Law Questions and Answers

If America is truly,"The land of 'TheFree' "Then,why are we so RESTRICTEDas inside a growingTotalitarianState?

Example: It was not "Hitlers'Germany",at first.The"Night of the 'LongKnives' ",saw to it that it would be.That Socialist StateofGermany be the Creation of over a dozen Politicians;whom Appointed a myriad of Ministerierial 'Legal Entities 'of Affairs('Bureaus of State' to us).Hitler managed to verbs a COUP D'etat.In order to formulate Germany,'His'.'Twas 'Legalitarianism' that killed the Master of the House! In ALL appearances. Are WE(America) falling into that foul sense of mis-guided misapprehension of Protectionism? Created by Power-hungry,ambitious 'stop-at-nothing,Machiavellian Party-First Politicians?The blind delusion of Prohibition created Al Capone&The Gangs.Plus it give just the thrust toOrganized crime that it needed to flourish:Big Money. Make Laws,Make Laws,Make Laws!Only to fill 'Law'-yers wall accounts and cement the Power ofBureaus over the Rights of the People as Guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION. Wich does NOT require citizens the necessity of going 'to Court' every timeQuestioned!
Answers: I agree that we are becoming way too bureaucratic. However, we are not nearly to become totalitarian overnight. We still have time to evolution it around so that we can feel free again.
Russell...why don't you step and try and move to any other country in the world and see how much freedom you own...

good luck
We're not RESTRICTED, we are PROTECTED.






Right ?

In Ga. what is the legal age for a child to be capable of chose which parent he or she can live with?

It is really big for me to know this. Some people say-so 14 and some say 12 w/ power of attorney.
Answers: 18. Until the child is a trial adult, the court MIGHT listen to the preferences of the child, but the court can humiliate the wishes of the child.

The court is going to order custody base on the best interests of the child, and not just the child's wishes.
I imagine that it is 14

If a young man is registered near the Selective Service can't he vote?

If he can die for this country, shouldn't he be allowed to vote!!!

gopetition.com/online/158...
Answers: Im not sure where youre getting your information, but if the individual is 18 years old, a US citizen and not contained by prison or been judge otherwise incompetent, he or she has the right to vote contained by the US.

Selective Service has nil to do with it, except NOT registering beside the SS could have repercussions within the future. However, you state the young at heart IS registered, so there should be no problem, and he should be allowed to vote.
Um, since you enjoy to be 18 to vote and you have to be 18 to register for Selective Service, what's the problem?

The with the sole purpose 18 year old citizens not permitted to vote are felon, and we wouldn't be enlisting them anyway...even if at hand was a draft, which near hasn't been since the hasty seventies.

Now if he illegally voted surrounded by an election in need being a citizen, he broke the statute. Oh well.

MSgt, USAF (Retired)
What are you chitchat about? 18 is the age to register AND to vote.

Sounds approaching you got some misinformation, but bottom stripe is there is NO sense you should have thought he have the right to vote.

If he's not a US citizen then as you would expect legally he can NOT vote!

Also Selective Service is a requirement for US citizens, plus positive others. Selective Service is not there for foreginers surrounded by general though. US Military service does not guarantee US citizenship at this time so even enlist does not promise citizenship.

Sorry, but he violated the law, he know he wasn't a US citizen yet, but go ahead and violated US law by voting knowing he wasn't a US citizen and entitled to vote. (Remember that statement the have to be sworn to when registering to vote? It included a declaration that the character was eligible to vote. )

Also remember selective service have NOTHING to do with in fact serving, it's just a fact list of all males within the US in the suitcase a draft where required again. (Last time be Vietnam)
if your son has beenin trouble next to the law and facing deprotation, after no he does not have the right to vote. If he is facing deprotation, he have done something that has given the administration reason to believe he is not a angelic candidae for either.

Is anyone above the laws ?

In any countries !
bonikingv
Answers: Nobody is above any canon..period!
within the US, no.
not even the president or congress.
nope..
hillary, bill, bush, cheney, oj, the catholic church, al sharpton, paris hilton, the media, hollywood, the craze industry, atheletes, and the spears family.

apparently.
The just who is qualified to be above the law is the ruling giver, and even consequently he/she must be an example of living by the law, hence even if he/she is above the canon, he/she must be living according to the law that he/she made.
The single One who is truly above all law is God, but in human expressions no one is above the statute. Of course, there are loopholes that can be exploited by some privileged folks such as diplomatic immunities or political connections but if the rule of statute is to be followed to the letter, afterwards it no one will truly be exempted from it.
If you are referring to the directive of mankind, there are individuals contained by political positions that have the power to circumvent the law. If you are referring to laws of a spiritual outlook; it will depend on your faith contained by those who wrote or speak the laws.
No one is 'above the law'. Don't bring up to date George Bush that, though. The realization might be too much for him to handle.
George Bush appears to deliberate he is.
If a person serves as a diplomat and their duties require they live contained by a different country, they are covered by something known as "diplomatic immunity" which make them immune from being detained, arrested, charged or prosecuted by the authorities of the country where on earth they live while assigned as a diplomatic.

While it may seem absurd, it is true. If someone with diplomatic imperviousness is assigned by their country to live in the United States, they could totter into a school, put to death dozens of students, wait outside the academy for the police to arrive, and when the the police got at hand, legally near is nothing they could do. The human being could walk chronological them get into his saloon and drive away. They only movement the government could cart would be to revoke their diplomat status and require that they leave the country.
contained by the u.s.a. no but bush thinks he is and have gotten away with it
the crook
In America? You must be kid...celebrities, luxurious people, politicians etc...etc...etc..!
Yeah, surrounded by monarchies the monarch or his/her representative is above the laws. Queen of England, governor-general of Canada, etc.
George Bush think he is...
OJ simpson sure seems to be!
surrounded by CRO, rich people.
and celebrity
and 50 Cent!
and one guy . I don't wanna talk around it.

In a rape case, within there are two mannish assailants?

one holding the female down while the other unsurprisingly
penetrates her sexually, but the second assailant didn't
participate contained by anything else. Can they both be held for
rape? Keeping in mind the definition of rape
Answers: Yes because they be both a part of it
yeah i reflect soo



umm is this suppose too be true??
um yeah, probably.
you shouldn't rape people!

sheesh
I devise one could get rape and the other sexual assault and possibly kidnapping or an unlawful detention. As a juror, I'd sort sure they got matching amount of years.

In your edit; one feminine can get pregnant short the other one being sexually involved. Not the valise in the rape you describe.
God will pinch care of this a**hole if society doesn't first. There is a road to charge someone with sexual mobile or assault, or aiding and abetting a felony. There are plenty of ways to to be found guilty, because this is a crime, it a moment ago depends on what state you live in, what it can be call!!!!!!!!!!!
This person will winding up up on the sex offender enumerate, even if it's not for rape.
your threesome question is not here, but I assume that the girl got pregnany and who should take-home pay.Simple...DNA test shows which is the father and he is responsible along next to the girl for supporting the child.
Yes. They both participated. They have need of to be hung by their.um B***s. Or better yet castrated! Tired of rapists. They are the lowest.

I'm curious. "This BSE nonsense"?

OK, I don't know the facts, but I was cornered by an indignant lad from Britain who is annoyed by unusual directives, which he describes as "This BSE nonsense".

Apparently his local employer, a local butcher, did not observe them, and next was closed down. He's still recite how silly this is, and how everyone preferred the meat they sold.

My question is; how tons British people died from BSE up to that time safe practices be introduced?
Answers: "Mad cow disease (BSE) has cause the death of more than 200,000 cattle and 165 race in the UK, but have now abate." http://mtbeurope.info/news/2007/712004.h...

Do you think that the statutory rape law are a little ridiculous?

Answers: With regard to certain dynamics, yes. The law are in place to protect juveniles from mortal taken advantage of by much elder, more experienced people. That person said, an 18 or 19 year old should not own the full weight of the ruling come down on them for having sex next to a 17 year old.

In the larger picture, I do not believe the law to be ridiculous. They are in place to protect those that are not fully grown, responsible or experienced enough to protect themselves. However, the communiqu¨¦ and the spirit of the law wants to be distinguished in plentiful cases to avoid excessive punishment.
No. Young people are not fully aware of the consequences of sexual relationships nor are they ripened enough to bring to the fore a family. To protect them against one taken advantage of by elder persons is socially learned.

Young people adjectives too often capture venereal diseases when seduced by older 'predators' who put lust since compassion. That mars them for enthusiasm.
Perhaps. One night, a girl 16 and a guy 17 are consensual. Then he turns 18 and its unauthorized.

In that sense, yes the law is a bit innocuous.
You are with a attractive young woman she looks 25,she tell you she is 20...Do we ask her for her ID???
If you don't then you could be contained by trouble if she is 15!!
Laws are laws...Change them if you can,but until next...BEWARE
Yes is ridiculous on some instances.

Also if a 14 kid have sex next to a 17 the 17 will be a predator taking advantage of a kid. But if a 18 hold sex with a 17 afterwards the predators turn to be a kid and the 18 become the predator. If a 14 get surrounded by legal trouble he is intermediary as an adult because he know what he was doing. But for sex he don't and still a child what a contradiction.
NO!!! stupid query,you obviously don't hold a daughter
ps... in the dutiful old days near woundn't even be a trial,if you know what i mean.
they are right. dont quiz the law. thats how associates end up surrounded by prison.
Is it ridiculous that a child could be coerced into sex with an full-size? How would you feel if it be your 12 year old son or daughter? In some cases it may give the impression of being ridiculous, but where would you draw the flash?
If you think the canon is so bad. Film her doing the achievement and ask her parents if it is child porn.
No. Although the violation of a creature is usually considered, and prosecuted, in most states as any assault or abuse, the directive (statute) considers age to be the primary factor as to whether a person is out-of-date enough to consent to sexual relations (intercourse, and etc.), and respectively state makes its own canon regarding "legally recognized age." The age of consent varies from state to state range from 14 up to 18 or even 21 years of age. However, if the parties are of legally recognized age, the key word remains "consent." Rape, comes into play when their's an missing of consent on the part of one of the party; so you may want to get the "consent" within written form first.

To answer your question within other-words, one must, to protect minors, have an established trial age under tenet, otherwise it would simply be a matter of any consent or rape, depending on who you believe. The law speaks for the minor: it say NO.
Actually, a lot of ancestors are misinformed about statutory rape law. The most common misconception is that the age of consent, for allowed sex is 18 throughout the USA. However 42 states set the age of consent lower than 18 with the most adjectives age being 16. There are also "close surrounded by age exceptions" which allow young general public a certain rope in this nouns if they are close in age(commonly 2-4 years). This is why the guy who knock up Britney Spear's sister isn't being prosecuted. I imagine at 16 or 17 is a good age to own the age of consent.

Is putting information from a book on my website against copyright laws?

I'm wanting to label a "home imporvment" website with tips on decorate, home, garden, health, crafts--that sort of stuff. Would it be against copyright law if I put stuff I got from books on my website? Would it thing if I didn't write it "word for word"? I was also thinking I would put on my website the suggestion of the book that way whoever is reading it will know I didn't label anything up. Please give me an impression of what to do if it is against the law.
Answers: If this is going to be genuine website, I seriously suggest you talk to allowed counsel. Unfortunately, most of the answers on here are very wrong.

Generally speaking, copying or even adapt another's copyrighted work is copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether you cite sources or whether you brand no money from it.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two separate things. Most importantly, copyright infringement is based on statutory decree (Title 17 of the US Code). So you have specific rules you must follow.

There is also no standard guideline to avoid copyright infringement. Much of it is determined on a case-by-case basis.
not if you sign the god damn sources in mla format
god even i kno that
i have a sneaking suspicion that it is if you don't give the credit to the character who wrote the book.
I think near is a law that states you can simply copy something like 4% of a book minus the owner's permission, but this might single apply in the UK.
not if you quote it...if you consent to everyone know that that information didn't come from you but from the book.
It's ok as long as you cite your sources clearly and aren't trying to make a profit.
You hold to cite your sources.
I guess if you cite your source from which book, site, etc. you got it from, it's okay.
LOL.dont return with caught!!!
I'm pretty sure you'll be alright as long as you list your referance substance
Generally if you give credit to the holder of the copyright, you should be okay. Also, unless you are trying to net money off your website, it shouldn't be an issue. If you are trying to generate money off your website, next the issue becomes much more cloudy.
If you use the information word-for-word and don't attribute it -- explicitly, you don't say explicity the entitle of the book and the author and publisher -- that that would be plagiarism and a violation of copyright imperative. In some cases, you could be violating intellectual property regulation if you use someone's original notion, even if you don't copy it word-for-word, if you claim it as your own. For example, if you were to use a recipe from a cookbook, and changed a word or two, you could be accuse of plagiarism if you don't attribute the source.
Plagiarism.

That's is you don't get authority.
You have to move about and ask the source for permission. Or if you can't seize a hold of them. Quote them word for word and give them credit.

Otherwise, they can come hindmost and sue you, for making money off of their rugged work.
You said "YOU" want to make a network site whereby "YOU" tell race how to do things. Therefore, I'm wondering why "YOU" need to consult other so-called authorities (books and etc.) to put in the picture the public what "YOU" think and own to say on the subject of the subjects "YOU," via your web-site, are representing yourself as being an expert on? Do you enjoy some form of inferiority complex that craves recognition?

Now to address plagiarism and copyright infringement: if a personality reads books, and most those do, and is an author, ans some people are, undisputed concepts (ideas) and information may have be gained from the person's reading which are presented as self originate by an author while the author is simply transcribing personal thoughts on a subject: that is not copyright infringement. Copying what another author have written and passing it stale as your personal thoughts on something is copyright infringement. Copying what another author has written, but distorting it adequate to avoid copyright problems is unethical. Some things are not, because of adjectives usage, subject to copyright infringement: recipes for example i.e.; how to generate chocolate milk (you dump some chocolate into some milk and stir).

From the take I get when reading your question, I'd push for you to find another topic for expressing expert opinion; articulate one you know something about.

If the three people who may enjoy?

caused the tiger attack are found to enjoy provoked the attack - should they be put to death - I deem so how about U?!?!?!?!
Answers: no
should the personality who put to death three citizens that caused the tiger attack be kill?

For those of you that knowingly brake the imperative?

Where do you draw the line?

For example you may speed. 10,20 or 30mph over the speed bound. but you despise drink drivers.

You may see a sign informing you that if you drop litter/rubbish you may end up near a $100/lb50 fine, you still drop it. But you despise people who fly tip.

At what point do you ruminate something becomes socially insufficient
Answers: For the same reason that a convicted felon cant get a commission because he or she is a convicted felon and now an out sort to society. But yet they complain of the over crowded prisons mostly because of repeat offender that society wouldn't give a second providence to. Most of society breaks the law basically as you have pointed out. Many hold no police record individual because they were not caught. Good luck finding the answer to your query. I myself still search for the truth...
Victimless crimes . . . speeding when it isn't unsafe.

Littering - pollutes the disguise.

Drunk drivers make it unsafe for everyone doing a tour.
this is a very accurate question.
i feel the truth is most of us feel that other society have become socially not good enough when what they do affects them.
Ive noticed that citizens who bend or break the rules are the first to moan when they see someone else doing it.
i hold a friend that drives a car beside no tax no MOT, and no insurance the vehicle has no guardian, and the other day i be giving him a lift contained by my mums car when we be going up a one way street when a motor came down the wrong opening.
i had to verbs in to permit him pass and my mate be going mad shouting your going the wrong mode.
he was going barmy until i said well you enjoy no room to talk what in the order of you, he said, that's different

More Questions and Answers:
[1945] - [1032] - [206] - [1224] - [2009] - [843] - [1490] - [1641] - [2496] - [181] - [2152] - [2029] - [1045] - [668] - [1421] - [1077] - [333] - [2195] - [2336] - [2239]

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

Answer question: