Torts

Very basically, criminal law is when a person is charged with a criminal act and civil law is between indivudual parties.

Most people interested in hula know that missionaries in the islands in the 1800s considered hula an "abomination" and preached vehemently against it. But few people know that their influence in government actually resulted in the enactment of laws that restricted the practice of hula for nearly a half-century. What were these laws? Were they ever repealed? Before addressing those questions, a little background is necessary. Prior to the Protestant missionary's arrival in 1820, hula was an integral part of everyday life. Some dances were sacred and could be performed only by selected individuals, while others were enjoyed by the population at large. Hula was one of the primary forms of Hawaiian artistic and religious expression. Its status was radically altered with the arrival of New England missionaries, whose ultraconservative religious sensibilities were severely shaken by the sight of "half-naked heathens" engaging in "lewd and lascivious" dances. Hiram Bingham, leader of the first group of missionaries, wrote that practically the entire Hawaiian population was "wasting their time in learning, practicing or witnessing the hula, or heathen song and dance," instead of tending to fields and families or attending church services. The preaching did not fall entirely on deaf ears. Kuhina Nui (regent) Ka'ahumanu, co-ruler with King Kamehameha II, was an early convert to Christianity and in 1830 issued an oral edict making hula forbidden, along with chants (olioli), songs of pleasure (mele), "foul speech and bathing by women in public places." Since written laws had not yet been instituted, the edict carried the full measure of traditional Hawaiian law (kapu), possibly to the extent of banishment or death for noncompliance, although Ka'ahumanu never issued such consequences. But after she died in 1832, her edict was largely ignored, and the people once again indulged in hula openly, although cautiously. According to noted Hawaiian historians Dorothy B. Barrere, Mary Kawena Pukui and Marion Kelly in their book "Hula Historical Perspectives," "Missionary influence, while strong, never wiped out the hula as a functional part of the Hawaiian society. Faced with this undeniable fact, the authorities sought to curb performances by regulation." The first written laws were enacted in 1840, but it was not until 1851 that the first law pertaining to hula was instituted. In that year the legislature adopted "An Act to Provide for the License of Public Shows," which required a license for any "public show, theatrical, equestrian, or other exhibitions of any description" for which admission was charged. The law did not specify a fee for the license, but did say that anyone found without one could be arrested and fined up to $500. It is interesting to note that the public display of hula was seen in the same light as certain questionable "theatricals" and "public shows" being promoted throughout the United States and Europe by master showman P.T. Barnum, with his traveling show of "human curiosities and circus wonders." Barrere and the others state that the hula performed for money was designed for an audience more "uncouth" than was traditional. "Many, if not most, of these dances were far from being stately, or dignified, or graceful hula performed for visiting dignitaries, and some were part of the repertoire of those dancers who performed for transient sailors, especially during the visits of the whaling fleets." The 1851 law did not regulate hula in private, so the dance continued to be practiced and enjoyed throughout the islands. In June 1858, in an attempt to extend the reach of the law, the Hawaiian Evangelical Society -- composed entirely of missionaries -- submitted a letter to Prince Lot Kamehameha, then minister of the interior, to plead for change. The letter described hula as "a very great public evil, tending ... to demoralize the people ... to divert them from all industrial and intellectual pursuits ... to lay waste their fields and gardens by neglect ... to interfere materially with the prosperity of the schools; to foster poverty and distress among the people." The missionaries' belief that Hawaiians should be participating less in hula and more in cultivating the land was shared by most of the sugar barons, who were struggling to obtain Hawaiian laborers. It was not that the Hawaiians refused to work, but that foreign diseases had decimated the work force. Opponents of hula did not quite achieve the impact desired -- an outright ban -- but their efforts did result in further legal restrictions. In 1859 the 1851 law was amended to include a $10 charge for a license -- a very large sum at the time. The penalty for violations was a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment of up to six months at hard labor. In a further attempt to restrict access, public hula was allowed only in Honolulu. In an article published in the Hawaiian Journal of History, "The Political Economy of Banning the Hula," Noenoe Silva, an assistant professor in political science at the University of Hawaii, sites six court cases that tested what constituted "public" hula. All the cases involved dancing at private residences where money was given to the host family or dancers. The first case was in 1863 on Kauai, when eight men and four women were convicted and fined $3 each. The case was appealed and the convictions overturned. Presumably, dissent from the Hawaiian community over the next five years put pressure on the Legislature to change or abolish these laws. In 1864 the penalty for performing hula commercially was reduced from a maximum $500 to a maximum $100, and possible imprisonment was reduced from six to three months. In that same year, on Kauai a man was convicted of dancing hula and fined $5. In 1866, four men and one woman were convicted on Kauai -- one man was fined $10; the rest, $5. In 1867 one man went to court but was acquitted, and in 1868 one man on the Big Island was convicted. In 1870 the fee for a license was reduced from $10 to $5, and the requirement that all commercial hula be restricted to Honolulu was repealed. In 1872 yet another case came before the court. As reported in the newspaper, eight people were arrested and arraigned in the Police Court on a charge of "promoting ... and abiding and assisting ... at a Hawaiian hula." A plea of not guilty was entered on behalf of the defendants, on the grounds that it took place in a private home. The article indicated that the case had "aroused much public interest" on both sides of the hula debate and that people were anxious to hear the ruling of the police magistrate so they could "understand what is actually the law of the land." A little more than one month after the incident, the newspaper published Police Magistrate Montgomery's ruling in Rex v. Kaluaioahu. He found all nine people innocent. His ruling was based largely on a witness's testimony that the dancing occurred at a child's first-birthday party in a private home. The child's grandmother "sat on a mat ... and gathered sums of money thrown to her ... that the sums contributed were free gifts and not a tax or charge, and that ... $80 may have been collected; that all the nine respondents took part in it, sitting on the floor and monitoring with their hands, and never performed standing." This case seems to have put the issue of what constituted public and private hula to rest, but the law of 1870 stayed in effect until 1896, three years after the overthrow of the monarchy, when it was finally repealed. According to Silva, this was largely due to the fact that "lawmakers of the new republic wanted to open Hawaii to more tourism, and they saw commercial hula as one means to do that." Today, hula is practiced freely and openly throughout the world. What a different Hawaii it would be if hula had been legally extinguished.

You have assaulted them. It can be brought as a criminal charge.

Criminal. When it is connected with bankruptcy or is used to protect it from creditor attachment it generally constitutes a federal and/or state felony.

you are still a parent after all. so why would you NOT be responsible??? this is your child even if you do not have custody it is your moral obligation to make sure the child is raised right. ***beyond the "morality" obligation- which is no doubt true, you may or may not be legally. Depends upon the nature of crime, and with whom the child was in custody of at the time of event, incident, etc...if there was just one. You'll need to check with your family attorney and/or a public defender to see if you can be held legally liable***

Probably not, the best you will be able to do is to document / record / video / keep everything the narcissist pulls. True narcissists can usually fool and actually love fooling legal and health care professionals, it gives them a sense of power. Don't kid yourself either. Many health care workers (cps, social services), therapists, psychologists and even psychaiatrists are nut jobs in their own right. There are plenty of good ones out there too. Narcissists will seek out those that they can manipulate. They do not like the ones they can't and will avoid them. Narcissists for the most part are not psychotic but if they have borderline traits can derail if under stress. Even in counseling most narcissists can fool a psycologist/therapist for quite a while. What you need to understand is what makes a narcissist tick. They internally are selfish children that are insecure, cruel and nasty. If you can prove this to others it's the ultimate degredation to them. They will get furious because the truth about themselves is what they fear most. So, document, video, record, and keep everything. Narcissists are narcissists forever. Also, never allow them to see that they can hurt you, it takes away their glee. Even better, live your own life well and enjoy it to the fullest. Get in shape, be happy and always pleasant with them. Move on with your life and don't look back no matter how much they try and hurt you. It's the best revenge. I know from experience. Only a judge can order someone to be examined or to receive psychological counseling. Court ordered action is only possible if the person has committed a crime or can be proven to be a danger to themselves or society.

I have received a letter in the post from a law student whom I wrote to regarding a car accident he was involved with.This person has accused me of trying to extort money from him and attempted fruad of his insurance company.He has asked me to withdraw the claim against me within seven says otherwise he has stated that he will send this information to his insurance company.Do I have a case for libel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_sports

"Too long" is pretty subjective. I should think it would have to be over a month, and so long as they are genuinely waiting on a part, there's not a lot to be done.

If the consumer has not, or refuses to, pay for services rendered, the mechanic can hold the car for collateral reasons. If you want the car back with the repairs done, then you need to pay the amount due. The mechanic has bills to pay, too.

Here is the link for the lawsuit. www.autosafety.org/uploads/phpwUbuSf_Chrysler2.7.pdf Let me know if this helps. cheetay@yahoo.com

Affirmative Action Groups have sued Banks for having too high credit standards which directly effect minorities ability to obtain loans. Obama sued banks for this back in the 90's before he ran for public office.

Banks have a tendency to settle these suits because they believe they can never win a Jury case in a predominately minority community. They believe they are viewed as the big bad evil rich corporation taking advantage of the little guy. So the banks have settled most cases and lowed their credit criteria in order accommodating the the less credit worthy without compensating with higher rates for the higher risk.

The idea here is that the banks lowered their credit standards in order to accommodate Affirmative Action . Keep in mind that no intentional discrimination has to occur. Only the stats have to show that there is an inequality in loans given in order for fines to be imposed.

Banks then packaged these loans together and sold them to other banks or Freddy and Fannie. So through regulations and and enforcement by the government the business sector gave loans to people who wouldn't have previously qualified for a loan.

Eventually, there were so many sold that everyone wanted a house and everyone got a house. Because of the high demand house values soared along with construction to build more houses because of increased profit in a new home. It then all of a sudden came to a stand still. Credit dried up so construction stopped causing even more foreclosures. When the construction stopped so did everything that supported it. Towns that relying heavily on construction were devastated.

It is not over yet. I have watched many small businesses that have survived the house collapse are at risk of going out of business. Property that they bought a t the peak, has tanked in value. So their mortgages, are upside down as compared to the current property values. Most business mortgage's are 5-10 year mortgages amortized over 20 to 30 years. Many of these business mortgages are up for renewal and banks don't want to renewal an upside down loan because it looks bad on their statements. Most small business don't have the cash to pay down that mortgage and are filing bankruptcy and closing shop.

I am told Bush warned Congress of these issues with Fannie and Freddy before it happen. I have checked this information.

I am uncertain how much the affirmative action contributed to the credit and housing bubble. I am certain it can not be let off the hook as a contributing factor.

If an individual believes a bank is responsible for forgery, a case can be brought against the bank to hold it responsible. The best advice on how to go about this can be given by a lawyer.

You can file a lawsuit against an online gambling site. But before filing a case please check out their terms and conditions properly.

there should be

What is Damnum sine injuria means in the Law of Torts? Give anexample of it in details.

It means that a plaintiff usually sues in the jurisdiction where the subject of the lawsuit or the defendant is located. Actor, (meaning the party taking the action or plaintiff), sequitur, (meaning follows), forum, (meaning jurisdiction), rei,( meaning of the thing involved. )

Embezzlement was a felony which consisted of the conversion to his own use by a clerk or servant of property received by him on behalf of his master.It now falls within the definition of theft in a court of law and requires the same proof as a theft does,this varies from state to state .

It could be considered abuse, if your spouse knows that his or her actions are causing you to be afraid or unhappy and they continue to act that way just to harm you.

You can sue your insurance company for a higher amount but there is no guarantee that you will win. You will need to have proof and be convincing that you deserve more money for the pain and suffering.

Intentional organization refers to socializing someone on purpose, such as teaching a child table manners and how to speak politely. This act is completely deliberate. Unintentional socialization refers to socialization that is happening unintentionally. For example, if a child witnesses his parents fighting constantly, he learns a lot from watching their dispute even if his parents don't know it. He could be learning words to say for when he eventually and inevitably has an argument with someone, and how to leave the argument as well.

I hope this was helpful.

Basically someone that causes an injury due to their own negligence. Here is the full definition: http://www.quizlaw.com/personal_injury_law/what_is_a_negligent_tort.php

intentional tort