There are so many people in prison now a days. Any ideas on how to keep so many people from going in?
Answers:
"Good" makes it hard to answer. You can keep people from going to jail by changing the punishment for crime. Say restitution instead of jail time for stealing. You can make actions currently illegal legal, buying, selling, and using drugs (this would have to include void current prescription rules as well). You can expand and streamline the death penalty. If you kill someone, no matter how, you are executed within 30 days of conviction.
Take the healthy one's, give them an orange jump suit with an American flag on the side and a good parachute. Drop them out over the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan and let them know if they catch bin laden thet get a full pardon. Good luck!
Ok seriously; we should build huge prisons on the Iraqi %26#92; Iranian border. They could double as bases and interefere with the Iranian flow of weapons and such into Iraq, give the Iraqi's good jobs, and they could stack our prisoners up and take pictures of them for newsweek whenever they wanted.
Decriminalize drugs. People shouldn't go to jail for possessing, selling, or smoking pot. Putting pot smokers in an environment with murderers creates violent criminals out of those who otherwise would not be. It takes citizens away from families that need them. The war on drugs is a sham and does more harm than good.
Release non-violent minor drug offenders.
Bring back the 2 parent family unit and get rid of the current 1 mother ,5 kids(by 4 dads) and the gubberment unit.
With 28% of the population of the prison system Illegal aliens, perhaps we should send them back home.
Frankly, I think rapists, murderers and child molesters should be hung or shot and save the time and money to house them for people who can be rehabilitated. Then those who are in need rehabilitation before getting out and have a job before getting out so they have a chance to survive without the crime. You can't put them in, forget about them and them expect them to know how to act when they get out with $50 in thier pockets. I have never been in prison but worked in one and had a friend go to prison for something menial. He was never given counseling or anything while in there and when he left they gave him $50 and said, "good luck." How is someone sposed to start over with $50? He had no family so I took him in for 6 months and gave him a chance. He's doing good now.
I think people would think before acting if there was corporal punishment.
Legalise crime ! Simple but effective. I think in some parts of the UK they are already doing this its just that they havent told anyone !!!
The only answer I can see is sending them all to the military except the killers should do hard labor 5 days a week.
Could institute something like caning. A few good swats might do more good than a couple of years in jail anyway.
kill everyone on death row, cut off the fingers of theives and cane/whip the rest based on severity
People need to understand that in order for good to exist, so does bad. I believe prison only reinforce's their conviction. They learn new skills and have to live by a law reminiscent of medieval times. Everything that is by societies definition as bad, has an equal part in society. Jails have upset the balance of life and death. Now the world is overpopulated and dying. Maybe people should rely and develop their own self defence and protection. Instead they pay taxes so an incompetent governing system can do it for them. Trust in your own abilities and rights people, protect what is yours.
All things have to die - will you meet yours on your knee's asking for help?
There are probably more than you would want to know about that are illegal and legal aliens.
When I was working for the state park system we would use prisoners that are part of a work release program. These programs are run by state and county detention centers. Most of the prisoners we got on our work crews spoke Spanish and some English. Many though could not speak any English at all.
The other day I was reading in the local paper about someone that was in our area trying to recruit volunteers to visit prisoners in the Federal Prisons because many that were in there didn't have anyone on the out side that could visit them. POOR BABIES.
The thing that got me was that one of the requirements was that you had to speak Spanish in order to participate in the program.
So you want to know how to lighten the prison population? Start sending criminals back to their own country. Deport those that shouldn't be here. Why the hell are our tax dollars paying to feed and clothe people that shouldn't never have been entered into the penal detention system to begin with?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
What would be a good punishment for spammers?
If a spammer filling our email in-boxes with "enlargement kits" or "Viagra" or "casinos" or "pre-approved loans" is caught what should be his punishment?
Answers:
Die!
The nose in the book penalty.
Spam them for life! : D or maybe just have him sit in front of his computer and somehow clean out all that mess all day and night. I hate those idiots. Bad experiences eh? Same here.
Some ideas:
* Must listen to 36 straight hours of Hillary Clinton
* Nothing but Oprah on their tv
* Only People magazine to read for a year
* All fingernails pulled out with pliers
* Unprocessed pulpwood for toilet paper
* Only dial-up internet fom now on
* Only pinto beans and water for a month
That'll teach the little $%*($#!s
Advertisement aversion therapy in the same manner that Alex was treated in "A Clockwork Orange" to be averse to violence.
Make them watch endless loops of really horrible and insipid commercials, with equally horrible commercial jingles playing in the background.
I know - too cruel.
We should tie them up in the middle of a casino, hook them up to an "enlargment kit", make them take viagra while filling out information for a "pre-approved loan". :-)
They have to spend 24 hours of community service for every person they spam, and each time they spammed they. In other words if they spmmed John Smith 34 times and John Doe 45 times, they need to do 79 days of work.
If they refuses
DEATH!
bleh, i hate spammers! SHOW NO MERCY!! MAKE THEM WATCH ALL THE STUPIDEST COMMERCIALS, MAKE THEM READ SPAM, PAY FOR IT, BUY A NEW COMPUTER WHEN THE SPAM KILLS IT, GIVE THEM SLOWER THAN DIAL UP INTERNET, BLACK AND WHITE TV, ONLY 12 INCHES, MONO SOUND, KIDDIE PROGRAMS....wowwwwwwwwww... i havent gone into ppunishment...i've gone into cruel and unusual torture. sick and twisted..im gonna give myslef nightmares.but still, fitting for a spammer
Ugh...spammers! they should be taken to the nearest video store, strapped to a chair and be made to watch a straight weeks worth of insipid, low-budget movies!
Answers:
Die!
The nose in the book penalty.
Spam them for life! : D or maybe just have him sit in front of his computer and somehow clean out all that mess all day and night. I hate those idiots. Bad experiences eh? Same here.
Some ideas:
* Must listen to 36 straight hours of Hillary Clinton
* Nothing but Oprah on their tv
* Only People magazine to read for a year
* All fingernails pulled out with pliers
* Unprocessed pulpwood for toilet paper
* Only dial-up internet fom now on
* Only pinto beans and water for a month
That'll teach the little $%*($#!s
Advertisement aversion therapy in the same manner that Alex was treated in "A Clockwork Orange" to be averse to violence.
Make them watch endless loops of really horrible and insipid commercials, with equally horrible commercial jingles playing in the background.
I know - too cruel.
We should tie them up in the middle of a casino, hook them up to an "enlargment kit", make them take viagra while filling out information for a "pre-approved loan". :-)
They have to spend 24 hours of community service for every person they spam, and each time they spammed they. In other words if they spmmed John Smith 34 times and John Doe 45 times, they need to do 79 days of work.
If they refuses
DEATH!
bleh, i hate spammers! SHOW NO MERCY!! MAKE THEM WATCH ALL THE STUPIDEST COMMERCIALS, MAKE THEM READ SPAM, PAY FOR IT, BUY A NEW COMPUTER WHEN THE SPAM KILLS IT, GIVE THEM SLOWER THAN DIAL UP INTERNET, BLACK AND WHITE TV, ONLY 12 INCHES, MONO SOUND, KIDDIE PROGRAMS....wowwwwwwwwww... i havent gone into ppunishment...i've gone into cruel and unusual torture. sick and twisted..im gonna give myslef nightmares.but still, fitting for a spammer
Ugh...spammers! they should be taken to the nearest video store, strapped to a chair and be made to watch a straight weeks worth of insipid, low-budget movies!
What would be a "con" for the use of video cameras in police cars?
I have to write a paper on this... but I am more for it and I really can not think of a reason why we wouldn't put video cameras in police cars. They act as an unbiased third 'person', and it protects both the police and the suspect.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Answers:
The only thing I can think of, is being pulled over by a bad cop who just wants to ruin your life or has a "hit" on you, it would be harder to shoot him and go on with life.
Also, another thought...
We all know black people all look the same, so the wrong black person could easily be misidentified, say running from the car, especially with the low resolution that those cameras have. (I'm not a racist, by the way)
The video could become available to the public, and no court seems to care about the embarrassment, on top of the fines and ruling that would incur
when they get out to take a leak and forget to turn it off :)
The only con I can think of would be the infringement on innocent people's privacy, i.e. videotaping bystanders without their permission.
Most stores, for example, have to say "Videotaping in progress" or "CCTV" or whatever so that the customers don't sue for invasion of privacy.
In order for innocent bystanders who don't want to be videotaped to avoid being recorded, police would have to have a sign on their cruiser that says "Videotaping in progress" so that people would know that they might unexpectedly show up on one of those police chase videos.
It never has occurred to me to be a problem, but it could be viewed as a negative standpoint. Good luck with your paper.
Great question. I'm totally for them too. It is hard to come up with a good 'con' that doesn't sound completely paranoid about being filmed. I'm drawing a complete blank. Good luck with your paper.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Answers:
The only thing I can think of, is being pulled over by a bad cop who just wants to ruin your life or has a "hit" on you, it would be harder to shoot him and go on with life.
Also, another thought...
We all know black people all look the same, so the wrong black person could easily be misidentified, say running from the car, especially with the low resolution that those cameras have. (I'm not a racist, by the way)
The video could become available to the public, and no court seems to care about the embarrassment, on top of the fines and ruling that would incur
when they get out to take a leak and forget to turn it off :)
The only con I can think of would be the infringement on innocent people's privacy, i.e. videotaping bystanders without their permission.
Most stores, for example, have to say "Videotaping in progress" or "CCTV" or whatever so that the customers don't sue for invasion of privacy.
In order for innocent bystanders who don't want to be videotaped to avoid being recorded, police would have to have a sign on their cruiser that says "Videotaping in progress" so that people would know that they might unexpectedly show up on one of those police chase videos.
It never has occurred to me to be a problem, but it could be viewed as a negative standpoint. Good luck with your paper.
Great question. I'm totally for them too. It is hard to come up with a good 'con' that doesn't sound completely paranoid about being filmed. I'm drawing a complete blank. Good luck with your paper.
What would a court typicly do in this situation?
if you have a warrent for falure to apear to a hearing, they can arrest you right. but what if the hearing is for something that the time limit of the statute of limitations has already run out on?? what would a court typicly do in this situation?
Answers:
If you have a warrant for a failure to appear, then at the time of the warrant being issued, the statute of limitations is tolled; meaning that the clock stops running. So, if you are brought in on the warrant, there is no violation of the statute of limitations.
If, however, at the time the warrant was issued, the statute of limitations had already run out, then when the person is brought to court, the attorney can simply point out that the case should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
i think fines will be harsher. but they wont arrest you
Usually the statute of limitations has to do with filing the complaint (in a criminal case). Once the case has been opened, the statute of limitations doesn't matter. The case remains open until closed by whoever is investigating it. Failure to comply with a court order is a separate issue to the statute of limitations. You could still face arrest or fine; it depends upon the jurisdiction and the type of case it is. Call and find out what your options are. Laws are different from one town to another. Don't assume the answer is that easy. Check out what the facts are and take appropriate action.
Answers:
If you have a warrant for a failure to appear, then at the time of the warrant being issued, the statute of limitations is tolled; meaning that the clock stops running. So, if you are brought in on the warrant, there is no violation of the statute of limitations.
If, however, at the time the warrant was issued, the statute of limitations had already run out, then when the person is brought to court, the attorney can simply point out that the case should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
i think fines will be harsher. but they wont arrest you
Usually the statute of limitations has to do with filing the complaint (in a criminal case). Once the case has been opened, the statute of limitations doesn't matter. The case remains open until closed by whoever is investigating it. Failure to comply with a court order is a separate issue to the statute of limitations. You could still face arrest or fine; it depends upon the jurisdiction and the type of case it is. Call and find out what your options are. Laws are different from one town to another. Don't assume the answer is that easy. Check out what the facts are and take appropriate action.
What would a county sue for in small claims court?
What are somethings that a county might sue someone for in small claims court? Just curious. Serious answers only. Thanks.
Answers:
Whatever a county can bill for under its state laws. Typically this would include: Hospital bills at the county hospital; Ambulance %26 paramedic bills; Parking bills %26 tickets; Utility bills (if supplied by the county); Fire department bills (for responding to alarms, extinguishing fires, etc); water %26 sewer charges; land clearing charges; building %26 business code violations; health, safety %26 fire code inspection charges; sidewalk repair charges, etc, etc.,
Small claims is only a part of the civil justice system, which is basically between citizens, not government entities. I've never seen a county sue in small claims court.
Unpaid county income or property taxes
Answers:
Whatever a county can bill for under its state laws. Typically this would include: Hospital bills at the county hospital; Ambulance %26 paramedic bills; Parking bills %26 tickets; Utility bills (if supplied by the county); Fire department bills (for responding to alarms, extinguishing fires, etc); water %26 sewer charges; land clearing charges; building %26 business code violations; health, safety %26 fire code inspection charges; sidewalk repair charges, etc, etc.,
Small claims is only a part of the civil justice system, which is basically between citizens, not government entities. I've never seen a county sue in small claims court.
Unpaid county income or property taxes
What with VAT at 17.5% PAYE and national insurance I havent even got round to TV lisence and car tax?
are we in the UK the most taxed nation on earth?
Answers:
We are. It was worked out that if we actually paid up for everything that we are supposed to have that makes the western nations the envy of the third world, we will be perpetually in debt. On a big scale. That is to add satellite TV, Broadband, Skype, mobile phone,health insurance, house insurance, accident cover, holidays (which most don't take anymore) etc.
Let's all get together and destroy the system and start again.
Join the club chummy.God help you if you smoke.
Answers:
We are. It was worked out that if we actually paid up for everything that we are supposed to have that makes the western nations the envy of the third world, we will be perpetually in debt. On a big scale. That is to add satellite TV, Broadband, Skype, mobile phone,health insurance, house insurance, accident cover, holidays (which most don't take anymore) etc.
Let's all get together and destroy the system and start again.
Join the club chummy.God help you if you smoke.
What will you sentense these murderers if they are caught?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2923...
They did not have to kill these good kids!!
I'd say "an eye for an eye."
Answers:
Death
I'll sentence them to a picnic at central park
I say that if you kill someone, then you too shall lose your life!! That is awful that people can just take the lives of someone and not feel anything!! The world would be a lot better off without murderers and psychos!!
I will not sentence anyone -- it's not my place to.
In the USA, we have a trial for any defendant who pleads not guilty. A jury of his/her peers will listen to the evidence presented in court and then listen to the judge's instructions. The jury will then determine guilt or innocence. If the defendant is found guilty, then the judge will sentence the convicted person in accordance with the laws for the crime he or she is found guilty of.
With that said, if you believe that murder is wrong, then you cannot advocate murder. If we charge the defendant with murder then we cannot turn around and murder him with impunity. The proper sentence for a murderer is life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security prison with hard labor for life. No cable TV, no fancy meals, nothing but backbreaking work for hours on end.
Everyone needs to remember that violence begets violence. When you sentence someone to death, he sits on Death Row for over a decade. Free to kill anyone else (prison guards, trustees, someone in prison for robbery, the warden, visitors, etc...) without any additional punishment.
In other words, everyone else he kills is a "freebie" because you've already sentenced him to death. If you no longer want a violent society, you must stop acting violently!
Capital punishment is absolutely no deterrant to murder. We have the death penalty and yet people kill each other over %26 over again. It's time to stop the madness. Prisons needs to go back to being a prison, a place where NO ONE wants to go because it is so awful. There will be your true deterant.
Death, no doubt about it
life imprisonment.
If there were ever a case where the death penalty was warranted, this would be the one.
At this point, all i am concerned about is bringing these kids justice and finding the evil POS that did it!
My prayers are with the family.
Is it just me or does it seem like the murder rate in the US has gone out of control?
Silly question. ALL MURDERERS SHOULD RECEIVE THE DEATH PENALTY QUICKLY! Maybe such an extreme response will slow such a crime.
You're exactly right. Eye for an Eye. But not shoot them close range and make it quick. Put them on death row and tell them the date that they are going to die. No plea bargain, no pushing back the date nothing. That way, everyday when they wake up they think, 'only 32 more days to live' and so on. And then, right before their death, the other prisoners should just kick their a$s and kill them. So they suffer.
How ANYONE can read that story and not support the death penalty I'll never be able to understand. The same goes for pedophiles.
Capital Punishment is the deterrant that keeps crime from happening.
With the massive amount of hard evidence we can collect in this day and age, fingerprints, DNA, hair, blood, pictures, videotape, etc, I think we should go back to public hangings. (only for the absolutely, without a doubt guilty murderers and rapists.) They should broadcast them on TV on every channel.
"Tonight at 9, the execution of 4 murderers and 3 rapists"
Tie them to a stake and they recieve the firing squad...but then again, that would be a waste of good lead!
I would sentence them to listen.
These murderers would be sentenced to face the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends one at a time. They have to listen to these victims talk about how this murder of their loved one affected them. They listen to them yell, shame, cry or question these murderers. They have to listen for as long as they have words to say or the need to say them.
These killers would have to listen, absorb and know each of their victims. They would be sentenced to looking at their pictures, accomplishments and memories. After they memorize this information and know it verbatum, they then have to write stories, or essays about what these dead children might have done with their lives. They have to write and rewrite these essays until these essays satisfy the victim's parents.
I would sentence them to having to know their living victims very well. They have to know each person and how they relate to the murder victim. Then, knowing everything they are allowed to know, they have to write individual, extended apologies to each and every person who mattered to these children or who were affected by the murders.
After that, make them face school children in their communities using closed circuit TV. They have to face the children across their communities and listen to what they have to say about killing these kids. Let the kids have their say to these murderers. The killers have to answer every one of their questions completely and honestly.
I would sentence them to lecture arrested gang members on ethics and morals.
And then finally, they are sentenced to listen to their own families. They are sentenced to spending time with their own parents, grandmothers and family members who will tell them what THEY think of their behaviors and what they've done to their own families. They have to write an apology to every member of their own family.
This project would be made into a book called the "Murder and Healing." All proceeds would be distributed to the families of the victims.
I would sentence them to listen. If they were given a choice, I wonder if they would choose death over listening?
They did not have to kill these good kids!!
I'd say "an eye for an eye."
Answers:
Death
I'll sentence them to a picnic at central park
I say that if you kill someone, then you too shall lose your life!! That is awful that people can just take the lives of someone and not feel anything!! The world would be a lot better off without murderers and psychos!!
I will not sentence anyone -- it's not my place to.
In the USA, we have a trial for any defendant who pleads not guilty. A jury of his/her peers will listen to the evidence presented in court and then listen to the judge's instructions. The jury will then determine guilt or innocence. If the defendant is found guilty, then the judge will sentence the convicted person in accordance with the laws for the crime he or she is found guilty of.
With that said, if you believe that murder is wrong, then you cannot advocate murder. If we charge the defendant with murder then we cannot turn around and murder him with impunity. The proper sentence for a murderer is life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security prison with hard labor for life. No cable TV, no fancy meals, nothing but backbreaking work for hours on end.
Everyone needs to remember that violence begets violence. When you sentence someone to death, he sits on Death Row for over a decade. Free to kill anyone else (prison guards, trustees, someone in prison for robbery, the warden, visitors, etc...) without any additional punishment.
In other words, everyone else he kills is a "freebie" because you've already sentenced him to death. If you no longer want a violent society, you must stop acting violently!
Capital punishment is absolutely no deterrant to murder. We have the death penalty and yet people kill each other over %26 over again. It's time to stop the madness. Prisons needs to go back to being a prison, a place where NO ONE wants to go because it is so awful. There will be your true deterant.
Death, no doubt about it
life imprisonment.
If there were ever a case where the death penalty was warranted, this would be the one.
At this point, all i am concerned about is bringing these kids justice and finding the evil POS that did it!
My prayers are with the family.
Is it just me or does it seem like the murder rate in the US has gone out of control?
Silly question. ALL MURDERERS SHOULD RECEIVE THE DEATH PENALTY QUICKLY! Maybe such an extreme response will slow such a crime.
You're exactly right. Eye for an Eye. But not shoot them close range and make it quick. Put them on death row and tell them the date that they are going to die. No plea bargain, no pushing back the date nothing. That way, everyday when they wake up they think, 'only 32 more days to live' and so on. And then, right before their death, the other prisoners should just kick their a$s and kill them. So they suffer.
How ANYONE can read that story and not support the death penalty I'll never be able to understand. The same goes for pedophiles.
Capital Punishment is the deterrant that keeps crime from happening.
With the massive amount of hard evidence we can collect in this day and age, fingerprints, DNA, hair, blood, pictures, videotape, etc, I think we should go back to public hangings. (only for the absolutely, without a doubt guilty murderers and rapists.) They should broadcast them on TV on every channel.
"Tonight at 9, the execution of 4 murderers and 3 rapists"
Tie them to a stake and they recieve the firing squad...but then again, that would be a waste of good lead!
I would sentence them to listen.
These murderers would be sentenced to face the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends one at a time. They have to listen to these victims talk about how this murder of their loved one affected them. They listen to them yell, shame, cry or question these murderers. They have to listen for as long as they have words to say or the need to say them.
These killers would have to listen, absorb and know each of their victims. They would be sentenced to looking at their pictures, accomplishments and memories. After they memorize this information and know it verbatum, they then have to write stories, or essays about what these dead children might have done with their lives. They have to write and rewrite these essays until these essays satisfy the victim's parents.
I would sentence them to having to know their living victims very well. They have to know each person and how they relate to the murder victim. Then, knowing everything they are allowed to know, they have to write individual, extended apologies to each and every person who mattered to these children or who were affected by the murders.
After that, make them face school children in their communities using closed circuit TV. They have to face the children across their communities and listen to what they have to say about killing these kids. Let the kids have their say to these murderers. The killers have to answer every one of their questions completely and honestly.
I would sentence them to lecture arrested gang members on ethics and morals.
And then finally, they are sentenced to listen to their own families. They are sentenced to spending time with their own parents, grandmothers and family members who will tell them what THEY think of their behaviors and what they've done to their own families. They have to write an apology to every member of their own family.
This project would be made into a book called the "Murder and Healing." All proceeds would be distributed to the families of the victims.
I would sentence them to listen. If they were given a choice, I wonder if they would choose death over listening?
What will the out come be when the OFT take the banks to High court?
Now the banks and the Office of fair traiding have both agreed to a bank charges reclaiming test case in the High Court what will the out come be? Why have the banks aggreed to this when they know if they loose they will have to pay it all back? Is it because they are convinced they will win?
I have been battling with Barclays for 4 months regarding my claim for my charges and on our last phone call and letter two weeks ago I was promised that this would be settled by 13th August, they told me an offer would be made. Now this has happened and my claim has been frozen! I'm really annoyed bacause now I see they were just tying to hold out. Does anyone have an educated opinion on this and what the out come at the High courts may be? Also if this takes 2 years to settle do I have to recalim after those two years or will my original claim still count? No nasties please or people telling me I shouldn't have got charged on the first place, nobody is perfect. Thanks for any genuine answers
Answers:
For the past year or so I have been battleing Natioinwide Building society regard fines in excess of 拢3000. these fines are fines upon fines etc.. At the moment I have had no joy, I certainly the outcome will prove the banks are Un-Lawfully taking our money.
I am looking forward to a positive outcome, which will aid in our fights against the bigest crooks of them all!! the BANKS!
Either way the customer loses out. if the banks have to stop their ridiculously unfair bank charges it means they can put an end to free banking i.e. They can charge you a set monthly amount just for having an account with them.
I have been battling with Barclays for 4 months regarding my claim for my charges and on our last phone call and letter two weeks ago I was promised that this would be settled by 13th August, they told me an offer would be made. Now this has happened and my claim has been frozen! I'm really annoyed bacause now I see they were just tying to hold out. Does anyone have an educated opinion on this and what the out come at the High courts may be? Also if this takes 2 years to settle do I have to recalim after those two years or will my original claim still count? No nasties please or people telling me I shouldn't have got charged on the first place, nobody is perfect. Thanks for any genuine answers
Answers:
For the past year or so I have been battleing Natioinwide Building society regard fines in excess of 拢3000. these fines are fines upon fines etc.. At the moment I have had no joy, I certainly the outcome will prove the banks are Un-Lawfully taking our money.
I am looking forward to a positive outcome, which will aid in our fights against the bigest crooks of them all!! the BANKS!
Either way the customer loses out. if the banks have to stop their ridiculously unfair bank charges it means they can put an end to free banking i.e. They can charge you a set monthly amount just for having an account with them.
What will the judge decide in this case?
I boughgt a car from a friend a few years ago for two thousand dollars, we had an agreement that he would fix the car and I would pay payments for whatever parts and stuff he bought during this whole time the car is still in his name and the car is still on his lot, then a year later he tells me to come up with the money to buy the parts because he doesn't have the money, so I give him 1000 dollars for the parts, plus 700 dollars more for other parts as well, to put it lightly he never fixes or paints the car, so I told him that I would have someone else fix the car, he signs over the the title ..listing on the dmv bill of sale that he sold it to me for 750.00 yet they are suing you saying you should have paid more..and that I owe him strorage fees, since I bought it back in September 2005, however on the bill of sale I signed it on the orginal date that he actually signed it over to me which was 6/19/2007.What will the judge go by in this case ?
A
Additional Details
2 minutes ago
By the way, he is doing this because we were freinds during this whole time, and he finaaly realized that I will never sleep with him, so I think when I told him that I will not have sex with him which was the end of June, that's when he said that I would have to show him proof that I paid him 3,000 dollars for the car which was not the original price
Answers:
If the bill of sale is dated 2007, that will certainly lend credibility to your version of the story. The question, though, is really 'how much evidence do you have to support what you're saying? EG, did you happen to give him the money by check or some other verifiable account system?
was any of these agreements in writing? if so ---you are set to go to court...if not, might not do so well.
good luck.(always get it in writing..judge judy)!
:)
If you have all the proper paper work showing that the car was sold to you on such and such date and if you have copies of the money orders or whatever that you gave him all this money then you are safe. Please don't tell us you paid in cash, that would not be good, Other then that if the bill of sale say's the correct date then you are safe. He sounds like someone that would bring false paper work. DO you have any witnesses to any of this? I wish you luck in all of this, thank you
A
Additional Details
2 minutes ago
By the way, he is doing this because we were freinds during this whole time, and he finaaly realized that I will never sleep with him, so I think when I told him that I will not have sex with him which was the end of June, that's when he said that I would have to show him proof that I paid him 3,000 dollars for the car which was not the original price
Answers:
If the bill of sale is dated 2007, that will certainly lend credibility to your version of the story. The question, though, is really 'how much evidence do you have to support what you're saying? EG, did you happen to give him the money by check or some other verifiable account system?
was any of these agreements in writing? if so ---you are set to go to court...if not, might not do so well.
good luck.(always get it in writing..judge judy)!
:)
If you have all the proper paper work showing that the car was sold to you on such and such date and if you have copies of the money orders or whatever that you gave him all this money then you are safe. Please don't tell us you paid in cash, that would not be good, Other then that if the bill of sale say's the correct date then you are safe. He sounds like someone that would bring false paper work. DO you have any witnesses to any of this? I wish you luck in all of this, thank you
What will happen to people who have recived bank charges?
would people be made to pay this back if the test case goes in faver of the banks
Answers:
depends.. on the charges and speicific cases.
you can contest the bank charges if they are overly high..
although the banks don't like that and do some nasty little tricks, like giving you notice that they are gonna cancel your account etc.
well i hope i get all my money back of the bank for bein overdrawn, 1nce i was overdrawn by 19p had to pay 30 pound bck which is a total disgrace the next time i was 30p and got charged another 30p so i now i keep at least 5 pound in my bank to make sure the costs go but im glad i have my credit card and i cn go overdrawn on there :D
Answers:
depends.. on the charges and speicific cases.
you can contest the bank charges if they are overly high..
although the banks don't like that and do some nasty little tricks, like giving you notice that they are gonna cancel your account etc.
well i hope i get all my money back of the bank for bein overdrawn, 1nce i was overdrawn by 19p had to pay 30 pound bck which is a total disgrace the next time i was 30p and got charged another 30p so i now i keep at least 5 pound in my bank to make sure the costs go but im glad i have my credit card and i cn go overdrawn on there :D
What will happen is I miss court tommorow for a DWI?
If I call afterwards and tell them my car broke down or soemthing will they give me a new court date? I really don't want to go tommorow. I want my mom to come with me and she is on vacation until Thurs.
Answers:
You will be convicted and given the maximum sentence. Then they issue a warrant for your arrest.
Your car breaking down is not an excuse. You are supposed to plan ahead so as to not waste the court's time.
Be there. You'll be better off than if you don't.
You'll be a lot better off if you just go and get it over with. Anticipation is often worse than the actual event. You'll feel a billion times better after its over
No, that would not work at all. You might get a warrant put out for your arrest if you skip court. Go to court, tell them you need your mom with you, and they might continue it. If you skip it you will make it alot worse
they will issue a bench warrant for your arrest. you are better off going and asking for a continuance.
You have to go. If you say that your car broke down, they will tell you that an officer could come get you, or to call a cab. If you are grown enough to drive, then be irresponsible enough to drive after you had been drinking, then you can go to court and face the consequences. You don't need your mother to go with you. If you don't show up, you will have extra charges brought up on you for contempt of court.
Don't miss court for that, you took away the police officer's time by doing something foolish, you can sacrifice your own time for a day or so.
Try it and see what happens. You will make plenty of friends in jail.
Sooner or later, you will go to jail. You might anyway, but it would be better if you went to court. Might be a little cheaper on you. What are you doing drinking and driving anyway? Is your parents related? Or did you have to go to school to get that dumb?
You'll be held in contempt for not showing, and lying to the court is not the best thing to do either. Suck it up and go on to court by yourself.
No, that would just make it worse and the judge would be mad at you for wasting the courts time. Plus they'll probably send out a cop for an escort if you don't have a ride. You have to face the consequences for your actions and not avoid them.
If you can come up with an excuse call hours before your time. If you don't go they will issue a warrant for your arrest. You should just go though, do the I'm I young girl and I'm really sorry act. You'll get a fine.
For a D.W.I.? I strongly suggest that you don't miss court -- you're already f*cked with the DWI (with penalties and the skyrocketing insurance rates, you're looking at well over $3000), and if you miss court, a warrant will be put out for your arrest, and that could really mess things up. You'll go to jail, no question about it, but you could then lose your job, apartment, whatever it may be...
Right now, you can at least argue for your innocence, but if you miss, it will much harder to convince anybody that you were responsible enough to not drink and drive.
will issue arrest warrant and pick you up and put in jail
Don't be a baby and need your mommy. Just go! If it's the first hearing, all they do is set dates for later and see that you have an attorney. If you are able to pay, ask for a continuance to have time to hire an attorney.
Oh nothing will happen just call and leave a message they truely understand because YOU are the only one who has a court date so I sure the DA and The judge would much rather be out playing golf. Just let them know that I gave YOU permission to stay home till mommy gets back they truley understand.
If you don't go there will be a warrant for your arrest and you will be picked up, they will not buy any excuse you give them so just show up and take responsibility for what you did ...
A warrant will be issued for your arrest, and no, calling them later to make up some lame excuse won't help. Show up. They should appoint an atty for you if you can't afford one and you got yourself into this one. Show up - it will only get much worse if you don't!!
Answers:
You will be convicted and given the maximum sentence. Then they issue a warrant for your arrest.
Your car breaking down is not an excuse. You are supposed to plan ahead so as to not waste the court's time.
Be there. You'll be better off than if you don't.
You'll be a lot better off if you just go and get it over with. Anticipation is often worse than the actual event. You'll feel a billion times better after its over
No, that would not work at all. You might get a warrant put out for your arrest if you skip court. Go to court, tell them you need your mom with you, and they might continue it. If you skip it you will make it alot worse
they will issue a bench warrant for your arrest. you are better off going and asking for a continuance.
You have to go. If you say that your car broke down, they will tell you that an officer could come get you, or to call a cab. If you are grown enough to drive, then be irresponsible enough to drive after you had been drinking, then you can go to court and face the consequences. You don't need your mother to go with you. If you don't show up, you will have extra charges brought up on you for contempt of court.
Don't miss court for that, you took away the police officer's time by doing something foolish, you can sacrifice your own time for a day or so.
Try it and see what happens. You will make plenty of friends in jail.
Sooner or later, you will go to jail. You might anyway, but it would be better if you went to court. Might be a little cheaper on you. What are you doing drinking and driving anyway? Is your parents related? Or did you have to go to school to get that dumb?
You'll be held in contempt for not showing, and lying to the court is not the best thing to do either. Suck it up and go on to court by yourself.
No, that would just make it worse and the judge would be mad at you for wasting the courts time. Plus they'll probably send out a cop for an escort if you don't have a ride. You have to face the consequences for your actions and not avoid them.
If you can come up with an excuse call hours before your time. If you don't go they will issue a warrant for your arrest. You should just go though, do the I'm I young girl and I'm really sorry act. You'll get a fine.
For a D.W.I.? I strongly suggest that you don't miss court -- you're already f*cked with the DWI (with penalties and the skyrocketing insurance rates, you're looking at well over $3000), and if you miss court, a warrant will be put out for your arrest, and that could really mess things up. You'll go to jail, no question about it, but you could then lose your job, apartment, whatever it may be...
Right now, you can at least argue for your innocence, but if you miss, it will much harder to convince anybody that you were responsible enough to not drink and drive.
will issue arrest warrant and pick you up and put in jail
Don't be a baby and need your mommy. Just go! If it's the first hearing, all they do is set dates for later and see that you have an attorney. If you are able to pay, ask for a continuance to have time to hire an attorney.
Oh nothing will happen just call and leave a message they truely understand because YOU are the only one who has a court date so I sure the DA and The judge would much rather be out playing golf. Just let them know that I gave YOU permission to stay home till mommy gets back they truley understand.
If you don't go there will be a warrant for your arrest and you will be picked up, they will not buy any excuse you give them so just show up and take responsibility for what you did ...
A warrant will be issued for your arrest, and no, calling them later to make up some lame excuse won't help. Show up. They should appoint an atty for you if you can't afford one and you got yourself into this one. Show up - it will only get much worse if you don't!!
What will happen if a Chinese person has more than one child?
Is it really a law or just highly encouraged, if a couple has more than one child will they get penalized, how do they enforce the policy or law?
Answers:
I think that the way it works is that families with just one child get benefits that multichild families do not get.
Multichild familieis are NOT penalized, but rather, single child families are rewarded.
This is only in mainland China, I believe... not in free Taiwan.
In China or the USA? here it would be cool
In many cases they will be destroyed. Go to Amnesty International and see what they have to say.
When they have their first they get a break on their taxes. When they have a second they lose that tax break. When they have another they are penalized for each one.
______________________________...
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;...
they used to kill the child. now they must pay a fee and put the child up for adoption.
as always, it depends on who.
peasants in china are so far down the ladder that there is virtually nothing the state can do to them short of execution. so peasant women tend to ignore the state's family planning directives -- because a child becomes an asset [produces more than s/he eats] on the farm before age 10.
city dwellers can and do pay taxes ... thus the state's taxing mechanism issues rewards and punishments as previously described.
Answers:
I think that the way it works is that families with just one child get benefits that multichild families do not get.
Multichild familieis are NOT penalized, but rather, single child families are rewarded.
This is only in mainland China, I believe... not in free Taiwan.
In China or the USA? here it would be cool
In many cases they will be destroyed. Go to Amnesty International and see what they have to say.
When they have their first they get a break on their taxes. When they have a second they lose that tax break. When they have another they are penalized for each one.
______________________________...
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;%26macr;...
they used to kill the child. now they must pay a fee and put the child up for adoption.
as always, it depends on who.
peasants in china are so far down the ladder that there is virtually nothing the state can do to them short of execution. so peasant women tend to ignore the state's family planning directives -- because a child becomes an asset [produces more than s/he eats] on the farm before age 10.
city dwellers can and do pay taxes ... thus the state's taxing mechanism issues rewards and punishments as previously described.
What will be an excellent topic to present desertation in law subject ?
with special interest in following subjects: intellectual property rights, consumer protection, SEBI , capital market in india, labour laws.
Answers:
If this helps or not but there were two important Supreme Court decisions concerning antitrust laws of pricing and it being more difficult to obtain a patent in the past couple of months.
I would do it on "The Proper Spelling of 'Dissertation' and the Plague of Lawyers who Cannot Spell."
Answers:
If this helps or not but there were two important Supreme Court decisions concerning antitrust laws of pricing and it being more difficult to obtain a patent in the past couple of months.
I would do it on "The Proper Spelling of 'Dissertation' and the Plague of Lawyers who Cannot Spell."
What 'White House' address would you write to in order to request a birthday card be sent to an elderly person
?
Answers:
Get ahold of your congressman. Here you go.
Why the hell does the White House need to send someone a birthday card?
Answers:
Get ahold of your congressman. Here you go.
Why the hell does the White House need to send someone a birthday card?
What website can tell me any thing i want to know about illinois law?
Answers:
If you go to their government website it should have a link for local laws. Type the state name into a search engine and the website should have gov after it.
http://www.illinois.gov/
There are several and none are absolute. Very few are free. You can always check the governments sites. Are you wanting Federal, State or Local law? A few good websites are www.westlaw.com and www.lexisnexus.com. If you go to the NALA website, it also has links to the Federal Governments databases. Law is a very intricate thing and you probably should consult an attorney if this has to do with a serious matter. Good luck to you.
The link below was located in the following manner:
1. Enter www.illinois.gov in the address bar. (Official site of the State of Illinois.
2. Click 'Legislature' on the left side of the page.
3. Click 'Illinois Complied Statutes' in the middle of the page.
The page includes the disclaimer below:
Disclaimer: This site contains provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes from databases that were created for the use of the members and staff of the Illinois General Assembly. The provisions have NOT been edited for publication, and are NOT in any sense the "official" text of the Illinois Compiled Statutes as enacted into law. The accuracy of any specific provision originating from this site cannot be assured, and you are urged to consult the official documents or contact legal counsel of your choice. This site should not be cited as an official or authoritative source. Court decisions may affect the interpretation and constitutionality of statutes.
If the state official site is not the 'official' law, you won't find a definitive source on-line.
What was your experience with a court appointed attorney?
Are there any that will really fight for their client?
Answers:
Unfortunately, most public defenders are lawyers from the bottom of the barrel. They don't really make much cash, and generally lack real enthusiasm to go to court. More than likely, they'll try to get some sort of plea bargain and actually go to court as a last resort.
That being said, it still may be a case by case situation. I have seen 2-3 Public Defenders who were great at their jobs and were passionate about the work. It's rare that you'll find someone who has a first choice of public defense, but when you come across them - they're usually top notch. Hope for one of these types if you have to have one.
I have no such experience practically
What is your back ground that you got one free?
Most of them want to plead the case. If you are truly innocent, tell him/her the situation. Try to remember that they have been lied to by almost all of thier clients, so any proof of your innocence will help tremendously. If this is not a felonly, you may not have much luck convincing them to work harder for you. If it is a felony, then most of them realize how seriously it will affect you, and try a little harder.
BUT.
Keep in mind that part of the reason a good lawyer costs so much is NOT what happens in the courtroom. It's who that lawyer knows, and what he can get done 'behind the scene'. Many times, a good lawyer is worth the money. You may want to consider getting a loan and paying a lawyer instead of taking a free appointed lawyer.
In any case, good luck!
good and bad,some will fight,some won't
It depends what the charges are... If it's a bigger case, then why don't you just get a real one? Probably better luck of not spending time behind bars or on house arrest that way.
Answers:
Unfortunately, most public defenders are lawyers from the bottom of the barrel. They don't really make much cash, and generally lack real enthusiasm to go to court. More than likely, they'll try to get some sort of plea bargain and actually go to court as a last resort.
That being said, it still may be a case by case situation. I have seen 2-3 Public Defenders who were great at their jobs and were passionate about the work. It's rare that you'll find someone who has a first choice of public defense, but when you come across them - they're usually top notch. Hope for one of these types if you have to have one.
I have no such experience practically
What is your back ground that you got one free?
Most of them want to plead the case. If you are truly innocent, tell him/her the situation. Try to remember that they have been lied to by almost all of thier clients, so any proof of your innocence will help tremendously. If this is not a felonly, you may not have much luck convincing them to work harder for you. If it is a felony, then most of them realize how seriously it will affect you, and try a little harder.
BUT.
Keep in mind that part of the reason a good lawyer costs so much is NOT what happens in the courtroom. It's who that lawyer knows, and what he can get done 'behind the scene'. Many times, a good lawyer is worth the money. You may want to consider getting a loan and paying a lawyer instead of taking a free appointed lawyer.
In any case, good luck!
good and bad,some will fight,some won't
It depends what the charges are... If it's a bigger case, then why don't you just get a real one? Probably better luck of not spending time behind bars or on house arrest that way.
What was work life like before harassment law and guidelines were introduced?
I am trying to find out information on harrasment laws and what work life was like before those laws were introduced. If anyone out there could point me in the right direction I would really appreciate your help.
Answers:
My mother was a personal secretary to the president of a large corporation in the 1950's-60's. According to her stories, when female employees were hired, it was common to have them "make the rounds." They would basically be paraded in front of the verious men they would be working with, and if they were not sufficiently physically attractive, then they would not get the job. Women in many positions were expected to be naturally subservient to their male coworkers.
Policy in this area was not governed by law, but by custom and social norms.
Remember, in the 1950's and 1960's, almost all married women were able to stay at home (and were expected to). The idea of women in the workforce was a completely novel idea. At the time, women had never been in the workforce in any significant numbers, except in times of war and national emergency, with the exception of a few jobs that were "women's jobs" (nurse, secretary, teacher, telephone operator, etc.) This mold was very difficult to break, and it women were only gradually accepted in new professional positions. Simply speaking, it was very new, and prejudice prevented women from quickly advancing, or advancing at all.
There was also a certain suspicion about a woman who decided to take a job. Remember, this was a time when almost all married women generally remained at home. Most families had more children than they do today, and it was considered the wife's job to take care of them. If a married woman got a job, there was a rather strong feeling that she was abandoning her "god given" responsibilities to her home, her husband, and her children. In addition, since so few women worked, there was always a faint suspicion that the family must be in deep financial trouble, if the woman had to get a job.
Men were frequently ridiculed by other men if it became known that their wife was working. It was intensely embarrassing for a husband to admit that his wife had a job, because it implied that he was not a good enough provider for her to remain home, and the family must therefore be in debt.
It was somewhat easier for a single woman to enter the workforce, but women were still expected by society to act "ladylike" at all times, and men could not wrap their minds around the idea of male workers taking orders from a female, making it very difficuly for a woman in any of the male-dominated professions.
Furthermore, while men were generally expected to act gentlemanly toward women, the fact that these women were breaking the social norms (not being ladylike) made men uncertain about whether they were still required to act gentlemanly toward them. Some men felt that since the women were going outside of their proper realm, it was a "free-for-all" and they could behave any way they wanted toward these new professional women. Unfortunately, the old ideas of condescending, "gentlemanly" conduct toward women and the new idea of men acting any way they pleased were both not to the woman's advantage in the workplace. New rules of sexual conduct needed to be created, and it was a little bumpy at first.
So, you had the following social factors all working against any woman who wanted to break out of the traditonal "woman's jobs":
(1) A real sense on the part of society that she was abandoning her children, her home, and her husband (if she had no children people asked "why not?" and if she was not married people asked "why not?"). This was a time before microwave dinners and frozen foods. A dinner took several hours to prepare. Again, this was the traditional responsibility of the woman to take care of.
(2) A deep sense of shame and embarassment on the part of the husband, since a woman working meant that he was not a good enough financial provider.
(3) The assumption that any woman who got a job would eventually get married and leave anyway to have children.
(4) Ideas of masculinity and femininity which made it difficult for people (men and women alike) to imagine women in positions of authority over male workers.
(5) Downright sexism stemming from hundreds of years of beliefs regarding what the roles of men and women were in society.
(6) The idea that since these women were themselves going outside of their proper social roles, it was a social "free-for-all" and men were free to behave any way they liked toward these new professional women.
I'm afraid I have no specific sources. That said, I can remember clearly when women would earn 60 or 70 cents for every dollar a man would earn, on the argument that the man had to support a family on his paycheck. This argument would have worked better if all the men had families, and if there weren't widowed mothers among the women.
Women were regularly passed over for raises and promotions, even when they were better qualified. Especially in male-dominated jobs, they were often harrassed. Enough men felt threatened that they banded together to try to make the women feel excluded, and that included raucus sex talk, hanging innappropriate artwork, and even make passes at the women. If a woman complained, it was seen as proof that she "couldn't handle" the job.
Vaughn is partially correct, but talk to folks in their 50's you know - there were some positive attributes to this time
It was an era where folks were way more honest and direct with each other. If you were crappy and needed improvement you got told straight out. If you needed to get yelled at you did. If you worked really hard you actually got rewarded
You could actually have a dialog about race or sex at work - yes it could get bawdy but you could talk about it - now we act like these differences don't really exist when they still do but we can't have an honest dialog about it
You could also get honest references from prior employers about employees.
There has been a downside to PC that is rarely discussed -not that I want to go back.
Answers:
My mother was a personal secretary to the president of a large corporation in the 1950's-60's. According to her stories, when female employees were hired, it was common to have them "make the rounds." They would basically be paraded in front of the verious men they would be working with, and if they were not sufficiently physically attractive, then they would not get the job. Women in many positions were expected to be naturally subservient to their male coworkers.
Policy in this area was not governed by law, but by custom and social norms.
Remember, in the 1950's and 1960's, almost all married women were able to stay at home (and were expected to). The idea of women in the workforce was a completely novel idea. At the time, women had never been in the workforce in any significant numbers, except in times of war and national emergency, with the exception of a few jobs that were "women's jobs" (nurse, secretary, teacher, telephone operator, etc.) This mold was very difficult to break, and it women were only gradually accepted in new professional positions. Simply speaking, it was very new, and prejudice prevented women from quickly advancing, or advancing at all.
There was also a certain suspicion about a woman who decided to take a job. Remember, this was a time when almost all married women generally remained at home. Most families had more children than they do today, and it was considered the wife's job to take care of them. If a married woman got a job, there was a rather strong feeling that she was abandoning her "god given" responsibilities to her home, her husband, and her children. In addition, since so few women worked, there was always a faint suspicion that the family must be in deep financial trouble, if the woman had to get a job.
Men were frequently ridiculed by other men if it became known that their wife was working. It was intensely embarrassing for a husband to admit that his wife had a job, because it implied that he was not a good enough provider for her to remain home, and the family must therefore be in debt.
It was somewhat easier for a single woman to enter the workforce, but women were still expected by society to act "ladylike" at all times, and men could not wrap their minds around the idea of male workers taking orders from a female, making it very difficuly for a woman in any of the male-dominated professions.
Furthermore, while men were generally expected to act gentlemanly toward women, the fact that these women were breaking the social norms (not being ladylike) made men uncertain about whether they were still required to act gentlemanly toward them. Some men felt that since the women were going outside of their proper realm, it was a "free-for-all" and they could behave any way they wanted toward these new professional women. Unfortunately, the old ideas of condescending, "gentlemanly" conduct toward women and the new idea of men acting any way they pleased were both not to the woman's advantage in the workplace. New rules of sexual conduct needed to be created, and it was a little bumpy at first.
So, you had the following social factors all working against any woman who wanted to break out of the traditonal "woman's jobs":
(1) A real sense on the part of society that she was abandoning her children, her home, and her husband (if she had no children people asked "why not?" and if she was not married people asked "why not?"). This was a time before microwave dinners and frozen foods. A dinner took several hours to prepare. Again, this was the traditional responsibility of the woman to take care of.
(2) A deep sense of shame and embarassment on the part of the husband, since a woman working meant that he was not a good enough financial provider.
(3) The assumption that any woman who got a job would eventually get married and leave anyway to have children.
(4) Ideas of masculinity and femininity which made it difficult for people (men and women alike) to imagine women in positions of authority over male workers.
(5) Downright sexism stemming from hundreds of years of beliefs regarding what the roles of men and women were in society.
(6) The idea that since these women were themselves going outside of their proper social roles, it was a social "free-for-all" and men were free to behave any way they liked toward these new professional women.
I'm afraid I have no specific sources. That said, I can remember clearly when women would earn 60 or 70 cents for every dollar a man would earn, on the argument that the man had to support a family on his paycheck. This argument would have worked better if all the men had families, and if there weren't widowed mothers among the women.
Women were regularly passed over for raises and promotions, even when they were better qualified. Especially in male-dominated jobs, they were often harrassed. Enough men felt threatened that they banded together to try to make the women feel excluded, and that included raucus sex talk, hanging innappropriate artwork, and even make passes at the women. If a woman complained, it was seen as proof that she "couldn't handle" the job.
Vaughn is partially correct, but talk to folks in their 50's you know - there were some positive attributes to this time
It was an era where folks were way more honest and direct with each other. If you were crappy and needed improvement you got told straight out. If you needed to get yelled at you did. If you worked really hard you actually got rewarded
You could actually have a dialog about race or sex at work - yes it could get bawdy but you could talk about it - now we act like these differences don't really exist when they still do but we can't have an honest dialog about it
You could also get honest references from prior employers about employees.
There has been a downside to PC that is rarely discussed -not that I want to go back.
What was this for? What will happen now?
I called the police during an arguement my husband and I were having.When they got here he wasn't here and I told them we were arguing and he threw the phone at me and it hit my eye.I had a black eye.They went to look for him and when they came back I told them I didn't want to talk to them anyfurther and I was fine.No police report was filed or pics taken.This was in May.A policeman came to my door today and asked me about it.I told him we were just arguing and I called..it was settled before they came back so I decided not to file a report.He asked if I had a black eye,I told him no it was just a small cut that was scabbed over because I'd had it for a few days.. What's going on?What was the point of this visit?What will they probably do now?
Answers:
now that you called it's out of your hands.
the D.A. can move forward with this case without your help.
your husband may be charged and prosecuted.
they were probably just following up to see if more abuse had occured before closing and filing the case.
since no photo evidence or testimony from you is available there is no case.
i hope your husband apologised.
You shouldn't jerk the cops around like that.
They are probably doing you a favor, and it is some kind of social welfare person making sure you are not being habitually abused or intimidated. They are just doing their job. If your husband is not abusing you tell them them that.
Otherwise, never call the police unless it is a serious situation and you want him arrested. I see so many times on these cops shows, the husbands are beating on the wives. the wives call the cops and then tell the husband "I called the cops, you'd better run away" then the cops come, he's not there and they leave. Then the husband comes back and starts beating on her again. Not very smart is it? Best luck.
You likely have a zero tolerance policy where you live which means they can prosecute whether you want them to or not.
That does not mean that they will but that they can. They were probably fishing for more information to see whether they should proceed or not.
A report was indeed filed. What you mean is you didn't press charges. What you probably don't know is that the victim doens't have to press charges for charges to be filed. The followup was for the cops to determine if they need to file charges with the DA for assault and domestic violence.
It happens a lot, that a woman is hit by her partner and then decides to not get them in trouble, but (thankfully) now, the laws have changed, and the cops have to report something and at least try to investigate all possibilities before they drop it.
That being said, it is kinda weird that they would come back months later instead of like, the next day. Just don't be surprised if the DA or a prosecutor contacts you and charges are filed anyway.
I have never heard of them coming back on a domestic call ? That is odd. The first thing I would do is verify his credentials and confirm what the next step will be.
They were just checking on you. But you are like most women who will scream police but don't want the ba$tard locked up. It will happen again, that is a guarantee, so what are you going to do about it. You better be making your plans now. find out where the shelters are at, have a secret bank account so you have access to funds. The police are your last worry, from where I sit.
This type of thing happens all the time. I thought your laws were designed for zero tolerance in domestic violence and the police were required to make an arrest.
The police were probably doing a follow up to make sure you were ok.
I don'i know what will be the next step. Perhaps to charge you with mischeif for your 911 call.
they were stopping by to see if you changed your mind about filing charges, and if you are ok
It could be anything. For instance, a supervisor trying to see why there was no follow up, to see if the patrol cops are doing their job. It could be a social service type call, to see if this is going to be recurring. It could be to see if you had changed your mind. There is one person who knows, and that is the cop who came to your door. Give him a call and ask. Anyone else can only speculate.
it's very possible that they were just following up with you to see if you needed any help.
they can't/won't do anything unless you file a report. if you don't, then they can't get your husband on battery charges.
they were probably coming by to see if you needed help b/c sometimes abuse victims (not sayign that you are one), but often times abuse vicitms will rescind statements and the like b/c they fear their abuser.
they we prob just checking up on your safety.GOOD JOB COPS!
take care:)
Answers:
now that you called it's out of your hands.
the D.A. can move forward with this case without your help.
your husband may be charged and prosecuted.
they were probably just following up to see if more abuse had occured before closing and filing the case.
since no photo evidence or testimony from you is available there is no case.
i hope your husband apologised.
You shouldn't jerk the cops around like that.
They are probably doing you a favor, and it is some kind of social welfare person making sure you are not being habitually abused or intimidated. They are just doing their job. If your husband is not abusing you tell them them that.
Otherwise, never call the police unless it is a serious situation and you want him arrested. I see so many times on these cops shows, the husbands are beating on the wives. the wives call the cops and then tell the husband "I called the cops, you'd better run away" then the cops come, he's not there and they leave. Then the husband comes back and starts beating on her again. Not very smart is it? Best luck.
You likely have a zero tolerance policy where you live which means they can prosecute whether you want them to or not.
That does not mean that they will but that they can. They were probably fishing for more information to see whether they should proceed or not.
A report was indeed filed. What you mean is you didn't press charges. What you probably don't know is that the victim doens't have to press charges for charges to be filed. The followup was for the cops to determine if they need to file charges with the DA for assault and domestic violence.
It happens a lot, that a woman is hit by her partner and then decides to not get them in trouble, but (thankfully) now, the laws have changed, and the cops have to report something and at least try to investigate all possibilities before they drop it.
That being said, it is kinda weird that they would come back months later instead of like, the next day. Just don't be surprised if the DA or a prosecutor contacts you and charges are filed anyway.
I have never heard of them coming back on a domestic call ? That is odd. The first thing I would do is verify his credentials and confirm what the next step will be.
They were just checking on you. But you are like most women who will scream police but don't want the ba$tard locked up. It will happen again, that is a guarantee, so what are you going to do about it. You better be making your plans now. find out where the shelters are at, have a secret bank account so you have access to funds. The police are your last worry, from where I sit.
This type of thing happens all the time. I thought your laws were designed for zero tolerance in domestic violence and the police were required to make an arrest.
The police were probably doing a follow up to make sure you were ok.
I don'i know what will be the next step. Perhaps to charge you with mischeif for your 911 call.
they were stopping by to see if you changed your mind about filing charges, and if you are ok
It could be anything. For instance, a supervisor trying to see why there was no follow up, to see if the patrol cops are doing their job. It could be a social service type call, to see if this is going to be recurring. It could be to see if you had changed your mind. There is one person who knows, and that is the cop who came to your door. Give him a call and ask. Anyone else can only speculate.
it's very possible that they were just following up with you to see if you needed any help.
they can't/won't do anything unless you file a report. if you don't, then they can't get your husband on battery charges.
they were probably coming by to see if you needed help b/c sometimes abuse victims (not sayign that you are one), but often times abuse vicitms will rescind statements and the like b/c they fear their abuser.
they we prob just checking up on your safety.GOOD JOB COPS!
take care:)
What was the reasoning behind not letting convicted felons vote?
Answers:
I reckon it's part of the punishment , you loose your citizenship %26 thus unable to vote.
You can however regain your citizenship,after your done serving your time or probation period. to do this you have to go through a lawyer.He has to apply for you.
At common law, the only sentence for any felony was death. Occassionally, that was commuted and folks were exiled. Either way, they lost the king's protection. Certainly such non-entities couldn't vote.
Common sense. Would you want our whore politicians courting the convicted criminal element as well as the unconvicted ones who go to work everyday on Wall Street?
It was used against black people when they got the right to vote. The redneck sheriffs just charged all the blacks with trumped up felonies so they couldn't vote. The judges rubber stamped the charges. We are still doing the same thing today against any people the government doesn't like.
I got a kick out of the other answer. Who in the heck ever got to vote for the king? That is funny.
probably because a convicted felon is looked on as an inferior person who if let have even a small amount of control on the lives of the average person they would corrupt society.
What was the outcome with the hijab rockin' juror?
Was the case adjourned to 6th August? (There was a chance it was going to be resolved on 26th July but I have not seen or heard anything about this).
Answers:
It must have been adjourned to the 6th. I recall it being reported that the judge wanted to get this resolved asap.
It didn't happen that long ago, and so the issue is still being investigated. Regardless of the hijab (which isn't the issue) she was listening to music after swearing on the Koran that she would honestly and faithfully try the accused. This is contempt of court, and she is in a lot of trouble.
Answers:
It must have been adjourned to the 6th. I recall it being reported that the judge wanted to get this resolved asap.
It didn't happen that long ago, and so the issue is still being investigated. Regardless of the hijab (which isn't the issue) she was listening to music after swearing on the Koran that she would honestly and faithfully try the accused. This is contempt of court, and she is in a lot of trouble.
What was the legal drinking age in the 1960s?
Answers:
i believe there was none
It was 18 was I was a teen in the 70s, except in Wisconsin where I could drink at a bar when I was 12 as long as my father was with.
16
I think
or maybe 17
18 same as now
Where? In the UK it was 18 and still is.
Drinking for the most part is unenforceable. If someone wants to drink, they can get it, or have someone get it for them.
12yrs for spirits but 14yrs for beer
I think the legal drinking age now was brought in in the late 60s.
It varied widely by state. By and large, the age was 18. Towards the 70's/80's the federal government made a big push to move it to the 21 mark, and held the states hostage with federal funding, and viola! you now have to be 21 to drink.
If i remember right it keep going back and forth from 18 - 21.
It varied from state to state. In some states, the drinking age was 18 – 19, while in others it was 21 just like it is today.
During the early to mid 1980s, I was in the military. In North Carolina, the drinking age for beer was 19, but to drink liquor you had to be 21. In my home state the drinking age was 21 as far back as the 1950s. I’ve heard people that are ten years older than me talk about going to Maryland and New York to drink because it was only 18 – 19 there. I live in Pennsylvania; it’s been 21 for at least four decades.
All this changed in the mid to late 1980s. The federal government became more intrusive and this time they had a way to make states do what they want. It’s called federal highway money. By this time 23 states had a minimum drinking age of 21, the remaining 27 states were told that they didn’t know what was right and that they didn’t know how to regulate their populations. The federal government told the remaining 27 states that if they didn’t change their minimum drinking law to 21, they’d not be receiving any federal highway money. Overnight all 50 states complied. The feds have been doing this for a couple of decades now. It’s commonplace today. “If you don’t pass this bill, no federal highway money.” This is the reason why we have so many ignorant and intrusive laws on the books today. The states may no longer govern themselves.
21 for liquor and 6% beer..18 for 3.2% beer
In the UK it was exactly the same as now 18years to purchase except with a meal in which case it is 16years for certain drinks not including spirits.That is for purchasing alcohol ,actually drinking it in ones home for instance it is over 5 years old.
It was 18.
And why are all these Yanks butting in on our questions?
What was The Glebelands Act of 1888 in the UK?
Sorry I did not make myself clear with earlier question. I need to know what was the Glebelands Act of 1888 in the UK? What did it say? Thanks
Answers:
I'm not sure but glebelands are land owned by a church and at about that time the Church became a provider of social housing. You might like to take it from there.
I believe the Glebelands Act states it is illegal for same sex Glebelands to marry and receive benefits. Poor little Glebelands. It is widely known they are now extinct, but such mysterious little creatures. I am told they looked like tiny Vikings and discovered Cuba, invented toilet paper, and the Clapper.
Answers:
I'm not sure but glebelands are land owned by a church and at about that time the Church became a provider of social housing. You might like to take it from there.
I believe the Glebelands Act states it is illegal for same sex Glebelands to marry and receive benefits. Poor little Glebelands. It is widely known they are now extinct, but such mysterious little creatures. I am told they looked like tiny Vikings and discovered Cuba, invented toilet paper, and the Clapper.
What was the gender and racial makeup of the Doctor Anna Pou grand jury in New Orleans parish?
Dr. Anna Pou was charged with homocide of nine patients in a hospital during Katrina. The charge was that she alledgedly injected nine patients with massive amounts of morphine. The patients were alive that morning, but dead by five pm.
Answers:
Grand jury refuses to indict Dr. Anna Pou
Posted by The Times-Picayune July 24, 2007 10:18PM
By Gwen Filosa and John Pope
Closing one of the most sensational chapters in post-Katrina New Orleans, Dr. Anna Pou said Tuesday that she fell to her knees and thanked God when she learned that a grand jury had refused to charge her with murdering patients in dark, fetid Memorial Medical Center in the nightmarish days after the hurricane struck on Aug. 29, 2005.
Speaking at an afternoon news conference in a voice choked with emotion, Pou did not smile or gloat over the end of an ordeal that began when she and two nurses were arrested a year and a week ago.
Speaking at the Marriot Convention Center hotel, a tearful Dr. Anna Pou speaks to the media about the no true bill rendered for her by the Grand Jury Tuesday, July 24, 2007."This is not a triumph, but a moment of remembrance for those who lost their lives during the storm and those who stayed at their posts to serve those in need," she said, reading from a brief prepared statement.
Pou still faces four civil suits in connection with the deaths, but her colleagues cheered the end of the criminal case. So did the Louisiana State Medical Society and the American Medical Association, both of which issued statements saying Pou, who never was charged in the deaths, should not have been arrested.
Pou "courageously performed her duties as a physician under the most challenging and horrific conditions," the state society said in its statement. "The decisions she made were in the best interests of the patients."
Arrested with Pou, a head and neck surgeon who specializes in reconstructive surgery, were nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo. State Attorney General Charles Foti accused the three of murder in the deaths of nine patients in LifeCare Hospital, a section of the Uptown medical center reserved for frail patients. Foti, who contended the three had administered lethal injections of painkillers and sedatives, turned over the case to Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan. The grand jury was sworn in in March, but Jordan said he did not start presenting the case until May.
Originally, the three women were accused of killing four patients, but that number grew to nine. Thirty-four patients were reported to have died before the hospital was evacuated.
Landry and Budo were given immunity in return for their grand jury testimony.
'Not a true bill'
The criminal case came to a dramatic conclusion Tuesday morning in Criminal District Judge Calvin Johnson's courtroom.
First, Johnson read an indictment that accused Pou of helping to kill nine patients. Then he read what Valerie Rogers, the grand jury's forewoman, had written on the back of the indictment paperwork: "Not a true bill," which means the jury refused to charge Pou.
Nine grand jurors must agree to deliver an indictment. Because grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret and participants are forbidden to discuss them, there was no way to determine how the jurors voted.
"I think justice has been served with due process," Jordan said Tuesday. "I think the grand jury did the right thing. The grand jury considered all the evidence -- carefully considered. .陇.陇. They concluded no crime had been committed."
"To me, that's the end of the case, and I hope the attorney general accepts that," said Rick Simmons, Pou's attorney, who appeared with his client at her news conference.
Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, who participated in the special grand jury proceedings along with Jordan's prosecutors, Michael Morales and Craig Famularo, left the courthouse at Tulane and Broad with little to say about Pou.
"It's our position that it was homicide," Cullen said.
Asked what would become of Pou's reputation now that the criminal investigation yielded no charge, Cullen said, "I guess that depends on who's considering it."
Defiance grows
Foti's demeanor seemed to change as the day wore on.
Shortly after the failure to indict was announced, he said, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Louisiana DA Charles FotiBut by the afternoon, he was defiant, saying the grand jury had erred. He blamed Jordan, saying prosecutors failed to present important witnesses who could have supported a murder indictment. At his own press conference in Baton Rouge, Foti gave reporters lengthy written analyses from medical experts who had concluded the deaths were homicides.
Foti said the grand jury didn't hear from a number of critical experts, including a forensic pathologist. Additionally, he said, Jordan's team presented none of the dead patients' family members to testify.
Foti also said that Pou drew public sympathy via a publicity campaign and that he hasn't forgotten the patients who died at Memorial.
"You know, one's reputation in the community does not shelter one from potential illegal activities," he said. "No one talks about the victims. The victims. Nine people that died. It is the duty of the attorney general to represent these victims."
Foti said the patients could have been saved.
"At 11 o'clock on Thursday, Sept. 1, while the hospital was being evacuated, both by boat and helicopters, all nine of those people were alive," he said. "By 5 o'clock, when the last person was removed from the hospital, all nine of those people were dead."
Simmons countered that Foti's investigation was a misguided attempt to blame medical personnel for a disaster caused by government failures.
"The certificates of death for these individual patients should read, at least, 'abandoned by their government,'陇" Simmons said. "Anybody with a television set knows the cause of death."
The Grand Jury refused to file the charges against her.
Grand Juries are sealed, usually, so we probably won't know who was on it.
You know what, all that doesn't matter. If you was in New Orleans when Katrina hit, and as sick as those people were, you'd be dead too. One way or another. They blaming doctors and nurses for deaths that were caused by mother nature. Instead of trying to rebuild this city, folks trynna make money off the different situations that went down during Katrina. What about all the residents that's still trying 2 come home? They should focus on that.
Answers:
Grand jury refuses to indict Dr. Anna Pou
Posted by The Times-Picayune July 24, 2007 10:18PM
By Gwen Filosa and John Pope
Closing one of the most sensational chapters in post-Katrina New Orleans, Dr. Anna Pou said Tuesday that she fell to her knees and thanked God when she learned that a grand jury had refused to charge her with murdering patients in dark, fetid Memorial Medical Center in the nightmarish days after the hurricane struck on Aug. 29, 2005.
Speaking at an afternoon news conference in a voice choked with emotion, Pou did not smile or gloat over the end of an ordeal that began when she and two nurses were arrested a year and a week ago.
Speaking at the Marriot Convention Center hotel, a tearful Dr. Anna Pou speaks to the media about the no true bill rendered for her by the Grand Jury Tuesday, July 24, 2007."This is not a triumph, but a moment of remembrance for those who lost their lives during the storm and those who stayed at their posts to serve those in need," she said, reading from a brief prepared statement.
Pou still faces four civil suits in connection with the deaths, but her colleagues cheered the end of the criminal case. So did the Louisiana State Medical Society and the American Medical Association, both of which issued statements saying Pou, who never was charged in the deaths, should not have been arrested.
Pou "courageously performed her duties as a physician under the most challenging and horrific conditions," the state society said in its statement. "The decisions she made were in the best interests of the patients."
Arrested with Pou, a head and neck surgeon who specializes in reconstructive surgery, were nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo. State Attorney General Charles Foti accused the three of murder in the deaths of nine patients in LifeCare Hospital, a section of the Uptown medical center reserved for frail patients. Foti, who contended the three had administered lethal injections of painkillers and sedatives, turned over the case to Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan. The grand jury was sworn in in March, but Jordan said he did not start presenting the case until May.
Originally, the three women were accused of killing four patients, but that number grew to nine. Thirty-four patients were reported to have died before the hospital was evacuated.
Landry and Budo were given immunity in return for their grand jury testimony.
'Not a true bill'
The criminal case came to a dramatic conclusion Tuesday morning in Criminal District Judge Calvin Johnson's courtroom.
First, Johnson read an indictment that accused Pou of helping to kill nine patients. Then he read what Valerie Rogers, the grand jury's forewoman, had written on the back of the indictment paperwork: "Not a true bill," which means the jury refused to charge Pou.
Nine grand jurors must agree to deliver an indictment. Because grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret and participants are forbidden to discuss them, there was no way to determine how the jurors voted.
"I think justice has been served with due process," Jordan said Tuesday. "I think the grand jury did the right thing. The grand jury considered all the evidence -- carefully considered. .陇.陇. They concluded no crime had been committed."
"To me, that's the end of the case, and I hope the attorney general accepts that," said Rick Simmons, Pou's attorney, who appeared with his client at her news conference.
Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, who participated in the special grand jury proceedings along with Jordan's prosecutors, Michael Morales and Craig Famularo, left the courthouse at Tulane and Broad with little to say about Pou.
"It's our position that it was homicide," Cullen said.
Asked what would become of Pou's reputation now that the criminal investigation yielded no charge, Cullen said, "I guess that depends on who's considering it."
Defiance grows
Foti's demeanor seemed to change as the day wore on.
Shortly after the failure to indict was announced, he said, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Louisiana DA Charles FotiBut by the afternoon, he was defiant, saying the grand jury had erred. He blamed Jordan, saying prosecutors failed to present important witnesses who could have supported a murder indictment. At his own press conference in Baton Rouge, Foti gave reporters lengthy written analyses from medical experts who had concluded the deaths were homicides.
Foti said the grand jury didn't hear from a number of critical experts, including a forensic pathologist. Additionally, he said, Jordan's team presented none of the dead patients' family members to testify.
Foti also said that Pou drew public sympathy via a publicity campaign and that he hasn't forgotten the patients who died at Memorial.
"You know, one's reputation in the community does not shelter one from potential illegal activities," he said. "No one talks about the victims. The victims. Nine people that died. It is the duty of the attorney general to represent these victims."
Foti said the patients could have been saved.
"At 11 o'clock on Thursday, Sept. 1, while the hospital was being evacuated, both by boat and helicopters, all nine of those people were alive," he said. "By 5 o'clock, when the last person was removed from the hospital, all nine of those people were dead."
Simmons countered that Foti's investigation was a misguided attempt to blame medical personnel for a disaster caused by government failures.
"The certificates of death for these individual patients should read, at least, 'abandoned by their government,'陇" Simmons said. "Anybody with a television set knows the cause of death."
The Grand Jury refused to file the charges against her.
Grand Juries are sealed, usually, so we probably won't know who was on it.
You know what, all that doesn't matter. If you was in New Orleans when Katrina hit, and as sick as those people were, you'd be dead too. One way or another. They blaming doctors and nurses for deaths that were caused by mother nature. Instead of trying to rebuild this city, folks trynna make money off the different situations that went down during Katrina. What about all the residents that's still trying 2 come home? They should focus on that.
What was one reason the U.S. government started a Federal Reserve system?
A- to keep the banking power of the United States spread out among various districts
B- to make sure that the U.S. banks were obeying laws regarding banking
C- to have a place for banks to deposit their excess deposits
D- to provide consumers with access to funds for business expansion
Answers:
All of the above.
E- to control the value of the dollar and to control the wealth. the federal reserve cut the gold standard and each dollar is legal tender, worthless, and is lent out at an interest rate, keeping us in debt forever.
The publicly stated reasons are all of the above, however the main reason was to unconstitutionally create money under a system of usury. Once the Nixon administration finally dropped the gold standard, the dollar became a fiat currency too. The federal reserve could create as much money as it liked.
Fractional reserve central banking is a monumental scam that creates massive amounts of money and apparent wealth, but the control of the economy no longer rests with the people through a representative democracy.
The banks decide how well or how poorly the economy performs by regulating how much currency is in circulation.
They use debt to steal the nations natural tangible wealth and effectively utilize people's greed and ambition to enslave the population.
The chairman of the federal reserve may be appointed by the President, but he takes his orders from the bank of International Settlements in Basel Switzerland.
B- to make sure that the U.S. banks were obeying laws regarding banking
C- to have a place for banks to deposit their excess deposits
D- to provide consumers with access to funds for business expansion
Answers:
All of the above.
E- to control the value of the dollar and to control the wealth. the federal reserve cut the gold standard and each dollar is legal tender, worthless, and is lent out at an interest rate, keeping us in debt forever.
The publicly stated reasons are all of the above, however the main reason was to unconstitutionally create money under a system of usury. Once the Nixon administration finally dropped the gold standard, the dollar became a fiat currency too. The federal reserve could create as much money as it liked.
Fractional reserve central banking is a monumental scam that creates massive amounts of money and apparent wealth, but the control of the economy no longer rests with the people through a representative democracy.
The banks decide how well or how poorly the economy performs by regulating how much currency is in circulation.
They use debt to steal the nations natural tangible wealth and effectively utilize people's greed and ambition to enslave the population.
The chairman of the federal reserve may be appointed by the President, but he takes his orders from the bank of International Settlements in Basel Switzerland.
What U.S. crimes still have death penalty besides murder?
What U.S. civilian crimes besides murder still have the death penalty. I know high treason can, like the Rosenburgs of the 1940's-50's. I think the armed forces have a few still like maybe mutiny or desertion? Do states or federal have other death penalty crimes not widely known? I know there are more in the past like horse thieves and witchcraft, but I'm mainly interested in present. Do you know anyone as good examples of non-murder death penalty cases?
Answers:
You have a pretty complete list. Treason though would be a federal law. Kidnapping is the other death penalty. In Texas, a landowner can hang rustlers caught in the act of taking livestock. Livestock can include chickens. Funny though. I suspect a modern jury would convict anyone doing such a hanging for wrongful death if they did in fact do it by hanging. But on the other hand, Texans still have the only state where you can use firearms to defend your property. Property can include a dog or a goat or a stereo system. I doubt the death penalty would be applied for documented rustling, however, I did read about a felon that stole chicken from a supermarket, the rustler law was applied, and he got 99 years.
Incidentally, the Rosenburgs were electrocuted. The chair was designed for men. The headband strap didn't fit the Mrs. very well. The federal turkeys threw the switch 3 times trying to kill her. It was during the time of the Commie hunts.
multiple rapes that include vicious beatings and repeated child molestation I believe.
IDK but here is a list of crimes that should
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Child Abuse
Animal Cruelty
Armed Robbery
Aggrevated Assault
Treason
Espionage
Grand Theft
Racketeering
Most death penalty cases are determined by the prosecutor, as it is they who SEEK the death penalty. What drives a case from a prison felony to a death penalty felony is dependent on various aggravating circumstances. This also varies from one jurisdiction to another.
No state authorizes the death penalty for any crimes except first degree murder. Even then, the death penalty is available only with "special" or "aggravating" circumstances defined by statute. Federal and military law theoretically allow death for the crimes you mentioned, but no state laws. There have been some in the past, but the Supreme Court put a stop to that with a series of rulings that, without being explicit, essentially limited death penalty to aggravated first degree murder cases.
Answers:
You have a pretty complete list. Treason though would be a federal law. Kidnapping is the other death penalty. In Texas, a landowner can hang rustlers caught in the act of taking livestock. Livestock can include chickens. Funny though. I suspect a modern jury would convict anyone doing such a hanging for wrongful death if they did in fact do it by hanging. But on the other hand, Texans still have the only state where you can use firearms to defend your property. Property can include a dog or a goat or a stereo system. I doubt the death penalty would be applied for documented rustling, however, I did read about a felon that stole chicken from a supermarket, the rustler law was applied, and he got 99 years.
Incidentally, the Rosenburgs were electrocuted. The chair was designed for men. The headband strap didn't fit the Mrs. very well. The federal turkeys threw the switch 3 times trying to kill her. It was during the time of the Commie hunts.
multiple rapes that include vicious beatings and repeated child molestation I believe.
IDK but here is a list of crimes that should
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Child Abuse
Animal Cruelty
Armed Robbery
Aggrevated Assault
Treason
Espionage
Grand Theft
Racketeering
Most death penalty cases are determined by the prosecutor, as it is they who SEEK the death penalty. What drives a case from a prison felony to a death penalty felony is dependent on various aggravating circumstances. This also varies from one jurisdiction to another.
No state authorizes the death penalty for any crimes except first degree murder. Even then, the death penalty is available only with "special" or "aggravating" circumstances defined by statute. Federal and military law theoretically allow death for the crimes you mentioned, but no state laws. There have been some in the past, but the Supreme Court put a stop to that with a series of rulings that, without being explicit, essentially limited death penalty to aggravated first degree murder cases.
What u think ppl??
what does dissmiss a charge without a conviction mean? does it mean i still have a charge but no conviction??
Answers:
that's exactly what it means dear. it means you haven't been convicted - i.e. no punishment. but the police records still say that you did something wrong - you have a record.
this can be taken into consideration by a judge in a possible future charge when deciding whether to convict or not.
It means it is DISMISSED.
no there's nothing against u
Answers:
that's exactly what it means dear. it means you haven't been convicted - i.e. no punishment. but the police records still say that you did something wrong - you have a record.
this can be taken into consideration by a judge in a possible future charge when deciding whether to convict or not.
It means it is DISMISSED.
no there's nothing against u
What type of weapons permit do i need to be able to walk around with a sword? and how do i obtain one?
I live in a bad neighborhood and i need to get a weapons permit, one that will allow me to walk around with a sheathed sword(Not a concealed weapons permit). can anyone tell me what type of weapons permit i would need? and how i could obtain one?
Answers:
you are allowed to carry a sword i believe if it's not sharpened! Like the other person said, you'll probably get mugged for your sword rather than you wallet!
if sharpened it'll be cosidered possession of deadly weapon. The authorities will take you down for that; it's not a joke!
You could probably only buy sharpened swords locally, if international it'll not make it through customs. You can buy swords from ebay for less than $100 but they'll be for display and dull as hell. You can buy one of those and find a place that can sharpen it for you; also illegal.
I bought a Samurai Sword (Hatori Hanzo - Kill Bill) for my cousin's bday from ebay for $80 incl shipping (not sharpened).
hope this helps!
You shouldn't need any permit. It's not concealed. By way of comparison, you wouldn't ask this question if you were carrying a baseball bat or a lead pipe for protection. (Which, by the way, are probably better alternatives. You will make yourself a target for robbery if you carry a sword in a bad neighborhood. Swords are worth a lot more than a bat. )
you can purchase a sword in lots of places... there are even sword stores if you look hard enough... you can obtain one on the internet. swords are sold as novelty/ceremonial items, though are legally considered weapons, in every state. i can help more if you tell me which state you live in. but realisticly, most states, if not all, will not let you carry a sword down the street, sheathed or not. blade laws, with the exception of hunting, usually dont allow more than 12 inches of a blade to be carried.
You shouldn't be carrying weapon;) It might be wiser to carry tools and if by chance you need to protect yourself, improvise;)
walk around with a sword in seattle the fire deptartment will spray you with their hose. lol
No permit will cover walking around with a sword. Most states limit the length of any blade to bearound 4 inches, give or take.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any municipality allows you to carry a sword in public unless it's sealed in a box. I've heard it's OK to openly transport one in your car (not that you have any room to wield one in there anyway). But on a practical level, a sword is really not that well suited for modern urban situations. Using a sword effectively requires some amount of proper training in the correct style intended for that type of sword (you can't attack or defend yourself with even an authentic katana too well if all you know how to do is swing it around like a broomstick). And there are really much easier to use weapons that are more legal, cheaper, and easier to carry (baseball bat, claw hammer, short pipe, etc). And most of the swords out on the market are little more than display novelties, and are neither sharp enough, strong enough, nor properly balanced to work well in actual combat so you really have to know what the heck you're buying. You can buy a real hand-forged sword at any Rennaissance Faire and there are some websites out there that sell them, but they're pretty expensive. Expect to pay at least $400 for anything decent. But if you really have to carry a weapon, then make it a can of pepper spray (preferably with a wide spray pattern so that aiming it isn't difficult). It's considered primarily a defensive weapon so you're less likely to get in trouble for carrying it or if you ever have to use it.
How about a nutcase permit? Come on now, you are just asking for trouble carrying a sword. Swords are dangerous in the hands of people that don't know how to effectively wield them.
Ahahaha that's hilarious! You want a SWORD!
Well, you'd need a SWORD permit, wouldn't you?
I'm very good at sword fighting...
I practice EVERY DAY, while listening to the song "he's a pirate" off the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack.
buddy
Answers:
you are allowed to carry a sword i believe if it's not sharpened! Like the other person said, you'll probably get mugged for your sword rather than you wallet!
if sharpened it'll be cosidered possession of deadly weapon. The authorities will take you down for that; it's not a joke!
You could probably only buy sharpened swords locally, if international it'll not make it through customs. You can buy swords from ebay for less than $100 but they'll be for display and dull as hell. You can buy one of those and find a place that can sharpen it for you; also illegal.
I bought a Samurai Sword (Hatori Hanzo - Kill Bill) for my cousin's bday from ebay for $80 incl shipping (not sharpened).
hope this helps!
You shouldn't need any permit. It's not concealed. By way of comparison, you wouldn't ask this question if you were carrying a baseball bat or a lead pipe for protection. (Which, by the way, are probably better alternatives. You will make yourself a target for robbery if you carry a sword in a bad neighborhood. Swords are worth a lot more than a bat. )
you can purchase a sword in lots of places... there are even sword stores if you look hard enough... you can obtain one on the internet. swords are sold as novelty/ceremonial items, though are legally considered weapons, in every state. i can help more if you tell me which state you live in. but realisticly, most states, if not all, will not let you carry a sword down the street, sheathed or not. blade laws, with the exception of hunting, usually dont allow more than 12 inches of a blade to be carried.
You shouldn't be carrying weapon;) It might be wiser to carry tools and if by chance you need to protect yourself, improvise;)
walk around with a sword in seattle the fire deptartment will spray you with their hose. lol
No permit will cover walking around with a sword. Most states limit the length of any blade to bearound 4 inches, give or take.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any municipality allows you to carry a sword in public unless it's sealed in a box. I've heard it's OK to openly transport one in your car (not that you have any room to wield one in there anyway). But on a practical level, a sword is really not that well suited for modern urban situations. Using a sword effectively requires some amount of proper training in the correct style intended for that type of sword (you can't attack or defend yourself with even an authentic katana too well if all you know how to do is swing it around like a broomstick). And there are really much easier to use weapons that are more legal, cheaper, and easier to carry (baseball bat, claw hammer, short pipe, etc). And most of the swords out on the market are little more than display novelties, and are neither sharp enough, strong enough, nor properly balanced to work well in actual combat so you really have to know what the heck you're buying. You can buy a real hand-forged sword at any Rennaissance Faire and there are some websites out there that sell them, but they're pretty expensive. Expect to pay at least $400 for anything decent. But if you really have to carry a weapon, then make it a can of pepper spray (preferably with a wide spray pattern so that aiming it isn't difficult). It's considered primarily a defensive weapon so you're less likely to get in trouble for carrying it or if you ever have to use it.
How about a nutcase permit? Come on now, you are just asking for trouble carrying a sword. Swords are dangerous in the hands of people that don't know how to effectively wield them.
Ahahaha that's hilarious! You want a SWORD!
Well, you'd need a SWORD permit, wouldn't you?
I'm very good at sword fighting...
I practice EVERY DAY, while listening to the song "he's a pirate" off the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack.
buddy
What type of things will show up of a employment background check?
Answers:
Definitely any convictions of any type (misdeamor or felony) and possibly arrests as well (regardless of how they turned out).
now is when you'll find out just how UN COOL those things were, you did.
What type of lawyers deal specifically with children?
specifically molestation and rape?
Answers:
Domestic Relations/Family lawyers and criminal attorneys, as well as personal injury attorneys.
Family Law attorneys. You can find one by selecting your state from the link below.
http://www.familylaw.org/familylawattorn...
Juvi.. but just report it let the dics take over..
Family Lawyer... But you should really talk to the DA of your state
Find a criminal attorney and look at their profile first. See if they worked as a prosecutor and litigator. They will defend you as the person for your son or daughter who was molested or violated.
Answers:
Domestic Relations/Family lawyers and criminal attorneys, as well as personal injury attorneys.
Family Law attorneys. You can find one by selecting your state from the link below.
http://www.familylaw.org/familylawattorn...
Juvi.. but just report it let the dics take over..
Family Lawyer... But you should really talk to the DA of your state
Find a criminal attorney and look at their profile first. See if they worked as a prosecutor and litigator. They will defend you as the person for your son or daughter who was molested or violated.
What type of Lawyer??
What type of lawyer would one need to contact if they are getting bad references from their present employer? My friend is out on disabilty, she is looking for a new job but keeps getting turned down because her current supervisor is giving a bad review of her.
Answers:
Really, all your friend needs to do is contact this former employer and politely remind him that the law says if someone calls him about a former employee, the only information he can give out is the dates she worked there, and anything else is an illegal violation of her privacy. If it persists, she can contact a lawyer who specializes in employment law, but they're pretty expensive.
You can't really sue someone for giving bad references. That'd be like me trying to get someone kicked out of freelawanswer.com s because they gave me a thumbs-down rating on an answer. It's unfortunate that it's happening, but tough luck.
However, if the previous employer is giving your friend bad references based on her disability (ie, ___ isn't a good employer because of her disability, etc) then call someone who specializes in disability law.
Good luck!
And if you are eligible to receive free counseling from an attorney of you local bar association, then go for it.
It would be a civil litigation attorney who has experience with defamation law.
However, in most jurisdictions, there is no cause of action against a former employer for a bad reference unless the statements being made are factually false, and the person giving a reference knows they are false.
Answers:
Really, all your friend needs to do is contact this former employer and politely remind him that the law says if someone calls him about a former employee, the only information he can give out is the dates she worked there, and anything else is an illegal violation of her privacy. If it persists, she can contact a lawyer who specializes in employment law, but they're pretty expensive.
You can't really sue someone for giving bad references. That'd be like me trying to get someone kicked out of freelawanswer.com s because they gave me a thumbs-down rating on an answer. It's unfortunate that it's happening, but tough luck.
However, if the previous employer is giving your friend bad references based on her disability (ie, ___ isn't a good employer because of her disability, etc) then call someone who specializes in disability law.
Good luck!
And if you are eligible to receive free counseling from an attorney of you local bar association, then go for it.
It would be a civil litigation attorney who has experience with defamation law.
However, in most jurisdictions, there is no cause of action against a former employer for a bad reference unless the statements being made are factually false, and the person giving a reference knows they are false.
What type of lawyer makes the most money?
Answers:
That really depends. "Corporate" lawyers (meaning business lawyers who either help do deals or do large litigation matters) usually make good money starting out ($100,000 or more at mid to large sized firms in mid- to large-sized cities), are eligible for good bonuses, and will make $300,000 or more as an "equity partner" (if you can make it 7, 10, or more years with the firm, billing over 2,000 hours per year).
In this pot are intellectual property attorneys, ESPECIALLY patent attorneys. Because of their special skill (and the requirements that they be a member of the patent bar) they usually bill at a much much higher rate, and get a better rate of return (often for less work). Take the numbers I have up there and add 20%, that's patent lawyers.
Next, I would mention plaintiffs' attorneys -- especially large, class action attorneys. They often bring multi-billion dollar cases, and, if they win, they get their attorneys' fees from the class awards. One of the firms in my town handled tobacco litigation resulting in tens of millions of dollars' worth of fees for the firm, which were divided among the partners. They got rich.
Next, it becomes hit-or-miss. Personal injury attorneys who are really good and really efficient can make a lot of money based upon contingency fee arrangements. But they can also struggle. Estate planning attorneys can make $$$ as trustees, but also have to limit the hours they put in on small, personal jobs. Criminal defense attorneys who become known in their community can demand $50-100,000 PER CLIENT, which of course requires lots more work than the public defender, but can be lucrative. But I also know criminal defense attorneys who just barely make a living working off of government referrals. Same with divorce lawyers -- small time divorces is a hard way to grind out a living, but divorces with rich people who have millions in assets becomes a big business.
At the bottom are prosecutors (who can actually do quite well, but have really no chance for big bonuses or salary advances, and start at a fairly low scale) public defenders (who have a TERRIBLE salary with no advancement chance) and public interest lawyers (who work for nothing or next to nothing.)
Corporate.
COrporate, then Divorce.
Good ones.
Business law and transactions...however its very boring.
corporate lawyers
What type of lawyer do I need?
I am a union worker for a factory, about 6 or 7 months ago our shop steward was terminated and we have not had one since, I was told this is against our rights, and we could sue the union for this. Does anyone know about it?
Answers:
You should contact somone who studied labor law. I think findlaw.com has a referral service.
Contact your regional office of the National Labor Relations Board.
this is what you do write to the union office and tell them that
you do not have a shop steward for your job. and if that does
not work get you a labor lawyer.
You would not sue the union --- you (and the union) would sue the company..
And it would be an attorney who specialize in union/labor law.
Answers:
You should contact somone who studied labor law. I think findlaw.com has a referral service.
Contact your regional office of the National Labor Relations Board.
this is what you do write to the union office and tell them that
you do not have a shop steward for your job. and if that does
not work get you a labor lawyer.
You would not sue the union --- you (and the union) would sue the company..
And it would be an attorney who specialize in union/labor law.
What type of lawyer do I need?
Problems with old 2nd mortgage company. Do I need a real estate atty or a comsumer protection atty?
Answers:
I'd agree with the above answer, except that I'd try the consumer protection attorney first. He/She is more likely to be aware of litigation issues, which is what it sounds like you have.
Both could help, I'd call the real estate attorney first.
Answers:
I'd agree with the above answer, except that I'd try the consumer protection attorney first. He/She is more likely to be aware of litigation issues, which is what it sounds like you have.
Both could help, I'd call the real estate attorney first.
What type of law should i study??
so im a jr. in college; majoring in poli. sci/history and a minor in polit. philosophy. i know i should figure out what kind of law i want to study, but i haven't been able..like i dont think i could be a crim. defense attorney (too much of a conscience knowing i could defend some1 who i rightfully know is guilty).. like from any law ppl. out there, what is big right now/ in the future and what not
Answers:
Hey Drew ...
The persons above me have some great areas to consider, however, the fastest growing field of law right now is Educational Law believe it or not. I am a teacher and it is HUGE due to discrimination, Special Ed, and other various aspects. I am seriously considering going back to law school and getting a law degree in this area at some point. While getting my Masters degree my Educational Law teacher told us that if we ever want to make some really good money ... go into this field. There are hardly any attorneys in this area now and they are desperately needed.
I agree with you on the DA opinion ... I could never defend a lowlife criminal if I knew he was guilty. I'd go to jail for takin' him out myself! lol Anyhow .. .it sounds like you've gotten some good ideas here ... environmental and tax law will also continue to expand. (I read that tax law is also hugely needed because it's bit boring and not as many law students really want to go into it) Hey ... boring maybe ... but great $$ and a guaranteed job are things to consider! =)
Hope this may have helped ... good luck to you ... and if you do become an attorney ... stay honest and have integrity! There are some out there ... but they are few and far between. Make a difference!
______________________________...
I know that I am studying intellectual property, since it is one of the fastest growing fields, but other hot areas are business, environmental law, and litigation.
I'd think environmental law will only get much, much bigger as we finally begin to deal with climate disruption, pollution, etc. But please, if you really have a conscience, don't help big corporations circumvent whatever laws are in place to protect the rest of us. At least criminal defense attorneys play a role in protecting constitutional rights.
One of the purposes behind law school is to empower the student to make this choice. The first year curriculum is pretty well-set, and many schools don't allow any significant electives during the first year. You'll get to see a number of case studies embracing a wide variety of substantive and adjective contexts.
Some specialties, such as taxation, generally dictate following a defined progressive track as soon as the second year begins. Other specialties, such as trial law, do not demand immediate devotion to a track. You have time to peruse the courses available and change tracks if that suits you.
Without knowing you and/or interviewing you, there is no way on God's green earth I can tell you what will work for you.
Bankruptcy/creditors' remedies/debtors' rights will always be a viable field.
Technology law is now deeply entrenched in basic corporate law, but most law schools are mired in the 20th Century. The courses most likely won't be relevant to the field, and as a social science major, you've already cut yourself off from patent law. IP work is likely going to remain viable as well, though how to hit the ball out of the park at this point in history is beyond me.
As far as the moral qualm: St. Thomas More is the patron saint of the legal profession. During the troubles concerning Catherine of Aragon, More was accused of being willing to give the Devil himself due process of law. More anwered, yes he would: take away due process of law and what man in the Kingdom could stand upright in the storm that would follow, yes, he'd give the Devil due process of law, "but for my own good sake, not his."
In other words, get over it. There are things done in law that are far more "ambiguous" than defending a person whom you "rightfully" know to be guilty.
I know people like to say that environmental, immigration, and intellectual property are "big" now. Of course, all you need is for Congress to change the law or the economy to tank and these areas will no longer be big. My feeling is that if you want to open up a practice and have work until the day you die, practice family law (divorces). For the record, I am not a family lawyer.
In the US, you need to go to law school to practice law -- and you need to study all of the basics -- tort, contract, criminal, property, constitutional law, rules of procedure and evidence, etc.
Then you get to pick electives while you are in law school, as part of your total studies. This could include environmental, tax, immigration, civil rights, intellectual property, patent, etc.
Don't try to figure out now what you want to do -- just get a good general education, then actually study the areas before trying to figure out which one you really like.
If you get the chance, I found it very helpful to have taken some paralegal classes as an undergrad -- it make many of the concepts familiar when I got to law school
Good luck.
Answers:
Hey Drew ...
The persons above me have some great areas to consider, however, the fastest growing field of law right now is Educational Law believe it or not. I am a teacher and it is HUGE due to discrimination, Special Ed, and other various aspects. I am seriously considering going back to law school and getting a law degree in this area at some point. While getting my Masters degree my Educational Law teacher told us that if we ever want to make some really good money ... go into this field. There are hardly any attorneys in this area now and they are desperately needed.
I agree with you on the DA opinion ... I could never defend a lowlife criminal if I knew he was guilty. I'd go to jail for takin' him out myself! lol Anyhow .. .it sounds like you've gotten some good ideas here ... environmental and tax law will also continue to expand. (I read that tax law is also hugely needed because it's bit boring and not as many law students really want to go into it) Hey ... boring maybe ... but great $$ and a guaranteed job are things to consider! =)
Hope this may have helped ... good luck to you ... and if you do become an attorney ... stay honest and have integrity! There are some out there ... but they are few and far between. Make a difference!
______________________________...
I know that I am studying intellectual property, since it is one of the fastest growing fields, but other hot areas are business, environmental law, and litigation.
I'd think environmental law will only get much, much bigger as we finally begin to deal with climate disruption, pollution, etc. But please, if you really have a conscience, don't help big corporations circumvent whatever laws are in place to protect the rest of us. At least criminal defense attorneys play a role in protecting constitutional rights.
One of the purposes behind law school is to empower the student to make this choice. The first year curriculum is pretty well-set, and many schools don't allow any significant electives during the first year. You'll get to see a number of case studies embracing a wide variety of substantive and adjective contexts.
Some specialties, such as taxation, generally dictate following a defined progressive track as soon as the second year begins. Other specialties, such as trial law, do not demand immediate devotion to a track. You have time to peruse the courses available and change tracks if that suits you.
Without knowing you and/or interviewing you, there is no way on God's green earth I can tell you what will work for you.
Bankruptcy/creditors' remedies/debtors' rights will always be a viable field.
Technology law is now deeply entrenched in basic corporate law, but most law schools are mired in the 20th Century. The courses most likely won't be relevant to the field, and as a social science major, you've already cut yourself off from patent law. IP work is likely going to remain viable as well, though how to hit the ball out of the park at this point in history is beyond me.
As far as the moral qualm: St. Thomas More is the patron saint of the legal profession. During the troubles concerning Catherine of Aragon, More was accused of being willing to give the Devil himself due process of law. More anwered, yes he would: take away due process of law and what man in the Kingdom could stand upright in the storm that would follow, yes, he'd give the Devil due process of law, "but for my own good sake, not his."
In other words, get over it. There are things done in law that are far more "ambiguous" than defending a person whom you "rightfully" know to be guilty.
I know people like to say that environmental, immigration, and intellectual property are "big" now. Of course, all you need is for Congress to change the law or the economy to tank and these areas will no longer be big. My feeling is that if you want to open up a practice and have work until the day you die, practice family law (divorces). For the record, I am not a family lawyer.
In the US, you need to go to law school to practice law -- and you need to study all of the basics -- tort, contract, criminal, property, constitutional law, rules of procedure and evidence, etc.
Then you get to pick electives while you are in law school, as part of your total studies. This could include environmental, tax, immigration, civil rights, intellectual property, patent, etc.
Don't try to figure out now what you want to do -- just get a good general education, then actually study the areas before trying to figure out which one you really like.
If you get the chance, I found it very helpful to have taken some paralegal classes as an undergrad -- it make many of the concepts familiar when I got to law school
Good luck.
What type of information can former employers provide to potential employers about a past employee?
Answers:
Unfortunately, because of frivolous lawsuits most employer will not say anything about your previous employment whether it鈥檚 positive or negative. They will usually only confirm that you were indeed employed by them.
This is a company policy, not a law.
Dates of Employment, Salary, and if you are eligible for rehire.
I agree with lurchleft, but to be clear they can provide any information that is TRUE. If they saw you doing lines on your desk, they can say that. If you stole, they can say that. If you liked wearing two different shoes, they can say that.
What type of employment would you expect a criminal to work in?
I am curious to know what types of places you would expect to find someone working who has a criminal background? Real estate agents, construction workers, scientists, retail, government, etc. Let me know your opinions, this is for a paper I am writing, and I just need some opinions.
Answers:
The first place to look would be your common contractor/ self employed gigs like construction or some of the driving, or sales jobs, deffinatley home health, or janitorial contracts.People hiring contract work don't have the same level of accoutability as employers hirring w-2 employees. self employed and 10-99 people don't have people looking at background as closely
well, there is a certain female running for president in 2008..
I would have to say a lot of criminals work for the government.
the government of course ( you have to be a smart criminal and start stealing after elected of course)
you know it don't really matter what they have some one will *****
that trucker that had a gas tanker that caught fire in California had a record. orilley was bitching cause he was a ex con , how do we expect the ex cons to become ex con's when they can only get minimum crap jobs. once they paid for there crimes they should have a reasonable good Chance for employment, or they will go straight back to crime.
Tech support.
Ditch Digger
Cheeseburger technician
Depending on the crime almost anything. Pedophiles tend to have a hard time getting jobs almost anywhere (except the catholic church) on the other hand a DUI, littering, shop lifting or public urination conviction won't bar you from most jobs.
Umm. there are lots of criminals all around you I mean everywhere you look!! They have to make a living too. So really anywhere I guess to a certain extent but if they are serious offenses or have experienced jail time they may have a hard time to get jobs so they probably will work in the lower class jobs!!
The Bush administration, that way their sentences can be commuted...
Airport security. : )
I would expect EVERY profession to have people working there who have a criminal background, where they have not yet been caught.
I would expect MANY jobs to have workers who aquired that background after they started working there.
Example ... a few years ago the blue collar factory workers of my employer went on strike and it was pretty violent ... arson, car-wars, road rage (on purpose), stalking, you name it ... before it was settled, darn near every union worker had been arrested and charged with some misdeed, and every one of us crossing the picket lline had been framed for one thing or another ... 100% of the work force now has some kind of a record of being arrested.
Now in the case of a prospective job applicant who has a criminal record through the judicial system, before they get hired, and it is not juvenile which can be "erased", how many places are going to check up on this? How many are going to find out from references, if they even check references?
I suggest you want to put this question to the Personnel %26 Human Resources type people who hang out in freelawanswer.com category Business %26 Finance sub-category Careers %26 Employment, where this question probably should have been posted in the first place.
Even if they know about the criminal record, it makes a big difference what the crime was all about, and the nature of the work.
If the crime was white collar, it will hurt a job in white collar, but might not hurt blue collar.
If the crime was theft of secrets, it will block job in knowlege management, but probably not hurt getting a job in retail or real estate.
So you need to do a matrix ... for each kind of job, what crimes make a hill of beans difference to that job.
There are some crimes, like say rape, where it not matter what job you apply for, they not want to hire a rapist.
A deli shop on Broadway.
Being a criminal myself I have found it extremely hard to get any job. Lots of employers these days do not want to take the added liability involved in hiring felons. People believe that once a criminal always a criminal. I was fortunate to find a company that would hire me and let me prove myself.
Actresses or hotel heiresses, under the age of 26.
Answers:
The first place to look would be your common contractor/ self employed gigs like construction or some of the driving, or sales jobs, deffinatley home health, or janitorial contracts.People hiring contract work don't have the same level of accoutability as employers hirring w-2 employees. self employed and 10-99 people don't have people looking at background as closely
well, there is a certain female running for president in 2008..
I would have to say a lot of criminals work for the government.
the government of course ( you have to be a smart criminal and start stealing after elected of course)
you know it don't really matter what they have some one will *****
that trucker that had a gas tanker that caught fire in California had a record. orilley was bitching cause he was a ex con , how do we expect the ex cons to become ex con's when they can only get minimum crap jobs. once they paid for there crimes they should have a reasonable good Chance for employment, or they will go straight back to crime.
Tech support.
Ditch Digger
Cheeseburger technician
Depending on the crime almost anything. Pedophiles tend to have a hard time getting jobs almost anywhere (except the catholic church) on the other hand a DUI, littering, shop lifting or public urination conviction won't bar you from most jobs.
Umm. there are lots of criminals all around you I mean everywhere you look!! They have to make a living too. So really anywhere I guess to a certain extent but if they are serious offenses or have experienced jail time they may have a hard time to get jobs so they probably will work in the lower class jobs!!
The Bush administration, that way their sentences can be commuted...
Airport security. : )
I would expect EVERY profession to have people working there who have a criminal background, where they have not yet been caught.
I would expect MANY jobs to have workers who aquired that background after they started working there.
Example ... a few years ago the blue collar factory workers of my employer went on strike and it was pretty violent ... arson, car-wars, road rage (on purpose), stalking, you name it ... before it was settled, darn near every union worker had been arrested and charged with some misdeed, and every one of us crossing the picket lline had been framed for one thing or another ... 100% of the work force now has some kind of a record of being arrested.
Now in the case of a prospective job applicant who has a criminal record through the judicial system, before they get hired, and it is not juvenile which can be "erased", how many places are going to check up on this? How many are going to find out from references, if they even check references?
I suggest you want to put this question to the Personnel %26 Human Resources type people who hang out in freelawanswer.com category Business %26 Finance sub-category Careers %26 Employment, where this question probably should have been posted in the first place.
Even if they know about the criminal record, it makes a big difference what the crime was all about, and the nature of the work.
If the crime was white collar, it will hurt a job in white collar, but might not hurt blue collar.
If the crime was theft of secrets, it will block job in knowlege management, but probably not hurt getting a job in retail or real estate.
So you need to do a matrix ... for each kind of job, what crimes make a hill of beans difference to that job.
There are some crimes, like say rape, where it not matter what job you apply for, they not want to hire a rapist.
A deli shop on Broadway.
Being a criminal myself I have found it extremely hard to get any job. Lots of employers these days do not want to take the added liability involved in hiring felons. People believe that once a criminal always a criminal. I was fortunate to find a company that would hire me and let me prove myself.
Actresses or hotel heiresses, under the age of 26.
What training must staff do by law?
in a care home
Answers:
Check with your state's licensing board.
health and safety - which covers a lot - no minge touching (care home only) (and no plucking a bush either)
many states have no minimum or mandatory training requirements as a care giver in such a home.
lifting and handling, fire safety, emergency notification and i would imagine, evacuation as the (very) basics( i admit, not from any legal knowledge but as a nurse, things i would want them to know if looking after my relatives!)
health and safety ...manual handling ..food and hygiene ..nvq level 2 domicillary care ..pova ...must have a clean c r b ..which is a criminal record check ...basic first aid ..and may have to do appropriate training with regards to individual needs ?? the others are a must !!..the proprietors or managers should arrange this for all new staff
Answers:
Check with your state's licensing board.
health and safety - which covers a lot - no minge touching (care home only) (and no plucking a bush either)
many states have no minimum or mandatory training requirements as a care giver in such a home.
lifting and handling, fire safety, emergency notification and i would imagine, evacuation as the (very) basics( i admit, not from any legal knowledge but as a nurse, things i would want them to know if looking after my relatives!)
health and safety ...manual handling ..food and hygiene ..nvq level 2 domicillary care ..pova ...must have a clean c r b ..which is a criminal record check ...basic first aid ..and may have to do appropriate training with regards to individual needs ?? the others are a must !!..the proprietors or managers should arrange this for all new staff
What to write to a judge on behalf of the accused, person to dimiss the charges and the sentence?
Where can I find a good sample letter, to help me write a letter to a judge on behalf of my brother. He was falsley accused of crime. He has never been in trouble, but he is getting the book thrown at him. Please help me
Answers:
I cant tell you where to find a sample except maybe the library. But what i can tell you is a similar situation arrived to me and i wrote the Private investigator and started off like this
Dear...//;
My name is .... and i am writing on behalf of ..... let me start off by telling you about the type of person he/she is.all of this has just been a misunderstanding and I'm trying my best in proving that and i hope you will do yours.why put another Innocent person in prison when he didn't do it . i know you probably here this a lot but if you knew ... personally you would know and see that hes not like that.so please take everything in to consideration and try and see him for the real him not what hes being falsely accused of also please take in consideration that hes never been in trouble before. thank you for your time
sincerely,
.....
The law don't work like that
You could confess to get him off
Answers:
I cant tell you where to find a sample except maybe the library. But what i can tell you is a similar situation arrived to me and i wrote the Private investigator and started off like this
Dear...//;
My name is .... and i am writing on behalf of ..... let me start off by telling you about the type of person he/she is.all of this has just been a misunderstanding and I'm trying my best in proving that and i hope you will do yours.why put another Innocent person in prison when he didn't do it . i know you probably here this a lot but if you knew ... personally you would know and see that hes not like that.so please take everything in to consideration and try and see him for the real him not what hes being falsely accused of also please take in consideration that hes never been in trouble before. thank you for your time
sincerely,
.....
The law don't work like that
You could confess to get him off
What to people have against Ron Paul for presdient?
If your not a Ron Paul Supporter why? If Fox news supported Ron Paul would you change your mind? People need to quit being sheeple and starting thinking on there own
Answers:
Unfoutunitly the run for goverment offices in the U.S. is a popularity contest any more. You have look a certian way, Have the biggest pocket book, Be the rite religion. etc.
Many vote for the pop. because they don't want vote for a loser. Loser being unpop candidate in the poll's
Ron Paul is too honest.
Who is Ron Paul?
The GOP doesn't like Ron because he's too much of a libertarian (Iraq, ambivilance about social conservative issues)
Liberals don't like Ron because of his economic and social policies.
The problem is that his views are frankly too radical. He really wants to cut the income tax (completely) by seriously cutting federal programs that people believe are necessary. (He wants to withdraw from NAFTA and GATT, which, no matter how much we disprove of global economics, are basically essential for America to remain competitive. He wants to close our borders .)He doesn't have significant foreign policy experience. He can be a "straight talker" but doesn't have the background, stature, or policy positions that make him a reasonable candidate.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/...
Answers:
Unfoutunitly the run for goverment offices in the U.S. is a popularity contest any more. You have look a certian way, Have the biggest pocket book, Be the rite religion. etc.
Many vote for the pop. because they don't want vote for a loser. Loser being unpop candidate in the poll's
Ron Paul is too honest.
Who is Ron Paul?
The GOP doesn't like Ron because he's too much of a libertarian (Iraq, ambivilance about social conservative issues)
Liberals don't like Ron because of his economic and social policies.
The problem is that his views are frankly too radical. He really wants to cut the income tax (completely) by seriously cutting federal programs that people believe are necessary. (He wants to withdraw from NAFTA and GATT, which, no matter how much we disprove of global economics, are basically essential for America to remain competitive. He wants to close our borders .)He doesn't have significant foreign policy experience. He can be a "straight talker" but doesn't have the background, stature, or policy positions that make him a reasonable candidate.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/...
What to expect in court for $580 in embezzlement charges?
I am a single mother of 3, was in a relationship with an alcoholic (I finally had the courage to leave him), and my children's fathers never pay child support. I found myself in a real bind while working at a department store and couldn't even afford gas to get back and forth to work. I stole $580 over a period of 4 months and got caught. I had to turn myself in and now I have to go to court for 6 counts of misdemeanor embezzlement. I am so scared of going to jail. I have no prior record, not even so much as a traffic ticket! I got a new job and I have paid back $130 to the department store so far. I don't know what to expect in court. I don't even know if I'm supposed to hire an attorney or represent myself. I am lost and need some advice please!
Answers:
boo-hoo... do the crime... do the time...
if you did not get caught... how much would you have embezzled by now...
I think they should just lock you up and throw the key away you freeloading piece of crap.
If you do the crime, you do the time, I agree with him, BUT I do understand that somtimes you get desperate. I mean, you did steal from your company, BUT it wasn't that much, just a little over 100 a month, you should set up an appointment with a good attorney in your town, talk with them on it, and look at what the maximum time will be for you charges. With a previous clean record, and the circumstances, I don't see you doing time, but expect to pay fines that are MUCH higher than what you stole, a tack on your record, and probably a lot of community service. There are non-profit organizations everywhere that helps single mothers in times of need, set a good example for your children, and don't steal anymore. Take this as a lesson learned. Good luck!
Sorry the answers below are so negative. Here's some real advise: (1) hire an attorney - only a fool represents him/herself; (2) make full restitution before you face the judge - one should improve one's position before being judged and sentenced; and (3) expect probation but be prepared for a short sentence in prison. Make arrangements for the care of your children in case you are sentence to 30 days or 3 months.
Having been to prison for embezzlement, I do understand what you're facing. http://www.chuckgallagher.com However, every choice has a consequence. They can be negative or positive. You're facing the negative side of your consequences...make the right choices and face the right side.
I'm not going to beat up on you.
You did take the easy way out.
You did not give yourself enough options.
Remember the pregnant mother, who was delivering newspapers and got murdered. So nowadays people aren't going to have very much sympathy for you...
If they are going to do something drastic to you, they will appoint an attorney to your case.
They may look at you paying $130 back as a trick in trying to get out of being caught, looking for sympathy because you got caught. Where was the $130 before you went trick or treating in your employers cash box?
They may take in consideration that you've never been trouble prior..but it depends on the snotty judge.
Telling them the reasons you've stated here, normally doesn't work. But let your attorney cry for you. Then sometimes the judge will say "Bullshit" and levy more fines for court cost, probation and community service.
Employers are getting tough on crime. They are prohibiting employees from taking things even from the trash now.
Good Luck. And give yourself options...child support, social services, then a work at home extra job on the computer. Or walk someone dog, wash windows and cars.
Better yet. go to school Online. They will give you a government grant. this way you can get a higher paying job.
Answers:
boo-hoo... do the crime... do the time...
if you did not get caught... how much would you have embezzled by now...
I think they should just lock you up and throw the key away you freeloading piece of crap.
If you do the crime, you do the time, I agree with him, BUT I do understand that somtimes you get desperate. I mean, you did steal from your company, BUT it wasn't that much, just a little over 100 a month, you should set up an appointment with a good attorney in your town, talk with them on it, and look at what the maximum time will be for you charges. With a previous clean record, and the circumstances, I don't see you doing time, but expect to pay fines that are MUCH higher than what you stole, a tack on your record, and probably a lot of community service. There are non-profit organizations everywhere that helps single mothers in times of need, set a good example for your children, and don't steal anymore. Take this as a lesson learned. Good luck!
Sorry the answers below are so negative. Here's some real advise: (1) hire an attorney - only a fool represents him/herself; (2) make full restitution before you face the judge - one should improve one's position before being judged and sentenced; and (3) expect probation but be prepared for a short sentence in prison. Make arrangements for the care of your children in case you are sentence to 30 days or 3 months.
Having been to prison for embezzlement, I do understand what you're facing. http://www.chuckgallagher.com However, every choice has a consequence. They can be negative or positive. You're facing the negative side of your consequences...make the right choices and face the right side.
I'm not going to beat up on you.
You did take the easy way out.
You did not give yourself enough options.
Remember the pregnant mother, who was delivering newspapers and got murdered. So nowadays people aren't going to have very much sympathy for you...
If they are going to do something drastic to you, they will appoint an attorney to your case.
They may look at you paying $130 back as a trick in trying to get out of being caught, looking for sympathy because you got caught. Where was the $130 before you went trick or treating in your employers cash box?
They may take in consideration that you've never been trouble prior..but it depends on the snotty judge.
Telling them the reasons you've stated here, normally doesn't work. But let your attorney cry for you. Then sometimes the judge will say "Bullshit" and levy more fines for court cost, probation and community service.
Employers are getting tough on crime. They are prohibiting employees from taking things even from the trash now.
Good Luck. And give yourself options...child support, social services, then a work at home extra job on the computer. Or walk someone dog, wash windows and cars.
Better yet. go to school Online. They will give you a government grant. this way you can get a higher paying job.
What to do?
I should have to send money to known account but the physical address Fruskogorskog odreda 71 does not exist in the phone book
and the data source,ex wife, exists on Fruskogorskog odreda 7,Petrovaradin ,21000 Novi Sad,Vojvodina ,Serbia
Answers:
Why don't you send the money directly to her bank account? Bank to Bank transactions offer more protection.
The new address may not have existed when the phone book was printed. You don't give much information, but if you are attempting to pay child support to your ex wife who exists at that address, I would recommend paying through a third party -- perhaps deposit directly to her bank, or have a government official verify the address in some manner to ensure that the address does exist. If you can make your payment traceable (i.e. require a signature for receipt) that is best.
and the data source,ex wife, exists on Fruskogorskog odreda 7,Petrovaradin ,21000 Novi Sad,Vojvodina ,Serbia
Answers:
Why don't you send the money directly to her bank account? Bank to Bank transactions offer more protection.
The new address may not have existed when the phone book was printed. You don't give much information, but if you are attempting to pay child support to your ex wife who exists at that address, I would recommend paying through a third party -- perhaps deposit directly to her bank, or have a government official verify the address in some manner to ensure that the address does exist. If you can make your payment traceable (i.e. require a signature for receipt) that is best.
What to do?
My sister was living in the house that my grandmother willed to me. She moved out this past Sunday and today I had a family member go assess the damage because I live out of state. Here is what they found:
-Trash throughout the house
-My grandmother's things ransacked
-My grandmother's bedroom suite was missing
-Various items throught the house were missing
-The kitchen cabinet doors were taken of the hinges and throughout the house
-Dirty dishes were on the stove
Needless to say I am devistated. The only reason she was in the house was because she wouldn't move out until I evicted her. I can't believe my own sister would do this. I think she was jealous I got the house and did this in spite. She is only 19 years old.
Legally, as Executor of my grandmother's estate, what can I do?
Answers:
You have said two different things and I have two different answers:
1. If you are the executor of your grandmother's estate and the estate is still in probate or otherwise not settled, you have the legal, "fiduciary" obligation to protect the assets of the estate and to bring action to recover items that were stolen from the estate or or destroyed. This is because as executor it is not all about you, it is about the orderly distribution of your grandmother's assets to her heirs. You can decide that it is not in the best interests of the estate to chase your sister and get nothing, but you will need to account to the court for the missing items and damage and explain your decision.
2. If the estate has been fully settled and you are the legal owner of the house, you are no longer the executor. The case is closed. You can decide whether you want to sue your sister or not over the damage she caused. But as others have said--she's your sister and she's got nothing, so what's the point.
As for these other people attacking you, I don't get it. I have seen many cases like this over the years. Most often, the grandkid living in the house is there because they are drug addicts or some other nonsense and when the parents or grandparents die the bottom feeder takes full advantage of the situation. You should not feel guilty because you were left with the responsibility of cleaning up this mess.
Probably nothing, but have you ever heard of legal aid? Look it up in the phone book!!
Let it go... cut your losses. Not like a 19 yo has any $$$ to sue anyway.
You got the house what did she get? Thrown out in the street? Dirty dishes and trash, sounds like she was there with grandma...where were you?
You could sue her for the damages. Do you really want to do that though to your sister? These kinds of things tear families apart. You got the house. What did she get?
Well, when you were evicting her, she wasn't believing her own sister is doing it either!
-Trash throughout the house
-My grandmother's things ransacked
-My grandmother's bedroom suite was missing
-Various items throught the house were missing
-The kitchen cabinet doors were taken of the hinges and throughout the house
-Dirty dishes were on the stove
Needless to say I am devistated. The only reason she was in the house was because she wouldn't move out until I evicted her. I can't believe my own sister would do this. I think she was jealous I got the house and did this in spite. She is only 19 years old.
Legally, as Executor of my grandmother's estate, what can I do?
Answers:
You have said two different things and I have two different answers:
1. If you are the executor of your grandmother's estate and the estate is still in probate or otherwise not settled, you have the legal, "fiduciary" obligation to protect the assets of the estate and to bring action to recover items that were stolen from the estate or or destroyed. This is because as executor it is not all about you, it is about the orderly distribution of your grandmother's assets to her heirs. You can decide that it is not in the best interests of the estate to chase your sister and get nothing, but you will need to account to the court for the missing items and damage and explain your decision.
2. If the estate has been fully settled and you are the legal owner of the house, you are no longer the executor. The case is closed. You can decide whether you want to sue your sister or not over the damage she caused. But as others have said--she's your sister and she's got nothing, so what's the point.
As for these other people attacking you, I don't get it. I have seen many cases like this over the years. Most often, the grandkid living in the house is there because they are drug addicts or some other nonsense and when the parents or grandparents die the bottom feeder takes full advantage of the situation. You should not feel guilty because you were left with the responsibility of cleaning up this mess.
Probably nothing, but have you ever heard of legal aid? Look it up in the phone book!!
Let it go... cut your losses. Not like a 19 yo has any $$$ to sue anyway.
You got the house what did she get? Thrown out in the street? Dirty dishes and trash, sounds like she was there with grandma...where were you?
You could sue her for the damages. Do you really want to do that though to your sister? These kinds of things tear families apart. You got the house. What did she get?
Well, when you were evicting her, she wasn't believing her own sister is doing it either!
What to do with roommate's abadoned property?
My roommate moved out over a week ago and still has a ton of stuff left in his closet and a shed filled with furniture and other misc stuff. He told us he would have all of his stuff out by the 15th. Today is the 13th and he still has all this stuff here. He wasn't on the lease but was approved by the landlord to be a tenant. We've called and emailed him and he's only shown up twice to get things, but he's only taken what he's needed. He still owes us a hundred dollars for utilities for the last month he lived there. He said he'd give us a check but when he came by yesterday to get some things he neglected to bring us the check. Based on his character I feel like he'll leave his stuff as long as possible esp. considering he's left a motorcyle at his prior residence for about 3 mos. What can I legally do? What is the statute of limitations in TX for abandoned property? How long does he have to come get his stuff? Should we get our landlord involved?
Answers:
Wait two more days, then send him a certified letter stating that as agreed, he had until August 15 to remove his property. Give him 3 more business days to remove it, then get rid of it.
Personally, I'd post a "free stuff" ad on Craigslist and let others come and haul it away. Or, you could always pay someone to remove it and then sue him in court to pay you back.
Because he still owes you $100, take a few items worth that (CD player, nice shirts, etc.) and tell him he only gets it back when he pays.
i'd send him a certified letter to his new address informing him that he has agreed to have it all out by the 15th and still owes for utilities.
by the end of the business day on the 15th, I'd begin selling the items to pay for the utility bill and then sell whatever else is necessary to cover the funds needed to throw out the rest.
I'm in california and don't know texas laws, but, hey, he moved, you have a date to be 'out' by which means you and all your posessions.
call the landlord and just ask them what they know about a situation like this. be clear with them that you don't want them involved, you're just asking for their knowledge.
there is probably a local county office that can help guide you also regarding 'tenant's rights'.
never get the landlord involved especially when he wasn't on the lease. Even though the landlord approved of it verbally, he can always go back on his word.
As for your roommate's stuff, sell it on ebay, take the money owed to you and give the rest to him.
Considering the level of interaction that you have with this person, I'm guessing that it's not so much a legal issue as an annoyance issue. Unless he has something really expensive in your house, I doubt that he'll sue you if you get rid of it.
I would write him an email or leave him a phone message (although email is better because then you'll have proof later) saying very clearly "If you do not remove your things by X date, we will sell it in order to get the money you owe us." He'll be warned and you'll be covered. Don't let him in to get his stuff unless he brings you the check.
You may have to go to small claims to get your money for utilities. Your or your landlord is allowed to charge storage for any items left behind. If he leaves his junk after the 13th, I would be tempted to make some midnight trips to the dumpster. He shows up a month or two from now for his belongings, I would charge for the storage. If you do anything with his belongings and tell him what you did, he could sue you for their loss or damage. See if it is legal for you to give him a fair amount of time for removal and then donate the junk to Goodwill. Speaking with an attorney would be your best option. It would mainly involve your landlord if the stuff is still there after you leave and would be your responsibility to be removed when you vacate your residence
You cannot rush into this or he will be able to sue you and win.
After the 15th, send him a certified letter to his last known address, giving him notice that any items left behind after 30 (more) days will be sold or otherwise disposed of. Send a copy of the same notice to him by email.
If you do not have a good address for him, put an ad in the local paper where you think he lives, describing the items to be sold or disposed of, the date you will dispose of them and a contact number for you.
When the day comes to dispose of it, take pictures of the property, especially items of value.
If you sell it, you cannot keep all of the money, but you can keep what he legitimately owed you for bills and the costs of selling the stuff (the ad, etc.).
He will probably sue you in small claims court. Be sure to keep records and copies of everything.
O.K. now an attorney's answer.
Yes, you have a valid verbal contract so you must wait until the 15th has past to act. Once that date has come and gone send him a CERTIFIED (RRR) letter of demand telling him he has 30 days to remove the property. If he does NOT do so, you will have no choice but to seek legal redress.
You DO NOT have the right to sell the property but you DO have a duty to protect it under the doctrine of ordinary care. That simply means in the condition it was when he left it. Therefore, you cannot take it and leave it on the porch or if it is locked, take the lock off.
If after the 30 days has expired, it is still there, you will be REQUIRED to file a petition for personal action to recover costs associated with the removal of the property and action to recover monies owed under a verbal contract.
Any other action without the court's sanction opens you up to legal ramifications.
If he's said he would have all his stuff out by the 15th, you should be able to toss whatever is left over on the 16th. If he still owes you money try small claims court, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
Answers:
Wait two more days, then send him a certified letter stating that as agreed, he had until August 15 to remove his property. Give him 3 more business days to remove it, then get rid of it.
Personally, I'd post a "free stuff" ad on Craigslist and let others come and haul it away. Or, you could always pay someone to remove it and then sue him in court to pay you back.
Because he still owes you $100, take a few items worth that (CD player, nice shirts, etc.) and tell him he only gets it back when he pays.
i'd send him a certified letter to his new address informing him that he has agreed to have it all out by the 15th and still owes for utilities.
by the end of the business day on the 15th, I'd begin selling the items to pay for the utility bill and then sell whatever else is necessary to cover the funds needed to throw out the rest.
I'm in california and don't know texas laws, but, hey, he moved, you have a date to be 'out' by which means you and all your posessions.
call the landlord and just ask them what they know about a situation like this. be clear with them that you don't want them involved, you're just asking for their knowledge.
there is probably a local county office that can help guide you also regarding 'tenant's rights'.
never get the landlord involved especially when he wasn't on the lease. Even though the landlord approved of it verbally, he can always go back on his word.
As for your roommate's stuff, sell it on ebay, take the money owed to you and give the rest to him.
Considering the level of interaction that you have with this person, I'm guessing that it's not so much a legal issue as an annoyance issue. Unless he has something really expensive in your house, I doubt that he'll sue you if you get rid of it.
I would write him an email or leave him a phone message (although email is better because then you'll have proof later) saying very clearly "If you do not remove your things by X date, we will sell it in order to get the money you owe us." He'll be warned and you'll be covered. Don't let him in to get his stuff unless he brings you the check.
You may have to go to small claims to get your money for utilities. Your or your landlord is allowed to charge storage for any items left behind. If he leaves his junk after the 13th, I would be tempted to make some midnight trips to the dumpster. He shows up a month or two from now for his belongings, I would charge for the storage. If you do anything with his belongings and tell him what you did, he could sue you for their loss or damage. See if it is legal for you to give him a fair amount of time for removal and then donate the junk to Goodwill. Speaking with an attorney would be your best option. It would mainly involve your landlord if the stuff is still there after you leave and would be your responsibility to be removed when you vacate your residence
You cannot rush into this or he will be able to sue you and win.
After the 15th, send him a certified letter to his last known address, giving him notice that any items left behind after 30 (more) days will be sold or otherwise disposed of. Send a copy of the same notice to him by email.
If you do not have a good address for him, put an ad in the local paper where you think he lives, describing the items to be sold or disposed of, the date you will dispose of them and a contact number for you.
When the day comes to dispose of it, take pictures of the property, especially items of value.
If you sell it, you cannot keep all of the money, but you can keep what he legitimately owed you for bills and the costs of selling the stuff (the ad, etc.).
He will probably sue you in small claims court. Be sure to keep records and copies of everything.
O.K. now an attorney's answer.
Yes, you have a valid verbal contract so you must wait until the 15th has past to act. Once that date has come and gone send him a CERTIFIED (RRR) letter of demand telling him he has 30 days to remove the property. If he does NOT do so, you will have no choice but to seek legal redress.
You DO NOT have the right to sell the property but you DO have a duty to protect it under the doctrine of ordinary care. That simply means in the condition it was when he left it. Therefore, you cannot take it and leave it on the porch or if it is locked, take the lock off.
If after the 30 days has expired, it is still there, you will be REQUIRED to file a petition for personal action to recover costs associated with the removal of the property and action to recover monies owed under a verbal contract.
Any other action without the court's sanction opens you up to legal ramifications.
If he's said he would have all his stuff out by the 15th, you should be able to toss whatever is left over on the 16th. If he still owes you money try small claims court, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)