Law Questions and Answers
A few questions roughly criminal and consumer laws?
1.After discovery surrounded by a criminal proceeding, the parties will enjoy the opportunity to file ___.2.Sentencing typically occur how long after a criminal trial concludes
10-20 days,20-30,30-40,40-50
3.If a defendant wishes to attempt to preclude the use of a certain piece of evidence surrounded by an upcoming trial, he or she files a pretrial motion to suppress.
true/false
4.If the government is dissatisfied next to the outcome of a criminal trial, it may appeal the result to a higher court
true/false
5.In a criminal trial, jurors intentional before acceptance instructions from the judge
true/false
6. If party wish to resolve a dispute lacking involving the courts or a third party, they should attempt __
7.The entertainment charged with a crime is call the __
8.If a defendant is unhappy next to the result of a criminal trial, he or she may __ the decision to a high court
9.If the defendant discovers evidence that would tend to prove his or her guilt, he or she must disclose it to the gov
t/f
Answers: 1). Motion to Dismiss
2) NO UNIFORM ANSWER. You need a pre-sentencing report for some offenses. The time depends on the travel case load of the Court and the Probation Officer. In my state, it's something like 20-30 days
3) true
4) false
5) false. They deliberate after jury instructions are given.
6) mediation
7) defendant
8) appeal
9) false
1. Motions
2. 10-20
3. T
4. T
5. F, the jury instruction occur before deliberation, as it is intended to inform their ruling.
6. First thought was arbitration/mediation but that involves a third shindig. I suppose they could try to just work it out and create a contract to enforce their resolution.
7. Defendant
8. Appeal
9. F, any rule compelling disclosure of incriminating evidence would violate the 5th Amendment.
Can I back out on my agreement of public sale ? I put 5k down in earnest money ...What would it cost ? COuld I win ?
As the story go . I looked at a house listed as a 4 bedroom home. I put surrounded by an offer .. it be accepted .. I signed an agreement of mart. ( The agreement of sale, unsurprisingly, does not specify the number of bedrooms.)In the course of scheduling a home inspection, the inspector informs me it does not qualify as a 4 bedroom home . and I verify this with local building code executive.
I'm now concerned roughly speaking the appraisal the bank will provide ( for my loan ) and . the reality that there will be a loss within value between 3 and 4 bedrooms.
To appease me . the realtor .. provides an appraisal that the homeowner have done about 4 months ago . that match the sale price. But surrounded by the appraisal ... the house is listed as a 3 bedroom home.
My query is .. even though the agreement of sale does not specify the number of bedrooms ----- isn't in attendance some liability on the part of the salesperson and the realtor . to list this home surrounded by an accurate manner ? What is my recours
Answers: It depends on plentifully of factors and law vary within each state. Ususally your sale contract will be dependent on securing financing and completion of the home inspection. If anything seriously wrong in the house is found within the home inspection and the seller refuse to fix it, then you can receive out of the contract. If the house appraises for less than the sale price, that could affect financing and you could re-negotiate the sales price or carry out of the contract. Talk to your realtor about your concerns. If they are your agent (not the sellers) than they should relief you figure this adjectives out without trying to "dupe" you. If you do not hold an agent working on your behalf, read over your contract very thinly and see what the terms are.
Good Luck!
nope...you looked at it..thumb is one..index is two...middle is three...ring finger is dally a minute i only count 3 bedrooms...moron
Attention Conspiracy junkies! A rumor making rounds of the Internet is that Dubya is planning to?
decare a "national emergency" in January 2009, name for martial imperative, and not yield his position to an incoming president. Do you have a sneaking suspicion that this is within the monarchy of possibility, and is it even legal? This sounds more than a bit paranoid to me, but what do I know in the order of the myriad back nouns dirty dealings surrounded by the White House? Your opinion please, and try to hold on to it fair and in proportion!Answers: As things stand, it can't happen. The Constitution forbids it, and not one and only would most of the American people, but most of the military rise up against it, not to mention the congress, and probably most of the courts would never allow it.
We hear this rumor every four years.
The amazing piece is that they still manage to find relatives dumb enough to believe it.
Same rumor EVERY transform of presidency.
Toward the end of Clinton's Presidency the right-wing conspiracy nuts said he be going to do this. Now the left-wing conspiracy nuts are saying matching about Bush. In 4 or 8 years matching nuts will be saying that whover win this election is planning it.
Richard
I hold read that it is perfectly LEGAL!!! I one-sidedly don't think anything close to this will happen, though. For a moment, a couple of years support, many associates thought this was going to appear. It didn't.
If it didn't back next when things were so desperate, why would it happen very soon? President Bush's original cabinet member are no longer with him. It is totally spanking new people.
Now, equally, if_heavens forbid_something horrific, in the procession of 9/11 happens, next the most logical thing would be for Bush to affirm state of emergency and stay on the job for longer time. It is without fault logical!!!
Think about it: Terrorists attack for a second time during his leadership; Will he simply walk away, hand power to a President elect???? He'll have to stay on and do the best possible to bring stability and wellbeing to the country!
It's just democrat propaganda. They want to get hold of back surrounded by power and screw up the country freshly like Bill Clinton did.
Bill Clinton give nukes to North Korea and passed on taking Osama Bin Laden in to custody. (He be already wanted for terrorist acts) He be offered him on a silver platter but did nothing.
Hmmm...Might be a different world have he done the right thing surrounded by these two matters. There's closely more, but this should be enough to chew on.
yes it is inwardly the realm of possibilities and he might even try it but if he does he'll discover why the founding father wrote the second amendment.
Do anyone know if anyone is hiring right now I really stipulation a job!?
I of late moved to Marion,In and I need a assignment a.s.a.p.!Answers: Have you tried job go through sites like Monster.com?
You moved to the wrong place. In San Antonio TX in that is no shortage of service realated jobs.
What Laws Are there Against Catching And Releasing Eastern Grey Squirrels In The UK?
Answers: depends on what you plan on doing beside them between catching and releasing!!
I didn't think nearby were any.
A friend of mine found an injured one contained by their garden so they put it in a enclose until it recovered with the intention of releasing it into the local park but it died beforehand they got that far. By the style they stink and they are bloody noisy, and they bite!! Just advisory you...
If your unsure why not call the RSPCA?
"It is informal to keep, introduction and release grey squirrels in Britain, unless you own a special license from the Ministry of Agriculture or Secretary of State for Scotland."
The interesting question would be what are the penalty?
What kind of nut defence would catch and release grey squirrels surrounded by the UK?
Where are the laws that prevent nazi memorabilia from individual presented on german viewable sites.?
I know that ebay took down auctions, but have hear that it is illegal to distribute or put on the market nazi memorabilia in Germany. Can someone relieve me find the actual text of the ruling (even in german).Answers: Here you shift.
Richard
What do i have to do to become a fire man and how much do you brand annualy?
Answers: You have to be fireproof, strong, and brave. Expect to manufacture anywhere from 25-35 to start, but maybe more.
you own to have a burning eagerness.
you get remunerated ashes
In most places you need to graduate from Firefighters Academy.
Go to your local fire house and lately ask the guys there.
See:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos158.htm
and perchance:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/commun...
Mitt Rooney belongs to the Mormon Church that just allow blacks to combine in 1978 should I even consider?
what would spawn African Americans want to vote for him he said it was the Church of his father but surrounded by 1978 he was a a grown man and chose to stay near a Church that would not allow blacks was it Politics that made them the Mormon church check or an awakening?Answers: African Americans joined the Church within 1840. The Church never condoned slavery. Joseph Smith wanted to run for President within 1844 with a plank that slaves would be freed and the allowance would come from the sale of Western lands. In 1963 the Church endorsed civil rights for adjectives Americans. In 1978 the Church gave the priesthood to adjectives worthy males.
When did the church of Huckleberry officially repudiate slavery and cultural supremacy? 1995. Should this make a difference? No. A politians religion is his own business.
Is that true???
The LDS church solitary recently allowed blacks????
OMG.I didn't know that..
Very interesting.
In my judgment, it was politics that made the church re-examine, but most Mormon's will point to the fact that the Civil Rights Act have been contained by place for nearly nine years before they agreed blacks in the priesthood. And to clarify, black culture were allowed surrounded by the church, they just couldn't hold office of leadership or hold the "priesthood."
I contemplate hiring any outspoken religious person, whether it is Romney or Huckabee, is a baaaad theory.
How does this affect his ability to front the country? I think that tons Mormon beliefs are strange and to believe them indicates poor judgement. Anyone who feels that you can marry and baptise relations AFTER DEATH, or that God was lately one of many god and that he was once a man only like us, etc.
I only think that you'd hold to have terribly poor judgement to believe that. But the black issue does not really factor in beside him in my feelings. I don't know that he had any choice contained by that.
Technically, blacks have other been allowed to marry the Mormon church. They were, until 1978, expelled from being Priests.
My objection to voting for a Mormon is that a belief within the book of Mormon shows an incredible level of gullibility that I really don't want to see within a President.
Mormons are taught that, smaller quantity than 2,000 years ago, there be this great thriving Israelite civilization in North America, but somehow it have left NO archaeological evidence of itself at adjectives, and an entire culture with a written argot, temples, cities, armies, battle, all of late vanished without a trace except for ONE book - which be also lost as soon as Smith translated it.
In addition, DNA conducting tests has conclusively proven that American Indians are NOT - as Mormons claim - the descendants of Israelites that moved to North America, but in actual fact have no Middle-Eastern ancestry AT ALL.
ALL religions own a supernatural aspect (The rise of Christ from the dead for Christians, reincarnation for Buddhists, the direct revelation of the Koran for Muslims) that cannot be proven by proven means, but Mormonism is almost exceptional in that it's core precepts ARE subject to solid validation - and have adjectives been proven untrue.
Richard
If you are going to brand you decision base on the past choices of a candidate religion you will have a rugged time, most reliqions have kill people surrounded by the name of god which do you consider worse.
Also a small correction on your facts African-Americans enjoy always be allowed to join contained by 1978 they were allowed to associate the priesthood(Similar to Clergy)
The Catholic church has never have a black pope are you prepared to hold that against them
I wonder if these things bother you about former KKK member, such as Democrat Robert Byrd, who is in charge of the Senate Appropriations Committee?
Romney practiced his expectation. The Mormon church changed the doctrine. Times change and things cash. Ask Senator Byrd.
If you want to read something about the Mormon Church that will blow your mind do a Google poke about of "Mountain Meadows".
--This will probably be deleted by day's end--
Personally I construe that any church that makes its member pay 10% only just to be able to right to be heard that they're a member of that religious conviction isnt worth spit !
as for human rights abuses in good health I cant speak about that one british i have no opinion but if that church is racist then steer clear of it and its member ...
Most major religions have what you would consider "racist" practices on the books, up to 1978. Why is the Mormon confidence being singled out here? Besides, if you know anything of the Mormon faith, you would know that at hand are over 500,000 black members, including abundant church and local leaders. You would also know that the Mormon Church strongly prohibits racism and prejudice.
It should be noted that the issue was one of genealogy and not skin pigmentation. For example, Black men from non-African descent be allowed to hold the priesthood. On the other hand, Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic men who have some Black African ancestry were not permitted to hold the priesthood.
Since 1978, all member of the Church have be eligible to participate surrounded by all priesthood and temple blessings. Blacks, including African race, have other (both before and after 1978) be allowed baptism contained by the Church. In addition, while tons denominations have historically segregate their Churches (i.e., blacks in one building, whites contained by another), Latter-day Saints have other had an integrated congregation.
President Spencer W. Kimball skilled:
"Intolerance by Church members is despicable. A special problem exists beside respect to blacks because they may not now [1972] receive the priesthood. Some member of the Church would justify their own un-Christian nouns against blacks because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction have been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to supply burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ contained by faith through authoritative naming are heirs to the celestial monarchy along with men of adjectives other races. And those who remain loyal to the end may expect that God may finally compromise them all blessings they hold merited through their righteousness. Such matters are contained by the Lord's hands. It is for us to extend our love to adjectives."
First of all, consent to me say that I am an stirring Mormon and have be my entire life. I be one year old when the Priesthood be given to all men regardless of see. This is a difficult question just because emotions run soaring on this subject. I for my entire life enjoy considered all citizens equal.
I think that the possession racist church does not apply in this high regard because when the church was first organized, one of the big reason the church was heavily persecuted be because they were anti-slavery. Mobs would overpower, murder and rape mormons one big reason individual that while other Christian organizations would not allow blacks within their meetings, Mormons welcome blacks and all ancestors to join and gather round together as one body. At a time when it was risky to be pro-blacks, Mormons were unashamably so, and they suffered a dear price for it too.
Did you know that Joseph Smith in fact ran for President of the United States. One central part of his platform be to free all of the slaves. He have a plan that would free all of the slaves and not hurt the cutback of the south. This plan would have be a lot better than the civil period of war which divided this nation bitterly.
When the church was first founded, the priesthood be given to all men. It be shortly after the organization that Joseph received a revelation clich¨¦ that the descendants of Ham were not to receive the priesthood at this time. Notice it be not a matter of color of skin, but a line issue. If we read in the Old testament, we see that God did not hand over the priesthood to everyone either. In certainty it was even more restricted to singular the descendants of Aaron. Why, we do not know. The issue of the priesthood not being given to the descendants of Ham have nothing to do next to racism. at least specifically the way Mormons saw it. Part of the revelation said that some daytime in the adjectives, that ban would be lift and all worthy males would know how to receive the Priesthood. You can call it racism if you want.
When the revelation come saying that adjectives males could receive the priesthood, it came after long prayer and fast and pleading with the Lord to find out His will on the subject of the issue that the prophesy could finally be fulfilled. They said they were pleading next to the lord on the 3rd floor of the Salt Lake City Temple, and when the answer came, they said the temple be filled so much near the feeling of love and awe, that others who be in the Temple and didn't know what be going on, felt that something surely be.
So in short, I'm adage that from my perspective and taking into account more of the bigger picture. This church be not a church full of racist men. It was a religion base that each man is created equal, none the smaller amount, each man born into this world have different responsiblities and callings that they are to fulfill.
So how can a Mormon be a part of a set of this church which people today classify as a racist church? Because we do not see that full situation as a racial issue. Our church father were not racist, but were certainly heavily persecuted for just the in front of. I am proud of my ancestors for standing up against slavery and for equality. We do not understand why the exclude was placed on the nut of Ham for that period of time, but we do believe that God loves adjectives his children, and we trust Him. I hope that makes sense...
Let me append real sudden some other things that float around about the church, but enjoy nothing to do next to the ban. There are relations who claim that Mormons believe that African Americans are somehow inferior or were smaller quantity valiant in the existence before this one. I own heard this said amongst enemy of the church, but do not see it being skilled in my church. There are some quotations of impulsive church leaders that could possibly be misconstrued to mean something close to that. But let it be agreed that I believe this church is Gods church. I nor any other person surrounded by my religion who is of sound mind believes anything excluding a man will be judged according to their works, and not their see. God allows us to have sure experiences and he places us into families and situations where on earth he believes we will have the most proficiency to learn and grow since he know us better than we know ourselves. He loves all of us equally, and racism have not part, nor ever have had any portion in this church. This is what Mormons believe. This is why Mitt Romney will not distance himself from Mormonism and at one and the same time is not racist, but has fought for civil rights his entire time.
Can a manager of a Forida HOA solicite votes for who he requests to win the election?
I live contained by a RV Resort that is govern by a HOA. The resort is 80% snowbirds and half of those citizens come from Canada as well as the park representative. We have an see coming up for president. The manager have been going to adjectives the Canadians here and asking for their proxy vote to go towards one of the populace running for the board.Is this legal?
Answers: Unless at hand are specific rules against it in your by-laws, it would be court.
Yes, he can do it, unless he offers some "incentives" for the votes.
It's simply like any other see.
What percentage of Cars & emissions stem from CA. 10th largest reduction in WORLD?
Bush defend EPA's rejection of California pleatemplate_bas
template_bas
The president insists that 'a national plan' on emissions standards is more decisive at combating climate change. Meanwhile, Rep. Waxman asks the agency for documents on how the verdict was made.
By Richard Simon and Janet Wilson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
9:43 AM PST, December 20, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush today defended the Environmental Protection Agency's edict to deny California's bid to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, motto that a national strategy toward climate change is more powerful than a state-by-state approach.
"The question is how to own an effective strategy," Bush said at a year-end word conference. "Is it more effective to permit each state be paid a decision as to how to proceed surrounded by curbing greenhouse gases, or is it more effectual to have a national strategy?" Bush said.
Related Stories
- EPA denies California's right to mandate emission
With the enactment this week of a landmark drive bill raising automobile gas mileage standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, Bush said, "We know hold a national plan. It's one of the benefits of Congress passing this piece of legislation."
EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson on Wednesday denied the state's request to implement its own highlight law, dealing a blow to the state's independent attempts to combat worldwide warming and prompting an direct vow from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to take the outcome to court.
"The Bush administration is moving forward next to a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules," Johnson said in announcing his outcome.
The decision infuriated public official and environmentalists from Washington to Sacramento, who fired the first shots in what is expected to be a pitched officially recognized and political battle through the 2008 presidential solicit votes. At least 16 other states, near nearly half the nation's population, hold adopted or are considering California's secretion limits and could weave in challenge to Wednesday's decision.
And beside distrust toward the Bush administration rampant on Capitol Hill, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) fired past its sell-by date a letter to the EPA today, requesting that the agency preserve and produce adjectives documents relating to the decision.
"Your decree appears to have overlooked the evidence before the agency and the requirements of the Clean Air Act," Waxman say in the notification. Noting that the committee has open into an investigation into whether EPA's director "overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA's decriminalized and technical staffs contained by rejecting California's petition," Waxman requested that the EPA turn over all documents relating to the request by subsequent month.
Schwarzenegger assailed the EPA for "standing in our way" to run down greenhouse gas emissions. "California sued to compel the agency to deed on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today's decree and allow Californians to protect our environment," he said in a prepared statement. California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, whose agency requested the waiver two years ago, said in that was no "patchwork" of standards. "There is a California greenhouse gas standard . . . which 16 other states would adopt, whereas within is no federal greenhouse gas standard," she said.
"The Supreme Court told EPA it has to appropriate action on intercontinental warming. It affects our condition and our environment. It's not just roughly fuel economy."
Congress is feasible to weigh in, although lawmaker may not be able to craft legislation that could survive a presidential veto.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) call the decision "disgraceful."
David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel, vowed to bear the fight to court. "These guys are 0 and 4 surrounded by court," he said. "And they're about to progress 0-5."
Bookbinder was referring to the Supreme Court's edict this year that greenhouse gas regulation fell under the purview of the EPA and to several lower court decision rebuffing the auto industry's pains to head bad states' regulation of tailpipe emissions.
The EPA waiver ruling was a feat for the auto industry. David McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a prepared statement that a "patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel reduction programs at the state level would one and only have created confusion, inefficiency and pause for automakers and consumers."
The federal Clean Air Act allows California to set anti-pollution standards stricter than those of the federal government, subject to EPA green light. California had be waiting for the EPA to act since the state petitioned the agency contained by 2005, and at least 16 other states have been hoping to follow California's front.
Johnson, who telephoned Schwarzenegger shortly previously announcing his decision Wednesday, said that next to the energy bill, here was no call for for separate state regulations that would cover only quantity of the country.
Under the energy bill, fuel value for new cars and pale trucks will increase 40% by 2020, for a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg, the biggest congressionally ordered increase since the fuel economy program be created in 1975. Cars and insubstantial trucks, including SUVs, account for give or take a few a fifth of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
"I believe that Congress by ratification a unified federal standard of 35 mpg deliver significant reductions that are more impressive than a state-by-state approach," Johnson said. "This applies to all 50 states, not one state, not 12 states, not 15 states. It applies to adjectives 50 states, and that's great for the economy, for national guarantee and for the environment."
Johnson said California's request was unlike others that have been granted by his agency that covered "pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional nouns quality."
Answers: There are over thirty-million motor vehicle registered in California.
*/End of Line.
More Questions and Answers:
[66] - [459] - [272] - [1759] - [210] - [1232] - [382] - [106] - [765] - [1894] - [941] - [31] - [645] - [991] - [2069] - [2155] - [1807] - [512] - [1749] - [872]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: