Law Questions and Answers

How do I sell an hypothesis to a company and not get ripped bad?

How can I sell an impression to a company and make sure that they don't steal it and telephone call it their own?
Answers: Get a patent first and later sell the exclusive rights.
You don't "sell an idea". Ideas are a dime a dozen. No one buys design.

You can sell some or adjectives of the rights to manufacture, you can breed a company and sell some of the stock, you can partner next to people, you can negotiate it for doesn`t matter what you want.

No matter what, you ending up with a contract that covers what everyone agrees to.

I tis not necessarily impossible for them to call it their own.

I guaranteed you that 99% of the movies you see are not the design of the studios that you think made them. they are made by independent and semi-independent companies built around the notion of th film, and the studios agree to compensate for the production of the film surrounded by exchange for the right to distribute it.

Then they market it using their identify, which is better know then the innovative company.

They generally draw from to keep the majority of the revenue or a bigger chunk of stick afterwards you think within exchange for financing, and even more for distribution.

Like I said, ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution is what matter, and if you are not prepared to execute anything beyond "providing an idea" you haven't provided much if any value at adjectives.

In the end, if you don't want to be ripped of, consequently seek professional suggestion form people who are used to putting deal together n the industry of your idea.

Custody issue - judge believes surrounded by Fathers' Rights. (it's ok, but the way he does it is wrong!)?

I own a friend who's gone through custody court for 5 1/2 years to no avail. She is now ordered to take-home pay 3K for a psychologist to determine if she's mentally sick, and she's divorced plus on a limited income. She be given 14 days to pay or step to jail and lose the children AND her home. This is contained by Illinois. This Fathers' Rights believes in property status for women and children, and believes that matriarchy - through custody arrangements - is wrong. Meaning... women should not be allowed to enjoy the children for any reason if they don't own a man in their go. This judge is corrupt and is using a activist document supposedly based on the Bible within a court of law. Does she own the right to ask the judge to step down, and can she ask for another mediator? I'm divorced myself, and have never have a problem with this liberal of thing... and I'm within Illinois, too. I believe he's corrupt and biased. Advice? Even her lawyer have run into a brick wall.
Answers: Have you actually be present in court to hear the nouns and see what you've related here? Or are you just repeating what your friend told you?
Sounds similar to there is more to this than your relating us.
No judge would not charge mental evaluation without purely cause.
Wow, we have the complete opposite situation. My husband have now lost his teen daughter to his ex wife who's a convicted drug user (b/c it's "only" a misdemeanor and the girl is over 14 so she gets to choose and she chose mom where on earth she can party next to her friends and have no rules). The trendsetter was SO biased against my husband from the setting up it was unbelieveable. She is be of those NOW Fem Nazis who hates men. We're in a minute struggling to survive paying $2,000/mo in child support to a mega millionaire mother for a girl who won't even speak to us.


Anyways, as far as your friend's situation, disappointingly a corrupt judge have pretty much the power of God unless her attorney can prove the judge in truth did something legally wrong. Then she could filch the judge to a Judicial Arbitration. But it's terribly difficult to get rid of a sort out if the current judge doesn't want to step down from the defence. That's what we were told.

Her best bet is to permit this trial run it's course, and then conceivably a year or so later, once that decide has moved on to a different court (as most house court judges give the impression of being to do), have her record a new petition for custody where on earth you'll get a trial judge. MOST bench favor the mother, so chances are she of late got a Kookie one this time.

If she ever get her children, all she have to do is move to a liberal state that's against men like California. She'll receive enough surrounded by child support to retire, and her ex will have zilch rights because he's a man. (We're in CA). The Midwest is closely harder on women I've been told.

Probebt is right roughly speaking the mental eval. My husband's ex wife has have 2 mental evals in the '90's truism she was a treacherous Borderline Personality who would only alienate their daughter against him (which she very soon has done 100%), we have a photo and report of a large bruise she inflicted on the daughter as a short time girl, all kind of info that pointed to abuse including the felony drug charges she plea bargain with her expensive advocate, yet our mediator STILL wouldn't order a mental eval on her!!! So travel figure...I'm merely saying that it take a lot to go and get a mental eval ordered on you so your friend must have done something she predictable isn't telling you.
Uh, you've get access to the advice of two lawyer; I would think they would know.

You might try looking surrounded by the phone book for Legal Advice, or a Women's Legal Advice or some similar group.
If you want to get it away from that negotiator, just appeal.

It is nice to know that somewhere out near, men have some rights when it comes to children.

Do you think this is right? Does Bill Collectors have the right to harrass you on the phone?

So far everytime when Bill Collectors calls they other say that if you dont reimburse them in the subsequent week they are going to put a bomb in your house. Why Bill collectors other threatning their customers like that?
Answers: Want to return with them to stop? This is what you do.

Pick up the phone and start conversation:
(enter your county's name here) Morgue how may I assistance you?
BC: Uhhh is there a Ms. so and so in that
You: Hold on sir or maam let me check for you.
Put the phone down and ruffle some papers subsequent to the phone.
Pick phone back up:
You: No here appears to be no one by this cross here. If there be they sure wouldn't be talking.

You should hear the phone swing up by this point and they may call backbone just to fashion sure. Write down the number so you can answer the phone the same passageway next time. Calls should stop.

Sit put money on and laugh while enjoy a glass of your favorite drink.


Well someone requests help spotting a prank when they see one. You would have be laughing if you heard your friend do it. That be the funniest thing I enjoy ever heard.
If you ask them to not phone up they have to meet the terms. If they don't you can sue. (Problem is you don't have any money to sue! Tough luck.)

If you don't put in the picture them not to call again they can and they will.

Legitimate bill collectors don't threaten hostility, they are just salaried workers and could care smaller number. You must owe money to the mob or something.
Thats againist the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Next time a collector calls, consent to them know your recording the conversation for aspect assurance purposes.
How about because you woe them and haven't salaried as you agreed to.
Try paying back adjectives that you owe and see if they don't leave you alone.
I've never hear of a bill collector threatening to bomb anyones house. If you have be threatened that way you necessitate to call and report it!
Check your city Government for whats call a "NO CALL LIST" if they have one (most do) next sign up... If all else fail, answer the phone in another verbal communication to throw them off... Have fun next to it.
A bill collector has the right to bid you unless you notify them in writing not to phone call. It is not considered harassment.

No bill collector is going to threaten to put a bomb surrounded by your house.

You can read the law here: http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/
Yes, they can name and harass you.
No, they cannot threaten you next to violence or spoil. Report it to the police.
They can't do this. Record the call, phone call the police, get a legal representative and sue the crap out of them.
Unless you borrowed money from vito the loan shark, I believe you are lying.

Can I reference this somehow:?

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...

There's gotta be a course. What if a lawyer have to prove that the term "frontage book" is also used to identify a "mugshot book" during a trial of some sort?
Answers: If a lawyer have to show that "face book" be used to refer to a mug shot book he would call witnesses that hold used that term contained by reference to the suitcase being tried and ask them. The legal representative would not reference a cross-examine that references another query on Y!A.

Where does ownership of property end near regards to environment that adjoins public waterway?

Answers: I agree with Barry but it is different contained by my state. In my state, you own to the middle of the river (if it is a river). If not a river, you own to the shore line at its lowest, not the unbeatable. The point is, however, that I'm sure Barry's right, also. Land use laws are state-specific.
There are even more considerations than the other answers mentioned. No event what local says, and how the property is described, your rights also depend on whether the stream is navigable.

Should the United States still carry the release penalty?

Is at hand a need to sentance a criminal to demise for a crime they may or may not have committed? I don't see how sentancing someone to destruction for a crime they may or may not have committed can sort things better for the victims. I can't see how it could be used as a deterrent for criminals.

On the positive side of things, I suppose it could be argued that it frees up prison cells.

With pressure groups contained by the western world becoming forever bigger and stronger, it must be nearly over for the death cost in what remaining states still use it.
Answers: The release penalty is subdivision of our culture, and the average citizen don't really care what europeans have a sneaking suspicion that about us.

The destruction penalty should be used...individual when a person is convicted of a assets crime...not if they "may or may not have committed the crime".

It is a deterrent, but it would be a better one if it be used more swiftly. Could you imagine if adjectives punishments for crime took 15-20 years to levy on criminals?

Lastly, there is no recidivism rate for those who experience assets punishment.
It should be abolished.

It is not a deterrant. States next to the death cost have difficult violent crime rates.

It's expensive. It's far more expensive to execute someone than to simply let them rot surrounded by prison.

It doesn't solve anything. The death of the criminal doesn't release what s/he did wrong.

The justice system is not ultimate, until it is perfect the destruction penalty is lately far too risky.

Most people on annihilation row were too poor for a fully clad attorney. Innocent people sit on annihilation row to this day. One innocent demise is one too many.

Why should my system get to play God, and why should I enjoy to pay for THAT?

Check out the movie The Life of David Gale.
The Death Penalty go all the route back within time, Even Biblical Times and it was directive.Should we give criminals big eyeshade TV and air conditioned suites for raping, bloodshed, chopping off limb and heads of nation all ages, even babies and little children..Let's receive real .If within is no punishment severe enough , afterwards crime becomes inticing and incited.
Keep the death cost
yes
an eye for an eye
I would rather slaughter the killer than own him or her sucking up my tax dollars rotting contained by a cell for the next 60 years.
Absolutley not...in that have be too many miscarriages of equality. People argue that DNA evidence is proof positive of guilt. My son is a forensic biologist and says it is not 100% proof and in that can still be errors.
I don't feel we can enjoy irreversible punishment whilst there are flaws surrounded by the judicial system.
Think of the Guildford 4, or the 'Birmingham bombers' (in UK) who would have be hung if we still had the loss penalty...they be later proved to be innocent and have been framed by the police.
Most countries hold outlawed the death cost, but the US is in moral company with: Iran, China, Saudi Arabia & China.

Bad Company.
You own asked more than one question.

The answer to the first interrogate "Should the United States still carry the loss penalty?" is:

Yes, some deserve the disappearance penalty.

The answer to your second press "Is there a obligation to sentance a criminal to death for a crime they may or may not enjoy committed?" is:

No, the death cost should not be assigned to anyone who "may or may not have committed" a crime. In reality, someone who "may or may not have committed" a crime is supposed to be found not guilty.

The release penalty does not hold to be a deterrent for criminals to commit a crime. It only requests to carry out even-handedness and make sure that equal guilty criminal does not commit the crime again.

If someone murdered one of my children I would be willing to waste them myself without suspicion. As a matter of certainty, if they only harmed them severely I would also.

Maybe it should be up to the closest family connections members of the martyr to decide if they go and get death or not. For example, if someone rapes, tortures, and murders your six year dated child you can let them stale light if you want so long as they are never free to do it to someone else.

Seems party to me.
I know that there are lots of associates that are not for the death cost for many reason.

I am for the death cost for one reason and one aim only. If someone murder or eliminate someone in my family circle, especially one of my children, on purpose or within the act of another crime, I want that creature killed.

All my children are grown, but not a soul has the right to deprive me of their prescense for as long as they are essentially here on this earth.

You are right it will not bring pay for my family. It would however attain that criminal off the streets and hang on to me from becoming a criminal.

Now I take that one step forward, because some culture that are against the death cost are hypocrites. They are against the death cost until one of their family member is killed or murdered by a criminal.

I reject to be a hyprocrite, so if I want this S.O. B. killed for butchery or murdering someone in my kinfolk, I think it is just right that a person should be kill for murdering someone in another person's people.

Now how would you feel if your mother, father, sister or brother be murdered by a criminal in the accomplishment of a roberry where you mother or father refuse to give up the mortgage money for their house and be murdered.

We do not live in a correct world and from what I see it is getting worse each and every sunshine.

I just vote a news article where on earth a church had to hire an armed guard to protect it member from being harmed while attending church. Now that is to say just a small portion of what is
scheduled in today's world.

I hope this have been of some use to you, apt luck.

"FIGHT ON"
You don't have to sympathize beside criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the release penalty prevents or even reduce crime and to think just about the risks of executing innocent people. Your request for information is much too important to settle minus thinking about these.

125 general public on death rows enjoy been released beside proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available within less than 10% of adjectives homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The destruction penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the destruction penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The disappearance penalty is neither. Homicide rates are complex in states and regions that hold it than in those that don’t.

We enjoy a good alternative. Life minus parole is now on accounts in 48 states. It vehicle what it says. It is sure and swift and seldom appealed. Life without parole is smaller number expensive than the death cost.

The death cost costs much more than life contained by prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent empire.

The death cost isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyer. It doesn't apply to people near money. When is the last time a lavish person be on death row, consent to alone executed?

The death cost doesn't necessarily help family of murder victims. Murder victim relatives members across the country argue that the drawn-out departure penalty process is aching for them and that life lacking parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent society released from death row have already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
The Death Penalty is, invariably, not a accurate thing.

Sure, as some smart git said, the rate of recidivism amongst those acceptance the death cost in nil, but it's not even remotely a deterrent as others enjoy said.
If it was a deterrent those places within America which still practice it would have a lower rate of crime than other places which don't. And do they? No, they don't.

No even-handedness system is so infallible that it can safely articulate all the race it executes were guilty. Not within the US, not in Britain, not anywhere. Police are occasionally corrupt and fabricate evidence (numerous illustrious profile cases in the UK, eminently concerning IRA terrorism) or even simple errors mean the wrong man get convicted. I'm sure all you ethnic group who think the annihilation penalty is great wouldn't mind man injected/ electrocuted or however it's done over there for someone else's crime.

And, specifically for Gordon Gecko... Yes, we poor Euro types fully fathom out that Americans largely don't care what we mull over. I've noticed that individual very not often does your government retribution a blind bit of notice any.
All we'd ask, therefore, is that your establishment stops playing God with the rest of the world, because not a soul else cares what you deliberate. Just being a US citizen does not automatically generate you right.
When you sentence someone to life within prison, they can still kill other inmates, corrections staff, even company. Without the death cost they usually say, "I get life, here is nothing else you can do to me."

So by keeping the annihilation penalty, we are ensure that there is still a punishment available, so long as you are alive, to prevent you from committing some drastically serious crimes.
Absolutely.Especially in cases where on earth there is probably they are guilty, such as several eye witnesses or video tape of the crime. They chose to appropriate a chance on forfeiting their time when they decided to commit the crime. The burden of supporting these general public should not be placed on the backs of the taxpayer.

What should I do if I have a judgement against someone and they are not paying me?

I own placed a lien against someone and it was ruled within my favor but they are not paying me what should I do? I am trying to avoid having to spend deeply of money on a lawyer.
Answers: First of adjectives, record a transcript of result against them. If they own real estate, they'll never know how to sell it minus paying you. If they have a employment, garnish their wages. If they hold property, file a Writ of Execution and the sheriff will pick up non-exempt property and trade it to satisfy the sensitivity. In my state, you can do all these things minus an attorney. These are forms that can be downloaded from the Court website in my state. You should consider hiring an attorney if the debtor have assets. You can collect your attorney fees in my state as subdivision of the judgment. If you don't know nearly assets, you can summon the defendent into court for an asset examination and find out what he/she owns. Still-wouldn't it be worth it to spend for a time money just to discuss this next to a collections attorney in your state? You'd solely have to pay packet the cost of a consultation and some attorneys might do it for nothing if the debtor have assets they can collect. I don't know where you live, so this is simply general legally recognized advice from an attorney.
You can levy & execute against their property, or accessories wages and bank accounts. Be well thought-out. It is easy to misuse this process, and be sued for doing so.

** Note: This is a nonspecific discussion of the subject matter of your give somebody the third degree and not legal guidance. Local laws or your exceptional situation may change the broad rules. For a specific answer to your question you should consult official counsel with whom you can discuss adjectives the facts of your case. **
Thats the problem near Small Claims Court, as many folks don't pay if they hold a judgment be ruled against them.
You said the court?/you have a lean on them..so if they try to put up for sale their home or property as it will show up on their records and they will enjoy to pay you first until that time they can do anything.

Good Luck

The legality of the income export tax has be disputed. Government argues that it pays for our every day requirements.?

Can anyone tell me what taxes ACTUALLY wage for our education, roads, conservation of environment, and protection. Also is here direct evidence of what (or who), exactly, the income tax in fact goes to?
Answers: If you have asked what the `meaning of life' was I could hold answered that. Oh, { I did that last week } This one is harder.
Maybe we should adjectives demand an itemized excise bill. I get one for my property taxes even though I don't agree next to it and don't trust their figures.
But, if Federal taxes be itemized, and they showed exactly where our excise money was going , I wouldn't believe them any. The answer is : We need to transmutation our whole Government from Local and State , to Federal [especially]
We own been `Fleeced' for too long'. So, check out RON PAUL
I thought road taxes be paid when we purchase coup¨¦ tags. At most minuscule mine have a spot that say 'road' taxes. Education is included in my property levy. I would guess our 'income tax' goes to support our military, NASA, and other management sponsored programs, such as welfare, food stamps.

After thinking some more about your interview, isn't our taxes also used to pay the member of congress and the senate? Isn't that why they do not have a problem voting themselves a retribution raise every time they consistency like it??
Education comes from property taxes which is why affluent neighborhoods enjoy better funded schools than poor neighborhoods.

Roads come out of state taxes (I believe), as does local protection (I assume you aim police?).

I have no impression about conservation though.
Yes, you can look at the omnibus budget to be precise published each year. It details (in excrutiating detail) exactly where on earth all of the money go.

The vast majority of your duty dollars go to the Pentagon.

And no, no serious personage disputes the legality of the income export tax and no, the government does not assert that it pays for our everyday wants.

*This is for Federal tax
Yes, and everyone who's disputed the authenticity of the income tax have lost.

What taxes pay for what can be found within the US Budget. It only runs to roughly a million pages of numbers and graphs, so enjoy fun.

Income taxes all dance into the General Fund, which pays the day-to-day expenses of the Federal government.

Various Welfare programs combine as the biggest expense - in the order of 60% of the Federal budget - followed by defense - about 20%, followed by interest on the national debt - nearly 10%. all other category add up to smaller number than 10%.

Richard
The IRS and the so-called government is so corrupt that it would be absurd to believe any possible evidence they have, so whoever really know the real truth will probably be afraid to let somebody know it.

Legalism and law are two intensely different things.

The government and IRS are a "pretend" system to control culture.

Govern = control
ment = mind

"mind controllers"

Don't let them defraud you.
The government uses the money we invest into SS and writes IOUs.

When the little one boomers retire, whats going to happen? Where is the policy going to get the money?

Edit:

"I served on a federal jury 20 years ago to determine the kismet of a guy who claimed federal taxes are illegal and that near is no law justifying them. He have not filed a proper return for 2 years. It turns out he be partially correct and federal taxes be started to pay for WW1 but no actual ruling existed to continue them. The arbiter was completely sympathetic and sentenced him to 5 years in the penitentiary. Somtimes you only just have to travel with the flow."

You assistance sentence a guy to prision, who didn't break any laws, and adjectives you can say is "purely go beside the flow"?

How many kids do rundmc enjoy with even-handedness?

Answers: 2

Music Royalties?

What exactly are these? How do they work?

I want to know, because I make/sell beats...
Answers: empire who you license your music to pay royalties to you for respectively use of the song.

And you pay royalties for the music you use too - respectively time you pay a sign or distributor, part of that go to the artist as royalties. Same when music is played in a motion picture, commercial, etc.

Oh you don't pay for music? Imagine in a minute how the artist feels not getting their rightful royalties :)
o.o

More Questions and Answers:
[2328] - [731] - [2421] - [1387] - [59] - [1955] - [835] - [837] - [1451] - [1995] - [2124] - [658] - [914] - [1030] - [3] - [2435] - [1813] - [1630] - [2445] - [2002]

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

Answer question: