i have a job interview today and i was wondering whether or whether not they drug test you at ralphs the supermarket.
does any1 kno?
Answer:
Yes. Most reputable employers require drug screening of employees for insurance and legal reasons.
Yes they do. State and Federal laws require drug test for new hires into all companies with over a certain number of workers. Are you worried?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Does raising money for charity count as non-commercial under "creative commons" license?
I've been writing a blog for a while that combines images from Flickr which are licensed under creative commons (non-commercial) with select quotes. After several requests, I'm now considering turning it into a book of sorts, via Lulu.com.
Because of the license terms and spirit of what I'm doing, I'm not looking to make any money from this personally. However, it seems it could be a good opportunity to help a charity.
Would it be allowable under the terms of the creative commons license for me to charge say $1-2 extra on top of the cost from Lulu for printing/shipping, with the full extra amount going to a nominated charity?
Answer:
The terms of any Creative Common license are set forth in the license, and each has specific things that are allowed and forbidden.
Generally, you are not allowed to charge extra above printing/handling/shipping costs -- but you can solicit donations to charity as part of the transaction. Thus, you can sell the book for $10, but if the buyer wants to pay $12 you'll donate the extra to charity. That's allowed under most Creative Commons licenses.
But also check your local state/country regulations for collecting money for charities.
But be prepared to prove that the full extra amount going to a nominated charity. Keep careful and detailed records. You can be audited. In the US file with the IRS the first year documenting this.
It might work if you form a non-profit organization, register it with the state's Attorney General's office of charity supervision, and receive IRS recognition of its charitable status, say, 501(c)(3).
Otherwise, you are at risk that some state or federal law will be interpreted as meaning your actions are for your own personal opportunity, and not charitable, as you claim, and you will be personally responsible for paying everyone back.
Because of the license terms and spirit of what I'm doing, I'm not looking to make any money from this personally. However, it seems it could be a good opportunity to help a charity.
Would it be allowable under the terms of the creative commons license for me to charge say $1-2 extra on top of the cost from Lulu for printing/shipping, with the full extra amount going to a nominated charity?
Answer:
The terms of any Creative Common license are set forth in the license, and each has specific things that are allowed and forbidden.
Generally, you are not allowed to charge extra above printing/handling/shipping costs -- but you can solicit donations to charity as part of the transaction. Thus, you can sell the book for $10, but if the buyer wants to pay $12 you'll donate the extra to charity. That's allowed under most Creative Commons licenses.
But also check your local state/country regulations for collecting money for charities.
But be prepared to prove that the full extra amount going to a nominated charity. Keep careful and detailed records. You can be audited. In the US file with the IRS the first year documenting this.
It might work if you form a non-profit organization, register it with the state's Attorney General's office of charity supervision, and receive IRS recognition of its charitable status, say, 501(c)(3).
Otherwise, you are at risk that some state or federal law will be interpreted as meaning your actions are for your own personal opportunity, and not charitable, as you claim, and you will be personally responsible for paying everyone back.
Does puring tea over someones head constitute as "assulting" them?
I have a court date coming up for a fight I got in at the mall. Some girl had been prank calling my boyfriends phone and sending messages via myspace talking "smack". I saw her at the mall and confronted her on it. She lied and mouthed off so I took the lid off my iced tea and poured it over her head. Immediatley she attacked me. Next thing I knew, I was in a choke hold by some lady and the iced tea covered girl was getting up off the floor and dashing for security demanding that charges be pressed. So now, we're days away from going to court and people are telling me that I should have counter pressed charges cause technically she layed hands on me first. I've never dealt with this kind of stuff and I have no idea what to think.
Answer:
You should "lawyer up"
find a good criminal atty. Technically you began the assault by pouring the tea over her head, until then it was just words, she could have been charged with harassment first.
Yes - Any unwanted touching can be classified as an assault.
yep
lol. Yes it does constitute assualt. But also it constitutes Battery charges. Assualt is the threat to bodily harm (like waving a fist or gun to someone) and battery is the harm itself (like punching or shooting that person).
Yes.Next time let your boyfriend deal with it.
attempted murder
Nowadays you can have charges pressed just by looking at someone wrong... I would maintain that the spill was an accident and you were attacked first...
but that's just me ;)
The physical contact doesn't have to be your body to her body. If you intentionally cause something unwelcome to come into physical contact with her, that's enough. Would you be asking this question if you had thrown a rock at her? Of course not. Just because the iced tea wasn't the most dangerous object doesn't change the fact that you initiated the physical confrontation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a job where you need to have some knowledge of the law. In Canada, where I live, any kind of unwanted physical contact could be considered an assault. Pouring iced tea on someone counts as an assault. If the other girl laid hands on you, in Canada at least, she could also be open to a charge of assault. Since both Canadian and American law have roots in English common law (I'm assuming you're American), the laws regarding assault should be pretty similar.
At this point, the smart thing for you to do is to get the best lawyer you can afford and try and have the charges reduced or dropped. The prosecution might see the situation as a couple of teen-aged girls (I'm assuming you're in your teens; almost everyone on FreeLawAnswer.coms seems to be) acting like idiots and decide to spend their time on better things. Get a lawyer, however. You don't want to mess around with the justice system or get a criminal record. America is particularly punitive when it comes to criminal records.
Yes it is considered assault. To what extent, depends on the judge.
If you are lucky, the judge will think the retaliation was an over reaction from the girl.
Being shoved is being assaulted, but does not give someone the right to shoot them in self defense (or at least would be very difficult to prove it was justified).
If you are lucky, you can possibly consider paying 'restitution' to the girl. Maybe the cost of dry cleaning her clothes, and/or getting her hair done, in exchange for charges dropped.
Obviously talk to a lawyer, even a public defender.
Most likely you'll be charged with battery. Battery is a slightly less offense than assault. If you punch someone that's assault as it can be said you intend to hurt them, pouring ice tea on someone is more like an insult.
You'll probably get a fine and probation, she only mouthed off technically you attacked her.
Assault %26 Battery might be a bit of an extreme verdict, but what you did is SOMETHING. And I'd say you could get hit with that. A lawyer will get it reduced to whatever they can for you.
You realize that it IS something, right? That it's not perfectly OK to be throwing liquids on people--that at the VERY minimum, you're responsible for damage to clothes, etc?
I find it interesting (and a bit sad) how often people allow words to bother them so much...and lead to things like this, or worse. What ever happened to the old saying about "sticks %26 stones?"
...names will never hurt you, but a fine or jail time might.
Please do yourself a favor and get a lawyer.
She didn't attack you, you attacked her by pouring the tea-- changing it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one. Better take the best plea deal thrown your way and hope for the best.
Amercians gained their freedom over a row involving tea - I think it's probably written somewhere in the constitution that all tea related skirmishes should be left unpunished - Are you from Boston?
Answer:
You should "lawyer up"
find a good criminal atty. Technically you began the assault by pouring the tea over her head, until then it was just words, she could have been charged with harassment first.
Yes - Any unwanted touching can be classified as an assault.
yep
lol. Yes it does constitute assualt. But also it constitutes Battery charges. Assualt is the threat to bodily harm (like waving a fist or gun to someone) and battery is the harm itself (like punching or shooting that person).
Yes.Next time let your boyfriend deal with it.
attempted murder
Nowadays you can have charges pressed just by looking at someone wrong... I would maintain that the spill was an accident and you were attacked first...
but that's just me ;)
The physical contact doesn't have to be your body to her body. If you intentionally cause something unwelcome to come into physical contact with her, that's enough. Would you be asking this question if you had thrown a rock at her? Of course not. Just because the iced tea wasn't the most dangerous object doesn't change the fact that you initiated the physical confrontation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a job where you need to have some knowledge of the law. In Canada, where I live, any kind of unwanted physical contact could be considered an assault. Pouring iced tea on someone counts as an assault. If the other girl laid hands on you, in Canada at least, she could also be open to a charge of assault. Since both Canadian and American law have roots in English common law (I'm assuming you're American), the laws regarding assault should be pretty similar.
At this point, the smart thing for you to do is to get the best lawyer you can afford and try and have the charges reduced or dropped. The prosecution might see the situation as a couple of teen-aged girls (I'm assuming you're in your teens; almost everyone on FreeLawAnswer.coms seems to be) acting like idiots and decide to spend their time on better things. Get a lawyer, however. You don't want to mess around with the justice system or get a criminal record. America is particularly punitive when it comes to criminal records.
Yes it is considered assault. To what extent, depends on the judge.
If you are lucky, the judge will think the retaliation was an over reaction from the girl.
Being shoved is being assaulted, but does not give someone the right to shoot them in self defense (or at least would be very difficult to prove it was justified).
If you are lucky, you can possibly consider paying 'restitution' to the girl. Maybe the cost of dry cleaning her clothes, and/or getting her hair done, in exchange for charges dropped.
Obviously talk to a lawyer, even a public defender.
Most likely you'll be charged with battery. Battery is a slightly less offense than assault. If you punch someone that's assault as it can be said you intend to hurt them, pouring ice tea on someone is more like an insult.
You'll probably get a fine and probation, she only mouthed off technically you attacked her.
Assault %26 Battery might be a bit of an extreme verdict, but what you did is SOMETHING. And I'd say you could get hit with that. A lawyer will get it reduced to whatever they can for you.
You realize that it IS something, right? That it's not perfectly OK to be throwing liquids on people--that at the VERY minimum, you're responsible for damage to clothes, etc?
I find it interesting (and a bit sad) how often people allow words to bother them so much...and lead to things like this, or worse. What ever happened to the old saying about "sticks %26 stones?"
...names will never hurt you, but a fine or jail time might.
Please do yourself a favor and get a lawyer.
She didn't attack you, you attacked her by pouring the tea-- changing it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one. Better take the best plea deal thrown your way and hope for the best.
Amercians gained their freedom over a row involving tea - I think it's probably written somewhere in the constitution that all tea related skirmishes should be left unpunished - Are you from Boston?
Does prison work?
OK so I have my own idea about this one! I work in a youth offending team and know the inside story after doing my undergrad dissertation on it. I'm very intesrested to know what others think before I divulge my facts. Please think about costs and community alternatives when you answer :-)
Answer:
Leonard, that is a very short-sighted view. the rate of ex-cons re-offending is very high. Prison SHOULD be about punishment but also about rehabilitation, otherwise we're just hiding the problem temporarily
its 50/50 it works for those who want help. for those that dont, they will re offend as soon as they step out of prison.
As long as they're in there, they're not bothering me. Yes. it works while they are inside.
Sorry but this question is too vague. Does prison work? Work how? Does it keep convicted, dangerous murders away from the rest of us? Yes it does that quite well.
.
Well, over 90% of criminals are repeat offenders. So I say, if you'r going to lock them up, then get rid of this parole crap and getting out on good behavior. If you're in jail, you're in jail. Period.
I believe the damage is done long before the offender is caught and sentenced. Education is the answer. Prison treats the symptom not the cause.
Depends on the prison. If it's nothing but a warehouse to keep people off the streets, then when they get out they'll reoffend. If it has programs set up to deal with the mental processes that got them put there in the first place, as well as programs to give them a way to make a living once they get out, they're effective. In my observation(non-educated), most repeat offenders find prison life easier than street life, although they'd never admit it.
Allegedly YES!. Just ask Dhiren Barot, the dirty bomber. That's if he hasn't already fried!.
I say if you have a person on tape committing a serious crime and the evidence is irrefutable give them hard labor like the used to do to everyone. Put all prisoners on treadmills and let them power the city they are in, in shifts 24/7! Child molestors should never get out, period! And no death penalty for any reason! You can make people wish they were dead though. The government makes plenty of money off prisons or they wouldn't make so many things illegal to keep them at full capacity!
it only works while they the offender is inside it, most people who break the law think they will get away with it.
thats why the death penalty dont work either
Yes, prisons work because they keep bad people out of the general population. They do not work as rehabilitation centers, as most criminals repeat their criminal behavior when they are released. I would like to see our policy towards those who use drugs be changed. It is folly to put these people in prison, we should instead sent them to drug rehab. We should also decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana.
Just recently a USC, in South Carolina, football recruit was arrested for marijuana possession. He was kicked off the team. This is stupid! People should be judged on their performance at their jobs or in the classroom. If they are able to function in our society while using drugs, it should be nobody else's business that they choose to use drugs.
Well, I've spent 3 years in an adult prison, and not as part of the staff. From my perspective, it does a great job of warehousing people. It does a HORRIBLE job of getting them ready to re-enter society. I have a ton of education and experience. I have my BSME from a major ACC university and my MBA, and I have 10 years of professional experience. The problem: I am more qualified (on paper) than 90% of the general public, yet I can't get a job to save my life.
(FYI - I have a non-violent drug charge.)
I think prison is too good these days. But then again I know someone in prison, and would hate for them to have horrible living conditions.
But I think there are different methods that should be used for less serious crimes anyway.
Violent Offenders should be incarcerated for their crimes. Non-violent offenders should be placed in a Community Correctional setting with work release. Bucks County, Pennsylvania was the first county in the United States to implement the work release program. Today it is one of the most successful work release programs in the US. They have to pay 30% rent and 30% restitution and court cost. If they owe child support it comes out of the other 40%, the rest is placed in savings. Guy Waller is the Work Release director and Harris Gubernik is the Director of Corrections for the Bucks County Correctional facility. You should call either one who will be more than happy to give you their insight on your topic.
I think our prison systems are too soft. Heck, most prisons provide better environments for some of these people...
We need to make prison a place no one wants to go. No more luxuries, no more play time.
If you get sent to prison, you work for the government. And I don't care if it's digging holes for no reason. Let's use prison labor to do the jobs that the illegal immigrants are doing, road repair, digging ditches, cleaning up trash, etc. And run it like a well-disciplined military school. This will teach them good work ethics...
If the prisoners are too violent to allow them out, then they get locked in a cell and never get let out. Either behave while working or stay in your cell.
Again, we need a prison system that is a place we all try to avoid.
I think that you are looking for a considered arguement or discussion about the formative or corrective treatment undertaken by the prison system. That is an oft debated topic, and one's point of view may be subject to one's politics.
However, if you consider that there are a lot of violent people committing violent offences, and the public are concerned about being the subjects of violence, then just locking them up does a very great deal of good for the public perception, and we can all sleep easier in our beds as a result of prison, and to that extent it does work.
Sorry to mention this negative aspect of imprisonment.
If we had capital punishment, of course, then we might be able to send fewer people to prison.
Well, that deals with the violent crime, how about the socially deprived that we are hearing about when we question the size of the prison population? Do they need to be there?
Well, perhaps not, but exactly what do you think we should do about anti-social behaviour, and people who really do not want to be a part of a free society, that is to say, one in which we impose common standards of behaviour and respect for the person?
Are they a danger to our society that they need to be locked up?
Or do we just have to accept that their chosen pattern of (mis) behaviour is one that we all have to accept?
If they weren't like Holiday Camps and actually punished offenders then they might work.
Answer:
Leonard, that is a very short-sighted view. the rate of ex-cons re-offending is very high. Prison SHOULD be about punishment but also about rehabilitation, otherwise we're just hiding the problem temporarily
its 50/50 it works for those who want help. for those that dont, they will re offend as soon as they step out of prison.
As long as they're in there, they're not bothering me. Yes. it works while they are inside.
Sorry but this question is too vague. Does prison work? Work how? Does it keep convicted, dangerous murders away from the rest of us? Yes it does that quite well.
.
Well, over 90% of criminals are repeat offenders. So I say, if you'r going to lock them up, then get rid of this parole crap and getting out on good behavior. If you're in jail, you're in jail. Period.
I believe the damage is done long before the offender is caught and sentenced. Education is the answer. Prison treats the symptom not the cause.
Depends on the prison. If it's nothing but a warehouse to keep people off the streets, then when they get out they'll reoffend. If it has programs set up to deal with the mental processes that got them put there in the first place, as well as programs to give them a way to make a living once they get out, they're effective. In my observation(non-educated), most repeat offenders find prison life easier than street life, although they'd never admit it.
Allegedly YES!. Just ask Dhiren Barot, the dirty bomber. That's if he hasn't already fried!.
I say if you have a person on tape committing a serious crime and the evidence is irrefutable give them hard labor like the used to do to everyone. Put all prisoners on treadmills and let them power the city they are in, in shifts 24/7! Child molestors should never get out, period! And no death penalty for any reason! You can make people wish they were dead though. The government makes plenty of money off prisons or they wouldn't make so many things illegal to keep them at full capacity!
it only works while they the offender is inside it, most people who break the law think they will get away with it.
thats why the death penalty dont work either
Yes, prisons work because they keep bad people out of the general population. They do not work as rehabilitation centers, as most criminals repeat their criminal behavior when they are released. I would like to see our policy towards those who use drugs be changed. It is folly to put these people in prison, we should instead sent them to drug rehab. We should also decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana.
Just recently a USC, in South Carolina, football recruit was arrested for marijuana possession. He was kicked off the team. This is stupid! People should be judged on their performance at their jobs or in the classroom. If they are able to function in our society while using drugs, it should be nobody else's business that they choose to use drugs.
Well, I've spent 3 years in an adult prison, and not as part of the staff. From my perspective, it does a great job of warehousing people. It does a HORRIBLE job of getting them ready to re-enter society. I have a ton of education and experience. I have my BSME from a major ACC university and my MBA, and I have 10 years of professional experience. The problem: I am more qualified (on paper) than 90% of the general public, yet I can't get a job to save my life.
(FYI - I have a non-violent drug charge.)
I think prison is too good these days. But then again I know someone in prison, and would hate for them to have horrible living conditions.
But I think there are different methods that should be used for less serious crimes anyway.
Violent Offenders should be incarcerated for their crimes. Non-violent offenders should be placed in a Community Correctional setting with work release. Bucks County, Pennsylvania was the first county in the United States to implement the work release program. Today it is one of the most successful work release programs in the US. They have to pay 30% rent and 30% restitution and court cost. If they owe child support it comes out of the other 40%, the rest is placed in savings. Guy Waller is the Work Release director and Harris Gubernik is the Director of Corrections for the Bucks County Correctional facility. You should call either one who will be more than happy to give you their insight on your topic.
I think our prison systems are too soft. Heck, most prisons provide better environments for some of these people...
We need to make prison a place no one wants to go. No more luxuries, no more play time.
If you get sent to prison, you work for the government. And I don't care if it's digging holes for no reason. Let's use prison labor to do the jobs that the illegal immigrants are doing, road repair, digging ditches, cleaning up trash, etc. And run it like a well-disciplined military school. This will teach them good work ethics...
If the prisoners are too violent to allow them out, then they get locked in a cell and never get let out. Either behave while working or stay in your cell.
Again, we need a prison system that is a place we all try to avoid.
I think that you are looking for a considered arguement or discussion about the formative or corrective treatment undertaken by the prison system. That is an oft debated topic, and one's point of view may be subject to one's politics.
However, if you consider that there are a lot of violent people committing violent offences, and the public are concerned about being the subjects of violence, then just locking them up does a very great deal of good for the public perception, and we can all sleep easier in our beds as a result of prison, and to that extent it does work.
Sorry to mention this negative aspect of imprisonment.
If we had capital punishment, of course, then we might be able to send fewer people to prison.
Well, that deals with the violent crime, how about the socially deprived that we are hearing about when we question the size of the prison population? Do they need to be there?
Well, perhaps not, but exactly what do you think we should do about anti-social behaviour, and people who really do not want to be a part of a free society, that is to say, one in which we impose common standards of behaviour and respect for the person?
Are they a danger to our society that they need to be locked up?
Or do we just have to accept that their chosen pattern of (mis) behaviour is one that we all have to accept?
If they weren't like Holiday Camps and actually punished offenders then they might work.
Does our society need to balance rights with increased responsibility?
Answer:
Increased responsibility!? What society do you live in? I'm pretty sure they took the word "responsibility" out of the dictionary this year (it was replaced with ginormous). Once Hilary is elected they will remove "accountability" and "personal" also.
YES!
Yes. People need to take responsibility for their lives and stop having a victim or entitlement mentality. There are people truly in need, and of course, they deserve help, but you need to be willing to do what it takes to succeed.
no...we're balanced just fine
rights, if they mean anything, are not responsibilities. i have them in virtue of being a person, not in exchange for being a good person who always does what he's told.
if you're referring to the competing interests of public good and individual rights? then again--if rights mean what we talk about them meaning, we can't infringe upon them without being unjust.
given the following thought experiment:
a trolley is on a set of tracks and it loses its brakes. you are standing on a platform, next to an obese man. a person of his size is the only thing that can stop the trolley from certain doom. killing the fat man will save 15 people.
if people have rights, it's wrong to push the fat man. if not? then it's a pure cost/benefit analysis.
so to balance public good against individual freedom, you have to give up on inalienable rights. that would be against the declaration of independence, but hey, it's not like jefferson was perfect.
Does north carolina have a 3 strike rule for felons?
Answer:
3 stike XXX law is a federal law.not a state thingy
I am going to just chime in that I really disagree with the 3 strike rule, its excessive in probably the majority of the instances its used and the Prison system which is paid for by tax payers doesnt need to be overburden more then it already is.
Of course I disagree with the Criminal Justice system, inherently anyway.
Yes, almost every state does, but it's actually called a habitual offender law.
Under the federal Three Strikes rule, now codified at 18 U.S.C. 搂 3559(c), the defendant receives mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:
is convicted in federal court of a serious violent felony; and
has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, where at least one of which is a serious violent felony. The other prior offense may be a serious drug offense.
Under the statute, a serious violent felony includes murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, kidnapping, robbery, and any offense punishable by 10 years or more which includes as an element the use of force or that, by its nature, involves a significant risk of force. The statute also enumerates certain non-qualifying felonies, including unarmed robbery offenses and arsons that posed no threat to human life.
Unlike the federal laws, the three-strikes laws vary by quite a bit from state to state.
Does mu husband have to work or attend interviews if we claim income support but i claim carers top up for him
Answer:
I have no idea what you are asking. However, the agency that provides your income support is the place to ask your question.
you can go to prison for claiming benifits and working over 16 hours a week and not telling the social
if your husband CAN work, then he SHOULD!
Yes if he is fit.
I care for my budgie and get no benefits at all.
I will report you for claiming carers top up for a mad dog.
If your husband can even contemplate work then why are you receiving income support and carer's allowance? This seems mighty unfair on those of us that work but receive no tax benefits whatsoever. To clarify your situation go to your local Benefit office, normally located somewhere near the town hall and ask them to go through it with you.
Is he disabled, or are you disabled? Is he he claiming Jobseekers Allowance or is he in receipt of Disability Allowance? Has the Department of Pensions and Work said that he no need to seek work.
If he claimed through a Job centre and he has to sign on there every 2 weeks, and did he complete a Jobseekers agreement outlining the steps he would take to find work:
Applying for so many jobs
reading certain publications
attending interviews
writing a CV
and if every time he signs he confirms that he was actively seeking work ?
You can be certain he needs to.
my husband was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2002 we bothed worked full time but then we had to give up work he was a long distance lorry driver me a carer in residential home i had to finish work to care for my husband 24 hours a day he as to have regular medicals and check ups and i believe every one should
I think you should contact your local JobCentre Plus. The best way to do this is to visit their offices directly and talk directly to relevant persons. You should state clearly what the details of the changed circumstances are so that they can advise.
Does loss prevention check/view every single transaction?
to make sure the employee isn't doing anything wrong
Answer:
Nope. That would require enormous labor hours and isn't worth it.
However, there are probably certain flags built into the system for automatic review. I used to have to review each and every return. I also had to authorize any purchases over a certain dollar amount and any check over $100. We could run reports to show various statistics: breakdown of cash, check, credit cards, coupons, etc per cashier and compared to each other. Number of transactions, number of items per transactions, etc. Any employee well outside of the numbers for the rest of the store might be worth watching.
The only time I would watch all of an employee's transactions was if I had noticed a weird pattern in their transactions. Like one employee with a lot of voids and way more credit card transactions than cash. That might indicate the employee was taking the cash and voiding the transaction, for example. I might start watching the signatures on the credit card transactions to make sure they were legit. I would also watch employees who kept turning in short cash drawers. I had one cashier who was "borrowing" lunch money. His drawer would be $5 short one day and $5 over the next. It was nice that he was replacing the money he was stealing but still a violation. I would watch cashiers with really high coupon numbers on their stats but few actual coupons in the drawers.
I used to tell my crew that if they were doing their jobs right, they didn't need to worry about me watching their every move. But if they felt like being dishonest, it really wouldn't take me long to catch on.
some companies yes. others larger companies they only take a sampling of transactions by an employee, and if the sampling clears then the employee is ok. but if something appears suspicious they will then do a full review of all transactions. If you are above board on everything, then you are alright.
What do you think those cameras are for. And why do you think POS systems are now connected to computers?
It's very simple to 'view' each transaction using certain software.
They could but its unlikely. What LP does is wait for "alert signals" that an employee may be stealing then check all transactions. Exmaple if you have a large cash refund your rung up that might be looked at. If you have above average cash refunds and on and on. LP does not have the time to radomly go over every transaction unless they suspect something. If you need more help on LP duties and limits check your yahoo search engine for Retail Security answers
Answer:
Nope. That would require enormous labor hours and isn't worth it.
However, there are probably certain flags built into the system for automatic review. I used to have to review each and every return. I also had to authorize any purchases over a certain dollar amount and any check over $100. We could run reports to show various statistics: breakdown of cash, check, credit cards, coupons, etc per cashier and compared to each other. Number of transactions, number of items per transactions, etc. Any employee well outside of the numbers for the rest of the store might be worth watching.
The only time I would watch all of an employee's transactions was if I had noticed a weird pattern in their transactions. Like one employee with a lot of voids and way more credit card transactions than cash. That might indicate the employee was taking the cash and voiding the transaction, for example. I might start watching the signatures on the credit card transactions to make sure they were legit. I would also watch employees who kept turning in short cash drawers. I had one cashier who was "borrowing" lunch money. His drawer would be $5 short one day and $5 over the next. It was nice that he was replacing the money he was stealing but still a violation. I would watch cashiers with really high coupon numbers on their stats but few actual coupons in the drawers.
I used to tell my crew that if they were doing their jobs right, they didn't need to worry about me watching their every move. But if they felt like being dishonest, it really wouldn't take me long to catch on.
some companies yes. others larger companies they only take a sampling of transactions by an employee, and if the sampling clears then the employee is ok. but if something appears suspicious they will then do a full review of all transactions. If you are above board on everything, then you are alright.
What do you think those cameras are for. And why do you think POS systems are now connected to computers?
It's very simple to 'view' each transaction using certain software.
They could but its unlikely. What LP does is wait for "alert signals" that an employee may be stealing then check all transactions. Exmaple if you have a large cash refund your rung up that might be looked at. If you have above average cash refunds and on and on. LP does not have the time to radomly go over every transaction unless they suspect something. If you need more help on LP duties and limits check your yahoo search engine for Retail Security answers
Does Lalu Yadav's father / father-out-law own the Indian Railways?
Laluwa's Brother-out-law Subhash Yadav MP recently created a scene @ Patna Rly Stn , since he was not allotted a First Class AC berth in the Train . In the ensuing violent melee, the brazen Subhash abused the Mediapersons %26 Rly staff present %26 the Train could nor move out for about 20 Minutes.
When questioned , unabashed Laluwa said, "So what has happened ? You write that I am enquiring in the matter. "
Last year his brazen father-out-law %26 Mother-out-law were caught in I class Compartment without any tickets. So disgraceful, but no such effect on Laluwa, %26 his blind %26 equally unabashed admirer Sonia.
Where will India go with such crooked, corrupt, %26 conscience-free leaders %26 their equally reckless families ?can even God help us to get rid of these parasites ?
Answer:
Eee kaun humare khilaf bol raha hai ? humka janat nahin ho ?
Itna gayi bhainsan ka chara dakar gaye, aur dakaar bhi nahin liya. Tumko kachha chaba lenge
Railaway humaar hai, bharat humaar hai, Advani humse dare hai , tum susura ka cheej ho
Jai gayya maata (aur chaara deve humko)
It seems so!
india is run by pests and will continue to be run by pests.we can't help it coz each and every person who sits in the parliament automatically converts into a pest.
so unless we as a community stand together and act as a pesticide it will never help.
unfortunately it just a dream that one fine day we will get a govt. with highly educated, extremely crisp looking individuals. coz such individuals are either NRI's or are just 10% of the total population..Our major vote bank are the lower class and they too want to elect those people who they feel are birds of the same feather!
Look, its nothing new that politicians and their families abuse the amenities given to them by the Constitution. Every session of the Parliament, they sanction a pay hike for themselves but for government servants, there is a pay commission only after a gap of few years.
They will keep on abusing these powers until we as citizens will not demand greater answerability of the politicians to the people not just the power to vote after 5 years
They will in due course own thecountry
YES - OFFCOURSE. OUR POLITICIANS THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
Lalu is a substandard and corrupt leader.So everything is possible for him
Yes Indian Railways is the family property of Lalo Prasad Yadav, do you have any objections for that? Didn't you see how he was spitting on the platform openly in view of whole T.V. media that was later telecast though out India %26 abroad. You tell me why the bloody so called IMA's of India %26 even foreign countries send their students for his so called Bihari management course ? What this Lalwa %26 his whole family thinks that not only the Bihar but whole of India is their personal property %26 height of their thoughts is the soon he will be the next Prime Minister of India. No doubt he is really very intelligent man %26 we the fools who go out %26 vote for people like him to the Lok Sabha %26 make him Union Minister. Shame on Congress Party for depending on guys like him to rule the country.
We need emergency again
Fear for the day..they are going to own india.
our democracy is so faulty... 100 donkeys are ruling over 99 horses
That's Laloo Yadav.Of-course he owns our great country.He can do whatever he wants to do because he runs our country.
People stand-up and do something to change our entire govt..It needs educated people to bring some good decisions which can lead us solving our national problems.We the people are responsible for these govt. nuisance to continue like this.
The incidents are outrageous though, are not exclusive to the near and dear of the bigwig but a common phenomenon in Bihar. If you had seen the scene in the serial "Yaatra" a decade ago when the train enters Bihar, you would understand. Or travel once in a train with an overnight jorney crossing Bihar, and you will find any reserved compartment infested with Ticketless Travellers.
But I would only counsel that any agitation shall not turn abusive. "tere baap ka hai kya" is a typical Indian agitated expression, which does not quite fit in while the bigwig is seemingly doing well his job.
LALLU RABADI MAYASONIA : OWNS THIS COUNTRY.
yes, government is corrupt %26 it is possible that after say fifty years from now a paper might be discovered in future stating that railway was sold to some Mr. yadav's kin in the beginning of the century %26 there is a signed document regarding this.
The technical answer to this question is 'no', they do not own the railways. The technical answer to the last question is that God helps those who help themselves. We have to do something about it. The crux of the problem is that the Minister can transfer any officer without any explanation. This leads to unquestioned servility of the officers to the Ministers. They cannot take any action against their political masters under the fear of transfers to some remote location or non-lucrative posting.
very interesting view.
If there is anybody who can change the parasitic nature of the ministers it is the very highly educated sons and daughters of the ultra rich Indians who are willing or in the future - will be willing to take a stand of leadership to lead India in this new century. I do not write off the poor here but for them their roji roti becomes more important than taking Panga with the Unjust mafia type people.
This new breed will have the intelligence, knowledge, power, strength and the hunger for NAME to gain for their families. I do hope the children of all the people signed above will take this chance.
Jai Bharat Mata -
When questioned , unabashed Laluwa said, "So what has happened ? You write that I am enquiring in the matter. "
Last year his brazen father-out-law %26 Mother-out-law were caught in I class Compartment without any tickets. So disgraceful, but no such effect on Laluwa, %26 his blind %26 equally unabashed admirer Sonia.
Where will India go with such crooked, corrupt, %26 conscience-free leaders %26 their equally reckless families ?can even God help us to get rid of these parasites ?
Answer:
Eee kaun humare khilaf bol raha hai ? humka janat nahin ho ?
Itna gayi bhainsan ka chara dakar gaye, aur dakaar bhi nahin liya. Tumko kachha chaba lenge
Railaway humaar hai, bharat humaar hai, Advani humse dare hai , tum susura ka cheej ho
Jai gayya maata (aur chaara deve humko)
It seems so!
india is run by pests and will continue to be run by pests.we can't help it coz each and every person who sits in the parliament automatically converts into a pest.
so unless we as a community stand together and act as a pesticide it will never help.
unfortunately it just a dream that one fine day we will get a govt. with highly educated, extremely crisp looking individuals. coz such individuals are either NRI's or are just 10% of the total population..Our major vote bank are the lower class and they too want to elect those people who they feel are birds of the same feather!
Look, its nothing new that politicians and their families abuse the amenities given to them by the Constitution. Every session of the Parliament, they sanction a pay hike for themselves but for government servants, there is a pay commission only after a gap of few years.
They will keep on abusing these powers until we as citizens will not demand greater answerability of the politicians to the people not just the power to vote after 5 years
They will in due course own thecountry
YES - OFFCOURSE. OUR POLITICIANS THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
Lalu is a substandard and corrupt leader.So everything is possible for him
Yes Indian Railways is the family property of Lalo Prasad Yadav, do you have any objections for that? Didn't you see how he was spitting on the platform openly in view of whole T.V. media that was later telecast though out India %26 abroad. You tell me why the bloody so called IMA's of India %26 even foreign countries send their students for his so called Bihari management course ? What this Lalwa %26 his whole family thinks that not only the Bihar but whole of India is their personal property %26 height of their thoughts is the soon he will be the next Prime Minister of India. No doubt he is really very intelligent man %26 we the fools who go out %26 vote for people like him to the Lok Sabha %26 make him Union Minister. Shame on Congress Party for depending on guys like him to rule the country.
We need emergency again
Fear for the day..they are going to own india.
our democracy is so faulty... 100 donkeys are ruling over 99 horses
That's Laloo Yadav.Of-course he owns our great country.He can do whatever he wants to do because he runs our country.
People stand-up and do something to change our entire govt..It needs educated people to bring some good decisions which can lead us solving our national problems.We the people are responsible for these govt. nuisance to continue like this.
The incidents are outrageous though, are not exclusive to the near and dear of the bigwig but a common phenomenon in Bihar. If you had seen the scene in the serial "Yaatra" a decade ago when the train enters Bihar, you would understand. Or travel once in a train with an overnight jorney crossing Bihar, and you will find any reserved compartment infested with Ticketless Travellers.
But I would only counsel that any agitation shall not turn abusive. "tere baap ka hai kya" is a typical Indian agitated expression, which does not quite fit in while the bigwig is seemingly doing well his job.
LALLU RABADI MAYASONIA : OWNS THIS COUNTRY.
yes, government is corrupt %26 it is possible that after say fifty years from now a paper might be discovered in future stating that railway was sold to some Mr. yadav's kin in the beginning of the century %26 there is a signed document regarding this.
The technical answer to this question is 'no', they do not own the railways. The technical answer to the last question is that God helps those who help themselves. We have to do something about it. The crux of the problem is that the Minister can transfer any officer without any explanation. This leads to unquestioned servility of the officers to the Ministers. They cannot take any action against their political masters under the fear of transfers to some remote location or non-lucrative posting.
very interesting view.
If there is anybody who can change the parasitic nature of the ministers it is the very highly educated sons and daughters of the ultra rich Indians who are willing or in the future - will be willing to take a stand of leadership to lead India in this new century. I do not write off the poor here but for them their roji roti becomes more important than taking Panga with the Unjust mafia type people.
This new breed will have the intelligence, knowledge, power, strength and the hunger for NAME to gain for their families. I do hope the children of all the people signed above will take this chance.
Jai Bharat Mata -
Does it trouble you that the 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices are all Catholic?
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito are now the majority. All but Kennedy are Ivy League graduates.
This certainly isn't representative of the US population which is 24% Catholic.
Answer:
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices are overturning judicial doctrines that have been in place for decades.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe that Congress has the authority to dictate medical practices, despite the fact that its' not in their enumerated powers.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe its acceptable for a teacher to tear down a banner held by another adult on a public street, just become some students happen to be attending the same event.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices, including the two most recently appointed by Bush, are going to cause massive consitutional damage over the next 30 years.
No, it doesn't trouble me that they're catholic.
Nope.
I am happy with the current ideological makeup of the USSC. It is the most constructionist it has been in decades. The religious affiliations of the Justices do not concern me.
Should I assume that you are worried about a possible future ruling overturning Roe v. Wade? I am hopeful this is the case. Conservative Catholics do show a strong commitment to pro-life issues, yes.
Yes.
No, because it isn't the conservative justices who use foreign law to justify their decisions.
Since their decisions are based on sound Constitutional foundations, their religion has no part in their jurisprudence.
Does it trouble you that ANYONE in government has a religious belief?
It would trouble me a great deal more if they were Islamic. I'm not catholic but, what the hell! You think they're going to stage some kind of Catholic Coup and take over the entire U.S. and call it the United States of Vatican? Get a grip.
76% of America are Christians. You didn't mention what the other Justices affiliations were.
No.
As a practicing Roman Catholic I think it is kinda neat.
Does it trouble you that the past two Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank are Jewish?
What does religious preference have to do with being political?
As long as they do their job, who cares what their religion is. Really, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
I have no problem. They are the most qualified people in their, that's why they are on the court. sometimes "representative" isnt always the best way. This case is one of them.
I suppose if you want a pure representative in the court you need:
catholic
protestant
atheist
terrorist
racist
polygamist
homosexual
.etc
It doesn't concern me that they are Catholic, it concerns me they are all conservatives. Too many " same thinkers " on the supreme court is not a good thing.
This certainly isn't representative of the US population which is 24% Catholic.
Answer:
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices are overturning judicial doctrines that have been in place for decades.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe that Congress has the authority to dictate medical practices, despite the fact that its' not in their enumerated powers.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices believe its acceptable for a teacher to tear down a banner held by another adult on a public street, just become some students happen to be attending the same event.
It troubles me that the 5 conservative justices, including the two most recently appointed by Bush, are going to cause massive consitutional damage over the next 30 years.
No, it doesn't trouble me that they're catholic.
Nope.
I am happy with the current ideological makeup of the USSC. It is the most constructionist it has been in decades. The religious affiliations of the Justices do not concern me.
Should I assume that you are worried about a possible future ruling overturning Roe v. Wade? I am hopeful this is the case. Conservative Catholics do show a strong commitment to pro-life issues, yes.
Yes.
No, because it isn't the conservative justices who use foreign law to justify their decisions.
Since their decisions are based on sound Constitutional foundations, their religion has no part in their jurisprudence.
Does it trouble you that ANYONE in government has a religious belief?
It would trouble me a great deal more if they were Islamic. I'm not catholic but, what the hell! You think they're going to stage some kind of Catholic Coup and take over the entire U.S. and call it the United States of Vatican? Get a grip.
76% of America are Christians. You didn't mention what the other Justices affiliations were.
No.
As a practicing Roman Catholic I think it is kinda neat.
Does it trouble you that the past two Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank are Jewish?
What does religious preference have to do with being political?
As long as they do their job, who cares what their religion is. Really, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
I have no problem. They are the most qualified people in their, that's why they are on the court. sometimes "representative" isnt always the best way. This case is one of them.
I suppose if you want a pure representative in the court you need:
catholic
protestant
atheist
terrorist
racist
polygamist
homosexual
.etc
It doesn't concern me that they are Catholic, it concerns me they are all conservatives. Too many " same thinkers " on the supreme court is not a good thing.
Does it matter who pays the child support to the legal system? All that matters is that someone pays right?
All the legal system is looking at thru the child support collection office is that it is being paid right? My ex-daughter in law says she is going to tell her atty. that her ex-husband is not paying it, don't ask way it's a long story, and he shouldn't be given any credit for it being paid.
Answer:
If the mysterious person with money is paying the money to the proper account, through the proper channels, it doesn't matter how it got there.
From the brief details, I'm having to guess that she is receiving the court-ordered child support, but the source of the funds isn't actually the ex-husband...for instance, his girlfriend is making the payments, or his parents? All the court cares about is whether she is receiving the payments it ordered. Child support is not a fine intended to punish the ex-spouse; it's money to help support the child.
No the court doesnt care who actually pays it as long as it is paid. For instance my friend pays her sons child support for him so that her grandchild gets the money that is needed for her support! Her son is on drugs and not reliable.
I suggest you tell your ex-daughter-in-law that what she is considering will do three things:
1. lose custody to the father - People in prison can't have custody;
2. result in her facing felony fraud charges, and;
3. depending on where she lives, result in her financial records being subpoenaed and her facing not only criminal penalties, but also civil penalties for defamation.
Normally a defamation case (slander / libel) has a built-in defense for truth or what one believes as true. However, accusing someone of a crime or of criminal action KNOWING that they are not guilty, can result in her having to defend against a civil suit and awards for puntative damages.
Ask her if this childish game is worth it?
Answer:
If the mysterious person with money is paying the money to the proper account, through the proper channels, it doesn't matter how it got there.
From the brief details, I'm having to guess that she is receiving the court-ordered child support, but the source of the funds isn't actually the ex-husband...for instance, his girlfriend is making the payments, or his parents? All the court cares about is whether she is receiving the payments it ordered. Child support is not a fine intended to punish the ex-spouse; it's money to help support the child.
No the court doesnt care who actually pays it as long as it is paid. For instance my friend pays her sons child support for him so that her grandchild gets the money that is needed for her support! Her son is on drugs and not reliable.
I suggest you tell your ex-daughter-in-law that what she is considering will do three things:
1. lose custody to the father - People in prison can't have custody;
2. result in her facing felony fraud charges, and;
3. depending on where she lives, result in her financial records being subpoenaed and her facing not only criminal penalties, but also civil penalties for defamation.
Normally a defamation case (slander / libel) has a built-in defense for truth or what one believes as true. However, accusing someone of a crime or of criminal action KNOWING that they are not guilty, can result in her having to defend against a civil suit and awards for puntative damages.
Ask her if this childish game is worth it?
Does it cost to call emergency services? 911?
Does it cost to call 911? Or a dispatcher?
Answer:
well not excatly it doesnt cost anything to call 911
but did you ever see your phone bill
sometimes there is a tax (for gues what !) 911!
it might called a 911 tax or emegercy services fee
it shouldnt but if it do i would reverse the charges
No.
No it doesn't cost anything. Even cell phones that are disconnected can still dial 911 for free.
the tax payers, but if it is a false call, you can be fined or jailed or both
Doesn't cost anything from a landline or cell.
nothing is free! tax dollars @ work!!
It does not cost. Even a cell phone with no service will connect to 911.
This is why if you have old phones you can't or don't use, you can donate them to women's shelters. Woman who have been abused and are now living in shelters can use them to call 911 when needed.
What happen if it DOES cost to call 911? Should people pay during the call or after the call?
it does not cost to call 911 but it does cost if EMT responds. cost break down is something like this:
the response of EMT
the radio link to hospital staff
the medicines and equipment used
transportation of patient to medical facility
follow up
about $6000. that's why you need insurance
Answer:
well not excatly it doesnt cost anything to call 911
but did you ever see your phone bill
sometimes there is a tax (for gues what !) 911!
it might called a 911 tax or emegercy services fee
it shouldnt but if it do i would reverse the charges
No.
No it doesn't cost anything. Even cell phones that are disconnected can still dial 911 for free.
the tax payers, but if it is a false call, you can be fined or jailed or both
Doesn't cost anything from a landline or cell.
nothing is free! tax dollars @ work!!
It does not cost. Even a cell phone with no service will connect to 911.
This is why if you have old phones you can't or don't use, you can donate them to women's shelters. Woman who have been abused and are now living in shelters can use them to call 911 when needed.
What happen if it DOES cost to call 911? Should people pay during the call or after the call?
it does not cost to call 911 but it does cost if EMT responds. cost break down is something like this:
the response of EMT
the radio link to hospital staff
the medicines and equipment used
transportation of patient to medical facility
follow up
about $6000. that's why you need insurance
Does it annoy you when we are expected to support people who dug their own holes?
For instance, a person who smoked 2 packs a day and now has lung cancer or some respitory disease, or a person who ate themselves up to 500 pounds, blew out their knees, and now can't work, or an alchoholic who drank like a fish and now needs a transplant. Here are these people who made their choices, and now we have to pay to support them, pay for their medical care, and their medicine? If I decide to drive without insurance, I pay for the consequences. What about these people?
Answer:
Yes, it annoys me. Self inflicted wounds always annoy me. I have absolutely no mercy for them to include my Dad, who died of lung cancer after smoking 4 packs a day.
As for "the what if pundits" the question was about people who did it to themselves, and it is valid. When people "choose" destructive behavior than they should pay the price for that behavior. As for the ones that didn't, then they deserve our mercy and generosity.
Fine.what about the kid born with mental or physical handicaps into a family with no insurance.
What about the person who's being paying for medical insurance for 10 years yet they drop him after two chemo sessions for brain cancer? Using some loop hole.
What about the legitimate causes of people who need insurance and were screwed over?
How about the person who got lung cancer and never smoked? How about the person who knew there was something wrong and the doctor's kept saying you are just looking for an excuse to be fat only to be diagnosed with a disorder that should have diagnosed 23 years earlier(happened to me and now I am 200 pounds over weight, I eat less than the average person but all you see is my fat). How about the person who gives a kidney to someone only to get kidney disease later in life? I can play this game all day long! Why don't you just pull your head out and realise that everything isn't as clear cut as you think!
I think that we should all be willing to help others just because we never know when we ourselves will need help.
Namaste
No it doesn't annoy me. Everyone comes to a point when they need help. How they got there is irrelevant to me as I cannot claim to understand why people do the things they do and therefore have no right to judge them.
Yeah, it really pisses me off...people who go deaf because they blew their eardrums out with IPODS or going to loud concerts, I really hate paying for their hearing aids, drunks that get DUI'd and have to go to jail, I really hate paying for their upkeep in jail, four hots and a cot, that really aggravates me...I guess your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins, children and grandchildren are all perfectly healthy and have no need for any of those services...no one has ever been hurt on the job or needed therapy for substance abuse or had a disability. Lucky you, now you can be self righteous and indignant about "paying for everyone else" from your ivory tower. The depths of your self centeredness astounds me.
What about miners?
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive; it's not easy to break the habit. Food is addictive for some people. They can't just choose to stop but they should seek some help in breaking bad habits.
As for having to "support them, pay for their medical care," we are all in the same pool, whether it's private or govt health insurance. What if you got sick and had to stay in a hospital 6 mos. or needed a transplant: should I resent that?
We need a kinder, gentler society where we all look out for each other.
Instead of just letting them be sick and die (which is what you imply), find the right culprit. We got tobacco cos. to stop advertising cigs. and the rate of smoking has gone down. To help control obesity, food manufacturers must stop adding sugars like corn syrup to so many foods, and so heavily: I don't want my pasta sauce to taste like dessert! Sugar is addictive - makes you want to eat more and more, which is why food companies add it. Then we have an obesity epidemic we need more (affordable) programs that help people kick alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs.
Meanwhile we need more (affordable) programs to help treat all these addictions.
Doctors wont give transplants to people that are drug addicts or alcoholics.
We are not expected to take care of these people.
I think you have been mislead about how much money a 500 lb. person who cant work gets from the government.
Welfare reform (started under Clinton) has changed they way people get help from the Fed's.
No one who is lazy or has made bad decisions is getting "supported" as you say.
you should check for yourself.
if you do have a source for the claims you made please post it, I would be interested.
please don't say you have a friend that knows a person who told you, give a real source please.
We all make choices in life, some of them good and some of them are bad. But it doesn't mean that we can stand judge and jury over the few that have made the wrong choice. I am almost certain that if you ask the people that smoke 2 packs a day, the alcoholic, the obese person if they were or are truly happy with the choices they made then, that they would reflect on their mistakes and try and change them. The argument goes further, quite rightly so, as some others have stated already within their answers, the child that is born with a disability, the guy that's run over and has no insurance. The guy that can't afford his chemo treatment, the list is endless. I think to deny anyone treatment when they are ill is a shameful thing. Thankfully here in the UK we have the NHS, although the staff that work for his organization see many cases of people who have abused their bodies over a long period of time, they treat each and every member of this country. Providing them with a service that is second to none, as it quite rightly should be.
So in short the answer to your question is NO, if someone is unfortunate enough to be ill and suffering regardless of how they became that way, they should be offered treatment to help them recover,to deny them this is morally wrong!
You should know that people do drive without insurance, and the rest of us do pay for it in increased rates to cover those that do not have insurance.
That said, I hear ya. Its frustrating and annoying. However, if you ever find yourself in a hole that you dug and society helps you get out, you will be thankful for it.
Answer:
Yes, it annoys me. Self inflicted wounds always annoy me. I have absolutely no mercy for them to include my Dad, who died of lung cancer after smoking 4 packs a day.
As for "the what if pundits" the question was about people who did it to themselves, and it is valid. When people "choose" destructive behavior than they should pay the price for that behavior. As for the ones that didn't, then they deserve our mercy and generosity.
Fine.what about the kid born with mental or physical handicaps into a family with no insurance.
What about the person who's being paying for medical insurance for 10 years yet they drop him after two chemo sessions for brain cancer? Using some loop hole.
What about the legitimate causes of people who need insurance and were screwed over?
How about the person who got lung cancer and never smoked? How about the person who knew there was something wrong and the doctor's kept saying you are just looking for an excuse to be fat only to be diagnosed with a disorder that should have diagnosed 23 years earlier(happened to me and now I am 200 pounds over weight, I eat less than the average person but all you see is my fat). How about the person who gives a kidney to someone only to get kidney disease later in life? I can play this game all day long! Why don't you just pull your head out and realise that everything isn't as clear cut as you think!
I think that we should all be willing to help others just because we never know when we ourselves will need help.
Namaste
No it doesn't annoy me. Everyone comes to a point when they need help. How they got there is irrelevant to me as I cannot claim to understand why people do the things they do and therefore have no right to judge them.
Yeah, it really pisses me off...people who go deaf because they blew their eardrums out with IPODS or going to loud concerts, I really hate paying for their hearing aids, drunks that get DUI'd and have to go to jail, I really hate paying for their upkeep in jail, four hots and a cot, that really aggravates me...I guess your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins, children and grandchildren are all perfectly healthy and have no need for any of those services...no one has ever been hurt on the job or needed therapy for substance abuse or had a disability. Lucky you, now you can be self righteous and indignant about "paying for everyone else" from your ivory tower. The depths of your self centeredness astounds me.
What about miners?
Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive; it's not easy to break the habit. Food is addictive for some people. They can't just choose to stop but they should seek some help in breaking bad habits.
As for having to "support them, pay for their medical care," we are all in the same pool, whether it's private or govt health insurance. What if you got sick and had to stay in a hospital 6 mos. or needed a transplant: should I resent that?
We need a kinder, gentler society where we all look out for each other.
Instead of just letting them be sick and die (which is what you imply), find the right culprit. We got tobacco cos. to stop advertising cigs. and the rate of smoking has gone down. To help control obesity, food manufacturers must stop adding sugars like corn syrup to so many foods, and so heavily: I don't want my pasta sauce to taste like dessert! Sugar is addictive - makes you want to eat more and more, which is why food companies add it. Then we have an obesity epidemic we need more (affordable) programs that help people kick alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs.
Meanwhile we need more (affordable) programs to help treat all these addictions.
Doctors wont give transplants to people that are drug addicts or alcoholics.
We are not expected to take care of these people.
I think you have been mislead about how much money a 500 lb. person who cant work gets from the government.
Welfare reform (started under Clinton) has changed they way people get help from the Fed's.
No one who is lazy or has made bad decisions is getting "supported" as you say.
you should check for yourself.
if you do have a source for the claims you made please post it, I would be interested.
please don't say you have a friend that knows a person who told you, give a real source please.
We all make choices in life, some of them good and some of them are bad. But it doesn't mean that we can stand judge and jury over the few that have made the wrong choice. I am almost certain that if you ask the people that smoke 2 packs a day, the alcoholic, the obese person if they were or are truly happy with the choices they made then, that they would reflect on their mistakes and try and change them. The argument goes further, quite rightly so, as some others have stated already within their answers, the child that is born with a disability, the guy that's run over and has no insurance. The guy that can't afford his chemo treatment, the list is endless. I think to deny anyone treatment when they are ill is a shameful thing. Thankfully here in the UK we have the NHS, although the staff that work for his organization see many cases of people who have abused their bodies over a long period of time, they treat each and every member of this country. Providing them with a service that is second to none, as it quite rightly should be.
So in short the answer to your question is NO, if someone is unfortunate enough to be ill and suffering regardless of how they became that way, they should be offered treatment to help them recover,to deny them this is morally wrong!
You should know that people do drive without insurance, and the rest of us do pay for it in increased rates to cover those that do not have insurance.
That said, I hear ya. Its frustrating and annoying. However, if you ever find yourself in a hole that you dug and society helps you get out, you will be thankful for it.
Does inheritance need to be divided in a divorce settlement in Oregon?
Answer:
If Oregon is a state that uses "equitable distribution of marital property" in divorces, any inheritances are considered not to be marital property. However, an increase in the value of the inheritance from the time of its receipt until property settlement could be considered to be marital property.
I know, it sounds like a "Catch 22." But I would rather you were aware of it in the event that the family farm you inherited is soon to be the subject of a commercial land development.
Generally, inheritances are separate property of the person who inherited, not joint or community property. But if the property was commingled with other marital assets, that could change the nature of the inherited property.
Usually in a divorce settlement, all separate property goes to the person who owned it separately and only the joint marital assets are divided. But all of this is negotiable in a settlement agreement.
If you are asking for yourself, please be sure to see an Oregon divorce lawyer.
Oregon is (no longer) a community property state, so the rules work in the simpler fashion.
See the above answer for the general rule.
Does Hillery Clinton have a real bad temper?
Answer:
I have heard that she does. I was at the Los Angeles Biltmore hotel the evening B.J. got the Dem nomination. I happened to be on the elevator with some of his campaign assistants and they were all abuzz about Hillary having unloaded on someone because her cell phone was not fully charged.
I cannot be certain about her temper, but it's clear that she has a real bad face and a real bad candidacy.
Well Bill's still alive after all he did to embarass her, so it can't be too bad.
Does he sudy philosophy benifits man kind??
answer this question please .. .
Answer:
Humm, from the study of philosophy we have gotten such things as laws and ethics, also philosophy has also aided technology (theorized the existence of the atom for example).
First, let me translate that...
"Does the study of philosophy benefit mankind"?
All study benefits mankind in some way. Including study of English grammar and spelling. =o)
Answer:
Humm, from the study of philosophy we have gotten such things as laws and ethics, also philosophy has also aided technology (theorized the existence of the atom for example).
First, let me translate that...
"Does the study of philosophy benefit mankind"?
All study benefits mankind in some way. Including study of English grammar and spelling. =o)
Does he have a right to know?
Letters are prepared by an individual to be sent out. They are time dependent and important to his job. The person responsible for mailing them out has been sitting on some of them. I just learned that letters dated in May had not been sent. He has been concerned that he is not getting timely responses to his letters - this is probably why. Do I tell him - or stay out of it? Which is the right thing to do?
Answer:
How hard is it to mail letters? I don't know who "he" is...maybe the boss?... but yeah, you should probably go ahead and rat the lazy coworker out.
Then again, you may be fired too for allowing such incompetency to be allowed, if you are in a management position.
he needs to know if its important and relevant to his job. !
You should do something! Get it off your conscience!
Answer:
How hard is it to mail letters? I don't know who "he" is...maybe the boss?... but yeah, you should probably go ahead and rat the lazy coworker out.
Then again, you may be fired too for allowing such incompetency to be allowed, if you are in a management position.
he needs to know if its important and relevant to his job. !
You should do something! Get it off your conscience!
Does having my license suspended for DWI make me an unfit mother?
My husbands ex confessed to having her license suspended for this, could we get custody of the kids for this?
Answer:
Not very likely unless her drinking can be shown to be habitual and is a threat to the safety and well-being of the children.
Probably not unless the kids were in the car with her at the time.
This instance alone? No, however if there many more like it then it will definitely make your case stronger when you go before the judge in the custody hearing.
It is unlikely that a single instance would be enough to get a court to hear your case. The bar for a forced custody change is set intentionally high to prevent every little issue from coming to court.
if your kids were in the car with you then i say that was a very bad choice on your part, as far as custody, it can play a big part in court. good luck
I'm not a legal expert but I doubt a DWI would be grounds to declare someone an unfit mother. Especially if it was in the past.
Child services is a pain in the *** about most things that could cause someone to lose custody of their children so unless your husband has been contacted by them about it I doubt you'd have much of a chance for just that.
No. Unless the kids were in the car.
No, it doesn't, necessarily, But it doesn't make or put you on a pedestal for a role model.
If this is a problem for her, maybe you and your husband could suggest she get some help rather than pulling her kids out of their home to start over with their new "mommy." OR ...were you already looking to take her kids and this opportunity just popped up?
Answer:
Not very likely unless her drinking can be shown to be habitual and is a threat to the safety and well-being of the children.
Probably not unless the kids were in the car with her at the time.
This instance alone? No, however if there many more like it then it will definitely make your case stronger when you go before the judge in the custody hearing.
It is unlikely that a single instance would be enough to get a court to hear your case. The bar for a forced custody change is set intentionally high to prevent every little issue from coming to court.
if your kids were in the car with you then i say that was a very bad choice on your part, as far as custody, it can play a big part in court. good luck
I'm not a legal expert but I doubt a DWI would be grounds to declare someone an unfit mother. Especially if it was in the past.
Child services is a pain in the *** about most things that could cause someone to lose custody of their children so unless your husband has been contacted by them about it I doubt you'd have much of a chance for just that.
No. Unless the kids were in the car.
No, it doesn't, necessarily, But it doesn't make or put you on a pedestal for a role model.
If this is a problem for her, maybe you and your husband could suggest she get some help rather than pulling her kids out of their home to start over with their new "mommy." OR ...were you already looking to take her kids and this opportunity just popped up?
Does gay marriage have an affect on children?
as far as what they think when they see two people of the same gender get married
Answer:
I dunno...Do you think straight marriage has an effect on children?
It doesn't have an effect unless the kids were raised to hate gay people. Most kids treat them like any other pair of parents.
The only problem is when other parents try to interfere (wrongly) or if brat kids at school make fun of them having two mommies or two daddies.
And having gay parents will not make a kid gay--you either are or you aren't.
I don'T think it has a significant effect on outsider children, but if gay people adopt children, then the effect could significant on that child.
It is just so silly! And the children would just be silly like mom and mom! Silly all around! Immoral and goofy as hell!
All marriages have an effect on children. It is how you raise the child that is important, not by who raised them.
I know a gay couple that raises children. The kids look pretty okay to me. They're fun, friendly, and very good students with lots of achievements in school.
no. gay marriages do not have affect on children. they do however have effects.
Answer:
I dunno...Do you think straight marriage has an effect on children?
It doesn't have an effect unless the kids were raised to hate gay people. Most kids treat them like any other pair of parents.
The only problem is when other parents try to interfere (wrongly) or if brat kids at school make fun of them having two mommies or two daddies.
And having gay parents will not make a kid gay--you either are or you aren't.
I don'T think it has a significant effect on outsider children, but if gay people adopt children, then the effect could significant on that child.
It is just so silly! And the children would just be silly like mom and mom! Silly all around! Immoral and goofy as hell!
All marriages have an effect on children. It is how you raise the child that is important, not by who raised them.
I know a gay couple that raises children. The kids look pretty okay to me. They're fun, friendly, and very good students with lots of achievements in school.
no. gay marriages do not have affect on children. they do however have effects.
Does fast food have a place in medical facilities?
There's many fast food restaurants located at hospitals. Fast food can create a lot of health problems for us.
Should Mcdonalds, etc. be there to please visitors, employees, etc?
Should hospitals be places of inspiration and education... WHY??
Im reading an article by Andrew Weil. Surgery with a side of fries.
Opinions/suggestions...ex... curious about other views.
Answer:
No. You are right. They should not be found on the premises of medic facilities. However, I believe that at the moment, the medical profession has not evolved to the point that it would want to take a stand as to what food does to our bodies, unlike the holistic nutrition profession. This, together with hospitals' needs to make ends meet, could mean that they are still capitalising on the marketing of fast food restaurants.
Ideally, hospitals should be places of education as to health n wellness rather than disease(although I am not sure about inpiration)Having said that, it would take someone with Dr Andrew Weil's background and umption to build that kind of institution. So unless something drastic happens to the medical professions' education curriculum, eg adding hours of nutrition modules into the syllabus, or the evolution of a hybrid of conventionaI n naturapathic medicine in the syllabus, or perhaps the emergence of many more individuals with Dr Weil's kind of calibre in the medical profession, I do not think there is any prospect yet that our medical facilities will become the abode of health, inspiration and education that you imagined.
Having said that, the seed of change begins with people. So if you have a conviction n burden to make any changes towards the end that you imagined, it wouldn't hurt to start thinking of how you might become an activist to get things started.
It shouldn't have a place anywhere.
I've noticed the same thing in some hospitals. I don't understand it at all. It shows you the lack of morality on the fast food industries part and possibly on the hospitals part too.
It has a place. In the dust bin.
i think having fast food there is fine. it is the patient's decision weather they want to eat it or not. Besides, ive been to the hospital when I had to get my apendix removed. And the fasst food was great. i was always super hungry.
It has been tried - healthy eating establishments, but people visiting hospitals demand the choice of whether to eat healthy or to eat fast food. A sizeable proportion of hospital visitors would rather go without (a snack) than pay high prices for something they do not really enjoy. You cannot force healthy eating on everybody. I don't know how it is in US hospitals, but retail establishments located inside British hospitals charge top dollar for candy bars and burgers (like 30% more than the price on the street)
The Cleveland Clinic has banned most fast food from its hospitals. It has elimiated all trans fats and junk food from vending machines. In September of this year it won't be hiring any smokers. Health care is changing a lot more to "do as I do" more than "do as I say."
I have a mixed feeling about the fast food thing though. So many sick kids come to the Cleveland Clinic. Parents often tell kids (especially those who have to fast) that if they're good for their exam, they'll get rewarded by a Happy Meal. That brings in a whole other topic about rewarding kids with food. But if you have a sick child, a burger and fries is usually the least of the worries.
not in my opinion. maybe the hospitals allow it to create more business for themselves.
I agree that fast-food is not healthy (other than baked potato or salad). However, I used to work in hospitals, and the cafeteria food that was available for employees and visitors was pretty horrid (though cheap to buy). It was basically the same food that they gave to patients--even the coffee was terrible.
Hospitals, most likely, get some money from the fast-food places that rent space on their property--maybe even a commission (like in some malls and airports). Hopefully they use this money to offset some unpaid medical and emergency room bills.we have some that we couldn't pay.
That being said, I think that hospitals should go back to having employee/visitor cafeterias--but hiring better cooks, and using better food. I know that our community college now has healthy food--so it should not be a problem for hospitals. The money that they may be losing from the fast-food places could cause problems, though.
Should Mcdonalds, etc. be there to please visitors, employees, etc?
Should hospitals be places of inspiration and education... WHY??
Im reading an article by Andrew Weil. Surgery with a side of fries.
Opinions/suggestions...ex... curious about other views.
Answer:
No. You are right. They should not be found on the premises of medic facilities. However, I believe that at the moment, the medical profession has not evolved to the point that it would want to take a stand as to what food does to our bodies, unlike the holistic nutrition profession. This, together with hospitals' needs to make ends meet, could mean that they are still capitalising on the marketing of fast food restaurants.
Ideally, hospitals should be places of education as to health n wellness rather than disease(although I am not sure about inpiration)Having said that, it would take someone with Dr Andrew Weil's background and umption to build that kind of institution. So unless something drastic happens to the medical professions' education curriculum, eg adding hours of nutrition modules into the syllabus, or the evolution of a hybrid of conventionaI n naturapathic medicine in the syllabus, or perhaps the emergence of many more individuals with Dr Weil's kind of calibre in the medical profession, I do not think there is any prospect yet that our medical facilities will become the abode of health, inspiration and education that you imagined.
Having said that, the seed of change begins with people. So if you have a conviction n burden to make any changes towards the end that you imagined, it wouldn't hurt to start thinking of how you might become an activist to get things started.
It shouldn't have a place anywhere.
I've noticed the same thing in some hospitals. I don't understand it at all. It shows you the lack of morality on the fast food industries part and possibly on the hospitals part too.
It has a place. In the dust bin.
i think having fast food there is fine. it is the patient's decision weather they want to eat it or not. Besides, ive been to the hospital when I had to get my apendix removed. And the fasst food was great. i was always super hungry.
It has been tried - healthy eating establishments, but people visiting hospitals demand the choice of whether to eat healthy or to eat fast food. A sizeable proportion of hospital visitors would rather go without (a snack) than pay high prices for something they do not really enjoy. You cannot force healthy eating on everybody. I don't know how it is in US hospitals, but retail establishments located inside British hospitals charge top dollar for candy bars and burgers (like 30% more than the price on the street)
The Cleveland Clinic has banned most fast food from its hospitals. It has elimiated all trans fats and junk food from vending machines. In September of this year it won't be hiring any smokers. Health care is changing a lot more to "do as I do" more than "do as I say."
I have a mixed feeling about the fast food thing though. So many sick kids come to the Cleveland Clinic. Parents often tell kids (especially those who have to fast) that if they're good for their exam, they'll get rewarded by a Happy Meal. That brings in a whole other topic about rewarding kids with food. But if you have a sick child, a burger and fries is usually the least of the worries.
not in my opinion. maybe the hospitals allow it to create more business for themselves.
I agree that fast-food is not healthy (other than baked potato or salad). However, I used to work in hospitals, and the cafeteria food that was available for employees and visitors was pretty horrid (though cheap to buy). It was basically the same food that they gave to patients--even the coffee was terrible.
Hospitals, most likely, get some money from the fast-food places that rent space on their property--maybe even a commission (like in some malls and airports). Hopefully they use this money to offset some unpaid medical and emergency room bills.we have some that we couldn't pay.
That being said, I think that hospitals should go back to having employee/visitor cafeterias--but hiring better cooks, and using better food. I know that our community college now has healthy food--so it should not be a problem for hospitals. The money that they may be losing from the fast-food places could cause problems, though.
Does ex have to give a six month notice of intention to discontinue child support in CA?
I was recently told by a friend that even though my youngest turned 18 (and still lives at home), that my ex should have notified me in writing his intent to discontinue child support six months prior to doing so. Does anyone know how this works in California?
Answer:
It is always best to obtain the advice of a family law attorney. Attorneys specialize in one or more areas of law, and it is generally best to ask a practitioner who has specific knowledge in this area. As a general premise, in California, "child support generally continues until the minor child emancipates or until otherwise noted in the child support order. Under California law, a parent's obligation to pay support continues until the child becomes 18 years old. However, the current support obligation may continue until the child is 19, if the child is unmarried and attending high school full time. A court may order current child support to continue after the child emancipates because of special circumstances." It may be best to have your Order interpreted by an attorney. You may also contact the attorney handling this issue at the time of your divorce. While I have provided a resource for information, you should understand that nothing substitues for the (often extensive) knowledge of an attorney who specializes in family law. You may want to try to obtain basic information from California Departmet of Child Support Services; however, if an Order needs to be interpreted, please rely on an attorney well versed and studied in this field. Well meaning friends are wonderful in times of need, but a lawyer versed in the statute and interpretation of the Court's order, with experience in the family law arena, is what you need.in addition to your friend's support. Best regards for justice- Truth
The kids 18 let it go.
If custody was ordered by the court beyond that age, your spouse can not terminate support. If your son turns 18 and there is no order to the contrary, your support terminates without notice.
is your child going to college and living at home? If so then he still need to pay some sort of child support if your kid is a full time student. If your child is not going to school then i don't think they need to notify you that the child support will end. It should be in your court papers as to the terms of the agreement for child support and what he is obligated to do. About 90% of the time he has to help pay for all expenses that invole school and houseing and if they live at home that mean he still has to pay something to you as a form of child support. Because you are paying for food, shelter, ect. ect. Check your court papers they should have this info in them.
Can't live without that support, can you?
Read your court orders it will tell you in there.
I'm a legal document assistant in CA. Your ex has no responsibility to give you 6 months notice-you know your child's birthday as well as he does. Nonetheless, he cannot just stop paying child support. he has to petition the court to modify the support to 0. Your child living at home has nothing to do with child support.
Actually, Diana is incorrect. Most of the answers you received are also incorrect.
The reason is we have no idea what your support order states nor the conditions under which the child is living after the disability of age has been shed.
So, would you like to explain a little more?
Answer:
It is always best to obtain the advice of a family law attorney. Attorneys specialize in one or more areas of law, and it is generally best to ask a practitioner who has specific knowledge in this area. As a general premise, in California, "child support generally continues until the minor child emancipates or until otherwise noted in the child support order. Under California law, a parent's obligation to pay support continues until the child becomes 18 years old. However, the current support obligation may continue until the child is 19, if the child is unmarried and attending high school full time. A court may order current child support to continue after the child emancipates because of special circumstances." It may be best to have your Order interpreted by an attorney. You may also contact the attorney handling this issue at the time of your divorce. While I have provided a resource for information, you should understand that nothing substitues for the (often extensive) knowledge of an attorney who specializes in family law. You may want to try to obtain basic information from California Departmet of Child Support Services; however, if an Order needs to be interpreted, please rely on an attorney well versed and studied in this field. Well meaning friends are wonderful in times of need, but a lawyer versed in the statute and interpretation of the Court's order, with experience in the family law arena, is what you need.in addition to your friend's support. Best regards for justice- Truth
The kids 18 let it go.
If custody was ordered by the court beyond that age, your spouse can not terminate support. If your son turns 18 and there is no order to the contrary, your support terminates without notice.
is your child going to college and living at home? If so then he still need to pay some sort of child support if your kid is a full time student. If your child is not going to school then i don't think they need to notify you that the child support will end. It should be in your court papers as to the terms of the agreement for child support and what he is obligated to do. About 90% of the time he has to help pay for all expenses that invole school and houseing and if they live at home that mean he still has to pay something to you as a form of child support. Because you are paying for food, shelter, ect. ect. Check your court papers they should have this info in them.
Can't live without that support, can you?
Read your court orders it will tell you in there.
I'm a legal document assistant in CA. Your ex has no responsibility to give you 6 months notice-you know your child's birthday as well as he does. Nonetheless, he cannot just stop paying child support. he has to petition the court to modify the support to 0. Your child living at home has nothing to do with child support.
Actually, Diana is incorrect. Most of the answers you received are also incorrect.
The reason is we have no idea what your support order states nor the conditions under which the child is living after the disability of age has been shed.
So, would you like to explain a little more?
Does DWI's haunt you for the rest of your life?
I have 3 dwi's. 2 of them I got before I was even 21. They are over 5yrs old now. But Im tryin to get a good job, and I dont want them to keep haunting me. Ive heard that misdemeanors take 5 yrs and felonys take 13 years and then you can exsponge them to a lower offense in MO. Is this true?
Answer:
Please don't ever do that again, drinking and driving. It's not macho. It's not a joke. It is extremely serious. Do you know the countless numbers of innocent people that die every year being hit by drunk drivers? My friend lost her father when she was 8 years old and her brother was crippled for life being hit by a drunk woman. Is this fair? If you don't care about yourself, don't bring innocent people down. I hope you're on the right track and have left those habits behind and continue to be smart in the future too.
Think about this, what if some drunk person got into an accident with your family, how would you feel them?
Just remember that if ever you get the urge again.
I know in Ga it stays on your record for life and follows you from state to state.
they stay on your record, but employers generally go back only 5 or ten years.
A DWI will follow you through out your life from state to state. There is no expunging a DWI in Missouri either.
they should!
Yes, they will haunt for a minimum of 7 years after your last one!!----where is your sponsor? Take a cab--I don't want to be on the same freakin road as you while, you kill yourself!
Answer:
Please don't ever do that again, drinking and driving. It's not macho. It's not a joke. It is extremely serious. Do you know the countless numbers of innocent people that die every year being hit by drunk drivers? My friend lost her father when she was 8 years old and her brother was crippled for life being hit by a drunk woman. Is this fair? If you don't care about yourself, don't bring innocent people down. I hope you're on the right track and have left those habits behind and continue to be smart in the future too.
Think about this, what if some drunk person got into an accident with your family, how would you feel them?
Just remember that if ever you get the urge again.
I know in Ga it stays on your record for life and follows you from state to state.
they stay on your record, but employers generally go back only 5 or ten years.
A DWI will follow you through out your life from state to state. There is no expunging a DWI in Missouri either.
they should!
Yes, they will haunt for a minimum of 7 years after your last one!!----where is your sponsor? Take a cab--I don't want to be on the same freakin road as you while, you kill yourself!
Does doing whats right equate to "serving justice"?
When justice has been "served" in our court of law, is that always the right thing to do? (speaking in the bigger moral/ethical picture of things)
Answer:
justice most often can not be served in a court. if you have money and good lawyer, one can get away with murder! also what is ethical depends on the time and place. an action has a better chance of being ethical when it is truly impartial, then you have justice. poor people are punished everyday even though what actually the person needs, is help and some attention. in fact then you will have a better chance to serve and help the community as a whole. that would be a just and ethical thing to do.
not always...
Doing what is right is not always dong what is "just"
That all depends. Some people would say that It's not right. We shouldn't judge. Others say. Kill them all and let GOD sort them out. Some may even say. Just lock them up and let them die behind bars of natural causes. But I guess no one knows what side of the barrel they sit on till they are the ones staring at the man who killed there loved ones.
Do not ask this to socrates because he could answer this no
What is right must we negate what is good .In order to have justice must seek not for it sake .
Answer:
justice most often can not be served in a court. if you have money and good lawyer, one can get away with murder! also what is ethical depends on the time and place. an action has a better chance of being ethical when it is truly impartial, then you have justice. poor people are punished everyday even though what actually the person needs, is help and some attention. in fact then you will have a better chance to serve and help the community as a whole. that would be a just and ethical thing to do.
not always...
Doing what is right is not always dong what is "just"
That all depends. Some people would say that It's not right. We shouldn't judge. Others say. Kill them all and let GOD sort them out. Some may even say. Just lock them up and let them die behind bars of natural causes. But I guess no one knows what side of the barrel they sit on till they are the ones staring at the man who killed there loved ones.
Do not ask this to socrates because he could answer this no
What is right must we negate what is good .In order to have justice must seek not for it sake .
Does cosigning for someone affect housing?
i have good credit card, just trying to help someone finanance for a car.
Answer:
Bascially what happens is if the person you co-sign for doesn't pay their car note, you are responsible for payment. If no one pays, and the car gets repossessed, your credit will be screwed!
Don't do it, unless you know this person really, really well and you are positive that they pay their bills on time.
whatever does that have to do with housing? your question is what exactly?
IF you do this - you have lost your mind! If the person you are planning to co-sign a loan for fails to make the required payments, then that responsibility falls to you! I have personal experience with that and it isn't a very pretty responsibility. In my case, I was forced to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in order to keep the creditors away from my assets. Don't do it unless you trust the person you are co-signing a loan for and even that is NOT a good situation! If you doubt what I say, contact an equity/bankruptcy lawyer and they will tell you the same thing!
To answer your question, the only way it would effect housing is that your debt will increase.
When you co-sigh for someone on any loan you are guaranteeing the payment if they default on the loan.
Unless you know this person extremely well, I would think twice about this. I look at credit every day and not a week goes by that I don't hear "That's a loan that I co-signed for and the other person did not make the payments".
If you do decide to go ahead and do this you might want to consider having the statements sent to you so the other person can pay you and you can pay the lender. This way you will be sure that the payments are made on time and your good credit is safe.
Spifiman is right. Even if the other party never misses a payment and it's all good, it still affects your debt-to-income ratio and could possibly be a problem for you in the event you need to finance something else for yourself before that loan is paid off. It all depends on your individual situation. Personally, I would never do this for anyone other than my spouse or parents, but luckily I don't need to.
Answer:
Bascially what happens is if the person you co-sign for doesn't pay their car note, you are responsible for payment. If no one pays, and the car gets repossessed, your credit will be screwed!
Don't do it, unless you know this person really, really well and you are positive that they pay their bills on time.
whatever does that have to do with housing? your question is what exactly?
IF you do this - you have lost your mind! If the person you are planning to co-sign a loan for fails to make the required payments, then that responsibility falls to you! I have personal experience with that and it isn't a very pretty responsibility. In my case, I was forced to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in order to keep the creditors away from my assets. Don't do it unless you trust the person you are co-signing a loan for and even that is NOT a good situation! If you doubt what I say, contact an equity/bankruptcy lawyer and they will tell you the same thing!
To answer your question, the only way it would effect housing is that your debt will increase.
When you co-sigh for someone on any loan you are guaranteeing the payment if they default on the loan.
Unless you know this person extremely well, I would think twice about this. I look at credit every day and not a week goes by that I don't hear "That's a loan that I co-signed for and the other person did not make the payments".
If you do decide to go ahead and do this you might want to consider having the statements sent to you so the other person can pay you and you can pay the lender. This way you will be sure that the payments are made on time and your good credit is safe.
Spifiman is right. Even if the other party never misses a payment and it's all good, it still affects your debt-to-income ratio and could possibly be a problem for you in the event you need to finance something else for yourself before that loan is paid off. It all depends on your individual situation. Personally, I would never do this for anyone other than my spouse or parents, but luckily I don't need to.
Does Congress have jurisdiction over illegal aliens in the USA or power to make laws concerning same?
Thomas Jefferson forcibly tells us what the States retained under the US Constitution in regards to immigration:
Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled "An Act concerning Aliens," which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.
http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/delegat...
Answer:
Read it more carefully.
Aliens under jurisdiction AND protection of the laws of the STATE they are in. Means the state laws govern them, not congress. Nor can congress prohibit the states from doing so. UNLIKE congress' power over U.S. citizens.
it means that any law created by congress assuming power over aliens that hasn't been given to congress by the constitution is void and unenforceable.
Jefferson wasn't talking about illegal aliens, he was talking about men from outer space.
They come in peace!
The date was over 200 years ago. The Congress can vote for laws. The President has to sign bills from congress to make them become laws. The President and his Administration are responsible for enforcing laws that have been enacted.
The people in Congress just walk away after their bills are passed. When the laws don't work, they blame the President.
What level of government has control/authority over what is found in the Constitution and of course any conflicts over jurisdiction eventually are usually resolved by the Supreme Court.
In respect to immigration (as so many other subjects) ,there is cross jurisdictional control/authority.
The Feds have authority/control over national secuity etc and it is this lever that is legally used allowing the Feds to have substantial control over what on the surface appears to be an issue soley within the states' jurisdiction
As I wrote,there are many issues like this and the reverse happens as well, i.e. States will use a specific lever to grab at least partial control over something that on the surface appears to be only a Federal jurisdiction.
If the Federal government doesn't have power over them you are saying that states do? If that's so I think each state should be in charge of finding and deporting these illegal aliens.
A lot has changed in 200 years. You need an update.
Interested?
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Phyler v Doe stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
It seems to me that the states which are passing laws re:illegals should be able to use Phyler v Doe to support their laws. The SC ruled the illegals are just as much under a states jurisdiction as anyone else.
Pro-illegals use the 14th Amendment to justify anchor babies, although the amendment's intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their descendents. The SC rulings following the 14th Amendment involved children of persons legally in the US, not illegal aliens. Under the 14th Amendment, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
Children born to US citizens;
Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.
Plyler v Doe did not explicitly address the question of children born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens. I think it's time a case went to the SC challenging anchor baby laws, instead of illegals screaming for rights they forfeit by entering illegally instead of legally like true immigrants.
Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled "An Act concerning Aliens," which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.
http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/delegat...
Answer:
Read it more carefully.
Aliens under jurisdiction AND protection of the laws of the STATE they are in. Means the state laws govern them, not congress. Nor can congress prohibit the states from doing so. UNLIKE congress' power over U.S. citizens.
it means that any law created by congress assuming power over aliens that hasn't been given to congress by the constitution is void and unenforceable.
Jefferson wasn't talking about illegal aliens, he was talking about men from outer space.
They come in peace!
The date was over 200 years ago. The Congress can vote for laws. The President has to sign bills from congress to make them become laws. The President and his Administration are responsible for enforcing laws that have been enacted.
The people in Congress just walk away after their bills are passed. When the laws don't work, they blame the President.
What level of government has control/authority over what is found in the Constitution and of course any conflicts over jurisdiction eventually are usually resolved by the Supreme Court.
In respect to immigration (as so many other subjects) ,there is cross jurisdictional control/authority.
The Feds have authority/control over national secuity etc and it is this lever that is legally used allowing the Feds to have substantial control over what on the surface appears to be an issue soley within the states' jurisdiction
As I wrote,there are many issues like this and the reverse happens as well, i.e. States will use a specific lever to grab at least partial control over something that on the surface appears to be only a Federal jurisdiction.
If the Federal government doesn't have power over them you are saying that states do? If that's so I think each state should be in charge of finding and deporting these illegal aliens.
A lot has changed in 200 years. You need an update.
Interested?
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Phyler v Doe stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
It seems to me that the states which are passing laws re:illegals should be able to use Phyler v Doe to support their laws. The SC ruled the illegals are just as much under a states jurisdiction as anyone else.
Pro-illegals use the 14th Amendment to justify anchor babies, although the amendment's intent was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their descendents. The SC rulings following the 14th Amendment involved children of persons legally in the US, not illegal aliens. Under the 14th Amendment, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
Children born to US citizens;
Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.
Plyler v Doe did not explicitly address the question of children born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens. I think it's time a case went to the SC challenging anchor baby laws, instead of illegals screaming for rights they forfeit by entering illegally instead of legally like true immigrants.
Does citizenship require responsibility?
Answer:
Yes, citizenship carries obligations. We live here in a relatively peaceful country. It is peaceful because we all carry certain burdens. One of them is the vote. If somebody does not vote, he has no right to complain afterward if things are not to his liking. In deciding how to vote, the citizen looks around and makes efforts. It is such collective efforts that keeps civil servants less dishonest than in other countries. Non-voters expect everything to be nice and good for them to take advantage. Voters realize that conditions are good because we all paid a price, and it takes upkeep to keep conditions good.
to become a citizen of usa means that you have renounced your birth country and will honor and respect new ways, means that you have left the past behind to have a brighter tommorrow is that asking to much? if it is then stay in your country cause we want productive citizens here not just some old pea picker or bean workers!
Citizenship REQUIRES nine months gestation - that's it. GOOD citizenship requires resposibility.
Yes. Citizenship requires accepting the culture, following the laws, and promoting the positive ideals of society and working to change the flaws.
Unfortunately from a legal standpoint, being a citizen requires virtually nothing. Hobos can be citizens. There are some illegal aliens that are better people than citizens.
Being a good citizen, however, requires not being apathetic or ignorant. One must know what is going on and contribute to the general welfare to be a good citizen. By "welfare" I do not mean the public dole.
yes, for the countrys well livving it requires
Does China have any animal welfare laws?
If they don't, why? I thought they were a very intelligent group of people. All those dogs being viciously murdered- doesn't make them any better than the barbarians they used to be before being colonized by the other countries. They have made no progress, mentally, in my opinion. They still need to evolve from the half-man/half-monkey state of mind.
It IRRITATES me that these people are so cruel. Sure, there are many people dying from rabies, but could it be from something other than the dogs? Come on, they consider themselves quite intelligent, can't they behave a little more human like?
If anyone is interested in ending such brutality, please sign the following petition http://ga4.org/campaign/china_petition...
It was sent to me by the North Shore Animal League. We have to become the voice of these helpless and harmless creatures!
Answer:
This is a clear example of Ugly Americanizm.
What right do we have to tell another country what to do with their animals?
What is one persons mans best friend is another running pile of food.
We treat our cattle terribly. Do you know where veal comes from and how the calves are treated?
How about Pigs, which are arguably smarter then dogs?
Further, what right do you have telling them to be more "human like" when we are slaughtering people in two wars? Not to mention our secret prisons, our laws running on steroids where we have a higher incarceration rate then most countries, where millions of people in the USA do not have adequate medical treatment and many have no access to it unless its a life threatening emergency.
It's time to take off your blinders and look at our own back yard before you comment on others.
Peace
Jim
.
I believe the answer to your question is no.
In a world where abuses of people are rampant, it is rather juvenile to put animals higher on the list.
Sorry if it IRRITATES you.
Of course they do, he who catches the dog first, gets to eat it.
I think they are too busy torturing and executing people to worry about animal welfare.
Thank you so much for the information
I signed the petition
It IRRITATES me that these people are so cruel. Sure, there are many people dying from rabies, but could it be from something other than the dogs? Come on, they consider themselves quite intelligent, can't they behave a little more human like?
If anyone is interested in ending such brutality, please sign the following petition http://ga4.org/campaign/china_petition...
It was sent to me by the North Shore Animal League. We have to become the voice of these helpless and harmless creatures!
Answer:
This is a clear example of Ugly Americanizm.
What right do we have to tell another country what to do with their animals?
What is one persons mans best friend is another running pile of food.
We treat our cattle terribly. Do you know where veal comes from and how the calves are treated?
How about Pigs, which are arguably smarter then dogs?
Further, what right do you have telling them to be more "human like" when we are slaughtering people in two wars? Not to mention our secret prisons, our laws running on steroids where we have a higher incarceration rate then most countries, where millions of people in the USA do not have adequate medical treatment and many have no access to it unless its a life threatening emergency.
It's time to take off your blinders and look at our own back yard before you comment on others.
Peace
Jim
.
I believe the answer to your question is no.
In a world where abuses of people are rampant, it is rather juvenile to put animals higher on the list.
Sorry if it IRRITATES you.
Of course they do, he who catches the dog first, gets to eat it.
I think they are too busy torturing and executing people to worry about animal welfare.
Thank you so much for the information
I signed the petition
Does asking assumptive & presumptive Qs in yahoo ans forum ;about legal system cause contempt of court?India?
Does asking assumptive %26 presumptive questions... by somebody, in this FreeLawAnswer.com forum ; about some police officer, advocate, magistrate %26 legal system (without taking names of someone)cause ''Contemt of Court'' in india?
Answer:
No it doesn't amounts to contempt of court but when I said that I simply told you to assume it. You guys keep on asking questions in yahoo category of Law %26 Ethics which no where are concerning real legal problems but you make up stories thinking that lawyers here will be just keep on entertaining you with all sort of arguments which in reality no where exist. You should come with real problems not fantasies as this is a serious category relating to very serious topic, for entertainment purposes you can ask questions in that category. This morning only in you check Times of India Delhi edition, there is a news item on the first page itself where three young MBA's working in MNC were held by Intelligence Bureau %26 RAW personnel鈥檚 while they were traveling in flight from Delhi %26 discussing about High jacking of the plane, although they were let off after 8hours of grilling as nothing incriminating object were found with them %26 their identity were checked by these law enforcing people, just see how much the legal issues are taken seriously by every one %26 you guys take such issues as joke. Mind you these communities like FreeLawAnswer.com are too at surveillance by law enforcing bodies to keep a check of any incriminating activities if are being planned or executed through these comunities,you must have heard a lot about such Orkut communities about which lots of is being talked about in media %26 newsprint. So next time keep in mind that your question should be relating to some real legal problem not frivolous matters.
I'm not sure what contempt of court entails in India.
In the USA a contempt of court issue is literally whatever the presiding judge feels like it should be, without limitation.
Not really.
I completely agree with the answer given by Vijay M who has consistently answered peoples legal queries in a serious, comprehensive manner. This is a highly commendable attribute in his profession - where most of his peers would never dream of parting with any such comprehensive advice for free.
There are some absolutely ludicruous questions to be seen in this category nowadays which apart from being frivolous are also needlessly repeated by the same querist, innumerable times.
Contempt of court means disobedience to the orders, process rules or dignity of a court which has the power to punish for such offences. A direct contempt is insult or resist the powers of court or judges. Whereas a consequential contempt is one which creates a universal disregard of the authority of courts. If a person makes any remark derogatory tot he dignity of a judge so that free administration of justice is jeopardised amounts to contempt.
The underlying principle normally courts follow is that 'whether the action or remark of the alleged contemner interferes with or interrupt or thwart the course of justice'. If the answer is in negative then there is no contempt.
As far as your question is concerned, it does not come within the purview of contempt of court since questions are asked on assumptions and presumptions. Of course, questions indicating names and attributing malafides on the part of judges who gave a particular judgement may attract contempt of court. The dictum is 'you may criticise a judgement but not a judge'. However, it may attract defamation proceedings if names of the persons are mentioned with the imputations since it amounts to publication.
Answer:
No it doesn't amounts to contempt of court but when I said that I simply told you to assume it. You guys keep on asking questions in yahoo category of Law %26 Ethics which no where are concerning real legal problems but you make up stories thinking that lawyers here will be just keep on entertaining you with all sort of arguments which in reality no where exist. You should come with real problems not fantasies as this is a serious category relating to very serious topic, for entertainment purposes you can ask questions in that category. This morning only in you check Times of India Delhi edition, there is a news item on the first page itself where three young MBA's working in MNC were held by Intelligence Bureau %26 RAW personnel鈥檚 while they were traveling in flight from Delhi %26 discussing about High jacking of the plane, although they were let off after 8hours of grilling as nothing incriminating object were found with them %26 their identity were checked by these law enforcing people, just see how much the legal issues are taken seriously by every one %26 you guys take such issues as joke. Mind you these communities like FreeLawAnswer.com are too at surveillance by law enforcing bodies to keep a check of any incriminating activities if are being planned or executed through these comunities,you must have heard a lot about such Orkut communities about which lots of is being talked about in media %26 newsprint. So next time keep in mind that your question should be relating to some real legal problem not frivolous matters.
I'm not sure what contempt of court entails in India.
In the USA a contempt of court issue is literally whatever the presiding judge feels like it should be, without limitation.
Not really.
I completely agree with the answer given by Vijay M who has consistently answered peoples legal queries in a serious, comprehensive manner. This is a highly commendable attribute in his profession - where most of his peers would never dream of parting with any such comprehensive advice for free.
There are some absolutely ludicruous questions to be seen in this category nowadays which apart from being frivolous are also needlessly repeated by the same querist, innumerable times.
Contempt of court means disobedience to the orders, process rules or dignity of a court which has the power to punish for such offences. A direct contempt is insult or resist the powers of court or judges. Whereas a consequential contempt is one which creates a universal disregard of the authority of courts. If a person makes any remark derogatory tot he dignity of a judge so that free administration of justice is jeopardised amounts to contempt.
The underlying principle normally courts follow is that 'whether the action or remark of the alleged contemner interferes with or interrupt or thwart the course of justice'. If the answer is in negative then there is no contempt.
As far as your question is concerned, it does not come within the purview of contempt of court since questions are asked on assumptions and presumptions. Of course, questions indicating names and attributing malafides on the part of judges who gave a particular judgement may attract contempt of court. The dictum is 'you may criticise a judgement but not a judge'. However, it may attract defamation proceedings if names of the persons are mentioned with the imputations since it amounts to publication.
Does anyone think it's fair that the lawyer gets half of what an injured person gets when they sue & win ?
At least that's what I heard. A guy is injured, gets a lawyer to sue the company responsible for him getting injured, and whatever he gets, the lawyer gets half for defending him. I guess I could see maybe 25%, but not half !
Answer:
They have to sign a retainer agreement before they do anything. It's almost always 33% as the standard attorney fee for personal injury matters. They also might have done an hourly agreement which can vary depending on how much per hour that attorney typically charges. Also, if the attorneys office cost advanced anything like medical record fees deposition fees, etc. then they have a right to be paid back and that is not pay for legal services. Legal services are services an attorney performed. "A lawyers time is their stock and trade." - Abraham Lincoln. (Most people don't seem to understand that concept.)
depends on your lawye. I would shop around I thought it was 20-30% but I guess like anything else you get what you pay for.
Your lawyer will get whatever % you decide initially prior to any settlement. We had a lawyer for our dispute with an insurance company. They only took 10%. Negotiate the % first. If you are not happy with it, find another lawyer who you are comfortable with.
It depends on the case. Some lawyers charge higher fees than others. If it's a particularly complex case, or one where there is a lack of evidence and it's difficult to prove, then you need the best of the best lawyer, and half seems to be fair.
That would depend on the contingency agreement. Some states have laws limiting the % that can be collected from a contigency lawsuit. Also, some states also limit the amount that can be added to the % to cover the lawyer's expenses (investigation, postage, etc.). In my state, the limit is 33.3%, for both contigency and expense...
'
'
It's negotiable. Injured people can find lawyers that will take less if they shop around. But those lawyers may be not be as good!
Usually, it is a scale. Something like 10% if it settles without filing a lawsuit, 25% if it settles before trial, and 50% if it goes to trial.
In these types of cases, the lawyer is taking a big risk. 50% of nothing is nothing. So if the client does not win his case, the lawyer has spent days and weeks working for free.
A third is much more common for speculative cases, which is when a lawyer takes a risk of not being paid. The alternative is to retain an attorney who then works at standard billing rates, which generally run upwards of $200/hour.
I urge a Uniform Pay system for Lawyer %26 Client based on Size of Reward.
Lawyer should get less: .10% of award under X$$$$ dollars.
Over X$ maybe 10%.
Otherwise NO.
Plus some charge 400.00 hr for just chatting with you about your case etc anyway
So Yes IT should LESS for all cases under 1M plus.
By judge decree.
NATIONWIDE.
It is about 85% in the UK and the victim pays about 拢 10 000 costs to his lawyer if he loses.
While it might not seem fair, it really depends on the case. Most people who enter into contingency fees do not have the money upfront to pay for court costs and attorney fees. It really can be a gamble for the attorney. If that injuried person have received nothing, so would have the attorney who paid court costs and etc out of the firm's pocket. I think 50% sounds high, but if you don't have the details, you don't know how big the risk was. Some states limit the % in certain types of cases, but I believe 1/3rd is common.
First of all, any contingency fee based on settlement must be approved by the client, before the case even proceeds to a settlement. So, if an attorney gets 50%, it's because that's what the client agreed to up front when the whole process started.
Second, I've never heard of a legitimate attorney asking for or getting 50%. Standard in the industry is between 25% and 40%, depending on the type of case, and depending on whether costs (postage, copying, court fees, etc.) is paid first, or comes out of the attorney's percentage.
Third, state regulations for the ethical conduct of attorneys set limits on contingency fees, how much they can be, how the contingency agreement is written (must always be written), and so on. And most will not allow a fee this high (though, laws vary by state). So even if a client would agree to this, the state forbids it.
Also, remember that if a lawyer is being paid a contingency fee, they get nothing if the case fails, is lost, or if the client was wrong.
So, yes, it's generally unfair for lawyers to get half, which is why lawyer's don't ask and state's don't allow that split.
Answer:
They have to sign a retainer agreement before they do anything. It's almost always 33% as the standard attorney fee for personal injury matters. They also might have done an hourly agreement which can vary depending on how much per hour that attorney typically charges. Also, if the attorneys office cost advanced anything like medical record fees deposition fees, etc. then they have a right to be paid back and that is not pay for legal services. Legal services are services an attorney performed. "A lawyers time is their stock and trade." - Abraham Lincoln. (Most people don't seem to understand that concept.)
depends on your lawye. I would shop around I thought it was 20-30% but I guess like anything else you get what you pay for.
Your lawyer will get whatever % you decide initially prior to any settlement. We had a lawyer for our dispute with an insurance company. They only took 10%. Negotiate the % first. If you are not happy with it, find another lawyer who you are comfortable with.
It depends on the case. Some lawyers charge higher fees than others. If it's a particularly complex case, or one where there is a lack of evidence and it's difficult to prove, then you need the best of the best lawyer, and half seems to be fair.
That would depend on the contingency agreement. Some states have laws limiting the % that can be collected from a contigency lawsuit. Also, some states also limit the amount that can be added to the % to cover the lawyer's expenses (investigation, postage, etc.). In my state, the limit is 33.3%, for both contigency and expense...
'
'
It's negotiable. Injured people can find lawyers that will take less if they shop around. But those lawyers may be not be as good!
Usually, it is a scale. Something like 10% if it settles without filing a lawsuit, 25% if it settles before trial, and 50% if it goes to trial.
In these types of cases, the lawyer is taking a big risk. 50% of nothing is nothing. So if the client does not win his case, the lawyer has spent days and weeks working for free.
A third is much more common for speculative cases, which is when a lawyer takes a risk of not being paid. The alternative is to retain an attorney who then works at standard billing rates, which generally run upwards of $200/hour.
I urge a Uniform Pay system for Lawyer %26 Client based on Size of Reward.
Lawyer should get less: .10% of award under X$$$$ dollars.
Over X$ maybe 10%.
Otherwise NO.
Plus some charge 400.00 hr for just chatting with you about your case etc anyway
So Yes IT should LESS for all cases under 1M plus.
By judge decree.
NATIONWIDE.
It is about 85% in the UK and the victim pays about 拢 10 000 costs to his lawyer if he loses.
While it might not seem fair, it really depends on the case. Most people who enter into contingency fees do not have the money upfront to pay for court costs and attorney fees. It really can be a gamble for the attorney. If that injuried person have received nothing, so would have the attorney who paid court costs and etc out of the firm's pocket. I think 50% sounds high, but if you don't have the details, you don't know how big the risk was. Some states limit the % in certain types of cases, but I believe 1/3rd is common.
First of all, any contingency fee based on settlement must be approved by the client, before the case even proceeds to a settlement. So, if an attorney gets 50%, it's because that's what the client agreed to up front when the whole process started.
Second, I've never heard of a legitimate attorney asking for or getting 50%. Standard in the industry is between 25% and 40%, depending on the type of case, and depending on whether costs (postage, copying, court fees, etc.) is paid first, or comes out of the attorney's percentage.
Third, state regulations for the ethical conduct of attorneys set limits on contingency fees, how much they can be, how the contingency agreement is written (must always be written), and so on. And most will not allow a fee this high (though, laws vary by state). So even if a client would agree to this, the state forbids it.
Also, remember that if a lawyer is being paid a contingency fee, they get nothing if the case fails, is lost, or if the client was wrong.
So, yes, it's generally unfair for lawyers to get half, which is why lawyer's don't ask and state's don't allow that split.
Does anyone rob banks anymore, or is the theft always carried out online?
Answer:
Well, recently two girls (aka Barbie Bandits) robbed a bank over in the east coast area of the U.S, so I think banks are still easily robbed, especially if you have special connections and have a clever escape route.
Happens quite a bit. The perpetrators are usually caught however.
Yes, people still rob banks, usually by passing a note. The average take is probably no more than $2000.
yep a massive robbery happened here in n/ireland just a couple of years ago xx
Well I live in a deserted town in the middle of Scotland called Denny, and our local bank of scotland right in the town center got robbed in broad daylight a few months ago, the theifs nearly made away with 30+ thousand but unfortunately for them the guy tried to put all the money in his own bank account and the bank informed the police
Yes there has been a raise in bank robbers over the past few years
the robbers only get away with only a couple thousand dollars
and the penalty for it is ten years doesn't make since to me
There was a bank robbery where I live just yesterday. The dye packet didn't explode and the guy may get away with it, since the security cameras didn't get a single good image due to his hat and his hands.
There was one Monday, too. Different guy.
This isn't in some huge metropolis but a city under a half-million.
There were a few failed bank robbing attempts in my area last year.
I think you're right though, online theft is becoming the sign of the times.
Most modern banks have shutters that come up if the cashier presses a panic button. Also theres lots of CCTV so they will catch you eventually.
Oh and if you try to hold a customer hostage the armed police will arive and blow your brains out.
Still happens in my area! Thieves are getting sneaky too, like planning ahead and starting to work for the bank to gain inside access! Scary!
Technology has changed the world, With the exception of drunken idiots most thefts are on the internet--strangely, from Nigerian pirates.
Yes banks do still get robbed but the growth area is "cash in transits". Banks themselves tend to be very secure these days so a hit and run type robberys are less likely to succeed than they used to. A weak link in the chain is the security vans that transport the cash from depots to banks and cash machines at places other than banks and it is these that are increasingly becoming the target of armed robbers.
Yes, people do rob banks. But it's been a long time since that's been where the biggest thefts are. With timed vaults and tagged money technology bank robbers just get what's in the teller's drawer.
The two biggest bank robberies Ive heard of late have been, in the UK and Brazil.
The one in brazil was a massive operation where they dug a tunnel under the bank and stole massive amounts of money ($100 mil??). It supposedly involved a lot of people 20-30, and the last I heard they had rounded up a few people they suspected of being involved.
There was another one in the UK somewhere where they think it involved people from the IRA, the amount of money was again very large maybe $50 mil, and from what I remember they may have caught the people.
online is the new way my friend
With so many gullible people on the internet, crooks can stay home and make a fortune..Why go out when all you need is a keyboard to rob people? And NO, in 95% of the cases, you DO NOT get your money back...And your left with no course of action to remedy the problem..When your 'online' you are surrounded by scammers and con artists, waiting for their next 'sucker'..
Yes...There was a bank robbery in San Antonio Ibiza. Spain. The robber was arrested within hours.This all happened last week.
No they become members of Parliment and rob us
Does anyone now if they are going to do away with writing out checks?.?
I tried to fill up my motorcycle with a check with no address on it since I opened up a new account at a reputable worldwide bank like Wells Fargo. I had my license, the check I filled out without her saying anything and then when I was finished to give her the check she said; I can't accept the check; I asked why, and she said there is no address on it. I said well here is my license all you have to do is match the signatures. She said adamantely "IT'S THE LAW. Why would banks give out checks with no addresses on them if they knew it was the LAW? Any clues? (I've been a customer there for over 15 years and I get treated like this? The lady had a real beurocratic attitude like that of a know it all lawyer; just for a stinking $4.00. She said I think they are going to do away with checks all together; as if I was the reason for it. I felt like arguing but I stormed off and ran ot of gas; how's that for a day. Do you think they will eventually do away with checks?
Answer:
She is wrong that it is "the law" that checks have to have an address on them, but she is right in the sense that they can refuse to accept checks of any kind, let alone your sketchy, starter checks.
Yes, checks will eventually be eliminated for most transaction - too clusmy and costly to process, but probably not for another generation or so. Older people like checks a lot.
Tip: Use a credit card to buy gas. You don't have to go insde and deal with those people, plus many credit card pay a cashback award on gas purchases (The Discover Open Road Card pays a staggering 5%)
That wil not happen any time soon. Many people are afraid of identity theft and will not use online banking, ATMs, and some don't even have credit cards. That leaves two ways for transactions... hard cash and checks.
They could have very easily called your bank to verify your check. She was just too lazy to do that.
soon
That is a decision the company has made. Many businesses have never accepted counter checks. When considering that employers may put the burden of paying for NSF with the employees who accept the checks, it is not difficult to see the other perspective.
checks are lame period. It's so annoying when your in line at a check out and some old chick is being rung up, and knows it's time to pay, but waits till everything is bagged and the checker tells her the price before they even pull their check book out. when they could have it all ready except the dollar ammount. it takes for ever and just looks ghetto.
It's not the law, but it was probably their policy. Many places won鈥檛 take starter checks.
And actually, I went in someplace a few years to pay a bill (I can鈥檛 remember where it was) and they wouldn鈥檛 take my cash. Personally, I found that very strange.
Someday in the future they may do away with checks, but I don鈥檛 think it will happen in my lifetime. That's just my opinion though.
The clerk was wrong and also an asshole. Please report her to the home office and to the head manager at the store where she mistreated you. Then give your business to more deserving businesses in the future.
i really think writing a check is gonna be history due to credit cards, debit cards and people paying bills online and an increase in fraud would elminate the use of checks. we don't accept checks at my job
Answer:
She is wrong that it is "the law" that checks have to have an address on them, but she is right in the sense that they can refuse to accept checks of any kind, let alone your sketchy, starter checks.
Yes, checks will eventually be eliminated for most transaction - too clusmy and costly to process, but probably not for another generation or so. Older people like checks a lot.
Tip: Use a credit card to buy gas. You don't have to go insde and deal with those people, plus many credit card pay a cashback award on gas purchases (The Discover Open Road Card pays a staggering 5%)
That wil not happen any time soon. Many people are afraid of identity theft and will not use online banking, ATMs, and some don't even have credit cards. That leaves two ways for transactions... hard cash and checks.
They could have very easily called your bank to verify your check. She was just too lazy to do that.
soon
That is a decision the company has made. Many businesses have never accepted counter checks. When considering that employers may put the burden of paying for NSF with the employees who accept the checks, it is not difficult to see the other perspective.
checks are lame period. It's so annoying when your in line at a check out and some old chick is being rung up, and knows it's time to pay, but waits till everything is bagged and the checker tells her the price before they even pull their check book out. when they could have it all ready except the dollar ammount. it takes for ever and just looks ghetto.
It's not the law, but it was probably their policy. Many places won鈥檛 take starter checks.
And actually, I went in someplace a few years to pay a bill (I can鈥檛 remember where it was) and they wouldn鈥檛 take my cash. Personally, I found that very strange.
Someday in the future they may do away with checks, but I don鈥檛 think it will happen in my lifetime. That's just my opinion though.
The clerk was wrong and also an asshole. Please report her to the home office and to the head manager at the store where she mistreated you. Then give your business to more deserving businesses in the future.
i really think writing a check is gonna be history due to credit cards, debit cards and people paying bills online and an increase in fraud would elminate the use of checks. we don't accept checks at my job
Does anyone know where you can get free legal advice about california probate laws?
Answer:
Try the bar assoication; also call the probate court. They can offer assistance without giving legal advise.
www.freeadvice.com
Legal Advisor of nearby district.
http://www.lawinfo.com/
You can find what you need at the following link:
Does anyone know where I can view samples for filing an answer for a defendant?
The answer is for a defendant (a company) being charged with negligence.
Answer:
You don't even want to try.
You can be held liable if you err in your presentation.
If its worth defending then its worth the price of a lawyer.
P.S.... its called filing a defence.
If a company is being sued for negligence, they need to hire an attorney. The do-it-yourself approach is not a good idea. Law is very complex.
Answer:
You don't even want to try.
You can be held liable if you err in your presentation.
If its worth defending then its worth the price of a lawyer.
P.S.... its called filing a defence.
If a company is being sued for negligence, they need to hire an attorney. The do-it-yourself approach is not a good idea. Law is very complex.
Does anyone know where i can get articles about ethics?
i need examples of the ethical dilemmas facing police, judges and lawyers does anyone know where i can get these
Answer:
Take a look at these:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/journals/e...
http://www.legalethics.com/
http://www.legalethicsforum.com/...
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/judicial/home.
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/professionalis...
http://www.law.ua.edu/jlp/
http://law.hofstra.edu/academics/institu...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/...
http://www.nd.edu/~ndjlepp/
For some of the law journals you'll need library access to Lexis or Westlaw - ask your library's reference librarian.
Not sure where to get them.but do not waste your time at either the DNC or RNC websites
Go to your local library and ask the reference librarian.
Call your State Ethics Office. They should have all the info you need!
Answer:
Take a look at these:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/journals/e...
http://www.legalethics.com/
http://www.legalethicsforum.com/...
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/judicial/home.
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/professionalis...
http://www.law.ua.edu/jlp/
http://law.hofstra.edu/academics/institu...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/...
http://www.nd.edu/~ndjlepp/
For some of the law journals you'll need library access to Lexis or Westlaw - ask your library's reference librarian.
Not sure where to get them.but do not waste your time at either the DNC or RNC websites
Go to your local library and ask the reference librarian.
Call your State Ethics Office. They should have all the info you need!
Does anyone know where I can download a free independent contractor legal form w/ no compete claus?
I have a LLC and want to hire a few independent contractors to help out.
I need a free download, one that can stand up in VA (where business is located) but the contractors are in various other states. Does anyone know of a form/agreement that I could use with a no compete and confidentiality clause in it?
Answer:
You can use the free independent contractor agreement on the site listed below and adapt it to suit your requirements. It has a confidentiality and ownership of work clause.
I don't think you can enforce a no compete clause if it restricts them from earning a living, but you can restrict them from soliciting business directly from your clients. (Just add that to your agreement).
Also have a look at the guidelines to distinguish between an independent contractor vs an employee.
Hope it helps.
nolo.com ?
I need a free download, one that can stand up in VA (where business is located) but the contractors are in various other states. Does anyone know of a form/agreement that I could use with a no compete and confidentiality clause in it?
Answer:
You can use the free independent contractor agreement on the site listed below and adapt it to suit your requirements. It has a confidentiality and ownership of work clause.
I don't think you can enforce a no compete clause if it restricts them from earning a living, but you can restrict them from soliciting business directly from your clients. (Just add that to your agreement).
Also have a look at the guidelines to distinguish between an independent contractor vs an employee.
Hope it helps.
nolo.com ?
Does anyone know what minimum wage in PA is right now?
daughter is looking for a summer job
Answer:
go to the state's website..it should tell you....in tx its 5.15 kinda suckssssss
You dont think she is worth more than minimum wage?
Most people never have to work for a minimum wage job their whole life. Surely she has some sort of skill that would make her worth more than that.
Answer:
go to the state's website..it should tell you....in tx its 5.15 kinda suckssssss
You dont think she is worth more than minimum wage?
Most people never have to work for a minimum wage job their whole life. Surely she has some sort of skill that would make her worth more than that.
Does anyone know what legal actions one can take when someone breaks into a myspace??
Answer:
good luck on finding the hacker. its happened to almost everyone on myspace. not sure what legal action you can take as there is no damage per se. delete the account start over. wouldn't be the first, won't be the last.
You might want to ask yourself what damages you've actually suffered before undertaking the time and expense of a lawsuit.
Probably very little. And unless the person can be identified, even if you could find a law that applied, it would be difficult to file charges.
I don't know but there should be something you can do about people trying to look up yer sheet! lol
Is there a place where you could turn it in? I just opened one but I am not familiar with the site enough to tell you what to do here. But like Yahoo they must have a place for turning in people when wrong is done. I am sorry about your friends child.
Does anyone know the outcome of the guy who sued his cleaner for millions for losing his pants?
Answer:
The guy's name was Roy Pearson. At the time, he had recently, and successfully applied for a job as, ironically, a court judge. He needed a suit to wear to this new job, and the one he had was a bit tight around the waist. So Pearson dropped off one pair of pants May 3 so he could wear them to his new job May 6. But on May 5, the pants weren't ready. Custom Cleaners at that time had two big signs on its walls. One said "Satisfaction Guaranteed," and the other said, "Same Day Service." Pearson relied on these signs. Deeply. And the failure on the part of Custom Cleaners to fulfill their promises was heartbreaking. So he demanded millions of dollars for the follwing:
-for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back
-for his litigation costs
-for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort"
-for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit
-for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years
-and for a replacement suit
According to court papers. Pearson demanded $65,462,500. The original alteration work on the pants cost $10.50. But why should he receive money for this laundry list of things?
The plaintiff, who says he has devoted more than 1,000 hours to represent himself in this battle, says that as a result of poor service at Custom, he must find another cleaner. And because Pearson does not own a car, he says he will have to rent one to get his clothes taken care of.
But what exactly happened? In 2002, Custom Cleaners lost a pair of pants that Pearson had put in for cleaning. One week after the error was discovered, Custom gave Pearson a cheque for $150 for new pants. A few days later, the Chungs, Korean immigrants who live in Virginia and own three D.C. cleaners, told Pearson that he was no longer welcome at their store. That dispute was eventually put aside, and Pearson continued to use the company. Because he never got his pants back, and regardless of the $150 compensation cheque, this amounts to fraud, negligence and a scam. Apparently.
A week after that routine mishap -- pants go astray all the time at cleaners -- Soo Chung, one of the proprietors of Custom Cleaners, came up with gray trousers that she said were Pearson's. But when the judge said that he had dropped off pants with red and blue pinstripes, there was no joy in Fort Lincoln.
Pearson's first letter to the Chungs sought $1,150 so he could buy a new suit. Two lawyers and many legal bills later, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,600 and, finally, says their attorney, Chris Manning, $12,000 to settle the case.
But Pearson pushes on. How does he get to $65 million? The District's consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants. A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you're talking $65 million.
The case, set for trial in June, is on its second judge. The Chungs have removed the signs upon which Pearson's case rests.
"This case shocks me on a daily basis," Manning says. "Pearson has a lot of time on his hands, and the Chungs have been abused in a ghastly way. It's going to cost them tens of thousands to defend this case."
A judge in the case has admonished Pearson about his take-no-prisoners tactics. When Pearson sought to broaden the case to try to prove violations of consumer protection laws on behalf of all District residents, D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz said that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith" because of "the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks."
Pearson has put the Chungs and their attorneys to work answering long lists of questions, such as this: "Please identify by name, full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that advertise 'SATISFACTION GUARANTEED.' "
In the world.
The answer: "None."
In a closet of a lawyer's office in downtown Washington, there is a pair of gray wool pants, waiting to be picked up by Roy Pearson.
"We believe the pants are his," Manning says. "The tag matches his receipt."
The cleaners won.
lawsuit was dismissed and that man will pay the legal fees of the dry cleaners.
He lost.
He lost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
I believe he lost the case, but was hoping to appeal the decision.
he lost.
HE LOST...
Yes he lost in court.
Thankfully he lost the case and must pay a few thousand towards the legal bills of the family he sued. I hope his law license gets suspended, but it won't.
yeah, they locked him up in mental institution with a bunch of pants.
the cleaner won 80k lol the dude was sueing the poor cleaner for 80m lol talk abouth a guy who needs a girlfreind,
the last I heard was he dropped the amount he was seeking to 50 million. Gee whata pal.
He lost the case. Verdict for the defendants. I recently read that he has filed a motion to reconsider and that he is considering an appeal. Check out this link. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/n...
Let's just say that he ended up losing at the end. The guy had to pay court fines for wasting the court's time.
The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out yesterday what he's going to get.
Nothing.
I'm pretty sure he lost...had to pay court expenses, too.
sounds like somebody in the justice system has a brain.
He lost even though he was judge!Hehehehehehehehe
i think the cleaners won
He lost. Evidence that our legal system is only insane, not totally %26 completely insane.
The man who sued is taking the case to the Superior Court Judge. (The first judge threw out the case--it didn't meet the standard of consumer protection act).
He lost and has to pay the legal bills of the cleaner
The court did indeed rule against him, but he just filed a motion for reconsideration (most likely to be denied since it is heard by the same judge). He may actually appeal.
Guess he just can't see what a loser this is.
Does anyone know the legal age to sell tobacco products?
Answer:
Same age as smoking them 16 (UK)
16
16 in the UK
It varies widely based on location. Tell us what country you are in (and if in the US, what state).
in a shop the sales assistant has to be 16 over here in the UK
Surely to heck it's the same legal age as smoking tobacco (16 in the UK).
You must be atleast 18 years old
16 but due to a new legislation (Public smoking ban) it will soon be 18
depends on what country your in. and if your in the US depends on what state your in. my brother had to wait til he was 20 in california.
its 16
At the moment it is 16, but will be 18 from October
16 but they are talking of making it 18 in line with adult films and buying alcohol.
You must be 16 to both but and sell tobacco products. Similarly, it is illegal to buy them for anybody under the age of 16, regardless of your own age.
At present it is 16years as it is illegal to possess them under that age
they have put it up to 18 i heard on the news this morning...
its 16 but they are putting it up to 18 soon not sure when
Does anyone know the legal age that you can move out and live on your own?
i'm not planning anything i was just curious...
Answer:
Generally you cannot leave home without your parents permission until you are 18. However some states have lower ages of majority for example I think Arkansas has 17 as their age. You could find out your state's age of majority by simply typing in "age of majority" into a search engine.
Emancipation is the legal process by which a court basically gives you the legal status of adult (just as if you were 18). But with this added freedom comes added responsibility, in most cases you will be held acountable to the law just as if you were an adult and of course you have to support yourself. It's also kind of hard to do and takes a little while.
18 is the normal accepted age for most States.
in the US until the age of 18 you are considered property. Emancipation is near to impossible.
depends on what country i would guess it be 16 or 17 over here in the uk
its 18 here in the US but you can live alone if you want to just as long as you know you can pay for your own stuff and have a job or something.
A judge Can emancipate a minor, in certain cases, but its rare.
You can't sign a lease for an apartment until you are 18. You can't get a car loan until you are 18. And your job tearing tickets at the movie theater or pumping sodas at McDonalds won't pay the bills any way.
Financially, its a better deal to get through high school and get into college. Then, if you still want out, just never go back home.
Answer:
Generally you cannot leave home without your parents permission until you are 18. However some states have lower ages of majority for example I think Arkansas has 17 as their age. You could find out your state's age of majority by simply typing in "age of majority" into a search engine.
Emancipation is the legal process by which a court basically gives you the legal status of adult (just as if you were 18). But with this added freedom comes added responsibility, in most cases you will be held acountable to the law just as if you were an adult and of course you have to support yourself. It's also kind of hard to do and takes a little while.
18 is the normal accepted age for most States.
in the US until the age of 18 you are considered property. Emancipation is near to impossible.
depends on what country i would guess it be 16 or 17 over here in the uk
its 18 here in the US but you can live alone if you want to just as long as you know you can pay for your own stuff and have a job or something.
A judge Can emancipate a minor, in certain cases, but its rare.
You can't sign a lease for an apartment until you are 18. You can't get a car loan until you are 18. And your job tearing tickets at the movie theater or pumping sodas at McDonalds won't pay the bills any way.
Financially, its a better deal to get through high school and get into college. Then, if you still want out, just never go back home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)