Law Questions and Answers

Someone who works in imperative explain why there are member time attorney positions? You can be a part time legal representative?

Answers: A lawyer, in recent times as anyone working most any other job, can work within part-time positions.

Why do you come up with a lawyer can't work recreational? Maybe you have some misinformation or misunderstanding in the order of the different work a lawyer can make.

Any body can work part time if he or she chooses to. I work full-time, for a notary public who works recreational. (I do all the work , you see!)

State farm rewarded !00% of my medical bills to my attorney. My atty took his 33.3 cut & sent me the rest.?

Can he take 33.3 of my rightful benifits that I earn by being timely on my auto insurance policy? Now the doctor is billing me for the difference. Is this ethical?

Answers: That's why you're supposed to read what you sign - adjectives attorney's do this!

You should have with the sole purpose settled with State Farm for your medical bills and your attorney fees - consequently you would have gotten adjectives of it!

This is the price of hiring an attorney. You do better than you would have done on your own, but you don't gain 100% of your settlement.

Don't you think your attorney deserves to gain paid for his work? Didn't he explain the concept of a "contingency" to you back you signed the representation agreement?

Of course it is ethical, how do you think he make a living?

Sounds like you get a lawyer to represent you against your own insurance? Not too bright, look what it cost you.

Did you acquire a lawyer after you be having problems collecting from State Farm, or did you only get a advocate right away?
They don't work for free, you know.

My Cousin got hurt on a mac domestic device at a bank. The sandbank offered her 200 dollars to settle. My friend is an attorney and got her 12,000 dollars. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's usually worth getting an attorney. You could have compensated the attorney up front and hourly instead of having him work for zilch until he got you a settlement.

Sharia law ??

Whats your advocate for a new comer to Sharjah ??

Answers: This put somebody through the mill is beyond bizarre. I would like to information, though, that Sharia law is not something which can be efficiently spoken on. Different Muslim sects own different opinions on what exactly it comprises. While a previous poster denounced it, nearby are actually Muslim sect which update Sharia through ijtihad (revision) much like the Jewish commentary surrounded by the Talmud. As such, treating Sharia as a unified entity is impossible, some is barbaric, while some is pretty similar to contemporary Judaic law.

There have to be more info on this question. First rotten, is this a person within a Western country or the Middle East? With different laws and customs the location of the entity, will make adjectives the difference.

This question is also a political mind pen, one slighty un p.c. answer and all heck breaks loose.

Bill of Rights help?

Importance of Freedom of Religion
stress of Freedom of press
importance of Freedom of speech

Answers: #1 Gives ethnic group the freedom to worship as they see fit and prevents the government from forcing any belief on the populace.

#2 A free press allows the flow of information to manage the citizens and uarantees the government cannot revile any news firm. This allows the people to opt issues with adjectives the facts laid before them.
#3Free speech allows us to sort our views agreed and to possibly influence others to our way of thinking. This agency we can also get adjectives sides of an issue. Many people muse that citizens in Russia do not hold freedom of speech but they do. It's freedom after speech they have trouble near.

Go buy "America's Constitution: A Biography." To answer this question surrounded by any closeness to full treatment would require far beyond what I am willing to do or any available fringe which might be granted. There are a _ton_ of Supreme and Federal Court cases which have hinged on the grasp of these concepts and those have influenced the necessity.

As a previous poster mentioned: You have no quiz here. This is too broad for any reasonable personality to devote their time to without hope of immense monetary compensation.

Are you serious?
OMGosh!
THINK!

Anyone who realistically answers this sound out is NO BETTER than the poster!

The Bill of Rights doesn't GIVE anyone any rights. It merely states what rights the government cannot embezzle away from you according to the constitution.

Quite the important distinction.

Before I decide to work next to a lawyer on a business transaction can I see his history?

I know adjectives court records are "public" and while that might mingy "if you come to the court and pay us money"... i know to be precise all uncomplicated if you know the case information.

Is here a way to search out the history of all cases from one attorney?

I am looking for somebody that would practice within San Diego County.

Answers: Attorney discipline is usually handled separately from the court, and those annals often are available online.

This site might aid you find California records related to attorneys:

http://www.courtreference.com/California...

The California Bar Association can also probably back you:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/memb...

and here is some info about getting those annals:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/sb...

On the contrary, very few court documentation are public. You can't just stroll into the clerk's organization and say "I want to see adjectives of Joe Blow's cases".
Even if you did, the court file will reveal exceedingly little about an attorney's competence. It's in recent times a chron file near pleadings and court notes.
Besides, if it's a moment ago a transaction, what do you care around his litigation skills?
Ask for references and nearly prior deals he have worked on. If he's evasive or you get a fruitless feeling, agree to someone else.
The San Diego Bar Assn can refer you to certain specialists.

You should be more trusting after adjectives it's only 98.7 percent of the lawyer that give the rest of them a desperate name.

Are on spot fines truly legal surrounded by England?

by English law we own the presumtion of innocence until proven guilty. Written into the constitution only a adjudicate or a magistrate can impose a fine so therefor how can you be fined save for by a court

Answers: FPN notices are given surrounded by UK law lower than the provision of a mags or judges direction..
CPS review along next to the Crime recording and analysis and quash those issued in need authority.
If that is the baggage and the offence isn't covered by the FPN afterwards you will either be re arrested and charged and brought beforehand a court to answer, or discharged from payment lacking further prosecution.
The system is full of errors not because the fines imposed are impractical but the approach in which officer are being instructed within their use and issue. Some make serious mistakes which enjoy to be rectified. The system stipulation review and challenging but not ignore..

Almost certainly not - but who is going to jump to court to prove it?

An organised group need to deliberatly setup a try-out case to embezzle on the tyrants in westminster.

How much trouble will some one get surrounded by if they are over 18 and signed for a minor to get a piercing,?

that same minor is not their child but they get permission from the mother of the minor

Answers: you could bring back sued..and arrested for falsification

Very confusing question.

Re-word it so I can better answer it.

Who are you contained by this situation? The person who signed, the minor, the parent, the one who get his/her ears pierced, who?

Also, who's mad almost it?

If they press the issue you can be hit with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Not to mention the certainty that forgery will land you contained by jail.

i dont deem you can get into any trouble near the law UNLESS.

the parents of the pierced kid get really mad and tries to any sue you or the business owner who will in turn sue you.

it take a lot of money to sue someone (lawyer fees and whatnot) and I'm assuming not a soul would want to go through the trouble.

the parents might pulse you up in some passageway or another. but thats another story.

edit: in a minute that I've read your edit, "you" vehicle the 18+ lady.

If the mother is of a mind to testify for you this will be a strong mitigating factor.

You broke the law. You do own an attorney, right?

Only licensed attorneys can give legally recognized advise. I am not an attorney.

Technically..fraud...endanger a minor. Depends how hard it is pushed and how tough the prosecutor would choose to push it.

Basic Moral Laws are Bad??

I've seen some outcry abut how Christianity is "ruling" the country and how the word "God" should be removed from everything to do beside the government, how the Ten Commandments shouldn't be at a courthouse, etc.

Is the original premise behind Christianity bleak? Strictly speaking from the rules? Our country was formed around the ideals of Christianity. The key laws to be moral to one another.
Is this really such a bad entry?

Are folks offended by this sort of entity too easily?
Should I be touchy if I go into a state funded museum and see the evolution of man pictire on the wall? Just because I don't believe contained by evolution?
I think the outcry around the eye and pyramid on the dollar bill is just as rediculous but would love to hear another spin on it.

Last piece of this. Do we spend too much money on changing things to not outrage folks on both sides of the fence?

Answers: The unsophisticated premise of christianity isn't bad.

The United States have a secular government, by design. (not an atheist government)

When religion can place it's beliefs into the law over the people, ones that do not follow duplicate beliefs are forced to follow them. And that's how wars and civil unrest switch on.
Imagine if one specific christian church controlled all the law of the country. But you believe differently. Say, a law is passed forcing mass to be on Sunday, but your religious conviction worships on Saturday.
And if you read the rules of various religious text, we'd have associates being put to release for a variety of undertakings, (Some say that's good) even though various if not most disagree.
The drafters of the Constitution agreed that government and religion should remain disconnected. They and their ancestors sought asylum in the "alien world" from an oppressive theocracy.

The problem next to "in god" man on the money and ten commandments in the courthouse is that they promote a specific god, which is forbidden by the Constitution. It's not something like hatred of that god, it's roughly upholding the law. I don't force you to accord with my beliefs, you should not do like peas in a pod.

Morals and ethics are subjective. What one individual finds immoral another may not.

Society builds law and rules to protect itself. We don't need a god or religion to do that. These rules are near to insure the survival of the species. We have law today that are not part of religions, because we as a society deem them needed.

Yes we do spend to much time and money on political correctness.

Additional: evolution is not something you can choose to believe in or not, that would be similar to choosing to believe the sky is not blue or the moon is made of cheese. There is room for both evolution and creation if you believe in the latter. Evolution is science, not feelings, and as science functions, could be proven wrong.

Public schools are not free. They are compensated for with toll money, they are government school. This whole story is another aim to privatize education. If you want to income for a christian school jump ahead, why should you be forced to pay for the political affairs school you do not use?

Actually it is separation of religion and State. The Constitution say "Congress shall make no statute respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that Congress can bring in no law near any respect to religion. They didn't address faith or belief because that will turn out in the individual by evasion. Even if a law be passed forbidding you from believing, you still would.

Good question, gratitude.

our country was not formed around christianity. it be formed around the notion of freedom, which means those are free to practice what they believe, which also means we should not enjoy to be subject to other people's beliefs, which further means seperation of state and religion, hence GOD is removed from elected representatives so as not to offend the frequent americans who do not believe in GOD. if you want to worship GOD do so contained by the confounds of your own space and do not push your beliefs on others.

ps... if you are offended by evolution don't walk into a scientific museum where on earth evidence for evolution is displayed, go to your christian church instead.

yours trully, budhist.

"Our country be formed around the ideals of Christianity."

Go back further: Judaism. Some of the massively basic law that were originally given to Jews own been incorporated into our legally recognized system.

I whole-heartedly disagree with nearly everything you hold to say. A specific point I give somebody a lift with great umbrage: "Our country be formed aroung the ideals of Christianity." Oh really? Since when was Jesus a political brain? Where in the Bible does it vote there should be freedom of journalists or the right to bear arms or that troops shouldn't be quarter in citizen houses within times of war?

The notion that our country be _founded_ on Christian principles is not only historically wrong, but an insult to the founding fathers AND Jesus. The thought of the founding father was most explicitly represented within Locke and Montesquieu. Also, Jesus never was, and never considered necessary to be, a political thinker. Luke 20:25 urges inhabitants to [paraphrased] "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's." Jesus recognized the separation of church and state--perhaps the solitary part of our Constitution which might be attributed to him (though that would be historically inaccurate).

Our country is not, and never be, premised on the idea that we should do well-mannered to one another. It is premised on the notion that the government should protect empire in their pursuits of their selves. What, within a political thought lens, does this mean? It funds that the founding fathers thought that ethnic group were ultimately fitting and that they would treat each other near goodness if they be removed from the state-of-nature, the competition of all-against-all.

Now, to get rear legs to the center of your question: the supporting premise of Christianity requires belief in a immensely specific God and set of theistic beliefs. It goes beyond straightforward morality and ventures into beyond empirical nouns. If we take the purely empirical claims (the golden rule, etc.), at hand is strong evidence to support these claims as the superior moral premise. However, these are not inherently Christian. Other thinkers own arrived at them by more empirical methods and other religious thinkers, as economically, have arrived at them. As such, why is Christianity given special priority? In our governing system, which is rendered unto Caesar, in attendance is no reason to donate it special preference.

As to effortless offense: I would say relations are far too easily affronted. Who cares, really? Are these things that noteworthy? Children _die_ every day from not have access to clean hose down and food. 1/3 of the Earth's population is forced to survive on less than $2 per time. And we bicker about whether evolution person in a textbook is abhorrent? This is hogwash. If people, especially the evangelical Christians running this country, really give a damn about these principles allegedly so influential to them, they would be _outraged_ by the injustice and horror occurring throughout the globe on a day by day basis and would if truth be told try to change it, to some extent than worrying whether or not some stupid set of words got put surrounded by front of a courthouse.

Personally as a liberal non Christian, I think the thinking in the 10 commandments are right principles to follow in existence.

But, I get really angry when "Christians" emergency that plaques with the Commandments be posted surrounded by government buildings.

James Madison, one of the founding father, stateed: "When religion and government are mixed it is to the benefit of neither."

You are wrong when you state: "Our country be formed around the ideals of Christianity." It was not! Our Constitution's roots are surrounded by the liberal ideas of the 17th Century Enlightenment wherein the world threw stale the oppressive and false design of the Dark Ages imposed by the Catholic Church and reason emerge as the dominant theme within intellectual discourse.

America is a secular nation. The first Amendment to the Constitution and the court's interpretation of it through 200 plus years make it crystal clear that the senate cannot promote religion and must remain neutral at adjectives times. Read Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. He makes it thoroughly clear that America favors no particular religion.

The principle for seperation of church and state is that it protects the right of every Christian and Jew and Hindu and Bhudist and Muslim to freely worship without the exposure of the state imposing requirements on religions.

I deliberate the problem many those have next to the ideals of Christianity is that it contradicts itself.

In one breath God gives the ten commandments to moses and contained by another he is condoning slavery and rape.

Which is NOT ok.

If the Bible and the Christian God said all one article, ok that would make sense, but it doesn't. It wishes people to follow blindly on what they report to them alone. It relies upon ignorance and blind faith. No one should ever follow things blindly.

That person said, I've met some awesome Christians that are the best people I've ever met within m life. Hell, my best friend is a Christian, although we differ on picky aspects of Theology, it does not affect how much I love her and how much she loves me. She has a 4 year ancient daughter and she asked me one day why I wasn't praying, so I bowed my guide and just smiled.

Although not a soul should ever have to I sometimes wonder why we can't in recent times mind our own business and get along.

Remember Good fence make correct neighbors.

No we do not spend too much money fixing things, we fix things that are broken.

I think we should blame the political system, the founding father would be disgusted and horrified if they saw the current political mud slinging system. Where people hold personal public advisor's, whatever happen to being yourself.

No you could not totter into a museum and become insulted at a picture of evolution, because unlike creationism evolution is a proven theory. Give it up, evolution have been proven ten times over. Thats only the ignorance talking. The not individual able to hear both sides of the argument and purely following in blind religious conviction. Are you saying it's wrong to voice their beliefs?

People are sulky when they, the tax payers, take-home pay for stone tablets of the ten commandments, that are partial to Christianity, to be erected in their state assets building. We are a secular country, which means that the organization cannot favor one religion over the other, but in erecting the ten commandments they are doing simply that.

What about Buddhists or Taoists that do not believe contained by the Christian versions of things, are not their beliefs basically as valid? Maybe the ten commandments represent something good on their frontage, do not kill, respect your parents, etc.

But that does not close-fisted everyone has to follow them, it is a personal choice. And surrounded by America it's ok to have personal choices.

America be not founded upon Christian principals, actually within my view it be founded on just the conflicting.

Lets see: We threw the chains of English oppression and taxes stale , the Bible says respect your elder, do not cause problems, the revolution, and America be NOT, NOT, NOT Christian ideas.

They be ideas of function, and they drifted away from the bible, and Christianity.

We founded a government upon the rights to believe what you want, say-so what you want, worship to whatever idol you so choose, and the assemble peacefully and protest when you think something is wrong.

I reason America is a great idea, I'm still waiting for that America, the America Ben Franklin spoke so feverishly about.

We should remember if the revolution ruined these men would have be killed.

If the rule wants to erect the ten commandments contained by a court house, then they should erect a holy motto for every religion.

It's that old perception, remember when you were little and your mom said very well if you can't play nice neither of you can have it.

It's kinda resembling that, because then our political affairs would be partial to one specific religion.

In closing, people are not sensitive easily, specifically their right to think and quality for themselves, and voice their opinions.

Basic moral law are not bad, but who are you to push your moral law onto other people?

If Jesus be running for president, no one but the Liberals wold vote for him because:

A- He care about poor inhabitants

B- He did not big corporation like religion

C- Do you really judge Jesus would have told anyone, even if they be here illegally they could not stay, really?

D- He respected women, their rights and their privacy.

E- He'd fix the form care system

F- He's dispatch everyone to college

G- He would not spend state money on erecting tablets in honor of himself.

H - He would run a verbs campaign, no scandal

I- He would not hate anyone because of their skin color, sexual location, religion, or where they be from.

J- He'd tell the truth, and that one idea right there is why he would loose the nonspecific election

I'd vote for him..

I got CAUGHT stealing!?

i get caught stealing. i switched price tags on a few petty items approaching shampoo and face cleanser.. im a adjectives college student... the guy that caught me did not call the police and adjectives he said was he would turn it surrounded by and it in, & it would be out of his hand.. is it considered stealing all thought i didnt totter out of the store with the merchandise? i plan the company that he said would be responisble for the claim in Peter Rifle And Associates. so whats going to crop up? will i just discharge for a fine? go to put inside? or just be terrified sh it less to never do it again???

Answers: probably lately scared shi*less
you own asked this same question, what 4 or 5 times contained by the last month? i would assume adjectives the answers are much the same no police, no police report, no court. they can not fine you, simply don't do it again. they have given you the benefit of the doubt you call for to learn from it.

Merry Christmas

Most of the time, if they be going to have you arrested they do it later and there. Did you contribute them your name and address, phone?
I meditate they scared you from doing it again - lug wise to it!

It appears as though here may be no charges but you can expect Civil Demand. The retailer has zilch to gain by pressing charges. When you get the Civil Demand observe pay it and it should be over. If you attain s summons or notice, call upon to surrender see and Attorney before doing so and accept nothing

Switching price tag is still thought of as shoplifting because you're paying smaller amount than the price the store wanted so technically it's still stealing.

Usually if they don't turn you over to the police on the spot they're not going to prosecute. If they took your picture and get your name and address shelter is probably going to use it for future mention just surrounded by case you're see on security video acting suspicious. They might even run a background check to see if you own prior shoplifting convictions. Often private collateral firms keep their own chronicles.

If they really wanted to arrest you shelter personal would've let you complete the transaction later bust you right after you leave the teller. Consider yourself lucky.

it isnt stealing unless you walked out of the store near the merchandise.
it IS illegal to switch price tag, pay the wrong price, later walk out and draw from away with it. but since that didnt start to you, you arent in trouble. they only just probably took all your info to hold on to you on file surrounded by case they see you on camera doing it again and you get hold of out of the store with the merchandise, in good health now they own all your info to carry you.

but as long as you didnt walk out of the store, you didnt steal so you're ok. dont do it anymore though b/c to be precise wrong and you make the populace you are stealing from feel raped and really nutty.

It is sad that you vote the items were petty, as if that make any difference to the problem you have presented here. Theft is larceny, doesn't matter the actual importance nor the perceived value. What if someone switched tag at a yard mart of your stuff? Say they put a $0.50 sticker on an item you had priced at $1.00? How would that form you feel? (I truly had someone do that until that time to me) If you multiply your crime by many times over respectively day, suddenly "petty" add up to a whole lot of money.

Based on your previous question, they actually allowed you to buy the stuff first and after refunded the money. Therefore, they allowed you to complete the purchase at the incorrect price to document that they if truth be told caught you completing the act of robbery. The good item is that they didn't immediately involve the police. That should benefit you contained by the long run. However, since you are still scared (and rightfully so) in the region of the potential action, you should contact the store and/or the other company you mentioned and discuss the subsequent step with them. Agree to work next to them to put this issue behind you so you can stop worrying in the order of it.

Does anybody knows roughly speaking the jacksonville ash litigation and when we will receive another payment again.?

Answers: google it

More Questions and Answers:
[1362] - [1740] - [704] - [644] - [847] - [1081] - [2475] - [160] - [448] - [1517] - [1985] - [326] - [2558] - [1639] - [2412] - [2288] - [2461] - [85] - [1194] - [708]

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

Answer question: