No
yes
It is not clear exactly what is being asked here, but as a general rule, Federal Courts operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, so it does not matter whether evidence would be admissible under state law. Also worth mentioning since this was put in the Social Security Disability category that Social Security administrative law judges are not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, but instead operate under more permissive evidentiary regulations that govern SSA.
Hear matters, and conduct trials relating to violations of federal law.
WikiAnswers will not do your homework for you. We will not conduct your research, or write your discussion papers and essays. That is considered CHEATING. However - we will provide you with the followiing infromation with which to do your own research. This information can be found in: Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Article VII Rule 701 thru 706 And as an added bonus - refer to the below links:
Any law passed by the federal government, as opposed to the states, would be considered a federal law.
I dont think so, seeing how unlawful sexual conduct is a federal offense.
In the case of federal warrants being issued or not issued - it is not 'evidence' that matters it is PROBABLE CAUSE that must convince the Federal Juege or Magistrate to issue one or not, the same as in local or state warrants.
false
false
No. This is a power exclusively given the federal government.
The power to conduct elections is by the state governments. There aren't any federal elections, the Presidential election are multiple statewide elections held on the same day.
federa lclaims collection act