement that married couples have sex.
Hate crime?
wats consider hate crime---is black defeat up whites , or black beating up asians ,, or asians trouncing up whites or black
considered "hate crime" ?
Answers: I don't ruminate any of those are *necessarily* a 'hate' crime.
A Hate crime is committed against someone based solely on their see, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. Hate crimes are political contained by the sense that a person is singled out because they belong to a persuaded group, and targeted to 'send a message' to the group.
It's a form of small time terrorism, exceedingly despicable and unfortunately moderately common.
Just because a group of assailants are one cultural type and the victim is another doesn't fashion it a 'hate' crime. It could just be adjectives assault or motivated for gain, and have nil to do with what see, class or group the victim belongs to.
Cheers :-)
A "abominate crime" is a crime committed solely because the victim is of a confident race, religion, and within some places, sexual orientation.
A robbery for instance would not be considered a aversion crime because the motivation is money.
It is generally determined by the behavior, beliefs, and statements made by the perpetrator during the offense.
It is vastly much a slippery slope because in essence adjectives crimes of violence are "repugnance crimes." You do not kill or otherwise injure someone in need that element of spite. That is why many times it is sturdy to define.
It's a fuzzy nouns...
A hate crime is committing an achievement of violence against someone because of their see or ethnicity. If the black person be screaming about the white or asian person's see, and there be no other clear reason for the sternness, then as far as I know that is to say a hate crime. Although I will tip off you that many times (depending on where on earth you live), the government now-a-days will look upon white society with smaller quantity sympathy when it comes to hate crimes.
No -- a can`t stand crime has zilch to do with WHAT is done.
Hate crimes are sentence enhancement to some other crimes. They make the punishment more severe base on WHY the crime was done, not what be done.
For example, killing someone accidentally is a crime. Killing someone by immature conduct is a more severe crime, and killing someone next to premeditated intent is even more severe. In all three, the result is impossible to tell apart -- the victim dies. However, what is different is the intent -- the mental state -- of the hired gun. Different mental states result in different punishments.
The same applies to revulsion crimes -- because of the different mental state (the desire to attack a huge number of people, of which the object is just one of a set) the punishment is more severe than if the intent have just be to attack one person.
Different mental state = more severe crime. But in that still must be some underlying crime.
Looking for the phone number or web address to report elderly harm in California cove area?
looking for the phone number or network address to report elderly abuse contained by California bay nouns? Sadly I believe my Aunt is taking money out of my grand mothers commentary for her own use as well as renting out her house for her own financial gain!Please serve she needs to be stopped from abuse her own mother!
Answers: Call the police and talk to the fraud element. Also, most District Attorney's offices own an elder abuse until. The crime comes lower than 368 pc, I believe, and they will agreement with it. to return with the number you need, look up where on earth your grandmother lives and that would be the police department or sheriffs office. If it is true, it is a crime, and should be stopped.
look contained by your phone book it should list a hot stripe for it
Can i plead insanity at the gates of hell?
Answers: Then you'd enjoy to be examined by Satan's team of psychologists.
"Abandon adjectives hope, ye who enter here!"
I don't think any plea is going to backing you at that point...
Plead all you want, but its too belated then
Should i sue? (preferably canadians)?
so, i was on a bread payment proof with an employer for a sector time job. he be fine in paying initially, but, he hasn't made his second payment. he sent an email over a month ago stating that he would deposit the money within my account by following that day or the subsequent day. he hasn't. (this is my solitary "proof" of owed wages). problem is, the amount is under a 1000 and it will be pretty expensive to bring him to court ( only entry i know is his name).is there another magical track to get my money? or should i freshly forget about this? if i sue him, what are the likelihood i will win a settlement? and, will this have an effect on his credit rating/record? i would love to only sue based on principles. but, if the settlement have no effect on his permanent diary (trouble getting loans, etc etc ), then there's no point.
oblige a brotha out.
Answers: Not Canadian, but likely most of the law ring true there as resourcefully as the USA. First, a judgement does show on your credit history, so if you won, it would show he was sued and lost. Second, I suspect you own a small claims court up there. File here. The email is evidence but I do see a small problem, you were working bad the books and you hold unclean hand, a legal doctrine, so that when you stir to a Court of Equity, that might hurt your chances. (I am guessing you are not paying taxes on what you be paid, eh?)
I worked for what I established was a shady regulation firm when I first passed the Bar. I actually warn some clients to seek better services. I be owed $2,000 when I left, but I have gotten a job as a Dep. District Attorney. I feel the money was not worth my time. The owner of the firm be later disbarred.
You could other just report the guy to the rates authorities that he does not pay payroll taxes and does things past its sell-by date book. That might change his life span. Good luck
Canada? Couldn't say. In the U.S. you could sue surrounded by regular court but the cost would be more than what you're trying to recover and you still might not draw from it. Your best chance would be small claims court which have a very small file fee. The email would comfort your case, especially contained by light of long-gone payments. You will need to enjoy him served with a summons to appear contained by court, so you'll need to know where on earth to mail it or deliver it. Any potential (& unlikely) overexploit to his credit would be negligible. You could notify him that you intend to pursue him through small claims, mentioning that in attendance is a payment history as okay as the email admitting that he owes you. But he may shrug that bad, as well, waiting to see if you'll follow through.
In the satchel of wages, U.S. (and I suspect also Canada) has local rule agencies which oversee and enforce compliance with wage law. A notice from that agency may spur money from him.
Is it legal for me, and 16 year infirm, to own a hookah in california?
I already know a great deal about this, so don't explain to me "its ilegal for you to smoke it." Thats not helpful. I'm wondering roughly speaking owning it (possession) specifically in the state of california.Also, as a side entry (don't answer if you don't have something legit to say) is smoking lawful herbal substances (as in not tobacco - the stuff that's labeled "herbal shisha") decriminalized for a 26 year old?
Answers: No!
Short answer is No.
You would be contained by possession of drug paraphernalia.
Honestly...I think it is illegial for anyone beneath 18 to own a hookah in California. A friend of mine said they considered necessary to buy one a few years ago, and couldn't because of being underage.
So, I'd stay away from it...lately to be on the safe side.
If zilch else...you know what to ask for on your 18th Birthday.
Hookah alone isn't classified as drug paraphernalia. More or less its a dual-use device. Tobacco by far is still the poison of choice for Hookah/Shisha, especially next to the growing amount of popularity of Hookah lounges in the ultimate few years.
In general possession of one isn't undemocratic, however you would need to craft sure that your not USING it, being 16 technique you have to hang to normal tobacco rules (In this suitcase 18+)
As for Herbal, it would depend on what it is. If its what we're all thinking consequently you'd have to progress thru medical channels within most cases to obtain usage rights.
California Penal Code booth 308, subdivision (b) provides:
“Every person underneath the age of 18 years who purchases, receives, or possesses any tobacco, cigarette, or cigarette papers, or any other preparation of tobacco, or any other instrument or paraphernalia to be precise designed for the smoking of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of seventy-five dollars ($75) or 30 hours of community service work.”
*/End of Line.
The answers above that say it is not permitted to possess something used to ingest drugs are correct. The answers which say it is unsanctioned for a minor to possess something used to ingest tobacco are correct. Of course, the problem from a prosecutorial point of view is proving what the item is used for. As a practical event, the only route to prove that when the item has multiple uses is by what is found contained by it: drug residue, tobacco ashes, or something else. So if nothing impermissible is one used in the hookah, it is extremely unlikely that anything untoward would transpire from your possession of the item.
More Questions and Answers:
[1169] - [1581] - [2129] - [575] - [2485] - [1323] - [2211] - [2507] - [255] - [870] - [577] - [1479] - [433] - [2347] - [2273] - [1992] - [1218] - [150] - [1617] - [932]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: