grow up in. is it possible for this to happen? what would i have to do?
Answers:
As a parent you didn't exactly explain the situation clearly. Your 'friend'; is this a friend that lives at home with his/her parents? Or a single friend that you want to move in with. Is friend the same or opposite sex? Same age or older? If you are not in a good situation and your family gives permission to live with another family willing to be responsible for you and you be responsible toward them then I see no problem.
If your parents are opposed then you get the law coming into it. At 16 you can become an emancipated minor but you need to consider the future. You may be a very responsible, mature young person but 16 is very young to be on your own. Regardless of how much you think you can manage. I can't tell you this would be okay until I know more details.
As a mom my heart is broken thinking you need to move out of your parents home to feel save and taken care us. But if that is what is best then perhaps you should pursue. Just be wise and discerning. Don't make foolish mistakes because them seem 'cool' or grownup.
If this is an older friend of opposite sex I think you are about to get into serious trouble. Use your brain.
Good luck.
bet your friend is a male over 18 huh? what you really should be asking is because I cant get everything my way should I run away and be with my boyfriend who is molesting me
I was going suggest emancipation, but I did some research and apparently there is no emancipation status in NJ (see link). There may be other options, such as your parents agreeing to sign over custody. Before doing anything drastic, I would recommend writing out your reasons. If there is abuse or neglect, go to a trusted adviser or call Children's and Family Services.
Keep in mind that your 'friend' will be scrutinized, and that they will have to be willing to take responsibility. This means that if this is someone that you are in a dating relationship (as suspected by previous posters), you will probably need to rethink. Bottom line, you may be able to obtain permission to stay with a family member, but don't plan on moving in with your boyfriend.
Whatever happens, I hope that things get better. Please carefully consider any actions, stay safe and make sure you at least complete your education.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Iknow this may seem stupid to some, but should we pass a constitituional amendment protecting all libraries,?
as well as the publishing of actual physical books?
Answers:
Yes, I agree. The internet may be nice to get information, but hard copies are a necessity because there is not any chance at people changing them and hacking into them because it is almost impossible to track down EVERY book which has been published...but the internet can be changed with a click of a few buttons. Sad really that we have to even be TALKING about such things isn't it?
protecting them from what ? The internet!
protecting how?
No. Constitutional amendments are for serious things. Libraries are not a make-or-break condition of a society. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, those are important enough to require amendments.
Answers:
Yes, I agree. The internet may be nice to get information, but hard copies are a necessity because there is not any chance at people changing them and hacking into them because it is almost impossible to track down EVERY book which has been published...but the internet can be changed with a click of a few buttons. Sad really that we have to even be TALKING about such things isn't it?
protecting them from what ? The internet!
protecting how?
No. Constitutional amendments are for serious things. Libraries are not a make-or-break condition of a society. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, those are important enough to require amendments.
IHSS Dilemma?
I have been taking care of my grandmother since 2005, and have been getting paid by IHSS (In Home Supportive Services) in the State of California. But recently (around April of this year), she's been diagnosed with cancer in the pancreas, and she's been goin' back and forth from the hospital to the nursing home. She's currently stationed at a nursing home (hopefully on a temporary basis) and I visit her everyday to carry out my daily chores (meal preparation, laundry, cleaning her dentures, keeping her company, etc.) before, in-between, and after school - assuming that I may still be eligible for IHSS payments. It's now August, and I'm apprehensive towards my eligibility with IHSS. I've been attempting to contact social services to no avail, and now I'm just worried. I'm a full-time student on overload, and I'm stressed. What can I do, and how do I tackle my situation? Do I have to pay back the payments I've been receiving since April, and/or do I just stop getting paid altogether?
Answers:
First of all, I'm sorry, IHSS is THE DEVIL, I am a caretaker for a disabled friend, and I've spent many hours on their stupid automated system trying to get things figured out for both of us.
Second, I don't know if IHSS will still pay you if she is in a home getting other care? They only give a person so many hours per month, and full-time care may take most of that up.
The best thing to do would be to go to your local office, they can't put you on hold as much if you're there in the flesh.
I'm confused... They've been paying you still? I don't think you'll have to pay that money back, it was a mistake on their behalf, plus can you imagine them trying to collect it? If they haven't been paying you, you will definitely get your back payments, assuming that you have been eligible this whole time.
Good luck, from someone who hates IHSS just as much as you... And I hope your grandmother is doing better!
Since you are no longer caring for her in home, I would think the payments for providing in home care would end. I am baffled by why you would go to a nursing home and do all of those daily chores (except the visitation which should not be a chore) when nursing homes are paid to perform those services.
You can speak to the social worker in the nursing home and ask for help in contacting someone. I think its great you are giving her personal attention even while she is in a nursing home, hopefully she will be able to come home soon.
Are you still helping with the things at her residence? Paying bills, cleaning, etc...? If so you should still qualify for payment. Best of luck for both of you.
Answers:
First of all, I'm sorry, IHSS is THE DEVIL, I am a caretaker for a disabled friend, and I've spent many hours on their stupid automated system trying to get things figured out for both of us.
Second, I don't know if IHSS will still pay you if she is in a home getting other care? They only give a person so many hours per month, and full-time care may take most of that up.
The best thing to do would be to go to your local office, they can't put you on hold as much if you're there in the flesh.
I'm confused... They've been paying you still? I don't think you'll have to pay that money back, it was a mistake on their behalf, plus can you imagine them trying to collect it? If they haven't been paying you, you will definitely get your back payments, assuming that you have been eligible this whole time.
Good luck, from someone who hates IHSS just as much as you... And I hope your grandmother is doing better!
Since you are no longer caring for her in home, I would think the payments for providing in home care would end. I am baffled by why you would go to a nursing home and do all of those daily chores (except the visitation which should not be a chore) when nursing homes are paid to perform those services.
You can speak to the social worker in the nursing home and ask for help in contacting someone. I think its great you are giving her personal attention even while she is in a nursing home, hopefully she will be able to come home soon.
Are you still helping with the things at her residence? Paying bills, cleaning, etc...? If so you should still qualify for payment. Best of luck for both of you.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense?
this is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. But lets think this through. There are thousands of laws on the books, and surely most citizens are not aware of most of them. So how can you be found guilty of committed a crime if you did not know it was a crime. Is that fair? Isn't our justice system also based on the idea that "intent" is an important factor as well?
If I am visiting a strange down and spit on the street, and some Barney Fife character comes to arrest me for violating city ordinance xyx, and I say to him I did not know it was illegal, etc.
Answers:
A sore spot for me.... your question... I love it. I don't want to blame the people who made the laws, but I am. Why not have a class in kindergarten on laws, is that young enough... Attorneys and Judges went to law school. Maybe, they should pay the school systems to teach a class on law. Because, most of the people can't afford to go to law school, much less pass the bar exam. At this time there are 2.1 million people in our prisons in the USA. Not all of these people are killers/sex offenders.....bad checks, pot, DUI's, and of coarse meth. And I know this from first hand experience, spent 20 months incarcerated for Forgery. I did my time and the crime. But, I saw so many women without there children, now in DHS custody and turned into foster kid's that the same state that put them there are now having to put out more money to help these kids and families of prisoners. When you get out - of coarse you are a felon in my state for at least 10 years before you are pardoned by the Governor and then you have to go to court and get it expunged from your record. Some states like California, there is no waiting period. You can go to court the next day and get it expunged. I even had my car insurance cancelled because I admitted honestly that I was a convicted felon. I feel for the people who don't know even how to read, how are they expected to know the law? Maybe, at birth each state should issue your child law books, instead of a SS#. This country is just as bad or worst than the third world countries concerning - ignorance of the law is no defense. Makes me want to go live in a cave. For real.... good question. Thanks for reading.
Intent is only necessary to prove that you intended to commit the act that violated the law. You don't have to intend to break the law, you only had to intend to spit. So I don't think it is unfair that you didn't know the law. I do think that it is unfair that you could be arrested or fined for spitting, however crude it may be.
I would pay the fine and debate it later. Sometimes we must blow off some petty things and go about our business, I know that sounds like a cop out but lets be real. If you feel that this is just to lame, go to court and plead your case, that is the American way. Good luck to you and I hope you are happy with the results.
I tend to agree with you. When laws were simple, fine. But now, the law has become incredibly complex and the average citizen cannot be expected to know them all.
This hits home. As a many time screw-up, I can tell you first hand that ignorance will not get you away from a charge. This being said isn't it time we hold the law-makers and the system for the MAJOR crimes they commit in order to justify their budget? The Duke boys have very limited recourse for the crime perpetrated by the girl and the worse crime by the DA. It's time to hold these people to the higher standard that they claim to live by. They are immune, in most cases from prosecution, which means that the DA, Mr. Hearsay himself, has absolutely no business being in a courtroom. His so-called facts come from a sheet of paper written by a cop, who has been thru a creative writing class. Anything you say will be twisted to fit the opinion of the people prosecuting the case. Don't ever believe these opinions are actually factual.
the way the goverment views this is because of public record laws it is our responsability to know the law.an example on a obvious example is on the concealed carry permit for fire arms this law verys state to state and though law enforcement may take it easy on you if you are ignorant of local laws that is there choice they are not required to.another example is the same as driving with a burned out tail light the police may give you a warning but they are certinly not required to.i would think such things are situational.but like they say in tdcj ignorance is not an excuse we live in an era of information being at the click of a mouse or push of a button i suggest if your going somewhere you are not familar with do some home work
If I am visiting a strange down and spit on the street, and some Barney Fife character comes to arrest me for violating city ordinance xyx, and I say to him I did not know it was illegal, etc.
Answers:
A sore spot for me.... your question... I love it. I don't want to blame the people who made the laws, but I am. Why not have a class in kindergarten on laws, is that young enough... Attorneys and Judges went to law school. Maybe, they should pay the school systems to teach a class on law. Because, most of the people can't afford to go to law school, much less pass the bar exam. At this time there are 2.1 million people in our prisons in the USA. Not all of these people are killers/sex offenders.....bad checks, pot, DUI's, and of coarse meth. And I know this from first hand experience, spent 20 months incarcerated for Forgery. I did my time and the crime. But, I saw so many women without there children, now in DHS custody and turned into foster kid's that the same state that put them there are now having to put out more money to help these kids and families of prisoners. When you get out - of coarse you are a felon in my state for at least 10 years before you are pardoned by the Governor and then you have to go to court and get it expunged from your record. Some states like California, there is no waiting period. You can go to court the next day and get it expunged. I even had my car insurance cancelled because I admitted honestly that I was a convicted felon. I feel for the people who don't know even how to read, how are they expected to know the law? Maybe, at birth each state should issue your child law books, instead of a SS#. This country is just as bad or worst than the third world countries concerning - ignorance of the law is no defense. Makes me want to go live in a cave. For real.... good question. Thanks for reading.
Intent is only necessary to prove that you intended to commit the act that violated the law. You don't have to intend to break the law, you only had to intend to spit. So I don't think it is unfair that you didn't know the law. I do think that it is unfair that you could be arrested or fined for spitting, however crude it may be.
I would pay the fine and debate it later. Sometimes we must blow off some petty things and go about our business, I know that sounds like a cop out but lets be real. If you feel that this is just to lame, go to court and plead your case, that is the American way. Good luck to you and I hope you are happy with the results.
I tend to agree with you. When laws were simple, fine. But now, the law has become incredibly complex and the average citizen cannot be expected to know them all.
This hits home. As a many time screw-up, I can tell you first hand that ignorance will not get you away from a charge. This being said isn't it time we hold the law-makers and the system for the MAJOR crimes they commit in order to justify their budget? The Duke boys have very limited recourse for the crime perpetrated by the girl and the worse crime by the DA. It's time to hold these people to the higher standard that they claim to live by. They are immune, in most cases from prosecution, which means that the DA, Mr. Hearsay himself, has absolutely no business being in a courtroom. His so-called facts come from a sheet of paper written by a cop, who has been thru a creative writing class. Anything you say will be twisted to fit the opinion of the people prosecuting the case. Don't ever believe these opinions are actually factual.
the way the goverment views this is because of public record laws it is our responsability to know the law.an example on a obvious example is on the concealed carry permit for fire arms this law verys state to state and though law enforcement may take it easy on you if you are ignorant of local laws that is there choice they are not required to.another example is the same as driving with a burned out tail light the police may give you a warning but they are certinly not required to.i would think such things are situational.but like they say in tdcj ignorance is not an excuse we live in an era of information being at the click of a mouse or push of a button i suggest if your going somewhere you are not familar with do some home work
If you're willing to give up freedom for safety, how is that different from not fighting for your freedom?
I've seen many people on here say it's ok to give up some freedom for safety, and many others say things like "if you have nothing to hide why do you care," or "It's not something that will probably ever affect you" To be honest, this attitude really bothers me, Many people fought hard and died for these freedoms, and how can we say we are willing to fight for freedom if we willingly trade them away for safety? The thing that made America so great was the freedoms we had, and even losing one of them, even if it never directly affects me, is not exceptable in my opinion. Where does it end, what if the only way to make 100% sure you were safe was to live in an internment camp, would anyone be willing to do that?
Answers:
It's not different.
It's voluntarily surrendering your rights and freedoms to the govt because you don't care enough to fight for them -- fight politically, fight vocally, fight for everyone who is losing their rights whether they've ever needed them yet or not.
We only have those rights we can defend, and only those freedoms we choose to preserve. And once we've given them up, we've lost them until someone else chooses to fight for us.
The latest poll I read said that 70 percent of Americans were willing to give up liberty for security.
Everytime we pass a new law, or ordinance, just a bit more freedom was taken away.
Put on America's Whish List
More bombs
More speed bumps
More genetically-altered Bolivian fruit.
More Soldiers
More bombs...
.
I am in the Army and willing to fight and die for this freedom. I do not know what freedoms you specifically are referring to. In the case of airline security and all that. I like that extra security myself. I would hate to go to Iraq and come back to take a family vacation only to have it hijacked and I die on my own soil. I can still smoke my cigarette at the end of a hard days work. I can still drink a beer on the weekends, go to a ball game, go play some softball in the park, drive to Famous Dave's and get some good old ribs. I think the issue is the fact ppl need something to complain about. Your case in point, like you say even if it never directly affects you. Most people that "complain" of this so called "sacrificed freedom" will never be affected by it. Just like kids they want to make a point just to be heard and to think they are right even though the subject matter has no meaning to either party involved.
Freedom in itself is somantics. For example, total freedom would be freedom to do whatever you want, whatever that may be. Technically, true "freedom" would be the ability to throw a rock through someones windshield with no fear of consequence.
I agree it is a very difficult concept due to the degrees it effects the individual AND whether you actually chose to waive your freedom of if it is taken from you.
I personally view it this way.
If I choose to waive my right to (example) search and seizure and allow security to look in my bag for a weapon before I enter a sports event.
it is totally different from
Someone breaking my arm and taking my bag from me in order to look into it and see if I have something they would like to take away from me. Then arrest me for having it.
In the 1st example I waived freedom - in the 2nd it was taken from me.
70% I can't believe that, do you have a link?
I am scared and shocked by whats happening, I hope in 100 years people aren't looking back at this time as when America started going down the road to fascism.
Ahhh, it's refreshing to hear someone else that cares about our freedom. I find it shocking the way people could care less that the President has given himself the power to hold anyone indefintely without trial or charges by simply claiming that they are a terrorist or enemy combatant. And for the record, I'm not attacking George Bush, but rather any president that has this power. I don't want any person, be they Democrat or Republican to have this kind of power.
We've just gotten so far away from what the framers of the Constitution intended it's not even funny. But no pays attention to what the framers wrote or said because they're all too busy watching the garbage on cable news to pick up a history book and read something for a change.
Answers:
It's not different.
It's voluntarily surrendering your rights and freedoms to the govt because you don't care enough to fight for them -- fight politically, fight vocally, fight for everyone who is losing their rights whether they've ever needed them yet or not.
We only have those rights we can defend, and only those freedoms we choose to preserve. And once we've given them up, we've lost them until someone else chooses to fight for us.
The latest poll I read said that 70 percent of Americans were willing to give up liberty for security.
Everytime we pass a new law, or ordinance, just a bit more freedom was taken away.
Put on America's Whish List
More bombs
More speed bumps
More genetically-altered Bolivian fruit.
More Soldiers
More bombs...
.
I am in the Army and willing to fight and die for this freedom. I do not know what freedoms you specifically are referring to. In the case of airline security and all that. I like that extra security myself. I would hate to go to Iraq and come back to take a family vacation only to have it hijacked and I die on my own soil. I can still smoke my cigarette at the end of a hard days work. I can still drink a beer on the weekends, go to a ball game, go play some softball in the park, drive to Famous Dave's and get some good old ribs. I think the issue is the fact ppl need something to complain about. Your case in point, like you say even if it never directly affects you. Most people that "complain" of this so called "sacrificed freedom" will never be affected by it. Just like kids they want to make a point just to be heard and to think they are right even though the subject matter has no meaning to either party involved.
Freedom in itself is somantics. For example, total freedom would be freedom to do whatever you want, whatever that may be. Technically, true "freedom" would be the ability to throw a rock through someones windshield with no fear of consequence.
I agree it is a very difficult concept due to the degrees it effects the individual AND whether you actually chose to waive your freedom of if it is taken from you.
I personally view it this way.
If I choose to waive my right to (example) search and seizure and allow security to look in my bag for a weapon before I enter a sports event.
it is totally different from
Someone breaking my arm and taking my bag from me in order to look into it and see if I have something they would like to take away from me. Then arrest me for having it.
In the 1st example I waived freedom - in the 2nd it was taken from me.
70% I can't believe that, do you have a link?
I am scared and shocked by whats happening, I hope in 100 years people aren't looking back at this time as when America started going down the road to fascism.
Ahhh, it's refreshing to hear someone else that cares about our freedom. I find it shocking the way people could care less that the President has given himself the power to hold anyone indefintely without trial or charges by simply claiming that they are a terrorist or enemy combatant. And for the record, I'm not attacking George Bush, but rather any president that has this power. I don't want any person, be they Democrat or Republican to have this kind of power.
We've just gotten so far away from what the framers of the Constitution intended it's not even funny. But no pays attention to what the framers wrote or said because they're all too busy watching the garbage on cable news to pick up a history book and read something for a change.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
If you're under drugs and you won't to stop.What will you do?
If it was you what will you do
Answers:
i hate the line, but why not just say no?
"oh, but you don't know what it's like." actually, i do know what it's like. i grew up in drug-culture america. it was my generation (sorry) that popularized drug use in america. i've been exposed to it in one capacity or another my whole adult life.
.
quit buying them and stay away from the friends that use them..its your buds that get you to do them...
If someone wants to stop something, then he or she will stop it. It boils down to will power.
i will sing songs to forget abt drug
Yes I want to stop it to taking the drugs because it is not good for our health and also our brain and I think go to drug rehabilitations for the undergo the therapies about also a psychological problems on base in their bad experiences in their lives and also to prayed for giving a second change in their lives and I believe that prayer was healing of our wounded in our hearts but also to overcome of their problems of their lives.
Answers:
i hate the line, but why not just say no?
"oh, but you don't know what it's like." actually, i do know what it's like. i grew up in drug-culture america. it was my generation (sorry) that popularized drug use in america. i've been exposed to it in one capacity or another my whole adult life.
.
quit buying them and stay away from the friends that use them..its your buds that get you to do them...
If someone wants to stop something, then he or she will stop it. It boils down to will power.
i will sing songs to forget abt drug
Yes I want to stop it to taking the drugs because it is not good for our health and also our brain and I think go to drug rehabilitations for the undergo the therapies about also a psychological problems on base in their bad experiences in their lives and also to prayed for giving a second change in their lives and I believe that prayer was healing of our wounded in our hearts but also to overcome of their problems of their lives.
If you're due in court and your lawyer doesn't show up, what happens?
Do they give you another date or go on with the proceedings anyway?
Answers:
It would probably depend on the type of infraction, the reason you are in court that day and the judge presiding.
If you are just pleading guilty/not guilty, you may be required to enter a plea, but generally the judge will set another date after waiting a few minutes.
Do you plan on preventing your lawyer from showing up, or is there a reason you don't think they will?
It depends on the circumstances and also how unfair it will be to the other party. If your lawyer has an excuse the judge may accept it, or may still decide to continue with the hearing. In some cases, the judge may actually issue a direction forcing the lawyer to turn up or their representative.
If the circumstances are extremely unfair to the other party - for example, they have prepared for the hearing today and then it turns out you can't proceed, and thus causing them more delay, the judge can force you to continue. The most you can do then is sue your lawyer for breach of duty.
Usually, the Judge will ask if your Attorney is present. If not, they'll put your case aside and call the next case and you will wait all day in the corridor. At last call, the Judge will call you in and without representation will schedule you for another date. Not good though, he'll be ticked at your Lawyer.
You're screwed.
they re-schedule it.
In Canada it would be extremely rare to force a party to proceed without their lawyer. If there is no valid excuse or explanation for the lawyer's failure to appear the judge could impose cost sanctions against the lawyer, including paying the opposite party's legal expenses for attending court that day. The judge could also order the lawyer off the case. The party whose lawyer failed to appear ,is in the circumstances, an innocent victim of his lawyer's failure, and would not be punished by the judge.
Usually, you have the option of proceeding yourself, or asking the court for a continuance.
But the lawyer is going to get slapped by the court -- how hard depends on their reasons (or excuses) for failing to appear.
But most courts (most of the time) don't penalize the client the first time their attorney doesn't show up.
U.S. courts almost never proceed without a party's attorney present if the party is there and does not know why the attorney is not present. There are exceptions (it has hapenned before with the party and attorney or it is a minor and only procedural matter.
The attorney is screwed, by the way. He or she better have a good excuse for not attending a hearing.
It depends on the circumstances. I agree that if your lawyer does not show up when you are entering a plea, it is no serious matter. Most judges will have you enter a plea of "not guilty."
I have been in Section 341(a) hearings in Bankruptcy Court before a trustee, and in one occasion the trustee asked another attorney to help the alleged bankrupt, and in another circumstance the trustee led the person through the standard list of questions.
If your attorney does not show up for a trial, I would recommend asking for a recess until the attorney arrives. If he does not show up within a reasonable time, ask for a continuance.
Answers:
It would probably depend on the type of infraction, the reason you are in court that day and the judge presiding.
If you are just pleading guilty/not guilty, you may be required to enter a plea, but generally the judge will set another date after waiting a few minutes.
Do you plan on preventing your lawyer from showing up, or is there a reason you don't think they will?
It depends on the circumstances and also how unfair it will be to the other party. If your lawyer has an excuse the judge may accept it, or may still decide to continue with the hearing. In some cases, the judge may actually issue a direction forcing the lawyer to turn up or their representative.
If the circumstances are extremely unfair to the other party - for example, they have prepared for the hearing today and then it turns out you can't proceed, and thus causing them more delay, the judge can force you to continue. The most you can do then is sue your lawyer for breach of duty.
Usually, the Judge will ask if your Attorney is present. If not, they'll put your case aside and call the next case and you will wait all day in the corridor. At last call, the Judge will call you in and without representation will schedule you for another date. Not good though, he'll be ticked at your Lawyer.
You're screwed.
they re-schedule it.
In Canada it would be extremely rare to force a party to proceed without their lawyer. If there is no valid excuse or explanation for the lawyer's failure to appear the judge could impose cost sanctions against the lawyer, including paying the opposite party's legal expenses for attending court that day. The judge could also order the lawyer off the case. The party whose lawyer failed to appear ,is in the circumstances, an innocent victim of his lawyer's failure, and would not be punished by the judge.
Usually, you have the option of proceeding yourself, or asking the court for a continuance.
But the lawyer is going to get slapped by the court -- how hard depends on their reasons (or excuses) for failing to appear.
But most courts (most of the time) don't penalize the client the first time their attorney doesn't show up.
U.S. courts almost never proceed without a party's attorney present if the party is there and does not know why the attorney is not present. There are exceptions (it has hapenned before with the party and attorney or it is a minor and only procedural matter.
The attorney is screwed, by the way. He or she better have a good excuse for not attending a hearing.
It depends on the circumstances. I agree that if your lawyer does not show up when you are entering a plea, it is no serious matter. Most judges will have you enter a plea of "not guilty."
I have been in Section 341(a) hearings in Bankruptcy Court before a trustee, and in one occasion the trustee asked another attorney to help the alleged bankrupt, and in another circumstance the trustee led the person through the standard list of questions.
If your attorney does not show up for a trial, I would recommend asking for a recess until the attorney arrives. If he does not show up within a reasonable time, ask for a continuance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)