Open Question: In the US, what law, if any, actually prohibits the use of canines for food or meat?

Someone mentioned something about this earlier and it got me thinking. Is there actually a law that prohibits the raising of dogs as livestock? Yes i realize this isn't a common practice in the US and it wouldn't be socially accepted even if it was legal. But is it specifically illegal or prohibited? And how? Please dont say yes its illegal because its cruel. That's an opinion, not a legal statute. I`m curious about the documented legality or lack thereof. Thank you more

Open Question: Need help on understanding classical writing!!!?

I was wondering what some of these lines mean from this classical monologue from Edward III by Shakespeare. 1) He that does clip or counterfeit your stamp shall die, my lord I mean I get it, but I just want to make sure I'm completely correct. and If it's not a problem, could someone help summarize the monologue for me? I think I got it down, but I want to nail it and get it perfect. thanks! COUNTESS OF SALISBURY But that your lips were sacred, my lord, You would profane the holy name of love. That love you offer me you cannot give, For Caesar owes that tribute to his queen; That love you beg of me I cannot give, For Sarah owes that duty to her lord. He that doth clip or counterfeit your stamp Shall die, my lord; and will your sacred self Commit high treason against the king of heaven, To stamp his image in forbidden metal, Forgetting your allegiance and your oath? In violating marriage' sacred law, You break a greater honour than yourself. To be a king is of a younger house Than to be married: your progenitor, Sole reigning Adam on the universe, By God was honoured for a married man, But not by him anointed for a king. It is a penalty to break your statutes, Though not enacted with your highness' hand; How much more to infringe this holy act Made by the mouth of God, seal'd with His hand? I know my sovereign in my husband's love, Who now doth loyal service in his wars, Doth but to try the wife of Salisbury, Whether she will hear a wanton's tale or no. Lest being therein guilty by my stay, From that, not from my liege, I turn away. more

Open Question: Who is God talking to in this text, how does God define fornication & adultery differently than your preacher?

does in this text? I've copied and pasted it for you, you can however, feel free to look it up in your own King James Version of the Holy Bible if you would like It's Leviticus Chapter 20. 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. 6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. 7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. 8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. 22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. 23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. 24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, more

Open Question: Sex laws in colorado?

I'm about to turn 18, but my boyfriend is 17 for one more month. Is it okay for us to have sex? My mom is a paralegal for a divorce attorney, and she asked the attorney, who said it is illegal as i will be an adult. I did research online, however, and it says everywhere that the age of consent in colorado is 17. I've looked at all the sites and read the statutes, but i was wondering if there's anyone out there with actual experience who can give me an accurate answer. I really don't want to go to jail for having sex with my boyfriend, with whom i am in a committed relationship! more

Open Question: What do these verses from the Holy Bible mean?

King James Version: Leviticus Chapter 20 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. 6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. 7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. 8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. 22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. 23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. 24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. 27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. more

Open Question: How does Leviticus Chapter 20 of the King James Version of the Holy Bible define adultery & fornication?

Also who was God speaking to in Leviticus Chapter 20? and How does what the men in churches today teach regarding their definition of adultery and fornication vary from what the Holy Bible truly teaches regarding these subjects? As well as have you read the entire books of Act or Corinthians in which the apostle Paul is writing letters to the churches and plainly states that those books are in fact his own thoughts and beliefs rather than Gods? I am pasting some of the text upon here as some may be to busy or lazy to look this text up. 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. 6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. 7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. 8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. 22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. 23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. 24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, more

Open Question: Retrospective legislation in Contract Law?

This is for contracts law. How can this be solved. In 2006, a legal agreement was made in relation to property. This matter was dealt with by the Contracts Enforcement Act 1956, it was effective during that time. However, the legal action was pursued in 2008 (two years later) and another statute, Property Law Act 2007, was legislated and replaced the Contracts Enforcement Act. Which Act do you apply? The act that existed at the same time when the event occurred? or the Act that existed at the time of legal action? more

Open Question: business law i lost my book please help?

A federal statute called the Clean Water Act prohibits the dumping of dangerous toxins into the rivers of the U.S., among other prohibitions. Jean Blue, Inc. manufactures blue jeans. Part of the appeal of Jean Blue’s product is the worn look with which the jeans are sold. This look is accomplished by washing the jeans with massive quantities of chlorine bleach, formaldehyde, and soluble plastic pellets. Drainage from this process is heavy. The local municipality approved Jean Blue’s operation without a full understanding of its waste output or the nature of waste involved. There is no public budget to filter the waste before returning it to the water-table and the municipality informs Jean Blue it will have to filter its own contaminants or cease operations. Rather than pipe the waste through the municipality’s water treatment plant or build a facility, a new pipe installed by Jean Blue carries the waste directly to a nearby river. The pipe discharges under about 6 feet of water, so that it is not immediately evident to the casual observer. Local children become inexplicably sick. Fish are found floating, dead, in the river. The EPA sues Jean Blue and the municipality for violating the Clean Water Act’s prohibitions on the dumping of dangerous toxins. * Explain the legal bases for the EPA’s action. * Discuss the analysis a court may use to determine whether the Agency acted within the scope of its authority, and the economic impact which may result from the actions of Jean Blue and the municipality. * Does Jean Blue have a defense? * Does the municipality? more

Open Question: A lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigrationwill likely prevail,but its victory only at the appellate stage?

A lawsuit filed July 6 by the U.S. Justice Department against Arizona’s new immigration statute will likely prevail, at least in part, but its victory may come only at the appellate stage. The first round of the legal battle will be a decision by an Arizona federal district judge about whether to prevent Arizona SB 1070 from becoming effective July 29. That judge’s decision is a wild card. It’s very hard to predict what the district court is going to do. Since It decision will be made by just one randomly selected judge, and that judge will be an Arizona resident who might come under intense personal pressure to defend his or her state’s law against federal intervention.’’ Regardless of the initial outcome, I predicts that the losing side is almost certain to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers most of the western United States. There, a panel of at least three judges drawn from a broader region will decide the case. They will be more likely than a district judge sitting in Arizona to invalidate at least portions of the law. Then, of course, there is always the possibility of a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.” Law enforcement interrogation most likely portion to stand Much of the outcry over the statute deals with a mandate for police officers to investigate the statuses of anyone they lawfully stop whenever they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present. The law does not say what will make a suspicion reasonable, and many fear that racial profiling will therefore become more widespread.Other controversial provisions, however, make certain immigration-related conduct a state criminal offense. that at least the latter provisions will be struck down as illegal interferences with the exclusive federal power to set the nation’s immigration policies.For example, the Arizona law makes it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to be present in the state.While Congress has indeed made illegal entry a federal criminal offense. It has consciously chosen not to criminalize overstaying a visa; for visa overstayers, Congress has decided that deportation is a sufficient sanction. Thus, Arizona’s law is directly at odds with the federal immigration laws. Further, even for individuals who entered illegally, Congress had to balance a range of factors before settling on the proper level of punishment.” By increasing the penalty, Arizona has substituted its judgment for that of Congress. And for the past 100 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the regulation of immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility. Whether you feel that the existing penalties are too harsh, too weak, or just right, we can’t have 50 states and hundreds of cities and towns each passing their own immigration laws.” it is likely other states will go ahead and pass copycat immigration legislation before this case is ultimately resolved.Supporters of the Arizona law assert the statute is necessary because the federal government fails to adequately secure U.S. borders. Its clear that the Obama administration has committed massive new resources to border fences, border patrol personnel, and new technologies. No law is capable of 100 percent enforcement,It’s easy to criticize the federal government for failing to stem illegal immigration, but the real question is how much in the way of taxpayer resources do supporters want the federal government to spend on immigration enforcement?what you think about Arizona’s new immigration law? more

Open Question: A lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigrationwill likely prevail,but its victory at the appellate stage?

A lawsuit filed July 6 by the U.S. Justice Department against Arizona’s new immigration statute will likely prevail, at least in part, but its victory may come only at the appellate stage. The first round of the legal battle will be a decision by an Arizona federal district judge about whether to prevent Arizona SB 1070 from becoming effective July 29. That judge’s decision is a wild card. It’s very hard to predict what the district court is going to do. Since It decision will be made by just one randomly selected judge, and that judge will be an Arizona resident who might come under intense personal pressure to defend his or her state’s law against federal intervention.’’ Regardless of the initial outcome, I predicts that the losing side is almost certain to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers most of the western United States. There, a panel of at least three judges drawn from a broader region will decide the case. They will be more likely than a district judge sitting in Arizona to invalidate at least portions of the law. Then, of course, there is always the possibility of a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.” Law enforcement interrogation most likely portion to stand Much of the outcry over the statute deals with a mandate for police officers to investigate the statuses of anyone they lawfully stop whenever they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present. The law does not say what will make a suspicion reasonable, and many fear that racial profiling will therefore become more widespread.Other controversial provisions, however, make certain immigration-related conduct a state criminal offense. that at least the latter provisions will be struck down as illegal interferences with the exclusive federal power to set the nation’s immigration policies.For example, the Arizona law makes it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to be present in the state.While Congress has indeed made illegal entry a federal criminal offense. It has consciously chosen not to criminalize overstaying a visa; for visa overstayers, Congress has decided that deportation is a sufficient sanction. Thus, Arizona’s law is directly at odds with the federal immigration laws. Further, even for individuals who entered illegally, Congress had to balance a range of factors before settling on the proper level of punishment.” By increasing the penalty, Arizona has substituted its judgment for that of Congress. And for the past 100 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the regulation of immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility. Whether you feel that the existing penalties are too harsh, too weak, or just right, we can’t have 50 states and hundreds of cities and towns each passing their own immigration laws.” it is likely other states will go ahead and pass copycat immigration legislation before this case is ultimately resolved.Supporters of the Arizona law assert the statute is necessary because the federal government fails to adequately secure U.S. borders. Its clear that the Obama administration has committed massive new resources to border fences, border patrol personnel, and new technologies. No law is capable of 100 percent enforcement,It’s easy to criticize the federal government for failing to stem illegal immigration, but the real question is how much in the way of taxpayer resources do supporters want the federal government to spend on immigration enforcement?what you think about this Arizona’s new immigration law? more

Open Question: A lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration statute will likely prevail,victory may come only at the appellate?

A lawsuit filed July 6 by the U.S. Justice Department against Arizona’s new immigration statute will likely prevail, at least in part, but its victory may come only at the appellate stage. The first round of the legal battle will be a decision by an Arizona federal district judge about whether to prevent Arizona SB 1070 from becoming effective July 29. That judge’s decision is a wild card. It’s very hard to predict what the district court is going to do. Since It decision will be made by just one randomly selected judge, and that judge will be an Arizona resident who might come under intense personal pressure to defend his or her state’s law against federal intervention.’’ Regardless of the initial outcome, I predicts that the losing side is almost certain to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers most of the western United States. There, a panel of at least three judges drawn from a broader region will decide the case. They will be more likely than a district judge sitting in Arizona to invalidate at least portions of the law. Then, of course, there is always the possibility of a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.” Law enforcement interrogation most likely portion to stand Much of the outcry over the statute deals with a mandate for police officers to investigate the statuses of anyone they lawfully stop whenever they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present. The law does not say what will make a suspicion reasonable, and many fear that racial profiling will therefore become more widespread.Other controversial provisions, however, make certain immigration-related conduct a state criminal offense. that at least the latter provisions will be struck down as illegal interferences with the exclusive federal power to set the nation’s immigration policies.For example, the Arizona law makes it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to be present in the state.While Congress has indeed made illegal entry a federal criminal offense. It has consciously chosen not to criminalize overstaying a visa; for visa overstayers, Congress has decided that deportation is a sufficient sanction. Thus, Arizona’s law is directly at odds with the federal immigration laws. Further, even for individuals who entered illegally, Congress had to balance a range of factors before settling on the proper level of punishment.” By increasing the penalty, Arizona has substituted its judgment for that of Congress. And for the past 100 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the regulation of immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility. Whether you feel that the existing penalties are too harsh, too weak, or just right, we can’t have 50 states and hundreds of cities and towns each passing their own immigration laws.” it is likely other states will go ahead and pass copycat immigration legislation before this case is ultimately resolved.Supporters of the Arizona law assert the statute is necessary because the federal government fails to adequately secure U.S. borders. Its clear that the Obama administration has committed massive new resources to border fences, border patrol personnel, and new technologies. No law is capable of 100 percent enforcement,It’s easy to criticize the federal government for failing to stem illegal immigration, but the real question is how much in the way of taxpayer resources do supporters want the federal government to spend on immigration enforcement?what you think about this Arizona’s new immigration law? more

Resolved Question: Are there laws/statutes in Florida AND New Jersey that mandates that a business make a...?

...restroom available to customers?Sometimes stores will deny customers the use of their restroom. Isn't there a law that requires them to permit the public to use their restroom if there is not a public one nearby? more

Open Question: What will your excuse be on the day of Judgement when God asks you?

Did you keep my laws and statutes and Judgments? As the modern day judicial system open their books of there laws to judge the people at court. So will the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob open His book (the bible) to judge the world and if you are found guilty it is death, a living death sentence in the lake of fire for you. We have many laws in this world. Marriage laws traffic laws, all kinds of laws. I would like to know why so many think that we don't have to obey Gods Law. You don't have a chance up against this God. People talk about being born again. EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT HAS EVER BREATHED THE AIR THAT GOD GAVE WILL BE RESURRECTED. Its up to you where your going to go. Its your choice. So since there are sooo many uniformed people out there my question is, What will your excuse be for not obeying Gods word? Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. You cannot buy your way out of this one. There will be no set bails or getting out of the lake of fire free cards. You gonna burn for eternity if you don't obey simple moral stuff that God gave us. Yeah this is a warning. They laughed and mocked noah, but all of them drowned. The spit on Jesus and killed him, but he is alive forever more. You know now, so when the time comes your excuse cannot be that You did not know. Eze 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. Eze 33:5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul And for you fools that think this book is a fairy tale, it lines directly up with world history. If the bible is a fairytail that means you yourself do not exist. I dare any of you to prove it wrong. With some sort of literature that is sound. I dare any one of you nonbeliever's to disprove it. Eze 33:7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. more

Resolved Question: Ummm... But what does this MEAN!?

Ariz. judge raises the realities of porous border By JACQUES BILLEAUD and PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Paul Davenport, Associated Press Writers – Fri Jul 23, 7:59 am ET PHOENIX – The judge who will decide whether Arizona's new immigration law is constitutional hasn't indicated whether she'll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_arizona_lawsuits Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country's interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona. "You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored," said Bolton, who didn't issue a ruling after the two hearings. Bolton has been asked to block the law from taking effect as she hears seven lawsuits by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights groups and others that question the constitutionality of the measure, which has reignited the national immigration debate. Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and trample on the rights of the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Supporters say the law is a necessary response to combat the litany of problems brought on by illegal immigration and the federal government's inability to secure the border. Bolton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, repeatedly questioned Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler to explain how specific provisions of the law intruded on federal authority as he had argued. more

Resolved Question: New York State : Can a business legally record incoming telephone calls?

New York State : Can a business legally record incoming telephone calls? This is without a doubt a very tricky question. I would like to know in New York State if a business can legally record incoming telephone calls. If you choose to answer this question, please be careful. I believe this is a very tricky question and here's why. First of all, New York is a one party consent state. This means that any person who is party to a telephone call that is operating from within New York State can legally record the conversation. There can be further questions in scenarios where other parties to the conversation are operating from outside of New York State but that is not the focus of this discussion and is irrelevant. Now here's where it gets tricky so please keep the following in mind. Florida is a two party consent state but I have read for myself that the Florida Statutes actually provides a full consent exemption to businesses who record telephone conversations as a daily part of their normal operations. Some examples might be debt collection agencies, repossession outfits and lawyer's offices. Ok so here's the actual scenario. From within New York, I call a friend at his place of employment which is also in New York State. He answers the phone and we chat. He is unaware of any recording taking place and certainly has not voluntarily consented to any such recording during that phone conversation. I certainly have not been advised of any recording taking place by no audible tones or any announcement or question advising of a recording or asking for my consent. So here are my questions that follow. 1. Does a place of business automatically have the right in New York State to record incoming telephone calls? Remember, in my example, the employee did not place an outbound call that might be subject to monitoring. In my example, I am calling into the business as a third party and if I can be recorded, this means any customer calling in can also be legally recorded. Keep in mind there are no greetings, warnings, automated messages or any other indications at any time when calling this place of business that a recording is taking place just to further clarify. 2. If the employee had consented to telephone monitoring and recording at the time of his employment after signing hiring documents which he may not recall, would his consent apply forward to each individual incoming and outgoing phone call he participates in from the employer's phone lines thereby satisfying the one party consent needed as provided by New York State law? This may be tough to decipher because remember that in this example and in just about any case, the employee is not the one actually executing the recording. The employer is. But unless otherwise defined by the state, an employer is not an individual or a person. So it would not make much sense to consider an employer, which is a general term for underlying staff, an actual party. This leads me to my next question. 3. I would generally believe that a party to a phone conversation would be defined as an active participant and actual person but I wonder if New York State defines businesses as legally recognized parties to the conversation. If they do, all businesses would automatically and always consent to any recordings they are performing thereby satisfying the one party consent requirement. 4. I am not sure if New York State has any special business exemptions similar to Florida but if so, that allowance could trump all concerns.Disclaimer: This question is being asked for entertainment purposes only. Any responses provided will not be relied upon as accredited legal advice and will not be used in any official capacity. I would however like only sound and knowledgeable responses as opposed to guess work and commonly misguided views. Thanks! more

Resolved Question: Can anyone explain why the Obama administration is suing over the Arizona immigration law but not the?

Sanctuary cities and states that are in fact violating the federal Immigration laws? Days after suing Arizona for “intruding” on the government’s authority by passing a state version of its immigration laws, the Obama Administration has revealed that it will also ignore violations of the federal statute. A Justice Department official confirmed in a news report this week that the agency will not take any action against cities that defy a 14-year-old federal law by offering illegal immigrants sanctuary. The measure (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996) specifically requires states and municipalities to cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. For decades, dozens of local governments have provided illegal aliens with sanctuary by shielding them from the feds after arrests or criminal convictions and banning police from inquiring about suspects’ immigration status. Judicial Watch has sued several major police departments—including Los Angeles and Chicago—for their illegal don’t-ask-don’t tell immigration policies, which have enabled violent criminals to continue victimizing innocent AmericanThe Justice Department is preparing a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, likely to be filed next week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American interviewer last week that the Obama administration opposes the law because “the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” The idea that the administration seeks to uphold federal sovereignty in matters pertaining to immigration is hard to swallow. U.S. law prohibits public universities from providing in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students, yet ten states currently allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. Numerous “sanctuary cities” deliberately subvert federal immigration policy by preventing local law enforcement and other officials from inquiring as to the immigration status of residents. Some have gone even further by providing undocumented immigrants with local forms of identification. more

Resolved Question: Statute of limitations for debt collectors?

I know that the statute of limitations by which a debt collector can collect on a debt varies from state to state, but how do you determine which state's statute of limitations laws to use? Is it the state you are living in, the state which the debt collection agency resides, or the state the original creditor is based in? more

Resolved Question: Family Layoff/ unemployment?

Me and my wife have been working under the same employer. My wife has been working for about 13 months and i have been working for close to 6 months. We have 2 children to take care of a house payment and power bill. Today our employer layed us both off. So we are both out of a job and on alabama laws i believe it states you have to work at least a year so my wife would qualify for unemployment and i wouldnt. There is no way we can make it off her unemployment (if we receive it) and support our family. There has to be some kind of law or statute or some kind of compensation we can receive? Please help me out if you can i have googled everything and cannot seem to find an answer. more

Resolved Question: Statute of Limitations on childhood sexual abuse in California or Federal?

Yeah, molested by my step grandfather (among others) but my step grandfather has custody (last time I checked) of my two younger brothers. I don't know if he likes boys as well, or if I was the only one, but I want it on his record (if not for me, I want to get my brothers away from him, and him never to touch another.. if anyone else steps forward I want them to have back up to stick his pedophilia self in jail). I'm 19, the molestation happened around 6-8. I didn't realize it was wrong, or admit it til I was 14 to 15. So.. anything I could do? Now this happened in california, so I guess it's according to California laws. more

Resolved Question: Did anyone, MLK, Abe Lincoln, anyone ever believe racism would eventually end?

Racism, ethnic bigotry, religious bigotry and selective hatred are deepset in the human behavior patterns and always have been. The 20th Century human rights movements might have had some utopian hope that would someday end, but there were more concrete issues of the moment a lot more pressing. The general intentions of the human rights movements leaned to correcting overt discrimination practices in hiring, in public places such as back of the bus requirements, seating and serving in restaurants, lynchings, race and ethnic directed violence, segregated schools, even the selling of alcoholic beverages. Until 1949, it was against the law to sell whiskey to an 'Indian'. While the political pressure groups and lawmakers were working out, compromising, arguing, debating, and eventually passing laws forbidding racial and ethnic discrimination do you believe they ever harbored any notions racism and bigotry would be swept away alongside the actual practices? Maybe they never thought much about it. Mind control and attitude control wasn't the outward intent of the US government in that regard. Wasn't the best anyone could hope for then and now, that prejudice, bigotry, ethnic hatred and bias would be caged and prevented from manifesting itself as outward behavior? Aren't human beings, when they're forbidden from acting on their prejudices and taught their ethnic biases are a 'bad' thing, prone to focus outward and find it in others while ignoring it themselves? The US has come a long way in the arena of forbidding the outward manifestations of ethnic discrimination. Native Americans can buy whiskey. Blacks are given the same lousy educations as whites. Nobody has to ride in the back of a bus. Job discrimination's almost impossible except when it involves, say, the preferencial treatment of hiring tribal members to hold teaching and other jobs on Native American reservations. Isn't that about as far as a government can be expected to go in creating statutes intended to end racism and ethnic hatred? Native Americans hate whites and Hispanics. Many Hispanics hate whites. Many whites hate all of the above. Some of all the above still hate Jews. Members of religions hate one another. Ethnic prejudice is in music played on the airwaves. Probably this will always be so. A black man has been elected by popular vote to be president of the US. Shouldn't this be enough assurance enough to blacks that most whites no longer indulge their biases in a voting booth if they have those biases. Many whites are offended because they're accused of racism while other ethnic groups are immune to those accusations. It's largely a valid complaint. But actual discrimination against whites by businesses, government public restrictions on behavior mostly aren't there? Is it worth complaining about racism, prejudice, ethnic bias anymore? Wouldn't we all be better off directing our attention to matters we can influence and away from anything that would encourage government mind control efforts, and narrow the band of public discourse? Yeah, it's all still out there in all groups. Are we doing ourselves any favors by putting it under a microscope and hurling accusations while we keep our own sacrosanct and savor them? more

Resolved Question: i need help realy bad with this please HELP!!! in your own words the following six laws,?

including where and when each law originated. Then address how theseled to the historical development of security forces, both private and public? •The Code of Hammurabi •Draco’s Law •Law of the Twelve Tables •Justinian Code •Magna Carta •Statute of Westminsterincluding where and when each law originated. Then address how theseled to the historical development of security forces, both private and public? •The Code of Hammurabi •Draco’s Law •Law of the Twelve Tables •Justinian Code •Magna Carta •Statute of Westminster AND NO IM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO DO MY HOME WORK, IF U READ THE QUESTION IM ASKING FOR HELP! TO BAD THE IMATURE PEOPLE R NOT ALLOW TO ANSWER ON THIS SITE... more

Resolved Question: Christians: Does this hebrew Jewish prayer get spoken in church (similar to this)?

I ask because I am not sure myself but grew up singing this song in a Jewish synogogue but sung in hebrew to a pretty melody, the words translated to English are as follows: "Love of Eternity (eternal love) called "Ahvat Olam" in Hebrew" "Love of eternity house of Your people Israel. You loved Torah and commandments , precepts, laws, statutes, and right judgment , justice. You taught us therefore God in lying down and in rising up, we will meditate, speak, converse on your laws and we will be happy in your words of Torah and commandments to eternity and forever, for they are our life and length of our days and on them we will ponder day and night. And your love will not be removed from us to eternities, God loves his people Israel. It's hard to translate properly. This comes before the prayer (Shma) "Here o Israel, the lord is our God, the Lord is one. Bless be his Glorious kingdom forever and ever. you shall love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, all your being, take these words that I command you this day upon your heart. Teach them faithfully to your children and your children's children when you lie down and when you rise up. Let them be a sign of mitzvot y.......(something like that) Is there something in Christian prayer that is close to these prayers? Does it sound familiar?In a Conservative or Reform Jewish temple, these songs get sung in hebrew to a trope (a familiar tune) and many of the people feel united in singing these but they don't enough look at the English, which is silly but it is something you learn in Sunday school and it sticks with youbut we know it as A-havat Olam, beit Yisrael, amcha' a-havta, Torah umits-vot, chu-kim u-mish-pa-tim, o-tanu li-ma-de-ta....Al ken Adonai E-lo-hainu besoch-benu uv-ku-me-nu...........(and so on) http://www.kakatuv.com/pdfs/0002shema_and_blessingsR/14ahavatolamR.pdf more

Resolved Question: Is This One Way To Stop The Lawsuit Against SB1070 IN AZ.?

Last week, Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced an amendment to the small business bill (H.R.5297) that would deny the federal government funding to sue Arizona over its recently enacted immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. The DeMint-Vitter amendment (#4464) succinctly states: "No funds made available in any provision of law may be used to participate in any lawsuit that seeks to invalidate those provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes amended by Arizona Senate Bill 1070...." The small business bill is currently pending in the Senate and is set to be debated this week.At least they are doing something to help stop "selective" lawsuits that are totally politically motivated. Why wont the DOJ sue the so called sanctuary cities? They circumvent Federal law by non enforcement.Oh and dont get to secure in that Dem.majority.It wont be for much longer. more

Resolved Question: Do you see a problem picked up the 11 day laborers and drove them to another parking lot, where ICE is waiting?

Do you see a problem with Danbury police officer, posing as a contractor picked up the 11 day laborers and drove them to another parking lot, where immigration officials were waiting ?The City of Danbury is being sued. According to the New Haven Register article by Mary E. O’Leary published on Sunday July 18,2010, the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at the Yale Law School legal clinic has filed a lawsuit that “concerns the events of Sept. 19, 2006 at Kennedy Park, when a Danbury police officer, posing as a contractor, picked up the 11 day laborers and drove them to another parking lot, where immigration officials were waiting. They were processed in Danbury by its police. Subsequently, ICE sent them to immigration facilities around the country, several as far away as Texas.” The lawsuit further alleges “racial profiling” by the police in its arrest and detention of these 11 individuals. The “11 day laborers” were apparently in the United States illegally. Danbury, CT. a city with a population of approximately 78,000 people, has according to the most current US Census estimate 16,254 non –US citizens, almost 21% of its population. This is not to be confused with legal or naturalized foreign-born citizens, which number 7,757, by US Census measurements. This is a high percentage of non US citizens in Danbury, higher than cities like New Haven whose overall number of non-US citizens is at 11%. The US Census estimate of non-US citizens does not indicate these numbers are completely made up of illegal aliens, but it is a good indicator. In the Danbury case, police arrested 11 individuals for what the Register article alludes to is “Reckless Use of the Highway by a Pedestrian,” which would be an infraction under Connecticut state statutes. The arrestees were immediately turned over to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E), waiting in a nearby parking lot. They were charged with a single federal crime of illegally entering the United States. This account appears to be what has often been referred to as a “pretext stop” rather than racial profiling. Racial profiling and pretext stops are completely different issues. “Pretext stops” have been upheld, unanimously by the US Supreme Court since its ruling in the “WHREN v. UNITED STATES” case in June of 1996. A “pretext stop” according to the “Whren” case “allows the police to conduct a further investigation through use of commonly occurring traffic violations as means of investigating violations of other laws.” The Court further stated “Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” The police in Danbury, according to reports, engaged in a legitimate activity to combat perceived problems in their city. Unfortunately, the City of Danbury, its leaders, police force, and taxpayers are being abused by political idealogues by way of the federal court system in an effort to arbitrarily change immigration law in the United States. Now that is un-American. http://www.examiner.com/x-59099-Hartford-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d19-City-of-Danbury-versus-illegal-immigration more

Resolved Question: Obama sues to allow all this to continue Hidden cameras reveal immigrant activity near Arizona border?

Washington, DC -- Hidden cameras have captured a startling stream of illegal immigrants and drug runners traveling freely from Mexico into the United States through federal forest and game preserves in southern Arizona. The stealth footage is featured in a new video, titled “Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns, and 850 Illegal Aliens,” that the Center for Immigration Studies released Thursday. Southern Arizona “has become almost a playground for smugglers,” said Janice Kephart, the center’s national security policy director. “Federal lands should be the starting point — not the last point — for border security.” The video, which runs nearly 10 minutes, features dramatic footage of lines of individuals moving resolutely northward in such areas as the Coronado National Forest and the Casa Grande Sector, just miles north of the Arizona-Mexico border. Collected from hidden cameras in February and March, the footage — edited for the shorter feature — documents at least 850 illegal immigrants and nine drug couriers. It also reveals ongoing damage to the protected wilderness areas through trash and other destruction. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has said that U.S. policies have resulted in the state’s being ''under attack'' from Mexican drug and immigrant-smuggling cartels. Those at the film's premiere concurred with that assessment. These people do not come here “to pick tomatoes,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversees national parks, forests and public lands. “These are drug smugglers, human traffickers, and terrorists.” Bishop is pushing legislation that will permit the border patrol and Homeland Security to police the borders in national parks and forests, which is prohibited now. The law change is “a common-sense, no-brainer for us,” said Bishop, who decried the fact that the House and the Senate have passed language to enact the change — but in different pieces of legislation in which neither side can find a compromise. “First things first,” Bishop said. “You are never going to be able to move forward for any other type of immigration” reform without securing the border and halting the illegal flow. The video released Thursday, the second in a series the Center for Immigration Studies has produced, includes a 2004 federal government PowerPoint presentation showing the near-complete devastation of a borderland national park because of illegal immigrant activity. It also shows a 2001 federal report that details the locations of the illegal trails that immigrants caught on the hidden cameras use — underscoring the federal government’s apparent inaction to combat the illegal flow on pathways still used for criminal purposes. Obtaining public information and federal documents was a near Quixotic task, Kephart said. It took years to get some of the information, she said, adding that she eventually gave up and went to the border to do the reporting. The film was released the same day that Florida, Texas, and seven other states filed a brief supporting Arizona's immigration law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants after the U.S. government sued to block its enforcement. The states’ filing in a federal court in Phoenix insisted that Arizona's statute does not establish an immigration policy that would interfere with federal law. “The federal government seeks to negate this pre-existing power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the federal government,” the states wrote. The United States sued Arizona on July 6, arguing that immigration is a matter only for federal policy, under the Constitution. The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring Arizona from enforcing the law, which is set to take effect on July 29. http://cis.org/Griffith/MorningNews071910 more

Voting Question: Would Arizona be better off focusing enforcement on a different kind of law?

Arizona complains about lack of enforcement of immigration laws and passes new laws making new crimes. It complains about the costs, but it is a poor state for a reason. Would Arizona be better served if it focused its money on better schools and on enforcing this law: Arizona Revised Statutes §15-803 School attendance A. It is unlawful for any child between six and sixteen years of age to fail to attend school during the hours school is in session, unless either: 1. The child is excused pursuant to section 15-802, subsection D or section 15-901, subsection A, paragraph 6, subdivision (c). 2. The child is accompanied by a parent or a person authorized by a parent. 3. The child is provided with instruction in a home school. Or would Arizona be better served by making the law apply up to age 18? Arizona dropout rate worst in U.S. Karina Bland The Arizona Republic Jul. 27, 2005 12:00 AM Once again, Arizona's high school dropout rate is the worst in the nation, though this time we share last place with Louisiana. For the fourth year in a row, Arizona ranks last among the states for its percentage of teens, ages 16 to 19, who have dropped out of school. The findings, based on 2003 census data, are in the annual Kids Count report released today by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. Arizona's dropout rate is 12 percent, compared with 8 percent nationally. New Jersey, North Dakota and Wisconsin, at 4 percent, share top billing. http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/0727kidscount27.htmlThis year the legislature was salivating because they got the opportunity to end the hated "all day kindergarten" that Gov. Napolitan got them to enact just a few years ago... in fact some in the Legislature want to eliminate all public schools.Roy, are you saying she is a hero because she agreed to eliminate all day kindergarten? Or because she told a total lie about the drug mule thing, where federal stats show of over 100,000 illegal aliens arrested this last year only about 1000 had drugs?Ruth. Fascinating. Do you have ANY evidence that ANY of your story is true? Have you actually investigated the drop out rate to see who is dropping out? Have you perhaps heard the truth that illegals are not, in general, carrying drugs and certainly the Governor was off her rocker in giving the numbers she did (fed stats would say that 1% of the arrestees have drugs...that's based on over 100,000 arrests...) more

Resolved Question: need help if any one can help me please?

I am interested in your lot and hereby offer to purchase the then determine whether the case would be controlled by state or federal law. property at $45,000, all cash with the sale. to close in 30 days M. Adams Owens responded as followed M. Adams Re: Offer to purchase lot I will sell you land at $47,500 Owen Adams replied immediately: Re: Offer to purchase lot Great ! we have a deal Two weeks later, after doing considerable legal research on the Internet, Adams backed out of the deal, claiming that the transaction did not meet the requirements of then determine whether the case would be controlled by state or federal law. The statute of frauds. Is Adams correct? more

Voting Question: Please let me preface this with, I know it sounds crazy but it is in deed truth.?

Please let me preface this with, I know it sounds crazy but it is in deed truth. Any help would be much appreciated. Is there a statute of limitations for actions of commencement for divorce in TN? More specifically, my sister-in-law, who has lived separate from her husband for the last 5+ years in order to live with & take care of her elderly mother was mislead by her then husband and signed divorce papers unknowingly (around 2 years ago). They saw and spoke to each other daily during that time. And still speak to and see one another often now. She is not a person of a very high I.Q. to be polite. When they first married they both returned to their perspective parents homes to live...for several months before they told the parents that they were married. They got married in 1986 or 1987. As of today she is still totally unaware that they are divorced. Because he was seen out with someone else. That led to some questioning, and long story short I discovered that they were divorced and have since got a copy of the divorce decree. Even after the divorce, he has helped her and visits her. She needed new glasses and he took her to get them and paid. I am only assuming it was because she would have found out about the divorce because she now has no medical insurance. more

Resolved Question: Is Obama the first Post-Racial President?

Obama, because he is Black, has eased the conscience of many misguided whites that feel guilty for slavery. But he, and his supporters, uses the "race card" every chance they can to limit criticism of their Leftist agenda. So we might well ask, "Is Obama "Post-Racial"...or is he simply the most-racial President ever? And how can anyone claim he has left race (and racism) behind when: He calls the police names for arresting an alleged Black burglar? He tries to eliminate opposition by suggesting they are "racists" for not supporting him? Critiques the Arizona Immigration Law as "racist" although it was purposely patterned after federal statutes? When Robert Gibbs says anyone voicing opposition the Hispanic Supreme Court nominee Sotomeyor was racist Now his Black Attorney General dismisses racist Blacks for clear Federal election law violations (the Black Panther case) That adds up as more racist rather than post racial in my book, but that's my take. WHAT SAY YOU AMERICA? more

Resolved Question: WHAT DO BIRACIALS THINK OF THIS LITTLE FACT?

Jim Crow laws reached their greatest influence during the decades from 1910–1930. Among them were hypodescent laws, defining as black anyone with any black ancestry, or with a very small portion of black ancestry.[6] Tennessee adopted such a "one-drop" statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirtysecond) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto.[7] more

Resolved Question: What is the law regarding taking a granddaughter to another country?

There is a court battle going on in Texas where a judge has awarded temporary custody to my granddaughters father. There has been no proof of unfit motherhood on the part of my daughter and we have yet to give our side in court. What is the statute of limitations or law if I was to take my granddaughter to another country during visitation? We have the father on recording stating he was going to give up custody at one point but his parents flip all his bills and wanted to fight. I have had numerous dealings with these people and would prefer my granddaughter was away from them. My granddaughter is two and screams every time we (her mother, my wife and I) have to take her back. Thank you and any advice would be appreciated.Thank you for all your input. I realize it would be kidnapping and is a crime but is there a statue of limitations and we would go to a country without an extradition treaty with the US. And we would have no intentions on returning to the US for a long while. more

Voting Question: When the government shuts down the Internet, will it do so in the name of protecting property rights?

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-authorities-shut-down-wordpress-host-with-73000-blogs-100716/ The government has recently stolen a number of domain names. Specifically, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a government agency supposedly intended to enforce the immigration and customs laws (that is, to send peaceful people who came here to make a better life for themselves and their families back to Mexico and to steal property from people who are entering the United States), has decided to seize a number of domain names in the name of protecting "intellectual property" rights. As a result of this operation, known as "Operation In Our Sites," the government has now stolen the domain names of 7 web sites, including a blog hosting web site. Other sites were considered, including the file hosting web site MegaUpload. If we are supposed to believe that intellectual property is a form of property rights rather than a grant of monopoly privilege by the government, why is ICE the government agency in charge of stealing domain names that are supposedly used to violate intellectual property? Doesn't it seem more likely that the British Parliament had it right when it called the first law granting intellectual "property" rights the "Statute of Monopolies" in 1623? Anyways, how can intellectual "property" be a valid form of property rights when it restricts what I can or cannot do with my own property that I have purchased? If I want to purchase or otherwise obtain permission to use a domain name and web hosting account and place the contents of a CD or DVD that I have purchased on that web site, isn't it a violation of my property rights to tell me that I cannot do that? I am all for unrestricted property rights and I believe in a free and unregulated Internet, why is why I oppose intellectual so-called property. more

Resolved Question: A letter from Birmingham Jail Analysis?

Here is an the excerpt im studying, and I dont get it at all.;;;; can someone please halp me understand the parts of it? Thank you so much. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. more

Resolved Question: if i am judgement proof, is my landlord able to sue me?

My daughter receives SSI and I am currently unemployed so I receive MA and food stamps. I am in a domestic abuse situation, and according to MN Law statute 504B.206 I can break my lease, which I intend to do. I do not have the money to pay the rent I will owe here, so I am sure I will be sued. I am wondering if this statute still applies if I don't pay any money, and if my landlord can then sue me and say that my notice I gave is void? And by law according to the statute, they have to give me my deposit, so I assume they would just keep that to use for pmt? Im confused. I already got approved for a new apt so Im not worried about that, I just dont want this to turn into a huge disaster. thanks in advance. I called Legal Aid but they were closed.Gray-- first of all, you must be thee worst law student ever. My domestic abuse happened awhile ago, but he has not been enforcing the OFP and the police here haven't done anything about it, so I am moving to protect myself and my kids. The law doesn't state that the abuse had to happen yesterday. If he is harassing me and bothering me and I fear I am in emminent danger (per the statute), I can break my lease (if you READ the statute you would know this). As for the other posters, thanks for your help!! I actually did give my written notice today to move out at the end of July. I got my July rent paid already and am borrowing money from a friend for August HERE, so when I get my deposit back I can just pay her back. Also got my August rent and deposit paid for my new place, so I'm good to go. I left a msg at legal aid and a lawyer called me back after hours so I got it all figured out. Appreciate the 2 answers!! Gray you should be kicked out of law school.Gray... it says NOTHING in the statute about a pattern of abuse, why would the police who I filed the report with INFORM me of this statute if that was the case? You're the idiot. Also, I AM judgement proof, what imaginary law school do you go to? Because you are judgement proof if you are a receipient of any form of govt asst, and my daughter is physically disabled and gets SSI and we are on MA so therefore I am judgement proof, its ALSO a law. So, your "long shot" isn't so long, and you're wrong about everything you said, what an amazing law student you must be!! more

Resolved Question: What specific Law created Affirmative Action?

Was it the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Is there another law that I don't know of that created Affirmative Action? http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm more

Resolved Question: please help me out my friend ive try this exma before and failed now i have a second chance please help me..?

1. Which of the following events did not occur in the 1920s? A. Canadian provinces began repealing prohibition laws. B. Many Canadians began purchasing cars. C. The stock market crashed, contributing to the Great Depression. D. R. B. Bennett was elected prime minister. 2. Which Canadian prime minister was in office at the outbreak of World War I? A. Borden C. King B. Bennett D. Laurier 3. To which branch of government are members elected, rather than appointed? A. Cabinet C. House of Commons B. Supreme Court D. Senate 4. The Great Depression A. affected only North America and Europe. B. led to the establishment of government relief camps. C. had a bigger impact on those industries that depended on the domestic market. D. hit hardest in the Maritime provinces. 5. The two most important kinds of law in Canada are _______ law. A. public and private C. criminal and civil B. criminal and administrative D. family and administrative 6. Which statement is true of the 1920s? A. Coal mining became a prosperous industry in the Maritimes. B. Women and immigrants benefitted greatly from the decade’s strong economy. C. American capital was invested in many Canadian industries. D. Canadian wheat prices continued to rise steadily throughout the decade. 7. During World War I, Canadians were first introduced to trench warfare at A. Ypres, Belgium. C. Vimy Ridge. B. the Somme River. D. the Battle of the Marne. 8. Which of the following was known as the “postage stamp province” when it first joined Confederation? A. Newfoundland C. PEI B. Saskatchewan D. Manitoba 9. Which of the following represents the final step in the process of a bill being passed as a law? A. The bill is accepted by the House of Commons. B. The bill is passed in the Senate. C. The bill is signed by the Governor General. D. The bill is approved by a Parliamentary Study Committee. 10. During World War I, Arthur Currie was associated with which action? A. Air battles involving the “Red Baron” B. The taking of Vimy Ridge C. The naval Battle of Jutland D. Participation in creating the League of Nations 11. The Dominion Lands Act A. expropriated land for the construction of the Canadian National Railway. B. granted territory to the Native people of Manitoba. C. enabled many immigrants to purchase and settle a plot of land. D. expanded the territory occupied by Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. 12. Which statement concerning WWI is true? A. All throughout the war, there was no shortage of Canadian volunteers to the army. B. Canada’s contribution to the war in the air was small. C. Britain and Germany were the top two naval powers. D. The majority of Canadians fought in Germany. 13. Which act first determined the division of powers between federal and provincial government in Canada? A. BNA Act C. Canada Act B. Statute of Westminster D. Constitution Act 14. The Laurier years were best characterized by A. the completion of the CPR. B. the uprising of Louis Riel. C. immigration and economic expansion. D. the outbreak of World War I. 15. The Great Depression ended largely because A. a new trade agreement was reached with the United States. B. a new world war had begun in 1939. C. Mackenzie King successfully implemented “laissez-faire” economic policies. D. social welfare programs were introduced across Canada. 16. Which statement concerning World War I is not true? A. Personal income tax was introduced in 1917 to raise money for the war effort. B. From the outset of the war, news stories quickly surfaced about the horrors of trench warfare. C. During the war, more that 250,000 Canadians were employed in munitions factories. D. German U-boats attacked passenger as well as merchant ships. 17. Which of the following was not a cause of tension between French and English relations in Canada? A. Canada’s role in the Boer War C. The Naval Bill B. The Manitoba School Act D. The Reform Movement 18. Which of the following represents a correct chronological sequence of different provinces joining Confederation? A. Ontario, PEI, Manitoba, BC B. Nova Scotia, Manitoba, BC, PEI C. Quebec, Manitoba, PEI, BC D. Ontario, PEI, BC, Manitoba 19. Which of the following statements about the 1911 Reciprocity Agreement is true? A. It caused fears that Canada might be annexed by the United States. B. It was supported by businesspeople like J. C. Eaton. C. It was proposed by Canada to the United States. D. It removed protective tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods. 20. Which of the following was not a condition imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles? A. Germany was made to accept full responsibility for the war. B. All German overseas investments were confiscated by the Allies. C. Germany was divided into East and West by the Berlin Wall. D. Germany was forced to financially compensate several countries affected by the war. more

Resolved Question: I REALLY need help in finding information on animal cruelty in canada?

im have to do research notes in my class and i am required to do 10 pages of research notes! can someone please give me websites where i can find information on the statute law of cruelty to animals and the whole legal issue. provincial and federal legislations on this issue would be great, website on that is what i need and anything i can get i will be grateful for. THANKYOU :) more

Resolved Question: If the Federal Government refuses to enforce Federal Law, can't the President be Charged for breaking the law?

He is an official that's supposed to be subject to US law. If he breaks the law knowingly and with intent, shouldn't he be charged with a crime? The President isn't above the law, they shouldn't be held to a lower standard, but a higher one. If he gets away with this, shouldn't other be allowed to not enforce the socialized health care statutes? All the other crap this criminal organization (masquerading as a Government) pushes through? more

Resolved Question: Filipinoys, watch out! look who's coming to a neighborhood near you in hordes?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/13/sex.offenders.passports/index.html?hpt=C2 (CNN) -- Thousands of registered sex offenders have received U.S. passports, including at least 30 federal employees, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by CNN. The GAO report said the Department of State cannot legally deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those specifically convicted of sex tourism. The report concluded that about 4,500 U.S. passports of the more than 16 million issued in fiscal year 2008 were issued to registered sex offenders. "Federal statutes authorize the Secretary of State to deny issuance of a passport in certain circumstances, such as while an individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism or is in arrearages for child support," the report states. "However, there is currently no comprehensive program to deny passports to applicants who are registered sex offenders." The State Department called the report "very misleading" and adding it "conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy." In a written response, the department pointed out that only a fraction of 1 percent of the 16 million passports issued in fiscal year 2008 went to registered sex offenders. In addition, the title of the report "fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders." "The report appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the Department's issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex crimes abroad," the department's response said. "There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime." The original title of the report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," was later changed to "Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders." The GAO report was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana. The GAO studied data from the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). However, the approximately 4,500 sex offenders who received passports in fiscal year 2008 "is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers ... In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states." The GAO found cases that include a sex offender from Texas who received a passport while in prison, a Delaware man with multiple sex convictions who traveled to the Philippines, Germany and France since receiving his passport, and a Georgia man who has traveled to the Philippines, Ireland and Panama. Among the federal employees who received passports was an aerospace engineer with NASA, an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a Postal Service carrier who traveled to Taiwan and Japan after receiving his passport. About 50 of those who received passports either lived outside the United States or "their whereabouts were unknown," the report said. A new law took effect in December 2008 that prohibits anyone convicted of sex tourism from receiving a U.S. passport. However, the report said, the Department of State was not even aware of the law until April of this year after the GAO "brought this statute to its attention." "When Congress passes a law and the president signs it, then the Executive Branch needs to execute it," Grassley said in a statement. "I'm shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008. It's inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months. Since someone who is late on child support payments cannot receive a passport, then surely these criminals should also be stopped from traveling internationally." "It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies, and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said. The report also studied a group of registered sex offenders -- many who held positions of public trust, including a school teacher, religious layman, and health care provider. "Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts ar more

Voting Question: Is it legal in California for a utility company to shut off a utility without a shut off notice?

The temperature here is upper nineties, low hundreds. I get paid Friday. I know I owe two months on the water/trash bill. I plan to pay it Friday. Today our recyclables were picked up in the morning, our water shut off around noon, and the yard waste was picked up this afternoon. The trash gets picked up, but the water gets turned off! The gas company and the electric company have sent a 14 day notice when we are delinquent. We can call and get an extension if we won't be able to pay it in that time frame. But the city handles water/trash. And they shut our water off in hot weather without warning. We're looking at roughly 72 hrs at least of doing without the next most basic human need to oxygen. How can this possibly be legal? We don't renege on our bills. We pay them. This is not a common occurrence. My wife has been unemployed for over a year now, and we are living on my wages, which are little more than minimum wage. I mean, we ARE trying. But is there some law or statute I can take to the city tomorrow to show that it is not legal to shut off water without a shut off notice? I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. more

Resolved Question: Why do some "Christians" claim the God is against premarital sex?

I mean, the only scripture I've ever read that specifically addresses the subject is that which I've copied and pasted on to here, where God is speaking to Moses, you know, the same guy he gave the 10 commandments to. Leviticus Chapter 20 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. 6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. 7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. 8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he more

Voting Question: Homework Help, Scrambled Paragraphs?

There is only 1 correct answer. I did all of them, i just want to confirm my answers. Question 1 Topic Sentence: New laws are sometimes passed which protect the interests of the majority of the public but which infringe upon the rights of others. Q. Included within this definition are auditoriums, elevators, gymnasiums, public means of transportation, and classrooms. R. Thew new law will prohibit smoking in certain " indoor areas which are open to the public" and also designated work places. S. Hopefully, the harmful secondary effects of smoking to nonsmokers will be better controlled as a result. T. As defined by the statute, "indoor areas are open to the public" means any indoor area generally accessible to the public. U. In 1990 New York State passed a law regulating smoking in public places. Question 2 Topic Sentence: New York City is constitutionally obligated to provide legal help for indigent defendants. Q. However, unlike most cities, New York contracts the work to a private organization called the Legal Aid Society. R. The mayor of New York City has publicly announced, and correctly so, that the amount of financial aid to the society will be much less in the upcoming city budget. S. This obligation is not limited to New York City, but must be provided by all cities in the United States of America. T. This announcement has been met with praise from most taxpayers and criticism from the Legal Aid Society. U. Despite a history of dedication to an often thankless job, the society has suffered from bad management and has actually become a drain on the city's finances. more

Resolved Question: DOes Canada have a statute of limitations? (And 2 other questions)?

THank-you Randy, for your previous answer. Since there happens to be a person knowledgeable about our Cancuk laws, let me ask couple more.....Is there a statute of limitations in Canada......if a person lights a fire, then puts it out before any damage was done, and then confesses to it, is it still arson?....and, lastly, is it legal to carry replica handguns in Canada if you don't intend to use them for a crime? THanks!! more

Voting Question: Does the unwed mother of a child have automatic custody in California?

I want to know if I have full physical custody of my child in CA - if I am not married to his father? And if so is there a CA statute or law stating this somewhere? How can I find it?I am WITH the father but the Navy says they need proof of who has cusoty - how can I prove that the kid is mine?I am WITH the father but the Navy says they need proof of who has cusoty - how can I prove that the kid is mine? more

Resolved Question: What do you think these verses about God's laws mean?

Deuteronomy 11:1 Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always. Psalm 119:152 Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever. Psalm 119:160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. Matthew 5:17-20 (these are Jesus’ words) Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. more

Resolved Question: Any one with knowledge of CT Law and statutes ?

All I want to know is can a charge of a violation of possession of alcohol stand when: 1). My son(20) was simply a passenger in the vehicle; 2). there was a 21 yr old in the vehicle and an 18 yr old driver and neither were issued anything; and 3).The officer called and wanted to re-issue the violation because he may have issued the wrong one, depending on whether my son was 20 or 21 yrs old. I want to know why the officer would call and do I have a leg to stand on legally to ask that the violation be terminated, since it was issued to a passenger with no control over what is in the vehicle. The alcohol was under the seat they offered the info freely. more

Resolved Question: Did you know we had blasphemy laws here in the USA?

I didn't...I was researching something on the UK blasphemy laws when I came across this: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463198055 Passed in 1977 in PA, the statute prohibits words that constitute "blasphemy" or "profane cursing or swearing," or that "profane the Lord's name" when registering a corporate name. The impetus for the law, Baylson found, was a wave of complaints from religious leaders about a McKeesport, Pa., businessman's decision to name his store "The God Damn Gun Shop." So--it Just got overturned two weeks ago (which is good, I suppose). Questions: How did a law like that get passed in the USA, considering our Freedom of Speech and our 1st Amendment of Separation of Church and State? And what do you think of the blasphemy laws...not just here in the USA but Europe (Ireland has blasphemy laws) and the Middle East (Pakistan's "no blasphemy against Mohammed law is punishable by death") as well?@radar: Blasphemy laws are unconstitutional. they go against the 1st amendment.you don't get in trouble with the law for that stuff in this country But...that law was on the books in Pennsylvania for over 30 years. That's my point. more

Resolved Question: Forcing the county to use antiquated laws that are still on the statute books?

Lets say you live in a county where there is still an old law against witchcraft on the statute books. According to this law, suspected witches have to be tied tightly to an oak chair that is then submerged in the lake. If the witch drowns she's innocent, but if she survives then she's guilty and must be burned at the stake. Could you force the county to use this law whether they wanted to or not? Is the county allowed to disregard a law if it appears in the statute books, just because they forgot to repeal it? Could you take the case to the supreme court and stand a reasonable chance of winning? more

Voting Question: can someone send me a link to the actual sexual molestation of a minor, law in arizona?

my daughter has been molested glendale police said since she says he is a boyfriend there is no law on her side, he is 20 she is 13. i find this impossible to beleive. help i cannot find az statute on this more

Resolved Question: Should a be charged with attempted statutory rape in the following instance?

In Wisconsin, Statute number 948.02 (2) says that Whoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class C felony. This is punishable by a maximum of 40 years in prison. If a person engages in sexual activity with someone he later finds out is over the age of 18, or by state law, an adult, can he be charged with attempted sexual assault of a child? - the opinion of Wisconsin residents is preferred however, anyone may answer. Disclaimer - I am not in this situation...I'm working on a project...In this instance, the "victim" used her daughter's social security number to enroll in the local high school and passed herself off as a 15 year old girl. more

False advertising Home
Report Deceptive Advertising
False Advertising Online
False Advertising Complaint
Product Advertising
Real Estate False Advertising
Rss.xml
Misleading Advertising
Interested Lyrics
Reporting False Advertising
Federal Laws
Best Buy False Advertising

Privacy Policy