NYC Open Container Tickets and Summonses: A Lawyer’s Guide

A Bully Boss Will Always RetaliateOr, “How can a jury find your bully boss innocent of bias, but
still return a big fat verdict in your favor?”

Sometimes it feels like the boss has all the power; your
employer and H.R. hold all the cards.
You just have to come into work and try to avoid the powerful people,
and then get back out of there the second the work day is over. But you know what? An employee suffering through a hostile work
environment can become more powerful than you imagine by learning their rights. There are many legal rights and lawyers’ strategies
that greatly benefit employees, but few employees know about them. Today I’m going to reveal t you one of the
most powerful, explain why employers’ fear it, and tell you exactly how to use
it. It’s the legal claim called
retaliation. Companies, H.R.
professionals, and defense attorneys all dread retaliation claims.

Employers and their H.R. henchmen hate retaliation
claims.  They hate retaliation claims because there is a proven pattern of companies going to court against
employees, prevailing against the employees’ charges of illegal discrimination and
harassment, BUT, the jury finds that the supervisor did commit
retaliation – in the very same lawsuit. 
That’s what drives employers crazy. 
Companies will spend a ton of time and literally $100,000+ paying attorneys to
defend an employment lawsuit alleging, for example, age discrimination.  After all the effort, hours, and dollars, the
company proves that it discriminate against the employee on the basis of age.  Yet, the company leaves the courthouse a loser, and it’s going to have to write a big fat check to the former employee (who was
not discriminated against).  Why?  Because the former employee claimed both
discrimination, and retaliation.  And
since the employee won the retaliation claim, it really doesn’t matter to the
employee one iota that he or she lost the discrimination claim.  The employee still won and the employee is still getting paid.  How is this possible to lose and win in the
same suit?You can allege more than one “claim” (or legal theory of how
your employer wronged you) in each lawsuit.
An easy example is an elderly woman who sues her former employer for
terminating her for her age and for her gender.
Her lawsuit contains two claims, and she only has to prove one of the
two in order to prevail in court and force her ex employer to pay her
money. In a similar way you can bring a hostile work environment
claim, and then add a retaliation claim because your boss treats you worse
after you file the retaliation claim.
The retaliation claim is a bit like a caboose full of dynamite that is
pulled around by a run-away train called Hostile-Workplace. The caboose always comes after the engine,
but if they both crash the caboose is more likely to explode. (Maybe I took that analogy too far). The point, though, is that even though you can’t
have retaliation without first having the hostile-workplace, the retaliation is
easier to prove, more feared by your ex-employer, and more likely to get you
paid.Part of the reason you are more likely to win a retaliation
claim, and why the company fears it so much, is because you don’t first have to
prove a hostile work environment occurred in order to win on your retaliation claim. Courts have specifically said that an
employee can prevail on a retaliation claim by establishing that the employer
retaliated against the employee for opposing allegedly discriminatory practices
even if the practices were not, in fact, discriminatory. Sias v.
City Demonstration Agency, 588 F2d 692, 692 (9th Cir 1978).All that is required to bring a retaliation claim is this:You complain of a hostile work environment (based on a protected class) that you have a good faith belief is occurring;Your boss treats you worse after you make your complaint than he/she did before you made your complaint;You complain that you are being retaliated against for lodging your initial complaintThat’s it, there’s nothing else to it. The only caveat is to emphasize that the hostile work environment in #1 MUST be based on a protected class. (If you don’t understand that, see my Hub “What is a Hostile Work Environment”)

Here’s why retaliation claims occur so often and are so hard
for employers to stop: imagine that you were at work and another employee
accused you of something truly horrible like race discrimination.  You’re shocked!  Anyone who knows you at all will say that you
would never hold a person’s race against them. 
You are no bigot!  And when you
find out what the co-worker’s accusation is, it’s not like she misunderstood
you or twisted your words – it’s like she’s putting words in your mouth that
you never said.  So, after you learn that
this co-worker is falsely accusing you of racial bigotry, do you think you could
treat her exactly the same way you did before she (falsely) accused you?  Could you resist confronting her about
it?  Could you be friendly and talk to
her just as frequently as you did before? 
Could you include her in meetings and group lunches just like you did
before?  Could you resist making even the
smallest negative comment about her to your other co-workers?  In all honesty, I would have a very tough
time doing that.  Your supervisor is no
different.  Even if everyone knows that
your boss is a mean-spirited jerk, he doesn’t
believe that he is a mean-spirited jerk. 
He believes in his heart of hearts that he is innocent.  As a consequence, he can’t resist the very
human urge to defend himself, to attack his accuser, and “fight for” his
career.  He will always retaliate.  And you should always be ready for it; for you, his retaliation is like ripe fruit from a tree falling directly into your basket.Understanding the basics of what is meant by “personal injury” and the issues to be addressed in choosing a personal injury attorney are addressed here.We’ve all heard the television commercials, “If you’ve been injured in an automobile wreck…” or “If you’ve been injured as the result of …” followed by a 1-800 number you’re enticed to call to “preserve your rights” and “get the compensation you’re entitled to.”  But just who are these ads directed to?What is a personal injury?Generally, personal injury refers to bodily harm.  Someone rear-ends your vehicle and a few days later, you realize it hurts to move your neck.  You use a product that causes you to get sick.  Someone throws a bottle across a dark, smoky bar and it breaks over your head.  The possibilities are limitless when it comes to the ways a person can physically be injured.But personal injury means more than physical harm.  When lawyers refer to the personal injury case, it’s a wide umbrella covering much more than bodily damage.For example, a person who witnesses a horrific scene, such as a devastating car wreck involving fatalities and lots of blood and gore, may be “injured” even though he or she wasn’t personally involved in the wreck.  He may experience nightmares and develop a phobia for driving or riding in a vehicle.  In such instances, the person’s “injury” is emotional; it is referred to as post traumatic stress disorder.This is just one example of a personal injury that does not involve bodily damage.Personal Injury cases are generally classified into one of several categories, depending on their nature. The following are the most typical classifications:Vehicular Accidents:This category includes cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses — any type of a vehicle. Usually, the person who is injured is entitled to compensation for his injuries. In nearly every case, the amount of compensation will be greater when the injured person hires an attorney, even with the fee the attorney earns.Pharmaceutical Injury:As the name suggests, these cases involve an injury from taking a pharmaceutical. Usually, the injured party will become a member of a class action against the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical alleged to have caused the damage. This is a big-business category, evidenced by the number of advertisements one sees from lawyers regarding the newest, latest drug known to cause harm.Again, as with a vehicular accident, an injured party will recover a larger dollar amount in most every instance when she hires an attorney. In fact, with a class action suit, it’s nearly impossible to go it alone.Product Liability:Technically, a pharmaceutical case is also a product liability case. Attorneys, however, tend to separate the two for practical reasons. The product liability case, otherwise, involves injury caused by any product. If you use a gas pump at a gas station, for example, and it somehow causes you injury — that is a product liability case. If you buy a stroller for your child and it collapses, causing injury — that, too, is a product liability case.Medical Negligence:Also known as medical malpractice, this category of cases involves injury to someoI Wanna Be a Lawyer
Emma goes to the Supreme Court to find out what a day in the life of a lawyer is like. Want to see more career videos from Student Edge? ↓ Click here http://…


Lawyer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for lawyer
Lawyer, Attorney, Law Firms, Attorneys, Legal Information. Lawyers

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Newton’s law of universal gravity

The unit and its quality must remain same.The earliest recording of laws reflects understanding that humankind, while at the highest end of the animal spectrum, remains an inevitable part of its kingdom. As such, human nature requires legal limitations upon its unbridled behavior. Without legal sanctions, those same urges which fuel the rampages of the animal sphere would dominate human society. Indeed, our modern phrase “the law of the jungle” indicates this reality.
The first known codes of law were created by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and other ancient civilizations. In addition, whatever one’s religious beliefs, the Ten Commandments said to have been given to Moses, according to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain many central principles accepted by our current society. Laws against stealing and killing still stand, while the committing of adultery is understood to be a major factor in countless crimes. One of the earliest grounds for voluntary manslaughter, a murder alleged to have been committed due to an eruption of passion, was a man’s having found his wife in an intimate situation with another man.Catapulting several millennia, we will shift to that pivotal year, 1066. Prior to the Norman Conquest, Saxons had established laws, and were regularly adding to their number via a system of circuit judges. Still, though William did not, by any means, conquer a lawless realm, he largely centralized all laws within The Crown’s purview. In terms of property law, all land became the property of The Crown, and still is, ultimately, to this day. This means that if someone dies without leaving a will, or any other indication of wishes as to disposal of property, and all avenues of search for relatives have proved futile, ownership will revert to The Crown.
William’s self-proclaimed ownership created groundwork for his son, King Henry I, to broaden his control of its laws. In 1116, Henry I set forth “the Leges Henrici, thereby designating himself “the law giver”, a title which, while containing a Latinate version of his name, was doubtless meant to be inherited by his successors. According to Henry’s edict, offenses against the king’s peace included arson, robbery, murder, false coinage and crimes of violence. (Echoes of these laws are reflected today when someone is arrested and/or prosecuted for having disturbed the peace.)Criminal laws were first set forth as a solution to the previous self-help methods of avenging an injury. Individual decisions as to the degree and method of retaliation resulted in such chaos that governmental authorities recognized the need to intervene. This mediation succeeded in that a party who felt injured knew that the government would take some definite action on his behalf. Initially, criminal and civil laws were united. Later, during the reign of Henry II, due to his conflict with his archbishop Thomas Becket, the court system divided into civil and criminal branches.
Following some turmoil in dividing the two, it became feasible for a defendant to be sued both by society represented by The Crown, and an individual able to bring a legitimate claim due to an injury sustained via the same act, within legal boundaries. Originally, there were few crimes. Murder, by way of example, was simply murder. Even such a justification as self-defense would not guarantee a more lenient sentence. Though a plaintiff with a strong enough claim might apply and obtain a royal pardon, its granting remained a matter of chance, received by the fortunate. (This process has come down to us today in that, at times, a governing body can commute or forbid an execution decided upon by a jury.)During its early stages, criminal law was concerned with only the act in question premised on the theory that “the thought of man shall not be tried”. In time, however, perhaps due to a growing sense of community and the influence of the church, this perspective altered. The understanding that a crime involved a combination of intent and action “mens rea” and “actus reus” became accepted. The depth and degree of this intent would determine the culpability, and thereby the appropriate sentence. Thus, by the end of the 15th century, the crime of homicide was divided into murder and manslaughter. The crucial difference lay in the intent, deemed “malice aforethought” in judgments of homicide. This state of mind was deduced by the judiciary from the overall framework of surrounding facts and circumstances. The intent called “mens rea”, meaning the guilty mind, coupled with its resulting act, “actus reus”, comprised the commission of a crime. To some extent a thought separate from a deed could be viewed as a criminal offense. During the reign of King Henry VIII, “ill wishing” was still considered a crime. Indeed, even to speak of the king’s demise, no matter how many years in the future, was viewed as high treason. Even in fairly recent times, certain mental disorders evoke a belief in their sufferers that their wishes caused or contributed to the death of another.
Sigmund Freud was instrumental in helping patients understand the difference between thought and action, aiding them to forgive themselves for any such hopes if, during the natural course of events, they came to fruition. This proved especially true with a patient who; forced to put her hopes of marriage on hold while she cared for her ailing father, found herself incapacitated by guilt after his passing. Still, she had not, in the slightest way, quickened his demise. Eventually, Freud’s analysis allowed her to enter, guilt-free, into her long-postponed marriage.Conversely, a father shows his four-year-old son how to use “a toy gun to surprise Mom when she walks through the door by pretending to shoot at her forehead”, and then gives the child a real loaded gun. The Father will be found to bear the full burden of guilt for consequent death or grievous bodily harm, either of which will be adjudged as justifying a charge of first degree murder. The same will prove true if a doctor deputes a nurse to inject a drug into the vein of a patient. If this doctor can be shown to have had knowledge, based on years of treating this patient, that he has a life-threatening allergy to this particular medication, he, and not the nurse, will be found guilty of causing the patient’s demise. As in the above hypothetical of the child, the nurse has acted with every reason to have trusted the doctor’s instructions.Clearly, there is a great deal more which could be written regarding the development of the British legal system. Indeed, many scholarly tomes have been dedicated to its beginnings and growth. We hope this overview provides a fruitful encapsulation of its progress and impact upon modern thought.
Eventually, British settlers would sail to “the new world” in order to colonize unchartered land in the name of the then reigning monarch. Thus, much of early American law was drawn from those known to the settlers. Many of these laws are still at the core of the American system, joined with the United States’ Constitution.Note: There are two laws of utility that are often discussed together: law of diminishing marginal utility and the law of equi-marginal utility. This article explains the law of diminishing marginal utility.The law of diminishing marginal utility is an important concept to understand. It basically falls in the category of Microeconomics, but it is of equal and significant importance in our day-to-day decisions. In this article, you will find the definition of the law of diminishing marginal utility, its detailed explanation with the help of a schedule and diagram, assumptions we make in the law of diminishing marginal utility and the exceptions where the law of diminishing marginal utility does not apply.
We will first start with the basic definition of ‘Utility’.
Utility is the capacity of a commodity through which human wants are satisfied.
The law of diminishing marginal utility is comprehensively explained by Alfred Marshall. According to his definition of the law of diminishing marginal utility, the following happens:
“During the course of consumption, as more and more units of a commodity are used, every successive unit gives utility with a diminishing rate, provided other things remaining the same; although, the total utility increases.”
‘Utils’ is considered as the measurable ‘unit’ of utility.We can briefly explain Marshall’s theory with the help of an example. Assume that a consumer consumes 6 apples one after another. The first apple gives him 20 utils (units for measuring utility). When he consumes the second and third apple, the marginal utility of each additional apple will be lesser. This is because with an increase in the consumption of apples, his desire to consume more apples falls.
Therefore, this example proves the point that every successive unit of a commodity used gives the utility with the diminishمسلسل لو HD – الحلقة ( 1 ) الأولى مسلسل لو اللبنانى – Law series HD episode 01
تابعونا على فيسبوك وتويتر .. https://www.facebook.com/AlHayahSeriesTV https://twitter.com/AlHayahSeriesTV.




Law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law.com
Legal Dictionary | Law.com

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Top 10 Telling Signals That The Boss is Bullying You

So you’ve done it. Somehow you have gotten together thousands of dollars and retained a divorce attorney. Maybe you were like me and interviewed and called dozens, maybe you hired the first lawyer you found on Google.
What will your divorce lawyer do for you? Pretty much file paper work and bill you an ungodly amount of money per hour. In my case it was $290 an hour. I thought about that. At $290 an hour, my retainer would be depleted in just a couple of days charged time. Don’t forget the lawyer will charge you for travel time, to and from the court house. The lawyer will charge you for each and every phone call. Have you got a question and think maybe the answer is simple? Send the lawyer an email? Think twice. That’s chargeable time.
Court costs are not mentioned when the lawyer talks money with you. Mediation cost $120 an hour, paid for by both parties involved in the divorce. Basically the lawyer will do nothing for you other than follow the date of mediation and then show up. No preparation was done in my case. Even though I was filing for divorce on the grounds of adultery, it was never mentioned. Seemed to me that I was on the defensive most of the time when I felt that I had done everything I could to try to save my family. My wife slept with men she met in bars. Could the lawyer at least bring something like this up. I had proof. I spoke to a man who admitted he slept with my wife. I wanted the lawyer to earn the money. Nope. Nothing. No guidance as to what would happen over the next several months. Just….I need a huge retainer. I hired my lawyer and 3 months later my retainer was gone. I’d like to know where $5,000 goes in 3 months and we still had not gone to court. I was now getting billed for another $1,000. How could I come up with that? I had borrowed against my 401K just to get the retainer. That was no longer an option.
About a month after the retainer was depleted I got 2 more bills. One of the bills had a memo inside telling me that the law firm could no longer represent me unless I “repleted” my retainer. Nice. Hire a lawyer with your life savings. A lawyer that told you she cared about your kids and knew what you were going through because she too was a product of divorce.
Now I have a letter telling me “We need $1000 or we are done with you”. So much for integrity. I got the money. I ended up completely cashing out my 401K account and giving another $1700 of my life savings to a lawyer. I now knew, my lawyer never cared for me at all. She cared about dollars, and lots of em. She called me 2 days before Christmas last year. “about your bill, Oh yeah hows the kids”. This is word for word. I will never forget the call. I was struggling to buy Christmas presents. I drove a piece of shit car that I bought at an auction for $650 and she needs $770. I told her “You’ll get your money”. I was in the process of trying to get a mortgage to save the home for the boys. I did say to her “right now you are not very high on the payment priority list” and then wished her a Merry Christmas and hung up.
A month went by and I got another letter from my attorney. Now she writes “unless this office receives full payment of $810 then the office would be forced to file the attached form at the local court. I looked at the attached document. It was a small claims court law suit form. My divorce lawyer was now threatening to sue me. Not only that she had tacked on a $40 review of case fee and interest.
I called her that minute. You told me you cared about my boys. She was cold and terse. I said you will get your money. She wanted me to put it on a Discover card. I said no. I can hardly afford to pay for oil and food and she wants me to tack another $810 on a Discover card that had a 30% interest rate. Why is the rate so high? Because the great deal I got in divorce, mediated by my lawyer has me paying child support (although I have 50% custody) and all the tuition for my youngest son to go to kindergarted because my home town has no kindergarten program. I told her I would try to pay something soon.
About 2 weeks later I got the form. I was now officially being sued. I was irate. I had given this bitch $7000 of my life savings and she wants more. The filing of the case cost money and now that was also on the bill. The $770 bill was now $890. at this rate it will be over $1,00 soon. Who cares I thought. Now I will do everything I can to make her wait. I called her one last time. She had been consisitently late every time we had to appear in court. Not by a few minutes either. One time by about half an hour. I had one question for her when I called that day. Me: I got your letter telling me you are now suing me
Divorce Attorney: I am not going to discuss this now
Me: Are you gonna be in court on time that day?
Divorce Attorney: I am not going to dicuss this now
Me: Are you going to be in court on time that day? (louder)
Divorce Attorney: I am not going to discuss this now
Me: (yelling into the phone) ARE YOU GOING TO BE IN COURT ON TIME THAT DAY?
Divorce Lawyer: Maybe not
Bet she will be.Legal TV Shows – They Keep Us Watching!
It seems we may be addicted to the best legal TV shows on both sides of the Atlantic and indeed some of the best legal TV shows from the UK and the USA have dominated television schedules all over the world.
Legal shows and shows featuring lawyers are not a recent addition to TV – some of the first (and best?) arrived on TV in the 1960s and like all good stories involving lawyers and criminals – they have stood the test of time.
Some of the shows like Perry Mason still look like well-made dramas and Raymond Burr certainly did have a certain gravitas to bring to the role.
In the UK, we still enjoy a good courtroom drama with shows like Judge John Deeds and Silks enjoying viewers into the millions.
So this article is a tribute to the best legal TV shows, from the early 1960s to the present day.
So take a seat – and remember, “silence in court”!
Best 1960s TV Lawyers
The 1960s started off their legal TV shows in style with The Law And Mrs Jones starring James Whitmore as the wonderfully named Abraham Lincoln Jones.
The court cases mainly consisted of his law clerk, C.E. Carruthers (Conlan Carter) helping him to put together cases against fraudsters and embezzlers, ably assisted by his secretary, Marsha Spear.
The show had a loyal audience for its two seasons in 1960 – 61 and had the fine character actor James Whitmore in the main role. Whitmore was already a well-respected stage and screen actor, having already won both a Golden Globe and an Oscar nomination for the 1949 movie, Battleground.
He is probably best remembered by more recent audiences for his performance as Brooks in the prison movie, Shawshank Redemption.
Although The Law and Mrs Jones only lasted 2 seasons, it led the way for similar legal dramas and was a well-made show with high quality acting.
One of the shows to follow The Law and Mr Jones was The Defenders, a story of a father and son law firm which focused on more topical issues at the time, even covering one show on the subject of abortion. The Defenders writer was Reginald Rose, most famous for writing the movie ‘Twelve Angry Men’. Rose could be compared in many ways with one of today’s top writers, like Aaron Sorkin who is equally unafraid to feature controversial topics in his many prime time TV shows.
The Defenders show starred E.G. Martin and Robert Reed, the latter much more famous as the dad in The Brady Bunch!
Perry Mason starring Raymond Burr is perhaps the most well-known of the 1960s legal TV shows and actually began life in the 1950s as a radio show. Perry Mason was based on the novels by Erie Stanley Gardner. The plotlines were fairly rigid from week to week but were still suspenseful and very popular, making Perry Mason the longest running lawyer shows. Raymond Burr played Mason to perfection; it is difficult to imagine anyone else in the role, he truly made it his own.
In Britain, a show called Boyd QC covered similar ground to The Law and Mr Jones though with a bit more edge. Sadly, almost every episode of the show was lost. Another popular show called Brothers In Law starring a young Richard Briers as a young solicitor ran for many years in the late 50s and early 60s and was, surprisingly for a legal TV show, a comedy!Best 1970s TV Lawyers
Perhaps one of the best legal TV shows in the 1970s was The Paper Chase, which was successful on both sides of the Atlantic and featured the wonderful John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield, overseeing the success or otherwise of law students at Harvard.
The great thing about The Paper Chase was that it was about the law but in a very different way; the storylines mainly concentrated on the successes or otherwise of 3 law students and there was more going on in their personal lives than just college so it was a sort of legal soap opera at times.
It ran for 8 years between 1978 and 1986, though had a rather chequered time getting oI Wanna Be a Lawyer
Emma goes to the Supreme Court to find out what a day in the life of a lawyer is like. Want to see more career videos from Student Edge? ↓ Click here http://…




Lawyer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for lawyer
Lawyer, Attorney, Law Firms, Attorneys, Legal Information. Lawyers

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Child Labor Laws: Then and Now/Today

This included Family Law so the women and children suffered.
Until a woman got married she was dependent on her father for lodgings, food and money.
Once the woman did marry she legally became the property of her husband
Any money or property she inherited from her parents if they were wealthy also became the property of the husband.
Family Law: Children and their rights
Any children born in the marriage also became the legal property of the husband and father.
If the woman divorced the husband she was destitute as nothing she brought in to the marriage was now her property. Not even her children, he could do what he liked with the children.
If he so wished he could put them in a residential school or have them adopted.
The mother and children had no say in the matter.
Many women stayed in the marriage because of these 19th century British Laws
Middle and Upper class women were not allowed to work if they wanted to stay respectable and therefore suitable for marriage.
Those who didn’t marry usually became the unpaid carers of their parents. They and the parent were ‘pitied’ for their situation.
When the parents died the daughter did not inherit the house or money belonging to the parents even though she may have looked after them for years.
The property was always left to the sons
Women were not entitled to any inheritance except at the discretion of the father.
If an unmarried middle class woman was left destitute with nowhere to live and no money she usually had to become a live in governess.
Therefore swapping one carers role for another, she was in effect a servant in someone else’s home again.The only way the young women were able to escape from this fate was to get married.
Once a woman was married she became the property of her husband. This was the law. It was known as the ‘Coverture System’
Any children she had did not belong to her. They only had one parent under the Law, the father.
If the woman left the marriage she could not have the children
She had no right to even see them. She had no rights at all. The house and any money were his. She had to find work to survive. There was no freedom for the married woman in Ireland.
The women of the lower classes did work, but this was accepted as a necessity and not frowned upon. They became servants, worked in factories, pubs and as prostitutes.
The jobs we see most women working in today, which were only done by men then, were secretaries, sales assistants, civil servants, etc.
This was because it was felt that women were either too stupid or delicate to do these jobs. There were exceptions but very few.If a woman left the marriage and was separated or divorced it was deemed her fault. It didn’t matter if he had a hundred affairs or beat her black and blue.
The husband had sole custody of the children.
He could put the children in an orphanage or send them away to God knows where, she had no rights to see them.
Any money she did have before the marriage was deemed his once they married
This was the same for any property she may have inherited from her parents. He got to keep it all. Not only that but when and if she did get a job after the divorce all her earnings were his by law.
The husband could take all her earnings from her so she would become destitute and at his mercy. She was trapped into a dull and unfulfilling life if she did not marry. If she did and the marriage was a bad one she was trapped in a violent and unhappy life.
If she was lucky enough to marry and find love then she still by law was worthless and the ‘property’ of her husband.There were one group of people who recognised the value of their women, which was the Quakers.
This was a religious organisation that felt it was just as important for the girls to be educated as the boys. The women could go to work or set up their own businesses.
In Ireland in 1876 Anna Haslam with her husband, Tom set up the first Irish organisation to try to get votes for women.
This was called The Irish Women’s Suffrage and Local Government Association
They did not believe in violence and sent letters to Parliament and the politicians. But most Irish women at that time did not support them. Nearly all were Catholics and they believed the teachings of the Catholic Church.
This was that the woman was there to obey her husband and look after the children and bring them up as good Catholics.There was a very small change in the law for the better in 1838 for the women.If they were separated they were allowed limited access to the children.
But it wasn’t until 1870 when the Married Women’s Property Act came into Law that they were allowed to keep any money that they earned themselves. This gave them some independence.
In 1886 the Guardianship of Infants Act allowed women to become the guardians of their own children but only if the husband died.
Attitudes towards women changed in Ireland when in 1880 the women of Ireland were asked for the first time to help out the men with a political situation
The men had no idea what they had let themselves in for.
The women did a better job and it made them realise that what the men, their fathers, brothers, husbands and their priests had been telling them all their lives was not true.
They were not stupid, they could think for themselves.
And unfortunately for the men they did just that.It all started in 1881 in Ireland when Michael Davitt asked the women to take over the Land league while the men were in jail.
The Irish Ladies Land League was established.
The rich English landlords owned the land and charged rents that were too high. At this time thousands of families were being evicted from their homes.
They were thrown out of their homes and left to starve to death
Many of them did. The Land League with Charles Stuart Parnell and Michael Davitt as its leaders were making so much trouble for the British Government that they were arresting thousands of the men involved.
Michael Davitt knew that soon there would be no men left to carry on.
So he asked Charles Stuart Parnell’s sisters Anna and Fanny to come home from America and set up the Ladies Land League in its place.
Parnell was arrested in January 1881.
Where as the men tried to stop the evictions but once it failed they left the families to fend for themselves, the women did what women do.
They helped in a practical way.
They got food and clothes for the evicted families and built a hut at each house so the evicted family was able to stay on the land.
At first the papers made a laugh of them and could not understand how they had the cheek to think they were equal and would be able to run a political organisation like the men.
The churches, both Catholic and Protestant were even more hostile to the idea.
They stated that the women had no right to be away from their homes and their domestic duties
They were told to go home and look after their husbands and children and not to stand up and make speeches and protests.
The papers soon changed their mind when they saw all the help the people were getting from these ‘ silly ‘ women.
This was the first time Irish women got involved in politics and from then on many more were to follow.
To read more on this click hereIn Ireland women were not allowed to become doctors, solicitors, accountants, civil servants, etc in the 1800’s.
The Victoria College in Belfast was the first to allow women to study there in 1859.
The first in Dublin was the Alexandra College in 1866.
Trinity College still did not allow any women in there to study until 1904
Most of the women who did graduate became teachers because they could still not practice their professions.
Women could not vote in England and Ireland until 1918 but then only if they were over thirty years old and owned property.
It was 1928 before all British women over twenty one years old were allowed to vote
It was not until 1923 in the Irish Free State that all Irish women over the age of twenty one years old were allowed to vote in Ireland.
Women and Children suffered in England and Ireland in the 19th Century.
The men made all the laws including Family Law.
So they made the woman and children the legal property of the man within marriage
He also had the full rights to any money or property of the wife.
Change in the Family Law and all other discriminatory laws against women and children did finally come about but very slowly.
It took a lot of guts and hard work by women and men who supported Womens’ rights to make this change.
All Images are copyright of L.M.Reid unless otherwise stated Maritime Law: The Jones Act
There are two different kinds of law on the planet. The first is known as COMMON LAW, which is law of the land. The other is maritime admiralty, which is also known as the law of water, it can also be referred to as banking law.
Maritime admiralty law considers you a maritime admiralty product, simply because you were birthed out of your mother’s water. A ship sits in its birth until the captain gives a certificate of mمسلسل لو HD – الحلقة ( 1 ) الأولى مسلسل لو اللبنانى – Law series HD episode 01
تابعونا على فيسبوك وتويتر .. https://www.facebook.com/AlHayahSeriesTV https://twitter.com/AlHayahSeriesTV.




Law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for law
Law.com

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Money and the Law of Attraction

If your side is still splitting after watching that video, you may want to read this hub. There is certainly more driving laws that are broken daily than I have listed here, but this is the top ten most common driving laws that bad drivers break daily.
Getting your learner’s permit for driving takes practice and study. You do not want to break even one minor motor vehicle driving law while taking your Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driving test. They will flunk you if you fail to fasten your seat belt. Surprisingly, some people forget to do this.
During your driver education and DMV test you are required to be on your best driving behavior. Don’t throw all of those valuable driving skills away as soon as you pass your driving test though. You are going to need to stay focused and alert throughout your driving life. There is no valid excuse for not wearing a seat belt in today’s cars. Tests show that wearing seat belts save thousands of lives.
Did you know that restraints save thousands of children yearly? If you cannot afford a proper child restraint system, look for good used car seats at GoodWill, Craigslist or FreeCycle. You use them until your child no longer needs them or moves up to a larger size. Pay it forward when your child grows out the seat.
Other important item to restrain are loose packages, pets, heavy items and anything else that might go flying around in a car during an accident.
Texas sends out the message daily: “Click it or Ticket”. This means that you will get an expensive paper reminder if you fail to buckle up.
“A text or call can end it all”

The odds of a collision and death are 23 times higher for distracted drivers. Sixty percent of student drivers today admit to texting and driving. Distractions include, but are not limited to:
texting and driving
talking on the phone while driving
eating or drinking while driving
singing or listening to music while driving
trying to put on makeup or shaving while driving
trying to retrieve something that fell – pull over to look for it!
rubbernecking is a big distraction (focus on the road)
trying to read a map, newspaper or book while driving
Children and adult passengers in your car are a huge distraction. You must learn to ignore distractions when you are playing chauffeur.Inspection stickers are required for all vehicles on the road today. The reason for this is to save lives. If your car has faulty brakes, worn out windshield wipers, broken tail lights or other mechanical problems, you will be more likely to have an accident.
Police are not trying to hassle you when they pull you over for a broken head light or other faulty problem with your car, they are trying to save lives, one of which may be your own.Inexperienced drivers and stressed out drivers seem to enjoy making illegal U-turns, running stop signs, failure to yield to others and something called a “burn out”. They like to show off. They enjoy pushing a 2,000 pound automobile to its limits.
The fun stops when someone is hurt. How many times have you heard the warning, “Don’t Drink and Drive!”
According to Drunk Driving Facts – Drunk Driving Statistics, nearly HALF of all driving fatalities have alcohol related factors. Every two minutes on the clock means that a person is seriously injured because of a driver under the influence of alcohol. Per year there are 16,000 deaths related to drunk driving. If 16,000 people per year were dying of a communicable disease like AIDS, we would rally around and put a stop to it.
Why are people still doing this? It’s apparent that drinking and driving is incredibly dangerous to your health and others.Should you have a serious accident or witness one, you are required to stop and render aid or provide testimony as to details.
How many fatal hit and run accidents are there daily? California reports say that there are nearly 300 people hit and killed annually by drivers who leave the scene. California has a hit and run crisis on their hands that they say may be cultural in origin.
People fear what may happen to them if they are caught. They don’t seem to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Undocumented and unlicensed drivers are the biggest culprits in these cases.Sometimes we are not even aware of local laws and curfews. We break these driving laws because they are not widely publicized.
Sometimes is seems like local authorities may be setting up local speed trap areas and hope that no one is aware of them. The only thing to do is to familiarize yourself with varying conditions of the locales you are planning to drive through.Have you ever driven illegally with an expired driver’s license? Have you driven without insurance? These two things happen more frequently than is known about. Responsible people will always keep a current driver’s license and current insurance, but there are times when even the best of us have temporary lapses.Just about everyone has approached a four way stop intersection and wondered who goes first. Like this scenario, there are hundreds of times while driving that a right of way is in question. What to do?
Well, my suggestion is to always drive defensively. If the other person wants to go first, let him! Smile and wave. Never fight over such minor things as whether you have the right of way. You don’t want your tombstone to say, “I was right, but it killed me.”This is my favorite of “stupid car tricks”. There are times when even Texas gets a little bit of ice on the road. These days mean well over 500 wrecks for the police to deal with. Sometimes there are hundreds of wrecks just because it rains.
Even bright sunshine can cause distracting flares and cause accidents. There are actually driving laws on the books that instruct drivers to drive for conditions of the road. If you speed during bad weather, even if you are legally under the regular posted speed limit, you could be breaking a driving law.As a pre-law school student, you’ll need to do everything you possibly can to give yourself the best chance of gaining admission to the most prestigious law school possible. This article will break down the importance of your undergraduate GPA and what you should keep in mind when applying to the top law school of your choice.
The two main metrics that accredited law schools use to judge and weigh law school applicants are:
Your LSAT score
Your undergraduate GPA.
While many law schools will preach that they judge their incoming class based on a more holistic scale—taking into account such factors including LORs (letters of recommendation), one’s undergraduate major, extracurricular activities, volunteer work, personal statement, etc., this is only partly true. When it comes down to it, the combination of your LSAT score and your GPA will likely be the defining factors determining whether you’ll be a competitive applicant for top-ranked law schools. The other factors are important still, of course, but are often used more so for borderline applicants.
Note: It’s also important to keep in mind that this article will address top schools more directly than just any law school. Lower tiered law schools and unaccredited ones will likely not look at GPA as heavily as, say, Yale, Stanford, or Harvard.
In this article, find comprehensive information that will include the following:
GPA basics—how law schools generally use GPAs in determining an applicant’s status
How important is your undergraduate GPA?
Average law school GPA requirements
A list of the median GPA requirements from this country’s top law schools
Most of you are aware, I’m sure, that your GPA (grade point average) is the cumulative average score or grade that you receive from all of your classes combined. In most school systems, this is graded on a 0.0 to 4.0 scale—with an A amounting to 4.0 and an F worth a 0.0.
However, law schools look at it slightly differently. While most undergraduate institutions don’t award marks above an A, those that do award an A+ for excellent work give an advantage to their students. That is because law schools grade undergraduate students on a 0.0 to 4.3 scale instead of the normal 0.0-4.0. This gives students whose schools don’t award grades above an A a slight disadvantage. However, because so few schools actually give out these grades, it makes little difference to applicants. So, if you’re a top student with an abundance of A’s at a school that doesn’t believe in A+’s, don’t fret!How important is your undergrad GPA, exactly? In true legal fashion, the answer will be somewhat lawyer-like: It depends.
Your GPA, While Important, is Not the Be-All, End-All
The most important thing you need to know about your undergraduate GPA is that it is not the most important metric concerning admissions committees. Schools won’t admit this, but your GPA probably accounts for only about 25-30% of your overall law school portfolio, while your LSAT score is closer to 60%, with the remaining 10-15% being made up of LORs, personal statements, extracمسلسل لو HD – الحلقة ( 1 ) الأولى مسلسل لو اللبنانى – Law series HD episode 01
تابعونا على فيسبوك وتويتر .. https://www.facebook.com/AlHayahSeriesTV https://twitter.com/AlHayahSeriesTV.




Law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for law
Law.com

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Outside Centre Court: 5 Different Things to See in Wimbledon

Appearing in court–especially for the first time–can intimidate even the most confident person. The only time I had ever been in one was when I applied for my passport, so when I had to appear before a judge in a small claims contest, I only knew the process through Judge Judy, and I didn’t think I could trust her as a source. It made me fret. My roommate had run out on our lease, and I stood to lose a lot of money if he didn’t honor the agreement. I couldn’t find anything online to help me prepare or even ease my nerves.
Coming out of the experience–and having lost–I compiled a list of things that would have been nice to know before hand. Whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant, knowing how small claims court really works (at least in St. Louis County in Minnesota) could save you a lot of stress. These are just a few items I feel would have changed my situation:
1. Conciliation Court Doesn’t Mean Anything
The judge explained right before the hearings started that the court doesn’t keep any record of what happens or what decision he makes. Whatever is at stake, the responsibility lies with the defendant and the plaintiff to follow through on collecting the claim, and if one party fails to uphold the agreement, the court won’t intervene to enforce it.
So think very hard about whether or not suing someone will help you. My judge basically told everyone, “This is just a game. No one really has to pay anything,” right before the hearings. I felt like even holding conciliation court was just a scam to get court fees. So ask yourself three questions before you go in:
Can the defendant pay?
Will the defendant pay?
Do I have the means to enforce the judges decision?
The defendant’s job doesn’t even have that many questions to worry about. Not showing up for the hearing results in an automatic ruling in favor of the plaintiff, but since no one really cares, the only thing to worry about is, “Do I respect this person enough to consider paying up if he makes a good case?”
2. Don’t try to sound like a lawyer
I prepared my argument before I went in. I wrote it down, edited it, made sure it made sense, and brought it in with me to read to the judge. My ex-roommate doesn’t have a very high intelligence, and struggles with understanding seemingly simple everyday concepts. I thought for sure if I went in there and sounded intelligent, it would help my case.
Not really.
Don’t bother with big words or arguments that sound legal. Just state your case simply, the way you’d describe it to a friend.
3. Justice is blind, so don’t ask her to read anything
“What?” you ask. “In a country that requires all agreements to be put into writing, wouldn’t written evidence be important?”
No. Apparently not. The law isn’t like science or history or anything else that requires evidence to support an argument. They don’t want to consider all the evidence, and if something is on paper, they automatically rule it out as being “heresay,” and therefore not true.
They hold court during business hours on Wednesday. I couldn’t bring in my witnesses because they both had full-time jobs. Instead, I collected signed statements; one from my girlfriend supported my claim that my roommate said “The landlord threatened to evict you if I didn’t move out,” and the statement from my landlord saying “I never threatened to evict anyone, and he said you wanted to cause me trouble.” Just before he moved out, it became more and more obvious that my roommate had a different story depending on who he was talking to. If I could bring in proof that he lied about that, I thought, that will discredit anything he might say in his defense.
Unfortunately, judges won’t read written evidence, so that didn’t work out. Bring witnesses with you if you need them.
4. Perjury isn’t a crime.
Afterwards, I read an article written by a lawyer that said not only does no one ever prosecute perjury, but judges expect it when hearing a case. This article went on to say that people tend to be more honest in small claims court, when they don’t have a lawyer’s advice, and that they often say things that damage their case.
Well, my ex-roommate lied through his teeth, and brought in his girlfriend to lie through her teeth. Judge Judy seems to have a talent for sniffing out liars, but my judge listened to the testimony of a girl with a very obvious tell, and didn’t seem to care.
So to recap:
The court assumes anything written down is a lie.
They also assume anything spoken at the hearing is true.
This didn’t go well for me. My roommate’s name was missing from the lease due to a clerical error, but verbal contracts are legally binding in Minnesota. Ever try to prove a verbal agreement with no physical evidence? It would have been nice if the judge would have taken thirty seconds to look at the paperwork my ex-roommate filled out to get his name on the lease. But he didn’t.
5. The plaintiff is solely responsible for proving his case.
When the judge’s ruling showed up in the mail, it came with the comment, “The defendant’s version of events was more plausible.” Honestly, I still find that statement offensive. I went in there prepared to make a fully honest argument, and he called me a liar.
However, in an innocent-until-proven-guilty system, the defendant has the advantage. If he proves his innocence, he wins. If it comes up that the judge can’t make a decision, he still wins. The plaintiff has to go above and beyond to show everyone what’s what, and if he can’t the ruling automatically favors the defendant.
I’m still offended by the statement, though.
I don’t wish a court experience on anyone. They’re intimidating, bureaucratic and unjust. The judges don’t judge–they make decisions based on rules, something a computer program could do just as easily. But should you find yourself in that situation, consider my experience and use it to your advantage. I wish you the best of luck. (Unless, of course, you’ve skipped out on paying rent.)For many people the main attraction for visiting Wimbledon is undoubtedly the tennis. Wimbledon is a district in the south-west of London and every year it is home to the world-renowned Wimbledon Tennis Championships. The Championships are held in a two week period in late June and early July and last year just under 485,000 people attended the various games. The first Championships were in held in July of 1877 making Wimbledon the oldest tennis tournament in the world. It is also the only major tournament that is played on grass and is one of four ‘Grand Slam’ tennis competitions in the world. For most people living in England the name ‘Wimbledon’ is almost synonymous with ‘tennis’ and many people visit the area simply to get a glimpse of centre court. However, Wimbledon, as an area not just a tennis competition, has much more to offer than might appear at first glance. It is a lively and interesting area with many things to see and do. If you are visiting the district you should ensure that you don’t miss out on everything that Wimbledon has to offer outside of the tennis courts.Wimbledon Common, aside from being one of the larger areas of common land in London, is well known in popular culture as the home of the Wombles – the fictional environmentally-conscious creatures created by Elisabeth Beresford. Though it is unlikely that you will spot a Womble on the Common it is still a lovely area for walks and picnics. The Common covers around 460 hectares and there are roughly one million trees – the perfect place for a nature enthusiasts or families wanting some fresh air. Walking around the Common you may come across some links to the early history of the area. Wimbledon Common is home to the remains of an Iron Age hill fort that, despite not having any connections to the Romans, is known as Caesar’s Camp. You can also visit the Wimbledon Windmill Museum that can be found near the centre of the Common. The museum is housed in a 19th century windmill and has a variety of interactive activities and exhibits about the story behind Wimbledon Windmill and the history of windmills.For those who love the great outdoors there is more on offer than just the Common. To the south of Wimbledon Common is Cannizaro Park, named for the Duke of Cannizzaro and his wife who leased the house (now a hotel and known as Cannizaro House) at the centre of the park between 1817 and 1832. The park was originally the gardens for the country house but have since been turned into a public park. It is a smaller park covering some 35 acres but has a number of gardens filled with colourful flowers and plants that bring the park to life in the spring and summer months. You can wander amongst the azaleas, magnolias and roses by yourself or take a guided walk through the park. There are several gardens to visit, including an Italian garden, a water garden and a sunken garden. Though the garden is beautiful in the summer months, it can also look remarkable in the winter months after a frost or a snowThe Peoples Court – November 24, 2014 S18E51 (Full Episode)
“Phony Car Crash Witness” Season 18 Episode 51 S18E51 The Peoples Court – November 24, 2014 S18E51 (Full Episode) The Peoples Court – November 24, …




Court – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for court
Supreme Court of the United States

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Outside Centre Court: 5 Different Things to See in Wimbledon

Appearing in court–especially for the first time–can intimidate even the most confident person. The only time I had ever been in one was when I applied for my passport, so when I had to appear before a judge in a small claims contest, I only knew the process through Judge Judy, and I didn’t think I could trust her as a source. It made me fret. My roommate had run out on our lease, and I stood to lose a lot of money if he didn’t honor the agreement. I couldn’t find anything online to help me prepare or even ease my nerves.
Coming out of the experience–and having lost–I compiled a list of things that would have been nice to know before hand. Whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant, knowing how small claims court really works (at least in St. Louis County in Minnesota) could save you a lot of stress. These are just a few items I feel would have changed my situation:
1. Conciliation Court Doesn’t Mean Anything
The judge explained right before the hearings started that the court doesn’t keep any record of what happens or what decision he makes. Whatever is at stake, the responsibility lies with the defendant and the plaintiff to follow through on collecting the claim, and if one party fails to uphold the agreement, the court won’t intervene to enforce it.
So think very hard about whether or not suing someone will help you. My judge basically told everyone, “This is just a game. No one really has to pay anything,” right before the hearings. I felt like even holding conciliation court was just a scam to get court fees. So ask yourself three questions before you go in:
Can the defendant pay?
Will the defendant pay?
Do I have the means to enforce the judges decision?
The defendant’s job doesn’t even have that many questions to worry about. Not showing up for the hearing results in an automatic ruling in favor of the plaintiff, but since no one really cares, the only thing to worry about is, “Do I respect this person enough to consider paying up if he makes a good case?”
2. Don’t try to sound like a lawyer
I prepared my argument before I went in. I wrote it down, edited it, made sure it made sense, and brought it in with me to read to the judge. My ex-roommate doesn’t have a very high intelligence, and struggles with understanding seemingly simple everyday concepts. I thought for sure if I went in there and sounded intelligent, it would help my case.
Not really.
Don’t bother with big words or arguments that sound legal. Just state your case simply, the way you’d describe it to a friend.
3. Justice is blind, so don’t ask her to read anything
“What?” you ask. “In a country that requires all agreements to be put into writing, wouldn’t written evidence be important?”
No. Apparently not. The law isn’t like science or history or anything else that requires evidence to support an argument. They don’t want to consider all the evidence, and if something is on paper, they automatically rule it out as being “heresay,” and therefore not true.
They hold court during business hours on Wednesday. I couldn’t bring in my witnesses because they both had full-time jobs. Instead, I collected signed statements; one from my girlfriend supported my claim that my roommate said “The landlord threatened to evict you if I didn’t move out,” and the statement from my landlord saying “I never threatened to evict anyone, and he said you wanted to cause me trouble.” Just before he moved out, it became more and more obvious that my roommate had a different story depending on who he was talking to. If I could bring in proof that he lied about that, I thought, that will discredit anything he might say in his defense.
Unfortunately, judges won’t read written evidence, so that didn’t work out. Bring witnesses with you if you need them.
4. Perjury isn’t a crime.
Afterwards, I read an article written by a lawyer that said not only does no one ever prosecute perjury, but judges expect it when hearing a case. This article went on to say that people tend to be more honest in small claims court, when they don’t have a lawyer’s advice, and that they often say things that damage their case.
Well, my ex-roommate lied through his teeth, and brought in his girlfriend to lie through her teeth. Judge Judy seems to have a talent for sniffing out liars, but my judge listened to the testimony of a girl with a very obvious tell, and didn’t seem to care.
So to recap:
The court assumes anything written down is a lie.
They also assume anything spoken at the hearing is true.
This didn’t go well for me. My roommate’s name was missing from the lease due to a clerical error, but verbal contracts are legally binding in Minnesota. Ever try to prove a verbal agreement with no physical evidence? It would have been nice if the judge would have taken thirty seconds to look at the paperwork my ex-roommate filled out to get his name on the lease. But he didn’t.
5. The plaintiff is solely responsible for proving his case.
When the judge’s ruling showed up in the mail, it came with the comment, “The defendant’s version of events was more plausible.” Honestly, I still find that statement offensive. I went in there prepared to make a fully honest argument, and he called me a liar.
However, in an innocent-until-proven-guilty system, the defendant has the advantage. If he proves his innocence, he wins. If it comes up that the judge can’t make a decision, he still wins. The plaintiff has to go above and beyond to show everyone what’s what, and if he can’t the ruling automatically favors the defendant.
I’m still offended by the statement, though.
I don’t wish a court experience on anyone. They’re intimidating, bureaucratic and unjust. The judges don’t judge–they make decisions based on rules, something a computer program could do just as easily. But should you find yourself in that situation, consider my experience and use it to your advantage. I wish you the best of luck. (Unless, of course, you’ve skipped out on paying rent.)For many people the main attraction for visiting Wimbledon is undoubtedly the tennis. Wimbledon is a district in the south-west of London and every year it is home to the world-renowned Wimbledon Tennis Championships. The Championships are held in a two week period in late June and early July and last year just under 485,000 people attended the various games. The first Championships were in held in July of 1877 making Wimbledon the oldest tennis tournament in the world. It is also the only major tournament that is played on grass and is one of four ‘Grand Slam’ tennis competitions in the world. For most people living in England the name ‘Wimbledon’ is almost synonymous with ‘tennis’ and many people visit the area simply to get a glimpse of centre court. However, Wimbledon, as an area not just a tennis competition, has much more to offer than might appear at first glance. It is a lively and interesting area with many things to see and do. If you are visiting the district you should ensure that you don’t miss out on everything that Wimbledon has to offer outside of the tennis courts.Wimbledon Common, aside from being one of the larger areas of common land in London, is well known in popular culture as the home of the Wombles – the fictional environmentally-conscious creatures created by Elisabeth Beresford. Though it is unlikely that you will spot a Womble on the Common it is still a lovely area for walks and picnics. The Common covers around 460 hectares and there are roughly one million trees – the perfect place for a nature enthusiasts or families wanting some fresh air. Walking around the Common you may come across some links to the early history of the area. Wimbledon Common is home to the remains of an Iron Age hill fort that, despite not having any connections to the Romans, is known as Caesar’s Camp. You can also visit the Wimbledon Windmill Museum that can be found near the centre of the Common. The museum is housed in a 19th century windmill and has a variety of interactive activities and exhibits about the story behind Wimbledon Windmill and the history of windmills.For those who love the great outdoors there is more on offer than just the Common. To the south of Wimbledon Common is Cannizaro Park, named for the Duke of Cannizzaro and his wife who leased the house (now a hotel and known as Cannizaro House) at the centre of the park between 1817 and 1832. The park was originally the gardens for the country house but have since been turned into a public park. It is a smaller park covering some 35 acres but has a number of gardens filled with colourful flowers and plants that bring the park to life in the spring and summer months. You can wander amongst the azaleas, magnolias and roses by yourself or take a guided walk through the park. There are several gardens to visit, including an Italian garden, a water garden and a sunken garden. Though the garden is beautiful in the summer months, it can also look remarkable in the winter months after a frost or a snowThe Peoples Court – November 24, 2014 S18E51 (Full Episode)
“Phony Car Crash Witness” Season 18 Episode 51 S18E51 The Peoples Court – November 24, 2014 S18E51 (Full Episode) The Peoples Court – November 24, …




Court – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for court
Supreme Court of the United States

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Newton’s law of universal gravity

The unit and its quality must remain same.The earliest recording of laws reflects understanding that humankind, while at the highest end of the animal spectrum, remains an inevitable part of its kingdom. As such, human nature requires legal limitations upon its unbridled behavior. Without legal sanctions, those same urges which fuel the rampages of the animal sphere would dominate human society. Indeed, our modern phrase “the law of the jungle” indicates this reality.
The first known codes of law were created by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and other ancient civilizations. In addition, whatever one’s religious beliefs, the Ten Commandments said to have been given to Moses, according to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain many central principles accepted by our current society. Laws against stealing and killing still stand, while the committing of adultery is understood to be a major factor in countless crimes. One of the earliest grounds for voluntary manslaughter, a murder alleged to have been committed due to an eruption of passion, was a man’s having found his wife in an intimate situation with another man.Catapulting several millennia, we will shift to that pivotal year, 1066. Prior to the Norman Conquest, Saxons had established laws, and were regularly adding to their number via a system of circuit judges. Still, though William did not, by any means, conquer a lawless realm, he largely centralized all laws within The Crown’s purview. In terms of property law, all land became the property of The Crown, and still is, ultimately, to this day. This means that if someone dies without leaving a will, or any other indication of wishes as to disposal of property, and all avenues of search for relatives have proved futile, ownership will revert to The Crown.
William’s self-proclaimed ownership created groundwork for his son, King Henry I, to broaden his control of its laws. In 1116, Henry I set forth “the Leges Henrici, thereby designating himself “the law giver”, a title which, while containing a Latinate version of his name, was doubtless meant to be inherited by his successors. According to Henry’s edict, offenses against the king’s peace included arson, robbery, murder, false coinage and crimes of violence. (Echoes of these laws are reflected today when someone is arrested and/or prosecuted for having disturbed the peace.)Criminal laws were first set forth as a solution to the previous self-help methods of avenging an injury. Individual decisions as to the degree and method of retaliation resulted in such chaos that governmental authorities recognized the need to intervene. This mediation succeeded in that a party who felt injured knew that the government would take some definite action on his behalf. Initially, criminal and civil laws were united. Later, during the reign of Henry II, due to his conflict with his archbishop Thomas Becket, the court system divided into civil and criminal branches.
Following some turmoil in dividing the two, it became feasible for a defendant to be sued both by society represented by The Crown, and an individual able to bring a legitimate claim due to an injury sustained via the same act, within legal boundaries. Originally, there were few crimes. Murder, by way of example, was simply murder. Even such a justification as self-defense would not guarantee a more lenient sentence. Though a plaintiff with a strong enough claim might apply and obtain a royal pardon, its granting remained a matter of chance, received by the fortunate. (This process has come down to us today in that, at times, a governing body can commute or forbid an execution decided upon by a jury.)During its early stages, criminal law was concerned with only the act in question premised on the theory that “the thought of man shall not be tried”. In time, however, perhaps due to a growing sense of community and the influence of the church, this perspective altered. The understanding that a crime involved a combination of intent and action “mens rea” and “actus reus” became accepted. The depth and degree of this intent would determine the culpability, and thereby the appropriate sentence. Thus, by the end of the 15th century, the crime of homicide was divided into murder and manslaughter. The crucial difference lay in the intent, deemed “malice aforethought” in judgments of homicide. This state of mind was deduced by the judiciary from the overall framework of surrounding facts and circumstances. The intent called “mens rea”, meaning the guilty mind, coupled with its resulting act, “actus reus”, comprised the commission of a crime. To some extent a thought separate from a deed could be viewed as a criminal offense. During the reign of King Henry VIII, “ill wishing” was still considered a crime. Indeed, even to speak of the king’s demise, no matter how many years in the future, was viewed as high treason. Even in fairly recent times, certain mental disorders evoke a belief in their sufferers that their wishes caused or contributed to the death of another.
Sigmund Freud was instrumental in helping patients understand the difference between thought and action, aiding them to forgive themselves for any such hopes if, during the natural course of events, they came to fruition. This proved especially true with a patient who; forced to put her hopes of marriage on hold while she cared for her ailing father, found herself incapacitated by guilt after his passing. Still, she had not, in the slightest way, quickened his demise. Eventually, Freud’s analysis allowed her to enter, guilt-free, into her long-postponed marriage.Conversely, a father shows his four-year-old son how to use “a toy gun to surprise Mom when she walks through the door by pretending to shoot at her forehead”, and then gives the child a real loaded gun. The Father will be found to bear the full burden of guilt for consequent death or grievous bodily harm, either of which will be adjudged as justifying a charge of first degree murder. The same will prove true if a doctor deputes a nurse to inject a drug into the vein of a patient. If this doctor can be shown to have had knowledge, based on years of treating this patient, that he has a life-threatening allergy to this particular medication, he, and not the nurse, will be found guilty of causing the patient’s demise. As in the above hypothetical of the child, the nurse has acted with every reason to have trusted the doctor’s instructions.Clearly, there is a great deal more which could be written regarding the development of the British legal system. Indeed, many scholarly tomes have been dedicated to its beginnings and growth. We hope this overview provides a fruitful encapsulation of its progress and impact upon modern thought.
Eventually, British settlers would sail to “the new world” in order to colonize unchartered land in the name of the then reigning monarch. Thus, much of early American law was drawn from those known to the settlers. Many of these laws are still at the core of the American system, joined with the United States’ Constitution.Note: There are two laws of utility that are often discussed together: law of diminishing marginal utility and the law of equi-marginal utility. This article explains the law of diminishing marginal utility.The law of diminishing marginal utility is an important concept to understand. It basically falls in the category of Microeconomics, but it is of equal and significant importance in our day-to-day decisions. In this article, you will find the definition of the law of diminishing marginal utility, its detailed explanation with the help of a schedule and diagram, assumptions we make in the law of diminishing marginal utility and the exceptions where the law of diminishing marginal utility does not apply.
We will first start with the basic definition of ‘Utility’.
Utility is the capacity of a commodity through which human wants are satisfied.
The law of diminishing marginal utility is comprehensively explained by Alfred Marshall. According to his definition of the law of diminishing marginal utility, the following happens:
“During the course of consumption, as more and more units of a commodity are used, every successive unit gives utility with a diminishing rate, provided other things remaining the same; although, the total utility increases.”
‘Utils’ is considered as the measurable ‘unit’ of utility.We can briefly explain Marshall’s theory with the help of an example. Assume that a consumer consumes 6 apples one after another. The first apple gives him 20 utils (units for measuring utility). When he consumes the second and third apple, the marginal utility of each additional apple will be lesser. This is because with an increase in the consumption of apples, his desire to consume more apples falls.
Therefore, this example proves the point that every successive unit of a commodity used gives the utility with the diminishمسلسل لو HD – الحلقة ( 1 ) الأولى مسلسل لو اللبنانى – Law series HD episode 01
تابعونا على فيسبوك وتويتر .. https://www.facebook.com/AlHayahSeriesTV https://twitter.com/AlHayahSeriesTV.




Law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law.com
Legal Dictionary | Law.com

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Newton’s law of universal gravity

The unit and its quality must remain same.The earliest recording of laws reflects understanding that humankind, while at the highest end of the animal spectrum, remains an inevitable part of its kingdom. As such, human nature requires legal limitations upon its unbridled behavior. Without legal sanctions, those same urges which fuel the rampages of the animal sphere would dominate human society. Indeed, our modern phrase “the law of the jungle” indicates this reality.
The first known codes of law were created by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and other ancient civilizations. In addition, whatever one’s religious beliefs, the Ten Commandments said to have been given to Moses, according to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain many central principles accepted by our current society. Laws against stealing and killing still stand, while the committing of adultery is understood to be a major factor in countless crimes. One of the earliest grounds for voluntary manslaughter, a murder alleged to have been committed due to an eruption of passion, was a man’s having found his wife in an intimate situation with another man.Catapulting several millennia, we will shift to that pivotal year, 1066. Prior to the Norman Conquest, Saxons had established laws, and were regularly adding to their number via a system of circuit judges. Still, though William did not, by any means, conquer a lawless realm, he largely centralized all laws within The Crown’s purview. In terms of property law, all land became the property of The Crown, and still is, ultimately, to this day. This means that if someone dies without leaving a will, or any other indication of wishes as to disposal of property, and all avenues of search for relatives have proved futile, ownership will revert to The Crown.
William’s self-proclaimed ownership created groundwork for his son, King Henry I, to broaden his control of its laws. In 1116, Henry I set forth “the Leges Henrici, thereby designating himself “the law giver”, a title which, while containing a Latinate version of his name, was doubtless meant to be inherited by his successors. According to Henry’s edict, offenses against the king’s peace included arson, robbery, murder, false coinage and crimes of violence. (Echoes of these laws are reflected today when someone is arrested and/or prosecuted for having disturbed the peace.)Criminal laws were first set forth as a solution to the previous self-help methods of avenging an injury. Individual decisions as to the degree and method of retaliation resulted in such chaos that governmental authorities recognized the need to intervene. This mediation succeeded in that a party who felt injured knew that the government would take some definite action on his behalf. Initially, criminal and civil laws were united. Later, during the reign of Henry II, due to his conflict with his archbishop Thomas Becket, the court system divided into civil and criminal branches.
Following some turmoil in dividing the two, it became feasible for a defendant to be sued both by society represented by The Crown, and an individual able to bring a legitimate claim due to an injury sustained via the same act, within legal boundaries. Originally, there were few crimes. Murder, by way of example, was simply murder. Even such a justification as self-defense would not guarantee a more lenient sentence. Though a plaintiff with a strong enough claim might apply and obtain a royal pardon, its granting remained a matter of chance, received by the fortunate. (This process has come down to us today in that, at times, a governing body can commute or forbid an execution decided upon by a jury.)During its early stages, criminal law was concerned with only the act in question premised on the theory that “the thought of man shall not be tried”. In time, however, perhaps due to a growing sense of community and the influence of the church, this perspective altered. The understanding that a crime involved a combination of intent and action “mens rea” and “actus reus” became accepted. The depth and degree of this intent would determine the culpability, and thereby the appropriate sentence. Thus, by the end of the 15th century, the crime of homicide was divided into murder and manslaughter. The crucial difference lay in the intent, deemed “malice aforethought” in judgments of homicide. This state of mind was deduced by the judiciary from the overall framework of surrounding facts and circumstances. The intent called “mens rea”, meaning the guilty mind, coupled with its resulting act, “actus reus”, comprised the commission of a crime. To some extent a thought separate from a deed could be viewed as a criminal offense. During the reign of King Henry VIII, “ill wishing” was still considered a crime. Indeed, even to speak of the king’s demise, no matter how many years in the future, was viewed as high treason. Even in fairly recent times, certain mental disorders evoke a belief in their sufferers that their wishes caused or contributed to the death of another.
Sigmund Freud was instrumental in helping patients understand the difference between thought and action, aiding them to forgive themselves for any such hopes if, during the natural course of events, they came to fruition. This proved especially true with a patient who; forced to put her hopes of marriage on hold while she cared for her ailing father, found herself incapacitated by guilt after his passing. Still, she had not, in the slightest way, quickened his demise. Eventually, Freud’s analysis allowed her to enter, guilt-free, into her long-postponed marriage.Conversely, a father shows his four-year-old son how to use “a toy gun to surprise Mom when she walks through the door by pretending to shoot at her forehead”, and then gives the child a real loaded gun. The Father will be found to bear the full burden of guilt for consequent death or grievous bodily harm, either of which will be adjudged as justifying a charge of first degree murder. The same will prove true if a doctor deputes a nurse to inject a drug into the vein of a patient. If this doctor can be shown to have had knowledge, based on years of treating this patient, that he has a life-threatening allergy to this particular medication, he, and not the nurse, will be found guilty of causing the patient’s demise. As in the above hypothetical of the child, the nurse has acted with every reason to have trusted the doctor’s instructions.Clearly, there is a great deal more which could be written regarding the development of the British legal system. Indeed, many scholarly tomes have been dedicated to its beginnings and growth. We hope this overview provides a fruitful encapsulation of its progress and impact upon modern thought.
Eventually, British settlers would sail to “the new world” in order to colonize unchartered land in the name of the then reigning monarch. Thus, much of early American law was drawn from those known to the settlers. Many of these laws are still at the core of the American system, joined with the United States’ Constitution.Note: There are two laws of utility that are often discussed together: law of diminishing marginal utility and the law of equi-marginal utility. This article explains the law of diminishing marginal utility.The law of diminishing marginal utility is an important concept to understand. It basically falls in the category of Microeconomics, but it is of equal and significant importance in our day-to-day decisions. In this article, you will find the definition of the law of diminishing marginal utility, its detailed explanation with the help of a schedule and diagram, assumptions we make in the law of diminishing marginal utility and the exceptions where the law of diminishing marginal utility does not apply.
We will first start with the basic definition of ‘Utility’.
Utility is the capacity of a commodity through which human wants are satisfied.
The law of diminishing marginal utility is comprehensively explained by Alfred Marshall. According to his definition of the law of diminishing marginal utility, the following happens:
“During the course of consumption, as more and more units of a commodity are used, every successive unit gives utility with a diminishing rate, provided other things remaining the same; although, the total utility increases.”
‘Utils’ is considered as the measurable ‘unit’ of utility.We can briefly explain Marshall’s theory with the help of an example. Assume that a consumer consumes 6 apples one after another. The first apple gives him 20 utils (units for measuring utility). When he consumes the second and third apple, the marginal utility of each additional apple will be lesser. This is because with an increase in the consumption of apples, his desire to consume more apples falls.
Therefore, this example proves the point that every successive unit of a commodity used gives the utility with the diminishمسلسل لو HD – الحلقة ( 1 ) الأولى مسلسل لو اللبنانى – Law series HD episode 01
تابعونا على فيسبوك وتويتر .. https://www.facebook.com/AlHayahSeriesTV https://twitter.com/AlHayahSeriesTV.




Law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for law
Law.com

Posted in Blog | Comments Off

Child Custody Basics: How the Court Decides Which Parent Will Win

The King of Cups - Rider-Waite tarot deck. Copyright-free Pamela A version c1909.that
the differences between individuals makes giving specific brand or item
descriptions for wooing impossible. I would be a lunatic to say give the girl
some Wheaties or take her to a Mongolian Barbecue even if such advice proved to
work in one or two cases. That being said there is much to wooing that leaves
room for methodical action and uniformity of tactics. Here is a list of good
habits to get into if you are serious about wooing a woman:

The
first thing any man wishing to woo a woman is to either have a flawless memory
or stoop to using pen and paper to take notes. Believe it or not, there is
enough to learn about any woman that wooing them often requires the same skills
as passing any college class.

Never
schedule a date on a day or night where time is at issue unless you are both
professionals and don’t have time to make such considerations. Even then, if
neither of you can make time then any serious relationship will probably die
for lack of watering like the proverbial neglected plant.

Make
sure that the manners you present before you get married or move in with her
aren’t temporary shifts in behavior. Bad manners will turn any victory into
defeat. What is the point of wooing if you are just going to let the one you
supposedly cared about enough to put on the dog slip through your hands?

Don’t
move in with a woman until your wooing has helped you to conclude that she is
actually someone you want to marry. Your wallet will thank you for it latter.
Things get ugly when you take the wooing process lighter then she will. Once
you are in the same space she has laid claim on you and you should act the
part.

Tattoo
important dates and relationships that she will outline for you in your
discussions on the back of your hand if you have to. In a woman’s mind, being
forgetful in such matters is the same as being inconsiderate. That is one fight
you really don’t need to get into.

Never
stop wooing. Wooing a woman is a life long prospect; if you have any illusions
to the contrary, you probably aught to fix that.

Don’t
woo a woman if you can’t honestly respect her family and cultural traditions.
Between the two of you, you may be able to find a hybrid culture that you can
jointly live with but go in with the understanding that she isn’t the one who
needs to bend to your cultural stand point.

Take
them shopping often in the most eclectic places you can come up with for your
area. A little extra gas pays dividends. Even if you never buy anything on
these trips it does you a lot of service to pay attention to the smells,
trends, and appetites of the woman you are wooing. When she isn’t looking take
notes and be as specific in your data collection as possible. Add restaurants
names and dishes she prefers. You will have plenty of time in private to make
connections and thus formulate additional locations and forms of wooing.

On
the subject of restaurants, I find that it is helpful if you make the choice
into a game where each of you picks an aspect of a perspective place. Insist
that she picks first and make your pick complementary to a notch above the kind
of cooking she is accustomed to. A word of warning in this is that you probably
should come up with locations that people you know won’t necessarily look for
you. It does you credit to have friends but realistically you need time alone
to talk and investigate her wants and needs and intruders can make that
difficult to impossible.

Never
get yourself in a situation where you are forcing her, due to your economical
circumstances to step down to your level. The movies make it look like it might
work but when push comes to shove there aren’t many women who really desire to
go without for very long and money is as good a reason to divorce as any. If
you have your sights set high enough to complement the life she expects make
sure you follow through with any promise of this kind that you make in the
early stages. She won’t forget and will likely remind you of it often if you
ever try to get comfortable before you have kept your word.

Note
of edit to the advice about not forcing a woman to step down. Women I have
found are not by nature materialistic really. As much as you shouldn’t consider
disappointing them in their future expectations of comfort, a woman will take
emotional support and validation over things and gifts any day of the week and
twice as often after you marry her. If you are silly enough to consider wooing
a woman who lives in a method beyond your ability to maintain it, know that she
will expect you to make up the difference by her standards in time, love and
care and the amount she will need will be entirely at her discretion.

I
have never seen any point to not dating multiple women in the initial stages
but only woo one at a time and don’t break it off for any other relationship
until you have both called it quits. Not only does the prospect of doing in
depth analysis of more then one woman at any one time cause a lot of confusion
in your mind but if anything goes wrong it will leave you high and dry with a
bad reputation. Practicing fidelity when you are actually searching for a wife
which is what I am taking as the meaning of Wooing to be is good practice and
will tell you if you can stand being in her presence with nothing but her needs
on your mind for any lengthy period of time.

Find
excuses to be alone with the one you are wooing at least twice to three times a
week and don’t feel obliged to tell her what is going on. If you find that she can’t
get away from whatever leave her a gift. Flowers often work but sometimes you
will find that other things work better.

On
the subject of flowers: Don’t always go for the roses unless she really digs
roses. If you are paying attention to the notes in her perfume and things that
she likes when you take her to places like Body
Works or Sephora there will pop up on conversations other flowers that
actually mean something to her. If you can come up with a collection of these
flowers that doesn’t give you hay fever or by all definitions stink when put
together, you will get more credit for that bouquet then any ten you sent her
before.

Find
out what she wants and needs in the relationship and see if you can and will
live up to that on a long term basis before you even consider asserting your
needs as you fulfill her requests that she may not assert in a demanding way.
If you ignore this peace of advice you probably will end up with a lot of time
on the curb as it were.

Love
notes are a must. If you have to get an unlimited text plan do it. She will
need to know that you care as often as you can express it. You will find out
latter that she probably kept all of them. Make sure they are heart felt and it
might not be a bad idea to keep the ones you send as she may ask you to repeat
what you wrote and explain yourself late.

In
closing if you want to successfully woo a woman you will need to love her for
the person she is and get use to the fact that you will spend every waking
moment trying to make her shine as a person brighter and brighter. She needs to
be the treasure that you count in value and embellish at every turn for the
rest of your life. Any imperfections that you notice but ignore before she lays
claim on you is probably something you really aught to forget permanently. If
you treat her as the treasure she should be, those little things will seem less
important over time. The issue is just as simple and complicated as that.

There are many terms used in our legal system that are not in English. This is done to keep the common man ignorant of exactly what a certain Law or phrase means. Knowing that ignorance is no excuse to break the Law, they write the Laws in a language that cannot be understood by the majority of the population.
This is intentionally done to scare you into a plea because those Latin terms are terrifying, and not understandable. By making our Law Systems above the intellect of the common man they retain control over us.
Take the time to educate yourself, if you are in Court and you are not able to understand what is being said, ask questions.
Even if you are represented by a lawyer do not just let things go by that you do not understand. It is very simple, ask the Judge to define and explain everything to you that you do not understand.
Do not be coerced into taking a plea or settling for less then what you think is fair and just.
SPEAK UP! Tell the Judge you have questions concerning Court procedures. If you do not understand what you are being charged with, how could you make an intelligent plea.quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.

a fortiori. “with even stronger reason,” which applies to a situation in which if one thing is true then it can be deduced that a second thing is even more certainly true.
a posteriori. relating to or originating by reasoning from the observation of facts
a priori. from what was before.
ab incunablis. fromThe Peoples Court – November 24, 2014 S18E51 (Full Episode)
“Phony Car Crash Witness” Season 18 Episode 51 S18E51 The Peoples Court – November 24, 2014 S18E51 (Full Episode) The Peoples Court – November 24, …




Court – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News for court
Supreme Court of the United States

Posted in Blog | Comments Off