I have spent the whole day looking for cases like Escobedo v. Illinois where the Supreme Court once applied one line of reasoning and then changed its mind and applied another line of reasoning to the same issue. Does anyone out there know of any more examples where the Supreme Court has said they once saw the issue one way, but now see it a different way (e.g. they once thought the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applied, but now think the Due Process Clause applies?). I know there are cases where the Court has said the lower court applied the wrong reasoning, but I'm trying to find cases where the Supreme Court itself applied the wrong reasoning. if anyone knows of any cases like this and could share, I would be eternally grateful.
Answer:
The US Supreme Court has said for years that killing juvenile offenders and mentally ill people was not in violation of the 8th and 14th amendment. However, On March 1, 2005, the court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded person(s).
Refer to ROPER V. SIMMONS (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 (2005) 112 S. W. 3d 397, affirmed.
one would be Brown vs board of ed because at first they ruled Plessy vs Fuergson was legal and changed it with Brown vs Board of ed. hope this helped
Have you looked at Brendlin v State of California? It was recently decided upon by the US Supreme Court about a couple of weeks ago.
Any cases that have to do with personal jurisdiction. Try googling the term personal jursidiction with the terms Byrd v. Blue Ridge Elec.; Asahi; WorldWide Volkswagon.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Does anyone know Nathan Ybanez? Or familiar with his story?
If so, what do you think about his crime? And would you support his appeal?
Nathan Ybanez was charged with 1st degree murder at age 16 when he murdered his mother in Centennial, CO. He was given life in prison with no parole. None of his childhood life of severe abuse was investigated or taken into account.
Answer:
I definately support his appeal. Id be a hypocrite not to believe in miracles, transformation, rehabilitation and second chances at life. Nathan never had a childhood, and his young adulthood has been taken from him now as well. I believe that Nathan deserves to experience life from a new place of contentment, clarity and humility, which I believe he has found within himself. I have real love for Nathan. All my heart and prayers go out to him, and I would be honored to meet him face to face someday. I just want to see his spirited smile. Brightest Blessings in the space between thoughts, Nathan. Your friend, Angela.
You don't have to murder to escape abuse either. You can leave.
no beautiful
Nathan Ybanez was charged with 1st degree murder at age 16 when he murdered his mother in Centennial, CO. He was given life in prison with no parole. None of his childhood life of severe abuse was investigated or taken into account.
Answer:
I definately support his appeal. Id be a hypocrite not to believe in miracles, transformation, rehabilitation and second chances at life. Nathan never had a childhood, and his young adulthood has been taken from him now as well. I believe that Nathan deserves to experience life from a new place of contentment, clarity and humility, which I believe he has found within himself. I have real love for Nathan. All my heart and prayers go out to him, and I would be honored to meet him face to face someday. I just want to see his spirited smile. Brightest Blessings in the space between thoughts, Nathan. Your friend, Angela.
You don't have to murder to escape abuse either. You can leave.
no beautiful
Does anyone know if you are allowed now by law to smoke when walking down the street? i am unsure of the laws?
Answer:
You may not smoke in ENCLOSED public places or workplaces - since the street is not enclosed you may smoke there. The no-smoking laws in Wales go a little further - some non-enclosed public spaces, such as platforms at a railway station are included in the ban there.
you can smoke on the street dont worry
well, i'm not really sure, but i think it depends on where you live...
Laws regarding where you can and can't smoke are mostly local, although a few states have enacted laws about smoking in certain, or all, enclosed places. Some municipalities have even made it illegal to smoke on your own property. In addition to the laws, there are also the rules set by owners of facilities used by the public, like stadiums, marinas, etc.
So essentially, whether you can smoke while walking down the street depends on where you are. In most places, it's still legal--but watch where you put the butt. They may get you for littering.
Does anyone know if there is a law in Michigan about replanting trees if you are a logging company?
For example, if a company started logging a mountianside and had all their required permits, are they required to replant a certain amount of trees in the same spot?
Answer:
Reforestation requirements will either fall under a specific Michigan program (act) here: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153...
Or under one of the following:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
Passed into federal law in 1969, this act requires all federal agencies to present a wide range of alternative management decisions to the public and to write an environmental impact statement (EIS) when any action they take "will significantly affect the human environment."
National Forest Management Act (NFMA):
A federal law passed by Congress in 1976 as an amendment to the Resources Planning Act. The NFMA requires that wach national forest develop a 10-15 year plan describing how that forest will be managed. By law, plans are developed by interdisciplinary teams and must include public participation.
Resources Planning Act (RPA):
Passed by Congress in 1974, this federal law requires a complete national assessment or inventory of all forest, rangeland resources, and public needs every ten years, along with a plan to meet those needs.
Wilderness Act:
This 1964 federal law defines wilderness as an area where "man himself is a visitor who does not remain." No roads, logging, motorized vehicles, or other developments that would show a sign of man's activities are allowed in a wilderness area.
I dont know of any laws requiring you to replant the trees you cut, but I certainly think you should want to replace them...required or not. Its an environmental issue.
Answer:
Reforestation requirements will either fall under a specific Michigan program (act) here: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153...
Or under one of the following:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
Passed into federal law in 1969, this act requires all federal agencies to present a wide range of alternative management decisions to the public and to write an environmental impact statement (EIS) when any action they take "will significantly affect the human environment."
National Forest Management Act (NFMA):
A federal law passed by Congress in 1976 as an amendment to the Resources Planning Act. The NFMA requires that wach national forest develop a 10-15 year plan describing how that forest will be managed. By law, plans are developed by interdisciplinary teams and must include public participation.
Resources Planning Act (RPA):
Passed by Congress in 1974, this federal law requires a complete national assessment or inventory of all forest, rangeland resources, and public needs every ten years, along with a plan to meet those needs.
Wilderness Act:
This 1964 federal law defines wilderness as an area where "man himself is a visitor who does not remain." No roads, logging, motorized vehicles, or other developments that would show a sign of man's activities are allowed in a wilderness area.
I dont know of any laws requiring you to replant the trees you cut, but I certainly think you should want to replace them...required or not. Its an environmental issue.
Does anyone know if the government kept any of the treaties proposed to the american indians?
Answer:
Yes, they have kept some of the treaties. For example, all Native Americans currently living on reservations do so by treaty.
Although many of those treaties are built upon previous broken treaties, that does not mean that there are not currently treaties in place.
For example, members of some tribes actually receive oil royalties for oil pumped on tribal lands.
Last I checked, the US had signed upwards of 450+ treaties with various native tribes, and had kept less than 1% of them.
Like from the old days (1700's - 1800's) I am pretty sure they did made a bunch and broke every single one. As for modern times I do not know.
This site gives a good overview of the treaties.
http://libr.unl.edu:8888/etext/treaties/... with links to more sites for in depth information.
These documents that still exist are binding, still to this day.
They have been the grounds many tribes are using our legal system to regain land.
Indians have regained soverign rights to their land, and american laws do not apply..
Go to indian smoke shop on a reservation to buy your cigaretts tax free..
There were 341 treaties made between the United States and the Native Indian tribes.
The U.S. broke every one of them...the last one in 1980 when the Supreme Court upheld the sale of part of the Black Hills of the Lakota people.
Does anyone know if it legal to intterogate a suspect who is clearly under the influence of some kind of drug?
a friend of mines family member is now serving a 70 yr jail term based on an innterogation tape that was called a confession,,he was cleary under the influence and the lead detective in the case has been in the news several times for gettin false confessions and those cases have been overturned,,,anyone that can help please do...this man is locked up for life...based on an illegal interrogation email me at derekobrown@yahoo..thanks
Answer:
Depends on whether or not your friend was read his Miranda rights. Also, I don't know what kind of crime he committed. 70 years is a pretty long sentence, so he must have killed someone. Then I'd say he deserves to serve every day of that 70 year sentence!
Anytime BUT if they what to use it in court you must be read miranda rights
you ask a question appropriate for a very knowledgable attorney who does a lot of criminal appellate business in the state in question.
it seems likely that you'll not receive any useful answers until you consult such an attorney, so go find her/him.
GL
Answer:
Depends on whether or not your friend was read his Miranda rights. Also, I don't know what kind of crime he committed. 70 years is a pretty long sentence, so he must have killed someone. Then I'd say he deserves to serve every day of that 70 year sentence!
Anytime BUT if they what to use it in court you must be read miranda rights
you ask a question appropriate for a very knowledgable attorney who does a lot of criminal appellate business in the state in question.
it seems likely that you'll not receive any useful answers until you consult such an attorney, so go find her/him.
GL
Does anyone know if all these Mosques and Synagogues have put up No-smoking signs yet?
The Smoking-Nazis have been keen enough on persecuting Christians!
We'd like to think that everyone was getting equal treatment.
Answer:
It's time for white Christians in our country to stand up and be counted.
I wouldn't have thought people smoked in religious buildings anyway.
I thought some of em had No Smoking signs up already.
would that include suicide bombers then,,,,
They have them, but instead of a picture of a cig, it's of a mans chest. They allow it off the property of course.
Here in Scotland all public buildings, whether Churches, Mosques, Synagogues or whatever else are obliged to enforce the smoking ban. After a year and a bit, however, "no smoking" signs are becoming increasingly unnecessary, since people know they are not allowed to smoke in any enclosed space apart from their own home.
The only confusion here seems to be over bus shelters, since some allow smoking and others don't, depending on whether they are 60% enclosed.
I know its slightly different in England, where some types of public building are exempt, but I wouldn't imagine that the exemption applies to Mosques and Synagogues.
If you know of any specific cases where the ban is not being enforced, you are as entitled as anybody else to report it to the proper authorities.
From the tone of your question, however, I assume you are not in favour of the ban. So I don't see why you should single out these two types of building unless you have an axe to grind with people who follow the religions practised within
We'd like to think that everyone was getting equal treatment.
Answer:
It's time for white Christians in our country to stand up and be counted.
I wouldn't have thought people smoked in religious buildings anyway.
I thought some of em had No Smoking signs up already.
would that include suicide bombers then,,,,
They have them, but instead of a picture of a cig, it's of a mans chest. They allow it off the property of course.
Here in Scotland all public buildings, whether Churches, Mosques, Synagogues or whatever else are obliged to enforce the smoking ban. After a year and a bit, however, "no smoking" signs are becoming increasingly unnecessary, since people know they are not allowed to smoke in any enclosed space apart from their own home.
The only confusion here seems to be over bus shelters, since some allow smoking and others don't, depending on whether they are 60% enclosed.
I know its slightly different in England, where some types of public building are exempt, but I wouldn't imagine that the exemption applies to Mosques and Synagogues.
If you know of any specific cases where the ban is not being enforced, you are as entitled as anybody else to report it to the proper authorities.
From the tone of your question, however, I assume you are not in favour of the ban. So I don't see why you should single out these two types of building unless you have an axe to grind with people who follow the religions practised within
Does anyone know how to get permission to use fireworks in the state of Massachusetts?
I know in the past that they've given out permits, but that was years ago, and I'm sure they've made it more difficult to obtain one. But I was curious as to what the procedure is, and what it may cost.
Answer:
i think u dont want one to use it on july 4th
Most likely you need to get permission from the fire chief of the town you want to set them off.
Mass got more careful with them in 2002, after the incident in RI.
Answer:
i think u dont want one to use it on july 4th
Most likely you need to get permission from the fire chief of the town you want to set them off.
Mass got more careful with them in 2002, after the incident in RI.
Does anyone know how to draw up a "Last Will and Testament" without having the money for an attorney?
Answer:
A living will is better. Your kids can avoid probate.
go to an office supply store and ask for a form. fill it out.
Execute a holographic will through your own handwriting, put the date of execution and sign at the bottom. See to it that there are no erasures. It is a valid will without the intervention of the lawyer.
You can buy cheap software that will help you create a will. Some even allow you to file it with their attorney to look it over. Look at any shop that sells software.
Google a site called 'Lectric Law Library. They don't take themselves very seriously, but they do offer some serious generic legal advice. They also have a good library of generic legal forms for you to modify for your own purposes.
You can buy some software that has prewritten forms and you just fill in the blanks and then you can have it witnessed or notarized at the courthouse, I bought a software disc with 500 forms on it for very little and it has most contracts and most any form you need.
Not all states have the same rules. Before you go find one in the computer, you need to find out certain laws that pertain to your state, especially if you have children and assets over $50,000.
you can find them for free if you search on google, all you do is fill in the blanks.
Google for "Will kit"... and find one that will do a personal will. When you get the program downloaded, you'll be asked to fill in the blanks... do that, print it... make sure you're getting it signed lawfully, with signatures notarized as necessary... and make sure you leave information with a responsible person as to where they can find it, should something happen to you.
Many Stationery Stores have blank Last Will %26 Testament forms and others such as Living Wills, Lease Agreements, Bill of Sale, etc. They cost only a few dollars. Also there are several web sites that offer downloadable legal forms for a minimal fee. A Public Defenders Office or a Legal Aid Society will be able to tell you how your State prefers then to be signed/witnessed.
Does anyone know how to contact the state of GA with a complaint about the Dept. of Family and Children Serv.?
Please give me the website that I can access to do this. Thanks for your help!
God's Speed and Grace,
Nancy
Answer:
http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/...
You can try the Georgie Attorney General's Office:
Thurbert E. Baker
Georgia Attorney General Office
Attorney General Office
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
404-656-4585
Hope this helps!
God's Speed and Grace,
Nancy
Answer:
http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/...
You can try the Georgie Attorney General's Office:
Thurbert E. Baker
Georgia Attorney General Office
Attorney General Office
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
404-656-4585
Hope this helps!
Does anyone know how to apply for a job in the FBI or CIA?
please help.
Answer:
It depends on what you are wanting to apply for. The FBI site has current job openings along with requirements. Not sure about the CIA.
I don't know about the CIA but the FBI are always at major university college fairs. They love psych and criminal justice majors. Just be prepared to have good transcripts cause I believe you need a 3.5 or better.
You can apply through their websites.
Answer:
It depends on what you are wanting to apply for. The FBI site has current job openings along with requirements. Not sure about the CIA.
I don't know about the CIA but the FBI are always at major university college fairs. They love psych and criminal justice majors. Just be prepared to have good transcripts cause I believe you need a 3.5 or better.
You can apply through their websites.
Does anyone know how I can find a fraud lawyer in the state of washington?
My friend got scammed by someone acting as loan brokers. They took an up front fee but never gave the loan
Answer:
call the state attorney general or look online as they may just have an online form to complete (washington state allows for this) i get a good result when businesses and business people don't conduct themselves as they should. the AG will probably know if others have been defrauded by the same company/people. if there are multiple people who have been defrauded your state attorney general probably has the authority to go after whoever this was on the consumers behalf. if your friend has not done so contact the local police as they probably can be charged with fraud. depending on the dollar amount it may be a felony.
Yellow pages.
If you prefer online: http://www.perfectlawyers.com/lawyers-at...
yellow pages, state bar, a little effort
Suggest you contact the District Attorney's Office. I believe that they would assist you.
Who ever did that was a lawyer or a judge... just tel ya Friend to call him back.
Answer:
call the state attorney general or look online as they may just have an online form to complete (washington state allows for this) i get a good result when businesses and business people don't conduct themselves as they should. the AG will probably know if others have been defrauded by the same company/people. if there are multiple people who have been defrauded your state attorney general probably has the authority to go after whoever this was on the consumers behalf. if your friend has not done so contact the local police as they probably can be charged with fraud. depending on the dollar amount it may be a felony.
Yellow pages.
If you prefer online: http://www.perfectlawyers.com/lawyers-at...
yellow pages, state bar, a little effort
Suggest you contact the District Attorney's Office. I believe that they would assist you.
Who ever did that was a lawyer or a judge... just tel ya Friend to call him back.
Does anyone know federal law concerning religious pictures on federally funded property?
My mother lives in a Seniors HUD funded complex and there is an arrangement of christian pictures in the lobby that were put there by management. Does anyone know if this violates any court rulings? She finds it rather offensive to walk by a photo with a hand reaching down saying "saving grace" and another with a robed hand saying "sower of seeds of faith" . Yes to a christian these would be very unobtrusive but my mother is what most concider "pagan" Thanks in advance
Answer:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
I agree with Toodemo. There are two clauses in the first amendment that relate to religion: (1) free exercise clause and (2) establishment clause.
The free exercise clause generally prohibits the government from passing any laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. Note that I said "generally" because neutral laws of general applicability that disparately affect one religion is constitutional so long as there is no discriminatory intent.
The establishment clause of the first amendment generally prohibits the government from taking any action that would promote, prefer, or inhibit one religion over another.
Your situation would likely invoke the Establishment clause. However, to prevail on the establishment clause of the first amendment, the first issue that must addressed is whether or not there is government action.
A number of factors must be examined to determine if there's government action. You say that this is a HUD funded complex. Is it privately run and HUD subsidized or is it run by the county? If the complex is county run, there is clearly government action. As such, the first amendment's establishment clause would be implicated. Accordingly, the complex may have violated the US Constitution.
Again, this is not legal advice. I would advise that you contact the ACLU near you. They do great work in ensuring that the US Constitution is upheld.
Tell mom to move. THere is no present state or federal law which forbids the display of religious artifacts under the Housing and Urban development statutes.
HUD subsidized housing is for the benefit of the individual, NOT the property which remains a private business. Therefore, unless you are complaining about the practice of denying access based on religion, your complaint doesn't fall under Federal Law.
sorry to say this but tough luck to you mother thinking these are offensive. The whole of the west is based on christianity the laws we live by day by day. I do not understand why a pagan would find them offensive. Infact I find it offensive that we as cristians have to constantly pamper to the wishes of the total minority groups.
May be the peopl ein the place will start objecting to your mother being their because she is a pagan. You would like that would you. All religions preach that we should respect others. remember that and you know somthing their are people who take comfort from these pictures. Your mother is being seffish if she cant se that... Further more. the pledge of allegiance.. ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD.. I like many other are weary of the political correctness.
Your mother could always move to another facility.
Are you sure you didnt steal this question from some law school final exam in con law? Because it is a very interesting question that probably has not come to court yet. Obviously, the HUD connection brings into the First Amendment discussion. Nice touch.
As most of us know, there are several challenges to the use of religious depictions and artifacts in public places funded by Federal or state governments. I firmly believe that placement of any religious artifact violates the First Amendment. Yes, christians think that makes me anti christian. I'm not. I'm pro Constitution. Now, do the pictures in a HUD subsidized housing complex violate? The answer is that I'm not sure.
Cases like this often turn on the strength of the state connection. Did the government actually build the complex? Do state agencies manage the complex? Are the employees who maintain it employed by the state? If the answer to those questions is yes, there may actually be a constitutional issue here.
Now, if the only connection is funding, e.g. HUD financing, I think the state connection is so tenuous that a challenge would fail. Dont forget. These pictures probably represent the wishes of people living there. This is their home. If a Constitutional claim against the complex prevails simply because of Federal funding, the logical extension would be that a person who has federal funding to purchase their private home would not be able to express his or her religion in their own home. And this is most certainly not the intent of the framers.
Anyway, I dont have the answer. I know of no case that would support this claim, though that doesnt mean there isnt one. Great question and definite food for thought.
In my opinion, beings that it's not someone forcing religion upon her and they are simply pictures in a lobby, she should save tax payers and court workers a lot of time and just look the other way and let them use their time for more important things.
People are really pushing the limit these days.
And this is why we have all the problems in America... that's all i will say about that! This speaks for its-self!
Isn't this HUD facility also a place of work? What if an employee of this federally funded facility sees the pictures and is "offended" and files a complaint to his employer?
Answer:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
I agree with Toodemo. There are two clauses in the first amendment that relate to religion: (1) free exercise clause and (2) establishment clause.
The free exercise clause generally prohibits the government from passing any laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. Note that I said "generally" because neutral laws of general applicability that disparately affect one religion is constitutional so long as there is no discriminatory intent.
The establishment clause of the first amendment generally prohibits the government from taking any action that would promote, prefer, or inhibit one religion over another.
Your situation would likely invoke the Establishment clause. However, to prevail on the establishment clause of the first amendment, the first issue that must addressed is whether or not there is government action.
A number of factors must be examined to determine if there's government action. You say that this is a HUD funded complex. Is it privately run and HUD subsidized or is it run by the county? If the complex is county run, there is clearly government action. As such, the first amendment's establishment clause would be implicated. Accordingly, the complex may have violated the US Constitution.
Again, this is not legal advice. I would advise that you contact the ACLU near you. They do great work in ensuring that the US Constitution is upheld.
Tell mom to move. THere is no present state or federal law which forbids the display of religious artifacts under the Housing and Urban development statutes.
HUD subsidized housing is for the benefit of the individual, NOT the property which remains a private business. Therefore, unless you are complaining about the practice of denying access based on religion, your complaint doesn't fall under Federal Law.
sorry to say this but tough luck to you mother thinking these are offensive. The whole of the west is based on christianity the laws we live by day by day. I do not understand why a pagan would find them offensive. Infact I find it offensive that we as cristians have to constantly pamper to the wishes of the total minority groups.
May be the peopl ein the place will start objecting to your mother being their because she is a pagan. You would like that would you. All religions preach that we should respect others. remember that and you know somthing their are people who take comfort from these pictures. Your mother is being seffish if she cant se that... Further more. the pledge of allegiance.. ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD.. I like many other are weary of the political correctness.
Your mother could always move to another facility.
Are you sure you didnt steal this question from some law school final exam in con law? Because it is a very interesting question that probably has not come to court yet. Obviously, the HUD connection brings into the First Amendment discussion. Nice touch.
As most of us know, there are several challenges to the use of religious depictions and artifacts in public places funded by Federal or state governments. I firmly believe that placement of any religious artifact violates the First Amendment. Yes, christians think that makes me anti christian. I'm not. I'm pro Constitution. Now, do the pictures in a HUD subsidized housing complex violate? The answer is that I'm not sure.
Cases like this often turn on the strength of the state connection. Did the government actually build the complex? Do state agencies manage the complex? Are the employees who maintain it employed by the state? If the answer to those questions is yes, there may actually be a constitutional issue here.
Now, if the only connection is funding, e.g. HUD financing, I think the state connection is so tenuous that a challenge would fail. Dont forget. These pictures probably represent the wishes of people living there. This is their home. If a Constitutional claim against the complex prevails simply because of Federal funding, the logical extension would be that a person who has federal funding to purchase their private home would not be able to express his or her religion in their own home. And this is most certainly not the intent of the framers.
Anyway, I dont have the answer. I know of no case that would support this claim, though that doesnt mean there isnt one. Great question and definite food for thought.
In my opinion, beings that it's not someone forcing religion upon her and they are simply pictures in a lobby, she should save tax payers and court workers a lot of time and just look the other way and let them use their time for more important things.
People are really pushing the limit these days.
And this is why we have all the problems in America... that's all i will say about that! This speaks for its-self!
Isn't this HUD facility also a place of work? What if an employee of this federally funded facility sees the pictures and is "offended" and files a complaint to his employer?
Does anyone know anything about squatting laws?
I understand that this is largely on a state by state basis, but I was wondering what the general trend of squatting laws in the USA is - whether they favor more the landowner or the squatter. I would appreciate some specific examples of somewhat recent squatting cases or laws. Thanks.
Answer:
There is no such thing as "Squatter's RIghts" in the United States. It's called Adverse Possession and the time to adversely posses another's property depends on the state and the conditions under which you 'took' the land.
Almost every state requires that the possession be 'adverse' to the property owner's rights, as under color of title (when two people have a deed to the home) and that not only taxes are paid but the possession be 'open and hostile' to the rights of another.
In other words, you can just pay the taxes, have a deed and not live on and improve the land.
If you want to know about adverse possession in each state, go here:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm...
and a sample discussion of state specific law here:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-r-00...
All I know about it is if there is an absentee land owner (perhaps he lives out of state) and a stranger comes to live on his property (it's usually just on a piece of land, does not include a house) and he never checks on his property and that person goes ahead and lives there a long time and pays taxes on it (and the owner doesn't, or it's not called to his attention that someone else is paying the taxes on it), and if the time squatting meets the time in the law, then by law that person owns it and the real owner loses his property.
There are all kinds of strange things going on in different states and this is one of the reasons before a person purchases a home that they check the property to see the chain of title and to see that everything is legal before he buys the house. This is why a person needs a real estate agent or realtor.
I don't know what you mean by "trend". I don't think there is a "trend"; I don't think it happens a lot.
Answer:
There is no such thing as "Squatter's RIghts" in the United States. It's called Adverse Possession and the time to adversely posses another's property depends on the state and the conditions under which you 'took' the land.
Almost every state requires that the possession be 'adverse' to the property owner's rights, as under color of title (when two people have a deed to the home) and that not only taxes are paid but the possession be 'open and hostile' to the rights of another.
In other words, you can just pay the taxes, have a deed and not live on and improve the land.
If you want to know about adverse possession in each state, go here:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm...
and a sample discussion of state specific law here:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-r-00...
All I know about it is if there is an absentee land owner (perhaps he lives out of state) and a stranger comes to live on his property (it's usually just on a piece of land, does not include a house) and he never checks on his property and that person goes ahead and lives there a long time and pays taxes on it (and the owner doesn't, or it's not called to his attention that someone else is paying the taxes on it), and if the time squatting meets the time in the law, then by law that person owns it and the real owner loses his property.
There are all kinds of strange things going on in different states and this is one of the reasons before a person purchases a home that they check the property to see the chain of title and to see that everything is legal before he buys the house. This is why a person needs a real estate agent or realtor.
I don't know what you mean by "trend". I don't think there is a "trend"; I don't think it happens a lot.
Does anyone know any tricky questions that whould be in the test for your lisense??
well im 15 and im going to tack the test and i want to know the hardes questions...if u can send me a list of the questions i live in california.
Answer:
When I took my drivers test, many many years ago, they did not have the computerized questions. I drove with a state trooper, and then he asked me three questions. Passed the test! Nowadays they make it much harder to pass with all of those questions. Best of luck to ya. Take care.
if you can't answer the questions, you should not be allowed to drive for crying out loud! geez! study the book - cover to cover - don't shortcut this test, it could cost lives!
They don't try to trick you. They want you to pass. The test is not hard. Just study the booklet. What you really need to prepare for is the driving test. The written test is extremely easy in comparison to that.
From your spelling I think you will be taking the test a few times...
Answer:
When I took my drivers test, many many years ago, they did not have the computerized questions. I drove with a state trooper, and then he asked me three questions. Passed the test! Nowadays they make it much harder to pass with all of those questions. Best of luck to ya. Take care.
if you can't answer the questions, you should not be allowed to drive for crying out loud! geez! study the book - cover to cover - don't shortcut this test, it could cost lives!
They don't try to trick you. They want you to pass. The test is not hard. Just study the booklet. What you really need to prepare for is the driving test. The written test is extremely easy in comparison to that.
From your spelling I think you will be taking the test a few times...
Does anyone know any great law firms in Tulsa,Oklahoma?
Answer:
You'd have to break that down further by category. There are some excellent firms in different areas of law, and there are some offices of major national firms as well.
Great at what?...Did you get a parking ticket or did you try to shoot someone? Be specific.
Does anyone know about foster pay?
I am getting money from state for care of my grandson from birth now he is able to get ssi and it will go back to when he was born. Will state take back the money they have paid out? He is 9 months.
Answer:
SSI is a federal program while foster care is a state program. BUT the two could overlap. you could ask the social security office or the child services office that is giving you the foster pay and ask.
Possibly. I was on welfare while I was waiting for my disability to go through with SS. When I was approved,I had to pay back the money to welfare that they had given me while I was waiting. The reason for the pay back is because technically,you would be getting paid twice for the same period of time,once when you got the assistance check and again when you get the back pay. The state will more than likely want their money back.
Answer:
SSI is a federal program while foster care is a state program. BUT the two could overlap. you could ask the social security office or the child services office that is giving you the foster pay and ask.
Possibly. I was on welfare while I was waiting for my disability to go through with SS. When I was approved,I had to pay back the money to welfare that they had given me while I was waiting. The reason for the pay back is because technically,you would be getting paid twice for the same period of time,once when you got the assistance check and again when you get the back pay. The state will more than likely want their money back.
Does anyone know about Drug Court in the state of Missouri?
A friend got a DUI a few months ago and the prosecutor is offering him drug court. I asked him what drinking had to do with drugs and if he had drugs in his system, he said no, was just for drinking. Anyone heard of this?
Answer:
Drug Courts are treatment-based alternatives to prison, youth services facilities and detention centers, jails, and standard probation models. The criminal justice system works cooperatively with treatment and other systems to provide an offender with all the possible tools necessary to get into recovery, stay in recovery, and lead a productive, crime-free life. The drug court system takes action to help the person change their life in order to stop criminal activity instead of focusing only on punishment of the offender.
Drug courts can be used for a variety of case types and molded to fit the needs and acceptability of each community. The most metropolitan and the most rural areas of the state have drug court programs.
It may be less disruptive to his life to just take the other punishment. The only person I know to go thru it, gets pee tested almost daily-he has to go to AA meetings 3 times a week (even though his offense was for pot) He has to report to his case worker once a week, and to the judge every other week. They can come to his house at anytime to test him- his parents are filing a complaint about this because they came at 3a.m. woke everyone in the house up and after his dad answered the door, and told them to wait and he would get him, just walked into his dads house and started looking around. He has a 10p.m. curfew that they won't budge on even for work. He lost a $20 an hour job, not because of the pot(his boss smoked too) but because of all the mandatory meetings and curfews and crap! Just make sure he knows what he is getting into before he does it. There is the reward of it not being on his record when he is done though.
Answer:
Drug Courts are treatment-based alternatives to prison, youth services facilities and detention centers, jails, and standard probation models. The criminal justice system works cooperatively with treatment and other systems to provide an offender with all the possible tools necessary to get into recovery, stay in recovery, and lead a productive, crime-free life. The drug court system takes action to help the person change their life in order to stop criminal activity instead of focusing only on punishment of the offender.
Drug courts can be used for a variety of case types and molded to fit the needs and acceptability of each community. The most metropolitan and the most rural areas of the state have drug court programs.
It may be less disruptive to his life to just take the other punishment. The only person I know to go thru it, gets pee tested almost daily-he has to go to AA meetings 3 times a week (even though his offense was for pot) He has to report to his case worker once a week, and to the judge every other week. They can come to his house at anytime to test him- his parents are filing a complaint about this because they came at 3a.m. woke everyone in the house up and after his dad answered the door, and told them to wait and he would get him, just walked into his dads house and started looking around. He has a 10p.m. curfew that they won't budge on even for work. He lost a $20 an hour job, not because of the pot(his boss smoked too) but because of all the mandatory meetings and curfews and crap! Just make sure he knows what he is getting into before he does it. There is the reward of it not being on his record when he is done though.
Does anyone know a website that can explain the steps to becoming a non profit in Texas?
I've been to the state secretary website %26 seen all the forms, they are kind of overwhelming, ya know. And do you have to be an attorney to submit the forms?
Answer:
You might also want to check with your local law school. I know my law school had a clinic that assisted people in starting non-profits and 501(c)(3) organizations.
Also, be aware that there's a difference between nonprofit status (a designation by the state) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (a designation by the federal government).
A good starting place would be the Texas Secretary of State (SOS) website. Loads of information and links.
Answer:
You might also want to check with your local law school. I know my law school had a clinic that assisted people in starting non-profits and 501(c)(3) organizations.
Also, be aware that there's a difference between nonprofit status (a designation by the state) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (a designation by the federal government).
A good starting place would be the Texas Secretary of State (SOS) website. Loads of information and links.
Does anyone know a Supreme Court case where the Court said it applied the wrong legal doctrine previously?
I have been working on a law review article all summer and it is almost finished. I just have to find the source for one more footnote. I the want to argue the Supreme Court should apply the Due Process Clause where it previously applied the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Clause to the same issue. I can't find any cases where the Court said it reached the right result but its own reasoning was flawed. Does anyone know of any?
Answer:
I only vaguely remember this, so you'll have to look into more, but in the area of the right to counsel during police interrogation, the Court initially relied on the 6th Amendment right to counsel as the source of the right, in Escobedo v. Illinois, but then shifted gears and looked at as a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in Miranda and every case thereafter. I'm not sure they ever explicitly acknowledged the switch, but you could probably a later case that discusses the development of the law and the fact that Escobedo's 6th Amendment was basically a dead end.
In Lawrence v. Texas, they applied due protection clause. In similar cases in the past, they applied equal protection. They didn't overturn anything, they just used different grounds on a similar case.
Answer:
I only vaguely remember this, so you'll have to look into more, but in the area of the right to counsel during police interrogation, the Court initially relied on the 6th Amendment right to counsel as the source of the right, in Escobedo v. Illinois, but then shifted gears and looked at as a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in Miranda and every case thereafter. I'm not sure they ever explicitly acknowledged the switch, but you could probably a later case that discusses the development of the law and the fact that Escobedo's 6th Amendment was basically a dead end.
In Lawrence v. Texas, they applied due protection clause. In similar cases in the past, they applied equal protection. They didn't overturn anything, they just used different grounds on a similar case.
Does anyone have any information on Mannheim Correctional Facility in Germany?
If you have a website I can look up, or if anyone has been imprisoned there can tell me their experience. Its a military jail
Answer:
I was a prosecutor in the Mannheim military community recently. It's typical of all the military confinement facilities in the states. I'm now a military defense attorney in the states. I'm not sure what it is you want to know, but I can tell you my client's who "do time" in military confinement find it to be "basic training behind barbed wire." The treatment is not bad, nor the food and facilities. My current clients can't wait to be transferred out of the local county jail to do their post-trial time in a military facility.
"U.S. Army Confinement Facility-Europe
At the far end of Coleman Barracks stands an 8-foot-high chain-link fence topped with concertina wire. The only way through it is a double-locked gate, where a sign details visitors’ dos and don’ts. To enter, visitors must surrender their ID cards at a guard shack located behind yet another locked gate. Inside, one senses the looming authority imposed by the 9th Military Police Detachment. As the visitor passes from one block of cells to the next, the unnerving clang of a steel door slamming shut echoes down the shiny hall. The distinct smell of disinfectant stings the nose, and eyes adjust to the striped sunshine that filters through barred windows. There’s no mistaking this place for There’s no mistaking this place for Club Med —.
The 21st Theater Support Command’s Mannheim Confinement Facility in Germany insists on rigid security. Officially known as the U.S. Army Confinement Facility-Europe, MCF was built in 1963 to house 236 inmates. By 2000 about 50 inmates or detainees called one of the cells “home.” Comparable to a county jail, the facility can house inmates of all ranks serving sentences of less than one year or detainees awaiting trial.
The MCF is the only U.S. military confinement facility in Europe, including the Balkans, except for a small Air Force facility in England. As a result, the facility is used for holding members of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy, as well as foreign prisoners of war. To tend to the mixed clientele, MCF has a cadre of Air Force and Navy correctional specialists assigned to its personnel roster.
During inprocessing, new prisoners and detainees are placed in a barren, 6-by-8-foot cell in “D Block” for at least the first 72 hours. They remain there 23 and a half hours a day with a camera watching them, and they are visited daily by a doctor, chaplain and social worker. Books and magazines are not allowed. The “D Block” cells contain only a bed, sink and toilet. Prisoners who want to run water or flush must call the guard on duty, who controls these functions from behind the cells. When it’s time for a shower, the guard unlocks the cell, chains the prisoners’ ankles and wrists, and walks them to the shower stall at the end of the hall. The cadre controls even the length and temperature of showers.
If prisoners have completed inprocessing and show no reason for concern, they are assigned to another block with larger cells that can accommodate up to 13 prisoners. By the third day of confinement, prisoners are allowed to phone home at their own expense. Free calls to a prisoner’s lawyer, commander or unit are allowed at any time. "
I have been there twice in 1976. On the first trip I waited outside while the prisoner we escorted was taken in by the armed guard. My role was driver/unarmed guard.
A VERY secure place.
On the 2nd trip I took Walter some issue items he needed. They lived as if in Basic Training. Issue items only.
When I arrived I went thru security and almost ran into Walter. He was at Parade Rest with several other prisoners just outside the CO's office. I stopped to speak to him and asked the E2 guard to release him to me to go to supply. I was tackled for speaking to a prisoner and drug back into another office. After he got screamed at for assaulting an NCO, things got worked out.
They hold persons for ALL infractions in the same open barracks. At least they did then. He was there for disobeying an order. There was a rapist and a murderer in the same room with him.
Is that a good enough visual?
I doubt you will find any pictures.
SSG US Army 73-82
Answer:
I was a prosecutor in the Mannheim military community recently. It's typical of all the military confinement facilities in the states. I'm now a military defense attorney in the states. I'm not sure what it is you want to know, but I can tell you my client's who "do time" in military confinement find it to be "basic training behind barbed wire." The treatment is not bad, nor the food and facilities. My current clients can't wait to be transferred out of the local county jail to do their post-trial time in a military facility.
"U.S. Army Confinement Facility-Europe
At the far end of Coleman Barracks stands an 8-foot-high chain-link fence topped with concertina wire. The only way through it is a double-locked gate, where a sign details visitors’ dos and don’ts. To enter, visitors must surrender their ID cards at a guard shack located behind yet another locked gate. Inside, one senses the looming authority imposed by the 9th Military Police Detachment. As the visitor passes from one block of cells to the next, the unnerving clang of a steel door slamming shut echoes down the shiny hall. The distinct smell of disinfectant stings the nose, and eyes adjust to the striped sunshine that filters through barred windows. There’s no mistaking this place for There’s no mistaking this place for Club Med —.
The 21st Theater Support Command’s Mannheim Confinement Facility in Germany insists on rigid security. Officially known as the U.S. Army Confinement Facility-Europe, MCF was built in 1963 to house 236 inmates. By 2000 about 50 inmates or detainees called one of the cells “home.” Comparable to a county jail, the facility can house inmates of all ranks serving sentences of less than one year or detainees awaiting trial.
The MCF is the only U.S. military confinement facility in Europe, including the Balkans, except for a small Air Force facility in England. As a result, the facility is used for holding members of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy, as well as foreign prisoners of war. To tend to the mixed clientele, MCF has a cadre of Air Force and Navy correctional specialists assigned to its personnel roster.
During inprocessing, new prisoners and detainees are placed in a barren, 6-by-8-foot cell in “D Block” for at least the first 72 hours. They remain there 23 and a half hours a day with a camera watching them, and they are visited daily by a doctor, chaplain and social worker. Books and magazines are not allowed. The “D Block” cells contain only a bed, sink and toilet. Prisoners who want to run water or flush must call the guard on duty, who controls these functions from behind the cells. When it’s time for a shower, the guard unlocks the cell, chains the prisoners’ ankles and wrists, and walks them to the shower stall at the end of the hall. The cadre controls even the length and temperature of showers.
If prisoners have completed inprocessing and show no reason for concern, they are assigned to another block with larger cells that can accommodate up to 13 prisoners. By the third day of confinement, prisoners are allowed to phone home at their own expense. Free calls to a prisoner’s lawyer, commander or unit are allowed at any time. "
I have been there twice in 1976. On the first trip I waited outside while the prisoner we escorted was taken in by the armed guard. My role was driver/unarmed guard.
A VERY secure place.
On the 2nd trip I took Walter some issue items he needed. They lived as if in Basic Training. Issue items only.
When I arrived I went thru security and almost ran into Walter. He was at Parade Rest with several other prisoners just outside the CO's office. I stopped to speak to him and asked the E2 guard to release him to me to go to supply. I was tackled for speaking to a prisoner and drug back into another office. After he got screamed at for assaulting an NCO, things got worked out.
They hold persons for ALL infractions in the same open barracks. At least they did then. He was there for disobeying an order. There was a rapist and a murderer in the same room with him.
Is that a good enough visual?
I doubt you will find any pictures.
SSG US Army 73-82
Does anyone have any info on laws for dumpster diving in Texas?
That's basically it. I know I used to but I never really knew if it was illegal and what I could face if I was caught. I would like to continue to do it because I find awesome stuff for my kids and my home that way but with two kids I don't want to get aressted either. Does anyone know if there are laws against it and what those laws are? Do different stores and like housing dumpsters have different laws? Thanks :)
Answer:
By definition anything in a dumpster is waste and therefore not needed and abandoned by the owner. So you can recover anything from the trash that you want.
The problem is the location of the dumpster. If the dumpster is on private property then you can't access it without trespassing.
To go dumpster diving all you need to do is to ask the permission of the management of the company that uses the dumpster. If it is a community used dumpster, like in a shopping mall then if one store gives you access you don't need to ask any other.
The problem with this is that a lot of dumpsters are compacting and therefore dangerous for a person to get into. The Mall near where I live has a dumpster like this. You can dump trash in it, but you can't go into the dumpster itself without having it turned off, or you could get compacted with the trash.
Therefore to have access to a dumpster you need the permission of the owner of the property to be on their property where the dumpster is located. Yes, you can get arrested on trespassing for dumpster diving, especially if you have to go inside a building to reach the dumpster. If you go on to the property of an apartment company then they may give you some grief, especially if you make a habit of it. If you go behind a shopping complex then few people are going to care.
The garbage that you recover will be covered by salvage laws and the rules of salvage are that whatever you recover is yours.
I did not attend the "dumpster diving law" class in law school.
Answer:
By definition anything in a dumpster is waste and therefore not needed and abandoned by the owner. So you can recover anything from the trash that you want.
The problem is the location of the dumpster. If the dumpster is on private property then you can't access it without trespassing.
To go dumpster diving all you need to do is to ask the permission of the management of the company that uses the dumpster. If it is a community used dumpster, like in a shopping mall then if one store gives you access you don't need to ask any other.
The problem with this is that a lot of dumpsters are compacting and therefore dangerous for a person to get into. The Mall near where I live has a dumpster like this. You can dump trash in it, but you can't go into the dumpster itself without having it turned off, or you could get compacted with the trash.
Therefore to have access to a dumpster you need the permission of the owner of the property to be on their property where the dumpster is located. Yes, you can get arrested on trespassing for dumpster diving, especially if you have to go inside a building to reach the dumpster. If you go on to the property of an apartment company then they may give you some grief, especially if you make a habit of it. If you go behind a shopping complex then few people are going to care.
The garbage that you recover will be covered by salvage laws and the rules of salvage are that whatever you recover is yours.
I did not attend the "dumpster diving law" class in law school.
Does anyone have a sample or description of an "Ander's Brief"?
Maybe a memorandum, a description of what is included? etc.
Having a hard time locating it online. I'm getting nothing but decisions.
Thanks!
Answer:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/briefe...
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/briefe...
Like a "Pelican Brief"...it's a really SMALL tighty whitey!
Will this help you? When you click on the link below, once the page is open, you can click on parts of the blue cover.
An Anders brief is what you file when your client demands you to file an appeal even though you already know that all the possible arguments you could raise are frivolous. Like when they got caught red-handed but insist they didn't do it. You do it because it is your duty, but the court knows you have an _____ for a client.
Having said that, that is the usual. Note that sometimes the client is correct that there is a ground for appeal but the lawyer doesn't want to assert it. The courts do read them.
Actually it needs to say that you have reviewed the record and, as an officer of the court, can find no issues of merit to raise on your client's behalf. Before you file it, double check all the rulings on the objections at trial as well as the elements and how the evidence matched up. Only file it if there is absolutely no good-faith argument you can make on any issue.
Having a hard time locating it online. I'm getting nothing but decisions.
Thanks!
Answer:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/briefe...
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/briefe...
Like a "Pelican Brief"...it's a really SMALL tighty whitey!
Will this help you? When you click on the link below, once the page is open, you can click on parts of the blue cover.
An Anders brief is what you file when your client demands you to file an appeal even though you already know that all the possible arguments you could raise are frivolous. Like when they got caught red-handed but insist they didn't do it. You do it because it is your duty, but the court knows you have an _____ for a client.
Having said that, that is the usual. Note that sometimes the client is correct that there is a ground for appeal but the lawyer doesn't want to assert it. The courts do read them.
Actually it needs to say that you have reviewed the record and, as an officer of the court, can find no issues of merit to raise on your client's behalf. Before you file it, double check all the rulings on the objections at trial as well as the elements and how the evidence matched up. Only file it if there is absolutely no good-faith argument you can make on any issue.
Does anyone find it odd that the some of the same people who support the Fairness Doc, oppose the Patriot Act.
Answer:
No, not really. Socialists do not want dissent and they cannot compete successfully in the free market, and they want to see America fail so they can say see, socialism is better than what we have today, lets let the government take care of all of us.
Absolutely. Both the Patriot Act and the Fairness Doctrine have no place in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter.
But seriously, are you just now noticing the rampant hypocrisy in our politics?
How are the two even related??
Unfortunately, I do not find it odd. It is clear that those people are hypocrites and only want restrictions placed on others, preferably others they don't agree with politically, while they won't have tolerate any restrictions placed on themselves.
Yes and no, as I said on one of your other questions, it is not about everybody's freedom - just the liberals. They only believe in free speech for themselves.
Does anyone ever deserve to die?
As in does anyone deserve to be sentenced to death. Just wondering what other people think about it.
Answer:
Societies decide this issue. Personally, I belive in the death penalty, but not as it is used in the US. I'd be OK with the death penalty in EVERY case of 1st degree murder; but not executing one out of a thousand. Same crime- same punishment.
actually i think staying in jail the rest of their lives would be worse than dying right away so i say no
It is not my nor anybody Else's place to deserve who lives, and who dies.
yes, they do in some instances.
just the way it is man!
it depends what the crime is?
I do think that some crimes merit the death penalty. However, in a society run by falliable human beings, the death penalty cannot be fairly implemented with any assurance that justice has been served. Therefore, I am against carrying out the death penalty.
no, even if they committed a lot of crimes or killed other people, i think they should just be sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON but not have their life taken away just cuz they did a major crime. Who knows, maybe they learned from their mistake and feel ashamed/embrassed.
Offenders such as pedophiles, murderers, rapists and other violent offenders should. Why pay taxes to feed and house them? As for thiefs, we should take a cue from certain Middle Eastern countries and start chopping fingers off.
Added:
What about all the offenders who have been paroled and gone on to molest, rape or kill again. Maybe some of you would think different if one of your loved ones was hurt by these people.
As for the means of execution, just take them out to the town square after sentencing and hang 'em high. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
If there is no chance of rehabilitation and the person clearly represents a threat to public safety if they were to be let out in public, then yes. I think it depends more on the mindset than the crime.
Oh yes, some people do indeed deserve to die. Those who knowingly kill another person other than for self defense reasons. Live by the sword/gun, die by the sword/gun mentality.
As for the punishment of a cold blooded killer..tax money would say to kill them as quick as possible. But if the person wants to live after they've done the crime, kill them. If the person wants to die, give them life without parole.
You have just asked a question that has been debated about for many, many years. No one deserves to die, not even murderers. People have evolved and matured and yet, they still find the need to kill. For some killers, the guilt is enough. For others, maybe not. But killing is not the answer to anything.
Yes- child molesters convicted more than 3 times
rapists- who have been convicted more than 3 times
murderers- 1st degree
There are people in this world who for whatever reason can act without conscience and do irrevocable harm to those whose lives they touch. the world would be a better place without those people .
Tough question. I don't know the answer but the same question can be asked on behalf of the people that person killed. They didn't deserve to die either and they didn't have a judge and jury watching out that their rights were not violated during the decision process.
What if the person chooses to die? What if a criminal were to be given the option of death or life inprisionment, and chose to end it all right then and there? Obviously the convict would have to make his decision of his or her free will and with public witnesses, but I think it's something to at least consider.
Rape and murder an innocent child, and lets start with you. We can work on from there; but that's my "line in the sand" for the death penalty foes
i think that if they aren't young people who haven't lived their life yet, and they committed some horrible crime, they deserve the death sentence.
I do think that some people do not deserve the privilege of living...but the way the punishment is meted out should be different. The victims' families should be the ones deciding and carrying out the punishment. At least in my opinion.
The main problem with the death penalty is the fact that people like it. It appeals to the most dangerous animal instinct there is, blood lust, it stimulates thoughts of killing and makes killing seem acceptable and attractive. It sets the worst kind of example--it says that the supreme authority figure, the state, believes that killing people to settle a score is a good idea. It is no mere coincidence that jurisdictions with the death penalty usually have higher rates of murder and other violent crime than jurisdictions that don't have the death penalty. Just listen to the emotional attachment, the affection that people express for vengeance killing--it is a sick and dangerous primal urge that should never be stimulated by the state setting the horrible example of killing people. Besides, mistakes happen--30 % of the condemned inmates in Illinois were found by scientific DNA evidence to be innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced--that is a lot of innocent blood to drench ones hands in. It makes the executioners, the jury, the judge, and everybody who supports the death penalty...murderers.
This is a question well beyond the scope of YA, I'm afraid. First, let me say that I'm a liberal by nature but I've also been inside a maximum state pen (for work). I think there are some people who have been so damaged so early in their lives that they are unsavable. They will never be able to feel empathy, compassion, or anything beyond satisfying their own needs. This makes them really scary even in prison. A couple things you need to think about. You can kill someone with a sharpened turkey bone or toothbrush or just about anything. Okay, you say, so what? They're just killing other prisoners, right? Well, sometimes the legal system puts people in prison who are not terrible people. For a while, anyone with over an ounce of pot was put in the state pen. 18 year old kids. Raped. Murdered.
In sum, I don't know how I feel about the death penalty, but it's not an easy question or solution.
I do think the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for a crime so heinous that the jury feel death is warranted. But I do have concerns with its application. I feel that we should have a stoppage of the use of the penalty until we have a system where it is used for those who deemed worthy, and where the use of the death penalty is fairly administered.
The bible says yes, and no, the law says yes and no. I'm not a Judge but I say no let them rot in prision, it cost to much for their apeals and lawyer fees in a death sentence.
I dont think its a matter of deserving to die - who decides what constitutes the degree of 'crime' that means you've crossed a line and now 'deserve' to die? In all the cases of killing and the myriad of circumstances that make up those cases, where do you find enough commonality to draw a very specific line in the sand?
The major faith traditions and the law both say its not OK to kill. So where is the logic that says its not OK for an individual to kill in our society, but it is OK for a soldier in an army or for a political leader such as a president or a state governor to kill, in the name of the people? Makes no sense to me...
Turn it around the other way - if its OK for the state to kill, then it ought also to be OK for individuals to kill. And as a society, we obviously dont think that's the case... Life either is sacred, or its not - cant have it both ways...
Answer:
Societies decide this issue. Personally, I belive in the death penalty, but not as it is used in the US. I'd be OK with the death penalty in EVERY case of 1st degree murder; but not executing one out of a thousand. Same crime- same punishment.
actually i think staying in jail the rest of their lives would be worse than dying right away so i say no
It is not my nor anybody Else's place to deserve who lives, and who dies.
yes, they do in some instances.
just the way it is man!
it depends what the crime is?
I do think that some crimes merit the death penalty. However, in a society run by falliable human beings, the death penalty cannot be fairly implemented with any assurance that justice has been served. Therefore, I am against carrying out the death penalty.
no, even if they committed a lot of crimes or killed other people, i think they should just be sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON but not have their life taken away just cuz they did a major crime. Who knows, maybe they learned from their mistake and feel ashamed/embrassed.
Offenders such as pedophiles, murderers, rapists and other violent offenders should. Why pay taxes to feed and house them? As for thiefs, we should take a cue from certain Middle Eastern countries and start chopping fingers off.
Added:
What about all the offenders who have been paroled and gone on to molest, rape or kill again. Maybe some of you would think different if one of your loved ones was hurt by these people.
As for the means of execution, just take them out to the town square after sentencing and hang 'em high. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
If there is no chance of rehabilitation and the person clearly represents a threat to public safety if they were to be let out in public, then yes. I think it depends more on the mindset than the crime.
Oh yes, some people do indeed deserve to die. Those who knowingly kill another person other than for self defense reasons. Live by the sword/gun, die by the sword/gun mentality.
As for the punishment of a cold blooded killer..tax money would say to kill them as quick as possible. But if the person wants to live after they've done the crime, kill them. If the person wants to die, give them life without parole.
You have just asked a question that has been debated about for many, many years. No one deserves to die, not even murderers. People have evolved and matured and yet, they still find the need to kill. For some killers, the guilt is enough. For others, maybe not. But killing is not the answer to anything.
Yes- child molesters convicted more than 3 times
rapists- who have been convicted more than 3 times
murderers- 1st degree
There are people in this world who for whatever reason can act without conscience and do irrevocable harm to those whose lives they touch. the world would be a better place without those people .
Tough question. I don't know the answer but the same question can be asked on behalf of the people that person killed. They didn't deserve to die either and they didn't have a judge and jury watching out that their rights were not violated during the decision process.
What if the person chooses to die? What if a criminal were to be given the option of death or life inprisionment, and chose to end it all right then and there? Obviously the convict would have to make his decision of his or her free will and with public witnesses, but I think it's something to at least consider.
Rape and murder an innocent child, and lets start with you. We can work on from there; but that's my "line in the sand" for the death penalty foes
i think that if they aren't young people who haven't lived their life yet, and they committed some horrible crime, they deserve the death sentence.
I do think that some people do not deserve the privilege of living...but the way the punishment is meted out should be different. The victims' families should be the ones deciding and carrying out the punishment. At least in my opinion.
The main problem with the death penalty is the fact that people like it. It appeals to the most dangerous animal instinct there is, blood lust, it stimulates thoughts of killing and makes killing seem acceptable and attractive. It sets the worst kind of example--it says that the supreme authority figure, the state, believes that killing people to settle a score is a good idea. It is no mere coincidence that jurisdictions with the death penalty usually have higher rates of murder and other violent crime than jurisdictions that don't have the death penalty. Just listen to the emotional attachment, the affection that people express for vengeance killing--it is a sick and dangerous primal urge that should never be stimulated by the state setting the horrible example of killing people. Besides, mistakes happen--30 % of the condemned inmates in Illinois were found by scientific DNA evidence to be innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced--that is a lot of innocent blood to drench ones hands in. It makes the executioners, the jury, the judge, and everybody who supports the death penalty...murderers.
This is a question well beyond the scope of YA, I'm afraid. First, let me say that I'm a liberal by nature but I've also been inside a maximum state pen (for work). I think there are some people who have been so damaged so early in their lives that they are unsavable. They will never be able to feel empathy, compassion, or anything beyond satisfying their own needs. This makes them really scary even in prison. A couple things you need to think about. You can kill someone with a sharpened turkey bone or toothbrush or just about anything. Okay, you say, so what? They're just killing other prisoners, right? Well, sometimes the legal system puts people in prison who are not terrible people. For a while, anyone with over an ounce of pot was put in the state pen. 18 year old kids. Raped. Murdered.
In sum, I don't know how I feel about the death penalty, but it's not an easy question or solution.
I do think the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for a crime so heinous that the jury feel death is warranted. But I do have concerns with its application. I feel that we should have a stoppage of the use of the penalty until we have a system where it is used for those who deemed worthy, and where the use of the death penalty is fairly administered.
The bible says yes, and no, the law says yes and no. I'm not a Judge but I say no let them rot in prision, it cost to much for their apeals and lawyer fees in a death sentence.
I dont think its a matter of deserving to die - who decides what constitutes the degree of 'crime' that means you've crossed a line and now 'deserve' to die? In all the cases of killing and the myriad of circumstances that make up those cases, where do you find enough commonality to draw a very specific line in the sand?
The major faith traditions and the law both say its not OK to kill. So where is the logic that says its not OK for an individual to kill in our society, but it is OK for a soldier in an army or for a political leader such as a president or a state governor to kill, in the name of the people? Makes no sense to me...
Turn it around the other way - if its OK for the state to kill, then it ought also to be OK for individuals to kill. And as a society, we obviously dont think that's the case... Life either is sacred, or its not - cant have it both ways...
Does anyone else think the new law in TN about beer is stupid?
Did you see this?! Now no matter how old you are to buy beer you will be carded! Your liscense scanned. But it doesn't cover wine, etc. Now on the one hand if you're going to enact a law like this you should cover all forms of alcohol but in reality it's just a ridiculous way to keep tabs on the public!
I always had to ask for id and know the date when I was a cashier are the clerks in TN really to stupid to figure that out? I think not.
Interesting isn't it that in Europe the drinking age is lower and yet they have less issues? Not saying we should lower the age just change our attitude. Do they really think this will make any difference?
Answer:
You're very right this law is very very stupid.
If you're over 21, why do you care? Is it really that much of a hassel to take out your wallet and face it in the direction of the cashier?
1. It is idiotic to include beer and not wine.
2. In most states, it is illegal to possess alcohol without ID...no matter the age, so I do not see this as such a big deal if it was on all alcohol. A little idiotic to ID an 80 year old, but okay.
3. You think that Europe does not have the drinking problem that America does? What planet are you on? Let's take Germany... my brother was stationed there. The alcoholism rate was 1.8 times higher than that in America per capita. Amsterdam, does not have such the alcohol problem because drugs are legal, but the incidence of drug related crime is 3.5 times higher per capita.
YEAH, Let's be more like Europe! NOT!
It's beyond stupid, but sadly not surprising. It's the typical one size fits all attitude of government. No extra scrutiny towards those most likely to be in violation. It seems trivial, but this is just another example of advancing tyranny. "You want a sip of suds? Hand over the ID Grandpa, we're the nanny state and we are in control."
Edit: People like xjmox scare me. They're the ones who sit there and take it because it's "no big deal". So in 10 years when a bureaucrat comes knocking to take title to your house in the name of the common good it will be "no big deal" since we've acquiesced the 499 times prior. Tyranny happens a little bit at a time.
As other laws it has it idiotic points. But at the same time if the clerks are not carding some people and they end up selling to underage people then I see this as one way to fight that. This way it is not on the clerk who they decide to card - they card everyone. It may save some confrontation for the clerks.
What about other forms of alcohol. The article I read didn't specify.
I always had to ask for id and know the date when I was a cashier are the clerks in TN really to stupid to figure that out? I think not.
Interesting isn't it that in Europe the drinking age is lower and yet they have less issues? Not saying we should lower the age just change our attitude. Do they really think this will make any difference?
Answer:
You're very right this law is very very stupid.
If you're over 21, why do you care? Is it really that much of a hassel to take out your wallet and face it in the direction of the cashier?
1. It is idiotic to include beer and not wine.
2. In most states, it is illegal to possess alcohol without ID...no matter the age, so I do not see this as such a big deal if it was on all alcohol. A little idiotic to ID an 80 year old, but okay.
3. You think that Europe does not have the drinking problem that America does? What planet are you on? Let's take Germany... my brother was stationed there. The alcoholism rate was 1.8 times higher than that in America per capita. Amsterdam, does not have such the alcohol problem because drugs are legal, but the incidence of drug related crime is 3.5 times higher per capita.
YEAH, Let's be more like Europe! NOT!
It's beyond stupid, but sadly not surprising. It's the typical one size fits all attitude of government. No extra scrutiny towards those most likely to be in violation. It seems trivial, but this is just another example of advancing tyranny. "You want a sip of suds? Hand over the ID Grandpa, we're the nanny state and we are in control."
Edit: People like xjmox scare me. They're the ones who sit there and take it because it's "no big deal". So in 10 years when a bureaucrat comes knocking to take title to your house in the name of the common good it will be "no big deal" since we've acquiesced the 499 times prior. Tyranny happens a little bit at a time.
As other laws it has it idiotic points. But at the same time if the clerks are not carding some people and they end up selling to underage people then I see this as one way to fight that. This way it is not on the clerk who they decide to card - they card everyone. It may save some confrontation for the clerks.
What about other forms of alcohol. The article I read didn't specify.
Does anyone else think Hillory Clinton is a Hypocrit to even speak about pardons after what her husband did?
Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]
Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal. Rostenkowski had served his entire sentence.
Me
Answer:
Yes, she is a hypocrite in many other areas too, but this is unbelievable. It was the prices they put on pardons that didn't get her the funding she wanted out of Hollywood too. That wench is for Sale. What is that term for women that sell themselves?
Democrats always think they are above the law.
Democrats always think it does not count when they do it.
"Do what I say not what I do."
The Pot calling the Kettle black. Those words will come back to haunt her.
Welcome to the world of politics. Both parties are just as bad and are out to serve their own interests. Never mind the fact they took an oath to the Constitution.
Talk is cheep, actions speek
She didn't pardon anybody, her husband did. You can't be a hypocrite based on someone elses actions. If you want to defend the Libby commutation why not focus on what you think are the merits of Bush's decision rather than constantly trying to make it about Clinton.
she is counting on illegals who can't speak english and uninformed clinton followers to vote for her , it is also amazing how an impeached president's wife is even considered to run for president
Susan McDougal: Served entire sentence.
Dan Rostenkowski: Served entire sentence.
Irving Libby: Didn't serve a second.
Does anyone smell a "payoff" for him to keep silent?
Of course she is. The problem in government is do as I say not do as I do.
Of course. Blame her for what her husband did.
Typical republican. Is your wife barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, too?
you have to much time on your hands
nice that you keep up on her- sounds like she is your hero
I would think the operative words are "her husband did" not what she did. Both her husband and george were incorrect. But SHE didn't pardon anyone.
NO NO NO NO
There is a set of rules for Hillary and she has another set of rules for everyone else.
Don't think she wants people to remember what she had done in the past.
I love how all the people here are talking about Libby being pardon when he wasn't they got their marching orders from who knows where.
What I find strange is who she can complain about anyone lieing under oath when her husband did the same thing in a sexual harresment case. If she is so smart how come she didn't even know that Bill was sleeping around on her.
Hillary is a hypocrite and a liar in just about everything she says, not just about this issue. She has done a 180 and sometimes even a 360 on most issues.
As with many politicians, she just blows with the wind.
The obstruction that Scooter committed, would have led to the successful impeachment of both Cheney and Bush for Treason.
This Special Comment By Keith Olbermann is most poignant this 4th of July.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/...
And, for those of you who are interested in how Bush is controlled by big oil, here are the connections鈥?http://www.theyrule.net/2004/tr2.php...
To really understand the depth of how self-deceived some Democrats are, you have to read "Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy". It's light, fast reading, and it is highly entertaining. You won't believe what some of these hypocrits say as opposed to what they do!
What Hillary said reminds me of how the Communist Russians used to behave. They learned (and have since admitted) that they learned one huge fact about international politics: the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get away with it. For example, I once read the transcript of a conversation between a representative of the U.S. government, and one from the USSR. It was surreal. But the Russian was smugly defiant. He knew that he could just deny something and there was nothing the American could do to pin him down:
American: Mr. Kasparov, our satellites have taken pictures of a new nuclear missile silo you are building at these coordinates..
Russian: No, we are not building any missile silo there.
American: But, we have satellite photos that clearly show what you are building. It shows the missiles on a truck, shows the silo, etc.
Russian: That is a falsehood. We are not building anything there.
American: (exasperated) What do you mean? It's plainly shown in these photos. The photos don't lie. We have the exact coordinates, and have been monitoring every single truck that has gone in and out of that facility. We can even read the markings on the missile.
Russian: Why are you trying to strain our international relationship? I have told you there is nothing being built there. Please refrain from questioning me again. You insult my credulity. I am not on trial here.
Sorry for the long example, but this is exactly the mindset of these smugly defiant democrats. They figure they never have to defend their indefensible positions. And guess what? They never have to. Trying to make them tell the truth is like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands.
Yes, she's a hypocrit. Yesterday they were talking about that on Special Report on Fox News (best show ever), and Mara Liasson said Hillary might get in trouble with that during the general election campaign, but that it probably wouldn't be an issue during the primary, since the Democrats are all focusing on attacking Bush. I think she might be right.
Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal. Rostenkowski had served his entire sentence.
Me
Answer:
Yes, she is a hypocrite in many other areas too, but this is unbelievable. It was the prices they put on pardons that didn't get her the funding she wanted out of Hollywood too. That wench is for Sale. What is that term for women that sell themselves?
Democrats always think they are above the law.
Democrats always think it does not count when they do it.
"Do what I say not what I do."
The Pot calling the Kettle black. Those words will come back to haunt her.
Welcome to the world of politics. Both parties are just as bad and are out to serve their own interests. Never mind the fact they took an oath to the Constitution.
Talk is cheep, actions speek
She didn't pardon anybody, her husband did. You can't be a hypocrite based on someone elses actions. If you want to defend the Libby commutation why not focus on what you think are the merits of Bush's decision rather than constantly trying to make it about Clinton.
she is counting on illegals who can't speak english and uninformed clinton followers to vote for her , it is also amazing how an impeached president's wife is even considered to run for president
Susan McDougal: Served entire sentence.
Dan Rostenkowski: Served entire sentence.
Irving Libby: Didn't serve a second.
Does anyone smell a "payoff" for him to keep silent?
Of course she is. The problem in government is do as I say not do as I do.
Of course. Blame her for what her husband did.
Typical republican. Is your wife barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, too?
you have to much time on your hands
nice that you keep up on her- sounds like she is your hero
I would think the operative words are "her husband did" not what she did. Both her husband and george were incorrect. But SHE didn't pardon anyone.
NO NO NO NO
There is a set of rules for Hillary and she has another set of rules for everyone else.
Don't think she wants people to remember what she had done in the past.
I love how all the people here are talking about Libby being pardon when he wasn't they got their marching orders from who knows where.
What I find strange is who she can complain about anyone lieing under oath when her husband did the same thing in a sexual harresment case. If she is so smart how come she didn't even know that Bill was sleeping around on her.
Hillary is a hypocrite and a liar in just about everything she says, not just about this issue. She has done a 180 and sometimes even a 360 on most issues.
As with many politicians, she just blows with the wind.
The obstruction that Scooter committed, would have led to the successful impeachment of both Cheney and Bush for Treason.
This Special Comment By Keith Olbermann is most poignant this 4th of July.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/...
And, for those of you who are interested in how Bush is controlled by big oil, here are the connections鈥?http://www.theyrule.net/2004/tr2.php...
To really understand the depth of how self-deceived some Democrats are, you have to read "Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy". It's light, fast reading, and it is highly entertaining. You won't believe what some of these hypocrits say as opposed to what they do!
What Hillary said reminds me of how the Communist Russians used to behave. They learned (and have since admitted) that they learned one huge fact about international politics: the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get away with it. For example, I once read the transcript of a conversation between a representative of the U.S. government, and one from the USSR. It was surreal. But the Russian was smugly defiant. He knew that he could just deny something and there was nothing the American could do to pin him down:
American: Mr. Kasparov, our satellites have taken pictures of a new nuclear missile silo you are building at these coordinates..
Russian: No, we are not building any missile silo there.
American: But, we have satellite photos that clearly show what you are building. It shows the missiles on a truck, shows the silo, etc.
Russian: That is a falsehood. We are not building anything there.
American: (exasperated) What do you mean? It's plainly shown in these photos. The photos don't lie. We have the exact coordinates, and have been monitoring every single truck that has gone in and out of that facility. We can even read the markings on the missile.
Russian: Why are you trying to strain our international relationship? I have told you there is nothing being built there. Please refrain from questioning me again. You insult my credulity. I am not on trial here.
Sorry for the long example, but this is exactly the mindset of these smugly defiant democrats. They figure they never have to defend their indefensible positions. And guess what? They never have to. Trying to make them tell the truth is like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands.
Yes, she's a hypocrit. Yesterday they were talking about that on Special Report on Fox News (best show ever), and Mara Liasson said Hillary might get in trouble with that during the general election campaign, but that it probably wouldn't be an issue during the primary, since the Democrats are all focusing on attacking Bush. I think she might be right.
Does anyone agree with me the beast that raped and killed his 2 year old niece should be handed to the cons?
He should be made to serve his life sentence in the general poulation of the prison
Answer:
i agree with paul on this one-i have studied martial arts for 27 years and would dearly love the chance to try out techniques on that slag they wouldn't let me do on normal folk-then he would have some idea of the pain that poor little mite went through. trouble is he would last about thirty seconds :(.-but fear not. having had some experience of our penal system i can gaurantee that at some point he will get to "meet" his fellow cons-wardens have kids as well!!.
Sorry; death penalty has this guy's picture on it.
Only if he is handed too them in pieces.
oh yes i do/pity the rope's gone
Generally I hear that prison population is harsh on child molestors and rapists. But personally I think he should be castrated and and hung.
Five minutes, just me and him, no cameras. I'll make him wish he were never born.
the b*astard should be castrated, birched and left to rot somewhere
General pop sounds good to me,.justice served,...he should suffer 10 times the pain he put that baby through
No need. They will get to him, believe me.
Yes I agree.
Y-E-S hands down!
perverted freak! i think it would even be good for him if the authorities would amputate his manhood and feed it to him raw!
inhuman? nah! he deserves it! cut off his D***!
they should put him in the stocks of a major town or city with a notice saying what he'd done. Set up a camera so that everyone can see what happens to scum like this and let the population have their way with him. I'm sure he'd have a nice time!
Perhaps castration and then a general pop. sentence?
I'd put æ‹¢100 in their Christmas Fund if he got a good seeing to in the shower.
absolutely!
What is this world coming to if someone can do this to their own flesh and blood?
I feel that the death penalty was made for people like him.
I think that he should honestly be put to death. Anyone who is evil %26 mentally unstable enough to not only rape, but to also kill a 2 year old (or anyone of any age for that matter) cannot put forth any positive contributions to society in any format. Right now he's just a drain on our economy %26 on all tax paying citizens who are keeping this degenerate alive.
Sending him out into the general prison population would pretty much be similar to a death sentence, which is why they won't let him into the general areas as of yet. They will eventually at some point, so here's hoping that some of those death threats are still open at that point.
yep absolutletely as we don't have the death penaltly let the other crims have him
yep I agree although I think even that may be to easy for him hes got death sentence by the cruelest means necessary written all over him even crucifixion is acceptable to me he deserves it
he should be hung is what he should be. i mean, rape and murder is bad enough for anybody, but for a two year old baby, i mean, think of the pain that poor little girl would of been in.
i don't get why anyone would ever feel the need to do that to a child. even if they have mental problems, wouldn't human intuition/nature/whatever you want to call it just take over and tell you to stop yourself??
it makes no sense to me at all, and "the beast" as you so aptly refer to him as should suffer as much as is physically possible before someone kills him, painfully.
xx
He has been. He can't hide in isolation for 35 years.
Good idea, you did mean a women's prison did'nt you!
.. yeah put him in the general population for about 24 hours, then emasculate him., gauge out his eyes, shove a broom handle up his a**, hang him upside down and let them use him as a punching bag, then exectue him in the most horribly painful way humanly possible!! .
He should be executed s l o w l y!
I'll do it!
with the way that the law stands at the moment then yes.
i do however believe that we should abolish all animal testing and test on the real wild beasts, ie the convicted perverts of this world. in these days of dna testing there is very little chance of mistaken identity so these people (and i use that word loosley) should be made to sufer to extremes instead of inocent animals that have done less wrong than 100% of people
First, tattoo a picture of Playboy Playmate on his back!
Second, tattoo baby-raper across his forehead!
Third, put him in general population.
Finally, allow half of the guards to go on break at the same time!
Better yet, give the father an hour of "free-time" with him!
I completely agree! I'm not a fan of the death penalty...its an easy way out. He should suffer in prison and see how they treat him in there!
How the **** do you rape a 2 year old? Surely it's not even physically possible. You can't rehabilitate someone that sick. Crimes like that yeah.Bring back the 'outlaw' system. Let the child's parents at him, then just print his name and photo and let him go....
Is it my girlfriend's ex husband? He's a democrat and he raped his 12 year old niece as well as three others.
Answer:
i agree with paul on this one-i have studied martial arts for 27 years and would dearly love the chance to try out techniques on that slag they wouldn't let me do on normal folk-then he would have some idea of the pain that poor little mite went through. trouble is he would last about thirty seconds :(.-but fear not. having had some experience of our penal system i can gaurantee that at some point he will get to "meet" his fellow cons-wardens have kids as well!!.
Sorry; death penalty has this guy's picture on it.
Only if he is handed too them in pieces.
oh yes i do/pity the rope's gone
Generally I hear that prison population is harsh on child molestors and rapists. But personally I think he should be castrated and and hung.
Five minutes, just me and him, no cameras. I'll make him wish he were never born.
the b*astard should be castrated, birched and left to rot somewhere
General pop sounds good to me,.justice served,...he should suffer 10 times the pain he put that baby through
No need. They will get to him, believe me.
Yes I agree.
Y-E-S hands down!
perverted freak! i think it would even be good for him if the authorities would amputate his manhood and feed it to him raw!
inhuman? nah! he deserves it! cut off his D***!
they should put him in the stocks of a major town or city with a notice saying what he'd done. Set up a camera so that everyone can see what happens to scum like this and let the population have their way with him. I'm sure he'd have a nice time!
Perhaps castration and then a general pop. sentence?
I'd put æ‹¢100 in their Christmas Fund if he got a good seeing to in the shower.
absolutely!
What is this world coming to if someone can do this to their own flesh and blood?
I feel that the death penalty was made for people like him.
I think that he should honestly be put to death. Anyone who is evil %26 mentally unstable enough to not only rape, but to also kill a 2 year old (or anyone of any age for that matter) cannot put forth any positive contributions to society in any format. Right now he's just a drain on our economy %26 on all tax paying citizens who are keeping this degenerate alive.
Sending him out into the general prison population would pretty much be similar to a death sentence, which is why they won't let him into the general areas as of yet. They will eventually at some point, so here's hoping that some of those death threats are still open at that point.
yep absolutletely as we don't have the death penaltly let the other crims have him
yep I agree although I think even that may be to easy for him hes got death sentence by the cruelest means necessary written all over him even crucifixion is acceptable to me he deserves it
he should be hung is what he should be. i mean, rape and murder is bad enough for anybody, but for a two year old baby, i mean, think of the pain that poor little girl would of been in.
i don't get why anyone would ever feel the need to do that to a child. even if they have mental problems, wouldn't human intuition/nature/whatever you want to call it just take over and tell you to stop yourself??
it makes no sense to me at all, and "the beast" as you so aptly refer to him as should suffer as much as is physically possible before someone kills him, painfully.
xx
He has been. He can't hide in isolation for 35 years.
Good idea, you did mean a women's prison did'nt you!
.. yeah put him in the general population for about 24 hours, then emasculate him., gauge out his eyes, shove a broom handle up his a**, hang him upside down and let them use him as a punching bag, then exectue him in the most horribly painful way humanly possible!! .
He should be executed s l o w l y!
I'll do it!
with the way that the law stands at the moment then yes.
i do however believe that we should abolish all animal testing and test on the real wild beasts, ie the convicted perverts of this world. in these days of dna testing there is very little chance of mistaken identity so these people (and i use that word loosley) should be made to sufer to extremes instead of inocent animals that have done less wrong than 100% of people
First, tattoo a picture of Playboy Playmate on his back!
Second, tattoo baby-raper across his forehead!
Third, put him in general population.
Finally, allow half of the guards to go on break at the same time!
Better yet, give the father an hour of "free-time" with him!
I completely agree! I'm not a fan of the death penalty...its an easy way out. He should suffer in prison and see how they treat him in there!
How the **** do you rape a 2 year old? Surely it's not even physically possible. You can't rehabilitate someone that sick. Crimes like that yeah.Bring back the 'outlaw' system. Let the child's parents at him, then just print his name and photo and let him go....
Is it my girlfriend's ex husband? He's a democrat and he raped his 12 year old niece as well as three others.
Does anyone actually Know the no smoking Law.?
Two days into the ban and like everything from this knee jerk Government no one has any real details of WHAT trhe law actually is!
Let us say that in one of my baulchy moods I go into a cafe which is property signed up, but just a junior in charge. I take out my pipe, sit down and light it up. Quite rightly she would point out it is against the law. I tell her to Pxxs off. She has done everything she can, would she get fined?
Conversly a couple of guys in charge, same senario, if they put a hand on me I will sue for assault!
And finally,one of the "officials" come to give me a fixed penalty. Fine, my name is Mickey Mouse.
Should someone not tell what one would be expected to do in such circumstances?
Answer:
no not realy, as usual they are long and drawn out, but i know this i can now and enjoy a pint without giong home smelling like an ashtray, i gave up 5 years ago, it has never bothered me about smoky pubs just that smell on your clothes in the morning, but i realy do think that some places should be for smokers, and some for non smokers, everyone would be happy then :-)
your right i dont think anyone knows the rules fully
ignore smoking laws because they refused to compromise and it is not right in a free country. bars should be smoking and non smoking that is called compromise.
ask the person who is smoking to leave if not they are trespassing just phone the police and they would sort it out.
i know the law as a resturant owner. i must advise you of the law...refuse to serve you if you smoke. call the health department %26 they will come up..apparently. if i feel threatened i am to call the police.
i am lucky as many of my male customers are very anti smoking..and they most certainly would deal with people like you...they would put your out of my shop..and you wouldnt find any witness to help you...not even me as i think you are being aggressive...its not me thats making the law after all.
fortunately, everybody has respected the new laws in my shop and its better air for us all to breathe!! i smoke - i just nip outside...its no big deal - dont know why you are having such an attitude about it actually?!!
Search, for smoke free England, it explains all the rules, and reg,s and laws, If you smoke in a no smoking area, both yourself and the proprioter.or who ever is in charge.gets fined, the person in charge, gets the largest fine.
A. She should call the police and have you forcibly evicted, charged and prosecuted.
B. They are entitled to use reasonable force to remove you.
C. Just try it and see what happens.
You, sir, are typical of the lawless element in this country today. You think that if you don't like a law, you can just disobey it. Remember that this law was passed by our elected Parliament with the agreement of all Parties, and breaking it is a criminal offence. Remember, too, that since the earlier introduction of the ban in Scotland 36000 people have given up smoking. Perhaps you should try, although as a fellow pipe-smoker I know it would be difficult.
why do non smokers always complain about after being out that their clothes smell of smoke the next day? wash them you tramps, everyone else does,
a) No, she wouldn't - she'd prob call the police or an enforcement officer. In any case the cafe would be in breach of Health %26 Safety regs having her there on her own.
b) They can remove you from their cafe by "reasonable" force - same way a bouncer in a nightclub can remove you if you're looking a bit too drunk or he suddenly realises you're wearing the wrong kind of shoes.
c) When and if they find out who you are, you'll not only get the smoking fine, but you could be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. This already happens routinely to those arrested by the police who give a fake name, even if it turns out they hadn't done anything.
A suspicious proportion of the people on here complaining about the smoking ban smoke pipes. I bet you've got a beard too.
Let us say that in one of my baulchy moods I go into a cafe which is property signed up, but just a junior in charge. I take out my pipe, sit down and light it up. Quite rightly she would point out it is against the law. I tell her to Pxxs off. She has done everything she can, would she get fined?
Conversly a couple of guys in charge, same senario, if they put a hand on me I will sue for assault!
And finally,one of the "officials" come to give me a fixed penalty. Fine, my name is Mickey Mouse.
Should someone not tell what one would be expected to do in such circumstances?
Answer:
no not realy, as usual they are long and drawn out, but i know this i can now and enjoy a pint without giong home smelling like an ashtray, i gave up 5 years ago, it has never bothered me about smoky pubs just that smell on your clothes in the morning, but i realy do think that some places should be for smokers, and some for non smokers, everyone would be happy then :-)
your right i dont think anyone knows the rules fully
ignore smoking laws because they refused to compromise and it is not right in a free country. bars should be smoking and non smoking that is called compromise.
ask the person who is smoking to leave if not they are trespassing just phone the police and they would sort it out.
i know the law as a resturant owner. i must advise you of the law...refuse to serve you if you smoke. call the health department %26 they will come up..apparently. if i feel threatened i am to call the police.
i am lucky as many of my male customers are very anti smoking..and they most certainly would deal with people like you...they would put your out of my shop..and you wouldnt find any witness to help you...not even me as i think you are being aggressive...its not me thats making the law after all.
fortunately, everybody has respected the new laws in my shop and its better air for us all to breathe!! i smoke - i just nip outside...its no big deal - dont know why you are having such an attitude about it actually?!!
Search, for smoke free England, it explains all the rules, and reg,s and laws, If you smoke in a no smoking area, both yourself and the proprioter.or who ever is in charge.gets fined, the person in charge, gets the largest fine.
A. She should call the police and have you forcibly evicted, charged and prosecuted.
B. They are entitled to use reasonable force to remove you.
C. Just try it and see what happens.
You, sir, are typical of the lawless element in this country today. You think that if you don't like a law, you can just disobey it. Remember that this law was passed by our elected Parliament with the agreement of all Parties, and breaking it is a criminal offence. Remember, too, that since the earlier introduction of the ban in Scotland 36000 people have given up smoking. Perhaps you should try, although as a fellow pipe-smoker I know it would be difficult.
why do non smokers always complain about after being out that their clothes smell of smoke the next day? wash them you tramps, everyone else does,
a) No, she wouldn't - she'd prob call the police or an enforcement officer. In any case the cafe would be in breach of Health %26 Safety regs having her there on her own.
b) They can remove you from their cafe by "reasonable" force - same way a bouncer in a nightclub can remove you if you're looking a bit too drunk or he suddenly realises you're wearing the wrong kind of shoes.
c) When and if they find out who you are, you'll not only get the smoking fine, but you could be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. This already happens routinely to those arrested by the police who give a fake name, even if it turns out they hadn't done anything.
A suspicious proportion of the people on here complaining about the smoking ban smoke pipes. I bet you've got a beard too.
Does anybody know about Alameda county jail getting sued for illegal strip searches?
I just heard that people in santa rita jail were getting stripped searched illeagally
Answer:
I have posted the link to the Contra Costa Times talking about this issue. The article is dated March 1, 2007.
If you are in jail, you are probably there for a reason. Not sure why people complain about being abused.
My only response is, don't do the crime if you can't handle the time.
No rights for prisoners, sorry.
If you are in jail strip searches are a common everyday occurrence.
I have never heard of a detention center not being allowed to strip search inmates any time it is felt necessary.
Answer:
I have posted the link to the Contra Costa Times talking about this issue. The article is dated March 1, 2007.
If you are in jail, you are probably there for a reason. Not sure why people complain about being abused.
My only response is, don't do the crime if you can't handle the time.
No rights for prisoners, sorry.
If you are in jail strip searches are a common everyday occurrence.
I have never heard of a detention center not being allowed to strip search inmates any time it is felt necessary.
Does any1 no wat to do next if you cant get to an interveiw,because of---?
Illness (Depression).But you are being told that if you dont appear for the job interveiw with the social security you will lose your benefit entitlements.How can a depressed person that rarly ventures out at all,possibly sit through a 40 min interveiw in a packed public office?But after explaining this to social sec they say it makes no difference you still lose all entitlements.How are you supposed to survive on nothing.After asking for other alternative ways to have the interveiw,ie..over the phone or arrange a visit to your home, they still say no you lose.HELP PLEASE. Does any1 no any other alt or can you tell me what to do next so that i dont lose my income.
Answer:
Make an appointment with your GP and explain the situation to him. He may be able to write to the social and explain, and if it's offical, they will have to respond accordingly. Good luck.
where i come from they will visit your home if necessary.but if you can't go out for an interview then i'ts obviously you're too ill to cope in a job so you should surely be on a sickness benefit that deems you unfit for work? i'm not sure what advice to give, i'm really sorry for your trouble
If you are suffering from depression why hasnt your doctor given you a long term sick note. You can then claim income support based incapacity benefit and you dont need to go to work or sit through any 40 min interview. Sometimes getting a job or even going to college can lift your spirits up and give you something to look forward to instead of sitting in your home being a prisoner. I know its hard ive been there, but the only person that can help you get over your depression is yourself.
This one you are not going to win, sorry!!
I can only answer the Social Security situation. If you work while you are on Disability from SS, you will not automatically lose your benefits. You are entitled to earn up to a certain amount without losing your benefits. If you decide to work full time, you are entitled to receive Social Security for 3 months as a trial work period.
If you are struggling with this, I would encourage you to contact an Independent Living Center in your area. Every state offers services and programs to people with disabilities who want to be independent.
Every ILC offers "Information %26 Referral" and they can help you clear up any misunderstanding and point you in the right direction on employment and Social Security issues that you are facing. They can also point you in the right direction if you feel you are being discriminated based on your disability.
Please feel free to contact me with the state you live in and I'll let you know which ILC to contact in your area.
How awfull for you.I think roxy has the answer.
The benefits system is completely wrong. Before I joined the Marines I couldnt get a job, not even stacking shelves.
So I walked into a job centre to ask an expert what I was doing wrong, they said we cant help you because you are not on benefits. All I wanted was a quick 10 minute chat and to make an appointment, but no, unless I am taking money for no reason then I dont get help.
Your situation beggars belief. The interview could easily be done over the phone. They are robots who dont care about anything or anyone.
Go to citizens advice bureau website and see what you can do.
I don't understand. If you are on sick you should be on incapacity. Now if you have had a medical and this has gone against you, yes you would be forced to return to work.Why would the interview be in a packed office this should be within a closed room with the interviewers...An employer wants someone that is able to participate in the work place so they would not come to your home might do a phone interview but it seems to me you just don't want to be there..I am not saying this is intentional but don't you think you need to get to the bottom of this and to why you re so depressed.See a councillor through your DR and go to Citizens advice they can advice around your benefits issue..
Answer:
Make an appointment with your GP and explain the situation to him. He may be able to write to the social and explain, and if it's offical, they will have to respond accordingly. Good luck.
where i come from they will visit your home if necessary.but if you can't go out for an interview then i'ts obviously you're too ill to cope in a job so you should surely be on a sickness benefit that deems you unfit for work? i'm not sure what advice to give, i'm really sorry for your trouble
If you are suffering from depression why hasnt your doctor given you a long term sick note. You can then claim income support based incapacity benefit and you dont need to go to work or sit through any 40 min interview. Sometimes getting a job or even going to college can lift your spirits up and give you something to look forward to instead of sitting in your home being a prisoner. I know its hard ive been there, but the only person that can help you get over your depression is yourself.
This one you are not going to win, sorry!!
I can only answer the Social Security situation. If you work while you are on Disability from SS, you will not automatically lose your benefits. You are entitled to earn up to a certain amount without losing your benefits. If you decide to work full time, you are entitled to receive Social Security for 3 months as a trial work period.
If you are struggling with this, I would encourage you to contact an Independent Living Center in your area. Every state offers services and programs to people with disabilities who want to be independent.
Every ILC offers "Information %26 Referral" and they can help you clear up any misunderstanding and point you in the right direction on employment and Social Security issues that you are facing. They can also point you in the right direction if you feel you are being discriminated based on your disability.
Please feel free to contact me with the state you live in and I'll let you know which ILC to contact in your area.
How awfull for you.I think roxy has the answer.
The benefits system is completely wrong. Before I joined the Marines I couldnt get a job, not even stacking shelves.
So I walked into a job centre to ask an expert what I was doing wrong, they said we cant help you because you are not on benefits. All I wanted was a quick 10 minute chat and to make an appointment, but no, unless I am taking money for no reason then I dont get help.
Your situation beggars belief. The interview could easily be done over the phone. They are robots who dont care about anything or anyone.
Go to citizens advice bureau website and see what you can do.
I don't understand. If you are on sick you should be on incapacity. Now if you have had a medical and this has gone against you, yes you would be forced to return to work.Why would the interview be in a packed office this should be within a closed room with the interviewers...An employer wants someone that is able to participate in the work place so they would not come to your home might do a phone interview but it seems to me you just don't want to be there..I am not saying this is intentional but don't you think you need to get to the bottom of this and to why you re so depressed.See a councillor through your DR and go to Citizens advice they can advice around your benefits issue..
Does any one know where i can get someones addres with there cell phone number?
Answer:
Cell phones aren't always listed but I use "anywho.com" or you could try "whitepages.com".on AnyWho you can use the reverse listing to find by phone #. You might be redirected to a "pay for service" site that will charge for more personal information. Depends on how much you want that address. :-}
www.zabasearch.com
Does any one know how many of the 140 pardons issued by Clinton were in jail?
Answer:
It wasn't all of them, but, some were still wanted and others were awaiting sentence and still others were indeed in jail.
Just short of 140
Your number is way to low, close to 450 before all was said and done...160 in the last hours of his Presidency.
Not many of them. Most had already served the majority of their sentence and had either been released or were out on parole.
Actually the total stands at 459 pardons.
Does any one else think its unfair that fathers have no say on if their child is aborted?
I was reading a Pro-life/Pro-choice question on here, and everyone was like "its not a man's place to choose what a woman does with her body". But what about the man who really wants the baby, but the woman goes and has an abortion. How is that fair?
Answer:
It may not be fair but for now it is the law of the land. I doubt that it will ever be changed - at least not in my lifetime.
The father has no responsibility in the matter until a child is delivered via a live birth and he acknowledges paternity, so I don't see any fairness issue.
I hope someone with law experience can chime in on this one.
The father's responsiblity starts with creation and not with the birth.
No, I dont think it is fair that only the female has the say so. The father should have some rights to stop abortions, while he begins the process of obtaining legal custody of the child once it is born.
It is my understanding that the laws only favor the women.
Along the same line, a father does not have the authority to force a pregnant woman to have an abortion. Instead, she has the child without his approval, then sues for child support for a child she alone chose to have.
Its not, but life isnt fair and ultimately it is the womans choice because she is the one carrying the child. So until men can have babies they might as well get used to it.
There ain't a man in the world that wants the baby...
I think it is unfair also, the states want the money for child support. but if a woman wants to abort she can.
No, it MUST be the woman's choice. No one has the right to force a woman to give birth.
This is the basis of an argument I like to use. FIrst let me assure you that I am against abortion, and believe a man and woman are responsible for the child they create. However, using the logic of the pro-abortion or pro-choice-of-baby-killing, explain the following:
If a man gets a woman pregnant, she is allowed to get an abortion, because it is not a baby. She can either "choose" to abort it, or "choose" to allow her body to develop it into a baby.
If the woman "chooses" to allow her body to develop it into a baby, that means the man had nothing to do with it. It was her choice, and her body created the baby, since it was just a sperm that the man deposited.
How can they force a man to pay child support for a baby that he had nothing to do with? He did not "choose", nor did his body create the baby. At the very least, you can argue (with this broken pro-choice logic) that he only created a fetus, and it was the mother who 'chose' to create a baby.
Either disallow abortions, or disallow forced child support.
It's not fair at all. But people who are pro-abortion rights usually have distorted views on what is fair and not fair. It is just an ugly subject altogether - thus the name "pro-choice" instead of pro-abortion. They don't even want to call it what it really is.
Welcome to the Anglo culture young lady! It's only fair for the woman if she decides to tag the man for child support for 18 years. Her decisions bind the man's life for a lifetime. Thank you Queen Victoria once again.
I am pro-life and I think it is unfair that a father has no say...the woman didn't get pregnant by herself- not enough men stand up and take responsibility for unplanned pregnancies so when one does I think they have a right to be heard.
The father should have some say in the matter. He should also have a fair amount of resposibility for the child.
it is important to distinguish fairness from justice.
it is indeed unfair--they are not given equal weight in their decision making ability.
the far more important question is that of justice. during pregnancy, they are not equally committed to the baby. a pregnant woman is the one who bears the burden entirely. a man is not necessary at all, and more importantly, if the woman were not alive, the child would die.
after birth, the parents have equal responsibility. a woman can die in childbirth without killing the child. a man can take care of a child after it is born independently.
so during pregnancy, the woman (having sole impact over the child) is given all the relevant rights.
after the birth, when they have responsibility over the child's life, they're equally responsible.
should a woman have rights to decide whether a man has a vasectomy?
Most fathers in my experience would even go as far as to pay for the abortion.
Yes, it is Un-fair. There is not much a man can do, to protect the baby he made. Some men, don't even know their partner has become pregnant and the women just goes off and aborts the fetus. Men need to be selective and use protection, when having sex. When a man gets some women pregnant, they will live in hell for the rest of their lives. So a message to all men. Be selective and plan your parenthood as to whom your gonna make a child with.
Answer:
It may not be fair but for now it is the law of the land. I doubt that it will ever be changed - at least not in my lifetime.
The father has no responsibility in the matter until a child is delivered via a live birth and he acknowledges paternity, so I don't see any fairness issue.
I hope someone with law experience can chime in on this one.
The father's responsiblity starts with creation and not with the birth.
No, I dont think it is fair that only the female has the say so. The father should have some rights to stop abortions, while he begins the process of obtaining legal custody of the child once it is born.
It is my understanding that the laws only favor the women.
Along the same line, a father does not have the authority to force a pregnant woman to have an abortion. Instead, she has the child without his approval, then sues for child support for a child she alone chose to have.
Its not, but life isnt fair and ultimately it is the womans choice because she is the one carrying the child. So until men can have babies they might as well get used to it.
There ain't a man in the world that wants the baby...
I think it is unfair also, the states want the money for child support. but if a woman wants to abort she can.
No, it MUST be the woman's choice. No one has the right to force a woman to give birth.
This is the basis of an argument I like to use. FIrst let me assure you that I am against abortion, and believe a man and woman are responsible for the child they create. However, using the logic of the pro-abortion or pro-choice-of-baby-killing, explain the following:
If a man gets a woman pregnant, she is allowed to get an abortion, because it is not a baby. She can either "choose" to abort it, or "choose" to allow her body to develop it into a baby.
If the woman "chooses" to allow her body to develop it into a baby, that means the man had nothing to do with it. It was her choice, and her body created the baby, since it was just a sperm that the man deposited.
How can they force a man to pay child support for a baby that he had nothing to do with? He did not "choose", nor did his body create the baby. At the very least, you can argue (with this broken pro-choice logic) that he only created a fetus, and it was the mother who 'chose' to create a baby.
Either disallow abortions, or disallow forced child support.
It's not fair at all. But people who are pro-abortion rights usually have distorted views on what is fair and not fair. It is just an ugly subject altogether - thus the name "pro-choice" instead of pro-abortion. They don't even want to call it what it really is.
Welcome to the Anglo culture young lady! It's only fair for the woman if she decides to tag the man for child support for 18 years. Her decisions bind the man's life for a lifetime. Thank you Queen Victoria once again.
I am pro-life and I think it is unfair that a father has no say...the woman didn't get pregnant by herself- not enough men stand up and take responsibility for unplanned pregnancies so when one does I think they have a right to be heard.
The father should have some say in the matter. He should also have a fair amount of resposibility for the child.
it is important to distinguish fairness from justice.
it is indeed unfair--they are not given equal weight in their decision making ability.
the far more important question is that of justice. during pregnancy, they are not equally committed to the baby. a pregnant woman is the one who bears the burden entirely. a man is not necessary at all, and more importantly, if the woman were not alive, the child would die.
after birth, the parents have equal responsibility. a woman can die in childbirth without killing the child. a man can take care of a child after it is born independently.
so during pregnancy, the woman (having sole impact over the child) is given all the relevant rights.
after the birth, when they have responsibility over the child's life, they're equally responsible.
should a woman have rights to decide whether a man has a vasectomy?
Most fathers in my experience would even go as far as to pay for the abortion.
Yes, it is Un-fair. There is not much a man can do, to protect the baby he made. Some men, don't even know their partner has become pregnant and the women just goes off and aborts the fetus. Men need to be selective and use protection, when having sex. When a man gets some women pregnant, they will live in hell for the rest of their lives. So a message to all men. Be selective and plan your parenthood as to whom your gonna make a child with.
Does any Jail ever require inmates to eat Meat?
Answer:
I don't believe so. My understanding is that if you tell the jail before you begin to serve your sentence that you are a vegetarian or a vegan, they must comply with your wishes. Think about some of the world's religions that forbid or frown upon the eating of meat. We still have the right and the freedom to practice our religion even while incarcerated, and eating meat sometimes falls under that category.
No. Not in Cali.
you won't need to worry about that , your worry will be if you ever get any, I mean that is not already spoiled,
Not the prison, but some of the inmates may make you
eat meat LOL
You might want to reword you question; it can be misconstrued.
Does any any know which coutry have the best torture that made you confess?
the crime you did
Answer:
none - torture doesn't work.
not if you want the truth at any rate.
in 1692, there were over 200 accused witches in salem mass - most of whom 'confessed' after being tortured.
and as a result of these confessions, we got lots of extremely valuable accounts of people flying around on brooms, drinking tea with the devil and a manner of equally preposterous things.
think how ridiculous that even looks written out and ask yourself if you want to historically be alligned with such nonsense.
torture does not work...
The US stole their torture techniques from the Soviet Union...
Probably Japan during WWII or the Philippine government, also during that time. They has some really horrible methods that make even me cringe.
Technically, torture is a very poor way of gathering information because people will tell you things that aren't true when they are in pain if they think it is what you want to hear.
That said, I'd guess the Chinese or Israelis.
no torture tachniques work. the movies are all bull. no one holds out. people confess right away wether they did it or not. if given leading questions they confess, if given open ended questions they just start making up stuff to get the torture to stop.
The Vietnamese had some interesting techniques
Answer:
none - torture doesn't work.
not if you want the truth at any rate.
in 1692, there were over 200 accused witches in salem mass - most of whom 'confessed' after being tortured.
and as a result of these confessions, we got lots of extremely valuable accounts of people flying around on brooms, drinking tea with the devil and a manner of equally preposterous things.
think how ridiculous that even looks written out and ask yourself if you want to historically be alligned with such nonsense.
torture does not work...
The US stole their torture techniques from the Soviet Union...
Probably Japan during WWII or the Philippine government, also during that time. They has some really horrible methods that make even me cringe.
Technically, torture is a very poor way of gathering information because people will tell you things that aren't true when they are in pain if they think it is what you want to hear.
That said, I'd guess the Chinese or Israelis.
no torture tachniques work. the movies are all bull. no one holds out. people confess right away wether they did it or not. if given leading questions they confess, if given open ended questions they just start making up stuff to get the torture to stop.
The Vietnamese had some interesting techniques
Does Affirmative Action apply to everything? What about if there is a draft?
Will 'minorities' still complain that they are not equally represented? Will Rev. Sharpton be appalled at at the military for not drafting enough blacks or hispanics?
Answer:
.The Supreme court, just last week, denied busing for the purpose of desegregation. Has the worm finally turned in favor of equality for all ? Will this be the end to 'set aside ' programs that we watched with disfavor, as local governments handed business opportunity to people based on color and gender, yet turned their backs on the aged, veterans, and handicapped, to favor the former ?
I sure hope so !
I dont think it ever will, because in the event that there is a war draft the government will care less on who is being uequally represented. One such example of the government clearly being unconstitutional is the holding of the japanese-americans during world war 2. in Korematsu v. United States the supreme court says that the government may throw out liberties in the time of war.
Uhhh, no. Affirmative action, if it is applied, applies only to education and, less often, to jobs. It rarely applies to anything else. The draft is done by random selection of birthdays. Also, affirmative action can also apply to women, not only minorities. I don't think affirmative action and the draft will ever draw a following or even media attention. A more controversial issue is actually women and the draft.
Answer:
.The Supreme court, just last week, denied busing for the purpose of desegregation. Has the worm finally turned in favor of equality for all ? Will this be the end to 'set aside ' programs that we watched with disfavor, as local governments handed business opportunity to people based on color and gender, yet turned their backs on the aged, veterans, and handicapped, to favor the former ?
I sure hope so !
I dont think it ever will, because in the event that there is a war draft the government will care less on who is being uequally represented. One such example of the government clearly being unconstitutional is the holding of the japanese-americans during world war 2. in Korematsu v. United States the supreme court says that the government may throw out liberties in the time of war.
Uhhh, no. Affirmative action, if it is applied, applies only to education and, less often, to jobs. It rarely applies to anything else. The draft is done by random selection of birthdays. Also, affirmative action can also apply to women, not only minorities. I don't think affirmative action and the draft will ever draw a following or even media attention. A more controversial issue is actually women and the draft.
Does a title/deed for a home, indicate the owner of the house, and what if you are married and your spouse is?
your spouse is not on the deed/title of the house.
Answer:
It'll cost you, but contact a real estate attorney to see about adding your spouse. What will happen is basically a legal fiction, you will be selling your house to you + your spouse, supported by maybe nominal consideration. To do that you will need a new deed noting the transfer of title. Just to be on the safe side, your attorney will probably insist on doing a title search as well to make sure there are no other problems with deeds/mortgage arising from previous owners.
If you are in California, the title/deed does indicate the owner of the house. But it is more complicated than that. If it says "so and so, a married man as his sole and separate property", the property might still be considered to be community property in a divorce or at death of the title holder. That depends on if the property was "transmuted", meaning that community assets were used to buy it or maintain it.
If the title/deed does not say anything about marital state at all but the one person on the deed is married, it is presumed to be community property.
Before signing any deed, have it reviewed by a lawyer to explain to you the consequences of each form of holding title.
When was the home purchased?
What major rennovation was done to the home during the marriage and who paid for it?
The deed indicates who the legal owner is, as of the date on the deed.
If your spouse isn't on the deed, state law will prevail. Generally if you owned the property prior to the marriage it remains your sole and exclusive property. If you acquired it by gift or bequest after the marriage, it generally remains your sole and exclusive property even in community property states.
If you acquire it by purchase after the marriage that's where things get muddy. In a community property state it would usually be joint property even if only one name was on the deed. Some states may permit the spouse to waive their claim. Some common law states do confer property rights to a spouse unless the spouse explicity waives any claim. That's why you will sometimes see a deed listed as "Mary Louise Jones, a Married Woman, as Her Sole and Exclusive Property," or some such similar wording.
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a local attorney who practices real estate law in your state.
Assuming there are no impediments to the title, the named grantee (recipient of the deed) is the owner of legal title. Depending on individual state law, and the type of property (there are different rules for primary residences) the legally married spouse of the title owner may have certain legal interests in the property even though unnamed. The only way to be sure is to bring the copy of the deed to an attorney in your state or have a title search done %26 bring that to an attorney.
Answer:
It'll cost you, but contact a real estate attorney to see about adding your spouse. What will happen is basically a legal fiction, you will be selling your house to you + your spouse, supported by maybe nominal consideration. To do that you will need a new deed noting the transfer of title. Just to be on the safe side, your attorney will probably insist on doing a title search as well to make sure there are no other problems with deeds/mortgage arising from previous owners.
If you are in California, the title/deed does indicate the owner of the house. But it is more complicated than that. If it says "so and so, a married man as his sole and separate property", the property might still be considered to be community property in a divorce or at death of the title holder. That depends on if the property was "transmuted", meaning that community assets were used to buy it or maintain it.
If the title/deed does not say anything about marital state at all but the one person on the deed is married, it is presumed to be community property.
Before signing any deed, have it reviewed by a lawyer to explain to you the consequences of each form of holding title.
When was the home purchased?
What major rennovation was done to the home during the marriage and who paid for it?
The deed indicates who the legal owner is, as of the date on the deed.
If your spouse isn't on the deed, state law will prevail. Generally if you owned the property prior to the marriage it remains your sole and exclusive property. If you acquired it by gift or bequest after the marriage, it generally remains your sole and exclusive property even in community property states.
If you acquire it by purchase after the marriage that's where things get muddy. In a community property state it would usually be joint property even if only one name was on the deed. Some states may permit the spouse to waive their claim. Some common law states do confer property rights to a spouse unless the spouse explicity waives any claim. That's why you will sometimes see a deed listed as "Mary Louise Jones, a Married Woman, as Her Sole and Exclusive Property," or some such similar wording.
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult with a local attorney who practices real estate law in your state.
Assuming there are no impediments to the title, the named grantee (recipient of the deed) is the owner of legal title. Depending on individual state law, and the type of property (there are different rules for primary residences) the legally married spouse of the title owner may have certain legal interests in the property even though unnamed. The only way to be sure is to bring the copy of the deed to an attorney in your state or have a title search done %26 bring that to an attorney.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Does a paternity test help in a custody battle?
The father of my daughter who is 3 and currently lives with her grandmother is seeking full custody but he is not her blood father, will that affect his chances of getting her if a DNA test were done?
Answer:
It may not matter what the results are; if he has been the "defacto" father and has raised her as his own for any period of time, a paternity test where he does not come as the father will not eliminate him for getting custody of the child. The Courts will decide what is in the best interest of the child.
If the biological father was not informed previously by the mother, wants the DNA test and wants custody, it could end up being a 3 way battle for custody.
You need to consult with a lawyer in your State as laws vary depending on where you reside and too many other factors come into play. Custody battles are always long and expensive and you will need an attorney to guide you through the process.
You can figure it out eventually.
paternity will definately play a big part in this case, especially if he isn't the real dad.
Uh, YEAH, if he was proven not to be her father then it would be like any other random person demanding custody.
If his name is on the birth certificate and he has been acting as the father since day one, a paterntity test may not disqualify him from getting custody. Cases like this almost always require a lawyer to help out.
definetly!!....
Depends. If you and the blood father don't want custody he could be awarded. If the court sees you or the blood father as unfit he could be awarded.
Otherwise you have nothing to worry about.
That's a tough legal question. In 99.9% of the custody cases, paternity tests, do in fact, determine the biological dad. In your case, if the child's non-biological father still wishes to adopt your daughter after discovering this information, in all likelihood, the court will see in his favor especially since you are a non-custodial parent. Two things are at test here:
1) the child is not biologically the paternal father's daughter, and 2) you do not have custody which does not look favorably in a court situation.
Good luck with this. It's a difficult position to be in.
Normally custody is awarded to one of a child's natural parents, BUT if you told him he was the father and you collected child support from him, etc. now might not be a good time to bring that up and the courts can prevent it if you knew and didn't care to raise the issue till it helped you. In Florida there was a boy who was shot. He had been raised since birth by his mom and a her boyfriend who acted like his dad. When the shooting hit the papers and the folks figured out that money might be involved, the "real" biological father filed suit to get his part of the money and the court told him that being a sperm donor was not enough to make him a dad and they let the guy who served as his dad his whole life get the money that otherwise would have gone to the father. Also the courts do not have to award custody to either natural parent. Sounds like this kid is not living w/ either of his/her natural parents and the courts can consider all the living arrangments and decide what is best for the kid.
Answer:
It may not matter what the results are; if he has been the "defacto" father and has raised her as his own for any period of time, a paternity test where he does not come as the father will not eliminate him for getting custody of the child. The Courts will decide what is in the best interest of the child.
If the biological father was not informed previously by the mother, wants the DNA test and wants custody, it could end up being a 3 way battle for custody.
You need to consult with a lawyer in your State as laws vary depending on where you reside and too many other factors come into play. Custody battles are always long and expensive and you will need an attorney to guide you through the process.
You can figure it out eventually.
paternity will definately play a big part in this case, especially if he isn't the real dad.
Uh, YEAH, if he was proven not to be her father then it would be like any other random person demanding custody.
If his name is on the birth certificate and he has been acting as the father since day one, a paterntity test may not disqualify him from getting custody. Cases like this almost always require a lawyer to help out.
definetly!!....
Depends. If you and the blood father don't want custody he could be awarded. If the court sees you or the blood father as unfit he could be awarded.
Otherwise you have nothing to worry about.
That's a tough legal question. In 99.9% of the custody cases, paternity tests, do in fact, determine the biological dad. In your case, if the child's non-biological father still wishes to adopt your daughter after discovering this information, in all likelihood, the court will see in his favor especially since you are a non-custodial parent. Two things are at test here:
1) the child is not biologically the paternal father's daughter, and 2) you do not have custody which does not look favorably in a court situation.
Good luck with this. It's a difficult position to be in.
Normally custody is awarded to one of a child's natural parents, BUT if you told him he was the father and you collected child support from him, etc. now might not be a good time to bring that up and the courts can prevent it if you knew and didn't care to raise the issue till it helped you. In Florida there was a boy who was shot. He had been raised since birth by his mom and a her boyfriend who acted like his dad. When the shooting hit the papers and the folks figured out that money might be involved, the "real" biological father filed suit to get his part of the money and the court told him that being a sperm donor was not enough to make him a dad and they let the guy who served as his dad his whole life get the money that otherwise would have gone to the father. Also the courts do not have to award custody to either natural parent. Sounds like this kid is not living w/ either of his/her natural parents and the courts can consider all the living arrangments and decide what is best for the kid.
Does a homeowner's association rule giving each property one vote per acre violate the 14th Amendment?
In other words, should a homeowner's association have elections in which there is only one vote per person or is it legal to base the number of votes an individual has on the number of lots she owns? And what if this is a community whose taxes are applied directly to the community itself rather than the local government? Does that make it a private organization exempt from constitutional boundaries?
Answer:
Are you referring to the equal protection clause? I'm trying to understand why you would even be mentioning the 14th Amend.
The one person one vote doctrine emerged in Baker vs. Carr. The 14th Amendment in that case involved unequally applied state districting/re-districting laws. Note that the right to vote is itself not part of the 14th Amend.
In your situation, there is no "law" under which to claim equal protection. To put it in Constitutional Law parlance, there is no state action, for one thing. I have no idea what you mean by "taxes applied to the community itself". In any event, the tax aspects are unrelated to the HOA voting practices. "Dues", not "taxes", are the form of revenue for the associations. Incidentally, there is state law governing certain aspects of home owners associations and that should be consulted.
Since a HOA is private they can determine the voting rules the way they want. You have a choice to live elsewhere or try to change them from the inside. The 14th Amendment applies to our government only. The Constitution itself is mainly rules for our government.
No, because the homeowner association is a private organization, and the 14th Amendment only applies to govt electoral processes.
As to the taxes, the community can levy fees on members, but they are not actually taxes -- taxes are paid to the govt only.
The homeowner's association can have any rule they please.
When you joined it, you should have signed and got a copy of a contract that spelled out the rules, such as how the rules subsequently get changed.
It is a private membership organization.
The 14th amendment applies to government organizations.
I believe the 14th Amendment applies to representation in congress and due process. And, how are taxes that go to the community different than the government?
I don't think there has been a case arguing that a HOA is subject to the 14th amendment. Are you sure they are taking your taxes? Remember taxes and dues are two separate things.
The Constitution doesn't get involved in property tax. Local tax laws might address it.
It's a private entity, so it's not bound by the Constitution. And that's the real issue - a private entity having such enormous power that resembles local government power.
Answer:
Are you referring to the equal protection clause? I'm trying to understand why you would even be mentioning the 14th Amend.
The one person one vote doctrine emerged in Baker vs. Carr. The 14th Amendment in that case involved unequally applied state districting/re-districting laws. Note that the right to vote is itself not part of the 14th Amend.
In your situation, there is no "law" under which to claim equal protection. To put it in Constitutional Law parlance, there is no state action, for one thing. I have no idea what you mean by "taxes applied to the community itself". In any event, the tax aspects are unrelated to the HOA voting practices. "Dues", not "taxes", are the form of revenue for the associations. Incidentally, there is state law governing certain aspects of home owners associations and that should be consulted.
Since a HOA is private they can determine the voting rules the way they want. You have a choice to live elsewhere or try to change them from the inside. The 14th Amendment applies to our government only. The Constitution itself is mainly rules for our government.
No, because the homeowner association is a private organization, and the 14th Amendment only applies to govt electoral processes.
As to the taxes, the community can levy fees on members, but they are not actually taxes -- taxes are paid to the govt only.
The homeowner's association can have any rule they please.
When you joined it, you should have signed and got a copy of a contract that spelled out the rules, such as how the rules subsequently get changed.
It is a private membership organization.
The 14th amendment applies to government organizations.
I believe the 14th Amendment applies to representation in congress and due process. And, how are taxes that go to the community different than the government?
I don't think there has been a case arguing that a HOA is subject to the 14th amendment. Are you sure they are taking your taxes? Remember taxes and dues are two separate things.
The Constitution doesn't get involved in property tax. Local tax laws might address it.
It's a private entity, so it's not bound by the Constitution. And that's the real issue - a private entity having such enormous power that resembles local government power.
Does "free speach" matter on "FreeLawAnswer.com"?
Me
Answer:
you better watch what you say,...they will ban you altogether for calling them out..they will not tolerate anything that goes against their political views..i am risking total excommunication just by saying this...the walls have ears,..and other, more disgusting orifices.
Yes. Everyone is encouraged to speak their minds here. However, you must remember that the right to free speech does not guarantee the right to be taken seriously.
No, because as a private enterprise, Yahoo is free to censor speech it determines as offensive.
Well, it all depends on what "speach" means. LOL.
no! there is no free speech here. see FreeLawAnswer.coms community guidlines.
they do censor FreeLawAnswer.com
no yahoo's a business they can do pretty much what they want special on the internet since the goverment seems to think virtual reality is not real lol you would be surprised look on the internet a large amount of countrys control the flow of what there people can see and do online ...it goes even as far as video games for instance eve-online had to change some things for there strict Chinese market ...and yet they are corrupt exploit the most go figure
YES it matters!
Unless, it is offensive.
Obviously not since I've had many questions removed for no reason what so ever! There are many other places to express ones self! I would strongly advise others to seek these sites out and stop posting to yahoo ever again. Soon the only ones posting here will be children and who wants to converse with them.
Of course not, there is no free speech in here and in the whole country. Just go public and start talking about a politician or someone else and you'll find out the hard way that there is no free speech. I was told this by one of my professors in the University. At the time, I didn't believe him, but now I know he was right. Complain about something a good , rich company is not doing right and you'll see the results.
Answer:
you better watch what you say,...they will ban you altogether for calling them out..they will not tolerate anything that goes against their political views..i am risking total excommunication just by saying this...the walls have ears,..and other, more disgusting orifices.
Yes. Everyone is encouraged to speak their minds here. However, you must remember that the right to free speech does not guarantee the right to be taken seriously.
No, because as a private enterprise, Yahoo is free to censor speech it determines as offensive.
Well, it all depends on what "speach" means. LOL.
no! there is no free speech here. see FreeLawAnswer.coms community guidlines.
they do censor FreeLawAnswer.com
no yahoo's a business they can do pretty much what they want special on the internet since the goverment seems to think virtual reality is not real lol you would be surprised look on the internet a large amount of countrys control the flow of what there people can see and do online ...it goes even as far as video games for instance eve-online had to change some things for there strict Chinese market ...and yet they are corrupt exploit the most go figure
YES it matters!
Unless, it is offensive.
Obviously not since I've had many questions removed for no reason what so ever! There are many other places to express ones self! I would strongly advise others to seek these sites out and stop posting to yahoo ever again. Soon the only ones posting here will be children and who wants to converse with them.
Of course not, there is no free speech in here and in the whole country. Just go public and start talking about a politician or someone else and you'll find out the hard way that there is no free speech. I was told this by one of my professors in the University. At the time, I didn't believe him, but now I know he was right. Complain about something a good , rich company is not doing right and you'll see the results.
Doctors who are anti-life ?
We all understand that some countries have decriminalized abortion as in Canada, some have made them legal.
The question is why in the cases where the womens life is not in danger, does a doctor perform abortions, killing an unborn child when it is not necessary, but merely a choice, that has other options including adoption and using public funds?
So why are some doctors and some nurses in Canada using public money and using hospitals to kill an unborn child when the womans life is not threatened, and people cannot get necessary medical treatments in hospitals ?
The LIght: The Rainbow of Truth.
http://thejesuschristcode.com
Answer:
There really is no right answer to this question, except to say what is right for one person is not necessarily right for everyone. Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong in my opinion. As a woman and a mom of a daughter I am also uncomfortable saying we should force women or young girls to give birth to children and then give them up for adoption. I myself would not choose to abort a child unless there was a severe reason for it, and I would encourage my daughter to also choose carefully in this instance, but I also don't feel it is right for me to make very personal decisions as to whether someone else should. It is my hope that any young woman who is considering abortion think it over very carefully first. That said, the fact is people have children everyday who do not want them and who do not take care of them. When all the children born in this world are wanted, cared for and cherished as they deserve to be, the world will be a better place for everyone. I encourage every person to take parenting seriously. I think far too many people do not realize how important being a good parent is.
I hope you are a foster parent to provide love and support for children.
Most doctors understand that the tiny clump of cells that are removed in most abortions in no way resemble a child. This is why legislatures and courts have upheld the legality of the procedure time after time. And while many have some discomfort with abortion, they have to balance this against a woman being forced to have a baby to satisfy the religious prejudices of people who would seek to impose their will on her. When faced with a difficult ethical choice, it's a reasonable guideline in free socities to choose the option that honors freedom.
Do you honestly think that asking such a question (pontificating would be more exact) is going to solve the abortion question or even marginally contribute to any understanding between those for and those against abortion. Give it a rest.
You're about as helpful to the social conservatives and their anti-abortion stance as those in the liberal camp who wear signs to "Free Tibet" are to the liberal cause. All you or they are doing is narcissistically parading for those in your camp. You and they are silly, silly people who are largely ignored. Which is what I should be doing instead of wasting my time with such an insignificant dupe.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
It is a womans choice and ONLY hers to give birth or not. NO ONE can force a woman to carry and give birth if she chooses not to.
Government and religion need to stay out of peoples bedrooms and womens wombs. Don't you have enough to do in the world today?? What with hunger, famine and drought, you'd think you all would find another cause...
The question is why in the cases where the womens life is not in danger, does a doctor perform abortions, killing an unborn child when it is not necessary, but merely a choice, that has other options including adoption and using public funds?
So why are some doctors and some nurses in Canada using public money and using hospitals to kill an unborn child when the womans life is not threatened, and people cannot get necessary medical treatments in hospitals ?
The LIght: The Rainbow of Truth.
http://thejesuschristcode.com
Answer:
There really is no right answer to this question, except to say what is right for one person is not necessarily right for everyone. Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong in my opinion. As a woman and a mom of a daughter I am also uncomfortable saying we should force women or young girls to give birth to children and then give them up for adoption. I myself would not choose to abort a child unless there was a severe reason for it, and I would encourage my daughter to also choose carefully in this instance, but I also don't feel it is right for me to make very personal decisions as to whether someone else should. It is my hope that any young woman who is considering abortion think it over very carefully first. That said, the fact is people have children everyday who do not want them and who do not take care of them. When all the children born in this world are wanted, cared for and cherished as they deserve to be, the world will be a better place for everyone. I encourage every person to take parenting seriously. I think far too many people do not realize how important being a good parent is.
I hope you are a foster parent to provide love and support for children.
Most doctors understand that the tiny clump of cells that are removed in most abortions in no way resemble a child. This is why legislatures and courts have upheld the legality of the procedure time after time. And while many have some discomfort with abortion, they have to balance this against a woman being forced to have a baby to satisfy the religious prejudices of people who would seek to impose their will on her. When faced with a difficult ethical choice, it's a reasonable guideline in free socities to choose the option that honors freedom.
Do you honestly think that asking such a question (pontificating would be more exact) is going to solve the abortion question or even marginally contribute to any understanding between those for and those against abortion. Give it a rest.
You're about as helpful to the social conservatives and their anti-abortion stance as those in the liberal camp who wear signs to "Free Tibet" are to the liberal cause. All you or they are doing is narcissistically parading for those in your camp. You and they are silly, silly people who are largely ignored. Which is what I should be doing instead of wasting my time with such an insignificant dupe.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
It is a womans choice and ONLY hers to give birth or not. NO ONE can force a woman to carry and give birth if she chooses not to.
Government and religion need to stay out of peoples bedrooms and womens wombs. Don't you have enough to do in the world today?? What with hunger, famine and drought, you'd think you all would find another cause...
Doctor overdosed vet at V.A.Employee slapped told to shutup.4 million disappeared, exdirector transferred.Help
Doctor at V.A. overdosed an employee(Desert Shield, Desert Storm Vet, decorated)which lead to his boss firing him. Same boss uttered a threat then lied. No action taken against him. Another employee under this man was slapped told to shut up. The man that did the slapping still has his job. The other man was presented pink slip. Two years ago, ex -director transferred after being unable to account for 4 million missing dollars.(IG report #04-02887-169) Nursing director has a no-restrainst policy for vets, not good for alzheimers patients or those needing it, even those an inspector told her to change the policy, she didn't. There have been numerous patient falls as a result. As a concerned citizen I would like to have some national publicity and see wrongs corrected. A Congressional rep. checked on one complaint, and said he believed what had happened concerning one boss, but the boss said it didn't so end of story. No futher investigation. Can anybody out there help ?? Please !!
Answer:
There are plenty of attorneys who can help you. I suggest you look at the NOVA group. There is a very good VA Attorney in North Carolina, named Hugh D. Cox. His web site can direct you to an attorney near you.
http://www.hughcox.com
If you are an employee of the VA, go through your Union Rep and voice your concerns. Contact the media if you have PROOF, if not, they will blow you off as well. Document things that you believe to be wrong, as to who what when where and how and obtain documentation of actions such as memos, recordings, etc.
Answer:
There are plenty of attorneys who can help you. I suggest you look at the NOVA group. There is a very good VA Attorney in North Carolina, named Hugh D. Cox. His web site can direct you to an attorney near you.
http://www.hughcox.com
If you are an employee of the VA, go through your Union Rep and voice your concerns. Contact the media if you have PROOF, if not, they will blow you off as well. Document things that you believe to be wrong, as to who what when where and how and obtain documentation of actions such as memos, recordings, etc.
Doctor or Attorney ?
Which profession is more rewarding, more helping and just overall good, and which profession use a Laptop more ?
Answer:
That depends. Both can be very rewarding. Helping an innocent man/woman go free after falsely accused or the other side of table, convicting a serial rapist so they can never hurt anyone ever again. Dr.'s helping people feel better or saving someone from dying of cancer. They're both wonderful professions but a lawyer would use a laptop way more. Most of a lawyer's work is done preparing motions and memorandums, which utilize computers.
Well, who do you want to build your house -- a good person or a good contractor?
Be a doctor, the market is not flooded like it is with attorneys, and you get paid alot better, and I believe it is still a very noble profession.
This is coming from an attorney.
Answer:
That depends. Both can be very rewarding. Helping an innocent man/woman go free after falsely accused or the other side of table, convicting a serial rapist so they can never hurt anyone ever again. Dr.'s helping people feel better or saving someone from dying of cancer. They're both wonderful professions but a lawyer would use a laptop way more. Most of a lawyer's work is done preparing motions and memorandums, which utilize computers.
Well, who do you want to build your house -- a good person or a good contractor?
Be a doctor, the market is not flooded like it is with attorneys, and you get paid alot better, and I believe it is still a very noble profession.
This is coming from an attorney.
Do your grandparents have any legal rights to you children if you seperate from them (parents)?
Essentially my parents are pretty evil and I want my daughter to stay away from them as well as myself. My wife and I agree as well. We take good care of our daughter. I was wondering could my parents claim some sort of visitation rights for our daughter. Since legally they are grandparents of our daughter.
Answer:
Each state is different; contact children's services and ask
it depends on the state that you are in, but yes, most states recognize custody and visitation rights of gps. elder and grandparent law is a growing legal field as people live longer.
Grandparents rights is solely consentual in most states..If either parent objects to it, then it is a lost cause.. I speak from experience!!
Answer:
Each state is different; contact children's services and ask
it depends on the state that you are in, but yes, most states recognize custody and visitation rights of gps. elder and grandparent law is a growing legal field as people live longer.
Grandparents rights is solely consentual in most states..If either parent objects to it, then it is a lost cause.. I speak from experience!!
Do you trust your government? If so why and if not why not?
Answer:
There are no perfect people on this planet, and there is no perfect government either. Government is no better than the people who manage it. You didn't say what government you are asking about. I live in USA, and I believe it to be the most trustworthy government on the planet, even with it's weaknesses. God Bless the USA. It's easy to find fault with people and governments, but a better approach would be to look for the good.
Of course. The government is a very accurate mirror reflection of our society.
Heck no!!! Did u see that movie-- The Shooter
Not all the time, but it's the only one we've got, and it's way better than anyone elses. God bless America!
ya why not... they control if u do or u dont so why not make the country stronger by trusting
Do you think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of responsibility than government leaders?
If Scooter Libby is off the hook for announcing that Valerie Plame Wilson is a CIA agent and putting her life in danger, and all the other obviously illegal events government leaders have pulled off in front of everybody, like WMD's in Iraq, GITMO and Gulf of Tonkin, why do people think Snoop Dogg is a horrible person for illegally posessing a gun and carrying cocaine? In other words, the people are arrested for doing immature, silly things while Bush and Cheney remain in office. Is this okay that we let this happen? Do you think important, powerful people should have to obey less laws than regular people?
Also, just wondering, has anyone been convicted in the DC Madam prostitution scandal yet?
Answer:
Oh sure! ask the same question to Stalin or Hitler or Castro or why not Bush...
Not about to tell you what standard of responsibility that you should hold yourself to. But I hold myself to a very high standard. My own. I really don't consider the standards that others meet. Do you? Should you?
As far as the DC madam. Has the case gone to court yet? Can their be a conviction before it does?
Also, just wondering, has anyone been convicted in the DC Madam prostitution scandal yet?
Answer:
Oh sure! ask the same question to Stalin or Hitler or Castro or why not Bush...
Not about to tell you what standard of responsibility that you should hold yourself to. But I hold myself to a very high standard. My own. I really don't consider the standards that others meet. Do you? Should you?
As far as the DC madam. Has the case gone to court yet? Can their be a conviction before it does?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)