motorized? science shorten lot But human added more to counter For specific reason! blood vessels hardened as aging But bone get fragile in counter. Why?
0 Comments
1, $8550 is what?
2, next step is time 3, slow and info is vital 4, dropping christina zumudio is a signal 5, enforcement is automatically postponed until Nov 10 遺憾的是,現實的公理往往並不分明,法官逐漸演變為「御用」工具,失去本身的獨立性。最典型的例子便是歐記健保法2012年3月27日,以一票之差「勝出」,但全國36 州(多為共和黨州長執政)拒絕「跟進」,迫使聯邦政府為他們設立健保交易所,透過國稅局實施「健保抵稅」,由此引發了36州「保民」的多起訴訟,控告國稅局在未設立州健保交易所的36州實施健保抵稅「違憲」,予以「封殺」。2014年7月22日華府聯邦地方法院對由2名小企業主提出的國稅局代行健保抵稅「違憲」訴訟作出判決,判定國稅局敗訴。兩個小時之後,維州地方法院對國稅局「越權」代理健保抵稅訴訟作出相反的判決,判定國稅局勝訴,國稅局有權在未設立健保交易所的36州代理州府職權,並不「違憲」。繼華府哥倫比亞特區和維吉尼亞州之後,印第安納南區法院法官William T. Lawrence(2002年由喬治布什任命)於2014年8月13日再次「封殺」國稅局在印第安納州代行健保抵稅,判定國稅局「違憲」敗訴。
業界普遍認為36州的健保抵稅訴訟案最後會上訴到聯邦最高法院,屆時,2014年參眾兩院的期中選舉,乃至2016年的總統大選,將共同決定36州健保抵稅合法還是「違憲」的命運。 大法官再挺小業主 key is yes: 1, supply information useful and he will argue according to his series of logical thought with legal knowhow, legal risk and consequence 2, prepare for unexpected yet? if so, then no accidental outcome backslapping client , scoring principle backward so as to maintain good relationship or to continue like Franklin who fail to argue and use opposite stories to conceal and wash out the impact at all 3, style is not debative? so what! but in fact, it affect the result because opposing counsel will test and ask the same question regarding your respresentation and so if opposing counsel further control the talk, drill the opposing thought and idea into judge presumption and ruling; 1, Summer loss will happen again! Too bad; 2, STeve Kadsin Ruling will happen again! Two years afterward are non balancing the impact of any remedy at all! 3, Criminal Case is even worst to fight back once defendant admitted any wrongdoing or so! BACK NOW:
WHAT happen if counsel is expected and WILL NOT fight openly FOR principles? 1, will client voice out by himself without interference or without disturbance from all sides ? 2, will it be heard really in court? 3, will it work? 4, how much afterward ? 1, stubborn authority give naughty citizen the wrong impression that this works but maybe it won't
2 stubbornness is proved by COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
169 LEISURE WAY VACAVILLE, CA 95687-3417 | view map (707) 689-0717 L12-03001 kelkris ssociates, inc., phu q. chu, et al (phu phu) 2486 hill view lane., pinole ca 94564 hoa 1208 willow oak court pinole ca 94564 hoa realty companyforward to 169 leisure way vacaville 169 LEISURE WAY VACAVILLE, CA 95687-3417 (707) 689-0717 Terry a duree esq sbn 61008 622 jackson's street, fairfield ca 94533 920 mellus street, martinex 9253134200 Q: Our lease included a clause in which we agreed to a separation fee of two months’ rent, after 60 days’ notice, if we moved out early. We bought a house in October, gave notice (and paid rent) on Nov. 1, and moved on Nov. 15. The landlord re-rented the apartment almost immediately, with a new tenant set to move in on Jan. 10. While we’re certainly prepared to pay rent through Jan. 10, we bristle at the thought that the landlord will be collecting double rent for the period of Jan. 10 to March 1 (when our separation fee runs out). Is this legal? –Alex H.
A: In most states, landlords are required to "mitigate damages" when tenants break a lease with no legal justification. This means that they must make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit, and once they find a new tenant, the original tenant’s responsibility for the balance of the rent ends. The majority of these states have announced their rule in a statute, which may include a statement advising landlords and tenants that any attempt to contract away this duty will not be enforced by the courts. You can see why legislators would add this protection: It hardly does a tenant any good if a landlord can present the tenant with a lease that waives an important right the legislature sought to establish, especially because landlords are so often in the driver’s seat when negotiating leases and rental agreements. The contract you signed requires that you pay four months’ rent after giving notice, regardless of the landlord’s success in finding a new tenant. In some states, however, including New Jersey, Ohio and Utah, the mitigation rule is a common law rule: one that is contained in a court opinion, fashioned by judges after they have studied their state’s historical treatment of the issue. These states are less likely to have a companion "you can’t waive this" rule, because unless the question of waiver was part of the case, a court will usually not go out of its way to pass judgment on issues not before it. When courts reach the waiver issue, they may invalidate the waiver on the grounds that depriving a tenant of the benefit of the mitigation requirement is against public policy. Let’s assume for now that you’re in the latter category: You’ve got the protection of the mitigation rule, but no clear legislative or judicial prohibition against waiving it. You may be in for some creative lawyering — calling upon your state’s consumer protection laws, for example — to invalidate this contract. You might find some help in similar cases. You may learn, for example, that a court in your state has ruled that waiver is not allowable in a commercial leasing context. By extension, the same rule ought to apply to residential leases, you’d argue. In fact, you can make a pretty strong case for extension, pointing out that residential tenants are likely to have less opportunity to negotiate their leases and get such a clause taken out. When parties to a contract (including a lease) have no meaningful way to negotiate its terms, the contract becomes one of "adhesion," which many courts are loath to enforce. One way to impress upon your judge the inadvisability of allowing landlords to avoid the mitigation rule by contract would be to point to Florida, which also has a mitigation rule. Several years ago, Florida passed legislation allowing landlords and tenants to agree to a lease-breaking fee of two months’ rent, but only when the issue has been clearly presented to the applicant as an option that can be declined without fear of being rejected on that basis. You might argue that if landlords in your state are to be allowed to sidestep the mitigation rule, that ability should be decided by legislators who can build in safeguards to protect tenants who don’t want to waive their rights 1, people notice pregancy will go to paternal grandparent country side house to give birth by why other people file complaint to authority if no way to discover for any 2 month pregancy woman? why people do that for no reason of obstructing their own rights! sad reality, right ?
2, whenever age difference happen in marriage, then obvious questioning normally occur even between parties but when will this questioning happen ? first date of rendez-vous or years afterward? 3, are two entries of the premise allow people to stay together with or without notice ? or new place of a newly wedded or unfiled marriage ? 4, more u focus on detai why going to LA? going to verify office?
what should be saying ? it is so important to PREPARE before deed, because it prevent sudden instinctive unpreparedness like goal: asking what question if we see him |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Categories
All
|