Tuesday, May 25, 2010

What does it mean "motion for summary judgment"?

im taking a class and we have to read a case where this phrase appears what does it mean.
Answers:
Summary judgment is available in civil cases (actions for breach of contract, torts, and the like). Not allowed in criminal cases.

Both parties (plaintiff or defendant) may apply for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is only available when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Then the Court can grant judgment without submitting the case to a jury for trial.

If there are fact issues in doubt, then summary judgment cannot be granted.
Means you should go to findlaw.com and look it up!
summary judgement is when a defendant in a case has defended an action but does not show that they have a viable defence. the court then can grant summary judgement in favour of the plaintiff without the matter going to trial. hope that makes sense...

What does immigration hold mean??

my uncle did drugs (heroin,cocaine) and had probation violation... All we were told is that he is on immagration hold what does that mean?

all answers accepted even iof it's bad news
Answers:
It means that he's facing deportation as a result of his charges.
I think it means that he will not be able to become a citizen, pending investigation. Or maybe that he'll get sent back...
your uncle is not welcome!
When an alien is in jail, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will put an Immigration Hold on the alien so whenever he/she is released from jail (even on bond) he/she will not be set free, but held upto 3 days for ICE to come get them.

Sounds like Uncle is "toast!"

If he was not your Uncle, but was a criminal that lived next door, wouldn't you want him deported?
It means he needs to go HOME

What does FREEDOM mean to you?

"My country, 鈥檛is of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims鈥?pride,
From every mountainside,
Let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees,
Sweet freedom鈥檚 song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our fathers鈥?God, to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom鈥檚 holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King."

What does freedom mean to you?
Answers:
Freedom to me means using my property for my benefit, the right to do things I want to do if they don't hurt anyone else, the absence of government regulations that are unnecessary, maybe even some regulations that others feel are necessary.
Avoidance of excessive tax burdens and freedom from reporting the details of my business to the government on a 1040, or a schedule C, or a 1065, or an 1140, etc. The right to raise kids without government interferance. Freedom from stupid people like the Federal Reserve Board lying to me about controlling inflation by raising interest rates. I could go on and on but I think freedom generally means the absence of government, not the expansion of government.
Freedom is not having a gun in your face or a tank on your street.
Being able to say to your leaders "You suck" and not being beheaded.
Being able to smile at a boy and not being stoned to death by your own family.
Freedom is also getting a speeding ticket, paying taxes, losing a family member in a war.
Nothing in life is free
freedom is a trip %26 travel

sun %26 sea

what else...
Responsibility. Freedom cannot be understood apart from its #1 attribute, which is that when one is free to act, one is responsible for the consequences of that action. If one is not free (because under compulsion, insane lack of understanding, or similar cause) then one is not responsible.
No taxes.
No insurance. (what happened to the old days when doctors made house calls, and they'd trade a penicillin shot for a pot of spaghetti? or a couple of chickens? I'll answer that myself - malpractice suits.)
Freedom from frivolous liability suits.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of religion ( and that includes the right to say a prayer in a public school)
Freedom to express my own opinion.
The right to bear arms.

What does free and responsible press mean?


Answers:
Free: They can print whatever they want.
Responsible: They opt to not print things that would harm people (i.e. defamation, incorrect information, etc.).
I think that's an oxymoron.or maybe just the moron part!

What does disposition of the offense mean?

its for a job applicationh.
Answers:
How was the offense resolved? Finding of guilt, case dismissed, prosecution deferred, et al.

Good luck!
Disposition of the offense means "What was the final outcome?"

For example, maybe you went to court and the judge dismissed it.
Simply put, it means how the case was handled. Did you go to court or was the case settled out of court? Were you fined? Did you get jail time or probation or community service or anything like that? That's what they're looking for.

What does disposition cor mean?

when someone is in jai lunder dispoosition it says: cor, wha tdoes that mean?
Answers:
correspondence
Could be an abbreviation for corrections. Could the person be in custody of the department of corrections?

What does 'COVERING' mean in medical profession?India..?


Answers:
It means hiding the facts of the case to protect the interest of any individual illegally.

2. It can also mean handing over a 'Cover' with cash inside as a secret extra gift! to the 'doctor' (specialists).

3. It can also mean covering the place of operation (wound) or the body of the patient.
Dressing up

What does appearness mean in court terms?

its says lawyer has file appearness at case .net for a court case
Answers:
Does it actually say "appearness?" Because it is a "Notice of Appearance." It means that a lawyer is now on the case. If it is a Civil/Non-Criminal case it means that someone has hired an attorney. (was it you?) If it is a criminal case and you are not the state ;-) then it means a lawyer has been appointed to represent the defense. (It could be a Public Defender). "Appearness" may be a typo on your notice - Good luck.
the word is APPEARANCE and the attorney must file a notice of appearance to represent you in court so that the court knows he / she is your attorney.

What does an police officer consider when deciding whether to give a ticket or a warning?

The last two times Ive been pulled over (running a stop sign and running a red light) I admitted that I did it and didnt argue and was only given a warning, do police appriciate honesty and courtesy that much or was I just lucky?
Answers:
When we are pulling up behind someone, we look at their body language. Are they looking into the rear-view mirror repeatedly, even before we turn the lights on and pull them over?

When we pull them over, we have already called the tag in. So when we go up to the drivers door, we already have some information about the driver, if it's indeed the driver who owns the vehicle.

We look at the interior of the vehicle for weapons, for our own safety. We also look at driver and passenger to see where their hands are, or if something looks uncommonly out of place.

We also see how long it takes the driver to get us his information. Usually, good citizens have nothing to hide and keep their ID handy in their wallet or glove box. A person who has had license suspended, is hiding dope, weapons, etc..tends to stall because they need time to cook up a story to tell the officer.

Yes, we check on demeanor of the person being pulled over. If they are cooperative from the beginning, that carries alot of weight. How would you like to be screamed and cussed at, when you were only going to tell them that their tail light was out? People with guilty consciences tend to get defensive without ever hearing why they were pulled over. If you did nothing wrong, don't get so worked up!

A driver who has a firearm in the car who tells me that they have it, and does a kind gesture like putting their hands on the steering wheel, makes me feel at ease. Many officers are shot through the vehicle window, and it's a very dangerous place to stand, but it can't be avoided, unfortunately.

Yes, how a person comes across makes a difference. Even if a person has to be written a citation, perhaps the officer can help out with the severity of the citation, or the fine amount a little bit. If you insist on ticking the officer off, why would he/she cut you a break? Don't expect one. Neither would you cut someone a break who abuses you, right?

Be honest, be polite, and for heavens sake, if you messed up and did something wrong, own up to it! We ALL make mistakes. But if you do wrong and then lie to us and tell us that you didn't....you're beat. Suck up the ticket!

Hope this helps you.
Whether the girl her pulls over is showing leg and cleavage or not
I have been pulled over at least 12 times, ticketed twice. Don't argue, be polite and apologetic. Trust me, they'd rather not write a ticket as that requires them to do even more paperwork than they already have to from the domestic disturbance call they responded to earlier. They have more important things to do and if they think it was an honest mistake on your part they will usually just let it go.
They do appreciate courtesy and honesty but if you were too much in fault I am sure you would have got a ticket ~~
how cute you are, whether they know you or not, race, whether you're polite or not - stuff like that
as a x cop its common sences when it comes to tickets
I have gotten about 15 warnings, never the real thing, I think it is because I am a good person, and they can see it. Not them, as much as it is me. Give yourself a pat on the back, because if I saw you running a stop sign or red light, that type of offence (could get somebody killed) it doesn't deserve a warning. Now that you have bragged about it in FreeLawAnswer.com you will probably get a ticket the next time,,,,(me too)

What does an accused "terrorist" do without any money?

I am accused and labled as a terrorist armed and dangerous and this Fuckin American Society won't help me live.
Answers:
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 ?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia. I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and
-you guessed it -I don't care ! ! ! ! !


In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair 's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said:

"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Hmmm.well, if you don't like this f... society...don't live in it!!
Go to the %26gt; ACLU %26lt; they love your kind. you A/hole
good,die motherfu*ker!
Get the hell out. Go someplace where you can break laws and get away with it. Actually, you are lucky you are in the U.S. because most other governments execute enemies of the state. Too bad the U.S. government is lax on this. I would love to see some terrorists be shot in the back of the head on national T.V..

What does admissable in court mean on a lie detector test?

O.k. here is my whole story, my daughter accused her father of molesting her a year ago today, and now he has to go to trail to prove he did not do it. They have no evidence on him, but his attorney states that the courts believe the child 51% over the parent, what outcome would he have of proving his self not guilty?
Answers:
it means the results of the test can be used against you
51% is not a good thing. admissionable means that the lie detector test will be entered as evidence in the trial. If I was your husband I'd flee the country right after I read this reply because I'm going doing some serious Jail time with some
not so friendly people.
If the man has a competent lawyer, he should have a good chance of proving his innocence. However - lie detector results are generally inadmissible in court, as they are seriously unreliable -in other words, lie detectors cannot be depended upon to detect lies - or prove that lying is not occurring either!
admissable in court is that they can use it in a court of law. Lie detectors are not usaly accepted but the state will slip it in the judge will tell the jury to dismiss what the state said about the test then its to late it is in the jury and judges mind the findings of the test
Sounds like they are saying that the lie detector test results can be used in court in order to come up with a verdict.
Answer to the second Question would be 49%.
Sorry, but that means lie detector tests will be accepted.

If they have no evidence against him except the lie detector test, which says he did it, they most likely won't find him guilty. However, if there is other evidence, they can use the polygraph as a deciding factor.

Good luck to him, and for his sake he better hope he didn't do it, because I will be the one chasing him.
As I said, a polygraph test can be addmitted into evidence for impeachment purposes. That means, that whomever takes the test and fails, then testifies under oath and lies, the results could be used to show that the person is not truthful.

In cases like this, a child's testimony is not enough to convict. There will also be a psychologist assigned to the child and THAT along with family services, will determine the veracity of the charges.

What does ABA stand for on a check??


Answers:
It means that your bank is part of the "American Bankers Association".
(A)merican (B)ankers (A)ssociation
Probably American Banking Association, but it could be something else, depending on where the acronym is printed.
it stands for ..american bankers association...

What does a Writ of Habeas Corpus involve and...?

Attorneys please.what exactly is involved in a Writ of Habeas Corpus (in a criminal case)...what evidence can be submitted or is needed? What is the best thing to search for in the transcripts to win a Writ of Habeas Corpus? I have questions and I need answers...I have lots more questions for any HONEST attorneys. I have waisted over $50,000 on Attys and have had no results and not one of my questions answered. HELP! Looking for answers from the HONEST attorneys with a HEART and that are not HEARTLESS. Thanks
Answers:
This isn't the answer you want, but...with the brief little recap you've given, it's unlikely you'd win a habeas petition. Like most criminal defendants, you're likely exaggerating when you say that there's *no* evidence of guilt. You're making what's called a "sufficiency of the evidence" argument. In other words, you're arguing that there is insufficient evidence to convict you. Unfortunately, on appellate review, appeals courts are required to, when reviewing the evidence, take the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. In other words, the appeals court has to assume that all the evidence the government put on is true. Then, if there is any evidence tending to show guilt, the appeals court cannot throw out the conviction.

The second argument you seem to be making is that you have evidence on your side. Two things. First, remember that the appeals court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. This means that your evidence is virtually irrelevant. Secondly, credibility is *always* the purview of the fact finder. This means that they jury can believe the government witnesses and not your witnesses and there's not a damn thing that the appeals court can do about it.

Lastly, you seem to be concerned with the quality of your attorney. The Sixth Amendment guarantees you a right to a competent attorney. In 1984, the Supreme Court wrote a case called Strickland v. Washington. Basically, it says that an attorney is legally incompetent if their actions are objectively unreasonable and if the defendant was prejudiced as a result. Saying that he doesn't know if his client is guilty or innocent certainly isn't the smart thing and is, in fact, really stupid. I would not, however, say that it rises to the level of legal incompetence. Regardless, I would have to see the transcripts before I could determine whether the you were prejudiced as a result--usually if there's sufficient evidence, an appeals court figures you would have been found guilty anyway and will refuse to overturn.

Habeas petitions are incredibly difficult to win. I'm just giving you my evaluation, but don't take my word for it. Chances are that there's a pretty good jail house attorney where you're at that you can go to for advice--he churns out a dozen of these a month. Get him to advise you.

Edit: I'm sorry, but there had to be *some* evidence. I'm not talking the weapon or fingerprints or DNA. Even testimony is considered evidence. Therefore, even if only the accuser testified against you, there is *some* evidence. The only way there would be *no* evidence is if the government put on no case at all--no witnesses, no pieces of evidence, nothing. Now I wasn't there, but that didn't happen, did it? They called some witnesses didn't they? THAT'S evidence. Jeesh.
I'm not an attorney, but I think I can help:

The writ of Habeas Corpus essentially states that the feds can't just arrest you, they have to formally charge you with something first.
As far as evidence goes, something fairly condemning - for example, if they suspect you of selling drugs, they would need to make an undercover buy from you, or get a warrant and search your house for drugs, or things of that nature.

What does a Power of Attorney have control of?

Does a Power of Attorney have the legal right to review legal documents of the person they are the POA for?
Answers:
that all depends on how it was set up if it was just a plain power of attorney then yes they can if it is a limited power of attorney then maybe not. Let this be a lesson to all readers if you do not want all your rights given to someone else never get a full power of attorney document but a limited power of attorney could be useful
power of thin'
My take is they are in effect that person for all legal purposes.

The power however can be revoked at any time.
What ever the document giving them power confers. The document should state what powers are specifically being granted.

What does a person do?

I know a person who has been speeking to the underground about hiding her son and herself in canada in the million dollar body sight.how do youturn them in what do you do. exspecially when she knows the owner of that company. Mind you the father is a good father. she is just doing this hopeing to hurt him. we have a copy of the conversation she had to the lady.
Answers:
You do the right thing. She is planning to illegally hide the father's child from the father for petty and wrong reasons. If it was for protection, I would understand but it isn't.

You do the right thing.

Contact the federal authorities as this is criminal child kidnapping. There are international treaties against this kind of thing and Canada and The USA are parties to this treaty. And yes, you can kidnap your own child.

Section 1204. International Parental Kidnapping

Whoever removes a child under 16-years of age from the United States or retains a child (who has been in the U.S.) outside the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights.
Under this statute the term "child" is defined as a person who has not attained the age of 16 years and "parental rights," with respect to a child, means the right to joint or sole physical custody of the child.
Circumstances when the abducting parent is fleeing from an incidence or pattern of domestic violence, or when a parent fails to return a child for reasons beyond their control and has notified the other parent within 24 hours, are excluded from prosecution under this Section.

I'm sorry you are in the middle of this. It is a hard thing.
This is weird. What the hell are you talking about?
more info please
Notify father, his attorney, and the police. Make sure you keep copies of any proof you might have.

What does a no disposition mean on a criminal background check?

for
Answers:
The problem either was not resolved - still in the process or was dropped. Or the criminal history is not up to date - the agency has not updated the outcome to the federal government or state depending on what scope your background on i.e. local or nationwide.
Disposition refers to a judges final ruling. My best guess would be that 'no disposition' means that there was no final ruling. Not sure if that means that the ruling is pending or if it is, in fact, similar to 'nolo contendre'.
If you need people search, background check, criminal check, government and public records
You can try http://www.peopledetective.net or http://www.peoplefind.net

What does "proceeding to take discovery" mean?

my lawyer talk me that. not sure what it means
Answers:
"Discovery" is often a formal interview process where the other side asks you questions with your own attorney present. Another form is essetially where your attorney basically goes through all the papers and other evidence possesed by the other side. It's basically an investigation
Discovery is what happens after a lawsuit begins but before the case actually goes to trial. There are several types of discovery, but all discovery helps each side to figure out what the other side knows and helps each side develop their case. One can take depositions, basically interviews of the people who are involved in the case, and who may end up being witnesses at the trial. One can ask written questions, called interrogatories, to the other side. One can also ask the other side for all the documents they have that pertain to the case. This is usually called requests for production of documents. Your attorney is probably starting to do all of these things.

What does "pro bono" mean?

From a legal terminology standpoint? Does this infer free or reduced cost legal services?

Paul
Answers:
It means free.
Pro bono publico (often shortened to pro bono) is a phrase derived from Latin meaning "for the public good". The term is sometimes used to describe legal or other professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment, as a public service. In some cases pro bono counsel may assist an individual or group on a legal case, in filing government applications or petitions or on appeal. If the case is won, occasionally the judge may determine that the loser should compensate the pro bono counsel.
without charge. free
"Pro bono" is Latin for "for the good of the public." Pro bono services are free.
It's Latin for "for the good." In the legal arena, it means 'free'.
Yes it does. Literally it means "for the good'. Lawyers and Doctors are encouraged to perform a certain number of hours each year providing their services to those who need them but cannot afford them. It is not mandatory however.
Pro Bono means done for the public good; free of charge.
Today some pro bono lawyers may work for a reduced fee or free of charge on cases that benefit the public. Traditionally it was thought that lawyers were obligated to do some pro bono work. Today it is usually encouraged by many state bars, law offices and lawyers.
b4 the U2! !! ! !!! !! !! !!!
The answers saying "pro bono" means "free" are incorrect. It can mean at no charge, but it can also mean at reduced rates.

The full term is "pro bono publicum", for the benefit of the public. A lawyer can charge less than the usual amount because the cause is worthy, or they can charge nothing at all, but either way, it's pro bono.

At the same time, not all work attorneys do for free is "pro bono". Sometimes they will do something that the public has no interest in, like a simple conveyance document, or a phone call to straighten out a problem, and not charge for it to create goodwill with their client. That's not pro bono, that's marketing.
"pro bono" is legal terminology for free (no charge for services)

What does "money laundering" mean??


Answers:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Money laundering, the metaphorical "cleaning of money" with regard to appearances in law, is the practice of engaging in specific financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money, and is a main operation of underground economy.

In the past, the term "money laundering" was applied only to financial transactions related to organized crime. Today its definition is often expanded by government regulators (such as the United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to encompass any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act, which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting. As a result, the illegal activity of money laundering is now recognized as potentially practiced by individuals, small and large businesses, corrupt officials, members of organized crime (such as drug dealers or the Mafia) or of cults, and even corrupt states, through a complex network of shell companies and trusts based in offshore tax havens.
Money laundering is where you take money made illegally (via selling drugs or some other kind of scheme) and you funnel it through a legal business. You can do this funneling either as reporting it as normal business income or using it to pay for things for the business (like machines or travel).
so there's this thing called GOOGLE!
or Dictionary.com
lol i'm just kidding i don't know either

What does "a government of laws, not men mean"? and how does that go with a constitution government?


Answers:
It means the powers and duties of every government agency and official is defined by laws that were themselves enacted by a process that was itself established by law; and that the laws apply equally to everyone; and no official can arrogate more power to himself than he is granted by law.

The Constitution is precisely the type of law that grants such powers and defines their limits.
Do your own home work and earn your place in life through hard work and not cheating.
The Constitution must be followed by elected officials.
The country is run in accordance with The Constitution, not at the whim of those officials.
It means that a government passes the laws and everyone is forced to follow them. Further, it means that men cannot take a matter of justice or ethics into their own hands, that justice is controled, dispenced and decided by the government.
I interpret this to mean that the constitution and laws are set up so they cannot easily be changed based on the fact that the current leader likes or dislikes them.

It's a strange example, but when the Nazis were taking over Europe, they made edicts and laws based solely on the individual leader's own whims. In Holland, for example, streets became one-way, street signs changed, and marigolds were banned because orange was the color of the Dutch royalty. In a democratic society, there is a preset system of deciding how laws are made or ammended. A president who is strongly pro-life, for example, can't just get in office and declare abortion illegal. There is a system, so that you don't run into the problems of laws changing every four or eight years when new leaders come in.

Our nation's leaders definately have pull, and power, but it's not a dictatorship (which would be an example of a "government of men, not laws").

Our government remains stable, regardless of who is in office.
A government of laws means that the government and the people are held to a known set of laws.
They do not need to fear the whim of political leaders.
They can live their lives and be certain that they are obeying the laws.
A government of men is either a monarchy or a dictatorship.
Under this type of government all you need to do to get arrested is to offend someone in power.
You may not have broken any of the laws that the country has you are the victim of the whims of men.

What documentation is need for fedex express saver packet?

im sending an ipod mini by fedex express saver. do i just pay and stick on the label or do i need an airway bill thingy?
Its going from florida to california.
Thanks
Answers:
I'm not sure what you mean by an airway bill thingy, but here is the information from the website: http://www.fedex.com/us/services/us/expr...

If that doesn't resolve your question, I'd just try calling them.
Probably gone already but don't forget to get a proof of delivery or signature next time.
keep note of the airway bill for future use as reference.
well it depends if you have a fedex account, you can
printed your own shipping labels and then take then
to a fedex office or drop box, if you don't want to do
that you can get some air bills from fedex and then
take the package to a fedex shipping center or fedex Kinko's
and you can pay for the shipping or have charged to your account
(you don't have to have a fedex account to use Fedex you
can pay for the shipping with a credit card, check or good old
cash

What do you understand by the U.S. constitutional "right to free speech" both legally and in practice?

Also, how do you think the U.S. constitutional "right to free speech" relates to what you can and can't do on FreeLawAnswer.com ?

Finally, is the U.S. constitutional "right to free speech" the same as the "human" right (aka "natural" right) to free speech?


I'm most interested in how you think it relates to FreeLawAnswer.com , so if you only have time to answer one part of the question, please try to answer this one.
Answers:
FreeLawAnswer.com owns this space, therefore they can regulate without question what can be posted here.

The constitution limits only the government's oversight of freedom, it does not compel others to grant you the means to acheive that expression.
~There is no such thing as a "human" right or a "natural" right. Rights are granted by governments. The US constitution protects speech, to be sure, but not all speech is protected. To understand the limitations, I commend to your attention the myriad of cases in which the Supreme Court has addressed the issue. FreeLawAnswer.com in nothing special as regards the First Amendment. (Or, more accurately, the First Amendment in conjunction with the Fourteenth.)
An individuals right to free speech is limited by its intrusion on the rights and safety of others. The framers wrote the constitution with this balancing act in mind. For instance the classic example is that a person can not scream fire (when there is none) in a crowded theater. To do so could create a situation that could physically harm many people. Furthermore a person can not hide behind free speech to incite others to harm a person or to vandalize property. Another limitation courts take into consideration is the purpose of the communication. Does it serve any artistic, educational or entertainment value. With that in mind FreeLawAnswer.com is bound by these same constitutional limitations. Meaning that someone can not communicate information with the intent to physically harm any person, group of people, and or property.
The first amendment provides that "Congress" shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Yahoo is not congress. As a private person, I am free to impose all sorts of restrictions. People who use certain racial slurs, for example, must leave my house. Yahoo is also free to make whatever rules it wants. Congress is not free to do the same.

What do you think?

Let's assume that a certain someone, who I will call "Judy" helps out sometimes at a day-care center for free, even though some others doing the same work are being paid.
Her supervisor knows this, and although it is against the center's policy, the supervisor tells Judy to "help yourself" to a few supplies occasionally as payment. What do you think about this idea?

Please be as honest as you can. -Thank you!
Answers:
Bad idea altogether! 'Judy' should not be there unless it is in a professional capacity or at the very least, with the advised consent of the parents who are in entrusting their children at the daycare center. Otherwise. the center is open to a world of legal exposure should anything go 'wrong'. 'Judy' and the staff%26#92;administration need to put her status (even unpaid) into a more formal framework (i.e. informed to parents), for the benefit of the company, the kids, and the rights of the customers (parents) involved. Blessings...
if judy is a volunteer she should not accept payment in those terms. But then what are we talking about here? 100's of $ worth of office supplies or a bit of blank paper occasionaly.? keep perspective.
as long as its for the job and she is not taking a truckload your probably mad because your getting paid for the job and she is getting better pens than you

What do you think?

How would the government make money if the whole US quit smoking? Would they loose money or save money on healthcare costs?
Answers:
It's not supposed to be a question of money, although it undoubtedly is. It's supposed to be a question of good health, not only for the smoker, but for the people choking on a cloud of smoke.

Take it from an old smoker, a veteran of many years of huffing and puffing, who has tried many times to quit, and has failed. I am the female equivalent of Mark Twain, who said it was easy to quit smoking because he had done it a thousand times. But I am still trying.

Actually, these money-making solutions to the problem are probably causing more harm than good. The diehard smoker who can't seem to quit is driven by high prices to cheaper brands of tobacco, thus endangering his health and the health of others even more.

Smoking is an addiction and, like any other addiction, is very difficult to conquer. There are all sorts of chemicals out there to help the smoker quit, but they do not as yet attack the urge to have that nagging puff. I know people who smoked while wearing the Patch, who continue the habit despite chewing chemical gum guaranteed to help. Perhaps Rehab facilities should be built for smokers, locking them away from society for as long as it takes.

Smoking causes many diseases and health conditions, the most prevalent being lung cancer. Only five percent of those afflicted survive lung cancer and it is a long painful death. Usually, the government has to pick up the costs of these lengthy illnesses. This is where the savings comes in if smokers would all quit the habit.

If I had any advice for others, it would be to stop smoking while you are young. It's easier to do it then and you will have a lifetime of better health before you. If you wait until you are older, that habit is like a monkey clinging to your back. You know you smell like a tobacco barn and you try your best, but old habits are the hardest to push away.
We would be better off w/o it. I quite smoking 11 years ago and I sure don't miss it--not a bit!

What do you think the verdict should be?

I am watching The Today Show right now. They just showed a case that is going on in Texas. A woman and a man had their embryo's frozen so they could use them at a later time. Well the couple signed a consent form to freeze them. Now they have both gotten divorced and the woman wants to impregnate herself with these embryo's. I have no idea why should would want to be impregnated with embryo's from someone she is divorced from. In Texas there is a law that says one can be impregnated by another man's sperm and he does not have to be the father. But the man is against this (which he has every right to be) because he does not believe it is right to bring a child into this world by two people who are not together and are divorced so he does not want this to happen. Well this case could be going to court and one of them would win. Who do you think should win?
Answers:
I think that she has the right to get pregnant, but not by his sperm if he doesn't want to be a father yet. Who knows this could have been the reason behind the divorce. I also think that after all this that he should at least pay for the harvesting of some more eggs and having them fertilized by a donor, then she can get them implanted. I think that would be fair on both parties. That way the guy has no part in it, and the girl gets pregnant. With the other embryos they can donate them anonymously to a couple that is in need and not be responsible for them, and not throwing them away.
I think that the man should win. He gave up his sperm for his wife not to be a sperm donor. Besides men are paid to be sperm donors.
As long as we concern ourselves with this kind of trivia (it's their own choices), we miss the bigger picture of what is really going on in the world that is important.
First, an analogy. When a an engagement ring is given, it is given with the expectation that the couple will marry. If the marriage is called off, the ring should be returned since the goal was not attained.

In the case of the frozen sperm, the pact was between two people who had every expectation of raising any resulting offspring together. Since that will not be the case, the sperm should not be used. The man should win the case.
I'm, with the father / ex husband on this one. I'm actually surprised that this is still an issue. It came up in another case a few years ago. If I ran a fertility clinic and wanted to avoid getting caught in the middle of a situation like this I would have the couple decide before the treatment began what would be done in case of divorce. It would be in writing and legally binding.
The man should win. They did this when they were together and now that there not together he should definatley have a say about this.
the verdict should be in favor of the woman who is the defendent and the man is the plantiff.
she has every right to do what she feels is right for her.
So why isn't the woman just getting another donor?
I don't think she should win. If she so wanted his kid then at least stay with him, not divorce him then decide she wants his sperm. What she is doing just seems wrong. If she did all this now what is to keep her from doing the same thing to another man.

Of course on the other hand why the divorce was he hurting her, abuse or other, in some way, if that is the case take them and run.
Actually, the matter is one of contract law.

In Roman v. Roman, a case of first impression in Texas, Houston's 1st Court of Appeals considered the merits of a property division in a divorce proceeding decided by Lisa Millard, presiding judge of the 310th District Court in Harris County. Millard had awarded three frozen embryos to the wife as part of a "just and right" division of community property, despite the parties' prior written agreement to discard frozen embryos in the event of divorce.

Texas law also addresses the situation. Tex. Family Code Ann. 搂 160.001, et seq. creates the Uniform Parentage Act and describes various aspects of determination of maternity and paternity as well as parentage. The law requires a man and woman to sign consent to assisted conception. If the father does not sign, however, it does not necessarily mean that he is not the legal father.

In present case, the husband has rescinded his permission to use the embryo for fertilization which is the foundation of the case. Roman is the controlling case law in texas and therefore, unless the wife can provide case law which supercedes the man's right to rescind under contract law, she will lose the property claim.

FORGOT TO ADD:

The above case (Roman) was later won by the ex-husband on appeal. The embryos were destroyed on order of the court.
Nobody can predict what decision you would get from a court because the saying that the law is an *** is not too far from the truth. Logically you would expect that the man could apply to have his sperm returned and that would be the end of it.

What do you think should or should not?

in this quote what u think should or should not tell their parents ?

Because the clinic is federally funded, its employees are not required to alert you. In fact, they can’t. The federal government prohibits the clinic from telling parents their child is receiving prescription contraceptive drugs and devices”
Answers:
Parents should be told anything and everything concerning their child. They are responsible (by law) for the safety and raising of the child. If the government purposely withholds information concerning that child, then it should relieve the parents of all legal responsibilities of that child and make the child a ward of the state. In that case, the government should have to provide reason to remove the child from the parents custody and be civilly liable unless they can do so. This is one of the most idiotic laws that our government has ever established, and needs to be repealed now.
first you must share your parents then do as they feel.

What do you think should happen to underage drinker who drove and killed 3 people?

we had a bad accident happen last night a car carrying a family mom dad child and 9 month fetus was rear ended by a 16 year old driving drunk mom was pulled out before car exploded killing her husband and child she also lost the baby! what should happen to the 16 year old. what about his parents.
Answers:
first you must figure the boys life is over! atleast 30- life is my guess with full term served, if his parents had insurance then the Mom will recieve the monies due to her suffering, maybe oneday a auto maker will finally have a breath detector and it will sense air inside the car w alcholol stopping or not allowing the engine to start,,sad sad story ..GoD bless them all
he / she should go jail for life! because he took a precious life!
It's a hard question. I smell a lawsuit from the woman who survived. The kid, his parents and anyone who served him alcohol would be liable to be sued by the family of the departed. I think the kid deserves 10-25 for vehicular manslaughter. That's minimum, but if you take that and charge him for each death he's looking at a long time behind bars. His parents/who ever served him alcohol deserve around a year a piece at least.
Death penalty.
prison's too good for this person. He should be tortured and The parents should be arrested for raising a lousy child.
second degree murder, the kid made a mistake and he's goin to realize this mistake and feel bad for the rest of hid life
Jail for a long time, possibly life. I don't believe in the death penalty.
The parents should not be in trouble unless the driver was only on their Learner's Permit.
I think that the person who let them drink should get 20 years. The 16 year old should get 20 years also. The parents who gave this person the right to drive, should spend time for thier bad judgement. We need to draw a line in the sand and put an end to this DUI.
how drunk was he? was he fully at fault for the accident? the car exploded? i dont know if that is foreseeable .

I am not sure why people that drive drunk and hit someone should get more punishment than someone who drives drunk and hits nothing.
i say 6 months.
how drunk was he? How did he get drunk? He is guilty of negligent homicide, not murder. So I think he should definatly get time, but why ruin his life over a mistake I am willing to bet more than half of the US population has made, including the President and Ted Kennedy.(Both convicted of drunk driving)

What do you think should happen to the entire system for letting that woman die in the Hospital?

From the hospital staff to the 9-11 dispatcher. What kind of place was this that would let a woman suffer like this and not do anything to help her until she died there on the floor. What about that horrible dispatcher- did you hear the audio? What is wrong with people

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...
Answers:
I've heard the complete 911 tapes regarding this matter. It's a tough call, but I have to back up the 911 dispatchers--there really was nothing more they could do: Rodriguez was ALREADY inside the MLK hospital--surrounded by medical staff.

Rodriguez's boyfriend, Jose Prado, did NOT answer the question asked "Why are they (medical staff) ignoring her (Rodriguez)". MLK hospital won't sweat a lawsuit here--because Prado AVOIDED the question, evidently knowing he was on tape.

Also noted: Prado did NOT approach medical staff or local police requesting Rodriguez at least be given an ambulance transport to another facility---and he was clearly advised by 911 dispatcher to do exactly just that.

Let's go to Civil Court here a second, where these segmented areas of both the MLK Hospital video AND the 911 call tapes are dissected:

MLK attorney(s): "Mr. Prado: did you heed the RECORDED advisement of the 911 dispatcher YOU spoke with, and verbally request Ms. Rodriguez be given an ambulance ride OUT MLK Hospital?"

Prado: "Uhhh...no"

MLK attorney(s): "Why not, sir?"

Prado: (I would NOT want to be Prado right about now).

MLK attorney(s): "Mr. Prado.could it well be YOU, sir, saw a potential grand multi-MILLION DOLLAR lawsuit favoring Ms. Rodriguez's family (and potentially, you too), so you stopped short of getting Ms. Rodriguez that much needed transport to another hospital? Better yet, why didn't YOU or attending members of the Rodriguez family simply take Ms. Rodriguez in YOUR automobile(s) to another hospital?

Mr. Prado..why did YOU and Rodriguez family allow Ms. Rodriguez to DIE???"

Ah, NOW you get the idea here..and it all comes down to that pivotal moment, when Prado went evasive to 911 dispatcher--and I wouldn't at all be surprised if other clues leading to suspicion come signed by Prado on MLK legal ER documentation as well.

We must bear in mind here that quick to anger as we come watching the video and listening to the 911 tapes, we really DON'T have the full story of what really went on; we're easily led by assumptions.

Was MLK Hosptial negligent? Sure seems so.but I suspect there IS more to this story yet to be told.and Prado and Rodriguez family isn't so disclosing just yet....probably for good reason.

I think Prado has something to hide..and a good Civil Court trial may just be the thing needed to bring out the total truth here..things that might land Prado in a criminal courtroom.
It was the same as murder and they should be held accountable!!
I think they should face civil and criminal penalties.
This would have never happened if the illegals in California hadn't already bankrupted the hospitals. There have been numerous hospitals closed because of bankruptcy in California. If these hospitals were still open, this would never have happened. Basically there are not enough hospitals in California to take care of there population. You don't see these people running to the hospital for the rich and famous do you? Stop illegal immigration and the hospitals would be able to stay open.
This is more evidence that a problem with Hospitals today is an unchecked system where employees, nurses and doctors have no or little accountability. Soon you will see people blame it on other things which are not the problem.
I share your out rage, but it isn't the entire system, just the incredibly ignorant morons that work ? at that hospital , and that useless twit {for lack of a better term } should be hung by her heels, {911 operator } ALL should be in the cross bar hotel, for a very very long time...
This is what Socialized Healthcare will be like and worse than the HMO's!
Personally, I think that every single professional in that hospital that didn't do anything to aid this woman should be sanctioned and/or lose their license.

I did hear that dispatcher, and I think that person should be brought up on charges!

What in the hell is so wrong that someone needs to call 911 from the hospital emergency room to try and get someone seriously in medical trouble some sort of care? Somewhere in that place, the system failed that woman, and her family and friends. I hope they all rot in hell for that.

And by the way - the woman was an American Citizen. But because she didn't carry insurance, she was pushed to the back of the line. If this isn't a call for some sort of medical reform, I don't know what is!
I think the hospital did not take her seriously for the simple reason and I quote. She was a druggie, had been to the hospital 4 days in a row getting free drugs for her so called problem. Now, she chose to be a druggie and when she needed a fix she was going to the hospital. The hospital is in poor shape due to the fact it has thousands passing through every week and no one paying. I'm sure they were getting tired of being her free fix. Is that right, no, but we all make choices in life and she chose drugs.

What do you think should happen to the accuser in the Duke case?

After seeing the what has happened to the prosecutor do you feel it is time to go after the girl that falsely accused the 3 young men?
Answers:
Absolutely, Yes.

The accuser should be punished severely for tarnishing those three young men's reputation. Nifong should be punished right along with the girl that lied. Nifong and the girl should be taken to the woodshed and get horse whipped.
YES
She should be prosecuted and have to pay for what she put those 3 guys through for over a year. What a b*tch!
Yes lock her up for 6 months to a year. Teach her a lesson that you don't mess with peoples lives just because you want their money cuz you are too lazy to go out and work hard for your own.
yes its time to go after the girl. she ruined those boys lives. personally i think she is a skank and should be behind bars for a long time.
She should be charged with lying under oath,obstructing justice,and any felony they can pin on her.They should also charge Al Sharpton for being a loud mouth idiot.
Yes, she should be charged and pay whatever price is called for: jail time, etc. Plus the Duke boys and their families should bring civil charges for defamation of character against her. This not only has had an awful impact on their lives, but who knows how many girls who actually ARE attacked will now keep quiet fearing no one will believe them?
The accuser should ABSOLUTELY be prosecuted as well. It's unfair to those young men who put up with all that crap from their peers AND their teachers to have that woman walking around. That girl should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. She not only lied but she ruined the reputations of those young men.
She should have to do some prison time very soon! And I hope these students and their families go after Jesse Jackson for his racial comments about them!
she should serve the same amount of years that the men accused would ,,had they been convicted. Accumulative!

BUT DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH,,,

nifong said "he did not want to be known as the town that let a bunch of white guys rape a black woman"

what he wanted was to get elected at any and all cost,,
this sorry son of a bit ch should be tared and feathered,,,
She is mentally unbalance, so nothing should happen to her. It was the D.A. that decide to go ahead with the case, when the accuser was clearly unbalanced. I do not a assaulted took place, but I do believe that some type of verbal abuse took place in that bathroom. The truth will never be known, unless one of the boys needs the money and writes a tell all book. It is outrageous what happen to those boys, but that happens every day in American, but usually to the poor, that have no one to speak truth to power for them
Yess I think they need to throw her As* in the pokey %26 that idiot Nifong right beside her. Did you know he's an Edward's supporter ? (Well I heard that somewhere)
i don't think anything should happen to her. no one can be positive she wasn't raped, it's just that there was enough reasonable doubt for the boys to get off. i am not saying that they raped her.... but i don't know. i think that those boys had to do something to her to get her to do what she did if it was just to hurt them .. maybe she's just a little crazy, whatever. i just think she should be left alone

i also have to say, that being accused of rape is nowhere NEAR the horror of actually being raped. that's just . absolutely retarded. that comment just makes me angry, obviously that person has no concept of what rape is like
Absolutely! Falsley accusing someone of rape is, to me, as bad as actually raping someone. I had a friend who was accused of rape in high school and months after the allegation, she finally came forward to admit it was all a lie. Those of us close to the boy knew that all along, but it didn't matter to him, he was still facing jail time and serious consequences for the rest of his life for a crime he didn't commit. When it was all over, after being arrested, charged, finding lawyers, making police reports, the whole thing, he was left trying to piece his life back together while she was out partying with her friends and enjoying life as usual. Is that fair?! NO! She, just like the girl in the Duke case, should be prosecuted for everything they can pin on her. She needs to serve serious jail time to learn what happens when you try to ruin people's lives for your own personal gain and when you openly deceive the police and court systems. I agree with the other people who have answered here that the men involved should bring civil suits against her, and I do think it's a shame that true rape victims are met with skepticism because of lying whores like this woman (pardon the strong language).
Yes, but it won't happen. Political correctness will rule the day. We might get a few "mistakes were made" sound bites but no more.
Falsely accused , Only her and the "young" men will really know what happened , objects leave no DNA.
I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. But a lesson to be learned is never trust anyone when it is private behind closed doors. She needed some one there for her side when they wanted a different show than just a strip tease.
Defamation of character, they were there to see a woman strip naked for there pleasure, Why a black woman?What was the boys agenda.?
.
The accuser should be charged for for falsly reporting a crime and go to trial.

The boys should have to pay her legal fees for hiring her to perform for their party and not sending her home.

Al Sharpton should either remove Reverend from his title or apologize post haste.

Mike Nifong should be charged with whatever the law can charge a trusted official with and prosecute him to the fullest extent of NC law.

Mike Nifong's office members should be removed from their posts.

Best wishes,

pup
.

What do you think should happen to Duke DA Mike Nifong?

How can he possibly atone for the hell he put those Duke LaCrosse players through? Let alone the damage he's done to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

And what about the knee-jerk members of the faculty and administration who so freely and publicly condemned the players on the basis of the accusation alone?
Answers:
I agree that they should have been able to step in from the time it became obvious that he was doing this to get elected but according to those who know N.C state law, the State AG cannot invite his office into an investigation, they have to be asked to take over the case which was why there had not been any delay when Nifong asked them to take over the case when he did. They did so less than 12 hours after the request was made.
There is nothing he can do to atone for what he did to these boys except not be able to practice in his chosen profession ever again because for the rest of their lives, this will follow them wherever they go
The damage is being repaired by the fact that he himself is on trial for his actions. This also goes to show you that we as a people cannot just assume that justice is being done. We need to pay attention to cases out there to really know whether justice not persecution is taking place. When I saw this unfold, I never thought something like that could happen here in these times. I would have expected that in a nation like Russia or fascist leaning countries not here.
The Duke University administration and faculty members should be forced to pay these guys back every cent of the tuition they ever forked over to their institution and make them pay for a full page apology to run for the same length of time they persecuted these students for a crime the did not commit.
Personally, I would have sued her and entered a judgement for her to pay $1.00 very week to each player for the rest of her life as a reminder to her as to what her lies did.
Disbarred, sued civilly, and forced to live out his years in shame...

not much else can be done about what he did...

Duke needs to really take a look at how some members of their faculty failed to stand by Duke students and were all to willing to buy into the race/class slander pushed by Nifong et al...
He should get the same sentance he was trying to get for the Lacrosse players, he should have to re-imburse the families for their legal fees, he should be disbarred and he should have his US citizenship revoked.

If he can't pay, then the State or county should have to, as he was their represenative.

What do you think should be done with murderers who commit honor killings of young girls ?

A Kurdish man was convicted in a London court on Monday of murdering his 20-year-old daughter in a so-called "honor killing" after she left her husband and fell in love with another man.
(The above is what I'm referring to.)
If the guy does not get the death penalty and only gets time, then after his time is completed he needs to be deported back to the country where he came from. People need to be screened before their allowed into countries where these things are considered to be psychopathic and only condoned by animals.
Answers:
I agree, he should get the death penalty. His religious or societal beliefs do not put him above the law of the land he has chosen to live in. The law must punish these crimes with rigour, in my opinion, or lose the name of a lawful country.

If the judiciary is not willing to impose death, then I believe his entire family and clan should be deported at once, with no chance of return to England, and himself at the end of his jail time. This sounds harsh, but he and his family are counting on the mercy of Western justice and only severe measures will ever begin to make inroads into the thinking behind this and other familial abuses that are contrary to British law.

Maggie
An honor killing is still a killing. He deserves life.
Life in the most hardcorest prison imaginable to suffer like like no one suffered before. After he has suffered with tourture, then kill him/they off!
Sadly UK and many others eliminated the death penalty tears ago...I know for a fact that Britain executed the last WOMAN in 1953...and she was NOT a Lulu...she was a vicious, consciousless MURDERER.

This guy and best of meanest Iraq prisoners needs FREE ride for 100s of miles taped onto US or Brit combat vehicles. If danger is mines...face down UNDER the vehicles well off the ground...
No reason for someone convicted of first degree murder to get anything less than life without parole.
He should get an honor killing of himself or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
I also think everyone needs to be screened before they come in to a new country, take VA Tech shootings, that would not have happened if he was screened before comeing to the US. this is a big issue with Mexico right now and how easy it is for someone to come into America from Mexico, the govt. needs to take care of this and all not legal people in America need to GET OUT! or go though the process of becomming legal. I think the case that you talked about is like many others around the World today, and it is very sad. If a man is going to kill his own daughter I don't think he should get off by just setting in jail for some years.

What do you think or what would you do in a situation like this?

What would you do if you found out that someone has posted on a popular website, a page about you with belittling information and has posted your pictures? Basically stating degrading things about you. I believe it would be considered slander. Would you sue or report it to the police? In a situation such as this, how much punishment can the person who did this get?
Also, this would be in a Canadian legal system.

Any Lawyers opinions would be greatly appreciated.
Answers:
How awful for you!

Personally I'd call a lawyer friend if I have one. Or a friend who works with the police.

If you don't have a friend then maybe put in a call to the your local police station to get some free legal advise. Or call a law office for advise.

Most of all don't try to pay back this person by sinking to their level. Don't call them fussing, cussing and screaming. Don't do some awful revenge that would only look bad on your part if you do sue or take legal actions.

All in all . . .

1. Take a few deep breaths and calm down.
2. Go to the website and do a File, save as and save the whole page or pages as HTML as proof and evidence (though I don't know you might want to ask before you do that someone could accuse you of altering the pages)
3. Call a friend who may be able to offer your legal advise you have any.
4. Decide if you want to cal the police just to find out what your rights are OR call a lawyer just for advise. Most likely the police or lawyer would call this person and give them a warning to take the stuff down.

Good luck.
That depends on what they are saying. If they are making accusations of things you have supposedly done, that could be a legal issue. If they are just ripping on you, I'd imagine they can rip on you all they want.

Personally, I would get my computer geek friend to crash and trash the site.
if this is myspace, they have steps to take in the Q%26A because sadly this happens a lot.

What do you Think of Workplace Violence - Patient Versus Nurse??


Answers:
I'm against it. It can be a problem in busy hospitals where you get lots of degenerate people, but I think most of them have security as a result of that.
If the patient wins they should get free health care for 1 year.
Do you mean, like a crazy patient attacking a nurse? I have several friends that are nurses and every single one of them has been attacked by a crazy patient at least once. Sounds like a dangerous job. None of them were ever seriously hurt and they didn't file a complaint against the patients or anything, but if they were seriously injured they should be able to sue them and have criminal charges brought against them. Assault is assault.

What do you think of this ruling?

This is a story meant as a joke but I'm not sure if it could turn out real and would like to have your opinion.

A guy buys insurance for a carton of cigarettes to protect them from damage, intentional or otherwise. He then goes on to light them, ie smokes them and tried to claim the insurance, since after smoking them, it is technically "damaged". He successfully claimed the insurance for the item but once the damage was paid out, the insurance company sued him for arson. He was jailed for 2 years.

Is such a scenario possible in the United States?
Answers:
Anything is possible with some of the shyster lawyers we have here.
I doubt if an insurance company would sell a policy on cigarettes, but as the other person noted, they might insure a box of extremely valuable cigars. They write policies on fine wines. If you are rich and have a wine cellar with several thousand dollars worth of old wine, it would be insured against theft and natural peril. Of course it would not cover you opening a bottle for a dinner and consuming it on purpose. The same thing may be true of a walk-in humidor. Some people have several thousand dollars worth of cigars at any one time. I would imagine a policy under homeowners insurance to insure against natural disaster, theft, or the entire house burning down. Insurance companies will insure just about anything, as long as you are able and willing to pay the premium.. But then they get you with the fine print.
And you do not have to burn a building to be charged with arson.
I heard the same thing with a box of expensive cigars, and I was never sure the story was true.
This scenario is definately not possible- one because by setting the cigarettes aflame himself, he would not be able to claim insurance on them because he purposely caused the damage
two- because smoking a cigarette is not arson (or we would see a lot more people in jail)
and three- because no insurance company is gonna insure a carton of cigarettes- it doesn't have any real value
Along the lines of the law it seems to play out as something that could happen... but i doubt it ever would.
Absolutely possible. I may be mistaken and only heard a similar "joke", but I believe there was once a guy who bought a box of extremely rare and expensive cigars, insured them, smoked them, and claimed the insurance money. Got the money, but was charged and prosecuted for arson.

Even if it is a joke, it is completely possible. In addition to arson, i think insurance fraud could be another charge.

To be honest, I don't know if any insurance company would insure cigarettes or cigars, but even if they did, im sure smoking them would be an exception to the policy.

All in all, it probably has happened b.c there are always people out there trying to make a quick buck and most of those people do something stupid to do it.

But to answer your question, it is completely possible that this scenario could happen in the United States.
Is someone can sue McDonald's for hot coffee, who knows what other stupid rulings might occur.
No insurance company in the WORLD would insure a carton of cigarettes UNLESS they were made of SOLID GOLD!!! This scenerio is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in the USA...definitely wouldn't happen here in New York and if ANYTHING weird is going on in the USA, it's either going on in LA or New York...
Not possible. The judge would dismiss the lawsuit without a trial. He would then fine the lawyer who brought the suit and report him to the state bar for disciplinary action. True the bar is very low for lawyers, but it is a little higher than this.
I all depends on the fine print of the insurance. Regardless whether or not arson is involved, there may be something that says that you can't purposely destroy the item in question. That would make him guilty of insurance fraud.
No...an insurance company wold never insure a carton of cigarettes unless you promised to not smoke them and if you did it would nulify the policy,.

Also in every state arson is the burning of a building...so burning a pack of cigarettes would not subject one to criminal liability...and when a company sues you are not jailed...the district attorney must prosecute you...
Its not a true story.go to.. snopes.com.. and they will say its false.

What do you think of this crap...this guy calls me in for an interview. It took me over an hour to get to the?

place. Then, he tell me that they really don't have an opening and are interviewing just in case somebody quits. I think this really sucks. If you are going to have a person come all that way for a job interview, there should at least be a vacany, not a potential vacany. This is anothe piece of crap that really bugs me. At the cost of gas these days, I'd say it cost me at least $15.00 dollars to get there and back, only to find that there is no vacancy What say you?
Answers:
I am so sympathetic with what you say and so angry . the way people are treated in the workforce is disgusting plus the invasive questions asked as well as having to know all your work History , its all a form of bullying , references are worthless but to be manipulative they all set such good store by them

But they know we are powerless , except to work for ourselves then big business comes after us
Perhaps we will get more respect after the bird flu , but then of course it will lead to a recession ,
Can you bad mouth blog theses sons of Mother Ficking Biches ?
I agree that's pretty f***ed up
id send him a bill for the gas and say you were not impressed with having your time wasted like that wen you could have been to an interview that actually has an opening
It certainly was unethical. He should have informed you that there were no current vacancies. It should have been your decision to travel for the interview with the knowledge there was no current opening. But now it is time to move on and keep up your job search. Good luck.
Yeah thats really jacked up. If thats the way they run there show you definitely dont want to work for them.
You should write a letter of complaint (when things are in writing they are more likely to be taken seriously) to the Complaints Manager and ask for a reimbursement of your petrol (gas) money. They should have told you what excatly you were going in for ... time wasters!
no idea.
You should have asked him to pay your expenses seeing as there was no job that sucks
Yes, tough. But surely before going for an interview, you check that you can recover your expenses. That is normal practise in the UK, otherwise you don't attend the interview. If they are seriously interested in you, they will be happy to cover expenses.
They should hang him by fish hooks and then pour 15 dollars worth of gasoline on him,then light him up! I guarantee you the next time he'll be much more respectful and responsive to potential employees!
agree it sucks but would you want a job with a company like that - think you had a lucky escape

and at dellboy _ who pays your expenses for interviews?? thats a new one on me and i've been to a few
Yeah, he was out of line with that!

However, I hope that you took it cheerfully..at least while he was looking! You might have been told in a round about way that there is someone in the company that they expect is either going to quit or be fired shortly. They do not have an exact date, but, they know it will happen. That is what I would read into his actions.

If not, since you can't do anything about it, why don't you think of this as a dress rehearsal for the next interview? Stupid pet trick on his part! Try to find something positive anyway.might make you feel a bit better about the fifteen bucks!
They do the same here dude. But they dont tell you.
They also have decided by positive discrination who they will take on here, and interview loads of people that they dont want so they aint seen to be doing it.

Theres nothing great about britain any more.
I agree with the above, certainly put your complaint in writing to somebody higher up than him. It's unfair to expect people to travel for an interview when there isn't a vacancy at all. State your case, and hopefully you'll get a reply.
That sucks...
Phone them, and threaten to take them to court for misleading you
I'd be hoppin mad %26 write to the Human Resources manager or owner if its a small company. Tell him you would like a gas voucher or reimbursement and also you believe it should come from this persons check as it was a total waste of your time and since you are not working, money invested in getting a new job. I'd also write a letter to the editor of the paper in that area and stress the shoddy practices of that company. Good luck in the job search. I'm there with you, looking for a job myself.
I can sympathize. I went to an interview once, parked my car and went in. The lady interviewing me had HORRIBLE body odor. Then I had to take a stupid typing quiz. I knew there was no way I was going to take the job, and I seriously considered just walking out and saying nothing, but I stayed for the interview experience. When I went outside, my car had been towed. For a waste of time, I had the privelege of paying $100+.

Lesson: follow your gut. I totally agree with your assessment about interviewing - they should only do it if they have a vacancy . You should have told them to f-off and left. Of course, I understand that's easier said than done in job-search mode. In this case though it sounds worth it.

Still, a lot of places probably do that interview with no vacancy thing so be persistent.

If you don't mind cutting ties completely with the company, I would also mention the name of the company and who you dealt with here on FreeLawAnswer.com s. No point in complaining if you don't name names.
He was completely unprofessional and that should give you a good indication of what it would be like to work for him. When I interview for a job, I am interviewing them as much as they are interviewing me. This guy just flunked your interview, and if he were to call you for the job, I would tell him to go pound sand.

As unprofessional as he sounds, he is anticipating vacancies becoming available, thus the interview process has begun, and no wonder people are leaving his company.
Avoid this place like the plaque!
you may be able to claim these expenses on your income tax.
I have no idea if this is true in your case or not, but a company I use to work for had a service mgr. (I was the shop foreman he was my boss) who would do that if some one came in for an interview that he quite simply just didn't like!
Several issues.

First, yes, you can claim the mileage or actual expense for gas for travelling to a job interview on your taxes. Although it most likely will not be worth it. You get $0.48.5 cents per mile.

Second, writing a letter will do nothing but make you feel good. Legally, you were offered an interview, you accepted and it took place. The implied contract was fulfilled.
This has happened to me several times and there are few things more disheartening. However, on this occasion, why not make use of the interview? Instead of complaining, make a point of writing to the person concerned indicating your interest and keep on writing unless and until you've sorted out another job. That way, you'll come over as very keen.

I once turned up for a job interview which had been set for what seemed a rather eccentric time, as it was after normal working hours. When I got to the offices concerned, they were locked and I felt hopping mad at being made a fool of. The following morning I turned up at those offices and demanded to see the person concerned. He was visiting from Switzerland, where the job was based. He was deeply embarrassed at what had clearly been an administrative muddle and so I had the advantage, as I sat there telling him how deeply hurt and offended I had felt and how much this job had meant to me. while he paced up and down uncomfortably. The job had been offered to someone else, but within a few weeks I had a telegram from his office in Switzerland with a job offer. That's why I tell you to keep pushing at the door!
Hey so sorry for you - what a horrible way to conduct business.
I would write a letter to their HR department, it seems like larger companies like to do this sort of thing. A company I worked for did this just to keep a resume/applicant pool available. Its very abusive really, just goes to show how bad the corporate mentality is getting. We really aren't human to some anymore. It's also pointless, as by the time the company needs that person they will most likely be employed elsewhere. I think it is just a dim idea in a business book somewhere - not practical in the actual world, but people do it. To "increase efficiency" when all it is mean and a waste of everyone's time, like most business school ideas. Frankly, you are pretty powerless. HR exists to protect the company - you will probably get a meaningless letter back from them. Just remember the name of the company and steer clear of them.
I went to a job interview where I felt like the guy didn't ask much. They called me in for a 2nd interview, and while in the lobby there was a woman on her 4th... I did not come in when the called me in for a 3rd.

I would just do the interview as if its real and practice your interview skills. Talking into the mirror or role playing with a friend doesn't compare to the real thing, and interviews have become very nuanced and downright wacky in some cases, you can't have too much practice.

If it really bothers you, this might be something you ask on the phone while setting up the interview, you might word it something like, "How soon are you looking to bring someone on", or "what is the timeframe for hiring".

What do you think of this cop...?

I had asked about how to go about reporting
a crime that involved minors and sexual abuse.

If he really were a cop,
then I find his reaction very disturbing.

Let me know what you think...

here's the question that I had asked :
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Answers:
I am thinking that you need to read over his site more closely.. .look at the people posting on his site.. they are all into the same thing.

If you think its some sort of child porn, than call the FBI... everyone I see this is a consenting adult! Thats what I am trying to tell you.

Edit.. Look at Hex's answer above. EXACTLY!
as an attorney, he was correct. There is absolutely nothing illegal in posting such information.

As Chief Justice Warren said, "If you find it offensive, turn away."

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION:

By the way, even if someone posting there was NOT a consenting adult, it would still not be a crime. Unless you're talking about 'thought' police.

Words themselves do not constitute a crime without context.

EDITED TO ADD:

Would I just look away if I didn't like it?

Actually, I am doing that right now, with YOUR post.

What do you think of the United State's policy on gay marrige?


Answers:
There is no policy. I think there should be one. I am with the right on this one though.
WHAT POLICY?
There isn't a policy on gay marraige in the United States of America. Maybe one of the states has one but that's why it's a federation. Power is in the state.
I think the attitude is that marriage is a matter left best to the laws of the individual states, and that the US Federal Government will take no action in requiring one state to recognize or accept gay marriages granted in one state to be accepted in a second state.

I don't think it is fully developed as a matter of law at this time. And probably as is will continue to ban gay marriage as a 'must accept' alternative lifestyle.
You mean the "pass the buck" policy?

It's NOT up to the state, because the states who do have marriage doesn't amount to diddly squat on the federal level.

The "policy" should be inclusive of all Americans... not just a chosen few.

Someday it will, of that I have no doubt.
It's a shame we don't have a policy on gay marriage. Come on people get in the 21st century. What are people afraid of? I don't understand. If you think only in monetary terms, if you allow gay marriages those spouse could be placed on their spouses medical insurance if they have none of their own.
That could take some people off medicare if they are low income. A whole new way do look at things. Why too does the govt have to agree with a life style to allow it legally? If not allowing gay marriages a policy I do not approve of it.
1. There is no such policy.
2. There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. You must be talking about 'homosexual marriage'. Please don't contribute to the further corruption of my native language.

What do you think of the smoking ban?

- 1st of July, smoking ban UK.
Answers:
it is wonderful. They should ban smoking all together
i agree with it
i want to live longer
forget them if they re emssing up their lungsand cutting their lifespans by 10-50 YEARS!!
let them die
not me
first off, im not a smoker, and i dont like people who single out an entire group, people say we need to be more tolerant to gays, muslims, etc. but they cant see that they tax and ban these people
i am against the smoking bans. i feel it should be up to the businesses to ban smoking in their establishments.
One day isnt' going to do a lot. You want to make a stand, then make it more than one day. Personally, I don't care
we had a smoking ban in columbia missouri, and its great. im allergic to smoke and so when i go in places its fresh air, and you dont have to sit in the back because of smoking or w.e! i love it way more! and it doesnt make your food taste nasty
I like it. I like it a lot.
I think that it is wonderful. Wherever you are, whether teh US, the UK or elsewhere, I think people should be allowed to breathe clean air. It may be your choice to smoke, fine if you choose to do, but don't make otehr people wo have chosen not to smoke breathe it in
its pretty oppressive to me but we smokers are second class citizens according to the health nazi's look we are all gonna die anyways why not go out with a smoke in your hand and medicine is advancing so quickly youll be able to get fake lungs soon so quit complaining and light up people say its bad and it causes cancer and they want to be able to breath free. well i want to be able to enjoy my smoke. and are we gonna ban everything thats dangerous to us. what about mcdonalds what about beer (tried the beer thing in america and that only got us more crime) are we gonna ban the sun it causes cancer. why dont you take your head out of your butt and put your lips on one
its good. i think its rude to smoke in public places. not only are u killing urself but u r killing the ppl around you by secondhand smoke. its a good thing that it is now banned.
Great idea. Second hand smoke causes cancer, and breathing problems for those who do not smoke. If smokers want to kill themselves, fine, but don't kill others with their filthy habit.
I think that it is great. It is so much nicer now to go into a bar or even a restaurant or bowling alley and not walk out and smell like a big cigarette. I am not a smoker but I had friends that were and even they thought that it was a lot nicer. It is especially helpful for people that have bad Asama and can't be around smoke, not to mention how bad second hand smoke is for people to inhale. That passed in Washington before I moved and I loved it.
I like that the restuarants have clean air in the US. I'm not sure how stricked the ban in the UK is but I wouldn't want peoples rights to be taken away completely. I do want my child to breath fresh air though.
I'm not sure what your smoking ban involves...but in the state of Maine, smoking is not allowed in any public buildings, including bars. It's so nice not to have to sit in a restaraunt with that stench.
Thats great! I only wish it would spread to the United States. My docter said I have a strange diasease type thing that if I smell smoke I will hold my breath until its gone. Now I really want to take a trip to the U.K
Tobacco is Extremely harmful and dangerous. Only the profiteers want to keep it legal.
We will have a similar ban here in Minnesota, United States, starting on October 1. It will be good for those who work in places like bars, restaurants, or pubs, as they are not exposed to potentially dangerous second-hand smoke every day. It is almost a violation of the business owners right to privacy and freedom to make decisions that affect his/her business (not sure what kind of rights or freedoms are guaranteed in UK, but this could be considered a violation of the property rights here in the USA).

As with anything, there are pros and cons. Overall, I think it will be a good thing. People still can choose to smoke, they is only restrictions on where they can or cannot smoke.
i like the idea of a smoking ban in public places. people who choose not to smoke should not have to be in places where those who have chossen to smoke are. likewise with children, they cannot tell us that they don't want to be exposed to the smoke, and they haven't yet made their choice as to whether or not they will smoke.
i live in Canada and we have a smoking ban for public places, and any business. theres been talk that they want to extend it to personal vehicles. because of the kids thing
Great.
It's just another freedom lost. Non smokers love it - but wait until there are laws forbidding them to walk their dog on city streets or drink coffee!

For the record, I don't smoke!
I agree with any ban of smoking anywhere outside your own home. You have the right to chose to smoke, but those of us subjected to second hand smoke are never asked if we'd like to breathe it. You should not be allowed to smoke outside your own home, where you and your family make the choice to shorten your lives.
I am for the smoking ban.

The fact is it should be illegal to smoke, it doesnt just damage your body but others too.

My mother smoked while she was pregnant with my sister, but only like a pack a week.

My sister has terrible asthma and is in and out of the hospital all the time with pnuemonia, ear infections, etc. My sister has to go through all that by no choice of her own.

Thats what smokers put the public through.

I love to sing kareoke and I no longer can because even though there's a ban, they dont listen and so I cant go because my best friend has a brain hemmorhage and if she breathes in just a little smoke a few times it can cause her to stroke again.

So Im for the ban. Once it goes into affect that they'll be fined if they dont obey it, we'll finally be able to enjoy life.

And excuse me, but I take offense to the fact that you consider muslims to smokers. I am Jewish and often get singled out, and its very different. Smokers choose to slowly kill themselves for a few minutes of pleasure (basically a fix from drugs), whereas this is my religion and lifestyle, and its a positive healthy thing.
If people want to kill themselves with it.. that's their decision. But they have no right to do it to the rest of us.
I think that private businesses should be allowed to declare themselves as "smoking" or "non-smoking" and let the customer choose which to patronize.

Next the big brother government will ban sugar or sushi.
Leslie G. - I live in Springfield, and there is a city-wide ban on smoking in public place. That is fine with me, but when they say that smoking is eliminated in private establishments (restaurants, bars., etc.) that's where it goes too far. It's not the gov'ments business to tell private businesses how they're going to run their business. If one doesn't like smoking in an establishment, then they don't have to go there. Let economics decide how they're going to run their business. (It's called the free enterprise system.) By the way, I'm a non-smoker. Have been all my life. Hate it. But not to the point that private businesses need to be told by the gov'ment how to run it.
i have a very sad news to any one who thinks smoking is the only cause of dirty air or pollutions.

if we all gather all smokers who smoke from every where and put them on only one place, still the rest of you none smokers will breath toxic air.

so do not accuse us that we the smokers are the only ones who are responsible for the toxic air on the planet.

look around i am sure you all can find much more dangerous
fumes coming out of factory's, toxic waist planes and so on and on.
I wish they'd expand it.

What do you think of the judge who sued the drycleaner for 65 million bucks?

for a pair of pants?

I think this is an abuse of his authority and frankly he should be stripped of his license and should be charged with criminal harrassment.
Answers:
He's the poster boy for frivolous lawsuits. I agree, it was one of the most idiotic suits I've ever seen filed. He should be disbarred.
he should be disbarred, he is an idiot, and last of all he is a liberal.
A moron that deserves to be disbarred; he is wrecking the lives of those Koreans for a pair of frigging pants.

Gimme a Flipping break! Doesn't he has better things to do? Like judging real criminal cases? Jeez! Get over it; is just a pair of pants!
he's a racist, picking on Asian immigrant.
I think he made a mockery of the system by being so ridiculous with a stupid lawsuit, taking up the court's time and wasting the taxpayers money that way. Like so many judges, he let his power go to his head.

I don't think he should be disbarred but he should be sanctioned for his idiotic actions.
He was not really using his authority since it was not in his court as he is an administrative judge. But he shows arrogance to the whole judicial process, the judge in the court he filed should of thrown the case out for being stupid. And he should be held accountable in his court for this wasting of taxpayer's money to handle the case.
It has nothing to do with his authority since he is suing as a private citizen.

But, besides that he is a blooming moron.
I think he must be an idiot,
He's a piece of crap. I think I'm going to sue him for 65 million for tying up our legal system with frivolous lawsuits.
we are sue happy people now adays and he just proves it. if they were his lucky pair they weren't so lucky since they got lost. i hope whatever judge gets this case chews him out and embarrass him
People should be allowed to sue to recover loss...nothing more than that.
Were his pants covered in 24kt gold and diamonds? lol


You're right, this is abuse of power and he should be held accountable for his actions.

What do you think of Mr. Speaker's actions?

I have many questions regarding the travels of Mr. Speaker, the TB infected Lawyer who traveled to Greece for his wedding.
When did he become aware of his condition? Why did he wait til the day before he was to leave the country to visit his doctor? Why did he tape record the Doctor's visit, if he in fact really did? If he did tape the Doctor's visit, what would you bet it sounds like a legal proceeding in which he and his father knew what to ask and the Health Official answered the questions in a legally correct way? Were his orginal travel plans to leave from Atanta, Ga. and return to North America through Canada? Who paid for his travel to Denver, him or we, the taxpayers? Who's paying for his Medical Care? Does anyone find it suspicious that he is an attorney and also related to an expert TB epiditomologist employed by the Federal Governemnt at the CDC in Georgia? If Greece was good enough to get married in, why wasn't it good enough to receive Health treatment in?
Answers:
I can answer all of that easily. Mr. Speaker is from my town of Atlanta, so I've been hearing about this guy constantly.

Professionally, Mr. Speaker is a lawyer, more precisely a "personal injury lawyer".
We all know that by the numbers, historically , personal injury lawyers are predominantly socialist/libs.
Socialist libs think and act only in their best interest, be dammed with anybody else. If it feels good, they do it.
After he was diagnosed by his personal doctor, his physician was obligated to report his condition to the local health department, which in turn reported it to the CDC. He was told to begin immediate treatment and should have been isolated at that point. But there is no law that says he must do this. He insisted that he travel to get married and was told to at least wear a mask which he did not do.
I'm sure we are now all paying for his travel and care now that it has become a national story.
Just like libs like to do. They act on their own desires regardless of how it affects others.
I find the whole thing very suspicious,especially when it came out that his father in law worked for the CDC and was researching TB.I really hate conspiracy theories...but...it makes me wonder.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when he said he didn't know when he flew over seas that he was contagious,although I do not believe him.But,while he was over there he was told in no uncertain terms not to fly back,and he did anyway.He flew into Canada so he wouldn't get caught.He was thinking of only himself and not the innocent people he could infect with this possible fatal disease.
Something about this whole thing just doesn't sit right with me.
 


What do I do © 2008. Design by: Pocket Web Hosting

vc .net