|
|
Nosmo King wrote:
> In article <hn5o22tlpi6gtqeb7nsr7t9f2c4th77b27@4ax.com>, "Mike Jacobs"
> <mjacobslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >It's amazing to me how these myths about the law gain currency. The
> >signature of anyone, minor or adult, is a symb
|
|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <8g9h22ldvmdfoq70n6dgqpehutenh4jstf@4ax.com>,
> Carlos <brastras@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >Any writing or timely submission of additional evidence by the
> >claimant, his/her representative payee or his/her represen
|
|
|
vatel wrote:
> My brother in law has the possibilliy to sign a contract as sous chef
> in a 5* fine dining located in the asian east.
> Term of contract is in case of termining this contract in any case (!)
> to pay back the outstanding wages untill t
|
|
|
Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:56:49 -0400 from vatel <jazz69@web.de>:
> My brother in law has the possibilliy to sign a contract as sous chef
> in a 5* fine dining located in the asian east.
> Term of contract is in case of termining this contract in any case (!
|
|
|
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:
>
> They are there for people who cannot afford a lawyer. They also
> spend all day, every day, dealing with obviously guilty clients,
> and may tend to be quite jaded and cynical.
>
> The defender's function see
|
|
|
Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:56:30 -0400 from ddnoe@bellsouth.net
<ddnoe@bellsouth.net>:
> I have a friend who owned and ran a small publishing firm. The film is
> no longer operating but he still has the right to the use of the title.
> What is the best wa
|
|
|
In article <4mg0321iromotqbkl61s1fdad86i71rftk@4ax.com>,
GeekBoy <nerds@nerd.com> wrote:
>
>"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
>news:4rtnd1ha8a832hhclruknhh6rmpvdgirtp@4ax.com...
[[.. munch ..]]
>> You can try to fight
|
|
|
Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:56:16 -0400 from GeekBoy <nerds@nerd.com>:
> Why is that? Doesn't the prevailing party able to get attorney fees?
This question is answered here very often. In the US system, each
party pays its own fees. There are certain statut
|
|
|
I am wondering if unpaid spousal support will ever go away. I went to
court and got the spousal support terminated, but I really never paid
this. The Judge said it will be final in July as to spousal support.
I had to lie or this would have continued
|
|
|
I bought a condo in Boston. When we saw it for the first time, the
seller's agent showed us the place and the tandem parking. The
parking had 3 garbage bins on the side. The garbage bins have garbage
for the entire building. The cars have to be moved o
|
|
|
In article <1m5o22l53b4o60d8fcjiho7k1mql1gjnkm@4ax.com>,
John F. Carr <jfc@mit.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment saying if a trial
>goes on more than a month or generates more than twenty pages
>of jury instructions we stop the
|
|
|
In article <rl5o22hkokm8h1362ha3bju627ribg5he1@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>If a juror refused to promise to render a true verdict, don't you
>think that one or both parties' counsel would challenge for cause,
>assumi
|
|
|
PTravel wrote:
> > The short answer is "probably not". The First Amendment and similar
> > state constitutional provisions only restrict the government, not
> > private entities such as AOL.
>
> As a clarification, that may not be true with respec
|
|
|
Cris wrote:
> I live in the U.S. About a year ago, I sent a rather pricey item - an
> autoclave - via FedEx to Canada. When the package got there, they
> apparently released it from customs without charging the buyer the
> customs fees he owed. They
|
|
|
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:55:54 -0400, Cris <staunchman@cf.rr.com> wrote:
(He shipped a piece of expensive equipment from the US to Canada, but
FedEx neglected to collect customs charges from the addressee. When
the addressee refused to pay later, FedE
|
|
|
Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:55:54 -0400 from Cris <staunchman@cf.rr.com>:
Cris,
You sent an expensive autoclave by FedEx from US to Canada. "They"
FedEx or Canada customs?) released it from customs without collecting
duty from the recipient. FedEx bille
|
|
|
"Cris" <staunchman@cf.rr.com> wrote in message
news:plg0329670hd8j0dilhnkq3qnj4051lm9o@4ax.com...
>
> Does any of this sound unusual to anyone?
No
> I know they had this stipulation in their contract, but for a
> contract to be legally enforcea
|
|
|
curious314159@yahoo.com wrote:
> I just bought a brand new 06 Civic. When I took
> the car home I noticed a slight warping on the right
> side panel where bumper meets the body.
>
[dealer ack's damage & repair]
I all states I know of you'd be ent
|
|
|
jimjam wrote:
>
> I am buying a house in N. Carolina. BOth seller and buyer have signed
> the contract drawn up by the realtor.
>
[problems with dead guy on title]
There are ways to clear the title, but here the issue you ask about is
what ar
|
|
|
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:55:30 -0400, "jimjam" <taliman2@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>I am buying a house in N. Carolina. BOth seller and buyer have signed
>the contract drawn up by the realtor.
>
>However, a title search revealed that a now deceased unc
|
|
|
In article <blg03211nj7etajvf5nt4rb7m0a7ed6ate@4ax.com>,
jimjam <taliman2@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>I am buying a house in N. Carolina. BOth seller and buyer have signed
>the contract drawn up by the realtor.
>
>However, a title search revealed that
|
|
|
"jimjam" <taliman2@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:blg03211nj7etajvf5nt4rb7m0a7ed6ate@4ax.com...
>
>
> I am buying a house in N. Carolina. BOth seller and buyer have signed
> the contract drawn up by the realtor.
>
> However, a title search re
|
|
|
In article <6lg032pjilkh674s5plhf31art7p4k91u7@4ax.com>,
Daniel R. Reitman <dreitman@spiritone.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:36:49 -0500, "Manoj" <manojb@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>
>>When I see US Supreme cases, most are titled Certiorari to so-an
|
|
|
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> A very few types of cases can be appealed to the Supreme Court:
> that is, the losing party can refer them to the S.C. which by
> law _must_ take the case.
>
> In the vast majority of cases,(*) the
|
|
|
Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Manoj" <manojb@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>> When I see US Supreme cases, most are titled Certiorari to
>> so-and-so court, but some are titled Appeal from so-and-so
>> court. Is there any practical
|
|
|
> You had a right to SCOTUS appeal before 1925,
> but not now.
I found a more recent case (from 2002) which was an appeal: United
States vs. American Library Association.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf
This was an appeal from
|
|
|
> You had a right to SCOTUS appeal before 1925,
> but not now.
And for some time after 1925 also, I should think. Brown vs. Board of
Education was an appeal from the District Court of Kansas.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&
|
|
|
"A Michigan Attorney" <miattorney@gmail.com> wrote:
> The short answer, I think, is "no". UCC 9-303(1) requires that
> the security interest attach before it can be perfected (i.e.,
> before it is good against third parties). UCC 9-203(1)(a)
> ex
|
|
|
"A Michigan Attorney" <miattorney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Specifically, you are asking whether you can file a UCC-1
> financing statement without a SIGNED security agreement to
> support it (and I suspect that what you really want to know is
> whether
|
|
|
Will <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:
>"Barry Gold" <bgold@nyx.net> wrote in message
>news:nk5o22tl9maj4jvtt5fk0b8o7uimoo02i8@4ax.com...
>> If Vendor B signs the invoice and sends it back, it *might* be
>> considered a modification of the exi
|
|
