Question about Computers & Internet

1 Answer

A JP made the wrong decision because he didn't know the law, now it's going to cost me a lot of money to take it to anoither court.

JP didn't know JP didn't know Texas state law or HOA law and made wrong decision in small claims court. What now? It is going to cost a lot of money and I am on SSI and I'm 77 y/o/.

Posted by on

1 Answer

  • Level 3:

    An expert who has achieved level 3 by getting 1000 points

    Superstar:

    An expert that got 20 achievements.

    All-Star:

    An expert that got 10 achievements.

    MVP:

    An expert that got 5 achievements.

  • Master
  • 1,511 Answers

Every State, City and County has FREE Legal Services.
Lawyers are available at no cost if you check with the area legal system or call any attorney and ask for a name of someone in your area who will got to bat for you.

Posted on May 09, 2014

1 Suggested Answer

6ya6ya
  • 2 Answers

SOURCE: I have freestanding Series 8 dishwasher. Lately during the filling cycle water hammer is occurring. How can this be resolved

Hi,
a 6ya expert can help you resolve that issue over the phone in a minute or two.
best thing about this new service is that you are never placed on hold and get to talk to real repairmen in the US.
the service is completely free and covers almost anything you can think of (from cars to computers, handyman, and even drones).
click here to download the app (for users in the US for now) and get all the help you need.
goodluck!

Posted on Jan 02, 2017

Add Your Answer

Uploading: 0%

my-video-file.mp4

Complete. Click "Add" to insert your video. Add

×

Loading...
Loading...

Related Questions:

1 Answer

Went to court - reduced fine - want to pay - need to inquire if warrent is on his name. lunch only 1hour


wrong site this is fixya not a court or law enforcement agency need to make request inperson at a court or police dept

Jul 25, 2017 | HIS Computers & Internet

1 Answer

Do Wrongful Termination California can Occur in Mixed Motive Cases?


Laws for employment are made as workers are being exploited by their employers for their labor either because they do not know their rights or because they are often too fearful to make a complaint. A mixed motive case is when an employer terminates an employee for both a legitimate and an illegitimate reason. When impermissible reason is a substantial factor in the decision, the termination is considered Wrongful Termination California.

Apr 12, 2017 | Cars & Trucks

1 Answer

Why was presedent Jackson infriated by the chiefs disition


OK, let's try this in English and see what Google makes of your question. To Google well, you have to be able to spell well.

Why was President Jackson infuriated by the Chief's decision?

And Google does know?

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. - PBS

www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that ... Under Chief Justice Roger Taney's leadership, the Court in the Dred Scott case (1857) ... President Andrew Jackson ignored the Court's decision in Worcester v.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832) ' New Georgia Encyclopedia

www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
An infuriated Georgia legislature responded by purporting to extend its jurisdiction ... Although Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Cherokee Nation v. ... President Jackson did not enforce the decision against the state and instead called on ...

[PDF]Wordly Wise KEY Lesson 1

www.oakparkusd.org/cms/lib5/CA01000794/.../Wordly%20Wise%20printable.pdf
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Apr 18, 2012 - (c-a) If you infuriate someone, you make that person very angry. 2. (d-a) A sham ... President Jackson was infuriated by the chief justice's opinion because ... Authority is used to mean "the right to make decisions or take action.

The Cherokee Victory :: essays research papers - Free Essays

www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=89131
  1. Similar
Through the Indian Removal act in 1830 President Andrew Jackson ... rulings delayed this for the Cherokee Nation, and infuriated President Jackson. ... to find a way around this decision and had three minor Cherokee chief's sign the "Treaty ...

Free Essays on Why Was Andrew Jackson Infuriated With The Chief ...

https://www.cyberessays.com/.../why-was-andrew-jackson-infuriated-with-the-chief-ju...
  1. Cached
Essays on Why Was Andrew Jackson Infuriated With The Chief Justice for ... over Cherokee territory but the ruling was ignored by the state and by Jackson .

American Frontier - Page 53 - Google Books Result

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0787705292 Tim McNeese - 2002 - ‎History In 1825, President James Monroe ordered American agents to obtain a land cession ... Georgia, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, determined that the ... This decision infuriated the governor of Georgia.Also, the president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, refused to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Conflict and Change in the West: The American Frontier

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0787741558 Tim McNeese - 2002 - ‎Education In 1825, President James Monroe ordered American agents to obtain a land cession ... Georgia, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, determined that the ... This decision infuriated the governor of Georgia.Also, the president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, refused to abide by the Supreme Court decision.
Google

Jan 06, 2017 | Miscellaneous

1 Answer

What stops a trustee from stealing from a trust the beneficiaries don't know how much money is in the trust


trust is all that stops theft
there is a criminal law that applies if theft is proved but you will need a court order to check the trust and the people running the trust
time to get the services of a good lawyer

Nov 09, 2015 | Cars & Trucks

1 Answer

What has happened? Can ICC arrest & try U'S troops for war crimes without legal protection and guarantee under US law?


Again this is not a router question...... but this is what politifact.com says on the subject.

First, some background on the International Criminal Court and its relationship to the United States.
The ICC is a permanent, independent court headquartered in the Hague that investigates and brings to justice individuals who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, according to the Congressional Research Service. Cases may be referred to the ICC either by a member state, the court's own prosecutor, or the U.N. Security Council. The court only investigates or prosecutes serious crimes by individuals (not organizations or governments), and then, only when national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to handle them.
The court's founding document, known as the Rome Statute, entered into force on July 1, 2002. So far, 122 nations have become members of the court. But while the United States signed the Rome Statute under President Bill Clinton in 2000, it has not moved on to ratification -- the step that would make membership official.
This position is intentional. Under President George W. Bush, the United States actually went so far as to "un-sign" the Rome Statute. The reasons included concerns that the court could exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens or military officials, as well as a perceived lack of checks and balances on court pursuits.
More recently, United States opposition has softened -- within limits.
In 2008, the United States decided not to veto a Security Council resolution to refer a case from the Darfur region of Sudan. Then, when Obama took office, it began attending sessions as an "observer" nation in 2009. In January 2010, a Justice Department review found that "informational" support for "particular investigations or prosecutions" would be legal under laws passed under Bush.
In theory, the Obama administration could choose to seek Senate ratification. But even if it did, experts say, the administration's ability to win the 67 votes in the Senate is almost nonexistent, given the extent of lingering concern about U.S. membership in the court.
"President Obama has made no indication that he 'wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.'s International Criminal Court,'" said Steven Groves, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Since everyone knows such a transmittal would be dead on arrival, the likelihood that the president would do so before the end of his term is negligible, if not zero."
Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor who specializes in international law, agrees, calling the email's claim "completely wrong."

"Although the U.S. is no longer actively opposed to the court's existence and operation, as was the Bush administration, the Obama administration has no intention of submitting the ICC statute to the Senate," Ratner said.
In other words, the email is wrong to claim that Obama, "with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power." All Obama could theoretically do is ask for Senate support. Even if the Democrats had 67 votes -- which they don't -- ratification for this particular agreement would be an uphill battle.
We should add that the email has some other misleading elements about the court, such as when it says the court can "arrest and try U.S. troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under U.S. Law, and from which there is no appeal."
While the ICC can issue "arrest warrants," it cannot enforce them. The ICC "cannot 'arrest' anyone -- it has no police power whatsoever," said Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service Anthony Clark Arend. Instead, it has to rely on its member states to do so, and "a state would not want to cooperate with the ICC if it sought arrest based on trumped-up charges," Ratner said.
Ratner added that, contrary to the email's claim about weak legal protections, the ICC procedures are "generally on par with U.S. law, with small exceptions such as trial by judges rather than a jury, and looser rules for admission of evidence."
Our ruling
The chain email says Obama "wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.'s International Criminal Court." While the Obama administration has been more willing to engage with the court than the Bush administration, which was strongly opposed to cooperating, Obama has made no sign that he wants to become a full-blown member of the court. Even if he did, doing so would require 67 votes in the Senate, making it essentially a nonstarter. We rate the claim False.

Sep 09, 2014 | Computers & Internet

2 Answers

Ombudsman australia


you need to give some more info on the case for people to give a more detailed answer... but if your getting no where due to the fact the debtor is not replying or answering the door then possibly try another debt collection agency who will take a % from the debt once recovered, failing that take them to small claims court or high court, im unsure about laws in Australia but in UK you can pay a little more and go straight to high court which gives them the right to enforce Sheriffs who have greater rights than what we call bailiffs here, the right to force entry into the house and seize goods to the value of the debt as opposed to having to wait for them to answer the door but you will only get your money if the debtor has enough goods or money to seize or to pay. If your Sheriffs do have higher powers than bailiffs then you simply need to wait for their reply and they will be on the case. Sheriffs can't usually be avoided by debtors unless they have nothing to give. Good Luck

Jul 10, 2014 | Computers & Internet

2 Answers

Can a 2003 volkswagon jetta tdi run without a catalytic converter? Just wondering if this can be taken off, I heard it's a lot of money and I really don't have it right now, I know this is the problem, so...


Sure you can run without the converter... It may trigger your engine light to go on. Also, you're increasing your emissions and it's against Federal law to remove emission control equipment. If you're caught, the fine can be a hefty one. Also, your car won't pass an E-Test and at that point, they'll know the converter has been tampered with.

A converter will cost you $150 to $300 on average. Go with Bosal if you don't want to spend a lot of money

Sep 04, 2009 | 2003 Volkswagen Jetta TDI

1 Answer

How do you play 18 wheels of steel american long haul


What you have to do is go to job sites and accept a job from one of them and deliver the goods to the proper destination You have to watch your fuel level because if you run out of fuel then it costs you more. Also on the game you have to follow traffic laws just like in real life so be careful. The other purpose of the game is to start your own trucking company but you have to have a lot of money to do that. If you have any other questions please let me know!

Mar 29, 2009 | ValuSoft 18 Wheels of Steel: American Long...

1 Answer

Cooker


Hi lisa not to sell cookers only to fix them , try asking for you money back or go to the small claims court for you money or send them a bill for the work needed to fix the gascooker , if they are a dealer in gas cookers them might not want to go down this road or there is the trade description act ,

lisa thats the best i can offer it will be a fight but the small claims court is there to help i used it twice when things where sold and where bad i won both times hope this helps ,paul

May 20, 2008 | KitchenAid KGRA806PSS Gas Kitchen Range

Not finding what you are looking for?
Computers & Internet Logo

Related Topics:

101 people viewed this question

Ask a Question

Usually answered in minutes!

Top Computers & Internet Experts

Doctor PC
Doctor PC

Level 3 Expert

7733 Answers

kakima

Level 3 Expert

102366 Answers

David Payne
David Payne

Level 3 Expert

14161 Answers

Are you a Computer and Internet Expert? Answer questions, earn points and help others

Answer questions

Manuals & User Guides

Loading...