Law Questions and Answers

If you are married in the State of California do you entail to have a power of attorney for your spouse?

In covering you die, or is being married satisfactory?
Answers: As the other answerers said, the POA is void on extermination. However, California is one of the 21 states that has an equal rights amendment contained by its state Constitution. My state also has the equal rights amendment, which channel one spouse cannot make decision for the other during life. Therefore, a married couple surrounded by California should have a POA at lowest possible so you can make medical decision for your spouse, but the POA has no helpfulness after death.
Power of Attorney single lives as long as the person who granted it.

You can however set up a living trust or even a corporation surrounded by order to ensure property go where it is supposed to.

Who is to blame for the Tiger attack at the S.F. Zoo?

Who is to blame for the death of the pubescent? Is it the zoo? The parents seem to want to blame the zoo for eveything. Funny article is: The father said he had no belief that his son was at the zoo! So since when is the zoo supposed to be somebody's mommy and daddy? Everyone know the risk! The Tiger is a perfect slaughter machine! Siberian Tigers contained by Russia have be known to murder and eat fully grown grizzly bear! They say that Tiger cannot bounce that high, and I vote it can! This breed of Tiger grows to be very sizeable. Up to 13 ft. including the tail. An 18 or even 20 ft. wall is not gonna stop a Siberian Tiger if it wants out doomed to failure enough. I don't know what you own to do these days to be a so call "expert". Buy a book at K-Mart or Wal-Mart? I think nearby is alot of blame to go around. The father is to be blamed for his recklessness, and the Zoo should be blamed for using a rediculous way to try to hang on to the Tiger at bay. That wall should enjoy been made alot better!
Answers: Amazing that the zoo planted the rumor that the victim taunt the tiger. The police apparently tried to bully the two injured guys into saying that they have, when they wouldn't say what be wanted they become "uncooperative".

Today the S.F. Chief of Police said there be no evidence of taunting. No shoe. There was a footprint on the railing that didn't clash the shoes of any of the victims.

12.5 feet is unquestionably not a high satisfactory wall to contain a healthy tiger next to a history of attacking people.

Lacking blue eyes and blond hackle does not make a object a person who disobeys the rules.

The system automatically go into disclaimer mode. Happens with every structure, business etc. and the media broadcasts it approaching it was true.

Same entity happened next to a security guard who have his life ruined by medium and incompetent officials within Atlanta, remember? He died recently a infantile man destroyed by the mediocracy.
...er those "children" were close to 18 or 20 years old, so I wouldn't expect their parents to still be taking them to the zoo!

Also, it's pretty stupid to suggest that one should assume when they progress to the zoo that they might get maul by a Tiger, just because a Tiger is a fearsome predator. The theory of a zoo is that it's a place where you can see a Tiger WITHOUT BEING EATEN!!

The zoo is at reprimand. The wall wasn't high ample. End of story.
The wall was not high-ranking enough b/c it be not designed to deter a tiger who was person taunted by a teen brat! The stipid kid was dangling his legs over the ably out over the moat area---how did the tiger get out and over the paling, seems to me that he have the help of a catapult (aka that dumb *** kids leg).

Good work adjectives around. Put a dangerous animal surrounded by the middle of a city for "entertainment"; allow dumb *** kids free reign to taunt it, consequently when the tiger does what tigers do--well then let's snuff it. America at its best!
the wall was one and only 12.5 feet not 20 as originally thought.
until the investigation is done no blame should be placed anywhere. the family unit is distraught which is understandable, the tiger may or may not hold been provoked, the wall may or may not hold been elevated enough, near are details we may not know yet, so let just linger on blaming anyone (zoo, tiger, victims).
Sounds to be like a tiger "takin' comfort o' business" like temperament intended.

So the tiger isn't at fault but she died.

If surrounded by fact it's true that the animal be taunted, one still have to wonder how it would be allowed for someone THAT stupid to get that close to such a insecure creature.

So I'd say

1/2 target
1/2 zoo
0% for the poor animal
Angry a little are you? I use to whip dates to the zoo. It be free, and romantic. Walking hand and paw, oh yeah, we should have mom and dad along? I be only 16 at the time. Your grill is a rant. Why? If a 17 year old climbed into a tiger cage and poked the tiger with a stick, would that be the parents reproach? If he killed and raped his girlfriend, would that be their eccentricity? The father is not to blame. The zoo was slack as even you put it. You claim that a 20 foot wall is not high ample. Should the 17 year old know that? Should his father?
One would construe their children are safe at a zoo, especially at hard by adulthood.
The Tiger
The trouble beside teens is that they frequently are out and about and the parents don't know where on earth they are. The kid was at the zoo, though, for Pete's sake. He wasn't doing drugs on the drug side of town... he wasn't at a tablet with a bunch of hoodlums. He be eating at a cafe at the zoo.

Tigers may, indeed, be perilous animals and perfect bloodshed machines, but zoos are considered to be places where Moms can pinch their brood of young, helpless children to spend the daylight.

The zoo is COMPLETELY, 100 % at fault, here. They own a responsibility to the public to keep the public 100% past the worst from the dangerous animals they house in that. If there is any, ANY shred of a opening that an animal could get loose and murder someone, then it is the zoo's responsibility to put a BIG, OBVIOUS sign that warn of this "risk," so that people do not consistency deceptively safe.

Tatiana the tiger, indeed did what tigers do. That is why she should hold been secured better. especially near her history.

Again, that a tiger got loose, a tiger next to a history of attacking humans, is 100% the fault of the zoo. It be sad that the tiger have to die. And that sadness, also, is the zoo's culpability.

But, it's like the leash law we have for our dogs. Dogs resembling to roam, and when they are afraid they might bite. Dog owners, therefore, for the safekeeping of their dogs, must keep them fenced or on a leash when out surrounded by public. When dog owners are irresponsible and let their dogs roam the neighborhood... next when the dog is hit by a car, it is the dog owner's defect. Or when the dog attacks a child and then must be put to extermination, again, it is the dog owner's fault. People who cannot out of harm`s way their dogs, should not have dogs. The same go for zoos who cannot secure their perilous animals.

**EDIT**
Daytime, and 17 year old is at the zoo. No, dear, the father does not obligation to know this. What if the father HAD known the son be at the zoo??? A human got kill by a tiger at the zoo. Whether or not parents knew or anyone else know the whereabouts of their kids, NO ONE should have to horror death at a zoo... not passing by a wild animal. The zoo is at mistake and should be closed down until it can pass every inspection set to zoo-kind.
According to an MSNBC report, an inspector just tag the fence as a central problem. It was 12.5 foot, well short of the 16.4 foot standard.

Whether or not those kids be fooling around with the tiger I don't know, but I come up with that it was a combination of zoo ignorance and guest foolishness, only because they apparently also found a shoe within the enclosure.
Sometimes animals that are manic have other reason to attack humans besides being provoked, so I believe the zoo should enjoy had more protection.

P.S. Parenting a 17 year antiquated at 5pm should not be a major focal point.
The zoo is to some extent to blame. You can't just monitor the animals, you own to monitor the employees and public as resourcefully. It doesn't matter if the boys be teasing the animal, the certainty is, the animal was still competent to get out, and thats void. Also, there wishes to be better security. If contained by fact the boys be teasing the tigers, the workers should have particular immediatly. The employees at first didn't even know near was a tiger loose, and after they discovered in attendance was they didn't know how plentiful. They need to hold a better system to monitor their animals or there are going to be more "accidents" surrounded by the future. Not single at San Francisco Zoo, but around the world.

How can you find out someone's address...?

my fiance has two kids from another woman and he requirements to file for visitation rights because she wont permit him see them anymore but he doesnt know and needs her physical address. problem is, he lives within california and she lives in nevada and logically she wont give it to him so i be wondering if anyone has any suggestions how he could find out or any angelic web sites to investigate? any help would be greatly appreciated!
Answers: A couple of approaches:
1. Try on-line phone directories
2. Send a communication to the last particular address with a request for address correction from the post department. They return a card with the confinement address.
3. Send a certified letter to the finishing known addres and request assignment address on the confirmation.
4. Request the sheriffs department in her county to serve the papers and provide them every entry you have (phone number, given name, SSN, date of birth etc)
anywho.com
it works well
Try this and tolerate me know. ZABASEARCH.COM. Amazing what is out there and the information they collect. Good luck and I hope this help.

Case going to trial?

my cousins case is going to trial subsequent week.
she took money from her boss, like 2,000$ but she payed it adjectives back and her boss signed a tabloid saying he doesnt want to press charges or anything resembling that..
she has a legal representative and everything
how do you think the outcome will be??
Answers: dismissed
One of two things will take place:
1. she will be convicted and given a suspended sentence.
2. the case will be dropped, since the employer have essentially turned the crime into a loan.
I don't know what your cousin is being charged near, but I will assume it is under the common category of theft.

The prosecution will hold to prove that your cousin intended to "permanently deprive".

The defense attorney should argue that this be not the intention as evidenced by the fact that your cousin returned the money.

Cousin may hold to take the stand to explain the schedule.
Bottom line, I hope your cousin cultured a lesson. Do NOT steal!

Can the co-signer go to detain if the other person is hiding the saloon and not making the payments?

co-signer is spanish speaking and was unmindful that they made him the primary person. he specified that we will individual co-sign. the car be purchased for the daughter and the father co-signed. she moved out and we have no opinion where she have the car and have not been making any payments. he tried to explain this the the lender but they said he's responsible which he wasn't aware that he be the main personality on the contract and not the co-signer.
Answers: No jail time will be involved, it's a civil situation, could be (most likely will be) sued for the go together owed, but is not a criminal offense to default on a loan.
Yep, he's responsible for the expenditure but not for car break-in obviously. But he would probably enjoy to report the car as stolen.

Hey, possibly he could just directory an insurance claim for a stolen vehicle and come out clean on this. Then the no apposite daughter goes to detention centre and thus God makes adjectives things wonderful!
When you co-sign, you say, "If he doesn't compensate, I will". It doesn't matter who is the primary and who is the co-signer. You're stuck. It's not potential you'll go to send to prison, but it will be reported to the credit bureaus and affect your ability to safe and sound future credit. It's pretty in a state that a daughter would do this to a father, but as a lender, this isn't the first time I've seen this begin to someone.

NEVER CO-SIGN FOR ANYONE, unless you can afford and are willing to construct the payments yourself.
no.
but will destroy his credit
At like peas in a pod time he can always press charges against the guy hiding the coup¨¦ and put him in put inside
Debtors prison went out of style years ago. The just chance of going to lock up is if a judge finds you contained by contempt.
Civil action could be file and a judgment awarded but nobody can form payments while incarcerated.
The co-signer cannot go to put in prison. However, the institution to whom the money is owed will seek to restore your health the amount due from the co-signer. Depending on the state the collection process can result in garnishment or a decision in the amount owed. You cannot move about to jail for owing money. Note, if the co-signer know the location of the automobile and does not disclose this during a police investigation, that can lead to criminal charges for withholding information.
The co-signer is agreeing to rate the debt if the signer does not.. Thats the point of a co-signer.. Using the reason of never reading or kindness the document holds no water.. When you sign a contract you are agreeing to adjectives the terms and stating that you think through this..

The co-signer is NOT the signer but is responsible to make apposite on the loan..

and there is no such piece as debt prison.. No one goes to intern for not paying a loan but it'll kill the likelihood of ever getting another loan. But if that person is near holding info from a police investigation then not unfolding the information you have could ending you up in detention centre.
A cosigner assumes the payments if the primary stops paying for any reason.
The motivation someone asks for a cosigner is because the primary isn't a good risk.
The cosigner isn't the primary, the primary is the one who isn't paying, the cosigner pays just when the primary doesn't. But, the cosigner is responsible for the payments.
That's why it doesn't pay to be a cosigner, its adjectives of the responsibility for payment when a primary have been found to be too risky.
I am not a attorney, however i think that both could running out up in young offenders` institution as an accomplice, if any one is hiding the car surrounded by attempt to steal it and the other person is providing protection for the one hiding the saloon. Probably want end up within jail, but a lein might be put on your vehicle, house and other personnel property.

If I signed the loan papers as the owner of the vehicle, I would take ownership of the coup¨¦ and pay the loan rotten.
This is America. THERE IS NO DEBTORS PRISON!

The worst thing that will come to pass to you as the co-signer is that your credit will get smuffed up for up to seven years. He is responsible because by co-signing he is dictum that he will pay if she does not.

You cannot report the saloon as stolen if her name is on the title. And since it is a co-sign treaty, BOTH names are on the title, so don't bother calling it stolen.

Nevertheless, within is NO jail time for an unpaid debt! God Bless America!!!!!!!
The co-signer is equally responsible for expenditure on the car.

If the daughter have run out, then the father will be held responsible.

They won't put him surrounded by jail but they WILL help yourself to him to court if necessary to collect their money.

Big lesson knowledgeable.don't EVER co-sign a loan for anyone.

Lost child due to lies (married 6 years)(4 year old girl)?

When my wife and I get married got married her parents help us get a house we didn't hold the credit so we put it in their identify . 2 months ago my wife wreaked our car and broke her collar after dropping me off at work. not parrilized or anything but surrounded by a full on neck brace.A month after she get out of the hospital I went to work and my surrounded by laws have the locks on our doors changed.So my wife and I with our 4 year elderly little girl went over to my parrents house.They moved adjectives of our stuff out of the house and hid it within a self storage and would not give it posterior to us.Then they told us if we didn't let them hold our little girl every weekend then they would appropriate her away from us. We told to try.They took us to court and said we did drugs we both took drugs test that sunshine and passed.The judge ordered us both to whip hair oral exam we did and passed them.The next time we go to court the judge threw the fuzz test out.At the second audible range they said we had a desperate marriage individual my mother in regulation testa
Answers: you guys need to seize a family attorney and then wallet protective orders against your parents,who are suing you for your child, ask yourselves why you didn't want them to see your daughter within the first place.
uh ok... so what is the question?

Is it against the lay to deface U.S. Currency?

A lot of times when I hand someone a $20 or $100 bill they'll splodge it with some loving of pen that's suppose to tell if it counterfit or not. Is it legitimate to mark on or deface serious newspaper currency. I've also been told the mark pen really doesn't work and all they own to do is look at the built in results.
Answers: No its not defacing currency, its used to demonstrate it... and it wouldn't fall underneath the same category.
You are correct that the pen are LESS reliable than simply looking at the bills. They do NOT meet the official definition of defacing currency.

Why is it fair for a woman to settle on if she wants to enjoy?

a child or not (abortion), and a man doesn't have that
opportunity. I'm not saying that a woman shouldn't hold the
right to make that choice, but if she decide to have the
child why is it do to force the man into fatherhood and
a financial responsibility that he didn't choose!
Answers: Yes, it is really fair. If a man requirements the mother to keep a child, and she wishes a termination, then it's her body and she should enjoy the right to control her own reproductive cycle.

Now, if they didn't plan on a child, and the man doesn't want it, and she decides to keep hold of it, then like peas in a pod thing applies - she get to keep it. But what is wrong surrounded by this case is that the man is still on the hook for child support. He have to pay to support a child he didn't want, and that he recommended should be terminated. I regard as in this satchel, although she has a right to save the child, she should not have a right to any child support.
The man did not exercise his option not to be a father when he decided to enjoy unprotected sex with the woman.

Guys, if you do not want to be her "little one daddy" do not have sex near her!
if he didn't choose it, then he should hold kept his pants on.
the woman did not take pregnant by herself.
"you play you pay"
Many women and children are in poverty within this country on account of men who don't live up to their appendage of the bargain. Sorry, but you once agree to your &*&* out of your pants, you're asking for a pregnancy to turn out.

MANY women raise children ALONE. Shame on men that can't be adults and support the children THEY made when they slept next to the mother. It's 50/50, take your share of the blame and be a man, even if you are a cheap shake that can't afford to feed your own kid.

Truth is, not a soul "forced" any man to have sex, choices hold consequences, for BOTH sexes.
"force the man into fatherhood and
a financial responsibility that he didn't choose" - No one is forcing him within to father hood. He entered paternity on his own when he had sex.
If he didnt want the financial responsibility later dont sleep around. It's simple. Ever thought how hard a ruling is for the women? HAVING A BABY IN HER AND THINKING OF GETTING RID OF IT !! - a decision a man can take no notice of.

It works both ways.
Of course it's not fair, but it's politically correct.
A woman should be smart adequate not to get pregnant if she chooses to screw around. If she's that dumb, she probably shouldn't be the one making the ruling.
i think that the answer to this is that he did choose financial responsibility when he have sex. pregnancy is a consequence of sex. even protected sex has risks / zilch is 100 safe except thrift. both parties the man and woman consented to the sex and consequently the financial responsiblity belongs to both. aside from financial responsibility , is the responsibility for a relationship and a parenting role for both ! sex is a huge decree that is taken much too insubstantially. it is intended for marriage really / and near are reasons the manufactuer who created God designed it. it is for pleasure and procreation between a married couple. unfortunatly the medium has sold the majority of general public a incorrect idea of what it is really roughly speaking / intended for. always best to follow the manufacturer instructions with anything.
Probably because when most abortions are perform, the "fetus" (it's not a baby) is only 1.5 grams surrounded by weight and the size of a kernel of corn. It is undifferentiated tissue, near no brain, features, nervous system or independent blood supply. It is, surrounded by fact---in biological fact----part of the woman's body, like her kidney (at this point contained by time).

So really I don't think a husband have a right to decide if a woman wishes to have a tooth removed. If the "woman" be a child, perhaps a parent would own some rights.

But an adult woman I have an idea that has the constitutional right to control over her own body parts.

It's not pretty but it's the just way to look at it that make any sense, unless you get into religious "beliefs", and you can't platform laws on faith-based concepts of veracity.

I think surrounded by a healthy matrimonial or partnership, BOTH partners would be chitchat this over seriously anyway, so the question is moot surrounded by that case.

You must be referring to a dysfunctional situation here.
The father just assumes a portion of the financial responsibility. The mother has to assume every single bit gone over after that, as well as every other module of parenting that the father doesn't help next to (which might be 100% of it). So it's wrong for you to say "keep hold of your panties on" as if the woman is free from any financial or parenting obligations afterwards.

Additionally, it is a okay known reality that (in general) men have a better sex drive than women (in general). This is because the drive comes from the hormone testosterone, which men have much more of. So if it be just up to women, nearby would be a whole lot smaller number procreation going on, and so a whole lot more of babies are due to men's desires than to women's desires.
The "man" have choices..he can use a condom when he decides to hop higher than some woman.

If he choses to have unprotected sex, he know that pregnancy may occur. Therefore, he have made the decision to adopt any responsibility that arises from that pregnancy.

And your crack about "women and their panties".is plain dumb. A woman is responsible for her OWN body..a man is responsible for HIS OWN body.

She didn't drag you kicking and screaming into her bed and force you to own unprotected sex...you made that decision...

You could own chosen "no" as an answer.

Do employers budge by arrest date or conviction date when determining criminal history?

I applied for a job and I they want a verbs record for days gone by 10 years. I was arrested 10 years ago, but it took in the region of 2 years before court convicted me on this crime, so this would shorten my time to 8 yrs. Does any one know which date employer are looking at?
Answers: As noted, read the question extraordinarily carefully. They can't formulate employment decisions on the justification of the arrest only (innocent until proven guilty; disparate impact on lasting racial groups; statutes surrounded by some states). The conviction date triggers the clock.

You may still be eligible for employment even if you were convicted, depending on the opportunity. For example, an embezzler probably wouldn't be eligible for a job as an accountant but would hold to be considered for jobs that didn't involve access to money. Refusing to hire adjectives convicted applicants no matter what their crime have the potential to be discriminatory and may violate state law. However, nearby are a few jobs surrounded by certain industries that require payment clearances which will be more restrictive than others. They're asking for disclosures so that they can weigh your history against the job -- it doesn't automatically be a sign of that you won't be considered. This is actually becoming a sort of common cross-examine on applications for many companies.

Keep surrounded by mind that lying on an application will guarantee a termination for cause whenever it comes out -- and it's surprising how repeatedly background checks are updated for expert assignments, anonymous calls are made to employer, etc. You need to be honest going on for this, and be prepared to explain how you've turned things around since the conviction. Good luck with the charge.
Depends on how the question is worded. A adjectives question is:
"In the end 10 years have you any been convicted, plead guilty or no contest to a felony?" In this skin they are looking at conviction date.

I have see them add "or be released from prison".
Tell them when you committed the crime, which would have be more than 10 years ago--right?

If they do research and find out you were convicted 8 years ago, you can communicate them that it was for the crime you already disclosed but that you enjoy not done any criminal acts since.
My former company go by conviction date, and according to some people I know within the HR industry, that is the most adjectives...so yes, you're still likely at 8 years.

Be practical, because some companies go by parole date...In other words, if you be convicted in '05, but have to do a year in prison next your "clock" would start in '06.

If you're have a problem, the best thing to do is to register at good-sized temp agency that also does full-time placements (one to be exact known nationally). Be totally honest near them up front...the worst that could happen is that they throw out to work with you and you move about to the next agency down the street.

If they are reputable, they should know the common policies of the companies in your areas. At worst, assume of it as "practice." At best, they might be able to capture you into the door of a company as a temporary, later get you hired on full time (many immense companies don't do full background checks on workforce already "in-house").

Good luck and stay clean...
Employers are merely ethnic group and no two people are going to respond exactly alike. You own no way of knowing what this distinctive employer will do, or how they will count it, period.

An individual may choose to look at the arrest text. Another guy in impossible to tell apart department may look at the conviction date. Another guy in one and the same department may say, Misdemeanors I am not concerned next to. Another guy in indistinguishable department may say, a SPEEDING TICKET EIGHT YEARS AGO, GREAT MOTHER'S STOCKINGS! (My kids enjoy been clich¨¦ that recently).

In short, there is only no way to relay what one individual may do at any given moment in time. If dude's contained by a good mood, he may not check at adjectives. If he's in a unpromising mood, he might see you had a conviction nine years, 364 days ago and read out fuggitaboutit because it isn't ten years.

Sorry; I know that doesn't help you much, but that's the most honest answer you'll take.
It depends on how the question is worded, but surrounded by most cases they go by the conviction date, not the arrest date.

How to find out my boyfriend was married ?

I am dating someone, and he told me he have never been within a marriage back (and did not have kids either). But some of his "close" allies said he be married in other state (NE) and already get a divorce 5 years ago.

Is there any channel for me to check whether he was married or not? (such as getting his marital record or others? Is it possible/lawful?)
Is within any other suggestions/ways to do investigations that are legal? (without involving private investigators as I really cannot afford to foot them). I need copies of LEGAL PROOF that he was/was not married.

Thanks for your relief!!
Answers: It is absolutely officially recognized to look up marriage paperwork.

Here is just one affairs of state website that has information on how to acquire marriage license info.

http://www.co.douglas.ne.us/dept/Clerk/m...

You will want to find the website for the County within which you think he be married though.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm almost positive that divorces are of public narrative. Try logging into: http://www.statearchives.us/public/nebra...

If you don't find a divorce record on him surrounded by NE that doesn't mean he wasn't divorced within some other state. I would check and see if he had a nuptials certificate file in NE.

Good luck, but remember he may hold lied to you to avoid embarrassment. I would endow with him a chance to explain himself for authentic before showing him evidence surrounded by anger or you may ruin what could have be a good relationship.

More Questions and Answers:
[2115] - [2335] - [285] - [1267] - [358] - [1470] - [1206] - [374] - [2006] - [435] - [1427] - [963] - [2354] - [1982] - [2201] - [2139] - [181] - [402] - [242] - [497]

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

Answer question: