Saturday, October 31, 2009
Is it legal to carry a gun into a bank in Virgina? If so, can you please state a sourse where it is written?
Answer:
If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon you can otherwise ...no.
a bank is owned by the federal government.
yeah, it's illegal.
don't be stupid, don't do it.
ps it's spelled "source"
Here is a site with state by state gun laws. Virginia is one of the most relaxed states when it comes to gun laws so I assume one can carry a gun into a bank.
Is it legal to carry a gun in your car in Florida? if so what are the stipulations???
Answer:
790.25 (5)(5) Lawful Ownership, Possession, and Use of Firearms and Other Weapons
It is not necessary to have a license or permit to carry a loaded firearm in a private vehicle, so long as the gun is "securely encased". Florida law defines a weapon as being securely encased if the firearm is in a glove compartment, whether or not locked, in a snapped holster (not worn on your body!), in a zippered gun case or in a box or other container that requires a lid or cover to be lifted or opened in order to gain access to the firearm. These restrictions do not apply to any person who holds a valid Florida Concealed Weapon License or a reciprocal state license/permit.
i know that is is legal to transport guns in your car, but the must be visable to the public (ex. w/ rifle in gun rack)
Well, how are you suppose to bring your gun home from the gun shop. In California, I believe it has to be in a case and unloaded.
Is it legal to carry a gun at work in the state of FL?
can i carry a gun (concealed on my ankle) at work? i work in a retail store (target) in a bad area
Answer:
That depends on IF you have a permit to carry AND it is a permit to carry a concealed weapon AS WELL AS what the store policy is. IF you have the permit to carry a concealed weapon AND the store allows it, then their is no reason why not. It is not likely that the store will allow it for insurance reasons and unless you are law inforcement already it is not likely you can get the licence to carry a concealed weapon --- they are very hard to get.
if you take a concealed weapons class, and get a permit, you can.
Don't get killed trying to save some store merchandise or money.
Most states require you to take a class for a concealed carry permit, but you also need to check with your employer as well. Some businesses restrict their employees from having weapons, no matter what type they are, while on company property. I know UPS will fire their employees immediately if they have a weapon on the company's grounds, even if it's in the employee's car, locked and out of site. You're best checking your states gun laws, as well as talk to your supervisor.
If you are uncomfortable about your job's location and are looking for something for personal protection (which I don't blame you), you should look in to palm defenders. They are palm sized tubes of pepper spray. They sell for around $25 at your local police supply store and are refillable.
No. The only way it is legal is if you apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. You have to go down to the police station and ask them about getting a firearm license AND ask them if it is possible to apply for a concealed weapon license. If you do not have the licenses then it is illegal and you will be in serious trouble if caught. Also your employer will fire you.
Answer:
That depends on IF you have a permit to carry AND it is a permit to carry a concealed weapon AS WELL AS what the store policy is. IF you have the permit to carry a concealed weapon AND the store allows it, then their is no reason why not. It is not likely that the store will allow it for insurance reasons and unless you are law inforcement already it is not likely you can get the licence to carry a concealed weapon --- they are very hard to get.
if you take a concealed weapons class, and get a permit, you can.
Don't get killed trying to save some store merchandise or money.
Most states require you to take a class for a concealed carry permit, but you also need to check with your employer as well. Some businesses restrict their employees from having weapons, no matter what type they are, while on company property. I know UPS will fire their employees immediately if they have a weapon on the company's grounds, even if it's in the employee's car, locked and out of site. You're best checking your states gun laws, as well as talk to your supervisor.
If you are uncomfortable about your job's location and are looking for something for personal protection (which I don't blame you), you should look in to palm defenders. They are palm sized tubes of pepper spray. They sell for around $25 at your local police supply store and are refillable.
No. The only way it is legal is if you apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. You have to go down to the police station and ask them about getting a firearm license AND ask them if it is possible to apply for a concealed weapon license. If you do not have the licenses then it is illegal and you will be in serious trouble if caught. Also your employer will fire you.
Is it legal to burn down a trailer instead of having it removed?
My neighbor getting ready to torch it as I type. I was wondering if it was even legal to do this. We are in the state of Indiana.
Answer:
Not in a built-up neighborhood - it would be a hazard to surrounding buildings, and it would also cause pollution. If you live in the middle of nowhere, with nothing nearby, then you can probably get away with burning it.
I live in Indiana and from what I have understood, is you have to ask the local fire department and get a permit.
You need to consult with your local fire department regarding your neighbor's activities.
Generally, it is not legal to torch a structure without the proper permits and or safety equipment on hand if the fire gets out of control.
Good luck.
There are numerous legal aspects to this question. The safest way to approach this is prudence, until all doubt is resolved.
First, who owns title to the trailer. If it is not the "torcher's" property, then vandalism or arson charges may be considered.
Second, is the trailer on public or private property. If it is public property (like the street) then there could be additional issue pertaining to the risk or liability that the city or owner has.
Lastly, is it dangerous. The action may not be deemed safe and a legal proceeding may be brought forth just due to the negligence of the act; even if no one or nothing is damaged.
But you have to consider; is this the right way to dispose of this thing? Is there a better way? If there is, the right course of action, and the law will favor that way.
To legally burn it they would have to have all of the necessary permits, and I'd bet the fire Dept. would be standing by at the scene. If they aren't there, this is probably an illegal burn. Call the local station in your area and ask.
Answer:
Not in a built-up neighborhood - it would be a hazard to surrounding buildings, and it would also cause pollution. If you live in the middle of nowhere, with nothing nearby, then you can probably get away with burning it.
I live in Indiana and from what I have understood, is you have to ask the local fire department and get a permit.
You need to consult with your local fire department regarding your neighbor's activities.
Generally, it is not legal to torch a structure without the proper permits and or safety equipment on hand if the fire gets out of control.
Good luck.
There are numerous legal aspects to this question. The safest way to approach this is prudence, until all doubt is resolved.
First, who owns title to the trailer. If it is not the "torcher's" property, then vandalism or arson charges may be considered.
Second, is the trailer on public or private property. If it is public property (like the street) then there could be additional issue pertaining to the risk or liability that the city or owner has.
Lastly, is it dangerous. The action may not be deemed safe and a legal proceeding may be brought forth just due to the negligence of the act; even if no one or nothing is damaged.
But you have to consider; is this the right way to dispose of this thing? Is there a better way? If there is, the right course of action, and the law will favor that way.
To legally burn it they would have to have all of the necessary permits, and I'd bet the fire Dept. would be standing by at the scene. If they aren't there, this is probably an illegal burn. Call the local station in your area and ask.
Is it legal to bring your own food and drinks into a movie theatre?
Answer:
there is no law against it. It is up to movie theater policy...and all of the ones I've been to say no. Its basically a property issue...they own the property and can tell you what to do when you come on...you pay a fee for the right to watch a movie there....they say don't bring food and drinks...and if you do they have the right to tell you to leave.
No, in every state outside food is prohibited and if caught, they can ask you to leave the theatre without reimbursing you the ticket price.
The same laws apply to bringing outside food from one restaurant to another and has to do with State Health Inspection Statues. The reasoning is that the theatre or restaurant has a legal obligation to provide food that meets the legal standards and they have no way of monitoring outside foods and beverages and a person that brought in a contaminated food or beverage could try to claim that the theatre/restaurant was liable for food/drinks it did not prepare.
Yes it is legal, however it is against the movie theatre's policy. Being private property, if you don't comply with the movie theatre's policies, they have the right to remove you from their premises - but not charge you.
nope
I'm sure there not going to call the police and have u thrown out of the movie just because u brought ur own food and drink, they dont like when people do that, and usually theres a sign on the door saying no outside food/drinks allowed. but seriously everyone does it!, who wants to pay 5.00 for a box of candy u can get at a gas station for 99cents
Movie theaters can refuse service to you if they see you walking in with outside food and/or drink.
Is it legal to be un-liscensed and give someone a tattoo without charging them?
Answer:
Sure thing. I've known many people who "practice" tattooing friends without charging.
They need to practice on someone!
I am not for sure, but I had my tattoos done by a girl who wasn't liscensed and she DID charge me. That should be illegal, but I knew before I went in.
Don't know but they do it in prison all the time
Of course its not legal
Whether you charge them or not isn't the issue.
Go to your state's website.
Or Google "(State) tattoo law"
http://www.everytattoo.com/coloradolaw.s...
Is it legal to be paid under minimum wage?
Answer:
Paying employees under the minimum wage is a violation of the labor standard laws. There is a law imposing the minimum wage and anything paid below the minimum is a violation.
why do you think they call it "Minimum Wage"?
yes in most cases. Jobs like waitress ussually get less hourly wage but keep all tips. Depends on the job and State you live.
Usually no. There are some rare cases. However, for most circumstances, nope.
According to the law if a waitress makes less then minimum wage in tips, the employers must make up the difference
yes.
no. Its the lowest your allowed to get paid.
It is legal as long as you sign a contract or you agree that you be paid on that wage.
If your under the age of 18, a full time student and a dependent, yes you can be paid less, but your not taxed and I don't think you can work more than 20 hours a week.
There are some businesses that are exempt from the minimum wage law.
Restaurant workers who get tips and some agraculture workers are two groups.
Like anything, I'm sure there are loopholes around it.
No. If an employer is doing that, it is a criminal act.
Waitresses because they rely on tips!
Is it legal to be married by someone ordained online in Indiana?
if so, what sort of documents will he need to provide.
Answer:
As long as the on line ordination was a religion recognized by your country. I've never used it, but I got ordained that way, just as a lark. It's perfectly legal, and is recognized in the US, Canada, and most of western Europe. Weddings, funerals, baptisms, or any other religious practice. If you've doubts, ask to see their certificate, and you can check on the web site, to verify that they do have the legal authority to perform weddings.
I don't know what state you're getting married in.
Typically in the USA, the states consider that its the ceremony that counts. That is someone administers the vows and there are at least two witnesses who sign the marriage license and return it for vital statistics to record.
But then again, when in doubt, use a JP or a NOtary to do the civil side of the ceremony and you won't have to worry about it.
Check with your local courthouse (where ever you get the marriage license). In PA it's legit. They don't ask for credentials, just that the officiant sign the marriage license. Check out the link below. It looks like as long as the person was ordained by a legit religious organization, then it would be legal.
Where ever you get your marriage license could tell you what documents are required.
Answer:
As long as the on line ordination was a religion recognized by your country. I've never used it, but I got ordained that way, just as a lark. It's perfectly legal, and is recognized in the US, Canada, and most of western Europe. Weddings, funerals, baptisms, or any other religious practice. If you've doubts, ask to see their certificate, and you can check on the web site, to verify that they do have the legal authority to perform weddings.
I don't know what state you're getting married in.
Typically in the USA, the states consider that its the ceremony that counts. That is someone administers the vows and there are at least two witnesses who sign the marriage license and return it for vital statistics to record.
But then again, when in doubt, use a JP or a NOtary to do the civil side of the ceremony and you won't have to worry about it.
Check with your local courthouse (where ever you get the marriage license). In PA it's legit. They don't ask for credentials, just that the officiant sign the marriage license. Check out the link below. It looks like as long as the person was ordained by a legit religious organization, then it would be legal.
Where ever you get your marriage license could tell you what documents are required.
Is it legal to be charged for the same service twice,?
If your council tax money is paying for a service, can you also be charged separately for the same service?
Answer:
if your talking about water rates yes you can, they charge you for bringing it and then another charge for taking it away
i am curious about that myself actually... I have enormous Council Tax and on top of that service charges. I believe it is wrong but Council will never accept that. They send financial report about where money are going to and service charges are not there. Council Tax cover schools, roads, local authorities ext and service charges are to pay people who are doing nothing twice a week in my area
Yes, your taxes go to a variety of things. For instance my rates (local council taxes) go towards garbage collection, water, council activities, recreation centres and so on. However my taxes only SUBSIDIZE the cost of use. For instance I still have to pay for water, but I pay less than I would if I didn't pay rates. Or my taxes went towards the building of a new rec centre but I still have to pay to use the facilities...is that your question?
Answer:
if your talking about water rates yes you can, they charge you for bringing it and then another charge for taking it away
i am curious about that myself actually... I have enormous Council Tax and on top of that service charges. I believe it is wrong but Council will never accept that. They send financial report about where money are going to and service charges are not there. Council Tax cover schools, roads, local authorities ext and service charges are to pay people who are doing nothing twice a week in my area
Yes, your taxes go to a variety of things. For instance my rates (local council taxes) go towards garbage collection, water, council activities, recreation centres and so on. However my taxes only SUBSIDIZE the cost of use. For instance I still have to pay for water, but I pay less than I would if I didn't pay rates. Or my taxes went towards the building of a new rec centre but I still have to pay to use the facilities...is that your question?
Is it legal or illegal in wayne county, mi for grocery store to buy food and resell in there own store.?
Buy from walmart perishable items close to expiration date, remove date and price and resell in there own grocery store. And advertise these products in there own sales ads..Is this LEGAL? And is it legal for them to remove expiration date...Hope yall can help
Answer:
There is no law requiring products to have expiration dates. Most companies do because certain states require them to do so. Even with the requirement, there is still a grace period for compliance. The expiration date is not only for safety, but also for confidence that you are buying a product that has the correct flavor and taste that is desired by the manufacturer. The date is never a perfect measure of freshness, due to fluctuations in natural products, handling temperatures storage temperatures, as well as production defects. Usually there is a buffer built into the dating system. Products sold after this date usually aren't a heath risk, but the quality decreases until it can actually becomes a health problem.
You stated that the products are close coded, not actually expired. There is no standard for how much shelf life a product must have to sell. Most retailers reduce prices to move inventory that is going to expire. While this merchant is seeking out these items to resell to you, he is not violating a law. Now, if you are asking if it is an ethical thing to do, then my answer is no. If the merchant is going to stay in business is another matter. It is much simplier to avoid a merchant with questionable sales practices.
The easiest way to deal with this problem is call your local health department and complain, but with specifics. Mention the exact store location, time, date, and the EXACT product in question. They will follow up, albiet at their leisure. Having unsafe food will lead to a deduction of points in their inspection, which will reduce their letter grade, meaning more headaches for the merchant. This inspection becomes public record, and helps inform the public about the practices of the merchant.
Bottom line = vote with your dollars. Shop somewhere else!
100% illegal. Its not the reselling its the removing of expiration dates and selling the items as new. What is your proof they are doing this? If so you need to contact the authorities immediately before someone gets hurt or dies.
This is totally illegal and if you know a business that does things like that then you should call the proper authorities and have them check it out!
Cheers.
it is illegal to tamper with dating issues this relates to consumer content and fair labeling there is however no law that states where they have to buy there items i would contact your better buisness bureau as well as your attorney generals office for yout town/county as well as the health department and inform them about these issues before someone becomes seriously ill from using these outdated products good luck
Answer:
There is no law requiring products to have expiration dates. Most companies do because certain states require them to do so. Even with the requirement, there is still a grace period for compliance. The expiration date is not only for safety, but also for confidence that you are buying a product that has the correct flavor and taste that is desired by the manufacturer. The date is never a perfect measure of freshness, due to fluctuations in natural products, handling temperatures storage temperatures, as well as production defects. Usually there is a buffer built into the dating system. Products sold after this date usually aren't a heath risk, but the quality decreases until it can actually becomes a health problem.
You stated that the products are close coded, not actually expired. There is no standard for how much shelf life a product must have to sell. Most retailers reduce prices to move inventory that is going to expire. While this merchant is seeking out these items to resell to you, he is not violating a law. Now, if you are asking if it is an ethical thing to do, then my answer is no. If the merchant is going to stay in business is another matter. It is much simplier to avoid a merchant with questionable sales practices.
The easiest way to deal with this problem is call your local health department and complain, but with specifics. Mention the exact store location, time, date, and the EXACT product in question. They will follow up, albiet at their leisure. Having unsafe food will lead to a deduction of points in their inspection, which will reduce their letter grade, meaning more headaches for the merchant. This inspection becomes public record, and helps inform the public about the practices of the merchant.
Bottom line = vote with your dollars. Shop somewhere else!
100% illegal. Its not the reselling its the removing of expiration dates and selling the items as new. What is your proof they are doing this? If so you need to contact the authorities immediately before someone gets hurt or dies.
This is totally illegal and if you know a business that does things like that then you should call the proper authorities and have them check it out!
Cheers.
it is illegal to tamper with dating issues this relates to consumer content and fair labeling there is however no law that states where they have to buy there items i would contact your better buisness bureau as well as your attorney generals office for yout town/county as well as the health department and inform them about these issues before someone becomes seriously ill from using these outdated products good luck
Is it legal in the US to be a sales mediator?
Is it legal for a individual to receive money from a consumer and then take a percentage and forward the remaining money to the selling company?
The selling company being in a different continent.
Answer:
Yes. Our title for that job is Collections Agent. And remember not less than 30% is the industry norm, 10% isn't worth it.
Of course its legal! There's thousands of these people, they're called brokers. Everything from rice to diamonds and everything in between. God Bless Free Enterprise!
As long as the specific service/product isn't restricted and as long as their isn't an embargo against the seller's country, I'm pretty sure this is legal. This is pretty much what eBay has done with it's international market, right?
Medical insurance billing companies do it everyday.
The selling company being in a different continent.
Answer:
Yes. Our title for that job is Collections Agent. And remember not less than 30% is the industry norm, 10% isn't worth it.
Of course its legal! There's thousands of these people, they're called brokers. Everything from rice to diamonds and everything in between. God Bless Free Enterprise!
As long as the specific service/product isn't restricted and as long as their isn't an embargo against the seller's country, I'm pretty sure this is legal. This is pretty much what eBay has done with it's international market, right?
Medical insurance billing companies do it everyday.
Is it legal in the UK to make an electronic recording of a meeting without informing the other participants?
Sorry, should have given a hint as to the country! Thanks for the responses so far.
Answer:
The answer is that it is not illegal (in the sense of criminal) unless the content of the meeting is covered by a D-notice (i.e contains matters relating to state security).
It is not illegal to record a 'phone call unless it involves interfering with the telephone apparatus in which case it IS illegal under the Telecommunications Act.
It is not illegal to record the content of a meeting, even without the other party's consent. I'm afraid the Human Rights Act does not come into it.
It may be unlawful (in the sense of a civil actionable wrong) to release to content of the recording to anyone, because the content of the meeting itself may be confidential (eg. legal advice given between solicitor and client).
It most instances the making of the recording with neither be illegal or unlawful, but the release of the information gathered may well be.
Hope this helps.
it is legal but unethical and not admissable in a court of law. much better to have the peoples consent.
I really dont think its legal in the UK - this is the reason why when your trying to get through to a company you hear the message 'your conversation may be recorded for training purposes'
Its invading privacy and I'm 99.99% certain that it is illegal
It's illegal. In the case of recording a phone conversation you must inform the other party at the beginning of the conversation.
I think it depends on the circumstances.
It is illegal to record a telephone conversation without telling the other party.
It can't be illegal to record people in your own property, because many security systems record both sound and video of live events within the house, shop, or factory.
It would be illegal in some top security meetings.
But in most cases it could only be a civil crime where confidentiality is important, and the recording was a breach of that confidentiality.
For most meetings there could be a good reason for recording them, and as minutes are written, and are intended to be a true account of the meeting, recording it should present no additional risk.
People may not like the fact that they are being recorded, but provided they keep within the rules, they are not at risk.
It would of course depend on the procedure for the meeting, I doubt many meetings specifically rule it out.
Surely it is illegal under the Data Protection Act a breach of your Human Rights, the right to privacy.
As this meeting was taped, then the holder of the tape should have informe dthe participants that it was recorded.
Who is holding this tape/ where is stored. These should comply with te data protection act.
Answer:
The answer is that it is not illegal (in the sense of criminal) unless the content of the meeting is covered by a D-notice (i.e contains matters relating to state security).
It is not illegal to record a 'phone call unless it involves interfering with the telephone apparatus in which case it IS illegal under the Telecommunications Act.
It is not illegal to record the content of a meeting, even without the other party's consent. I'm afraid the Human Rights Act does not come into it.
It may be unlawful (in the sense of a civil actionable wrong) to release to content of the recording to anyone, because the content of the meeting itself may be confidential (eg. legal advice given between solicitor and client).
It most instances the making of the recording with neither be illegal or unlawful, but the release of the information gathered may well be.
Hope this helps.
it is legal but unethical and not admissable in a court of law. much better to have the peoples consent.
I really dont think its legal in the UK - this is the reason why when your trying to get through to a company you hear the message 'your conversation may be recorded for training purposes'
Its invading privacy and I'm 99.99% certain that it is illegal
It's illegal. In the case of recording a phone conversation you must inform the other party at the beginning of the conversation.
I think it depends on the circumstances.
It is illegal to record a telephone conversation without telling the other party.
It can't be illegal to record people in your own property, because many security systems record both sound and video of live events within the house, shop, or factory.
It would be illegal in some top security meetings.
But in most cases it could only be a civil crime where confidentiality is important, and the recording was a breach of that confidentiality.
For most meetings there could be a good reason for recording them, and as minutes are written, and are intended to be a true account of the meeting, recording it should present no additional risk.
People may not like the fact that they are being recorded, but provided they keep within the rules, they are not at risk.
It would of course depend on the procedure for the meeting, I doubt many meetings specifically rule it out.
Surely it is illegal under the Data Protection Act a breach of your Human Rights, the right to privacy.
As this meeting was taped, then the holder of the tape should have informe dthe participants that it was recorded.
Who is holding this tape/ where is stored. These should comply with te data protection act.
Is it legal in the U.S. to induce your child with truth serum?
or is it even possible?
Answer:
No, unfortunately. Nor is it legal in the US to do anything about it when you catch them in a lie. And they wonder why our prisons are overcrowded. So here's an alternative: Use this chart to determine if your child is lying:
Age 1-4 with no older siblings- not likely at all to be lying.
Age 3(with older siblings) or 4-10- trust, but verify.
Age10-14- They are lying. Restrict priveleges immediately.
Age 14-19 Trust but verify. Probably being truthful, but will occassionally lie when cornered or scared, or just before major social events that they don't want to be restricted from attending.
Good luck.
you must be a republican....
Thats horrible, if you were a good parent you would know what they were up to without poisining them
Administering a noxious substance might land you behind bars. Also posession of a controlled substance. Endangering the welfare of a child........I could go on but I have the feeling that you're not really considering harming your little one.
All kids lie sometimes about silly things too......keep gently talking to him/her and don't give up....the truth will come up eventually.
You must be a Democrat to want to do something so illegal
I guess if the person is in the Gestapo...it would be OK.
Most of the "truth serums" are controlled substances; unless you are permitted by the DEA to possess and dispense these drugs you%26#92;they could face criminal charges just for possessing them.
call social services it is the best thing you can do..
as far as a truth serum i have never heard of one except on magic shows
If the child had some kind of surgery, he may be given sodium pentethal, which is truth sermum. And you may find out more than you ever wanted to know. I wish my middle age children would stop confessing to me. I had believed I had been a good parent. Oh well, what can you do 40 years later.
I had oral surgery and was given this drug. Apparently, my husband ask me some questions while I was in recovery. When I fully regained consciousness, he was laughing. Whenever I asked him what I said he would just smile. I suppose I will never know.
At one time I was at a neighbor's house right after she had oral surgery. She told me the whole story of her life. Things I really didn't want to know. Never mind. Her secrets are safe with me. As a matter of fact I don't even remember. Today people tell them openly.
Sorry for digressing. I doubt a parent could get a doctor to administer this drug unless it was, maybe, a matter of life or death. Just look the kid in the eyes you can usually tell if they're lying, of course, unless the kid is a sociopath. So why is the kid so afraid. He should call their bluff and say "Where do we go to get this test?"
Answer:
No, unfortunately. Nor is it legal in the US to do anything about it when you catch them in a lie. And they wonder why our prisons are overcrowded. So here's an alternative: Use this chart to determine if your child is lying:
Age 1-4 with no older siblings- not likely at all to be lying.
Age 3(with older siblings) or 4-10- trust, but verify.
Age10-14- They are lying. Restrict priveleges immediately.
Age 14-19 Trust but verify. Probably being truthful, but will occassionally lie when cornered or scared, or just before major social events that they don't want to be restricted from attending.
Good luck.
you must be a republican....
Thats horrible, if you were a good parent you would know what they were up to without poisining them
Administering a noxious substance might land you behind bars. Also posession of a controlled substance. Endangering the welfare of a child........I could go on but I have the feeling that you're not really considering harming your little one.
All kids lie sometimes about silly things too......keep gently talking to him/her and don't give up....the truth will come up eventually.
You must be a Democrat to want to do something so illegal
I guess if the person is in the Gestapo...it would be OK.
Most of the "truth serums" are controlled substances; unless you are permitted by the DEA to possess and dispense these drugs you%26#92;they could face criminal charges just for possessing them.
call social services it is the best thing you can do..
as far as a truth serum i have never heard of one except on magic shows
If the child had some kind of surgery, he may be given sodium pentethal, which is truth sermum. And you may find out more than you ever wanted to know. I wish my middle age children would stop confessing to me. I had believed I had been a good parent. Oh well, what can you do 40 years later.
I had oral surgery and was given this drug. Apparently, my husband ask me some questions while I was in recovery. When I fully regained consciousness, he was laughing. Whenever I asked him what I said he would just smile. I suppose I will never know.
At one time I was at a neighbor's house right after she had oral surgery. She told me the whole story of her life. Things I really didn't want to know. Never mind. Her secrets are safe with me. As a matter of fact I don't even remember. Today people tell them openly.
Sorry for digressing. I doubt a parent could get a doctor to administer this drug unless it was, maybe, a matter of life or death. Just look the kid in the eyes you can usually tell if they're lying, of course, unless the kid is a sociopath. So why is the kid so afraid. He should call their bluff and say "Where do we go to get this test?"
Is it legal in GA or federally to record someone without their knowledge?
If the voice recorder is not connected to a telephone device, but just placed in your own house to possibly record what may go on in the house. Is it ok to record one side of a phone conversation in this manner?
Answer:
you must announce it, or have a beep sound every 15 seconds
you can record a phonecall aslong as one person participating in the phone call knows. thats all i know.
In most states, so long as one party knows they are being recorded, it's legal.
So if you set the recorder and you are one of the people having the conversation, it's fine.
But if you set the recorder to listen to your spouse and another person, it's illegal.
Nope. You would be invading someone's reasonable expectation of privacy in your (also their?) home, and that is illegal in the state of Georgia.
Answer:
you must announce it, or have a beep sound every 15 seconds
you can record a phonecall aslong as one person participating in the phone call knows. thats all i know.
In most states, so long as one party knows they are being recorded, it's legal.
So if you set the recorder and you are one of the people having the conversation, it's fine.
But if you set the recorder to listen to your spouse and another person, it's illegal.
Nope. You would be invading someone's reasonable expectation of privacy in your (also their?) home, and that is illegal in the state of Georgia.
Is it legal in California to make an explosion on your property, one that doesn't affect anyone else?
Like mixing sulphuric acid and rubidium... Could I do that as long as it was contained?
This is in California.
If not, please cite law that says so.
Answer:
Quick research reveals that you cannot manufacture an explosive without a permit. (Health and Safety Code section 12101.) Possession of materials to make an explosive without a permit is a felony. (Penal Code section 12312.) There may be more explicit prohibitions upon setting off explosives, but these laws alone are going to make it illegal to set off an explosion on your property, or anywhere else, without a permit.
I doubt that you have a permit.
no
God bless you!
Only in America!
I wouldn't suggest trying it in a residential neighborhood.
Hell no! I'm a californian! Blasting is highly illegal, unless you're willing to get arrested by the police.. LMAO! It is under the law alarm and scandal!
Explosives are illegal in Calif regardless of who owns the property. I'm not gonna look the law up for you, learn to do it your own self if you want to play with explosives or go to college and take a course and use their labs.
This is in California.
If not, please cite law that says so.
Answer:
Quick research reveals that you cannot manufacture an explosive without a permit. (Health and Safety Code section 12101.) Possession of materials to make an explosive without a permit is a felony. (Penal Code section 12312.) There may be more explicit prohibitions upon setting off explosives, but these laws alone are going to make it illegal to set off an explosion on your property, or anywhere else, without a permit.
I doubt that you have a permit.
no
God bless you!
Only in America!
I wouldn't suggest trying it in a residential neighborhood.
Hell no! I'm a californian! Blasting is highly illegal, unless you're willing to get arrested by the police.. LMAO! It is under the law alarm and scandal!
Explosives are illegal in Calif regardless of who owns the property. I'm not gonna look the law up for you, learn to do it your own self if you want to play with explosives or go to college and take a course and use their labs.
Is it legal for them to tow your car IF?
you jump inside your car while they're hoisting up on the tow truck. And then you refuse to get out, of if you can't hear them yelling? is that considered kid napping?
Answer:
A professional towing company will not tow a car while someone is in it though, But they can have you arrested for interference.
If it is being repoed? All you have to do is tell them to leave and they have to.
No, but you can be arrested for numerous things.
more like stupidity on the part of the person who jumps in the car.
who is they?
If it's a repossession, and you tell them not to take it, they're not allowed to take your car.
I suspect the cops will be called before the truck leaves. Then you can 'not hear' them, go to jail. Tell that story to the judge. But don't expect a ruling in your favor. Childish behavior is not a defense.
That wouldn't happen. The tower would simply stop and call the cops. End of problem. If not, then you might have a argument... but not necessarily a good one. In any case, your supposed "not being able to hear them yelling" argument would have no impact. It wouldn't matter... if it were even true.
Answer:
A professional towing company will not tow a car while someone is in it though, But they can have you arrested for interference.
If it is being repoed? All you have to do is tell them to leave and they have to.
No, but you can be arrested for numerous things.
more like stupidity on the part of the person who jumps in the car.
who is they?
If it's a repossession, and you tell them not to take it, they're not allowed to take your car.
I suspect the cops will be called before the truck leaves. Then you can 'not hear' them, go to jail. Tell that story to the judge. But don't expect a ruling in your favor. Childish behavior is not a defense.
That wouldn't happen. The tower would simply stop and call the cops. End of problem. If not, then you might have a argument... but not necessarily a good one. In any case, your supposed "not being able to hear them yelling" argument would have no impact. It wouldn't matter... if it were even true.
Is it legal for the photographer to show my wedding pictures to other of his clients?
Can the wedding photographer show my wedding pictures to other of his clients? Or can he make a sample album out of them? Do they have the right to keep all the photo files in his computer? Do I have the right to get all of them back from him? My order is for 30 photos, total picture taken is about 300. After I chose the 30 that i want, do i have the right to tell him to delete the rest of the 270?
Answer:
Most professional photographers have you sign a contract when you engage them. Part of that contract gives them a release affording them artistic rights over the pictures.
Your photographer is probably not breaking any law and you probably have no recourse in this case.
They become his property when you sign a contract with him.
You can choose to buy his rights to them-in which case he will give you all files, and pictures and negatives he has, but it does cost a lot to do that, because he can decide how much they are worth to him for advertising purposes.
Hope that helps.
as a general rule, you must sign a release for him to use photos in any sample setting, unless the contract you signed states that he may use the images as he sees fit.
I would think that if you did not want the images used any reputable photographer would honor that. As for deleting excess photos, he would probably do that anyway, too many to keep if no one wants them or he cant use them.
did you sign an agreement or contract?
it will spell out what he is allow to do with the pictures he took.
Yes they are his pictures,, however there are limits as to what he may do with them. Keeping proofs books of work done for other clients is normal. Selling the pictures is not, and I mean to ad agencies.
The contract with the photographer gives him 100% rights to your photos that he takes. Including using them in portfolios and web pages. He can even use them for TV commercials if he would like. He doesn't have to destroy any photo that he creates. Sorry.
It really does depend on which country / state you live in - but there are general copyright laws surrounding photography - you'll find many of the answers you seek kere
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html...
Depends on what kind of deal you made with him. If you signed an agreement which states the photos are his property, then yes, he has the right to show them to whomever. But if the photos were to become your property, meaning you got the negatives when he was done, they he would normally need a release from you.
Unless you sign something beforehand, like the celebrities do, the pictures actually belong to the photographer. My advice is, have him agree to delete all photos not used by you or have him agree not to use the photos to drum up new business for himself. If you get a signed document saying this, then find out he's doing it, you can sue him for breach of contract.
As a photographer I make all my customers sign a release (When possible).If your in the crowd at concert well that's a tough one.Ever picture is a sample of my work.Some made it into my portfolio.Yes he/she can do what he wants with your photos within reason.
I've also been ripped off because I didn't do contracts in the past.Your photographer is artist.They need to show how good their are.That's why they show your wedding pictures if their good enough.
Don't be upset that means if he/she sees something that realy is good their going to show it off.
When you have children are you not going to take pictures to show off how cute they are?
My photos are my children, I took them and want to show how good I am.Have you ever composed a really great photo?
It's not as easy as pointing and clicking!You have to wait for just the right moment in time.Let me tell you weddings are worse than rock concerts.I hate doing them(I've done several in 15 years).
Answer:
Most professional photographers have you sign a contract when you engage them. Part of that contract gives them a release affording them artistic rights over the pictures.
Your photographer is probably not breaking any law and you probably have no recourse in this case.
They become his property when you sign a contract with him.
You can choose to buy his rights to them-in which case he will give you all files, and pictures and negatives he has, but it does cost a lot to do that, because he can decide how much they are worth to him for advertising purposes.
Hope that helps.
as a general rule, you must sign a release for him to use photos in any sample setting, unless the contract you signed states that he may use the images as he sees fit.
I would think that if you did not want the images used any reputable photographer would honor that. As for deleting excess photos, he would probably do that anyway, too many to keep if no one wants them or he cant use them.
did you sign an agreement or contract?
it will spell out what he is allow to do with the pictures he took.
Yes they are his pictures,, however there are limits as to what he may do with them. Keeping proofs books of work done for other clients is normal. Selling the pictures is not, and I mean to ad agencies.
The contract with the photographer gives him 100% rights to your photos that he takes. Including using them in portfolios and web pages. He can even use them for TV commercials if he would like. He doesn't have to destroy any photo that he creates. Sorry.
It really does depend on which country / state you live in - but there are general copyright laws surrounding photography - you'll find many of the answers you seek kere
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html...
Depends on what kind of deal you made with him. If you signed an agreement which states the photos are his property, then yes, he has the right to show them to whomever. But if the photos were to become your property, meaning you got the negatives when he was done, they he would normally need a release from you.
Unless you sign something beforehand, like the celebrities do, the pictures actually belong to the photographer. My advice is, have him agree to delete all photos not used by you or have him agree not to use the photos to drum up new business for himself. If you get a signed document saying this, then find out he's doing it, you can sue him for breach of contract.
As a photographer I make all my customers sign a release (When possible).If your in the crowd at concert well that's a tough one.Ever picture is a sample of my work.Some made it into my portfolio.Yes he/she can do what he wants with your photos within reason.
I've also been ripped off because I didn't do contracts in the past.Your photographer is artist.They need to show how good their are.That's why they show your wedding pictures if their good enough.
Don't be upset that means if he/she sees something that realy is good their going to show it off.
When you have children are you not going to take pictures to show off how cute they are?
My photos are my children, I took them and want to show how good I am.Have you ever composed a really great photo?
It's not as easy as pointing and clicking!You have to wait for just the right moment in time.Let me tell you weddings are worse than rock concerts.I hate doing them(I've done several in 15 years).
Is it legal for someone to record your conversation when they call you?
If someone was to call you on the phone and record your conversation without telling you is that legal? Does it vary from state to state? City to city?
Now.. is it legal if they recorded you but didn't make i public?
Is it different if they made it public? Would it then become illegal?
Or only if they tried to make money in some way off something like that?
Answer:
It depends on what state you live in (not what city). Generally speaking, it's either illegal to record you without telling you, or it's not. Whether they make it public typically isn't really relevant, although you might have issues relating to invasion of privacy. States have very different laws on this.
It is illegal unless they inform you that they are recording your conversation
They can record phone conversations, but they can't use it against you unless they told you that the conversation was being recorded.
You must find out whether you or they live in a one or two party state. If a two party state is involved, both people must know you are recording. If the recording device is visible, then it should be OK
As long as one person on the line knows the conversation is being recorded, it is legal. If both parties are unaware that their conversation is being recorded, it is illegal. Being made public makes no difference.
In some states only one person involved in the conversation needs to be aware it's being recorded.
If they inform you, or if they're is audible beeps on the line.
Depends on the state. In some states, only one party needs to know that the recording is being made. In others, an audible beep is required every 30 seconds to let both parties know the call is being recorded. You'll need to check with your state law enforcement to get an accurate answer.
Now.. is it legal if they recorded you but didn't make i public?
Is it different if they made it public? Would it then become illegal?
Or only if they tried to make money in some way off something like that?
Answer:
It depends on what state you live in (not what city). Generally speaking, it's either illegal to record you without telling you, or it's not. Whether they make it public typically isn't really relevant, although you might have issues relating to invasion of privacy. States have very different laws on this.
It is illegal unless they inform you that they are recording your conversation
They can record phone conversations, but they can't use it against you unless they told you that the conversation was being recorded.
You must find out whether you or they live in a one or two party state. If a two party state is involved, both people must know you are recording. If the recording device is visible, then it should be OK
As long as one person on the line knows the conversation is being recorded, it is legal. If both parties are unaware that their conversation is being recorded, it is illegal. Being made public makes no difference.
In some states only one person involved in the conversation needs to be aware it's being recorded.
If they inform you, or if they're is audible beeps on the line.
Depends on the state. In some states, only one party needs to know that the recording is being made. In others, an audible beep is required every 30 seconds to let both parties know the call is being recorded. You'll need to check with your state law enforcement to get an accurate answer.
Is it legal for someone to record a conversation and use it against you?
a conversation which was part official has been recorded and the person is threatening me with it is this legal
Answer:
It can be used against you as long as you had full knowledge that you were being recorded.
I don't see why it would be illegal. That's why you have to watch what you say and to whom.
It depends on the state. In Texas, as long as one party consents to the taping then it is not illegal. So, if you say something you do not want anyone else to know and you live in Texas, be very careful because anyone can tape you. On the East coast, there are several states that do not allow taping unless both parties know.
If you were aware that the conversation would be taped and consented to the taping of the conversation, it is legal. If not, then it is illegal (wiretapping).
if you had no idea you were being recorded, then no, it can not be used against you. the only way, if for you to have said, on the tape, that you know you are being recorded, and you agree with it.
If you were informed that your conversation was being recorded then the recording can be used against you. That is why when you call up a company for support or questions they often have a prerecorded message saying, "This phone call may be recorded for training purposes." While they may use your conversation for training they can also use that in court if you make any threats or similar comments.
It is easy to copy a telephone conversation without the person's permission. A magnetic coil on the receiver, a bug in the phone itself or a direct tap on the phone lines. The later two forms can be used by law enforcement as a court ordered wiretap and so those recording can be used in a court.
However, it the phone recording is made without a court ordered wiretap, or without the knowledge of the person being taped is illegal.
Answer:
It can be used against you as long as you had full knowledge that you were being recorded.
I don't see why it would be illegal. That's why you have to watch what you say and to whom.
It depends on the state. In Texas, as long as one party consents to the taping then it is not illegal. So, if you say something you do not want anyone else to know and you live in Texas, be very careful because anyone can tape you. On the East coast, there are several states that do not allow taping unless both parties know.
If you were aware that the conversation would be taped and consented to the taping of the conversation, it is legal. If not, then it is illegal (wiretapping).
if you had no idea you were being recorded, then no, it can not be used against you. the only way, if for you to have said, on the tape, that you know you are being recorded, and you agree with it.
If you were informed that your conversation was being recorded then the recording can be used against you. That is why when you call up a company for support or questions they often have a prerecorded message saying, "This phone call may be recorded for training purposes." While they may use your conversation for training they can also use that in court if you make any threats or similar comments.
It is easy to copy a telephone conversation without the person's permission. A magnetic coil on the receiver, a bug in the phone itself or a direct tap on the phone lines. The later two forms can be used by law enforcement as a court ordered wiretap and so those recording can be used in a court.
However, it the phone recording is made without a court ordered wiretap, or without the knowledge of the person being taped is illegal.
Is it legal for someone to be anywhere for petitioning or getting signatures for putting initiatives on ballot
I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of the state of CA. I am considering taking a job working for someone (who himself is apparently working as a subcontractor for someone else or an organization) where the work involves getting valid signatures to support putting an initiative on the state ballot.
This person was telling me that it's perfectly legal with respect to federal, state, county, city laws (including any regulations, statutes, codes, etc.), at least in California, to be anywhere to solicit or petition for signatures (including door-to-door canvassing, but also to setup a table outside any shopping center or strip mall or supermarket or retail store without the legal necessity for first getting permission from property owner or store manager)? Is this true?
Answer:
On private property you generally need the permission of the property owner. On public property you cannot be restricted.
Play it safe and ask permission first. And seek legal advice from a qualified local attorney as well.
Actually no. Since the grocery store owner represents the corporation who is paying for use of the land (through property taxes), soliciting signatures without the manager's permission is trespassing on private property.
You may campaign on public property like BART stations, etc.
Working for a person to get signatures for an initiative is valid as long as the issues are legal.
as long as you are doing it on public property and you are asking for peoples signitures and not harrassing them than you should be fine. you can be on privite property too but you must ask the owner/renter of the property before hand.
This person was telling me that it's perfectly legal with respect to federal, state, county, city laws (including any regulations, statutes, codes, etc.), at least in California, to be anywhere to solicit or petition for signatures (including door-to-door canvassing, but also to setup a table outside any shopping center or strip mall or supermarket or retail store without the legal necessity for first getting permission from property owner or store manager)? Is this true?
Answer:
On private property you generally need the permission of the property owner. On public property you cannot be restricted.
Play it safe and ask permission first. And seek legal advice from a qualified local attorney as well.
Actually no. Since the grocery store owner represents the corporation who is paying for use of the land (through property taxes), soliciting signatures without the manager's permission is trespassing on private property.
You may campaign on public property like BART stations, etc.
Working for a person to get signatures for an initiative is valid as long as the issues are legal.
as long as you are doing it on public property and you are asking for peoples signitures and not harrassing them than you should be fine. you can be on privite property too but you must ask the owner/renter of the property before hand.
Is it legal for people to have they're dog in the back of their truck?
i don't mean inside the truck, but in the back part of a pick-up truck
Answer:
It depends in what country one is living. For example in the US - yes it is. In Australia - yes, but there are conditions. I believe that those conditions are: 1. The animal must be in a pet transporter, and it must be secured in place so it doesn't bang around the back. Or 2. They must have a canopy on the back to keep pets safely inside while traveling on the roadways. Although you mentioned 3. If the pets are in the front of truck with driver - the driver must have the windows rolled up enough so the animals cannot stick their heads out at all.
For other countries I do not know the information or laws on it.
I can however tell you that I have a canopy on my truck. My dog is always safe from falling out even if I have the canopy open. As I have a leash in the back secured to one of the strap-bars, and clip that on him every time. It does give him room to move around, but not enough length for him to jump or fall out. Even if I take the canopy off - I relocate his leash to the center of the bed of the truck, and secure him so he cannot get to or over either side of the truck.
I love my dog, and I hate it when I see others who leave their dogs loose in the bed of their trucks. Or don't properly leash them so they can't ride on either side of the truck bed for the pleasure of wind in their face. Our city councel is now talking of fining those who don't secure their animals. All it has to do is pass by majority of votes.
It shouldn't be. I recently went to a restaurant and some idiots had left their 2 golden retrievers in the back of their truck in the hot sun while they went in to eat. Made me so mad. People who treat their animals so poorly shouldn't be allowed to have pets.
Back of the truck is better then in the cab of the truck on a hot day
I think different states have different laws on that. I know in Ca. if you have them in the back you are supposed to have a chain or a rope on them. But in the rural area where I live I've never known anyone getting a ticket for not haveing them chained.
Where would you want them to be ? Chained on the hood ? Or perhaps out of the car, on a leash, running behind the car at 70 mph on the highway ?
I HATE seeing that, and I wish it were illegal. It can cause a lot of car accidents if the dog falls out and people slam on the brakes, and the dog can get killed. The dog doesn't know any better. If you want to start legislation to make it illegal, I'll support you!
Most states will ticket you for endangering the life of an animal for having your pet ride in the bed of your truck. There are special safety restraints for those who want thier beloved pets beside them. Although they are not required by law, take care of your buddy!!!! By letting your dog ride in the bed of your truck, if you get rear ended, that dog goes flying to his or her death!
Different states, different laws, is the correct answer.
Personally, the dog(s) should be confined within properly sized pet carriers, properly ATTACHED to the vehicle (not to be shifting around the bed of the pickup), and properly locked to protect both people and dog(s).
Why all THIS? If a driver is in an accident (even a well placed hole in the road or bump at the proper speed!) and the dog is on a leash/chain/rope "restraint," the dog will go FLYING out of the vehicle and can be DRAGGED by the collar/rope/chain! YUCH!
Again, in event of an accident, if the dog is confined in a container properly attached, then the dog will be restrained, protected, prevented from being thrown from the vehicle. The vehicle will take the force of the impact (including the container) but not the dog... similar to seat belts.
Also, by containing the dog in a container, it is protected from the elements AND curious people from getting bit if they try to pet an unfriendly/protective animal. Some dogs are so protective even walking passed the vehicle, they will LUNGE at you, barking madly, ready to bite. This is not good for man or beast!
People answering that it is illegal in the US are incorrect. Each State enacts its own Vehicle Code, therefore your question can not be properly answered. As another answerer responded, in CA they can ride in the back but must be restrained with a rope or chain which is short enough to prevent them from going over the side or out the back of the truck. A friend of mine has a three-legged dog as a result of not using a short enough rope.
Answer:
It depends in what country one is living. For example in the US - yes it is. In Australia - yes, but there are conditions. I believe that those conditions are: 1. The animal must be in a pet transporter, and it must be secured in place so it doesn't bang around the back. Or 2. They must have a canopy on the back to keep pets safely inside while traveling on the roadways. Although you mentioned 3. If the pets are in the front of truck with driver - the driver must have the windows rolled up enough so the animals cannot stick their heads out at all.
For other countries I do not know the information or laws on it.
I can however tell you that I have a canopy on my truck. My dog is always safe from falling out even if I have the canopy open. As I have a leash in the back secured to one of the strap-bars, and clip that on him every time. It does give him room to move around, but not enough length for him to jump or fall out. Even if I take the canopy off - I relocate his leash to the center of the bed of the truck, and secure him so he cannot get to or over either side of the truck.
I love my dog, and I hate it when I see others who leave their dogs loose in the bed of their trucks. Or don't properly leash them so they can't ride on either side of the truck bed for the pleasure of wind in their face. Our city councel is now talking of fining those who don't secure their animals. All it has to do is pass by majority of votes.
It shouldn't be. I recently went to a restaurant and some idiots had left their 2 golden retrievers in the back of their truck in the hot sun while they went in to eat. Made me so mad. People who treat their animals so poorly shouldn't be allowed to have pets.
Back of the truck is better then in the cab of the truck on a hot day
I think different states have different laws on that. I know in Ca. if you have them in the back you are supposed to have a chain or a rope on them. But in the rural area where I live I've never known anyone getting a ticket for not haveing them chained.
Where would you want them to be ? Chained on the hood ? Or perhaps out of the car, on a leash, running behind the car at 70 mph on the highway ?
I HATE seeing that, and I wish it were illegal. It can cause a lot of car accidents if the dog falls out and people slam on the brakes, and the dog can get killed. The dog doesn't know any better. If you want to start legislation to make it illegal, I'll support you!
Most states will ticket you for endangering the life of an animal for having your pet ride in the bed of your truck. There are special safety restraints for those who want thier beloved pets beside them. Although they are not required by law, take care of your buddy!!!! By letting your dog ride in the bed of your truck, if you get rear ended, that dog goes flying to his or her death!
Different states, different laws, is the correct answer.
Personally, the dog(s) should be confined within properly sized pet carriers, properly ATTACHED to the vehicle (not to be shifting around the bed of the pickup), and properly locked to protect both people and dog(s).
Why all THIS? If a driver is in an accident (even a well placed hole in the road or bump at the proper speed!) and the dog is on a leash/chain/rope "restraint," the dog will go FLYING out of the vehicle and can be DRAGGED by the collar/rope/chain! YUCH!
Again, in event of an accident, if the dog is confined in a container properly attached, then the dog will be restrained, protected, prevented from being thrown from the vehicle. The vehicle will take the force of the impact (including the container) but not the dog... similar to seat belts.
Also, by containing the dog in a container, it is protected from the elements AND curious people from getting bit if they try to pet an unfriendly/protective animal. Some dogs are so protective even walking passed the vehicle, they will LUNGE at you, barking madly, ready to bite. This is not good for man or beast!
People answering that it is illegal in the US are incorrect. Each State enacts its own Vehicle Code, therefore your question can not be properly answered. As another answerer responded, in CA they can ride in the back but must be restrained with a rope or chain which is short enough to prevent them from going over the side or out the back of the truck. A friend of mine has a three-legged dog as a result of not using a short enough rope.
Is it legal for our old landlord to contact our new landlord and talk trash about us?
My family and I, after living in an apartment for over two years, recieved a hand-delivered eviction letter in the mailbox. It was dated the first, we only got it the fourth. They evicted us because of a 'long concern over the cleanliness of the home'. They were in our apartment many times, fixing the various things that went wrong, including many floodings from the bathroom above ours, and they never said one word to us about the 'cleanliness of the home'. Well, we found a new place, a better place and have lived there for a couple of weeks. Our manager stopped by today to give us the head's up that our old landlord called our new landlord and told him that our apartment was so filthy he couldn't even step foot into it. He's a damn liar but our new landlord believed him and now the manager is going to come by every week to make sure we're keeping the place clean. Is there anything we can do to our old landlord for telling such lies about us? It surely can't be legal to do that
Answer:
You can't do anything to your old landlord. His speech is covered by the first amendment. What you can do, however, is take your new landlord to court for harrassment if he bothers you excessively. He is not allowed to come in and check the apartment whenever he wants.
I would handle this situation by making a good impression on your new landlord. In the beginning, he will be cautious because he has negative info about you, but after you prove to him that you are a worthy tenant, he will change. It is human nature to believe things you hear about someone from third parties, but your own observations are always more reliable. People tend to trust their own observations more. Rather than arguing, just focus on making a good impression to the new landlord for a while, and don't concern yourself with the old landlord. Only if the new one starts harassing you should you threaten to do anything.
In this case, you can take your old landlord to court over slander, libel, and defamation of character.
Since you were evicted for "concern to cleanliness from the home" from your previous residence, there probably is nothing you can do about it. It is perfectly legal for one landlord to talk about problems they may have had with someone to another landlord. Since evictions are a matter of public record and you were evicted for having an unclean apartment, your previous landlord has not violated the law.
you could sue him 4 slander but u only lived in your old apt 2 years i,ve been in mine 14 years my landlord comes by 2 visit once in awhile i have no problems even tho u can,t eat off of my floor
OMG I am so sorry this is happening to you! You need to buy a book right away called, "Renter's Rights" it's put out by Nolo Press and it's excellent. Unfortunately, they also make a book called "Landlord's Rights"- but maybe you could go to your nearest bookstore, and research this a little. Unfortunately, your old landlord (slumlord!) has the right to tell your new landlord everything about you. But this is excessive, and I would get a lawyer if I were you, ASAP. No, as long as you pay the rent and try to keep your apartment as clean as possible, there is nothing they can do. Did you sign a lease? They cannot kick you out as long as you still have a lease enforced. I would check out those books as soon as possible or try to see if they're online. Also, Google "Renter's Rights" and see if you can come up with anything pertaining to your problem. Good luck!
Let the new landlord come any time to check. If there is no reason for him to complain, he will run out of interest after a while. About the old landlord, ask a lawyer what are your rights. He is surely a mean character.
NEW landlords often contact OLD landlords about the quality of the renters. To do that, you probably signed some sort of release saying he had your permission to contact the old landlord and that you would not hold the old landlord accountable for what he said. Check to see if you signed such a document. If you did, you can not do a thing about it as the old landlord responded after you signed the release.
If on the other hand you did not sign a release and the new landlord made no effort whatsoever to contact the old one and the old landlord did this entirely on his own, then you could have a case against him. Specially if you have supporting evidence showing you did not trash the apartment.
For example, if the old landlord returned your security deposit that is pretty clear proof you left the old apartment in reasonably good shape. You can show that to your new landlord and point out that if you had trashed the old apartment, how come they did not keep the security deposit to clean it up? That would also help in court as money speaks louder than words.
Another example, did you take pictures of the old apartment when you left? If yes, that will also help. If no, do not worry as that is not something people usually do.
On the other hand if the old landlord did not return your security deposit that also speaks, but this time against you.
The manager cannot come up to inspect without just cause. Landlords can share information as far as rent payments, but eviction is public record, and they can say you were evicted for the reason stated for the eviction.
Answer:
You can't do anything to your old landlord. His speech is covered by the first amendment. What you can do, however, is take your new landlord to court for harrassment if he bothers you excessively. He is not allowed to come in and check the apartment whenever he wants.
I would handle this situation by making a good impression on your new landlord. In the beginning, he will be cautious because he has negative info about you, but after you prove to him that you are a worthy tenant, he will change. It is human nature to believe things you hear about someone from third parties, but your own observations are always more reliable. People tend to trust their own observations more. Rather than arguing, just focus on making a good impression to the new landlord for a while, and don't concern yourself with the old landlord. Only if the new one starts harassing you should you threaten to do anything.
In this case, you can take your old landlord to court over slander, libel, and defamation of character.
Since you were evicted for "concern to cleanliness from the home" from your previous residence, there probably is nothing you can do about it. It is perfectly legal for one landlord to talk about problems they may have had with someone to another landlord. Since evictions are a matter of public record and you were evicted for having an unclean apartment, your previous landlord has not violated the law.
you could sue him 4 slander but u only lived in your old apt 2 years i,ve been in mine 14 years my landlord comes by 2 visit once in awhile i have no problems even tho u can,t eat off of my floor
OMG I am so sorry this is happening to you! You need to buy a book right away called, "Renter's Rights" it's put out by Nolo Press and it's excellent. Unfortunately, they also make a book called "Landlord's Rights"- but maybe you could go to your nearest bookstore, and research this a little. Unfortunately, your old landlord (slumlord!) has the right to tell your new landlord everything about you. But this is excessive, and I would get a lawyer if I were you, ASAP. No, as long as you pay the rent and try to keep your apartment as clean as possible, there is nothing they can do. Did you sign a lease? They cannot kick you out as long as you still have a lease enforced. I would check out those books as soon as possible or try to see if they're online. Also, Google "Renter's Rights" and see if you can come up with anything pertaining to your problem. Good luck!
Let the new landlord come any time to check. If there is no reason for him to complain, he will run out of interest after a while. About the old landlord, ask a lawyer what are your rights. He is surely a mean character.
NEW landlords often contact OLD landlords about the quality of the renters. To do that, you probably signed some sort of release saying he had your permission to contact the old landlord and that you would not hold the old landlord accountable for what he said. Check to see if you signed such a document. If you did, you can not do a thing about it as the old landlord responded after you signed the release.
If on the other hand you did not sign a release and the new landlord made no effort whatsoever to contact the old one and the old landlord did this entirely on his own, then you could have a case against him. Specially if you have supporting evidence showing you did not trash the apartment.
For example, if the old landlord returned your security deposit that is pretty clear proof you left the old apartment in reasonably good shape. You can show that to your new landlord and point out that if you had trashed the old apartment, how come they did not keep the security deposit to clean it up? That would also help in court as money speaks louder than words.
Another example, did you take pictures of the old apartment when you left? If yes, that will also help. If no, do not worry as that is not something people usually do.
On the other hand if the old landlord did not return your security deposit that also speaks, but this time against you.
The manager cannot come up to inspect without just cause. Landlords can share information as far as rent payments, but eviction is public record, and they can say you were evicted for the reason stated for the eviction.
Is it legal for one school bus to pass another school bus?
Answer:
With the lights on, No it is not. As a matter of fact, police cars with lights and sirens on going to a call wont pass a stopped school bus with lights on.
i can't see why it wouldn't be as long as its in a passing lane
Not if the stop sign is out.
Is it legal for my wife of age 20 to...?
consume alchohol in our home on our property, I am 31 and I live in Missouri, who knows this state law
Answer:
Whatever you do behind doors, is your own business. Have fun!!!!
Beyond the cradle robbing thing -- no -- technically she is not of legal drinking age. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. It's not like the police are going to break down your door to check her ID
It is not legal, and you could be arrested for giving alchohol to someone under legal age. Would you be caught? Probably not, as long as she doesn't drive or anything, but it is illegal.
If the alcohol age in Missouri is 21, then consuming it ANYWHERE is technically illegal.
No you are allowed to give family members under the age of 21 alcohol as long as they do not leave the house. You're thinking of parties or something.
Don't know about Missouri but in other states, it is illegal to serve alcohol to a minor regardless of being on private property. Of course, if you keep your mouth shut and don't let her leave the property for a couple of days after consuming alcohol (because it doesn't totally wash out for a couple of days and any amount of alcohol in the system of a minor is illegal) you might be okay. You could be in big trouble because you would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor and you are serving alcohol to a minor. Stupid law! A little wine with dinner never hurt anyone. If the minor is under the protection of the parents, then why shouldn't the minor be allowed to have a drink? Why shouldn't 18 year olds be allowed to consume liquor? They are of legal age for just about everything else and if they can go to Iraq and kill people, then they are certainlly capable of understanding the law and capable of making a conscious decision about whether they want to drink or not. Change the law! But until the law is changed (and I do think it is a stupid law) we still have to obey it.
Check up state law for missouri. In texas children are allowed to consume alcohol with family in their residence. I am sure you will find something similiar, do not pay to much attention to many of these answers. Despite people thinking they know federal and/ or state law, I have found they don't really know it.
Answer:
Whatever you do behind doors, is your own business. Have fun!!!!
Beyond the cradle robbing thing -- no -- technically she is not of legal drinking age. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. It's not like the police are going to break down your door to check her ID
It is not legal, and you could be arrested for giving alchohol to someone under legal age. Would you be caught? Probably not, as long as she doesn't drive or anything, but it is illegal.
If the alcohol age in Missouri is 21, then consuming it ANYWHERE is technically illegal.
No you are allowed to give family members under the age of 21 alcohol as long as they do not leave the house. You're thinking of parties or something.
Don't know about Missouri but in other states, it is illegal to serve alcohol to a minor regardless of being on private property. Of course, if you keep your mouth shut and don't let her leave the property for a couple of days after consuming alcohol (because it doesn't totally wash out for a couple of days and any amount of alcohol in the system of a minor is illegal) you might be okay. You could be in big trouble because you would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor and you are serving alcohol to a minor. Stupid law! A little wine with dinner never hurt anyone. If the minor is under the protection of the parents, then why shouldn't the minor be allowed to have a drink? Why shouldn't 18 year olds be allowed to consume liquor? They are of legal age for just about everything else and if they can go to Iraq and kill people, then they are certainlly capable of understanding the law and capable of making a conscious decision about whether they want to drink or not. Change the law! But until the law is changed (and I do think it is a stupid law) we still have to obey it.
Check up state law for missouri. In texas children are allowed to consume alcohol with family in their residence. I am sure you will find something similiar, do not pay to much attention to many of these answers. Despite people thinking they know federal and/ or state law, I have found they don't really know it.
Is it legal for my landlord to deny me access to my apartment when rent is not behind?
my apartment caught fire-severe damage. I am being, and denied both entrance and access to my personal belongings in the apartment- since the date of the fire. some things were not damaged. My rent is current and has always been and my rental agreement is still in effect. I was told by the management that I cannot enter my rented property. Not even to retrieve my personal, important belongings, such as US Mail addressed to myself only, financial records, identification, and my employment related documents. Most importantly my medication and medical information. There is no notice or evidence of any legal agency investigating me, and I have no way to prevent strangers from tresspassing against my home.
Answer:
No.
If the property has been deemed not-livable they do have the right to prevent you from living in it, BUT you have the right to obtain your personal belongings....usually the landlord or someone will escort you into the property to obtain whatever you need...but for whatever reason the landlord is not letting you, you need to call local law enforcement and they will come down, talk to the landlord, and either get the landlord to let you or they will personally escort you. But don't worry, either way it is your right to be able to obtain your personal belongings.
You have a right to get your property and he has not right to keep you from getting it, take a law enforcement officer with you, and a truck and get your property, take him to court.
The Fire Department has most likely told the landlord that it would not be safe for you to reenter the apartment.
You need to check with the fire department to find out when you can be allowed access.
Your landlord is afraid of you or someone else being injured in the severely damaged apartment. He could be sued if that did happen, and he is likely having enough to deal with because of the fire.
One of my neighbors had a severe fire in their home, and they were not allowed back into the home for nearly two months until all investigations were completed and structural damage was closely evaluated.
It might be a safety issue at this point, and allowing you entry might leave them at fault if you were injured. You need to get clarification from them as to why you are being denied entry, as it sounds like you have good reasons to want to get in.
You might want to check with the fire department or fire marshall. They may have declared the property off limits due to structural damage.
It might be that the structure is unsafe...if that is the case or if the police are investigating the fire itself..yes you may be banned.....talk to a lawyer....
you answered your own question...although some of your things were not damaged there was still a fire. it is a liability for anyone other than fire fighters to enter the apartment at this time more than likely, your landlord doesnt want to be sued. ask him nicely if the damage is the reason and if yes then ask someone from the local fire department or fire marshalls office to either enter the home and get the items for you......or wait till the fire marshalls office is finished their investigation of the fire and clears the house as being safe. this is why they tell you to keep all your important documents and stuff in a locked fire proof box..ive seen cases where people were never able to return to their home after a fire, (my sister used to be a deputy fire marshall) usually if there are items in the house that havent been destroyed they will retrieve them for you. it could also be that the fire was suspicious in which case until the investigation is done your apartment is a crime scene.
Answer:
No.
If the property has been deemed not-livable they do have the right to prevent you from living in it, BUT you have the right to obtain your personal belongings....usually the landlord or someone will escort you into the property to obtain whatever you need...but for whatever reason the landlord is not letting you, you need to call local law enforcement and they will come down, talk to the landlord, and either get the landlord to let you or they will personally escort you. But don't worry, either way it is your right to be able to obtain your personal belongings.
You have a right to get your property and he has not right to keep you from getting it, take a law enforcement officer with you, and a truck and get your property, take him to court.
The Fire Department has most likely told the landlord that it would not be safe for you to reenter the apartment.
You need to check with the fire department to find out when you can be allowed access.
Your landlord is afraid of you or someone else being injured in the severely damaged apartment. He could be sued if that did happen, and he is likely having enough to deal with because of the fire.
One of my neighbors had a severe fire in their home, and they were not allowed back into the home for nearly two months until all investigations were completed and structural damage was closely evaluated.
It might be a safety issue at this point, and allowing you entry might leave them at fault if you were injured. You need to get clarification from them as to why you are being denied entry, as it sounds like you have good reasons to want to get in.
You might want to check with the fire department or fire marshall. They may have declared the property off limits due to structural damage.
It might be that the structure is unsafe...if that is the case or if the police are investigating the fire itself..yes you may be banned.....talk to a lawyer....
you answered your own question...although some of your things were not damaged there was still a fire. it is a liability for anyone other than fire fighters to enter the apartment at this time more than likely, your landlord doesnt want to be sued. ask him nicely if the damage is the reason and if yes then ask someone from the local fire department or fire marshalls office to either enter the home and get the items for you......or wait till the fire marshalls office is finished their investigation of the fire and clears the house as being safe. this is why they tell you to keep all your important documents and stuff in a locked fire proof box..ive seen cases where people were never able to return to their home after a fire, (my sister used to be a deputy fire marshall) usually if there are items in the house that havent been destroyed they will retrieve them for you. it could also be that the fire was suspicious in which case until the investigation is done your apartment is a crime scene.
Is it legal for me to move out at age 17 in Vermont without my parents' consent?
My parents give me everything i ever wanted... except they won't let me get a job. I get grounded just because they feel like they can. I come home do everything they ask me to and then they yell at me for things that i did wrong even if its done right there is always something that i have done wrong. I have talked to many of my friends and their parents about moving away from my house and maybe into theirs. most of their parents think that is a good idea for me to move away from my current living environment. I never am happy. i am always depressed i have depression and being home just makes it worse. i am not allowed to go to the shrink that was helping me because my mom did not like the way she did things... but i was happier when i saw her... the one i go to now i don't like because she doesn't do anything... i am always happy whenever i am not at my house.. even if i am alone i am smiling. My little brother also agrees but he gets to do whatever he wants so he doesn't care
Answer:
I left home at 16 (as soon as I graduated from high school), but my parents didn't care. Your parents care about you - you should spend your time studying instead of working, you'll have a lifetime to do that, friend. What I wouldn't have given to have had parents such as yours.
It is all up to your parents. You can become legally emancipated if you want to go that route, however. You will be responsible for yourself.
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/courts/p...
when you turn 17 you are considered a leagal adult if you want to get married your parents have to sign but other than that your a FREE bird
Other poster is very very wrong. You are legally (and in every state) a minor until you turn 18 OR get emancipated. If you leave, you will be considered a runaway.
Your new shrink, you may not like her, but she's your biggest ally right now. Talk to her about your concerns, even that you don't think she is doing anything. It's her job to help you, and that isn't always just what happens during the sessions.
However, I don't think you're telling us everything. Are you?
talk to a school or community counsellor- even just to let them know what's going on. Or talk to your medical doctor - ask if he can spoeak to you confidentially. Your friend's parents sound simpathetic, maybe they have some ideas or options for you to explore.It sounds like you have job prospects and are employable /have skills - talk to those potential emplyers about your situation, maybe they can help, give you ideas. call up your old shrink and ask if she'll see you informally for free once, or see if she 'll refer you to a social worker or some one you could talk to you don't have to pay.... I really don't think parents can keep those over 16 , at least. from getting a job.They should be happy you want to work! By the way it's spring- and in Vermont that 's a reason to smile.
well I know in Canada once you're 14 you are legally aloud to move out, in the United States I'm not quite sure but I believe it's 16. If you really are having problems with your parents you should really talk to your doctor about talking all together about the issue. It should be a meeting where you can say what you need to say without any interruptions or any worries about your parents. It seems like your parents really need to hear why you want to move out and what not. I know somewhat of the feeling, I received a job a few days ago and my mom is mad over the whole deal of me making money and becoming more independent without her. Everytime I talk about moving out (i'm 18 years old going on 19 soon kind of old enough to make my own decisions) we have these huge fights which leads to me becoming depressed. I'm not clinically depressed as of yet but sometimes I feel like i am. So I know the feeling. I hope everything works out for the best for you.
sounds like your parents are kinda nuts. until you are 18 i dont think you can live at a friends house without there parents being charged with harboring a runaway.
Answer:
I left home at 16 (as soon as I graduated from high school), but my parents didn't care. Your parents care about you - you should spend your time studying instead of working, you'll have a lifetime to do that, friend. What I wouldn't have given to have had parents such as yours.
It is all up to your parents. You can become legally emancipated if you want to go that route, however. You will be responsible for yourself.
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/courts/p...
when you turn 17 you are considered a leagal adult if you want to get married your parents have to sign but other than that your a FREE bird
Other poster is very very wrong. You are legally (and in every state) a minor until you turn 18 OR get emancipated. If you leave, you will be considered a runaway.
Your new shrink, you may not like her, but she's your biggest ally right now. Talk to her about your concerns, even that you don't think she is doing anything. It's her job to help you, and that isn't always just what happens during the sessions.
However, I don't think you're telling us everything. Are you?
talk to a school or community counsellor- even just to let them know what's going on. Or talk to your medical doctor - ask if he can spoeak to you confidentially. Your friend's parents sound simpathetic, maybe they have some ideas or options for you to explore.It sounds like you have job prospects and are employable /have skills - talk to those potential emplyers about your situation, maybe they can help, give you ideas. call up your old shrink and ask if she'll see you informally for free once, or see if she 'll refer you to a social worker or some one you could talk to you don't have to pay.... I really don't think parents can keep those over 16 , at least. from getting a job.They should be happy you want to work! By the way it's spring- and in Vermont that 's a reason to smile.
well I know in Canada once you're 14 you are legally aloud to move out, in the United States I'm not quite sure but I believe it's 16. If you really are having problems with your parents you should really talk to your doctor about talking all together about the issue. It should be a meeting where you can say what you need to say without any interruptions or any worries about your parents. It seems like your parents really need to hear why you want to move out and what not. I know somewhat of the feeling, I received a job a few days ago and my mom is mad over the whole deal of me making money and becoming more independent without her. Everytime I talk about moving out (i'm 18 years old going on 19 soon kind of old enough to make my own decisions) we have these huge fights which leads to me becoming depressed. I'm not clinically depressed as of yet but sometimes I feel like i am. So I know the feeling. I hope everything works out for the best for you.
sounds like your parents are kinda nuts. until you are 18 i dont think you can live at a friends house without there parents being charged with harboring a runaway.
Is it legal for approx. 12 budgies to be kept in a 100cm/60cm/40cm cage?
I saw this in a pet shop near me and it didn't seem right, surely this isn't actually allowed? I'd like to be able to do something about it if it isn't.
The size of the cage is an approximation as i didn't actually measure it, so I've made it slightly larger rather than smaller.
Answer:
Sound a bit small to me! Contact the RSPCA. By the time they turn up there will only be six left and they will say it's okay, and the shop will have got off!
what is a budgie?
To answer the other poster.. a budgie is also called a parakeet.
That cage sounds pretty small even for one or two birds that size. You can call your local RSPCA or humane society and ask.
dont know about legally...but it is wrong. ring the rspca and they will check it out for you and they wont mention your name. do it for the sake of the birds...please!
i wouldnt think this is legal.
Report it just in case.
sounds a bit small does the shop look minging poor birds should be free not in a cage
The size of the cage is an approximation as i didn't actually measure it, so I've made it slightly larger rather than smaller.
Answer:
Sound a bit small to me! Contact the RSPCA. By the time they turn up there will only be six left and they will say it's okay, and the shop will have got off!
what is a budgie?
To answer the other poster.. a budgie is also called a parakeet.
That cage sounds pretty small even for one or two birds that size. You can call your local RSPCA or humane society and ask.
dont know about legally...but it is wrong. ring the rspca and they will check it out for you and they wont mention your name. do it for the sake of the birds...please!
i wouldnt think this is legal.
Report it just in case.
sounds a bit small does the shop look minging poor birds should be free not in a cage
Is it legal for an ins. comp 2 ask if youre on food stamps or what ur past emp. is when your filing an injury?
Is it legal for an ins. comp 2 ask if youre on food stamps or what ur past emp. is when your filing an injury claim? I was injured transfering a patient from her wheel chair to her bed and hurt my back in the process. When I filed a claim with my employers ins, they sent me a packet asking all sorts of questions including my employment history and whether or not I am on any state benefits etc. Is it even legal for them to ask all those personal questions? I can understand why they ask if I have ever been in a vehicle accident and was injured, but, asking about state benefits and such, seems VERY off and gave me red flags. Can anyone tell me?
Answer:
Yes. They ask about your employment history so they know what work you have done in the past and if you would be able to do the type of work that you did in the past if your injury causes you to no longer be able to do your current job.
They want to know that so they can say "You once worked as a Walmart greeter for 3 months 10 years ago. You can still do that so you are not disabled. We are going to pay your medical bills and that's it."
The reason they ask about state benefits is so they can figure that into how much they would pay you and if you are instead eligible for an increase in payments from the state.
If you wind up having trouble from the insurance company get a lawyer. The first time you meet with a lawyer is usually free.
Sorry but yes they can and if refused they will check themselves.
Do you want your claim to be handled promptly and accurately? Then answer every single question honestly.
The lack of an answer to any question, could at worst result in bnefits denied, and at best, an unnecesary delay in processing your claim. They have the money, you don't,
I never heard of those questions being asked before. Since I did it for my b/f at one time. But do find out by some experts on this matters, nowadays this insurance companies and/or government agencies want to play it safe. I wont understand why your past status has anything to do with your injury. But I believe ins. company would want to notify the state benefit agency that a person is getting money so the insured person do not do any fraud to the govt. agency and viceversa. Keep asking question to everybody, the insurance company go to BBB or any state or govt. agency. Ask an attorney or whoever can provide information on this. Just say you want to protect your privacy and want to stay informed.
Yes,it is legal. If you are on government assistance and get an insurance settlement,it can affect the benefits you get because they are based on income.They will also want to know if you have made insurance claims from any other employer.
It might seem nosy,but they are just trying to prevent fraud.
Answer:
Yes. They ask about your employment history so they know what work you have done in the past and if you would be able to do the type of work that you did in the past if your injury causes you to no longer be able to do your current job.
They want to know that so they can say "You once worked as a Walmart greeter for 3 months 10 years ago. You can still do that so you are not disabled. We are going to pay your medical bills and that's it."
The reason they ask about state benefits is so they can figure that into how much they would pay you and if you are instead eligible for an increase in payments from the state.
If you wind up having trouble from the insurance company get a lawyer. The first time you meet with a lawyer is usually free.
Sorry but yes they can and if refused they will check themselves.
Do you want your claim to be handled promptly and accurately? Then answer every single question honestly.
The lack of an answer to any question, could at worst result in bnefits denied, and at best, an unnecesary delay in processing your claim. They have the money, you don't,
I never heard of those questions being asked before. Since I did it for my b/f at one time. But do find out by some experts on this matters, nowadays this insurance companies and/or government agencies want to play it safe. I wont understand why your past status has anything to do with your injury. But I believe ins. company would want to notify the state benefit agency that a person is getting money so the insured person do not do any fraud to the govt. agency and viceversa. Keep asking question to everybody, the insurance company go to BBB or any state or govt. agency. Ask an attorney or whoever can provide information on this. Just say you want to protect your privacy and want to stay informed.
Yes,it is legal. If you are on government assistance and get an insurance settlement,it can affect the benefits you get because they are based on income.They will also want to know if you have made insurance claims from any other employer.
It might seem nosy,but they are just trying to prevent fraud.
Is it legal for an exgirlfriend to keep some of your property until you pay her owed money?
I owe her $200 and she has my laptop. Is it legal for her to keep it until I pay her back?
Answer:
It's not a legal matter, it's a civil matter. She hasn't stolen a thing, if that's your grift. Go to civil court with her, she'll be forced to return the laptop, and you'll be paying her back.
It's a two way street.
Why do you ask? Do you plan on not paying her if you find out she cant keep it? Pay her you bum, the cops wont do anything about it either.
of course that's not legal. come one are you really that stupid? report your laptop as stolen to the police.
Probably about as legal as not satisfying a debt. Pay her back and be done with it.
No it isn't legal. It might help though if you call the police to assist you over at her home. Ask for the lap top back and offer her a signed statement aknowledging the debt and the time frame the money will be payed back by.
Essentially, yes, since any action you could take to get your laptop back (for instance, suing her or filing charges) she could then match to get her money. Then both cases would have to be resolved, and while she might end up being compelled to return the laptop, you would just as likely be compelled to pay the money.
Better to just pay her. It'd be cheaper than buying a new laptop.
o come on now. sure you could take her to small claims, and then she would in turn counter sue for the money. do you really need a judge to enforce what is right? pay up, bud, and be done with it.
Answer:
It's not a legal matter, it's a civil matter. She hasn't stolen a thing, if that's your grift. Go to civil court with her, she'll be forced to return the laptop, and you'll be paying her back.
It's a two way street.
Why do you ask? Do you plan on not paying her if you find out she cant keep it? Pay her you bum, the cops wont do anything about it either.
of course that's not legal. come one are you really that stupid? report your laptop as stolen to the police.
Probably about as legal as not satisfying a debt. Pay her back and be done with it.
No it isn't legal. It might help though if you call the police to assist you over at her home. Ask for the lap top back and offer her a signed statement aknowledging the debt and the time frame the money will be payed back by.
Essentially, yes, since any action you could take to get your laptop back (for instance, suing her or filing charges) she could then match to get her money. Then both cases would have to be resolved, and while she might end up being compelled to return the laptop, you would just as likely be compelled to pay the money.
Better to just pay her. It'd be cheaper than buying a new laptop.
o come on now. sure you could take her to small claims, and then she would in turn counter sue for the money. do you really need a judge to enforce what is right? pay up, bud, and be done with it.
Is it legal for an employer to take money out of your check for an IRA and not pay into the IRA account?
Money has been taken out weekly but has not paid to the Mainstay fund which maintain my IRA. This has been going on since 10/2006.
Answer:
When you signed up for the IRA they should have told you when they will make the deposits. Most employers do it monthly. Obvisously yours is not. Talk to them and find out when they normally make the deposit. If they tell you they already have, tell them it's not there. It could be a simple mistake that doesnt involve their end. If they've just simply not put the money in, then yes, it's illegal
Very Illegal
No way! That is not their money. The employer is a fiduciary and has a legal obligation to deposit the money at the earliest opportunity.
File a complaint with your local labor relations board, or sue for the money.
KrazyKyngeKorny
(Krazy, not stupid)
There is something wrong here. An IRA is an employee-funded plan. Employers don't normally deduct IRA contributions. This looks like something that should be referred to the US Dept. of Labor, which has jurisdiction over wages and benefits.
That depends the payroll withholding paperwork you signed with your employer. IRA's are, by definition, "individual," and your employer isn't obligated to split up your comp among various accounts (although many will voluntarily do so). The money deducted might not be "gone" - just deposited into a 401k, if your employer participates in one.
Get in touch with your human resources department (or whoever), and find out where the money's been going. If you're employer can't explain it to your satisfaction (and SHOW you what's going on), tell HR you want to put a stop to the IRA withholding. It should be a matter of just filling out a few forms. You can always make the IRA deposits yourself.
Then consider calling a lawyer - although this might cost you your job. If you can't afford a lawyer, call your state's department of revenue, department of employment regulation, or the investigative arm or your state police (most states have an agency analogous to the FBI). If that doesn't work, consider calling the IRS or the FBI. Again, could cost you your job.
Yes - it is illegal on both the state and federal level. If it is a significant sum of money, the FBI is the reporting agency. If it is below a certain threshold, the FBI will advise you to go to the state. Of course, if your withholdings are not being properly forwarded, then others' likely aren't as well - so together, these sums may meet the federal threshold. Good luck and report this immediately!
Answer:
When you signed up for the IRA they should have told you when they will make the deposits. Most employers do it monthly. Obvisously yours is not. Talk to them and find out when they normally make the deposit. If they tell you they already have, tell them it's not there. It could be a simple mistake that doesnt involve their end. If they've just simply not put the money in, then yes, it's illegal
Very Illegal
No way! That is not their money. The employer is a fiduciary and has a legal obligation to deposit the money at the earliest opportunity.
File a complaint with your local labor relations board, or sue for the money.
KrazyKyngeKorny
(Krazy, not stupid)
There is something wrong here. An IRA is an employee-funded plan. Employers don't normally deduct IRA contributions. This looks like something that should be referred to the US Dept. of Labor, which has jurisdiction over wages and benefits.
That depends the payroll withholding paperwork you signed with your employer. IRA's are, by definition, "individual," and your employer isn't obligated to split up your comp among various accounts (although many will voluntarily do so). The money deducted might not be "gone" - just deposited into a 401k, if your employer participates in one.
Get in touch with your human resources department (or whoever), and find out where the money's been going. If you're employer can't explain it to your satisfaction (and SHOW you what's going on), tell HR you want to put a stop to the IRA withholding. It should be a matter of just filling out a few forms. You can always make the IRA deposits yourself.
Then consider calling a lawyer - although this might cost you your job. If you can't afford a lawyer, call your state's department of revenue, department of employment regulation, or the investigative arm or your state police (most states have an agency analogous to the FBI). If that doesn't work, consider calling the IRS or the FBI. Again, could cost you your job.
Yes - it is illegal on both the state and federal level. If it is a significant sum of money, the FBI is the reporting agency. If it is below a certain threshold, the FBI will advise you to go to the state. Of course, if your withholdings are not being properly forwarded, then others' likely aren't as well - so together, these sums may meet the federal threshold. Good luck and report this immediately!
Is it legal for an employer to record your phone conversation without your knowledge?
An employee was "shopped" at work, and was never made aware that their conversation was recorded. Our boss said this was legal, is it? I always thought that you had to be told that you were being recorded on the phone? (This fellow employee is devestated, they had a great shop, but they are upset about the situation.)
Answer:
The answer is: if it is in the handbook but you did not read it , your out of luck, it is your duty as an employee to know the policies and procedures of the company that you work for. If it is not in the empoyee handbook, then it is still not actually illegal, unless it is a private call to a non-employee, since personal calls made on your own time is covered under the reasonalbe expectation of privacy clasue in your civil rights. if you are on the companies time and are speaking to a fellow employee, manager or owner it is not illegal to record the call, but if you are not notified then it would be inadmisable in court or for any disiplanary actions.
No, the employer could never use the recording in court because the employee didn't know that they were being recorded.
sorry, but the phones belong to the company you work for, so if the company allows their conversation to be recorded then its allowed.
it can be used only for company purposes; for anything legal (ie used in court) nope.
When someone calls your place of business - is there a recording saying that calls may be recorded for training purposes or for quality care?
If so, she's out of luck...
If not, some states allow recording if only one person on the phone knows that it's being recorded.
Some require both parties to know.
Read the employee handbook. Most employers state at some point that all correspondence, be it electronic, telephonic or on paper, is subject to monitoring. It's their phone system so they can do what they want.
If you are at work, yes. If he calls you at home and records it without your consent, no.
Depends on your state/local laws. But a general rule is that you give up a lot of your rights to privacy when on someone else's property.
If the phone belongs to the employer, they have the right to monitor that phone without advanced warning, that's an unwritten rule that most people understand as a condition of employment! If the phone is a private phone used as a condition of employment, that is a grey area, because it is a joint use phone! I'm not sure about the legalities here!
Answer:
The answer is: if it is in the handbook but you did not read it , your out of luck, it is your duty as an employee to know the policies and procedures of the company that you work for. If it is not in the empoyee handbook, then it is still not actually illegal, unless it is a private call to a non-employee, since personal calls made on your own time is covered under the reasonalbe expectation of privacy clasue in your civil rights. if you are on the companies time and are speaking to a fellow employee, manager or owner it is not illegal to record the call, but if you are not notified then it would be inadmisable in court or for any disiplanary actions.
No, the employer could never use the recording in court because the employee didn't know that they were being recorded.
sorry, but the phones belong to the company you work for, so if the company allows their conversation to be recorded then its allowed.
it can be used only for company purposes; for anything legal (ie used in court) nope.
When someone calls your place of business - is there a recording saying that calls may be recorded for training purposes or for quality care?
If so, she's out of luck...
If not, some states allow recording if only one person on the phone knows that it's being recorded.
Some require both parties to know.
Read the employee handbook. Most employers state at some point that all correspondence, be it electronic, telephonic or on paper, is subject to monitoring. It's their phone system so they can do what they want.
If you are at work, yes. If he calls you at home and records it without your consent, no.
Depends on your state/local laws. But a general rule is that you give up a lot of your rights to privacy when on someone else's property.
If the phone belongs to the employer, they have the right to monitor that phone without advanced warning, that's an unwritten rule that most people understand as a condition of employment! If the phone is a private phone used as a condition of employment, that is a grey area, because it is a joint use phone! I'm not sure about the legalities here!
Is it legal for an employer to let the entire office attend a co-workers funeral...?
except 2 people???
Answer:
Yes, it's legal. Is it right? No. But there's nothing that can be done legally.
Yes
Legal? Probably. Except 2 people? Why? Does the law require that the business remain open? If so then it is justifiable. Did the employer ask for 2 volunteers to "hold down the fort"? Were the 2 people antagonists or not directly involved with the deceased's job?
Since the Employer is paying your Salary, then its legal for him/her to let some one go to a funeral, especially if its a co-worker!
I would assume that those who didnt get to attend, were badly needed, such as a switchboard operator or who ever else is in a position of importance that the job couldnt be vacated even for that short of time. I hope that they got to go at a later time.
I wish you well...
Jesse
yes it is. he/she is the employer and he/she sets the rules.
Yep, he's the employer it's his company, you work for Him!
Why not? Did you ask why you were singled out to stay behind? Its likely that they just couldn't close up and needed someone to stay back.
Yes. An employer's "legitimate business needs" may necessitate that one or two employees remain on duty.
Yes it is. Unless you can prove that the employer is actively discriminating against those two people, you are out of luck. That is not unusual at all, nor is it illegal.
It's legal, if they don't allow 2 people it's probably because someone has to stay behind and keep things running, but it's legal.
Employers are responsible for setting their own attendance policy. However, it is also necessary to have somebody answer the telephone and respond to inquiries from potential customers and clients.
Some businesses are required to be open during regular business hours, unless there is an emergency or some other unforeseen problem. A bank will be open during regular business hours, unless prevented by weather, natural disaster, or governmental emergency. A bank will not close because somebody is having a funeral. However, if there is a robbery, a bank will be closed until such time as law enforcement and internal auditors have finished the on-site portion of the investigation.
Answer:
Yes, it's legal. Is it right? No. But there's nothing that can be done legally.
Yes
Legal? Probably. Except 2 people? Why? Does the law require that the business remain open? If so then it is justifiable. Did the employer ask for 2 volunteers to "hold down the fort"? Were the 2 people antagonists or not directly involved with the deceased's job?
Since the Employer is paying your Salary, then its legal for him/her to let some one go to a funeral, especially if its a co-worker!
I would assume that those who didnt get to attend, were badly needed, such as a switchboard operator or who ever else is in a position of importance that the job couldnt be vacated even for that short of time. I hope that they got to go at a later time.
I wish you well...
Jesse
yes it is. he/she is the employer and he/she sets the rules.
Yep, he's the employer it's his company, you work for Him!
Why not? Did you ask why you were singled out to stay behind? Its likely that they just couldn't close up and needed someone to stay back.
Yes. An employer's "legitimate business needs" may necessitate that one or two employees remain on duty.
Yes it is. Unless you can prove that the employer is actively discriminating against those two people, you are out of luck. That is not unusual at all, nor is it illegal.
It's legal, if they don't allow 2 people it's probably because someone has to stay behind and keep things running, but it's legal.
Employers are responsible for setting their own attendance policy. However, it is also necessary to have somebody answer the telephone and respond to inquiries from potential customers and clients.
Some businesses are required to be open during regular business hours, unless there is an emergency or some other unforeseen problem. A bank will be open during regular business hours, unless prevented by weather, natural disaster, or governmental emergency. A bank will not close because somebody is having a funeral. However, if there is a robbery, a bank will be closed until such time as law enforcement and internal auditors have finished the on-site portion of the investigation.
Is it legal for an employer to cancel a check I cashed a week ago and quit as well?
I got a check last week and deposited it-last monday--had to quit that saturday due to a family emergency-- and i find the check was cancelled yesterday for the full amount. do i call the police? what do i do?
Answer:
Yes it is illegal, but good luck getting the police to do anything about it.
This is a civil law matter and will have to be taken to court.
call the DA's office rather than the cops.
Depends on if it was an advance or you have some clause in an employment contract. Normally no, they can't do that. You would have to take them to court though, not the police. Talk to a lawyer.
It is not right to cancel the check just because you quit a job. Even i you quit they are still required to pay you for the time you had worked.
I would find your state labor office and ask them what your rights are. http://www.dol.gov/esa/contacts/state_of... If you have the time you might want to file the papers to take them to small claims court and get your money.
They cannot cancel the check if you already worked the hours that check was paying you for. If that was an advance for hours not worked then yes they can.
Call Attorney General
If you worked and earned that money they can't cancel it. I would contact your employer and find out why the canceled it and contact a lawyer and see what they say about it.
Answer:
Yes it is illegal, but good luck getting the police to do anything about it.
This is a civil law matter and will have to be taken to court.
call the DA's office rather than the cops.
Depends on if it was an advance or you have some clause in an employment contract. Normally no, they can't do that. You would have to take them to court though, not the police. Talk to a lawyer.
It is not right to cancel the check just because you quit a job. Even i you quit they are still required to pay you for the time you had worked.
I would find your state labor office and ask them what your rights are. http://www.dol.gov/esa/contacts/state_of... If you have the time you might want to file the papers to take them to small claims court and get your money.
They cannot cancel the check if you already worked the hours that check was paying you for. If that was an advance for hours not worked then yes they can.
Call Attorney General
If you worked and earned that money they can't cancel it. I would contact your employer and find out why the canceled it and contact a lawyer and see what they say about it.
Is it legal for an Aunt to file for Child Support?
Ok here is the scenario! My husband and I are in Florida, originally the mother %26 kids resided in Florida and there is a current child support order in Florida which we are paying on weekly. They have since moved to West Virginia and we received notices in the mail that we are behind on payments for West Virginia?!?!? But here is the best part the Aunt that they reside with along with their mother and 3 other siblings (that belong to 3 more daddy's) was the one who filed for child support against my husband. 1st Question is can you be charged by 2 different states for Child Support and 2nd is can the Aunt be the one who files for Child Support?
Answer:
What's probably happening with the notice from West Virginia is that the mother (Custodial Parent, CP) has applied for child support services in her state and West Virginia has registered the Florida order for enforcement. Your husband should call West Virginia to make them aware of the fact that FLorida is already collecting for this child support order. Sometimes CP's open several cases in several states, and depending on the state, the Caseworker may never check to see if the state in which the original order was done is actually enforcing it. Some caseworkers will just take the CP's word.
West Virginia and FLorida will then need to collaborate to correct balances and work together.
As far as the Aunt trying to open a case, she may do so if she has gained legal guradianship of the child. However, if she has legal guardianship your husband should have been made aware of the situation, so it doesn't seem likely.
I hope this makes sense. Like I said, your husband needs to contact West Virginia and Florida both ASAP.
There can be only one claim for child support per child.
If she doesn't have legal custody, she has no valid claim for child support.
Well, I would think that a father would want to support his children. It is too bad that someone has to FORCE him to be responsible through a court order.
He is a deadbeat. No one should have to file anywhere to get him to support the children he brought into this world.
And you, dear second wife, have no say in the matter and need to just butt out. You have no legal standing in this at all.
If the aunt has 'guardianship' of the said child, then yes she can file for child support. If she is raising the child then it is no diffrent then the parent, however that said mom and aunt can not have two seperate child support orders. Only one support order can be in forced. If W.V. is coming after you guys then you need to show them the order out of Florida as well as proof of payment. What I believe is happening, is WV is just the go between state and will be deducting out of the employees pay stub and sending the money to Florida for the child.
A little advise, I'm not judging you at all, I had a simular situation when my husband and I moved to another state from where the order was placed for his daughter. That said, I think if you ask a question, expect some negative feedback from people who do not either understand the question/situation or choice to just write nasty things on their answer. I don't think you should reply to them when this happens. I asked one question on this site and I had a guy who did not know anything about my question and told me to be a good parent and stop worrying about myself. Well what he does not know, is I am a great parent, I have three great kids, I'm a foster parent and I'm also a child advocate that works with abused and neglect children. So does me asking a question about a HIPPA violation make me a bad parent?? No, his opinion tried to make me feel like one. Did it upset me? Yes but I did not reply to his stupidity to give him the satification. Just some advise, I'm not making judgement on you.
Good Luck and Hang in there, it can and will be hard!
The aunt would need to have legal custody of the child to file for child support.
Answer:
What's probably happening with the notice from West Virginia is that the mother (Custodial Parent, CP) has applied for child support services in her state and West Virginia has registered the Florida order for enforcement. Your husband should call West Virginia to make them aware of the fact that FLorida is already collecting for this child support order. Sometimes CP's open several cases in several states, and depending on the state, the Caseworker may never check to see if the state in which the original order was done is actually enforcing it. Some caseworkers will just take the CP's word.
West Virginia and FLorida will then need to collaborate to correct balances and work together.
As far as the Aunt trying to open a case, she may do so if she has gained legal guradianship of the child. However, if she has legal guardianship your husband should have been made aware of the situation, so it doesn't seem likely.
I hope this makes sense. Like I said, your husband needs to contact West Virginia and Florida both ASAP.
There can be only one claim for child support per child.
If she doesn't have legal custody, she has no valid claim for child support.
Well, I would think that a father would want to support his children. It is too bad that someone has to FORCE him to be responsible through a court order.
He is a deadbeat. No one should have to file anywhere to get him to support the children he brought into this world.
And you, dear second wife, have no say in the matter and need to just butt out. You have no legal standing in this at all.
If the aunt has 'guardianship' of the said child, then yes she can file for child support. If she is raising the child then it is no diffrent then the parent, however that said mom and aunt can not have two seperate child support orders. Only one support order can be in forced. If W.V. is coming after you guys then you need to show them the order out of Florida as well as proof of payment. What I believe is happening, is WV is just the go between state and will be deducting out of the employees pay stub and sending the money to Florida for the child.
A little advise, I'm not judging you at all, I had a simular situation when my husband and I moved to another state from where the order was placed for his daughter. That said, I think if you ask a question, expect some negative feedback from people who do not either understand the question/situation or choice to just write nasty things on their answer. I don't think you should reply to them when this happens. I asked one question on this site and I had a guy who did not know anything about my question and told me to be a good parent and stop worrying about myself. Well what he does not know, is I am a great parent, I have three great kids, I'm a foster parent and I'm also a child advocate that works with abused and neglect children. So does me asking a question about a HIPPA violation make me a bad parent?? No, his opinion tried to make me feel like one. Did it upset me? Yes but I did not reply to his stupidity to give him the satification. Just some advise, I'm not making judgement on you.
Good Luck and Hang in there, it can and will be hard!
The aunt would need to have legal custody of the child to file for child support.
Is it legal for an agency to forfeit your holidays if you dont use them between 1st april &31st march?
i worked for one from jan 07 till 7th april 07 and thought when i moved full time to the company books i would be paid at least 1 weeks holiday pay. gutted to be told they are forfeited. is this legal as i dont think i was informed of this when i signed on with them. this is a question for u.k. working guidelines only
Answer:
The Working Time Regulations 1998 provide workers with a statutory minimum right to annual paid leave. This is a minimum framework and agency workers may benefit from more generous contractual terms. You should check your contract to provide services, written statement of particulars or agency handbook/guidelines for any contractual entitlements.
I would point out that holiday entitlement does not necessarily run from April to April unless so stated in the contract for services. If it If it is not defined, it is the year period starting on each 1 October if the worker was in the employment on 1 October 1998, or the year period starting on the first day of the worker's employment, and on the anniversary in each subsequent year, if the employment started after 1 October 1998.
Now a bit of lateral thinking. If you forfieted your holiday entitlement. perhaps the question is not whether you should have been informed of your entitlement but rather whether you should have been encouraged to take any leave owed. DTI guidelines on the WTD provides that employers must provide workers (incluidng agency workers) with a written summary of their holiday entitlement and should encourage the worker to use their entitlement to avoid a breah of the WTD. If that was not done then the agency is in breach of the Regulations and could be fined. All employers are able to allow 5 days holiday to be taken in the next entitlement year so if you were not properly informed of your holiday entitlement then there may be room for negotiation.
Check your small print
Yes same thing happens at my company.
I believe the NHS also has the same policy, sorry!
You have to take them before the new tax year,april.
Yes, cuz its their tax year or something
If you work for Local Government then you can only carry your annual leave over from one financial year to the next in circumstance deemed exceptional.
Everyone above me is correct, but, only if you were advised beforehand.
Like the other answer says, check your contract, if it says it in there, then you've had it.
If not, take it up with your employer. They are not entitled to impose a penalty in circumstances where you were not forewarned.
Good Luck
This should have been spelled out in your contract of employment.
If you have not received a contract of employment, you should contact the relevant authorities, to see if you can make a claim.
Answer:
The Working Time Regulations 1998 provide workers with a statutory minimum right to annual paid leave. This is a minimum framework and agency workers may benefit from more generous contractual terms. You should check your contract to provide services, written statement of particulars or agency handbook/guidelines for any contractual entitlements.
I would point out that holiday entitlement does not necessarily run from April to April unless so stated in the contract for services. If it If it is not defined, it is the year period starting on each 1 October if the worker was in the employment on 1 October 1998, or the year period starting on the first day of the worker's employment, and on the anniversary in each subsequent year, if the employment started after 1 October 1998.
Now a bit of lateral thinking. If you forfieted your holiday entitlement. perhaps the question is not whether you should have been informed of your entitlement but rather whether you should have been encouraged to take any leave owed. DTI guidelines on the WTD provides that employers must provide workers (incluidng agency workers) with a written summary of their holiday entitlement and should encourage the worker to use their entitlement to avoid a breah of the WTD. If that was not done then the agency is in breach of the Regulations and could be fined. All employers are able to allow 5 days holiday to be taken in the next entitlement year so if you were not properly informed of your holiday entitlement then there may be room for negotiation.
Check your small print
Yes same thing happens at my company.
I believe the NHS also has the same policy, sorry!
You have to take them before the new tax year,april.
Yes, cuz its their tax year or something
If you work for Local Government then you can only carry your annual leave over from one financial year to the next in circumstance deemed exceptional.
Everyone above me is correct, but, only if you were advised beforehand.
Like the other answer says, check your contract, if it says it in there, then you've had it.
If not, take it up with your employer. They are not entitled to impose a penalty in circumstances where you were not forewarned.
Good Luck
This should have been spelled out in your contract of employment.
If you have not received a contract of employment, you should contact the relevant authorities, to see if you can make a claim.
Is it legal for a store to have a minimum charge for credit/ debit transactions?
I've heard it is illegal, but everyone does it anyway. So is it really illegal?
Answer:
No it's not illegal, however MasterCard and Visa have a rule that merchants aren't supposed to be able to have minimum charges. However for small businesses MC/VI normally look the other way.
They do this to ensure that they collect hefty processing fees. (Which is why some companies ask for a min amount) Any type you process a MC/VI transaction there's a $0.20-$0.30 transaction authorization fee, PLUS 2-3% of the total transaction is taken as a processing fee.
Now debit cards are processed through different companies. Note that the cards you get from the bank are a combo of a credit and debit card. It depends which why you use the card. If you use your PIN it's being processed as a debit, and if you have to sign then it's processing as credit.
The rules for credit don't apply to debit since they're a different company. Unlike the huge fees that credit companies charge debit companies only charge a flat $0.30-$0.50 fee per transaction, with no additional %. This is why a lot of companies are now forcing you to key in your PIN, and not allowing you to use your bank card as a "credit" card, since even though they pull from the same account they're charged a huge amount more just for having you sign instead of putting in your PIN.
Yeah it's legal!
Of course it's legal. They can make any terms on payment they want.
NO
Actually, it isn't. The stores have to sign agreements with the credit card companies in order to accept the cards. Those agreements prohibit them from setting minimums for purchases. However, there's really nothing you can do about it at the time of purchase, even if you mention this to the store. All you can do is report them to the card company.
The reason the stores do it, if you don't know, is that they have to pay transaction charges for each card purchase, s it eats into their profit more for small purchases.
Credit card companies charge the business for EACH swipe of the credit card. It doesn't make financial sense to swipe a card for a $2 transaction and then have to pay the entire amount to the credit card company. Hence, the minimum charge.
Stores lose money if they don't. Credit card companies charge the store for each swipe.
Answer:
No it's not illegal, however MasterCard and Visa have a rule that merchants aren't supposed to be able to have minimum charges. However for small businesses MC/VI normally look the other way.
They do this to ensure that they collect hefty processing fees. (Which is why some companies ask for a min amount) Any type you process a MC/VI transaction there's a $0.20-$0.30 transaction authorization fee, PLUS 2-3% of the total transaction is taken as a processing fee.
Now debit cards are processed through different companies. Note that the cards you get from the bank are a combo of a credit and debit card. It depends which why you use the card. If you use your PIN it's being processed as a debit, and if you have to sign then it's processing as credit.
The rules for credit don't apply to debit since they're a different company. Unlike the huge fees that credit companies charge debit companies only charge a flat $0.30-$0.50 fee per transaction, with no additional %. This is why a lot of companies are now forcing you to key in your PIN, and not allowing you to use your bank card as a "credit" card, since even though they pull from the same account they're charged a huge amount more just for having you sign instead of putting in your PIN.
Yeah it's legal!
Of course it's legal. They can make any terms on payment they want.
NO
Actually, it isn't. The stores have to sign agreements with the credit card companies in order to accept the cards. Those agreements prohibit them from setting minimums for purchases. However, there's really nothing you can do about it at the time of purchase, even if you mention this to the store. All you can do is report them to the card company.
The reason the stores do it, if you don't know, is that they have to pay transaction charges for each card purchase, s it eats into their profit more for small purchases.
Credit card companies charge the business for EACH swipe of the credit card. It doesn't make financial sense to swipe a card for a $2 transaction and then have to pay the entire amount to the credit card company. Hence, the minimum charge.
Stores lose money if they don't. Credit card companies charge the store for each swipe.
Is it legal for a public school team to be named the "dust devils"?
In the public school system in the United States, is this legal? Is a religious term/issue involved in this?
Answer:
A dust devil is a natural phenomenon, not a religious term.
Sure it's legal until someone from the ACLU decides it offensive. Then they need to "make it right," Idiots.
Dust Devils are not religious. Just because the word devil is in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with religion. Maybe you should avoid eating devil's food cake in case it upsets god.
There should be no problem. The only thing that I would have a problem with is that Catholics say dust devils are from the devil. But you have the Sun Devils of ASU, the New Jersey Devils (hockey). Why not the dust devils?
Sure it's legal. If they can name a vacuum the Dirt Devil they can name a school team the Dust Devils.
A dust devil (if I recall correctly) is a term referring to dust picked up by localized cyclonic wind currents that create what appears to be a miniature dust tornado. There is nothing religious about that.
If it were illegal then we wouldn't have the Indians, the Redskins, or the Tomahawk Chop.
That's a new challenge to me! I'd say no, since "devils" have pretty much entered the mainstream at this point. And a dust devil is a name for an actual item, like an overgrown dust bunny.
No, it's not illegal. It has a non-religious connotation, also. I assume you know dust devils are little wind whirls--like mini-tornadoes.
Considering a dust devil as a desert tornado of sorts - I doubt they mean it in a religious way.
Hos sad is it the we have to PC about every silly thing -- maybe they should change the name to "the particulate matter resembling dirt blown up by a circumferentially rotating wind mass over a large area of sand typically known as a dessert"?
It's legal unless there is a Native American Tribe by that name.
Yes, it is legal. A dust devil is a small miniature tornado - very weak, small, and harmless. But we have a team called the Blue Devils.
If we wanted a team called the Blue Angels, I don't think there would be a fuss, but some places, there are zealots who have nothing better to do than nit pick. Just like the folks who protest the t eams called Redskins, Braves, etc.
I am of native American descent and those names don't offend me. I am also a Christian and the "devil" names don't offend either. It would be different if the schools were promoting devil worship. It's just a name, for pete's sake.
Who cares? Time and money could be best spent on education. To many peolpe worry about non-issues rather than education.
I suppose it is the self segregation, politically correct and my human rights kind of thing. Meanwhile instead of just being a people and a community this sort of thing gets argued. So the children suffer but the adults get to make a point.
Yes, it's legal.
But one should never call a Tasmanian Devil, "Taz". They hate that. Makes them bite.
Yes, in fact there are many schools with the mascot of devil (e.g. Red Devils of Murtaugh H.S. in Idaho). There are also mascots of Angels, Saints, etc.. In your quest for an answer to your question be careful not to judge pro or con because in this case one mascot you may not like could be replaced by another mascot that somebody else doesn't like. I am thinking of the several H.S.'s who had to drop "Indian" and "Red Skin" from their name. As an American native I was offended that these names had to be removed. How other ethnic groups thought these names were offensive was beyond me.
Good luck in your quest.
A "dust devil" is just a term for a wind that picks up some dust/dirt and spirals it around like a mini-tornado. They happen all the time here. There's no religious reference in it - and yes, it is legal.
Answer:
A dust devil is a natural phenomenon, not a religious term.
Sure it's legal until someone from the ACLU decides it offensive. Then they need to "make it right," Idiots.
Dust Devils are not religious. Just because the word devil is in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with religion. Maybe you should avoid eating devil's food cake in case it upsets god.
There should be no problem. The only thing that I would have a problem with is that Catholics say dust devils are from the devil. But you have the Sun Devils of ASU, the New Jersey Devils (hockey). Why not the dust devils?
Sure it's legal. If they can name a vacuum the Dirt Devil they can name a school team the Dust Devils.
A dust devil (if I recall correctly) is a term referring to dust picked up by localized cyclonic wind currents that create what appears to be a miniature dust tornado. There is nothing religious about that.
If it were illegal then we wouldn't have the Indians, the Redskins, or the Tomahawk Chop.
That's a new challenge to me! I'd say no, since "devils" have pretty much entered the mainstream at this point. And a dust devil is a name for an actual item, like an overgrown dust bunny.
No, it's not illegal. It has a non-religious connotation, also. I assume you know dust devils are little wind whirls--like mini-tornadoes.
Considering a dust devil as a desert tornado of sorts - I doubt they mean it in a religious way.
Hos sad is it the we have to PC about every silly thing -- maybe they should change the name to "the particulate matter resembling dirt blown up by a circumferentially rotating wind mass over a large area of sand typically known as a dessert"?
It's legal unless there is a Native American Tribe by that name.
Yes, it is legal. A dust devil is a small miniature tornado - very weak, small, and harmless. But we have a team called the Blue Devils.
If we wanted a team called the Blue Angels, I don't think there would be a fuss, but some places, there are zealots who have nothing better to do than nit pick. Just like the folks who protest the t eams called Redskins, Braves, etc.
I am of native American descent and those names don't offend me. I am also a Christian and the "devil" names don't offend either. It would be different if the schools were promoting devil worship. It's just a name, for pete's sake.
Who cares? Time and money could be best spent on education. To many peolpe worry about non-issues rather than education.
I suppose it is the self segregation, politically correct and my human rights kind of thing. Meanwhile instead of just being a people and a community this sort of thing gets argued. So the children suffer but the adults get to make a point.
Yes, it's legal.
But one should never call a Tasmanian Devil, "Taz". They hate that. Makes them bite.
Yes, in fact there are many schools with the mascot of devil (e.g. Red Devils of Murtaugh H.S. in Idaho). There are also mascots of Angels, Saints, etc.. In your quest for an answer to your question be careful not to judge pro or con because in this case one mascot you may not like could be replaced by another mascot that somebody else doesn't like. I am thinking of the several H.S.'s who had to drop "Indian" and "Red Skin" from their name. As an American native I was offended that these names had to be removed. How other ethnic groups thought these names were offensive was beyond me.
Good luck in your quest.
A "dust devil" is just a term for a wind that picks up some dust/dirt and spirals it around like a mini-tornado. They happen all the time here. There's no religious reference in it - and yes, it is legal.
Is it legal for a party store/ liquor store to deliver alcohol to its customers in michigan?
i cant find an answer to this anywhere...someone please help!!
Answer:
it may be..i HAVE heard of liquor stores delivering before
the best resource for an answer to this one is probably our fellow Yahoo's in michigan....where are ya, Michiganders?
i don't think so !
Why don't you ask a liquor store in MI?
Why wouldn't it be? Those customers are of legal age, so what would stop the business from catering to its lawful customers?
Answer:
it may be..i HAVE heard of liquor stores delivering before
the best resource for an answer to this one is probably our fellow Yahoo's in michigan....where are ya, Michiganders?
i don't think so !
Why don't you ask a liquor store in MI?
Why wouldn't it be? Those customers are of legal age, so what would stop the business from catering to its lawful customers?
Is it legal for a noncustodial parent to add the children to his food stamp case for visits?
My ex is wanting to put the kids on his food stamps for the summer and is asking me to get him birth certificates and social secutity cards. I just want to make sure I can't get in any sort of trouble if he does this. I was always under the impression the children had to actually live with you. Also what about my medical assistance for the children, we live in different states and while I don't qualify for food stamps I do have then on a partially state funded medical program, it just a step up from medicid. I sort of feel like I should just wash my hands of all this and tell him he's on his own with this one, but then I'm concerned that the kids won't get good meals if he doesn't have the extra helpto buy food and I can't afford to carry his butt all summer while he visits them. I can't keep them home either they are only going to visit because it is court ordered. What do you all think?
Answer:
If the children are in residence with him for 3 months that should qualify for a temporary upgrade of the food stamps.
The key here is temporary.. since he is allready in the system I think upgrading isn't an issue especially when we are talking about children needs and it is a court order visitation so that should make it legal.
As far as medical assistance is concerned they can't refuse anyone at the emergency room so that should work out in case of something major. In case of something minor you will have to pay it out of pocket if he cannot.
No. It is illegal, just as it would be illegal for the non-custodial parent to file taxes with a child as his/her dependant.
Your ex is on food stamps? A GUY?
Boy, you sure can pick em.
Call up welfare dept and present the situation...honesty here is the best policy as you can loose your benefits if not cooperable on your end...
Answer:
If the children are in residence with him for 3 months that should qualify for a temporary upgrade of the food stamps.
The key here is temporary.. since he is allready in the system I think upgrading isn't an issue especially when we are talking about children needs and it is a court order visitation so that should make it legal.
As far as medical assistance is concerned they can't refuse anyone at the emergency room so that should work out in case of something major. In case of something minor you will have to pay it out of pocket if he cannot.
No. It is illegal, just as it would be illegal for the non-custodial parent to file taxes with a child as his/her dependant.
Your ex is on food stamps? A GUY?
Boy, you sure can pick em.
Call up welfare dept and present the situation...honesty here is the best policy as you can loose your benefits if not cooperable on your end...
Is it legal for a landlord to refuse us frm consuming our 2mos.dposit on basis we didnt made tenancy to 1yr.?
we rented on feb.2007 and ready to move out by june to consume our 2months dposits. when we took d apartmnt he nver made mention any such conditions,worst the contract he showed to us was gven to me april olredi dat until this time i nver signed it coz its all for his advantage.anather thing dat push us to move out bcoz he's somewat harrassing me in words,wenever i ask small favors.he easily got irratated and very dmanding dat ol his wishes seemed i dnt have any space to make any comments. pls. advice f it's lawful for him not to allow us to consume our 2mos. dposits of P8thou/month.i feel so harrassed and stressed dat wenever i think about it it woris me a lot until i went to bed...
Answer:
Wow...that was really painful to read...proper English and spelling would sure help.
Most times you cannot use your security deposit as rent.It is paid in case you do damage to the property.The landlord is within his right to make you pay the monthly rent and not allow you to use your deposit instead.
well your question didnt make sense but if i understood it right and if there was no lease involved he has to give you your money back, unless of course you dmaged his property and then he can keep it for repairs.... he has 30 days to write you a letter and tell you why he isnt giving it back to you and if he doesnt then after that you can actually fight it and win....i would take it to the mattresses and dont let another lanlord give you the run around
Usually in a lease it says that you "cannot" use your security deposit to pay for your monthly rent. If you chose not to renew your lease in April for the reasons that you already brought up, then you need to pay your monthly rental payment until you leave. Here in NJ the Landlord has 30 days after you move out to return your security deposit. The Landlord also has the right to keep some or all the security deposit if you do not leave the apartment in "good" condition as he gave it to you when you first moved in.
Answer:
Wow...that was really painful to read...proper English and spelling would sure help.
Most times you cannot use your security deposit as rent.It is paid in case you do damage to the property.The landlord is within his right to make you pay the monthly rent and not allow you to use your deposit instead.
well your question didnt make sense but if i understood it right and if there was no lease involved he has to give you your money back, unless of course you dmaged his property and then he can keep it for repairs.... he has 30 days to write you a letter and tell you why he isnt giving it back to you and if he doesnt then after that you can actually fight it and win....i would take it to the mattresses and dont let another lanlord give you the run around
Usually in a lease it says that you "cannot" use your security deposit to pay for your monthly rent. If you chose not to renew your lease in April for the reasons that you already brought up, then you need to pay your monthly rental payment until you leave. Here in NJ the Landlord has 30 days after you move out to return your security deposit. The Landlord also has the right to keep some or all the security deposit if you do not leave the apartment in "good" condition as he gave it to you when you first moved in.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Is it legal for a high school to hold a student's cell phone overnight?
My friend got his cellphone taken away by a teacher and she turned it into the front office and now they won't return it until he "talks to an administrator"...but he tried after school and they had already left.
Answer:
Perhaps your friend shouldn't have been using his cellphone in a manner requiring teacher intervention. Stop whining and deal with it tomorrow. A night without a cell phone . . . horror of horrors!
yes it is legal, if its a first warning you just get it back at the end of the day, if you get caught more and more (for being an idiot) you deserve to have it taken away.
Yes, it is.......The school can have its own cellphone policy, and it has the right to confiscate the student's cellphone as long as the student attends classes.
If they threw it into a wood chipper, then you might have a case.
Maybe next time he will obey the rules instead of whining about the consequences.
Yes it is. Follow the rules kiddies or face the Principal.
Legal? Absolutely. Your friend broke school policies. A cell phone is NOT considered a necessity. The school is well within their defined authority to hold the phone until a conference is held.
Most high schools have a handbook that clearly states what they consider contraband. like example,...cells, ipods,..stuff unneccessary for school. they have the right to take any of it away, and keep it to the end of the year if they like. usually they will say that a parent has to pick it up and then the second offense you wont get it back to the end of the year. it varies. but yes they do. your best bet is to not bring them to school or leave them in your locker
Yes, it is legal. Anything you take to school that violates the rules is then the school's property.
The real truth is they depending on the schools rules, they don't HAVE to give it back at all.
It is 100% legal if the school has some kind of policy against cell phones. Your friend will probably have to agree to detention, in school suspension, whatever your school does, in order to get his phone back.
Yes, if there are rules against having them or using them during school time. They could actually take them and never give them back if they were being used against policy.
NO WAY! They are only allowed to hold it until the end of the school day! MONEY ROCKS!
Answer:
Perhaps your friend shouldn't have been using his cellphone in a manner requiring teacher intervention. Stop whining and deal with it tomorrow. A night without a cell phone . . . horror of horrors!
yes it is legal, if its a first warning you just get it back at the end of the day, if you get caught more and more (for being an idiot) you deserve to have it taken away.
Yes, it is.......The school can have its own cellphone policy, and it has the right to confiscate the student's cellphone as long as the student attends classes.
If they threw it into a wood chipper, then you might have a case.
Maybe next time he will obey the rules instead of whining about the consequences.
Yes it is. Follow the rules kiddies or face the Principal.
Legal? Absolutely. Your friend broke school policies. A cell phone is NOT considered a necessity. The school is well within their defined authority to hold the phone until a conference is held.
Most high schools have a handbook that clearly states what they consider contraband. like example,...cells, ipods,..stuff unneccessary for school. they have the right to take any of it away, and keep it to the end of the year if they like. usually they will say that a parent has to pick it up and then the second offense you wont get it back to the end of the year. it varies. but yes they do. your best bet is to not bring them to school or leave them in your locker
Yes, it is legal. Anything you take to school that violates the rules is then the school's property.
The real truth is they depending on the schools rules, they don't HAVE to give it back at all.
It is 100% legal if the school has some kind of policy against cell phones. Your friend will probably have to agree to detention, in school suspension, whatever your school does, in order to get his phone back.
Yes, if there are rules against having them or using them during school time. They could actually take them and never give them back if they were being used against policy.
NO WAY! They are only allowed to hold it until the end of the school day! MONEY ROCKS!
Is it legal for a high school to hold a student's cell phone overnight?
My friend got his cellphone taken away by a teacher and she turned it into the front office and now they won't return it until he "talks to an administrator"...but he tried after school and they had already left.
Answer:
Yes if it's in the school's policy. If your friend was in school he had no business using his phone whether it be texting, talking or just ringing as it can be a distraction in the classroom. There's plenty of time after school to chat. If it was taken away even though he wasn't using it, your school may have rules not allowing them on campus. Cells can be a big inconvenience in the classroom for teachers and fellow students - him having to wait to get his phone is a price to pay.
Yes
yea, my school has a policy where if you get caught using a cell phone for the second time they hold it till the end of the year....private school though. but im pretty sure they can do that
He probably deserved it. I assume he was using it in the classroom. When students show no respect for authority, something has to be done to maintain discipline, and confiscating the offending toy makes sense.
Check your student handbook or rules. There should be a part about electronic devices. Most schools need a parent or guardian to go into the school and talk with administartion. I don't think it's aganst the law as long as it is stated in the rules. As far as the administration not being around, I'm not to sure. Good luck.
It is. If they are banned from school, he's lucky they will return it to him and not his parents.
yes they can but he can get it back if he takes his mother or father to the school.but he can`t get taking from him again
I agree with Stang, check the student rule books. Your friend may have been in the wrong.
Most school have a no electronic devise policy in their school manual, so yes they can take it. Usually (at my kids schools) they take it until a parent comes and picks it up.
I would ONLY question the policy if it is NOT posted in the manual or somewhere locatable to students.
Answer:
Yes if it's in the school's policy. If your friend was in school he had no business using his phone whether it be texting, talking or just ringing as it can be a distraction in the classroom. There's plenty of time after school to chat. If it was taken away even though he wasn't using it, your school may have rules not allowing them on campus. Cells can be a big inconvenience in the classroom for teachers and fellow students - him having to wait to get his phone is a price to pay.
Yes
yea, my school has a policy where if you get caught using a cell phone for the second time they hold it till the end of the year....private school though. but im pretty sure they can do that
He probably deserved it. I assume he was using it in the classroom. When students show no respect for authority, something has to be done to maintain discipline, and confiscating the offending toy makes sense.
Check your student handbook or rules. There should be a part about electronic devices. Most schools need a parent or guardian to go into the school and talk with administartion. I don't think it's aganst the law as long as it is stated in the rules. As far as the administration not being around, I'm not to sure. Good luck.
It is. If they are banned from school, he's lucky they will return it to him and not his parents.
yes they can but he can get it back if he takes his mother or father to the school.but he can`t get taking from him again
I agree with Stang, check the student rule books. Your friend may have been in the wrong.
Most school have a no electronic devise policy in their school manual, so yes they can take it. Usually (at my kids schools) they take it until a parent comes and picks it up.
I would ONLY question the policy if it is NOT posted in the manual or somewhere locatable to students.
Is it legal for a government agency to ask for your checking account number?
The government inacted the Privacy Act not too many years ago. My question is, why is it that when you applie for housing assistance or food stamps they have to have your bank account number? In the age of identity theft being rampant, why would I trust anyone with my bank account number? If the government made a law for citizens privacy WHY are they breaking it by asking for these things? Just a point to ponder, am curious as to what others have to say.
Answer:
You bet and they are covered by the Privacy Act. Do you really want people with money in the bank getting assistance when others who have nothing being refused?
If you are the one asking for help from the government then you need to be cooperative. They need to find out that you don't have thousands and thousands of dollars in there, thus, disqualifying you. They also would need the number for a direct deposit payment, should you qualify.
Answer:
You bet and they are covered by the Privacy Act. Do you really want people with money in the bank getting assistance when others who have nothing being refused?
If you are the one asking for help from the government then you need to be cooperative. They need to find out that you don't have thousands and thousands of dollars in there, thus, disqualifying you. They also would need the number for a direct deposit payment, should you qualify.
Is it legal for a forgienor to marry an america to become a legal citizen?
Is there usually a high rate of devorce do to that fact that after they otain there citizenship, they devorce the american?
Answer:
There are strict immigration laws related to "sham" marriages, and how long you have to be married before you can get a divorce and retain your citizenship (although claims of domestic violence / slavery / abuse have changed this legal analysis).
It's also fairly difficult to get your citizenship through marriage, especially if you get married overseas. I know that my friend had to live apart from her Spanish/British husband for over a year while his visa papers were pending.
Yes it is legal and the divorce rate is probably lower then the average.
No it is illegal if that is the sole purpose of the marriage, I think they call this sham marriages.
Answer:
There are strict immigration laws related to "sham" marriages, and how long you have to be married before you can get a divorce and retain your citizenship (although claims of domestic violence / slavery / abuse have changed this legal analysis).
It's also fairly difficult to get your citizenship through marriage, especially if you get married overseas. I know that my friend had to live apart from her Spanish/British husband for over a year while his visa papers were pending.
Yes it is legal and the divorce rate is probably lower then the average.
No it is illegal if that is the sole purpose of the marriage, I think they call this sham marriages.
Is it legal for a creditor to call you everyday?
Answer:
They should call you 5 times a day. PAY YOUR BILLS!
Yes, at least until you pay off your debt. Pay your debt the phone calls will disappear. If you have no meney, get rid of the Internet for one, number two, you aren't making any money sitting in front of the computer.
yes ..next time tell them you are filing a harrassment complaint and will sue them.
*no it is called harassment.make an arrangement to pay them and providing you stick to it they have no need to call you again.if they persist threaten them with legal action.good luck.
Not necessarily. Laws vary from place to place, but usually even creditors trying to collect a legitimate debt can be commit telephone harassment.
A web search with the words debt collector telephone harassment and your state should give you some more details.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdc...
That's the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Everything you need to know about what they can and cannot do is listed there.
You can send the creditor a cease and desist letter (a.k.a. C%26D). The letter should say something to the affect that you no longer wish to be contacted about the debt in writing or by phone. By law, they must stop.
You should look into free credit counseling services (google it) which are offered nationwide. Also, you can settle many bills with a collection agency for pennies on the dollar.
Running away and refusing to discuss it with them will only make make them angry and unwilling to make deals. They don't *have* to accept anything less than the full amount.
Is it legal for a company to forward your check to another company without your permission?
My husband wrote a check to a mortgage company for our first payment, and they "inadvertently" forwarded it to the new company they sold our loan to. Now they are are reporting us to the credit agencies for non-payment. I am just wondering if it was legal for them to forward the personal check we wrote to them to the new company.
They are also threatening foreclosure, can they foreclose on our home if the loan is no longer with them?
Our payments are current and up to date with our new loan holder.
Answer:
If they sold your mortgage to a new company they no longer have the right to claim payments so I am confused as to the non payment claim. the wrongful act is not the forwarding of the check...it is claiming a nonpayment that is not owed.
Yes, they can forward the check. Get a copy of the check from your bank; it should show they fowarded it. Write a letter to the old company and send it certifed. I don't think they can forclouse on you. Nip this it the but right away, the longer you wait the more mixed up the situation can become. This happened to use and once we sent them a copy of the check and a letter letting them know they have been paid. They left me alone. It was probably an error on the companies part, but no one is taking resposibility.
Your current lien holder is the only company that has the "right" to foreclose on your property for nonpayment.
If the previous company sold the lien to another company, they acted properly by forwarding the payment to the new mortgage company.
You have to challenge the report to the credit agencies because you should be able to show that you no longer have a mortgage with the company that sold your mortgage.
Good luck.
They are also threatening foreclosure, can they foreclose on our home if the loan is no longer with them?
Our payments are current and up to date with our new loan holder.
Answer:
If they sold your mortgage to a new company they no longer have the right to claim payments so I am confused as to the non payment claim. the wrongful act is not the forwarding of the check...it is claiming a nonpayment that is not owed.
Yes, they can forward the check. Get a copy of the check from your bank; it should show they fowarded it. Write a letter to the old company and send it certifed. I don't think they can forclouse on you. Nip this it the but right away, the longer you wait the more mixed up the situation can become. This happened to use and once we sent them a copy of the check and a letter letting them know they have been paid. They left me alone. It was probably an error on the companies part, but no one is taking resposibility.
Your current lien holder is the only company that has the "right" to foreclose on your property for nonpayment.
If the previous company sold the lien to another company, they acted properly by forwarding the payment to the new mortgage company.
You have to challenge the report to the credit agencies because you should be able to show that you no longer have a mortgage with the company that sold your mortgage.
Good luck.
Is it legal for a company to charge shipping-and-handling and not actually send the package?
I think I fell for a scam to be pitched on timeshares.
Answer:
no, as they never shipped it as the payment is for they, would have to refund i would think, now if they sent it to you and you decided you didnt want it and sent it back, you can get the refund of the price, but shipping and handling is gone as they shipped it to you already
talk to your bank, make sure if you gave them all your information they cant take more money from you, also you need to check into this company to see if it is ligit!
Answer:
no, as they never shipped it as the payment is for they, would have to refund i would think, now if they sent it to you and you decided you didnt want it and sent it back, you can get the refund of the price, but shipping and handling is gone as they shipped it to you already
talk to your bank, make sure if you gave them all your information they cant take more money from you, also you need to check into this company to see if it is ligit!
Is it legal for a 14 years old in america to marry an adul with parental consent??
I am NOT planning to marry a 14 years old,i wanna know american law..I guess it depends on the state,can someone please tell from any state they know law of??
Thanks in advance..
Answer:
Jerry Lee Lewis ... his career as a rock and roller took a precipitous tumble when the press discovered that he鈥檇 married his 13-year-old cousin in December 1957. His wife Myra Lewis gave birth to a son in 1959, at the age of 15 ...
Imoral but ... legal in Louisiana...
LOL why the thumbs down ??? what's wrong with you people ??? it's on wikipedia ..... jeeeez
I think it is wrong and sick if there were parents out there that would let thier daughter marry a man at the age of 14. She is still a child and can't make those decisions on her own. 14 is too young to get married and sick.
I think it is legal in Mississippi
Look up the law in southern states
I know the ages are younger down there
I believe Tennesse allows 14 yr old's to marry with parental consent .....
However.. I think in all honesty.. marriage is something a 14 yr old has no clue about.. and should not be entering into.... Hell most 30 yr olds don't have a clue when they get married.. look at the divorce rate....
14 years old,Hmmmmmmm...That is something you shouldn't
need to worry with. I agree, Most 30 year olds don't have a clue.
It's a subject that you need to talk to your parents about,Unless
your going to be a dad soon?!?! In that case you need to get help and 2 jobs! New laws and regulations don't allow marriage at that age. Any parent with morals would not sign off to let you destroy your life. 16 is the legal age in some states. Build your life first before a family.
If your not to careful you will end up digging ditches for a day labor making $40 dollars a day.
Thanks in advance..
Answer:
Jerry Lee Lewis ... his career as a rock and roller took a precipitous tumble when the press discovered that he鈥檇 married his 13-year-old cousin in December 1957. His wife Myra Lewis gave birth to a son in 1959, at the age of 15 ...
Imoral but ... legal in Louisiana...
LOL why the thumbs down ??? what's wrong with you people ??? it's on wikipedia ..... jeeeez
I think it is wrong and sick if there were parents out there that would let thier daughter marry a man at the age of 14. She is still a child and can't make those decisions on her own. 14 is too young to get married and sick.
I think it is legal in Mississippi
Look up the law in southern states
I know the ages are younger down there
I believe Tennesse allows 14 yr old's to marry with parental consent .....
However.. I think in all honesty.. marriage is something a 14 yr old has no clue about.. and should not be entering into.... Hell most 30 yr olds don't have a clue when they get married.. look at the divorce rate....
14 years old,Hmmmmmmm...That is something you shouldn't
need to worry with. I agree, Most 30 year olds don't have a clue.
It's a subject that you need to talk to your parents about,Unless
your going to be a dad soon?!?! In that case you need to get help and 2 jobs! New laws and regulations don't allow marriage at that age. Any parent with morals would not sign off to let you destroy your life. 16 is the legal age in some states. Build your life first before a family.
If your not to careful you will end up digging ditches for a day labor making $40 dollars a day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)