Law Questions and Answers
What is wrong with this logic?
Example (just an example, do not read into it): Let's vote that a President wants to hit people's phone conversations.What is wrong with the logic of culture who say "If you aren't doing anything wrong, afterwards you shouldn't care what he does".
My personal hunch is this. it's not a matter of whether or not I am doing anything wrong. Just because I am a directive abiding citizen does not mean I am going to submit to everything that the authorities bring up to date me to do, just because I am not hiding something.
Can anyone else serve me with this flawed logic?
P.S. I was not referring to Bush. It be an example that came to mind.
Answers: I know, I positively want to throttle people beside that attitude. Whenever some conformist yutz in one of these online forums say "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you hold nothing to hide" I usually counter near the following:
Do you have curtains on your window at home? Really? Whattsamatter, you got something to hair?
OR
When you mail somebody a notification, do you "hide" it inside an envelope instead of openly writing your message on a postcard? Oh? Why, are you doing something wrong that you don't want inhabitants to see? What kind of death-defying secrets are you concealing from the public?
And I could stir on and on...
but here's the thing. you deduce you are a law abiding citizen, not doing anything wrong. that's your perspective, and possibly true. however it's flowing to see that someone else may have a different perspective, or probably a devious agenda. therein lies the problem. words may be twisted, irrational 'logic' applied. your question here could be looked at as subversive by some (certainly not by me). this be shown to us over and over again in the infamous McCarthy era which is self unpacked, dusted off, and used again by definite sick elements. and too, take the first poster; if he be really paranoid, he would see that this sort of phone activity is importantly suspicious (to certain elements).
gag: and thumbs up to john, below. on this issue, i think he see the light.
Isnt America a free country? Would this same president close to for us a privite citizen go into his bureau and read his papers or listen to his conversation. Finding out he is sleeping with one of his advisors. I don't estimate so.
Anyone who is willing to furnish up their freedom is not worthy of being free.
it's a cop-out. simple explanations for simple general public. the politicians are merely stewards to our government. their post is not to define their employment, our role, or their role in it. it's supposed to be up to the population that make the command.
Because it is an invasion of privacy. I am a very strong conservative, and I expect some horizontal of privacy. Now conversely, if I am calling someone that I know who has a history of crime, or that I know is wanting to do others mar, I should understand that that being may be under investigation, and hold willingly given up any intention to feel that that phone call will be private.
US Constitution
Article 1
Section 9
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Normally it would be a betrayal of the Constitution for warrentless search and requisition, however in cases where on earth the country is under attack from any foreign or domestic enemies. The Writ of Habeaus Corpus (Due Process) may be suspended when the public sanctuary requires it.
As far as I know it has be done 4 times in American History
1 Lincoln did it during the civil time of war to seize the confederates.
2 Grant did it during Reconstruction next to the KKK Acts to seize KKK Members who be terrorising blacks and white sympathizers.
3 Clinton did it in 96 as a result of terroist attacks on Oklahoma City surrounded by 93
4 Bush did it in 01 after the attacks on 9/11
All the presidents be within their rights according to the US Constitution.
The problem is you're trusting the culture who have your personal info will not use it to their own personal benefit. If you estimate everyone is doing good beside information they obtained without permission, just step back to Nixon's direction (it hasn't been that long). I am a pro-law enforcement character, but everyone has to own there are some (very small portion) of ruling enforcement and government force who do bad things. Every time you hear in the region of cops beating an unarmed party (and I'm not talking around high on PCP), you enjoy to wonder whether you'd want someone like that know EVERYTHING give or take a few you. I know, 99.9% of the people are trying to do their best to protect society and they're validly good race for getting paid partially as much as they would otherwise just because they believe contained by what they do, but do you want that very small minority to know how to abuse you even more than possible immediately. We have various safeguards contained by place to prevent that, and when those safeguards are circumvented, doomed to failure things happen. Even those who intend to do moral can get carried away when they develop tunnel-vision (which is inevitable when you spend adjectives day studying adjectives the threats facing the country. You start thinking the world is even worse and more dangerous than it is and ancestors who don't see that are ignorant and they don't know what's best for them. Then you start doing things that the rest of society is not predisposed to accept. This is not to influence you're a bad being, this is inevitable! When you spend all afternoon, every day within a cubicle studying intelligence from sources around the world, trying to imagine adjectives the possible evils in the world. God bless them for doing. Especially since some of us pocket security and prosperity for granted. There are relations out there who sacrifice things some of us haven't to take home sure we have it. But we hold safeguards surrounded by place to make sure those whose chore it is to protect us don't get too disassociated from the rest of society. When empire come together to form a community, the values of the individuals are aggregated to figure out the values of the community, and we want to sort sure everyone follow them. This is the contract theory of society (from ancestors like Hobbes, Locke, etc) and this is what the founders relied on to form our constitution and our country. These are the values of our country. Hence the "We the People..." outset to the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea that we hold a government of the general public, by the people, and for the society. Read the Declaration of Independence, it's clear that Jefferson believed this when he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that adjectives men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with constant inalienable rights... that to secure these rights, government are instituted by men..." So, when a leader or anyone else go beyond the bounds society has outlined and outside the values the community have set up (through a Constitution and laws) we generally don't suppose of it as a good entry.
Remember, the idea is not that we're afraid of doomed to failure people abuse it, they would generally find ways to be discouraging anyways. The point is to protect society from the tunnel-vision EVERYONE would develop when doing the job our great hero are doing ON OUR BEHALF. God bless them for doing it, and it's up to all of us, as citizens to product sure it's done within the bounds we're of a mind to accept. That's the aesthetic of democracy, and that's been the struggle democracy have had beside other forms of government for over a couple of hundred years (at tiniest since the French Revolution).
To some people, zilch at all is wrong near that logic. It really depends on your own perspective.
The fault near the logic is that if I want to have phone sex near my lover, I should not have to verbs about the feds listen in. If I want to articulate that Bush is, say, an idiot, I should not hold to worry. Also, if I did, and G-d know I don't, say something positive in the region of the terrorists, the feds have not right to bug somebody`s room. That is what being free is adjectives about. Hate what someone say, but fight for their right to voice it.
The logic is faulty if within fact that's the logic they are using to claim arbitrarily tapping ANYONE's phone number. The logic stands if within is a REASON to tap your phone and listen to your conversations.
The same logic is used when a detective call your name and requirements to talk to you when you own no idea why. If you haven't done anything wrong, after you have nought to worry more or less.
Let them do it, it's ok more security for us. what ever it take to keep us support fine with me. We are at period of war and I don't forget what happend in 911. What ever the president wishes for us to stay safe, to me adjectives power to him. All I do is gosip with my girl friends over the phone, enjoy nothing to pelt. Hey, but what if I'm cheating on my boyfriend and I deside to tell my friend over the phone, will the president hail as my boyfriend and I ge busted? Oh Noooo.
Have you ever sued anyone for defamation / libel?
what happen?serious people lone, please.
Answers: Yes a few years ago I sued a home secretary, who wrote a personally signed epistle to his constituent council, stating that I intended to break the law, I be fuming.
I engaged a extremely prominent lawyer who assured me that my complaint be valid and we went on to issue proceedings.
It be then made clear to me that surrounded by all my communication with officialdom, things would not stir well.
I be mistakenly the target of an armed police raid and my business go bust, (it was reliant on permissions from local councils which suddenly be not forthcoming).
After I sued for defamation a bond be posted for a small amount and a defence of "public interest" be lodged.
In effect this meant that within the eyes of the law, because I be merely an ordinary citizen of unblemished part, I had no reputation to protect, if I chose to verbs the case I may enjoy become liable for the costs of both sides, which you can imagine be an extraordinary amount of money.
Although my business was destroyed and I be eventually made bankrupt, I cut my losses and started up adjectives over again in another business.
It took me roughly 10 years to put my time back together and to form the vista that Britain is a democracy in christen only.
One strip from a high executive robbed me of a future, and if I wasn't so straight, would own robbed me of my freedom.
Defending my reputation terrified me and my kith and kin but was neccessary and principled, but clearly the regulation doesn't exist to protect the poor.
My advice is.. big brother is already here, and he's surrounded by charge.
I considered sueing the high profile War criminal Anthony Lynton Blair but my Counsel advise that he could probably launch a counter suit..bugger, done it again.
Can anyone give me details on what be amended or proposed to do with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 ban the armed forces from participating in police-type diversion on U.S. soil.Answers: By the sleight of hand, the use of Federal troops inside our states to militarily control non military populations, is now acceptable. The 1878 Act was apparently not repealed, purely offset by the strange legal dialect of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
I saw some other sources, for example; http://houston911truth.org/2007/08/16/el...
I googled it and found the dept. of justice almanac which includes some of the history about it within 1878 vs. since 9/11/2001.
It was provoked by southern politicians after the Army had be brutal in police procedure in the South for 15 years after the Civil War.
IF you steal a knife from a murder in the past he murders with that blade, does that make you a theif?
Answers: Only if he be trying to kill you next to the knife and you get it from him in scuffle then i.e. self defense. If not then yeah you screwed. Sorry charlie.
If you steal the axe, yes that makes you a pickpocket. If you steal the knife past the murderer murders with that gouge, then near would not have be a murder, and the person wouldn't be a murderer.
Traffic Infringement Law (Australia . . ) Can you help?
I hold just received a "running a red light" infringment identify in the post.The singular thing is that the sin was surrounded by FEBRUARY this year . . . that's over 6 months ago !!
Is there a statute that states they should inform you sooner?
I can't remember who was driving (out of 4 of us) on a Saturday 6 1/2 months ago - proposal anyone ?
Thanks
Answers: It's really unfair to convey an infringement notice 6 months after the event and after expect you to be able to nominate the driver if you hold reason to believe it be not you. Ring the RTA and ask what the reasonable time goal is for posting infringement notices. Maybe you moved and didn't support them?
I'd send them a communiqu¨¦ objecting to the time frame. If you hold a reasonably flawless driving record, and you explain the circumstances, they might drop the fine. In your note, keep using words approaching "a reasonable man would expect to receive a defilement notice closer than this", "It's unreasonable to expect me to remember which driver was responsible for the violation".
It's worth a progress and best of luck!
Parents accountable for underage drinking?
What happen to parents if their kids drink w/o their knowledge? (In the state of Texas)For example if a few friends return with together and drink at someone's house and get caught but the person's parents didnt know.
(please respond to the cross-examine and not things like: "you shouldnt be drinking contained by the first place" or "drinking is bad" and so on; I don't want to debate the correctness of it, i just want to know what would occur to parents for their kids actions)
Answers: The parents are responsible whether or not they know the kids are drinking on their premises.
It is the parent(s) home, the underage drinking is occurring in their home, and if anything should develop in the home, the parent(s) could be sued, possibly lose their home.
If anything should ensue after the kids leave the home and they hold been drinking alcoholic beverages the parent(s) could still be sued.
It is the responsibility of the parent(s) to other have developed supervision. This is why when events occur within the home and there is no developed supervision "Child Protective Services" is called and/or a report is made by the police. The child is after removed from the home to a place of detainment until a place is found for the child, which could be a Foster Home, Detention Center, etc.
If your parent(s) are leaving for an overnight trip and they are entrusting you to stay at home by yourself and you are over the age of 16 years, you ought not to lift such a chance, as you are not lone endangering yourself you are endanger other individuals and you could end up within front of a judge next to your parents.
Especially if someone gets hurt, nearby is a car coincidence, someone gets hurt surrounded by your parent(s) home, or some other calculated unfortunate incident.
One method or another this always ends up within court in front of a Judge.
The parents are not held adjectives for the actual offense, but they can be held accountable for the fine.
How to legalize a contract or agreement signed by a foreign counterpart?
I be invited to work abroad for 10 days, and it's my first time. The contract be made by me and was already signed by both party. Here's the thing. If things didn't walk the way the contract stipulated, what shall I do? For instance, I wasn't compensated or there's a dispute, or whatsoever.Under whose authority I should budge? Is the contract valid enough to press charges against the counterpart?
There is no embassy or consulate within the country of destination.
Answers: Have the contract notarized in the Embassy of the employer so that it will become a public document contained by their country.
next time you write a contract, include a clause indicating what courts can be used to resolve dispute and what statute will govern. Your question give rise to both questions, but essentially it is a private event and of no interest to the government of your home country. Not every country have a consulate. Sometimes, a single embassy will represent a country in several neighboring countries. If you are from the U.S, look up the State department pattern site and you can learn what diplomats cover the country you are visit.
I was contained by a single car coincidence and cited for "due care" in NV, I disagree, how do I come to blows this in court?
Not speeding. No witnesses. Car be totaled. No damage to other property. I may enjoy had a tire fiasco (undertermined without paying thousands for an engineer). I enjoy insurance. Why must I be cited at all? As I be doing nothing wrong except to loose control due to some unknown factor. Is it futile to struggle this in court? As my insurance rates will move about up if just clear the bail amount of $400 (which is much higher than a speeding ticket). Highway patrol Officer be very unsympathetic even though I be lucky to be alive after rolling over several times. His attitude and comments were awfully prejudicial to my race even though I be in shock from my injuries. Like, "you're lucky to be alive" (you dumb chinaman), "in a minute sign this citation"Answers: I agree with the above, but I wouldn't try it minus a lawyer and an twist of fate reconstructionist.
I agree with the above.
I disagree that tire ruin is expensive to figure out.
The overexploit to tires should be pretty obvious to mechanics that specialize surrounded by repairing tires ... did this come from the loss of control roll over, or did it happen back then ... cost for that should be no more than $ 100.00.
I own been driving sicne I be a teenager & am in a minute over 60. In my life I own had tires dance flat, tires get nail in them, tires blow out. It have happened regularly enough that I am especially sensitive to change in auto road throb, checking my tires perhaps more ofthen consequently really needed.
The first time I had a blow out it be a total shock, in a rented coup¨¦. I was doing approaching 65 mph (within the speed limit), it was driver front tire.
Car go from smooth drive in fraction of a second to extremely difficult to steer properly. It feel like the saloon had hit a brick wall, except I be still going 60 mph.
Fortunately when it happened, I have both hands on steering joystick, and there be no one contained by the lanes forthwith to side of me. When I finally got the coup¨¦ to a halt in the emergency lane, the tire be in shreds. Everything else fine.
I expect that if someone was driving lacking both hands firmly on steering controls, had never have a blow out before, be doing more than 65 mph, loss of control quite possible.
What laws do you not similar to and what are the cons?
like?Answers: Your interrogate is slightly skewed but I understand what you niggardly.
I am not very joyful about some of the law concerning marijuana possession when it concerns personal use and possession in ones own home and/or vehicle.
Driving while "high" is a in one piece 'nuther issue.
Laws concerning federal taxation are WAY out of line! (Income taxes and the IRS)
The IRS have much too much authority over the livelihood of the individual taxpayer and their penalties are much complex than they would otherwise allow for commercial lending institutions!
However, law are laws and it is the responsibility of the voting tons to change the direction of elected representatives when it becomes insufferable.
IF I AM ELECTED I WILL ....
I don't agree with convinced aspects of "Premises Liability". I know of a case where on earth a trespasser won a lawsuit because his foot got shot (by his own gun) and he claimed to not realize that he be on "private property".
What percentage increase in child support must I collect before reporting?
If the increase I am going on for to receive does not exceed 10% of my present income, do I need to report this to the court? This is for the state of Colorado.Answers: They will find out anyway. If you are conversation the Colorado child support enforcement agency, with surrounded by a few weeks your increase will be reported to them. If your new income would result contained by change of support, they will wallet the motion. You would be best advised to review what your support would be at the clean rate. You can find free support calculators on the web. They do an okay available job of getting you in the orb park.
If you are current, they may contact you for an agreed adjustment. Any modification done by agreement can usually get you some benefits, resembling tax breaks.
rate increase? no, you don't have to report it to anyone except the IRS. if the ex wishes to have the C/S re-evaluated, they hold to go through the "discovery" process again.
More Questions and Answers:
[1471] - [367] - [1226] - [603] - [1943] - [2078] - [223] - [1974] - [585] - [1676] - [1217] - [1559] - [2413] - [186] - [1370] - [597] - [1273] - [536] - [300] - [1713]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: