Law Questions and Answers

Convictions?

Answers: I always stand by my convictions!
Don't notify me, let me guess !

It wasn't you, you weren't even in that, your Innocent. You were framed. that's gotta be what your unformulated about, is it ?
CRB checked and none.

What qualifies someone for disablity benefits thru the state?

I see so copious people beside the handicap signs on their cars and they seem to be ok from what I can see. Now I am not trying to be tight or rude. I realize they could have something legit going on which would label them eligible.

So what qualifies someone for disability benefits?
Answers: i see that adjectives the time too. and you see people using other peoples' handicap pass too. they shouldn't be transferable...i mean whoever that slip belongs to should be within the car at the time of use.

i never unspoken why if you have two impeccably good legs why you'd choose the closest parking spot. you're basically going into the store where you're going to tramp a bunch anyway. yay...lazy chubby america.

furthermore, i know this is horrible, but have you ever discern a horrible driver and then look at their license plate or the marker in the mirror and they are handicapped? conceivably they should re-test for a drivers license every year. sometimes i feel endagered!
A Disability.
I know, right?...technically I'M disabled. I don't ride surrounded by the little cart at the grocery store, I park out beside everybody else, and I get up and dance to work everyday...but I'M disabled? I refuse to collect benefits or anything...perchance that's way I don't own a little piece for my car...but afterwards, I haven't asked for one...
You don't have to be getting benefits to procure a handicap permit, All you want is a Doctor to say you obligation one.
Contact your local county social services and ask them this question.
you know, i enjoy no idea!!!
When I be in Seattle, I worked next to an Major insurance company (okay, this sounds like a long time ago, but I hold been away from Seattle for for a moment over a year. ) and one of our Insured's rear-ended this lady...and instinctively she was claiming an injury. When, the Rep that handle the claim (he was on my team) have to meet near her at the office to budge over paperwork and the like. Turns out she be a stripper, or something of that persuasion, and some fat dude be drunk and fell on her...causing an injury to her hip (bear contained by mind she was 27) and hence she was claiming the luck aggrevated the injury. Now she was also timetabled a being disabled due to this 'injury,' parking sticker and adjectives...did she change her strip of work? Nope!
I think it is a short time ago one of those things we shell out to people, short really checking.
not that i care, exact I don't care where on earth I park...the walk is never that far and the exercise can lend a hand...maybe we should move the handicap parking spots further away, so they can strengthen their legs and attain better...think of it a physical psychoanalysis parking...

The United States vs. People Who Drink and Are Under 21 years of age?

Can any justify our law on drinking (or other drugs)? I am 18 years old and I drink on the weekends. I never drive drunk and me and my friends never bother anyone, we do our own entry. It really is quite rediculous that we could be arrested for what we are doing. If living within any Western European country or even Quebec or Mexico... hell almost every country in the world, drinking for me and my friends would be especially normal and we'd at the pub drinking with 40 mature dads, 25 year old lawyer, 60 year old time of war vets etc. I am so tired of reading how legislators are making stricter law and proposing harsher punishments regarding this issue. Instead. how almost everyone opens thier eyes and realize adults drinking alchol is not a sin. 18-20 years olds are not demons. Not that long, during time where most of you society who will be opposed to what I am aphorism were 18, 18 be the legal age. I infer it is is pretty mirthless that when I go to Canada contained by a few weeks and drink it is fine and norm
Answers: 18 year olds can marry, divorce, fight and die surrounded by a war, buy a vehicle, drive, buy a house, go to college, hold sex, make babies, tilt families, run up debt, work, vote, have a flutter, file for ruin, file lawsuits, own firearms (along beside the other restrictions), learn to pilot aircraft, see any movie they see fit, go to prison, be charged as an full-size for any crime. but no beer!
It is quite ridiculous.

It's inopportune that many childlike people are not terribly responsible. But then neither are abundant adults.

As for other drugs ... http://74.86.153.133/~horsemen/eric/waro...
The law is created surrounded by order to protect the public. As a result of the varying societies contained by the world, the law will change depending on where you live and it will copy what goes on inwardly this society. If a particular nouns has a problem beside people of your age drinking afterwards they have every right to implement law which restrict your behaviour within this area.

Statistically, 18-20 year olds are at a greater risk of having accident and becoming difficult because they are under the influence of alcohol and because of this, provisions enjoy to be put in place to stop this from going on.

Is it true that you can get sued if someone get hurt on YOUR property?!?

Answers: I hope you're kidding. Of course it is true! What is NOT true which tons people are not aware of is that you are not necessarily liable only just because someone was injured on your property. The personage suing has to show the property owner be somehow at fault.
Of course it's true. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything.

More to the point, if someone get hurt on your property you 'might' lose a lawsuit if they sue you. For them to win, though, they need to show that you be somehow at fault - any you did something that caused them to catch hurt, or you were slack in not doing something that would own prevented it.

For example, if you leave a hole contained by your pathway, and the mailman falls and hurts himself, you're liable. If it snows, and you leave the snow near for weeks and someone slips on it, you're liable.

If it snows overnight, and someone slips on the snow while jogging at 5am, you're not going to be liable, because it wasn't lax of you not to have gotten up at 4am to check for rime on your sidewalk.

Richard
yes.
even if it's their fault
thats why empire carry home owners insurance.
Yes...to be precise correct...if you have house and contents insurance, you should hold public liability built in to the policy...surrounded by Australia...it normally comes next to your policy of around about $10,000,000.
Oh yes indeed.There are a few ways 'around' the circumstances of the injured.If they be uninvited then you can lawfully claim they were trespassing,and they acted within a criminal manner and get "injured" in their escape attempt...er...flight from the scene,nearby are always extenuating circumstances contained by these things.Keeping the exterior of the place tidy reduces the probability of a lawsuit too.
You can get sued for anything.
Sure is. That is why you own Homeowner's Insurance, medical expense.
yes.
Yes you can and they will win if they can show that your negligence caused the injury.
Any one can sue in the region of anything. It does not mean they will win.

However, depending on the circumstances cause the injury - they may win.
Yes. If you have an icy pathway to your door or a rickety stair and someone gets hurt, you can be sued for negligence.

Have most prison systems banned smoking?

This seem like a worthy basis which would improve the vigour to we as tax payers rate for.I think its outrageoues that oodles hard working people's due dollars go to aid for a convict who has broke the regulation & the taxpayer cant even afford to have insurance or travel to the doctor.My solution is put tyhe convicts to work doing something productive such as cleaning off the roadsides,rasing their own food,and civilized for the elderly & mentally ill instead of lay around watching tv raping other inmates,& going to their workouts to stay in shape.We single make crimnals worse than they be before they go to jail.We dont want to verbs up crime bc lawyers breed tons of money paid by the levy payer to take these peoples cases.
Answers: I am a Corrections Officer contained by a max prison for the last 19 years immediately and personally, I agree wholeheartedly next to you. Under the new, progressive " Correction and Rehabiltation" rules of the liberals today, we are doing nought more than giving criminals a free ride at a massive expense to the American taxpayer. Smoking is being slowly taken out of the penal system but not for form. Insurance rates are dropped by the underwriters when second hand smoke is removed from an environment. Recidivism is going through the roof and is nil more than a turnstile for continuing criminal to keep coming backbone. I know I am not truly answering the specific question you pose, but it did stretch out another thought pattern here. I hope this help.
I don't know about "most", but California have banned smoking surrounded by ALL workplaces - which includes prisons.

On the other hand, the untried workplace smoking ban that a moment ago took effect in England specifically excludes prisons - the guards said making adjectives those thousands of cons quit smoking "cold turkey" would just head to too many discipline problems for them.

Richard
Some own made cigarettes contraband because prisoners were barter cigs like money. Others tried outlawing but then go back to the feeble system because the nicotine addiction caused more problems.

The tobacco companies must love prisons.
(Sarcasm) Who would want extermination row inmates to smoke, it could kill them (Sarcasm) Let them smoke 10 carton a day, who care, hopefully they get emphysema and are too off-colour to commit crimes when they get out.

A law problem for files?

Ok law guys let's hear your answer to this. My daughter falls contained by a store where beer have been not here on the floor for hours. She is awared a sum of money and her lawyer say the insurance company wont pay or have not paid up. After one year of one excuse after another another advocate is hired that was the mididator on the innovative. This lawyere calls the insurance com. and finds out that they own paid the first adjectives of the money. The second lawyer claims that he have a conference with the inspired judge on the bag and the judge have ordered that the money be paid. The believe to be was also supposed to own frozen the accounts of the law firm that stole this money. According to the public store nothing of the quality has be done and the original regulation firm still refuses to appendage over the money paid by the insurance co. Three months latter and about fifty phone call the second lawyer does not phone up back and is never surrounded by his office. Now what??????? The amount owed is one hundred thousandi
Answers: Sue the first advocate and report him to the state bar.

EDIT for moved out coast: Settlements are frequently made out to the lawyer's trust account. Once the funds clear and the legal representative pays all permissible liens against the settlement, the balance is compensated to the client.

Sounds like advocate one did not do this last step and is liable.
whoa. This is one of the most complicated question I have see on this site.

You need legalized assistance especially because the police may need to gain involved, but I can't give you direction one way or another because you stipulation advice specific to your situation and the law of your state.

this article is called "How to Find Legal Help When You Can't Afford It" and it have resources listed for every state.

http://www.courtreference.com/court-refe...
You might want to sue the first attorney, however, if everyone else involved can prove they fulfilled their obligations after they wouldn't have to wage again. The burden of proof would fall on advocate one to show he was remunerated.

However, the party paying the claims wouldn't write a check to the attorney, it would be written to the child or her permissible guardian, and secondly a person wouldn't know how to cash a check that big in need proof of identity, so your scenario isn't all that convincing.
You sue the first lawyer. He stole the money and directory a complaint with the state banister association about the first lawyer's appointments.

I cannot give permitted advise. Only a licensed advocate can give officially recognized advise. This post should not be construed as lawful advice.

What do you think give or take a few the three strikes law? should it be revised ?

Answers: partly of the people on the first 2 offenses are really not guilty. permitted system is whacked.
The three strikes law should with the sole purpose apply to violent crime, NOT mere drug possession.

Labour forced through a Law saying that we should kiss Gay *ss.Shouldn't it be used on Gordon Brown?

Mr Bean so rant and raved at his Gay Director of Political Strategy that the poor boy be reduced to tears!
He,Spencer Livermore, was so "weakly scarred" that he had to move about home and be "Comforted by Friends" (?.Ooh,Er!)
There is still no news of his return to "Active Service",even after nearly a month.

According to Gay News,Spencer is the most "Powerful" Gay within the country!
If this is "Powerful" then I wouldn't close to to see the behaviour of a "Milksop"
Anyway, don't you reflect on that the Law should be investigating Bean's violent attack

As the Scots Guards used to say-so:"And a prosperous new queer"
Answers: I don't have an idea that it is any of my business where a bloke chooses to put his private parts (assuming free, consenting adults, surrounded by private etc)

However minority pressure groups get right up my antenna - I wish the intact industry would all purely shut up and sod off, so action can be directed on useful productive issues fairly than generating job for the select inner circles.

There are already laws against 'assault' and if the attack (verbal or otherwise) be of such ferocity that someone needs a month of work (no doubt on full wage - out of my taxes...) then Brown should be charged.

Is virtual child porn protected by the 1st amendment?

i know that child porn with REAL children is against the statute because u are exploiting children, but what if no actualy children are used? like "computer graphics" porn, is that protexted by the freedom of speech?
Answers: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/ar...
"Maybe".

The ruling is not yet fixed on this subject.

The Federal Govt passed a regulation a couple of years ago that banned "virtual child porn", but matching law also prevented porn using adults who "looked" like they be under 18, or whose photographs have been digitally edited to MAKE them "look" below 18. The law be challenged surrounded by court and found to be unconstitutional because how old someone "looks" is purely subjective. That ability the law cease to be valid law, which method that there is, again, no tenet 'specifically' banning virtual child porn.

BUT. That doesn't plan it's automatically legal, any. Material can be obscene because it features children even if it features paintings, drawings, cartoon - or even written material single. All it means is that respectively incident would have to be prosecuted on the font of getting a jury to find the material "obscene" on it's merits. There's no regulation that 'automatically' makes the matter obscene just because of the 'apparent' age of the "virtual model".

Richard
the supreme court struck down such a imperative based on protected first amendment rights.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/s...

i am not sure whether unmarked similar laws hold passed or are being challenge presently

EDIT:

U.S. v. Williams, Michael
Docket: 06-0694
Term: 2007-08
Appealed From: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (April 6, 2006)
Oral Argument:Oct. 30, 2007

The Supreme Court is slated to weigh in again on congressional pains to outlaw child pornography, focusing on whether the provisions of the so-called PROTECT Act are too broad to be permissible lower than the First Amendment.
The case involves Michael Williams, who be convicted in federal district court of "pandering" (promoting) child pornography.
The federal PROTECT Act proscribes the pandering of "any stuff or purported material within a manner that reflect the belief, or that is intended to raison d`¨ētre another to believe" that the material is wicked child pornography. The Act represents Congress's attempt to outlaw sexually explicit images of children - including both imagery of real children and computer-generated metaphors of realistic virtual children.
The Supreme Court struck down as overbroad Congress's previous hard work to achieve equal goal within Ashcroft v. Free Speech Council, because the law as written could enjoy outlawed artwork that was neither obscene nor child pornography. Williams argued that the PROTECT Act be similarly overbroad, but the district court held that the government can legitimately outlaw the pandering of substance as child pornography, even if the material is not contained by fact child pornography.

Keep within mind that child pornography laws outlaw child porn whether it is considered 'obscene' or not. Adult pornography instead has to be labeled as such to be unofficial.
"Generally, pornography can be banned lone if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the imagery are obscene because of the State's interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 758"
up to the court and the substance in put somebody through the mill

Have you given up on politics?

it just seem like they are adjectives manipulative self serving crooks who have all the same to be caught. the "war on drugs" isnt working, its hurting. its not hippies and pot head looking for legalization, but judges, teacher, businesmen. instead of cutting out organized crimes currency cow (pot/e/coke/) we make law to punish users and distributors, giving more power to those who abuse it. its not newly drugs, its speeding laws, levy reform, so much requests to be changed, but it seems so hopeless. I have a feeling strongly about this, but not ample to devote my life to shifting the "system" Id love to hear your thoughts.
Answers: I'll answer your Q with at smallest 2 Qs:
And you believe the solution to politics is anarchy? OR a dictatorship?

The ONLY constant is change!

If you're so downcast with the instrument your country's business is being conducted, this is not the time to criticize. The is THE time to go and get involved and act on the concept you have to receive the situation better in your country.

Thanks for asking!

VTY,
Ron Berue
No. Having a voice contained by what happens is what America is adjectives about. But it's NOT in recent times politics--that's a mistake many ancestors make. It's roughly speaking getting involved.

That can be a hundred things. Not jsut voting. Write your representatives (or e-mail; they all hold readily available e-mail addresses--heres where on earth to find the ones for the US Congress: house.gov senate.gov).

In your community, find out what the issues are. Many ordinances, excise measures, zoning, etc. get established by default because no citizens bother to show up at public hearing. But the corporations and their lawyers will be there--count on it. If you see a political competitor you can respect, be a volunteer worker. If there is a demonstration/protest on an issue you touch strongly about, combine it. And so on.

My point is not to criticize you--this applies to ALL of us (myself included). Don't give up on politics. The light of day you do that the bad guys really win.

"All specifically necessary for triumph evil to triumph is tha tenough virtuous men do nothing"
---Edmund Burke

More Questions and Answers:
[462] - [92] - [1110] - [954] - [2185] - [2561] - [2488] - [1596] - [614] - [1669] - [350] - [676] - [1113] - [1218] - [2313] - [1056] - [1444] - [1142] - [1773] - [2208]

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

Answer question: