Law Questions and Answers
Arent the Jena 6 protestors the same ones who looked-for the Duke rape case defendants hung?
Answers: I don't know if "hung", but definitely they wanted their lives destroyed. Those supporters are unwitting cult member in a national cult. I refer to Sharpton & Jackson (and all the other cultural hatemongers as DRTs (Domestic Racial Terrorists) And I for one will defend this country against adjectives enemies (Foriegn & Domestic) (Yes, Answering this ask is a form of defence; after adjectives the pen -or keyboard stroke- is mightier than the sword)The forms of fright they use are vast. Black, white, wan & red (whatever ethic background you come from) should STAND against these desperate people. Use your voice to drown the DRTs out.
And Yes the prosecutor surrounded by the Duke case compensated the ransom sought by the DRTs by continuing to try to destroy those infantile mens lives even after he knew they be innocent.He did this out of fear of the DRTs
We've get to stop letting these terrorist scare culture into giving them what they want and that Louisianna Judge who sent the case put money on is a terrorist sympathizer in my book.
Interesting scrutiny.
Selling UBUNTU cds??? Theyre provided free by the company...?
Ubuntu CDS are shipped free, at no cost, not even shipping.Will it be illegal for a entity selling these for money(around $5)??
I saw this person doing this on ebay. And I muse this is wrong. If not legally, later morally.
Answers: They're charging for the distribution, and the convenience of having ubuntu on a cd. They can charge doesn`t matter what they want, this isn't limited by the GPL.
Naturally since Canonical, the commercial supporter of Ubuntu distributes copies free of charge on cd, this puts a big dent surrounded by his business model, but it's by no means banned. No-one's forcing you to buy his copy.
I am not 100% clear on the law, but I would come up with that you have the right to put up for sale just roughly speaking every material possession that you own. Even if you obtain it at no charge. That wouldn't really be any different than someone buying the new KORN cd and giving it to me for my birthday, afterwards I turn around and put it on eBay. It might ruffle the feathers of my friend seeing as how I sold the gift they give me, but it certainly wouldn't be unconstitutional.
What is the federal outlay? And what does it have to do next to Gross Domestic Product?
Answers: The federal outlay is what the federal government spends. It is a component of adjectives spending (which is the gross national productd).
Is it true that as of the 1st October, you can't use a Provisional Driving License as ID for buying alcohol
But you can apparently use a full driving licenseA man from bargain booze told me so though :( :( :( :( :(
it really make no sense to me
Answers: A provisional licence is as good as a full licence for ID purposes. I cannot see why they would stop allowing provisionals
Makes no sense to me if true.I don't doubt it.They are encoded
so how are they supposed to know age,provisional or full.
Depends on the law in your state.
What ARE the law in your state?
provisional driving license are easy to grasp hold of so i s'pose it could be true i attained mine really easy
and i have a really bad director cold
i know this isn't relevant in any channel but i was going for the sympathy vote
what a nouns of rubbish
How can they prove the letter be written by the suspect, he left a christen back # but it's not surrounded by service nemore
i was moved out a note on my motor which i believe to be a threatit was within the regard of my line and the person not here a phone number.but it is no longer in service. i enjoy a strong feeling that it is a co-defendant within a case that i am involved within.
i tried to do the reverse look-up but go no- where on earth.
how can the court prove it was gone by the defendant.?
Answers: Fingerprints could have be taken, if any, off the facts.
Also, Handwriting comparisions could be used.
Did you keep the register? Given it to your attorney?
Your attorney is the one that should be advising you.
If hanging nooses within a tree is a hate crime , what is?
what is it call when six guys who beat up some one for freshly being white ,I fall through to see the difference . a hate crime is a can`t stand crime no matter how you candy coat it so higher than a asalt charge hate crime added to it from what I see.Answers: The whipping was a dislike crime, but the defendants are justifying it with the see card.
Their should not be hate crimes. Assault is an Assault regardless of motive. A aversion crime is a crime against a persons thought or intent.
Do you want the governing body to make thoughts not permitted? I don't.
Crimes should be punished equally under the ruling, not thoughts.
While I personally find the nooses repulsive, archaic, and deplorable..and full of aversion, I fail to see the crime.
It harkens final to a dark time within our society - but it is NOT a crime to hang a loop unless you put a person IN said rope.
Hate - yes
Crime - no
Hate crime..can't have a can`t bear crime without a crime.
Which is worse?
6 guys whipping up 1 for any reason excluding self-defense
--or--
Threatening to kill some one.
Physical Harm
--or--
Mental impair that should be easily tuned out by wise saying look at those close minded dumb fools.
Jessie Jackson
--or--
Al Sharpton
America is a democracy and that is a charming thing. However, it is wretched when people in the dark of the law believe they know adjectives the answers.
Hanging a noose within a tree is not a specific law. However, it is at the discretion of the officer to see it as a hate crime, a threat or even only just inciting violence. Considering the circumstances, it be indeed a criminal act. Unfortunately, it be not dealt beside as such. Had it been deal with as such, the numerous fight and the racial tension at the school could own been avoided.
Question concerning copyright law..?
If I am to picture, edit, and produce a video using arts school property, including : camera, computer, software, and actors, am I the the sole owner of the work?I lately produced a controversial video (of my own) using the various things belonging to the college. I also posted this video onto YouTube. Who owns the rights to the video? Does the school enjoy ANY liabilty or legal rights to the video?
Answers: Unless you signed some form of contract with the university regarding this issue, afterwards whatever you produced is your property. Copyright relates to the creative aspect of the work, not the tools used to create it.
If you distributed a video earlier copyrighting it, and/or without indicating somewhere contained by the video that it is copyrighted by you, then it is most credible public domain. You can indicate that a video is copyrighted BEFORE actually securing copyright from the copyright department. In videos a simple copyright statement at the ending is sufficient.
Go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ for more info.
If a camera is standing on a tripod, focused and ready, and you stride up and push the button - click - it takes a picture. Then one of your buddy walk up and clicks the button and it takes a picture - you respectively have ownership of that print (of course if the school owns the show - they can keep it but they enjoy to get green light from you to use the images that you and your friend clicked, but later not really because if you are using there equipment below there rules - they may enjoy an inclusive right to the image and material).
The other most crucial thing is - unless you if truth be told file a copyright - unlike other countries, surrounded by the USA copyright holds no weight unless file.
Plus, also, you have to consider - did you attain permission from the actor? They have rights too - ones where on earth they do not have to copyright...and if you do not own permission to use their representation in the path you want to use it -- they can file against you if they don't resembling what your are doing, this also includes property (identifiable property like buildings, building signs, art work etc..)
Could the academy have liability - that would be for a attorney to decide, but more than credible the answer is yes; and does the school own legal rights to the video - possibly. Did you hold written consent? This has to include everything you intend to do beside the video...not just a blank statement - I'm making a picture. Also, they my have rights but yes you still own rights too, but then you should of negotiate that before your started this project - ignorance after the reality - makes no difference. Been in that done that.
Wish you luck...also, be cool if you update on what happens.
If you plead insanity for a murder crime, are you off the hook?
Answers: I come up with you mean if you are convicted of murder by intention of insanity, are you off the hook.
The answer is no. Generally you will be sentenced to a state psychiatric hospital and will not be released until you are deem sane.
Shouldnt federal income taxes be illegal...?
since nearby is no law stating this and its against our constitutional right???Answers: First, in that is a law concerning income taxes. It is the Internal Revenue Code which be proposed in the House of Representatives, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into canon by a President, just approaching it is supposed to be. It is codified in the U.S. Code as Title 26.
Second, the Constitution clearly give Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Article 1, Section 8 states, in subdivision, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,..." In Article 1, Section 9 it states, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless contained by Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." This is where on earth the argument starts. Most economists and most people consider income taxes as direct taxes. However, surrounded by a Constitutional sense, income taxes have other been indirect. In certainty, the first income tax contained by the U.S. was passed within 1861. Direct taxes are "poll" or head taxes and taxes on topography. The Supreme Court in an assortment of decisions have found early income duty laws constitutional. In 1895, the Supreme Court contained by Pollock vs. Farmer's Loan and Trust, the court discussed the constitutionality of the income tax imperative at the time, since it taxed income from rental property. The court contracted that taxes on income from rental property was similar to taxing the property itself and as a result a direct tax. The agency the income tax regulation was written at the time, the import tax on rental income could not be separated from the income tax on wages and as a consequence the entire income tax be declared unconstitutional. in response to this decree and because funding the government completely by excises, tariff and duties is unfeasible, Congress proposed the 16th amendment to the Constitution.
The 16th amendment was passed by Congress surrounded by 1909. It was ratify by the required amount of states in 1913. Some associates argue that it wasn't properly ratified. The Supreme Court have repeatedly rejected this argument. Anyway, it is now a portion of the Constitution and will take another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. The 16th amendment removes the requirement that income taxes (if they are considered direct taxes) from self apportioned among the states as required by Article 1, Section 9.
So, to answer your question, income taxes are not illicit. There is a law concerning income taxes and even if it be a constitutional right (it wasn't), the citizens of the U.S. in 1913 give that right away.
BTW, the Federal Reserve is NOT a private organization. It is setup underneath Title 12, Chapter 3 of the U.S. Code. It is considered similar to a private organization for U.S. Tort regulation, so it can be sued, however, for most other instances, it is considered a government entity. Also, the Federal Reserve one and only holds about $800 billion of the $8.9 trillion of the U.S. Government debt. The interest the Federal Reserve collects on that $800 billion smaller amount a small amount for operating expenses is REQUIRED BY LAW to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. This can plainly be seen on the INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED financial statements of the Federal Reserve which are part of the pack of the ANNUAL REPORTS to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/...
In 2006, the Federal Reserve collected approximately $36.5 billion in interest on U.S. Government securities. The Federal Reserve rewarded approximately $29.1 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
Amendment 16: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from doesn`t matter what source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and minus regard to any survey or enumeration."
The Constitution permits an income duty. Congress has delegate its authority, by means of Title 26 of the United States Code, for collecting this import tax to the IRS.
There IS a "law stating this" and it IS provided for surrounded by the Constitution.
Income tax is legitimate --- as pointed out by the two answerers who mentioned the 16th amendment.
What you should be doing is investigating the banking law --- hint connotation.
Somebody has to pay cheque for our reservist banking system. It may as in good health be us. Do you realize that almost 4 month out of the year you are working to pay rotten just the interest of the debt the organization has incurred by adopt a Reservist Banking system.
Just the interest. A private corporation (the federal reserve) is getting 33% of your money. That should be illegal.
Yes, I agree we pay cheque too much in taxes. But infer about what wouldn't obtain paid if in that wasn't a standard tax rate:
- police, fire, and emergency services
- coaching
- the military and defense
- scientific advancement and research
As soon as there's no money to come contained by to start paying for these things, people would be complaining that the services aren't provided!
The item to remember is that the federal government is NOT an entity to itself. It is division of America like you and I. It is made up of those that are our fellow citizens and run with money from adjectives of our hard work. This is *not* a situation where on earth the poor peasants are working to support the feudal lord and they're demanding more and more. Every bit that you put in, you will draw from something back within return.
Yes.
For more information on this, check out the DVD 'America: Freedom to Facism'.
It's a Michael Moore style documentary. A man goes surrounded by search of the truth astern this 'urban legend'. The IRS refuses to show him the imperative that requires Americans to pay income levy, and he finds out many other things as okay. It's a tad bit low budget, but very informative.
Police sketch artists and mugbooks are being replaced beside what modern technology?
Answers: She said.
E-FIT
Electronic facial identification tool.
L of Arabia is correct: it's E-FIT, and it's competence stuff. I've worked on those systems before. E-FIT is adjectives for more than just police work too (a buddy of mine installs them, he have his office door unlock when he walk up to it, when it recognizes him :) )
More Questions and Answers:
[2437] - [588] - [1643] - [264] - [2558] - [502] - [1897] - [1657] - [2207] - [616] - [2196] - [1232] - [1765] - [881] - [2378] - [2073] - [2261] - [1296] - [1777] - [1227]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: