Law Questions and Answers

Temporary paper ego thing?

When I go to get my Texas Identification card from the DMV they said it would appropriate 2-6 weeks to receive it. Problem is, I'm supposed to go to Louisiana contained by 4 weeks for a weekend with my friends and we be going to go to a club or banister where you must be 18 to return with in. If my ID hasn't come will I be allowed surrounded by with my short-term paper ID that the DMV give me? It doesn't have a picture but it have all my information and my given name would be backed up next to a school ego. I have no opinion!
Answers: For insurance and legal reason they will not accept ID minus a picture. Now you have a institution ID but for a place that is allowing 18 year olds... they will be tough. Plus your ID is out of state so they are not going risk losing adjectives for you. It would be embarassing to get near and you don't get within.

But you said you are going in 4 weeks. The 6 weeks they quote is an upper constraint so I bet you get it surrounded by less than 4.

Spend some time (probably much) callling DMV and work your path up to a supervisor to inquire about the status of your application. You might describe them that you need to book an airflight and you are concerned nearly having your ID ontime.
It's up to the public house.

Legally, it's a valid ID. Whether or not the bar will purloin it is up to them.

You could always convey your passport.

Richard
Most places that sell alcohol require a picture ID. I wouldn't count on mortal admitted lacking one.

What if the press prints a story minus my permission?

What can i do? if i ask it not be printed would they listen? (Im guessing not...) but also can i sue them?? Dont exploit like a smartass i dont know much around media
Answers: Unfortunately they can print anything they want as long as when they print it they believe the facts are true.. Papers print Retractions adjectives the time in tiny print surrounded by the back of the composition..(which relieves them of any legal actions) I don't read the word paper for that principle as they seem to print opinion more then facts.. Bottom rank the press can print anything and can retract any statement at any time..
You own the right of your own privacy. This law is broad in almost adjectives countries. The very first point you must do is that write to the newspaper company that they enjoy no permission for them to publish any story that you own written.

But if they still pursue with publishing lacking your permission, later you could sue them because they have no supporting documents that indicates that they enjoy your permission to publish your story
They can print anything i.e. true. What kind of story? A true story or something you wrote?

What would you sue them for? Not obey you? If it is a story you wrote, then conceivably common statute copyright infringement. If it is a true story about you, after so long as it is true, they're pretty much in the clear.
Welcome to copyright ruling!

If you wrote it, you own it. Use of copyrighted materials for commercial purposes is still a felony. Plus there may be some privacy considerations. See Benny vs. Loew's Incorporated 239 F.2d.532

Can a hospital discharge a homeless person?

My friend lately had a discouraging stroke and has be in the hospital for three weeks. They have no savings to slop back on, so during this time his wife get evicted and had to move contained by with relatives. Now the hospital says he's okay enough to walk back home as long as he have a 24 hour caretaker. His wife says she can't afford one and have no room to bring him home.
But the hospital says that's tough luck and they're discharging him Friday. The paperwork is started for Medicaid but could purloin months to kick contained by.
No facilities will touch him in need payment. She have a job but could not earn satisfactory to pay for a sitter and his pills. What should she do? Does the hospital have the right to release him homeless?
Answers: Yes, the hospital can release him since he is medically stable and at hand is nothing more they can do. Perhaps a rehabilitation center would be capable of take him within until the medicaid kicks within.

Best of luck.
a hospital is a business. that's the truth and yes it's ugly!

Do you like unpromising boys? ... Do "prior convictions" turn you on?

Answers: yes i love bad boyz
Like the lies they speak , you are innocence until proven guilty----- should be ,what they are saying ---you are guilty until proven innocence.

Some of you individuals are really sick in the leader, seems you be born in a fruitless environment
"NO", is the short answer.

How can i sue the police for slander defamation?

Answers: profile a lawsuit in civil court against the police dpartment after you go to court and own your lawyer plead your covering
You *almost* certainly can't.

The police are immune from suit for most conduct taken surrounded by the course of their duties, even if illegal.

The individual officer is incontestably immune.

It is just hardly possible that there might be grounds for a suit against the department if you hold evidence to prove that the defamatory statement be made deliberately, that it be made as a matter of department business, that it be made with actual ease that it was untrue, and that it be made maliciously.

Richard
ROFLMAO


You better hold a lot of CREDIBLE witnesses next to that one but think roughly it, if you were to win, would you want the hassle by the police department after the reality? There are many ways they can find you in trouble and seeing that they are a tight group, they will do almost anything for respectively other.

If a company can ban smokers from working nearby due to healthcare costs,?

Does that mean that it is decriminalized to not hire people who are overweight? Or if they are competent to not hire smokers due to "lack of productivity" can they refuse permission for to hire people beside depression? Both of which have substansial percentage of people who brought the above problems on themselves?
Answers: I really want people would lately back bad smokers. People that have never smoked a cigarette within their lives are dying from cancer--specifically, lung cancer, but it's the smokers that are targeted as the culprits to blame. Seriously, these morons can't for one minute believe that just conceivably it may have something to do beside factory emissions, diesel fuel and doesn`t matter what other toxins floating around in the heavens we breath?

Cracks me up...the commercial where the comedian essentially blames her smoking audience of the lung cancer she'd be diagnosed with... Can one personage actually prove and isolate everything they breathe into their lungs to specifically prove that she be affected beside cancer from second hand smoke? Give me a freakin break. She probably grew up within the auto capital of the world, breathing fuel emission and factory emissions her entire natural life, then blames the second mitt smoke of her audience from a career she's probably simply been surrounded by say...a fourth of her life span?

Why not ban pizza, sugar, soda, alcohol, chocolate, clutch those items out of an obese persons course and see how genetic obesity is.
A personage can have a genetic predisposition to be overweight or to suffer from depression. Smoking is a purely chosen behavior.

Anyone that think that depression is something that a person "brought on themselves' does not take in depression. Depression is a chemical imbalance within the brain, not simply the blues one can snap out of.
what about alcoholics? but more surrounded by the spirit of the question, what roughly those in the military reserve? they may own to leave the company to serve their country... what give or take a few veterens? what about disabled? oh, pregnant women, can't forget them, they'll want time off for dr's visit, check ups, etc, and then, they'll call for maternity make tracks.

Why is society so accepting of these modern witch hunts?

Why aren't we more concerned about better strength care for adjectives citizens than we are about the profits of the insurance companies and the drug manufacturer?
I wouldn't have a problem beside it. Quit smoking it is gross and bad for you. So is self overweight.

People of Ohio!!! Or if you know?

Ok, I get within my first car quirk with a truck ok... It wasn't my reproach but senior citizen made a left turn when I be coming in the other direction. My passenger front is kinda give a hiding up and I took out a head wishy-washy. Cop came did adjectives the work and said that he was within a good mood so he wasn't going to hand over a citation or however you may spell it. Why would he give us a citation??? That's what I don't get the message???
Answers: well i hold just go through this very point, and i lost left front fender and go before light. the other being was given a citation for fiasco to yield to right of process. this is what the cop was describing you you failed to let go to right of way. he be being nice by not issuing a citation. you will will he had if you are trying to collect insurance
the happenstance report will show if there be contributing factors and failing for the accident on it. the report will also own a drawing showing roads, direction of vehicles, uncomplicated information about the road conditions and will show placement of traffic lights et-cetra. if any of specifically in error your insurance company will help out you deal near it and contest any findings that are incorrect . perhaps it be determined you were speeding, or contained by some other way driving immaturely. how did your passenger side get worn out? there is not plenty detail about the chance to determine why the officer may have feel you could have be cited. once you get your copy of the report you will gain much more education. just guessing but i would articulate there is for a time bit of detail missing from your post/question.

How can I contest a will on my own?

My Father died last year March 18 amd he have two wills one that leaves everything to me and my brother and a handwritten will that leaves some stuff to his new "girlfriend" but it be incomplete and left me stuff approaching english and some other things that you couldnt read it was really doomed to failure handwriting any way I compensated a lawyer and he stalled and stalled and immediately i want to contest the handwritten will by myself because i cant afford another lawyer so if anyone know how please tell me so that i dont lose what is vanished of my fathers estate which also includes my mothers things from her estate. Thank You
Answers: "Rick" give great answers and once again I agree with him. I commonly don't answer questions he have answered, but I do have something to put in. In my state, a Will can be handwritten (holographic) as "Rick" said. I once successfully probated a Will written on a bar napkin (literally!). In my state, a Will have to be signed before 2 witnesses, but does not own to be notorized. In my state, an heir can be a witness, but this is not true within most states. If you want to contest this Will, do so quickly. Was your father mentally competent? In my state, the directive will presume the girlfriend had the proficiency to exercise undue influence, so that puts you a step ahead. Write a pleading to the Court stating all the reason you think the Will is invalid. If you hold any doubt as to your father's competency, get the Court to issue a subpoena for history from his doctor. I can't help you much more short knowing where you live. Right in a minute I am involved in a Will contest surrounded by Court in which a soul left adjectives his assets to his girlfriend. I believe she wrote the Will because he was competent and moved out out children and said his sister ("Robbie") was his brother. If your advocate didn't help you, report him/her to the dowel association and get your money spinal column. Call your state bar bureau and ask if they can refer you to a competent probate attorney. You can do this yourself, but I'd spend the money on a consultation with a well-mannered attorney to help you draw from on the right track.
Whether a holographic (handwritten) will is legal depends on your States law, and you didn't say where on earth you are.

Probate law is complex. If you can't afford a advocate, and there isn't ample financial value contained by the estate to cover one, then dance to your local library and check out some books on probate law.

Richard
> I compensated a lawyer and he stalled and stalled and presently

Find out exactly where surrounded by the Probate process the court is. If the attorney missed the filing date for contesting the Will, after fire him, and hire a new attorney. (Depending upon what state you are within, you might be able to sue the attorney for failing to provide the services that be contracted for.)

If he hasn't missed a filing deadline, later go through the entire procedure near him, and get a time flash of what should happen, and when they should transpire.

Also verify that your attorney is not representing the other side in any trial matters, or matter that could fall into a official situation.

>i want to contest the handwritten will by myself because i cant afford another lawyer so if anyone

If you can't afford the advocate, you can't afford the expert witnesses you will need to contest the will.

>i don't lose what is not here of my fathers estate which also includes my mothers things from her estate.

If near is an uncontested will, then representing yourself surrounded by Probate Court is doable. Not easy, but doable.

With a contested will, later representing yourself is akin to giving away everything you currently own, several times over.

Your initial issues are:
* Demonstrate the the will you want to be probated was:
** Drawn up according to the wishes of your father;
** Meets adjectives of the requirements for a will to be valid in the state he died within;
** Meets all of the requirements for a will to be valid within the state he resided in;
** Meets adjectives of the requirements for a will in the state within which you reside;
** Why it should be used instead of the later will:

Things to consider:
** The gross attraction of the estate;
** How much actual, monetary value you are ready to spend, for "objects of sentimental value", but no intrinsic worth;

This is not legal warning. I am not an attorney.

Why do people that wear fur other compare fur to leather???

I am staunchly against fur. Many offenders I try and coach always ask if I wear leather (I dont) but they other try and make the comparisson of fur to leather when leather is a bi-product of the meat citizens consume, whereas fur is the only constituent of the animal that is used and the rest go to rot away in a dump somewhere or composted into firtilizer. Dont carry me wrong, some natives and inuit people still utilize fur because the dont own alternatives, but they use the reast of the animal, nothing go to waste. Not to mention it take more than 100 mink to make one full legth coat! That is such a huge squander of life!

My interrogate is, how can anyone justify wearing fur, nearby is no good aim for it, is there? Is in that anyone out there next to a logical reason for wearing fur in our day?
Answers: I wish I could answer your give somebody the third degree but I really can't. I will tell you though that I am also dead set against the wearing of fur. There is no reason to wear fur except vanity and the desire to look abounding.

People of my mother's generation have no enlightenment on this and probably never thought to ask. Younger people however can not speak they don't know that fur is wrong unless they've been living surrounded by a cave somewhere.

Fur is disgusting and I yearning it would be outlawed.
Actually most of the time, the "extras" from fur manufacturers draw from sent to pet food manufacturers and used here. Or to compost piles where it is turned into fertilizer to grow crops for vegetarian to eat.

Isn't that ironic?
I love fur, and if you do not, I would appreciate it if you don't approach me within public and give me grief nearly it. I do not force you to wear it, you should not try to force me to stop.

Fur is warm, fur is cheap in our time.
I especially love that people wear fur coats within places where it's not really that cold. I can sure understand why someone who lives close by the arctic circle would wear fur, but I fail to know why someone living in Los Angeles would ever obligation to do so (besides, of course, vanity).

It's also out of the ordinary to me that people who wear fur tacitly adopt the argument of their most adoring (no pun intended) opponents. There are plentifully of people who equate wearing fur next to wearing leather and eating meat. To them, it's adjectives the same (although fur get most of the attention). So, some weathered hag in a full length mink, fairly than actually shield her carcass coat, borrows a cue from PETA in the hopes that someone will throw red paint on a individual wearing leather shoes for a change. To answer your grill, I suppose they say it because they can't really keep it and choose to use the "I am rubber you are glue..." argument. It's stupid, but so are population who wear fur.
What we wear is our own choice. If you chose not to wear fur then to be exact fine. There may be some things you do not know about furs and the fur industry.
This information will not formulate you change your mind nor do I expect it too.
First the animals that produce furs are from the varmint class(rodent) and are on the odd occasion ever eaten by humans. (purhaps if the tribes be hungry enough they would guzzle anything)
Second the carcuss of the animal after being skinned is ground up and cooked and feed to the remaining or new shipment of animals (mink, chincillas, etc) Now I know this sounds horrible but in the forest (in legitimate life) the very same piece happens. Dead mink are promply eat by the others in the pack.
Third the wearing of skins and fur have long been done for several reason. One of course is the fur is heat up. Two, because of the cost of making a fur coat as you noted over 100 skins is expensive and people next to money like to show it sour. Three as you mentioned our native Americans wear fur because within is no substitute and it is a part of their tribal customs.
So You agree on what you want to wear. It is your privilege and as long as you do not try to tell others what to wear I will honor your rights. As far as equating leather beside fur, the skin of a fur coat is leather. Leather is a very long persistent and supple material that keep our feet and our body thaw. And if you dye it black and put some buckles on it , it will make an ancient guy on a motor cycle look and feel young at heart.

Sarge
there is no explanation to wear or use either.

Either opening your killing innocent animals,,, and growing them to be kill is just as doomed to failure, Its bad for the environment and its only just sad to those who cant choose for themselves.

they are both the covering from an animal what the texture and what its made of make no differnece its still discusting..

Would you see things differnt if the cow be your pet?

What would it be like if we be walking around wearing our dogs and cats?..

Im not putting you down or anything but people really construct exceptions to what they think is right or wrong when it comes to what animals we can decimate what rules we folloa and everything...its sad
Fur is leather near hair on it. Not adjectives leather is taken from cows. Some comes from ostrich, snake, alligator, lamb, lizard, and many other animals. We don't get through all of them. Besides, composting into fertilizer is a moment ago as legitimate a use as intake.

Besides, do you eat meat? I do. I enjoy a very logical plea for doing so, too. I like it.

Inuit don't own a choice? Couldn't they get down coats from duplicate people they buy their rifles and snowmobiles from? I don't know where on earth you got the belief that the Inuit don't waste anything; I expect you've seen too masses movies. They don't waste lone if you think feed caribou to the dogs is not wasteful. I chew over it is a perfectly honest use, but if you think compost is excess, you probably think feed one animal to another is wasteful, too. Ever try to chomp through a caribou leg? It is more bone, gristle and tendon than actual meat.

The evidence for wearing fur is it's warm, it feel good and it looks polite. That's more justification than we enjoy for most of the things we do. Maybe you should take up consumption weasel, so all those mink won't stir to waste.
It sure kept Luise and Clark heat up. Why do dogs, cats, bears ect. own fur? To stay warm.

Judicial activism and judicial restraint?

what's your opinionby judicial activism and judicial restraint
Answers: Political parties use the language to their benefit, when they use the terms it usually channel the opposite.
Judicial activism have no place in our legally recognized system. Judges are sworn to uphold the law fairly than to rewrite the law to suit their concept of what society needs. Legislators miss laws and bench enforce them - period!
Judicial restraint is a upright doctrine whereby the judge repects and applies the directive to the case to some extent than trying to make strange law.
Almost other, those who decry "judicial activism" are characterizing opinions that they disagree near as such.

A philosophically consistent definition of the term (and, by undertone, its opposite -- "judicial restraint") is that "activism" is jurisprudence which (overtly or pretextually) creates trial law fairly than interpreting extant law. Examples of this are Brown v. Board of Education (integrating public schools), Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion), and Lawrence v. Texas (invalidating anti-sodomy laws).

But lower than our common tenet system, precedential law is freshly as controlling as statutory law. Accordingly, if the Supreme Court be to overrule Roe v. Wade today, that would be just as crusader as the original declaration.

Bush v. Gore, regardless of your politics, has to be noted as one of the most "activist" judicial opinion in the history of the Republic. At no previous time have the Supreme Court overturned the decision of a state supreme court as to a quiz of state electoral law, on the flimsy pretext of the rights of voters. Moreover, those who voted near the 5/4 majority in Bush v. Gore be those same Justices who vote consistently against the very underlying policies on which the feelings relied.

"Judical activism" and "judical restraint" are not useful label. Rather, opinions should be judge on whether they are hypocritical (i.e., using legal principles cynically to buy a specifically desired result) or genuine. Bush v. Gore be one of the most flagrantly hypocritical opinions contained by the history of the Court. Opinions which show judicial integrity are those where the politics of the peacemaker would predispose her or him to one conclusion, but the court nonetheless determines that the law demands the different.

More Questions and Answers:
[134] - [1048] - [1116] - [2262] - [744] - [2206] - [2573] - [974] - [2520] - [151] - [1898] - [2085] - [173] - [224] - [1442] - [2145] - [1918] - [1410] - [2310] - [2008]

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

Answer question: