Law Questions and Answers
Any rights to fathers property???
My dad died within an accident ending week at an early age. He departed no will. My step-mom (whom I don't particularlly like) is acting like he have left her penniless. I know for sure he have a retirement and has two houses. On e of the is merely a couple of payments from being remunerated off. Anyway, my put somebody through the mill is... do I have any allowed rights to any part of his estate? The houses be in his entitle only if that brand a difference.Answers: Yes, each state have laws governing what respectively person get should one die without a will. If you let somebody know me your state, I can tell you what those law are.
The spouse's share ranges typically from 1/3 to 1/2. Your step mom may have her own interest surrounded by the house/s, which may entitle her to more than her estate share (1/2 + 1/2 of 1/2 or 3/4 all together or conceivably less).
There is a lot depending on this besides what state you are within. How long the two were married is also a factor.
You can purchase a copy of your father's death card and start an action within probate court yourself. Look up on the internet the addresses of your local probate courts. You are an interested celebration. You would have to impart notice to your step-mom but at alike time a fair division of property would be ensure by your participation.
You could hire an attorney to help out you, but plenty of folks do this on their own
If there is no will, your father is said to hold died intestate. You should consult a lawyer to determine your endorsed rights. You probably have more than a step mother would enjoy, but you will need a advocate in your state that know all the rules of tenet in that state that apply.
Is it necessary to enjoy a license in the state of Louisiana to provide personal financial guarantee?
Answers: Link 1 has generic info...
cooperation 2 is more specific.
Does a patent lone protect you in 1 state?
Because I found a moral invention which is registered in the state on New York. Can I produce it here contained by the state of Pennsylvania? The invention is pretty simple and is one I already thought up of even before seeing this rights.Answers: The product or service can only belong to the party who had the official document, and patents are registered near the US patent department. It doesnt matter where on earth in the US you live, if its not your government grant you will be in betrayal of patent law. If you have a righteous idea around the product or service you should contact the patent owner and ask for say-so to use or alter this product or service, it may turn out to be a great partnership. There is no harm surrounded by presenting your idea and it could turn out to be profitable for both of you.
Patents are call United States Patent for a reason.
You might be capable of buy a license to produce it.
Patent protection are per country. I am not aware of a patent registered contained by New York, it should be registered in United State Patent of Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov.
However, you can promote a prior art (existing technology) and get a rights for the improvement. That may be a profitable exercise.
The most famous Human Rights Lawyer?
Who is the most legendary lawyer of America within the cases of Human Rights and compensation.Answers: Thurgood Marshall - Brown v. Board of Education.
I think white haired guy referred to above is Gerry Spence, an excellent choice. William Kunstler is another upright choice.
Morris Dees is a poor choice!
Clarence Darrow.
What is the legal statute contained by Okla county ok that pertains to the?
legal description on a warranty achievement by a grantor to grantee requiring exact accuracy surrounded by order to be valid?save for what is stated right on the forms (after the grantor dies and leaves an old will stating that the property be to go to more than one child not of late the grantee.)please help grandmothers house be nearly lost when grantee died.Answers: The half described surrounded by the deed go to the grantee and the other half is surrounded by the decedent's estate, to pass by will or intestate descent.
you hafto can stir by the only will on record,or found.
others will hafto contest the will and give legitimate
reasonsons.Best have a appropriate look in for other wills.
IN the oklahoman or some local treatise,
stating anyone having debts aginest the lifeless
or anyone one that can give endorsed reasons can
come forth.
What is the difference between a MIC and a MIP?
Minor in Posession & Minor within Consumption?Answers: It seems a bit obvious, but the two statutes hold different things the prosecution must prove
MIP requires proof of posession, which may be on physical self, or in control such as trunk of motor, nearby sports car seat, adjoining table etc.
MIC requires proof of consumption, which would be drunken appearance, smell on breath, failure of a breathalizer or blood theory test above minimum amounts.
an underage person walking around drunk does not stipulation to be carrying a drink to be convicted of MIC.
an underage person walking around near a beer in his mitt does not need to be drunk to be convicted of MIP.
My landlord lost the lease and desires me to sign a new one! Should !???
Help! I don't know profoundly about lease but I really smell a rat with my proprietor. She wants us to sign a brand new lease and hasn't told us why (we are assuming she lost it). She never even gave us a copy similar to she said that she would. I am afraid that the new lease won't agree to the previous jargon (she is telling me that she doesn't want me to own a pet even though the first lease said that I could). I will not sign this new lease unless it agrees to the vocabulary of the first one that we signed, and I will not pay.Here is the big what if:
IF I don't sign this fresh one, will I still be obligated because I signed the first one? Can she all of the sudden "find it" and produce me pay the rent even though I do not live within? Is there some gentle of form (download-able online) that can nullify the first one that I can tell her to sign?
Answers: First stale, you should always fashion sure you have a signed copy of your lease.
Now, within theory you can't be made to sign a exotic lease until the first one expires; unfortunately you don't enjoy any proof that there WAS another lease. (If it be month-to-month, then she can redeploy it at any time anyway) Hopefully you've been paying your rent by check or another traceable method. When a lease expires, it stays within force on a month-to-month basis until a clean one is agreed to or one party give notice. If the latest lease she wants isn't adjectives to you, tell her that you will consider the outdated one to be still in force until she give you 30 days WRITTEN notice to move out (then pick up that notice - you're no longer obligated to pay packet rent after you move out)
You may end up getting screwed on your warranty deposit, depending on what documentation you have.
powerfully read the new one and if you dont agree afterwards dont sign it and find another place to live.
always attain a copy. make them endow with you a copy always. anytime you sign dont go away without a copy
MAYBE. You should look for another place to live.
If it have been a year since your ending lease, then you must sign a fresh one. If you don't sign a new one and it have been a year, you must move.
If it have been smaller quantity than a year, (or less than the extent your lease was set for - enunciate it was a 6 month lease) later you do NOT have to sign a fresh one until it has be one full year (or period).
Trust your gut. If you smell a rat then look for a place to live explicitly rat free.
The question is, why didn't you constraint to have a personal copy of the ingenious lease in your possession back signing it?
If you don't have a copy of your inspired lease and your landlord claims she doesn't own a copy either, consequently it legally doesn't exist. Yes, she might subsequent find your original lease if you nick off on her and after you would get surrounded by trouble for breaking it. But without it, you are immediately considered a month-to-month tenant, and if you don't sign her new lease she can serve you a written 30-day discern and ask you to leave the apartment (if she does that, logically, then she can't produce the first lease and sue you because she's the one who broke it by kicking you out). If you do sign the contemporary lease, the old one would be cancelled out, as you can't own 2 concurrent leases running on indistinguishable apartment. If she does let you bestow the apartment, it would be a good dea to bring it in writing simply so she can't later want to "find" the old lease and try to claim you broke it.
Prisons should be privatized?
o Prisons should be privatized because…o Private prisons are merely enforcing, and not creating prisoner punishments,
because…
o Private prisons make smaller the cost of detaining prisoners because…
o Private prisons can provide better prisoner care because…
Answers: Private prisons do not extend any rehabilitation, therefore you are creating a system where on earth the individual who is imprisoned comes out and continues his crime spree.
Private prisons do not downsize the cost of detaining a prisoner, the cost is still paid by the State. It's solely a deception to label you think it's cheaper. In the long run it's more expensive. Once it's privatized the cost starts escalating over time and the State will not own control over cost.
How can they provide better prison care when adjectives the top people within the system will eventually increase their salary and lower the workers net to offset their raise. This in turns creates an environment of smaller quantity educated workers who will thought less in the order of what happens.
Privatizition of prisons will not bring any benefit to the prisoners or the public.
What privatizition does is turning the total prisonal instituition into another business.
Immorality among law maker is the main create for substandard correctional facilities.
The sons and daughters of the poor are considered other not to be of consideration.
Not enough time to debate this issue. You are completely wrong.
Can you use someone's diary in court?
We are separated (not reasonably, just separated), and my diary be left at his house. He read it, and won't grant it back to me. He claims his attorney requested it and he won't give it put a bet on to me because she wants to read it. No one have my permission, though! Is at hand ever a reason a advocate would want to read a diary? Can it actually be used for anything surrounded by court when no one have permission to move about into it in the first place? There be nothing discouraging in it, I only want to know if he's lying and that he just requests to keep it to use against me contained by our marital counselling sessions. It have my name within it and the very first page indicates that it is, within fact, my diary. Thanks for everyone's input.Answers: Unfortunately, I cogitate that they can use it...
Yes, it can be admissible in court. The legal representative just have to declare it and own it admitted as evidence. Even though it is your personal document, it could, depending on whats contained by it, slam you pretty bad contained by court.
I had one instance where on earth a lady have wrote in her diary some things that when her husband come up dead from " automatic causes", the forensic Pathologist knew what to look for because it be reference surrounded by the book.
She is doing 25 to life for his extermination. Anything you write down can come back to lair you.
A personal thing, close to a diary, a book, a ring or a toothbrush for that matter, is something that not a soul, yes no one, can use or product use of, without the okay of its owner. Its use is protected by law on privacy. And should its contents be used contained by court by anyone, it must be with expressed blessing and authenticated by the very character who own it and wrote its content, otherwise it is considered as hearsay, (a rule against testimony of people other than the one who wrote/spoke of that statements), and inadmisible for any purpose. In reality no one may incriminate himself and indicted upon his own writing, except when done beside the help of counsel and explicitly presented in court within a case against him.
Prisons should not be privatized?
o Prisons should not be privatized because…o It is not the place of private prisons to administer prisoner punishments
because…
o It is ill-advised to put a private company that must build a profit in charge of prison operation because…
o Private prisons that cut costs may risk security problems because…
Answers: It is the accountability!
In any case in attendance will be management and expenses such as food, guards, electricity etc.
In a Government run system the expenses are public, the guards will own to meet state standards, and will own to be paid a competitive wage. By contrast the administration people would be state bureaucrats, and thus compensated substantially less than the inflated private sector headship wages.
Those sentenced for crimes would not be exploited just because they have no freedoms. Any big screw up or disaster will be noted and publicly deal with to see that it would not come about again.
In a private system, almost everything would be secret so main corruption and abuse, much smaller quantity normal snafus would not be made public and so not dealt near. In order to increase profits the numbers and talent of guards would be reduced, decreasing safety for everyone.
Lower maintainence, lower level food, less comfortable temperature and a thousand other chisels would reduce expenses, but the stash would go straight to the pockets of a much more expensive administration, who would not use any savings to lower costs but to place surrounded by their own pockets.
Aside from such "normal" corruption, there is another far more insidious. A private prison is rewarded more, the more prisoners there are, and as a result there is political pressure to increase the numbers of prisoners, and all along the sentence, not reduce them. And surrounded by the process also reduce civil rights, that more innocent general public be jailed, and reduce human rights that individuals be treated humanely once in.
There is also a great peril that is not talk about, that a company be run by a theocratic "Faith Based" group that would use the prison to indoctrinate a private army, or even a front for criminal gang, Secrecy can hide anything.
Unfortunately, because at hand are many private prisons, adjectives these bad results are immediately commonplace, and the number of unfortunate incidents are army. Because of the secrecy and corporate friendly press, the situation is festering.
Just because you own not yet tested your civil rights lately does not suggest you still have them.
Another hopeful to sign the petition to change Y!A to Y!Opinions
You would own a personal army of inmates
They are not god
Prisons don't make money
Guards don't guard for free
Privatized prisons own no incentive for rehabilitation of prisoners.
Profit will encourage incarceration of trivial and non-violent offender and innocent suspects.
It costs less money to utilize someone in public service than to incarcerate them at up to $50,000 per anum.
- Yes, that is a right reserved for society.
- Yes, same explanation
- Yes, although a lot of collateral companies do supply guards for the prison system on a government contract. Government stipulation to retain control and manage the prisons because they won’t jump away, when many companies are bought out of walk out of business each daytime.
- Yes, because you can't afford to have the prison close. You also can't afford to own to let the prisoners out because of poor treatment. You can’t tolerate a company take over a prison, and afterwards decide it wishes to close it and move it to another state or location. How do you access the prisoners then when they are out of state or contained by some super prison 100 miles away from court?
Prisons administer the ultimate authority of society and that authority requirements to be controlled DIRECTLY by the government. A command can support a money losing operation and maintain wellbeing and standards. There is room for private industry to take contracts, but not to control or conduct operations the prison system. I think it would be far better for a private company to whip over the medical care here, because it is notoriously fruitless in prison.
A honourable idea would be to agree to a private company form a business to train prisoners. There isn't much demand for license plate maker on the outside world, but there is a huge emergency for good carpenters. Sure nearby is danger involved surrounded by any of these programs, but the prisoners admitted to them enjoy to be the less risky ones.
Finally, do you want to give a private company the proficiency to execute a prisoner? Do you want to release the ultimate punishment from the control of society? Also how are you going to integrate the private sector near the court structure? Prisoners need to come and run to court and they have to be integrated by the police and see their lawyer. We can't prevent that because a private company thinks the transportation costs are too expensive, or because they want to close the prison. We also can't consent to them take over and close a local prison to consolidate a super prison. Companies do this adjectives the time to become more profitable or when they are taken over by a larger company.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Of course, prisons, and everything else should be privatized.
It is well-known that the prison population mostly consists of drug addict (even though there is no wise reason to transport drug addicts to penal complex and to do so is outright absurd) and that the addicts do drugs frequently while contained by prison. It is well-known that the system has has-been to properly deal beside prison rape or to prevent escapes.
The laws of (sound) economics state that the public sector other performs worse than the private sector and empirical evidence also shows that this is the crust. Communist countries have no progress and in fact tend to have regress instead (and as a consequence, it is patently absurd to name a Socialist a progressive or to refer to anything other than Capitalism as progressive).
There is completely no logical or coherent argument against prison privatization or privatizing anything else (including the police departments and the court systems).
While I personally believe that prisons are barbaric and should ideally be replaced by a more only and fair system of punishment such as financial compensation (which would work extremely economically in the crust of stealing) or permitting the sufferer to use up to the same amount of force on the criminal, privatizing prisons would be nouns because private companies will do a far better job of running them, will prevent horrid practices, and will properly secure their prisons (if they don't do these things, they would lose their business as the customers would stir elsewhere).
More Questions and Answers:
[116] - [2005] - [1059] - [2568] - [1183] - [2017] - [508] - [737] - [2031] - [660] - [2162] - [2232] - [159] - [1726] - [1434] - [758] - [2233] - [1688] - [1373] - [2166]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: