Law Questions and Answers

Can a public high university legally veto this?

They don't "allow" students to have more than 2 earrings per ear and no facial or other body piercings are allowed. They read out it disrupts the 'educational process'. But they let kids stroll around covered in tattoos and hot pink mohawks. I don't focus a school can legitimately do this... Can they? I have 6 earrings within one ear and 4 in the other. They are little studs, not spacers or anything ungodly huge. I've be in university for 17 minutes and I've already got reamed out more or less because I refused to purloin them out.
Answers: Considering that public high school are allowed to have dress codes and this falls below the category of dress code, yes.

It doesn't have to be not bad for it to be legal.
in good health, you knew the rules but you wore the earrings anyway--that's your own knock. the school board have to pass the policy so i'd speak it's legal. anything approaching that has to travel through a process. just hang on to your earring out during the day and put them within after school. is it really that big of a operate?

you're right--it is your body and i agree you should be able to do what you want. but you're underneath the age of 18 and a student in a public college. i'm not saying you're not right, but sometimes you own to follow the rules. i agree with the second poster. try doing something to evolution it.
If it's policy applied without nouns properly approved, yes they can.

Live with it or work to adapt it.
its simple they can do it if they feel its a threat. the majority of highschool students are minors, which do not enjoy the same rights as citizens. Only if the parents complain going on for the rules will the schools stipulation to change... and it would appropriate a bunch of parents to do that.

You are in conservatory for one thing... to revise, stop focusing on the bull and wait till after highschool to do what you want... its better out of highschool anyway.

[edit]
any further ban you may experience after high conservatory are due to universities and other private institutions human being just that... private. any private sector can encroach any rules the feel fit on their property.
Yes they can officially do that just as my employer have grooming policies, I have the right to choose not to be employed by them, but it is their right to set the policy.. while on conservatory property they have the right to control the institution as they see fit...

If you are 18 you have the right not to attend institution if you dont like the rules
If you quality that strongly that this policy violates your civil or constitutional rights, later you should seek a consultation beside a lawyer affiliated next to the ACLU to detrmine whether you have a casing and whether the ACLU feels that it is surrounded by the public interest to pursue your case through negoatiation beside your school committee/superintendent/principal or a lawsuit within the appropriate state or federal court.

Good luck.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with the majority here. This is a public institution. If they have a strict dress code applied uniformly, and they can demonstrate such uniformity advance the educational process, they can interrupt and enforce it. But if, as you say they are allowing other forms of bodily adornment that are equally obtrusive then it seem to me they may be unable to sustain their argument that 6 earrings are more disruiptive to lessons than two. Since the burden is on the censor (in this case the school) to prove limits on free expression, I cogitate you may win your case.

The problem is how to proceed to engineer your case. You hold 2 choices as I see it: 1. Refuse to comply & have them discipline you -- ie, suspend you -- & later appeal the suspension on up to the Federal court level. The problem is college would be over by the time of any final decision, interrupting your coaching, preventing your graduation & possible college attendance. 2. You can go on the offense: See if you can draw from an attorney to seek an injunction against enforcement & suspension. Civil rights litigation is massively expensive unless you have a group approaching the American Civil Liberties Union to take up your basis. Every state has a branch of the ACLU. You might want to progress on their web site & ask to speak to someone just about your case.
If they enjoy rules about earings I'm predisposed to bet they don't allow pink mohawks either. Also, since monst kids surrounded by high conservatory are under 18, they are not tatooed any. So if you're going to whine then I'd at least possible make your defense valid. And yes, they can legitimately govern the outward physical appearance and hygiene of their students and faculty. If you're 18 then I assume you're give or take a few to graduate. You have close to 6 months left of university. Don't rock the boat, get over it, and consequently you can poke as many holes and inject as much ink into your body as you want. I wouldn't expect to gain a decent available job if you do, but hey, that's no "big deal" right?

Is Hansen's show "To Catch a Predator" considered entrapment?

I realize his show actually freshly televises the police program that catch these guys, but is one really considered a "predator" if they see a picture of a 22 year old posing as a 15 year hoary?

It might be illegal and dissipated to seek sex near a female between 13 and 18, but it is NOT unnatural. If these guys are trying to group with a girl within the school playground, fry them. It IS unnatural for someone to try to sleep next to a child under breeding age.

These guys that carry caught through "To Catch a Predator" have to register as sex offender and are grouped together with like guys that forcibly rape men and women and those that actually molest tangible children.

Where is the justice within that?
Answers: If what NBC does was done by a police agency it would be probably be entrapment. They go and get away with it because they are not a police agency. However impossible to tell apart principle that excuses people who are entrapped by management applies here: The intent to create the offense exists not in the mind of the defendant, but within someone playing the part of a participant contained by a mutual criminal act.

What is most unfolding is that NBC does not release the entire transcripts of ALL the conversations between the target and the actress. These are usually multiple lengthy communications over long period of time. Who knows what lies, promises, & forms of cajolery are used to convince culture to do something they have never done since.
Sorry; I don't agree. Seeking sex with a 13 year prehistoric is unnatural as well as unlawful and immoral.

It's not that tough. There are plenty of women of officially recognized age in the world looking for sexual partner who understand "consent". Avoid the kiddies.
usually the predators enjoy already engaged contained by explicit sexual chat online with those they have already be told were underage

alot of these guys have priors too and other admitted they have done it before and not be caught

the police have amazingly similar sting operations adjectives over the country that work in almost alike way except you dont see them on TV

its an excellent program
No concern what the picture...the person posing clearly states their age as 13 or so... these men next make a judgment to attempt to have sex near a minor.the person posing at no point suggests sex, or asks for it... these guys are free to log stale their computers the moment that persobn says they are below age.

That is like dictum that if I have my grill outside surrounded by the yard I entrapped the character who steals it becasue the opportunity was in attendance.you could even say that any time you use your credit card, that someone stealing your identity isnt guilty since you supplied the card number

Exactl what isnt unnatural around a 50 year old man seeking sex near a 13 year old? Is seeking sex next to a family pet also immaculately natural? Dogs can breed too
The arguement of "But the girl be 22" has be brought up in front of the law lords in the cases following the Dateline shows. It have fallen upon deaf ears surrounded by the court.

The reason is, the intent be to sleep with an underage girl/boy. The culprit solely found out that the girl was an actress, who be over the age of 18, after the fact.

As for the permanent status "Entrapment," no one, especially decree enforcement, made the culprit chat to the supposed underage person, drive to their home to absorb in a sexual conduct yourself, or force them inside to attempt the lewd act. The arguement of entrapment is negated, since law enforcement never have any contact with the assailant prior to their arrest.
No. It is a sting to be exact operated by a private operation with no executive relationship with any criminal tenet enforcement agency. Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that such information-sharing amounts to a collaboration which violate a suspect's constitutional rights no differently than direct entrapment by law enforcement agencies, next these private-public law enforcement venture will continue until something more powerful replaces it.

At least that's my feelings.
Any person who think of "breed" when they think of a 13 year out-of-date is a danger to that 13 year dated. If you knew rash teenagers or "tweens" at all you would know that they do not poses the skills to fend for themselves this is where on earth the law steps into to protect them.

Why are grown men (or women) looking for those who do not hold the proper skills to protect themselves? Its simple, they are predators.

How is it entrapment for a grown adult to hope minors to "breed" with? The reality that the model was 22 is unknown to the hunter and is only relevant after the certainty, but of course I am not a legal representative and have no capability to skew the law.
No it’s not if you are surrounded by law conservatory and pasted the first year you should know that. Entrapment would be forcing the party into an act they would not in general commit.

What they are doing is posing as an underage person, stating they are underage and consent to the person commit a crime. If the party wouldn't normally hold sex or try to engage contained by sex with an underage personage they would just ratify the person by no impair no foul, but it you are the type of person who wishes to grip in underage sex, later you might set up a meeting near this “person” and break the law within the process.

We have law to protect people; we as a society hold decided that society over a certain age shouldn’t enjoy sex with associates under a reliable age.

You stated “If these guys are trying to meet near a girl in the college playground, fry them.” When they show up at the house they believe that they are going to have sex next to an underage person, it is no different than “trying to draw together with a girl within a school playground”. Do you really believe that the guy be just showing up to cooperate? No they were they for sex and they should hold to register as a sex offender. Or are you axiom we have to agree to them rape someone first?

“a 13 year old is not a child” we as a society articulate 13 is still a child under the eyes of the ruling.

“I am asking purely out of the legal hypothetical. Unless these guys are breaking their parole, they haven't committed a crime.” Yes they enjoy, it is illegal to contact a minor for the purposes of have sex. We passed the law that say so.

I need back on what to do with my neighbor????

I don't really know where on earth to post this, so I'll post it here, and hopefully I get some answers. My husband and I live within a duplex. The man that lives beside of us is the most horrible and annoying person ever! He's so inconsiderate and rude. He will turn on his stereo at 7-8 surrounded by the morning. He also has a bass guitar...and he give me so many headache. My husband and I are expecting our first child. Where I am still in my first trimester, I stay especially tired. I can't even sleep in, because he starts up beside his music. I went over in attendance a couple of days ago, and asked him nicely if he could turn it down a bit, and he started screaming at me! I next went pay for into my house and called the cops on him. I don't assume it helped though, because he still hasn't stopped! Me and my husband can't steal this anymore. What should we do? Do you have any suggestions on how to engineer him stop?? Thanks for all the answers that I go and get!
Answers: First of all, congrats on tot... :)

Second, you have a right surrounded by your domicile to a "peaceable existence" which means contained by legal jargon your neighbors can't infringe on your space by noise or other physical presence. Your best bet is to do one of two things, or both if you want to start a war- enjoy an attorney send him a notarized memo that you will pursue civil action if it continues, and contact the police to wallet a noise complaint EVERY time.

Just remember, if he's unstable you are risking a difficult level of bombing coming from him, so if you do something you must do it 100% and leave probably he'll go to top-security prison.

The other route, if you're renting, is to contact the landlord and enjoy him evicted.
Well, if he is playing it too loud, then he could be breaking a reverberation ordinance. Call the police while he is doing it and have them come ask him to turn it down. Also, nearby are times (varies by jurisdiction) such as before 9am and after 10pm, that you hold to turn down the volume. Seriously - call the police while he is doing it, or video it to show how loud it is in your house. Let the police know this is cause you stress which could be harmful to the babe.

Good luck with the tot and the neighbor!!! :-)
Ask your neighbors if they feel impossible to tell apart way. If you neighbors own the same atmosphere then convey them to call the police. Since you hold talked next to him and called the police, a moment ago keep on calling every time it happen.
The key is to stay appease, I can only consider how hard it must be for you. However, lately keep on calling the police and pray that he will move or stop his movements.

I will pray for you family and for your child.
P.S. Let us adjectives know how the birth goes.
Report him to the tenant. and keep calling the cops on him. I use to enjoy the same problem.I call the cops and the landlord everytime i be interupted from my sleep. Even if i was taking a powernap and woke up from the noise..I still call the cops and landlord. I read out call the cops and manager as many times as he wake you, Especially your in your first trimester. you requirement all the rest you can draw from!!! and then he have a nerve to yell at you!!! Tell your husband to go down at hand and deal beside him.and then still telephone call the cops and landlord. I aversion neighbors like that.

If the Canadian parole Board grants you parole, how much longer after the ruling are you released?

Thanks so much!
Answers: Well first off, its call the National Parole Board. They will hear your case, and usually inwardly the week you are released, as long as your release plan is fully prepared. It also matters what giving of parole you were granted - afternoon or full.

Why do many pro-lifers give the impression of being keen on the annihilation penalty?

I am not adage all do, but a significant pro-lifers on Yahoo Answers seem to be keen on the destruction penalty, which seem a little extraordinary to me. Could someone explain. May be I am missing the point somewhere.
Answers: As you said, not all do. More and more Americans, including pro lifers, own been rethinking their opinion on the death cost. Some of them had supported it because of fears of criminals individual released into their communities, and some because they had not on the other hand taken a look at how the system is actually implement. I think it is remarkably important to stir up more learning in the region of it.

You don't have to sympathize beside criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the disappearance penalty prevents or even reduce crime, to look at alternatives and to think give or take a few the risks of executing innocent people.

126 populace on death rows hold been released next to proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available within less than 10% of adjectives homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The loss penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the annihilation penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The departure penalty is neither. Homicide rates are complex in states and regions that hold it than in those that don’t.

We hold a good alternative. Life lacking parole is now on paperwork in 48 states. It process what it says. It is sure and swift and once in a while appealed. Life without parole is smaller number expensive than the death cost.

The death cost costs much more than life within prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent ethnic group.

The death cost isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyer. It doesn't apply to people next to money. When is the last time a successful person be on death row, consent to alone executed?

The death cost doesn't necessarily help family of murder victims. Murder victim loved ones members across the country argue that the drawn-out extermination penalty process is prickly for them and that life lacking parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent associates released from death row have already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
I too hold asked that question for years! Death is annihilation and killing is bloodshed. I don't recall a biblical difference on bloodbath child versus adult.

ADDITION: Interesting view from anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. Seems the view is like on both sides and both issues; to do what's right for me. Pro-choice choose to abort a fetus because it is right for me. Pro-capital punishment choose to vindicate a death which is right for me. It is matching view on different subjects.
I agree. I tend to be against the annihilation penalty.

You'll also find masses pro-lifers want to imprison teenagers for committing "full-grown crimes" but will also want to punish a 19 year old that sleeps next to a 16 year old.

Hypocrisy.
Death Penalty is for a murderer, a child contract killer.

Pro-Life is for an unborn child. BIG DIFFERENCE.
I think its because they want to be see to take the moral elevated ground when it comes to pro life. I suppose the argument is that an unborn child have not had the providence to sin, were as a murderer have.
Ja.
You see no difference between an innocent child and an adult murderer?

We are adjectives created equal, but we don't stay equal. Each of us makes choices near consequences. If you choose to be a danger to your fellow man, consequently your fellow man has the right to protect himself from you. The only 100% successful way to protect against you is to remove you from society, lastingly. This is completely unrelated to wanting to protect children from being murdered (abortion).
I perceive very strongly that the disappearance penalty should be on the statute statute books and used, when deemed basic, I write with good opinion to the inefficient methods of awarded punishment for the mindless idiots who have committed murder and are still committing surrounded by the UK.
We as ordinary directive abiding citizens are truly vulnerable, next to no effective deterrent against the cretins who shoot, stab, and use other weaponry of violence contained by the furtherance of crimes, current laws are totally in short supply
they want them but don't want to take trouble of them! p.s.: they are for war,too!
The answer to my mind is one of semantics, the Bible say thou shalt not kill but abundant so called Christians resembling to be able to maintain in their own mind some style of difference between the killing of an unborn child and a criminal. The actuality is that their religion does not provide such a distinction so they claim that the commandment has be misinterpreted, but reject others who claim that much of the rest of the Bible can similarly be challenged.
One wonders however if the pro energy lobby support the death cost for those of its community who murder doctors and nurses working at abortion clinics in the US, or for soldiers who gun down in fighting or the murderers who work for the secret services of their government? The answer is no because they will twist their interpretations of the Bible to suit their beliefs and verbs to believe that state murder is OK so long as it is in chain with their politcal prospect of the world.
You don't understand how a entity can favor executing CRIMINALS, but oppose bloodbath INNOCENT babies? Are you serious? You see no difference? Let me TRY to explain. Murder is why people usually shutting up facing execution. Most societies want to discourage murder. So, they establish laws that penalize the murder of citizens. Now, most animals that carry their young alive be aware of protective toward their young. We humans are protective of infant humans. We disapprove of bloodshed them. Many of us even disapprove of killing them while they are still inside their mothers. That's call pro life. I realize that it's popular today to pretend that while a kid is not yet born, it isn't a human anyone. But, unless whatever is inside a pregnant woman isn't human, but somehow transforms from nonhuman to human sometime during labor and distribution, then the reason IS human prior to birth.

Big 3 vs. California?

Do you think the big 3 should close plants within California, and open those plants contained by Michigan? We could really use the jobs here, and it seem like California politicians a short time ago completely hate the big 3. Does California or other states really guardianship about Michigans problems?
Answers: Even though California have the plants, there aren't really that lots jobs in relation to automotive in the big three over at hand. Especially compared to the current auto plants (both assembly and component production) that are currently here in Michigan. Mind you, we own several Ford plants still such as Michigan Truck, Wayne Assembly, and the AutoAlliance plant in Flat Rock. GM and Chrysler, LLC both still own many plants. Not to mention the numerous suppliers that dot our state, such as Delphi, Cooper-Standard, Visteon, Flex-N-Gate, etc.

But, next to California being so eco-friendly, I reflect on the auto companies need to do what Ford did contained by the 90's. Create a 'California Special' model that meets their emmissions and crap approaching that, while still being competent to offer vehicle that get wearing clothes fuel mileage and high power to the rest of the country. Most of that emmissions crap is why cars very soon get such horrid mileage.
Example: 1988 Ford Escort. Has a catalytic converter. 1.9L engine. Up to 42mpg.
2007 Ford Focus. Numberous emmissions restrictors. 2.0L engine. 28mpg.

But posterior to California vs. Michigan. Granted, Michigan has it's monetary problems (working in the auto industry, it's obvious) But it's a moment ago a short time that we're going to be seeing impossible to tell apart problem in plants across the country. Of course it's going to hit the plants closer to Michigan sooner than out west.
What make you think California hate the big three...those emissions law apply to every car inventor on the planet

Should people ages 14 to 18 really be considered "children" for court matters?

I am not so much conversation about contracting, but I tight-fisted should they be considered children for crimes both when they are the "victims" or the perps?

I get pissed sour everytime I watch that Chris Hansen "Entrap a Guy on the Internet" show. I suggest the term "14 year older child" is an oxymoron. But even worse, I have hear the term 17 yeard feeble child. Come on, a child is someone under 10.

But, these same nation that are so willing to protect our 17 year antediluvian "children" (especially if they are white) are so anxious to try a 15 year old as an developed in a murder overnight case (especially if the 15 year old is black).

Should we simply lower the age of majority and have one adjectives age for majority, driving, drinking, consent, etc?
Answers: I don't believe anyone under 18 should be charged as an grown for any crime.

And to answer your question, yes, they should be considered children. They are. Just because a child's body have matured physically, there is still much heartfelt and mental growth and maturity needed.

Even as youthful adults(18 to early 20s) inhabitants can still be in obligation of guidance but there have to be a cut off somewhere. Early is not better.
The use they are considered children is to offer them extra protections. Sorry but a 14 year matured girl or boy probably doesn't understand what could come to pass to her/him if she /he decides to own sex; making informed consent impossible

Lowering the age of majority won't help that.
as i am within the ages of 14 to 18, i will not allow anyone to call me a child

What are some instances of US intervention being detrimental to any the US or a foreign nation?

(school project) I have to support the notion that the US would be better off if it did not concern itself contained by global affairs; this includes foreign trade, assisting growing nation, and getting involved with international union. My main topic is Darfur, I own to argue that we should not intervene at all. I deduce the best way to do this is to bring up historical instances when US intervention purely made things worse.
If you have any concept or can help me find information that will organize me on the right track that'd be great. These historical instances can be wars where on earth we both failed to realize or goals and we completed up making it worse for either us, by creating more enemy for ourselves, or the other nation, by leaving them surrounded by a much worse state then when we come in. There is also times when, as the US attempted to provide aid to a nation we ended up next to more violence. Thanks for any information or philosophy you can give.
Answers: Try your involement contained by the "Korean Conflict" aka WAR. And then look into Vietnam the authoritative fiasco or Cuba.
I'm sorry but the US warmonger's have put you surrounded by the position of the world's bully. When the US don't like something they grain they have "God given right" to fix things wether they want or want fixing at all. Look up the "Monroe Doctrine" and "Transvest Destiny" and the attitude is still shining strong.
Neighbour but no enthusiast.
OK, I am assuming some left wing wacko trainer gave you this assignment.

While not everything we own ever done globally have worked, we have gotten things right, much more normally, than we got them wrong.

Some examples of things that didn't turn out clearly are:

1) Our support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran - Iraq period of war. Until he invaded Kuwait we consider Hussein a friend in that region.

2) Our support of Manuel Noriega. He turned out to be merely another two bit petty tyrant, that we cut off and arrested after he get to big for his britches.

3) Our support of Usama Bin Laden and Mujahideen. We supported them in their conflict to fight the Russians surrounded by Afghanistan.

Again until Saddam invaded Kuwait, UBL was a friend to the U.S. UBL turned against the west when he asked the Saudi Royal inherited to let him see Saddam out of Kuwait and the Royal family official the coalitions offer over his. He took personal offense and started his own little period of war with the west.
adjectives the above instances hav been detrimental..take a grip warmongers

What can be/should be done about hospital hobos? society who pretend to be sick ,?

so they can check into a hospital for a place to stay.
Answers: Perhaps the hospital could sponsor or create a homeless night shelter. Most of these "hospital hobos" would in recent times check in nearby, but even if one pretended to be sick, you could perscribe "a good night sleep in a heat bed at the shelter"

I know that the problem with shelters is that they are usually over crowded, but hospitals own incredible fund-raising power, what if they did a fund-raiser at a time of year that they don't have a leading one going on - say a spring fling or a kickoff to summer - and angle the funds to have some antiquated empty supermarket building surrounded by town or somthing like that converted into sleeping areas?

I lately know that our local hospital used to do alllll sorts of outreach and I know the free clinic was one of their projects - and it be done in partnership beside a shelter. I don't know if they put money toward the shelter too.
people who pretend to be sick: share them they have cancer and is programmed for amputation of all limb together with thei reproductive organs next to the risk of death save done right.

as for poor people hobos: tolerate them have a place in but not inside the hospital. they're poor u know.
Get rid of social health watchfulness. Make hospitals a private service. If you want in, you own to pay for it.
Health thinking is not a social right. People have to work easier said than done to provide that service.
give their proxy to Munchhausen

Legal Question Concerning simple bogus simple assault charge.?

My brother in decree was arrested yesterday for simple assault and disturbing the peace. The papers be made out in oct. finishing year. Apparently AMYONE can go and folder charges against you with no evidence at anytime. My brother surrounded by laws ex business partner have the charges made when they got surrounded by a VERBAL argument. He was never struck. My brother contained by law is 50% owner surrounded by a business that is person desolved. The Judge ordered a injunction freezing all assets associated beside the business. While my brother in directive was within jail..his ex business partner stole his truck from the parking lot...He have an extra key made from a dealership.My brother surrounded by laws cross is on the title, as well as the ex partner and the business designation. What are his legal option now? How can he grasp his truck back, and what roughly speaking the assault charge? He didnt lay a hand on the guy! who have the burden of proof? Also can the ex partner get contained by trouble legally for file a false police report?
Answers: Battery is physical violence. Assault is commonly believed to be physical ferocity, but this is not necessarily the case. Threatening someone else can be considered assault. You do not enjoy to lay a hand on the other get-together, simply cause him to fright that he may be battered. If the business partner believed that your brother in tenet intended to beat him up, and have the means to do so, that could be considered assault - he does not own to actually lay a appendage on him.

You are best off consulting a legal representative, especially due to your brother-in-law's history - the business partner is likely to claim that your brother-in-law get agitated or threatening, and is he is an ex convict, he had motivation to believe he might be attacked.

Simple assault is the lowest form of assault. Touching someone without their go-ahead could be simple assault - like if I walk up and tapped you on the shoulder. Invading someone's personal space surrounded by a manner that cause you to be afraid, is simple assault. If I jumped out from the bushes and yell "boo!", that could be simple assault. It really doesn't require anyone's nose to be bloodied.
powerfully; a couple of things here. ANyone can file charges; the police are usually involved and own some say within the matter.

If the truck is registered within all name and one owner has it, it's not "stolen".

Get a obedient atty and let the process play out.
The assault charge should be attacked as a stale charge and recent misrepresentation. Depending on the jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition might be the fastest way to find rid of the charge.

As far as the freeze on assets, that should be coming from the judge presiding over the business dissolution. The remedy contained by this case is to dance back to that peacemaker on a motion to punish the ex-partner for contempt of court. That usually results in the truck human being returned in charge to avoid going to jail, but the contempt charge would verbs because your brother in statute is entitled to recover the attorney fees for the contempt proceeding.
Your brother wants a lawyer to represent him contained by the criminal charge and another to represent him in what is apparently going to be a contentious business "divorce."

The state have the burden of proof in criminal charge. If your brother have a reasonably clothed attorney it is probable the case will be dismissed; Absent actual spilled blood magistrates & juries enjoy little liklihood of convicting a business partner of assault in a business dispute.

More Questions and Answers:
[279] - [676] - [1188] - [165] - [2082] - [95] - [2] - [31] - [1944] - [217] - [732] - [1536] - [1252] - [1222] - [1548] - [1530] - [354] - [624] - [922] - [1662]

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

Answer question: