These are some of the question you should ask if you are considering a
pre-paid legal plan.
What is covered? Legal plans are offered in different models and differ in
the specifics of what they cover. While phone consultation and simple
drafting and reviewing of simple contracts are included across the board,
more elaborate and complicated legal matters are not covered.
It’s best to review your own legal needs before you choose a legal plan.
Ask which legal services will you need most and then choose a plan that
provides the best coverage given those needs. For instance, if you are a
business owner, lawsuits, lease and contract negotiations could be high on
your list and you would be looking for a legal plan that provides coverage
accordingly.
What legal coverage do I already have? Don’t pay for coverage twice! If
you
have car insurance, then you are covered for liability and medical
protection, home insurance covers you for injuries sustained on your
property… Your existing insurance policies already cover some of your
legal costs and there is no need to pay for that coverage when you select
with a legal plan.
Does the company have an in-house procedure to handle complaints? One of
the stumbling blocks of pre-paid legal services is quality of service.
Newly-licensed attorneys, phone calls not getting answered and that
ointment on any client –lawyer relationship: fee disputes, typically
involving bills made to your credit car to cover for services not included
in your contract… This is just a specimen of the many problems people face
with their plan providers.
Make sure you select a plan that has clear guidelines as to how to settle
dispute when they arise. A company that has a good in-house mechanism to
handle complaints will generally assign a senior attorney with the
authority to handle customer complaints of and disputes with any attorneys
in the network. Secondary sources of resolution may include your state
insurance department or bar association. Check their outlet for complaints
against pre-paid services.
What is the quality of the work they provide? You’ll need to do some
homework before you select your legal provider. Ask these questions:
What’s the firm’s reputation in my area? How many years have they been
in business? Have they been operating in my local area for at least a year
without complaints? How skilled are they attorneys? Do they cover the
locale where my business operates? Some good places to start your
background research are your state bar association, the Better Business
Bureau and the Consumer Affairs Office.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Limitations of Pre-Paid Legal Services
Pre-paid legal plans are promoted under the promise of cheap legal
coverage, an attractive alternative to the high fees charged by regular
attorneys and law practices. But under the gloss of accessible legal
services for the general public, lie a number of limitations.
First, there is a limit on the scope of the legal services provided. Most
of what is provided on an unlimited-basis is phone based: calls to your
attorney for advice and consultation on legal matters, or phone calls made
on your behalf to third parties. Other benefits bundled in the plan are
limited: regular visits to your attorney’s office is restricted to a dozen
or so hours per month, the wills you want drafted or sample contracts
reviewed will be carried out on two or three copies per year. More complex
legal matters involving more time and effort on the part of your attorney
are not provided outright. If you need representation in a court for a
lawsuit on the recovery of damages, or a complex lease contract reviewed
and approved, then you have to pay regular lawyer fees. Some discounts of
up to 25% apply, but you could get the same discounts if not better by
the simple virtue of simple negotiations and clever comparison shopping.
Second is the restriction on your choice of attorney and the quality of
legal work provided. Although you are free to choose your own attorney,
client-lawyer relationship and the building of rapport are harder to come
by in this scheme.
Pre-paid legal plans are fraught with the “rookie” syndrome: the providers
usually resort to employing newly-licensed or trainee attorneys in a
cost-cutting exercise. Someone who does mostly wills, trusts and sample
contracts is probably not a good fit for a more complex legal issue like
the custody of children. In this day of age of increasing specialisation,
it is better to ask someone with specialised knowledge and years of
experience then it is to rely on a novice with a limited professional
track-record.
If you go down the traditional way, then there is restricted “pool of
attorneys” you can choose from. Your research will be easier and a lot
more comprehensive. You can set up interviews with lawyers, ask for
referrals from friends, previous customers or check your local bar
association. You are more likely to get a top-notch lawyer with who to
build rapport get competent advice and trust the judgement.
coverage, an attractive alternative to the high fees charged by regular
attorneys and law practices. But under the gloss of accessible legal
services for the general public, lie a number of limitations.
First, there is a limit on the scope of the legal services provided. Most
of what is provided on an unlimited-basis is phone based: calls to your
attorney for advice and consultation on legal matters, or phone calls made
on your behalf to third parties. Other benefits bundled in the plan are
limited: regular visits to your attorney’s office is restricted to a dozen
or so hours per month, the wills you want drafted or sample contracts
reviewed will be carried out on two or three copies per year. More complex
legal matters involving more time and effort on the part of your attorney
are not provided outright. If you need representation in a court for a
lawsuit on the recovery of damages, or a complex lease contract reviewed
and approved, then you have to pay regular lawyer fees. Some discounts of
up to 25% apply, but you could get the same discounts if not better by
the simple virtue of simple negotiations and clever comparison shopping.
Second is the restriction on your choice of attorney and the quality of
legal work provided. Although you are free to choose your own attorney,
client-lawyer relationship and the building of rapport are harder to come
by in this scheme.
Pre-paid legal plans are fraught with the “rookie” syndrome: the providers
usually resort to employing newly-licensed or trainee attorneys in a
cost-cutting exercise. Someone who does mostly wills, trusts and sample
contracts is probably not a good fit for a more complex legal issue like
the custody of children. In this day of age of increasing specialisation,
it is better to ask someone with specialised knowledge and years of
experience then it is to rely on a novice with a limited professional
track-record.
If you go down the traditional way, then there is restricted “pool of
attorneys” you can choose from. Your research will be easier and a lot
more comprehensive. You can set up interviews with lawyers, ask for
referrals from friends, previous customers or check your local bar
association. You are more likely to get a top-notch lawyer with who to
build rapport get competent advice and trust the judgement.
Legal Plans
What if you could pick up the phone and call an attorney to get advice
about any and all legal matters of interest to you? The attorney would
draft your will, review it and update it for every other year, make phone
calls and write letters on your behalf negotiate your contracts and
represent you in court. If you are traveling in another state and need any
form of legal advice, he will refer you to a competent attorney in that
state for no extra cost to you.
This all seems great on paper, but the mere thought of paying hundreds of
dollars an hour to put an attorney on retainer is enough to persuade most
people not to seek legal coverage.
You will be surprised to know that such coverage does indeed exist under
an arrangement similar to your health or insurance plan. Pre-paid legal
plans offer you access to all these legal services, for a monthly charge
of $10 to $25. If you are employed, you may incur no charge if your
employer provides legal services as a fringe benefit.
Are you thinking of getting on the pre-paid bandwagon? Choosing a
particular enrolment method can be very important in determining the
benefits, costs and conditions of coverage of your legal plan.
A voluntary enrolment refers to a membership of a legal plan where people
“voluntarily” subscribe to a pre-paid legal service in response to a direct
email offer, during an employer’s open enrolment period or during
individual sales representations. In this arrangement, you pay the prepaid
charge, get the standard discounts open to all other members of the plan
and get the coverage as per the terms and conditions of the plan.
In a group plan, all members are automatically included in the plan because
of their status as a group. For instance, many employees enjoy a 100%
participation in legal plans sponsored by their employers. They do not have
to pay any pre-paid charge or premium, as legal coverage in the work place
is now regarded as an employee fringe-benefit.
Some universities also provide legal coverage for their students, financing
the plans from their general tuition fees.
about any and all legal matters of interest to you? The attorney would
draft your will, review it and update it for every other year, make phone
calls and write letters on your behalf negotiate your contracts and
represent you in court. If you are traveling in another state and need any
form of legal advice, he will refer you to a competent attorney in that
state for no extra cost to you.
This all seems great on paper, but the mere thought of paying hundreds of
dollars an hour to put an attorney on retainer is enough to persuade most
people not to seek legal coverage.
You will be surprised to know that such coverage does indeed exist under
an arrangement similar to your health or insurance plan. Pre-paid legal
plans offer you access to all these legal services, for a monthly charge
of $10 to $25. If you are employed, you may incur no charge if your
employer provides legal services as a fringe benefit.
Are you thinking of getting on the pre-paid bandwagon? Choosing a
particular enrolment method can be very important in determining the
benefits, costs and conditions of coverage of your legal plan.
A voluntary enrolment refers to a membership of a legal plan where people
“voluntarily” subscribe to a pre-paid legal service in response to a direct
email offer, during an employer’s open enrolment period or during
individual sales representations. In this arrangement, you pay the prepaid
charge, get the standard discounts open to all other members of the plan
and get the coverage as per the terms and conditions of the plan.
In a group plan, all members are automatically included in the plan because
of their status as a group. For instance, many employees enjoy a 100%
participation in legal plans sponsored by their employers. They do not have
to pay any pre-paid charge or premium, as legal coverage in the work place
is now regarded as an employee fringe-benefit.
Some universities also provide legal coverage for their students, financing
the plans from their general tuition fees.
How to choose an attorney?
Throughout the course of your legal problems, you will have to make some
tough decisions – If you were involved in an accident then you have to
choose between bringing criminal damages or press with a plaintiff case, if
you have a small business and you were involved in a deal, then you have to
decide whether to sign it or let it pass. There is no clear-cut answer in
many of these dilemmas, and getting the right lawyer is crucial to you. We
examine the perks of choosing a lawyer in a pre-paid legal plan as opposed
to hiring your own lawyer, and some simple steps you can take to choose a
good attorney.
The number one criterion has to do with a lawyer’s legal ability: someone
who lays the law down for you, present you with options, explain the
ramifications of each decision you make and give you recommendations on the
best course of action. In this day and age of complicated legal matters,
many lawyers are increasingly specialised and you stand to get better
information from someone with a practice focus in a particular area of the
law than a generalist who deals with a broad spectrum of legal issues.
Building rapport is also very important: your relationship with your lawyer
can make or break your case. You need a lawyer who gives you candid advice
and council you can trust, someone with enough perspective to step back
from an issue and look at it from all perspectives.
Client-lawyer relationships are very limited within a pre-paid legal plan.
Because of “preventive” nature of most plans, your contact with your
lawyer will be limited on many occasions. You seldom get to talk to your
lawyer face-to-face – as most of the consultation is done over the phone
– and even when you get to talk to them, it’s difficult to build rapport
when your office consultations are limited to a dozen hours a year.
The good news, however, is you still have some options left. When you sign
up for a legal plan, you get to choose your lawyer and there is a number of
steps you can take to increase the likelihood of getting a good lawyer.
First, you need to ask for referrals from previous clients. Ask around
about good attorneys in the network. Once you get a few names, check their
educational background, their qualifications and their professional track
record with your state’s bar association.
After you receive your referrals, don’t shy away from setting up interviews
with attorneys in the network. Most don’t mind receiving enquiries about
what they do and how able there are. |Ask tough questions: How long have
they been in practice? How satisfied are their previous clients? How many
legal problems of interest to you have they taken recently?
tough decisions – If you were involved in an accident then you have to
choose between bringing criminal damages or press with a plaintiff case, if
you have a small business and you were involved in a deal, then you have to
decide whether to sign it or let it pass. There is no clear-cut answer in
many of these dilemmas, and getting the right lawyer is crucial to you. We
examine the perks of choosing a lawyer in a pre-paid legal plan as opposed
to hiring your own lawyer, and some simple steps you can take to choose a
good attorney.
The number one criterion has to do with a lawyer’s legal ability: someone
who lays the law down for you, present you with options, explain the
ramifications of each decision you make and give you recommendations on the
best course of action. In this day and age of complicated legal matters,
many lawyers are increasingly specialised and you stand to get better
information from someone with a practice focus in a particular area of the
law than a generalist who deals with a broad spectrum of legal issues.
Building rapport is also very important: your relationship with your lawyer
can make or break your case. You need a lawyer who gives you candid advice
and council you can trust, someone with enough perspective to step back
from an issue and look at it from all perspectives.
Client-lawyer relationships are very limited within a pre-paid legal plan.
Because of “preventive” nature of most plans, your contact with your
lawyer will be limited on many occasions. You seldom get to talk to your
lawyer face-to-face – as most of the consultation is done over the phone
– and even when you get to talk to them, it’s difficult to build rapport
when your office consultations are limited to a dozen hours a year.
The good news, however, is you still have some options left. When you sign
up for a legal plan, you get to choose your lawyer and there is a number of
steps you can take to increase the likelihood of getting a good lawyer.
First, you need to ask for referrals from previous clients. Ask around
about good attorneys in the network. Once you get a few names, check their
educational background, their qualifications and their professional track
record with your state’s bar association.
After you receive your referrals, don’t shy away from setting up interviews
with attorneys in the network. Most don’t mind receiving enquiries about
what they do and how able there are. |Ask tough questions: How long have
they been in practice? How satisfied are their previous clients? How many
legal problems of interest to you have they taken recently?
Group Legal plans
Group legal plans in the workplace have experienced rapid growth recently
because of their usefulness to both employer and employee alike.
For the employee, a group legal plan is a cheap way to get legal coverage
in much the same way as other traditional benefits. For as little as $20
per month deducted from payroll, an employee is put in touch with an
attorney who can draft his will, buy or refinance a home, adopt a child
and plan an estate. Unlimited legal advice is offered at no cost to the
employee.
The benefits for the employer include increased efficiency and
productivity from their workforce, and reduced administration costs to
handle personal matters. Another very attractive benefit is the very low
cost involved in researching and implementing a group legal plan. In fact,
such plans cost employers very little in terms of time and investment.
Group plans are structured on a voluntary basis, paid for through payroll
deductions from the workforce. Additionally, the carrier handles all the
claims, redundant paperwork and customer service related to the plan.
A properly developed group legal insurance plan can be the perfect
complement to any employer’s work life initiative. Considering that many
employees are nowadays increasingly swayed by benefit options when making
career decisions, Legal insurance is a viable product for many employers.
However, there is no single fit-for-all group legal plan for all
organizations. For a start, each organization has a distinct list of
requirements when contracting for legal insurance. A requirement built on
the premise of reduced administrative costs will require a different set
of legal services than requirements built on enhancing a benefits package
or protect against liability.
Legal plans also vary in what they offer: the quality of their customer
service, flexibility of plan design and finally the experience and
professional track record of their panel of attorneys.
In order to minimize the risk of poor service and plummeting employer
satisfaction, an employer should conduct both requirements analysis
amongst its employee base to cover for their difference needs, and a due
research to select the most appropriate legal plan to fit those
requirements based on experience, integrity and track record.
because of their usefulness to both employer and employee alike.
For the employee, a group legal plan is a cheap way to get legal coverage
in much the same way as other traditional benefits. For as little as $20
per month deducted from payroll, an employee is put in touch with an
attorney who can draft his will, buy or refinance a home, adopt a child
and plan an estate. Unlimited legal advice is offered at no cost to the
employee.
The benefits for the employer include increased efficiency and
productivity from their workforce, and reduced administration costs to
handle personal matters. Another very attractive benefit is the very low
cost involved in researching and implementing a group legal plan. In fact,
such plans cost employers very little in terms of time and investment.
Group plans are structured on a voluntary basis, paid for through payroll
deductions from the workforce. Additionally, the carrier handles all the
claims, redundant paperwork and customer service related to the plan.
A properly developed group legal insurance plan can be the perfect
complement to any employer’s work life initiative. Considering that many
employees are nowadays increasingly swayed by benefit options when making
career decisions, Legal insurance is a viable product for many employers.
However, there is no single fit-for-all group legal plan for all
organizations. For a start, each organization has a distinct list of
requirements when contracting for legal insurance. A requirement built on
the premise of reduced administrative costs will require a different set
of legal services than requirements built on enhancing a benefits package
or protect against liability.
Legal plans also vary in what they offer: the quality of their customer
service, flexibility of plan design and finally the experience and
professional track record of their panel of attorneys.
In order to minimize the risk of poor service and plummeting employer
satisfaction, an employer should conduct both requirements analysis
amongst its employee base to cover for their difference needs, and a due
research to select the most appropriate legal plan to fit those
requirements based on experience, integrity and track record.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Differences between Pre-Paid and Legal Plans
It is not uncommon to see the terms “legal plans” and “pre-paid legal
services” used interchangeably. While they share a lot of characteristics
in common, there are a number of differences you should be aware of.
Both of these terms refer to an arrangement whereby you pay a fixed monthly
or yearly fee in exchange for legal services. The idea behind them is to
save consumers on high legal fees whilst offering a valuable service.
That’s where the differences lie: what kind of service is offered and what
is covered. What are you entitled to in both schemes?
Pre-paid services cover for specific legal services: free phone
consultation and advice, drafting of simple wills and trusts, review of
sample contracts and writing of letters on your behalf. Legal services not
provided will get charged at regular attorney fees, but you may be eligible
for discounts.
Legal insurance, by contrast, works much like other insurance plans, like
health or car insurance. Although specific legal services are offered at
times, your insurance provider will typically offer a policy that covers
for all legal services. The policy will pay on behalf of you, the policy
holder, or reimburse all expenses, costs or fees that you pay for legal
services up to the policy limit. For instance, your policy might reimburse
any fees incurred in your court judgments or pay your bail money – a
service not provided by most pre-paid legal plans.
Your legal insurance is also pegged to other insurance policies you may
already have. If you run into legal problems involving your other
insurance, then your legal insurance policy will protect you against loss
or liability. For instance, if you are involved in a car accident when your
auto-insurance has already run out and you are subsequently sued for
recovery of damages, you will be protected by a legal plan insurance.
The other difference between the two schemes is related to your choice of
attorney. In a pre-paid legal service, you get to choose from a restricted
number of the attorneys in the network. By contrast, a legal insurance plan
provides legal coverage regardless of attorney. You are free to set up
interviews with any number of attorneys and choose the ones you think will
provide the best service for your personal legal needs.
Finally, pre-paid legal plans are much more accessible to the general
public. Legal plans are harder to come by as only a limited number of
insurance companies offer such arrangements.
services” used interchangeably. While they share a lot of characteristics
in common, there are a number of differences you should be aware of.
Both of these terms refer to an arrangement whereby you pay a fixed monthly
or yearly fee in exchange for legal services. The idea behind them is to
save consumers on high legal fees whilst offering a valuable service.
That’s where the differences lie: what kind of service is offered and what
is covered. What are you entitled to in both schemes?
Pre-paid services cover for specific legal services: free phone
consultation and advice, drafting of simple wills and trusts, review of
sample contracts and writing of letters on your behalf. Legal services not
provided will get charged at regular attorney fees, but you may be eligible
for discounts.
Legal insurance, by contrast, works much like other insurance plans, like
health or car insurance. Although specific legal services are offered at
times, your insurance provider will typically offer a policy that covers
for all legal services. The policy will pay on behalf of you, the policy
holder, or reimburse all expenses, costs or fees that you pay for legal
services up to the policy limit. For instance, your policy might reimburse
any fees incurred in your court judgments or pay your bail money – a
service not provided by most pre-paid legal plans.
Your legal insurance is also pegged to other insurance policies you may
already have. If you run into legal problems involving your other
insurance, then your legal insurance policy will protect you against loss
or liability. For instance, if you are involved in a car accident when your
auto-insurance has already run out and you are subsequently sued for
recovery of damages, you will be protected by a legal plan insurance.
The other difference between the two schemes is related to your choice of
attorney. In a pre-paid legal service, you get to choose from a restricted
number of the attorneys in the network. By contrast, a legal insurance plan
provides legal coverage regardless of attorney. You are free to set up
interviews with any number of attorneys and choose the ones you think will
provide the best service for your personal legal needs.
Finally, pre-paid legal plans are much more accessible to the general
public. Legal plans are harder to come by as only a limited number of
insurance companies offer such arrangements.
Comprehensive access plans
If you are a member of a pre-paid access plan and are not getting the legal
services you think you need, then it is probably time to upgrade to a more
comprehensive plan.
A comprehensive prepaid legal service plan is designed to cover for the
majority of your legal service needs in a given year. Access services, such
as legal advice and information by toll-free number and follow-up service,
are provided at no cost to you. It’s in the realm of more complex legal
matters that require more time and effort from your attorney, that the
comprehensive plan is more beneficial than a basic, access plan. You can
have your trust set up, instead of a simple will, and a more complicated
business sale contract drawn up as opposed to a simple contract. Legal
representation can equally be provided in court for some cases, such as
child custody.
Comprehensive prepaid plans are most suitable for people who need business
advice, have family trusts or own real estates properties.
services you think you need, then it is probably time to upgrade to a more
comprehensive plan.
A comprehensive prepaid legal service plan is designed to cover for the
majority of your legal service needs in a given year. Access services, such
as legal advice and information by toll-free number and follow-up service,
are provided at no cost to you. It’s in the realm of more complex legal
matters that require more time and effort from your attorney, that the
comprehensive plan is more beneficial than a basic, access plan. You can
have your trust set up, instead of a simple will, and a more complicated
business sale contract drawn up as opposed to a simple contract. Legal
representation can equally be provided in court for some cases, such as
child custody.
Comprehensive prepaid plans are most suitable for people who need business
advice, have family trusts or own real estates properties.
Common Services offered by Pre-paid legal Plans
Considering a pre-paid legal plan? He’s a run-down of the services
you’re most likely to get and also some legal documents you need to sign
before you enrol.
Telephone and Office Consultation: You have unlimited telephone access to
a panel of attorneys regarding any legal matter of interest to you. You
can also make brief consultation visits to your lawyer for up to 30
minutes per day at no cost to you.
The only condition placed on these two benefits is that you enquire about
a different legal matter.
This aspect of coverage provided by legal plans is one of the most
beneficial because it promotes preventive law. Preventive law is very much
like preventive medicine – it helps in anticipating potential problems and
taking the appropriate legal steps so that unnecessary legal problems or
risks are avoided. With a simple phone call to your lawyer you can avoid
getting embroiled in a hellish legal situation, and you can even identify
legal rights you don’t even know you had.
Follow-Up Service: The panel of lawyers will write letters and make phone
calls on your behalf to adverse third parties. Such follow-up service may
be all it takes to solve many of your legal problems.
Legal document review: Simple personal legal documents, such as your
insurance policies, sales contracts and leases will be reviewed. Any
questions of legal nature that you have about the documents will also get
answered by your attorney.
Drafting of wills: A will is a written document that regulates how you want
your property distributed after your death. Your attorney will draft your
will according to your state’s laws so that it’s valid when you die. He
will also advise you on any provisions you might want to consider, such as
appointing a guardian and establishing a trust.
Discount on regular fees: Any additional services not covered in the
written fee agreement will be at regular fees – either hourly or flat –
with a discount between 20 to 30%. These services generally include family
matters, such as divorce and the custody of children, and court
representation, such as traffic tickets and lawsuits.
Some of the legal paperwork you need to read carefully, agree on and sign
include the following:
Written fee agreement: This is an agreement that outlines what services are
provided in the plan, how much it costs and the methods of payment.
Grievance procedure: This document details the procedures that will be
taken by the provide to resolve any complaints about attorneys or disputes
regarding service fees.
you’re most likely to get and also some legal documents you need to sign
before you enrol.
Telephone and Office Consultation: You have unlimited telephone access to
a panel of attorneys regarding any legal matter of interest to you. You
can also make brief consultation visits to your lawyer for up to 30
minutes per day at no cost to you.
The only condition placed on these two benefits is that you enquire about
a different legal matter.
This aspect of coverage provided by legal plans is one of the most
beneficial because it promotes preventive law. Preventive law is very much
like preventive medicine – it helps in anticipating potential problems and
taking the appropriate legal steps so that unnecessary legal problems or
risks are avoided. With a simple phone call to your lawyer you can avoid
getting embroiled in a hellish legal situation, and you can even identify
legal rights you don’t even know you had.
Follow-Up Service: The panel of lawyers will write letters and make phone
calls on your behalf to adverse third parties. Such follow-up service may
be all it takes to solve many of your legal problems.
Legal document review: Simple personal legal documents, such as your
insurance policies, sales contracts and leases will be reviewed. Any
questions of legal nature that you have about the documents will also get
answered by your attorney.
Drafting of wills: A will is a written document that regulates how you want
your property distributed after your death. Your attorney will draft your
will according to your state’s laws so that it’s valid when you die. He
will also advise you on any provisions you might want to consider, such as
appointing a guardian and establishing a trust.
Discount on regular fees: Any additional services not covered in the
written fee agreement will be at regular fees – either hourly or flat –
with a discount between 20 to 30%. These services generally include family
matters, such as divorce and the custody of children, and court
representation, such as traffic tickets and lawsuits.
Some of the legal paperwork you need to read carefully, agree on and sign
include the following:
Written fee agreement: This is an agreement that outlines what services are
provided in the plan, how much it costs and the methods of payment.
Grievance procedure: This document details the procedures that will be
taken by the provide to resolve any complaints about attorneys or disputes
regarding service fees.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Common Services offered by Pre-paid legal Plans
Considering a pre-paid legal plan? He’s a run-down of the services
you’re most likely to get and also some legal documents you need to sign
before you enrol.
Telephone and Office Consultation: You have unlimited telephone access to
a panel of attorneys regarding any legal matter of interest to you. You
can also make brief consultation visits to your lawyer for up to 30
minutes per day at no cost to you.
The only condition placed on these two benefits is that you enquire about
a different legal matter.
This aspect of coverage provided by legal plans is one of the most
beneficial because it promotes preventive law. Preventive law is very much
like preventive medicine – it helps in anticipating potential problems and
taking the appropriate legal steps so that unnecessary legal problems or
risks are avoided. With a simple phone call to your lawyer you can avoid
getting embroiled in a hellish legal situation, and you can even identify
legal rights you don’t even know you had.
Follow-Up Service: The panel of lawyers will write letters and make phone
calls on your behalf to adverse third parties. Such follow-up service may
be all it takes to solve many of your legal problems.
Legal document review: Simple personal legal documents, such as your
insurance policies, sales contracts and leases will be reviewed. Any
questions of legal nature that you have about the documents will also get
answered by your attorney.
Drafting of wills: A will is a written document that regulates how you want
your property distributed after your death. Your attorney will draft your
will according to your state’s laws so that it’s valid when you die. He
will also advise you on any provisions you might want to consider, such as
appointing a guardian and establishing a trust.
Discount on regular fees: Any additional services not covered in the
written fee agreement will be at regular fees – either hourly or flat –
with a discount between 20 to 30%. These services generally include family
matters, such as divorce and the custody of children, and court
representation, such as traffic tickets and lawsuits.
Some of the legal paperwork you need to read carefully, agree on and sign
include the following:
Written fee agreement: This is an agreement that outlines what services are
provided in the plan, how much it costs and the methods of payment.
Grievance procedure: This document details the procedures that will be
taken by the provide to resolve any complaints about attorneys or disputes
regarding service fees.
you’re most likely to get and also some legal documents you need to sign
before you enrol.
Telephone and Office Consultation: You have unlimited telephone access to
a panel of attorneys regarding any legal matter of interest to you. You
can also make brief consultation visits to your lawyer for up to 30
minutes per day at no cost to you.
The only condition placed on these two benefits is that you enquire about
a different legal matter.
This aspect of coverage provided by legal plans is one of the most
beneficial because it promotes preventive law. Preventive law is very much
like preventive medicine – it helps in anticipating potential problems and
taking the appropriate legal steps so that unnecessary legal problems or
risks are avoided. With a simple phone call to your lawyer you can avoid
getting embroiled in a hellish legal situation, and you can even identify
legal rights you don’t even know you had.
Follow-Up Service: The panel of lawyers will write letters and make phone
calls on your behalf to adverse third parties. Such follow-up service may
be all it takes to solve many of your legal problems.
Legal document review: Simple personal legal documents, such as your
insurance policies, sales contracts and leases will be reviewed. Any
questions of legal nature that you have about the documents will also get
answered by your attorney.
Drafting of wills: A will is a written document that regulates how you want
your property distributed after your death. Your attorney will draft your
will according to your state’s laws so that it’s valid when you die. He
will also advise you on any provisions you might want to consider, such as
appointing a guardian and establishing a trust.
Discount on regular fees: Any additional services not covered in the
written fee agreement will be at regular fees – either hourly or flat –
with a discount between 20 to 30%. These services generally include family
matters, such as divorce and the custody of children, and court
representation, such as traffic tickets and lawsuits.
Some of the legal paperwork you need to read carefully, agree on and sign
include the following:
Written fee agreement: This is an agreement that outlines what services are
provided in the plan, how much it costs and the methods of payment.
Grievance procedure: This document details the procedures that will be
taken by the provide to resolve any complaints about attorneys or disputes
regarding service fees.
Benefits of Pre-paid legal plan for your company
Employers are on the hunt - researching benefit tools that are low-cost,
easily administered and satisfy their employees’ needs. One such tool is
pre-paid group insurance. We examine the benefits of having such a
work-benefit option from an employer’s perspective.
The first benefit employers expect from legal insurance plans is increased
productivity and efficiency. Today’s employees are interested in a variety
of benefits to balance their work with their life requirements. Given that
most American household had an issue with law last year that might have led
them to hire a lawyer, it’s only normal that a legal benefit would increase
employees’ morale and efficiency.
Having legal benefit as part of a work-benefit package can help the company
recruit and retain the best employees. In this age of work-benefit
hysteria, many prospective employment candidates base their career choices
on the set of benefit package provided by employers.
Cost containment is another benefit. With less time and resources to be
used for personal matters, the company expects to make significant savings
on administrative costs.
easily administered and satisfy their employees’ needs. One such tool is
pre-paid group insurance. We examine the benefits of having such a
work-benefit option from an employer’s perspective.
The first benefit employers expect from legal insurance plans is increased
productivity and efficiency. Today’s employees are interested in a variety
of benefits to balance their work with their life requirements. Given that
most American household had an issue with law last year that might have led
them to hire a lawyer, it’s only normal that a legal benefit would increase
employees’ morale and efficiency.
Having legal benefit as part of a work-benefit package can help the company
recruit and retain the best employees. In this age of work-benefit
hysteria, many prospective employment candidates base their career choices
on the set of benefit package provided by employers.
Cost containment is another benefit. With less time and resources to be
used for personal matters, the company expects to make significant savings
on administrative costs.
Benefits of Pre-paid legal plans
Pre-paid legal services can be a very attractive alternative to hiring a
lawyer for many people. You should consider the importance and relative
priority of these benefits in light of your own legal needs.
So what are the benefits going pre-paid compared to conventional hire of
lawyers?
Benefit Number 1: Cost-Effective
Pre-paid legal plans can take the sting out of hiring a lawyer. Lawyers’
fees are prohibitive for most people: you can run bills of thousands of
dollars and this is simply out of reach of most working and middle-class
families.
With pre-paid plans, what you get charged is more in line with what you
pay for your health or home insurance. Plans start as low as $9 per month
and typically don’t exceed the $30 mark.
Benefit Number 2: Simplicity
There is a number of very complicated set of fees lawyers charge:
contingency fees, flat fees, statutory fees and hourly rates. In the case
of contingency and statutory fees, you have to get into the intricate
details of how these fees are computed – say for a contingency fee how
much is the lawyer’s commission? – and their regulatory nature – who
regulates the statutory fee and how do I know if these fees are in line
with regulatory guidelines?-.
The other two types of fees can be equally as complex. Increasingly,
attorneys choose to incorporate any overheads they incur, like secretarial
expenses, parking charges and travel fees into their flat and hourly fees.
They can also set a minimum number of billing units, like three tenths of
an hour (18 minutes), irrespective of how long it takes them to deal with
your problem.
This is just a sample rundown of what might influence the various fees
charged by lawyers, other factors and arrangements can apply too. Contrast
this with the simplicity in which pre-paid legal services are priced and
furnished. The process is simple and straightforward: you sign an agreement
to pay a fixed monthly fee and that’s about it. If what you’re looking for
is not covered, your plan provider will give you a prior notice of a
different billing so that you know exactly how much you will be charged.
Benefit Number 4: Pre-emptive Law
Pre-paid plans offer unlimited phone consultation and advice. This aspect
of the service can save you a lot of trouble, money and time in the
future. Most legal problems you are likely to face in your day-to-day life
can be solved if you take the necessary steps in line with the law. With
the right advice and consultation with your lawyer, you can detect legal
blunders before they occur and hence minimize the risk of litigation and
protection.
lawyer for many people. You should consider the importance and relative
priority of these benefits in light of your own legal needs.
So what are the benefits going pre-paid compared to conventional hire of
lawyers?
Benefit Number 1: Cost-Effective
Pre-paid legal plans can take the sting out of hiring a lawyer. Lawyers’
fees are prohibitive for most people: you can run bills of thousands of
dollars and this is simply out of reach of most working and middle-class
families.
With pre-paid plans, what you get charged is more in line with what you
pay for your health or home insurance. Plans start as low as $9 per month
and typically don’t exceed the $30 mark.
Benefit Number 2: Simplicity
There is a number of very complicated set of fees lawyers charge:
contingency fees, flat fees, statutory fees and hourly rates. In the case
of contingency and statutory fees, you have to get into the intricate
details of how these fees are computed – say for a contingency fee how
much is the lawyer’s commission? – and their regulatory nature – who
regulates the statutory fee and how do I know if these fees are in line
with regulatory guidelines?-.
The other two types of fees can be equally as complex. Increasingly,
attorneys choose to incorporate any overheads they incur, like secretarial
expenses, parking charges and travel fees into their flat and hourly fees.
They can also set a minimum number of billing units, like three tenths of
an hour (18 minutes), irrespective of how long it takes them to deal with
your problem.
This is just a sample rundown of what might influence the various fees
charged by lawyers, other factors and arrangements can apply too. Contrast
this with the simplicity in which pre-paid legal services are priced and
furnished. The process is simple and straightforward: you sign an agreement
to pay a fixed monthly fee and that’s about it. If what you’re looking for
is not covered, your plan provider will give you a prior notice of a
different billing so that you know exactly how much you will be charged.
Benefit Number 4: Pre-emptive Law
Pre-paid plans offer unlimited phone consultation and advice. This aspect
of the service can save you a lot of trouble, money and time in the
future. Most legal problems you are likely to face in your day-to-day life
can be solved if you take the necessary steps in line with the law. With
the right advice and consultation with your lawyer, you can detect legal
blunders before they occur and hence minimize the risk of litigation and
protection.
Pre-Paid Legal - Is it worth your money?
You may be covered when it comes to health, life, car or home insurance…
but what about legal coverage?
The question is not if you'll need a lawyer, but when: according to the
American Bar Association (ABA) “Americans have come to view legal
assistance as a necessity”. Yet, most Americans have not used a lawyer
more than once due to the sky high attorney fees – anywhere from $100 to
$1000 per hour – and the trepidation involved in the search for legal
services.
Prepaid legal insurance might just be the answer you have been looking
for. The concept is simple: for a fixed monthly subscription, you get
telephone access to advice from a lawyer. You pay a fixed amount in
advance each month to defray the cost of legal services furnished in the
future. These services span various areas of the law, anywhere from reviews
of simple legal documents and the writing of a simple will to more
comprehensive coverage of trials, divorce, bankruptcy and real estate
issues.
Pre-paid legal coverage is a very attractive proposition for people who
don’t have the resources to retain a lawyer on a regular basis whenever
they need assistance. You effectively have a network of attorneys you can
use as retainer to seek preliminary advice about what the issues are and
how the procedures work whenever legal matters arise. Services not covered
by the plan are available to members for a discount on regular hourly rates
or flat fees.
A hard fact, however, is that more than half of new subscribers drop out of
a prepaid
plan after their first year. One reason could be that many members do not
require any legal assistance during their first year, so opt out. Another
reason is the scope of services offered, which are very basic and limited
in nature. Most plans have certain caps or maximums as far as benefits
provided are concerned, and purport to offer discount on standard attorney
fees instead. However, by virtue of simply calling around by yourself you
could probably negotiate a lower rate.
Another problem with pre-paid legal plans is the likelihood of getting
assigned to a novice attorney. Because of cost considerations, many of the
companies behind per-paid services assign trainee or inexperienced
attorneys to handle phone consultation and drafting of simple legal
documents. You are also less likely to build rapport and understanding,
two of the most important attributes of choosing a good attorney, as over
90% of the work is done over the phone.
but what about legal coverage?
The question is not if you'll need a lawyer, but when: according to the
American Bar Association (ABA) “Americans have come to view legal
assistance as a necessity”. Yet, most Americans have not used a lawyer
more than once due to the sky high attorney fees – anywhere from $100 to
$1000 per hour – and the trepidation involved in the search for legal
services.
Prepaid legal insurance might just be the answer you have been looking
for. The concept is simple: for a fixed monthly subscription, you get
telephone access to advice from a lawyer. You pay a fixed amount in
advance each month to defray the cost of legal services furnished in the
future. These services span various areas of the law, anywhere from reviews
of simple legal documents and the writing of a simple will to more
comprehensive coverage of trials, divorce, bankruptcy and real estate
issues.
Pre-paid legal coverage is a very attractive proposition for people who
don’t have the resources to retain a lawyer on a regular basis whenever
they need assistance. You effectively have a network of attorneys you can
use as retainer to seek preliminary advice about what the issues are and
how the procedures work whenever legal matters arise. Services not covered
by the plan are available to members for a discount on regular hourly rates
or flat fees.
A hard fact, however, is that more than half of new subscribers drop out of
a prepaid
plan after their first year. One reason could be that many members do not
require any legal assistance during their first year, so opt out. Another
reason is the scope of services offered, which are very basic and limited
in nature. Most plans have certain caps or maximums as far as benefits
provided are concerned, and purport to offer discount on standard attorney
fees instead. However, by virtue of simply calling around by yourself you
could probably negotiate a lower rate.
Another problem with pre-paid legal plans is the likelihood of getting
assigned to a novice attorney. Because of cost considerations, many of the
companies behind per-paid services assign trainee or inexperienced
attorneys to handle phone consultation and drafting of simple legal
documents. You are also less likely to build rapport and understanding,
two of the most important attributes of choosing a good attorney, as over
90% of the work is done over the phone.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
About Politics
What is Politics?
Politics is mainly the method and process of taking decisions for the group. The word politics integrates all the domestic and international policies. These are mainly the activities of government on state level or national level political affairs. Since these are mainly the activities of government this does not mean that only government is responsible for carrying out all politics or government alone is involved in all political matters or politics is always carried out in national or state level affairs.
As defined in very first line politics is mainly the method and process of taking decisions for the groups. So politics can be from any group any group like politics can be from opposition party of the ruling party. Whenever the issue of protection of rights of group of members rises there the politics enters into scene. Politics can affect our system both ways that is negatively as well as positively.
It can affect negatively because many times people leave their jobs due to politics at their workplace which they feel that is just the wastage of time and they should just avoid that it is because they don’t want to waste their time in any other activity except their work. This led to increase of pending of jobs and thus adversely affects the organization.
Sometimes people may also leave their jobs which would result in lose of human resource of the company. Sometimes it happens that people form groups at their workplace and do not want others to join their group and also promote members of their own group against the other members and sometimes they may also try to let down the other members which are not from their groups and which may also cause rivalries between groups in the company and thus the workplace becomes the war place. These type of group rivalries are mostly seen in those offices where lot of people work.
These types of group rivalries are the main reason for collapse of work in the organization because of non cooperation from all the workers of company. Mainly those workers cause problems who are engaged in group politics. But sometimes this politics can also be useful to groups as well as company. Let’s see how:
Politics can also remove the root cause of misunderstandings between the workers and the top management in the organization. Politics can help to prevent the rights and interests of workers in the company.
Politics is mainly the method and process of taking decisions for the group. The word politics integrates all the domestic and international policies. These are mainly the activities of government on state level or national level political affairs. Since these are mainly the activities of government this does not mean that only government is responsible for carrying out all politics or government alone is involved in all political matters or politics is always carried out in national or state level affairs.
As defined in very first line politics is mainly the method and process of taking decisions for the groups. So politics can be from any group any group like politics can be from opposition party of the ruling party. Whenever the issue of protection of rights of group of members rises there the politics enters into scene. Politics can affect our system both ways that is negatively as well as positively.
It can affect negatively because many times people leave their jobs due to politics at their workplace which they feel that is just the wastage of time and they should just avoid that it is because they don’t want to waste their time in any other activity except their work. This led to increase of pending of jobs and thus adversely affects the organization.
Sometimes people may also leave their jobs which would result in lose of human resource of the company. Sometimes it happens that people form groups at their workplace and do not want others to join their group and also promote members of their own group against the other members and sometimes they may also try to let down the other members which are not from their groups and which may also cause rivalries between groups in the company and thus the workplace becomes the war place. These type of group rivalries are mostly seen in those offices where lot of people work.
These types of group rivalries are the main reason for collapse of work in the organization because of non cooperation from all the workers of company. Mainly those workers cause problems who are engaged in group politics. But sometimes this politics can also be useful to groups as well as company. Let’s see how:
Politics can also remove the root cause of misunderstandings between the workers and the top management in the organization. Politics can help to prevent the rights and interests of workers in the company.
About Crime
What is Crime?
In simple words an act or behavior that violates or breaches the rule of political, moral or criminal laws and is liable for punishment and public prosecution.
What are the basic reasons which make a people criminal?
The answer lies in following points like:
Increasing rate of Unemployment is the major problem of increasing crime rate. Consider a situation when the qualified young graduate is remains unemployed for longer period after he completed his education. His family has lot of expectations from him and to satisfy their expectations he can go up to any extent and cross any limit just in desire of small payment. At this stage he is not in a position to make a correct decision between what is just and what is unjust but he don’t want to miss any of the opportunity that life is giving him and in this feeling only he accepts those offers which can change his life and can break their social and moral ethics and they are ready to commit crimes, they are ready to kill a person, they are ready to accept any offer that can prove to be a money earning source for them. And this major unemployed segment of society is the main source for crime. No criminal is by birth a criminal but it is the circumstances which make him do so. But this problem is mainly associated with the developing countries. So what about developed countries? Do they not commit crimes? No they also commit crimes. Even the crime rate is higher in highly developed country like USA than other developed countries of the world.
High ambitions are also the one source for crime. A person who has high ambitions like if he wants to enjoy all the comforts of life or wants to achieve the high status in his life he wanted to complete them at any cost may achieve unfair means to fulfill his wish. To make his wishes come true or to enjoy the luxuries of life he can come in the way of crime as this seems to be an easy money earning source for them and when they do crime for the first time then professional criminals tae advantage of it compel them to commit such acts again and again and now if they want to come back they can not be their way back to path of justice and honesty.
Technology Advancements are also one of the reasons for increasing of crime rate. This is because technology advancements have broadened the mind of people and they now can think better ways of committing crimes. Like most of the young person want to own and make use of highly sophisticated arms. And if they are not made available to them, they think for different ways and professional criminal’s takes advantage of this. Technology advancements have now made the way of criminals easier than before.
Do the allow of guns to people for carry and own will reduce the rate of crime or increase the rate of crime. A study conducted by scholar presents the fact that if people are allowed to carry guns then it will reduce the rate of crime.
In simple words an act or behavior that violates or breaches the rule of political, moral or criminal laws and is liable for punishment and public prosecution.
What are the basic reasons which make a people criminal?
The answer lies in following points like:
Increasing rate of Unemployment is the major problem of increasing crime rate. Consider a situation when the qualified young graduate is remains unemployed for longer period after he completed his education. His family has lot of expectations from him and to satisfy their expectations he can go up to any extent and cross any limit just in desire of small payment. At this stage he is not in a position to make a correct decision between what is just and what is unjust but he don’t want to miss any of the opportunity that life is giving him and in this feeling only he accepts those offers which can change his life and can break their social and moral ethics and they are ready to commit crimes, they are ready to kill a person, they are ready to accept any offer that can prove to be a money earning source for them. And this major unemployed segment of society is the main source for crime. No criminal is by birth a criminal but it is the circumstances which make him do so. But this problem is mainly associated with the developing countries. So what about developed countries? Do they not commit crimes? No they also commit crimes. Even the crime rate is higher in highly developed country like USA than other developed countries of the world.
High ambitions are also the one source for crime. A person who has high ambitions like if he wants to enjoy all the comforts of life or wants to achieve the high status in his life he wanted to complete them at any cost may achieve unfair means to fulfill his wish. To make his wishes come true or to enjoy the luxuries of life he can come in the way of crime as this seems to be an easy money earning source for them and when they do crime for the first time then professional criminals tae advantage of it compel them to commit such acts again and again and now if they want to come back they can not be their way back to path of justice and honesty.
Technology Advancements are also one of the reasons for increasing of crime rate. This is because technology advancements have broadened the mind of people and they now can think better ways of committing crimes. Like most of the young person want to own and make use of highly sophisticated arms. And if they are not made available to them, they think for different ways and professional criminal’s takes advantage of this. Technology advancements have now made the way of criminals easier than before.
Do the allow of guns to people for carry and own will reduce the rate of crime or increase the rate of crime. A study conducted by scholar presents the fact that if people are allowed to carry guns then it will reduce the rate of crime.
Writing A Will
One of the most important legal activities each of us faces is deciding how, after our death, our assets will be used and who will benefit from them. Estate planning and the writing of a will is a deeply meaningful way to make a powerful statement with these assets. However, a great number of people die "intestate" (without a will). When that happens the state or others decide for us where and how the estate will be distributed. If your preferences have not been clearly stated in a will, then it is likely that those preferences will not be carried out. It is, therefore, vital that you have a will. It is a wonderful way of expressing your love to the people and organizations you cherish. It is a way to take control of your assets, and make a positive statement.
Guidelines to Consider When Writing a Will
There are four "P's" of estate planning:
1. People: Consider all the people who are important to you and for whom you'd like to provide. This might include your spouse, children, relatives and friends.
2. Property: Consider all property that you own including bank accounts, real estate, stocks, bonds, life insurance, pension plans and personal property.
3. Plans: Ask yourself how you'd like to provide for the people in your life, and how you can make this happen. Will the people who are important to you be provided for in the future? Will you have enough income to manage during your retirement years?
4. Planners: Who are the people who will help you with your financial goals? Consider attorneys, accountants, bank trust officers, stock brokers and insurance agents to help you meet your financial goals.
Tips on Naming Beneficiaries
Understand the limits of a will.
Know when beneficiaries are required.
Decide who gets what.
Don't name your estate as a beneficiary.
Don't name minor children as beneficiaries.
Consider setting up a trust.
Think about tax ramifications.
Name contingent beneficiaries.
Keep everything up-to-date.
Make copies.
FAQ
Q: I don't have a will, where do I start?
A: As a will is a legal document, it is strongly recommended that you consult your solicitor.
Q: What about home-made wills?
A: Home-made wills can be disastrous. You may omit particularly important details, or inadvertently write sections in a way that can be misinterpreted. Making a will with the help of your solicitor is the only way you can be sure that your wishes will be followed after you die. By drafting a will with a professional, you will save your family a lot of extra worry.
Q: What can I include in my will?
A: Wills aren't solely about passing on your assets. You can also include specific funeral arrangements: for instance, burial, cremation, or the use of your body for medical research. You may also want to appoint legal guardians to care for your children if you and your partner should die before they are 18.
Q: Who do I appoint as Executors?
A: One other important consideration when writing your will is the appointment of your Executors - the people who deal with your estate in the event of your death. Ideally, these should be business-minded family or friends or professional advisers.
Glossary of Terms
Administrators. Those appointed to administer an estate where there is no will or no executor.
Bequest. Same as "Legacy".
Beneficiary. A named individual or organisation who benefits from your Will.
Codicil. A document making minor changes to your Will. Must be signed and witnessed in the same manner as your Will.
Crown. This means the Treasury, where your money will go if you have no next of kin and did not make a will.
Estate. Everything belonging to you, and owed to you, at the time of your death.
Executors. Referred to in your Will as trustees. These are the people you appoint to deal with all your affairs after your death.
Guardians. Those you appoint to care for your children until they reach the age of eighteen years.
Intestacy. A person is said to die intestate if he dies without making a valid Will.
Pecuniary. Legacy Specific sum of money given by a Will.
Probate. A procedure, required under law in most cases, to establish formally whether you left a legally valid Will and who your executors will be.
Residuary Legacy. The residue of an estate, or a share in it.
Residue. The remains of your estate after payment of all debts, expenses, tax and distribution of pecuniary and specific legacies
Specific Legacy. A tangible item, such as a gold watch or an engagement ring.
Testator. The person making the Will.
Guidelines to Consider When Writing a Will
There are four "P's" of estate planning:
1. People: Consider all the people who are important to you and for whom you'd like to provide. This might include your spouse, children, relatives and friends.
2. Property: Consider all property that you own including bank accounts, real estate, stocks, bonds, life insurance, pension plans and personal property.
3. Plans: Ask yourself how you'd like to provide for the people in your life, and how you can make this happen. Will the people who are important to you be provided for in the future? Will you have enough income to manage during your retirement years?
4. Planners: Who are the people who will help you with your financial goals? Consider attorneys, accountants, bank trust officers, stock brokers and insurance agents to help you meet your financial goals.
Tips on Naming Beneficiaries
Understand the limits of a will.
Know when beneficiaries are required.
Decide who gets what.
Don't name your estate as a beneficiary.
Don't name minor children as beneficiaries.
Consider setting up a trust.
Think about tax ramifications.
Name contingent beneficiaries.
Keep everything up-to-date.
Make copies.
FAQ
Q: I don't have a will, where do I start?
A: As a will is a legal document, it is strongly recommended that you consult your solicitor.
Q: What about home-made wills?
A: Home-made wills can be disastrous. You may omit particularly important details, or inadvertently write sections in a way that can be misinterpreted. Making a will with the help of your solicitor is the only way you can be sure that your wishes will be followed after you die. By drafting a will with a professional, you will save your family a lot of extra worry.
Q: What can I include in my will?
A: Wills aren't solely about passing on your assets. You can also include specific funeral arrangements: for instance, burial, cremation, or the use of your body for medical research. You may also want to appoint legal guardians to care for your children if you and your partner should die before they are 18.
Q: Who do I appoint as Executors?
A: One other important consideration when writing your will is the appointment of your Executors - the people who deal with your estate in the event of your death. Ideally, these should be business-minded family or friends or professional advisers.
Glossary of Terms
Administrators. Those appointed to administer an estate where there is no will or no executor.
Bequest. Same as "Legacy".
Beneficiary. A named individual or organisation who benefits from your Will.
Codicil. A document making minor changes to your Will. Must be signed and witnessed in the same manner as your Will.
Crown. This means the Treasury, where your money will go if you have no next of kin and did not make a will.
Estate. Everything belonging to you, and owed to you, at the time of your death.
Executors. Referred to in your Will as trustees. These are the people you appoint to deal with all your affairs after your death.
Guardians. Those you appoint to care for your children until they reach the age of eighteen years.
Intestacy. A person is said to die intestate if he dies without making a valid Will.
Pecuniary. Legacy Specific sum of money given by a Will.
Probate. A procedure, required under law in most cases, to establish formally whether you left a legally valid Will and who your executors will be.
Residuary Legacy. The residue of an estate, or a share in it.
Residue. The remains of your estate after payment of all debts, expenses, tax and distribution of pecuniary and specific legacies
Specific Legacy. A tangible item, such as a gold watch or an engagement ring.
Testator. The person making the Will.
Women's Rights
In previous years, generations ago women were considered property of the husband or father to whom they belonged. Now as we have progressed into the 21st century women have stepped up to the plate and are an integral part of society and politics, on an entirely equal footing with men. In the past, women were considered as belonging to their husbands or fathers, now they are the CEO's of major corporations. Women today are a very important part of society, with women in jobs such as judges, Senators, Congress, and even Governors - a feat that would have been highly surprising even twenty years ago.
These positions were not possible previously, with widespread social reform needed to bring about this change. In previous years, women were only allowed to work on the family farm, or be a teacher, rather than being afforded experience in practical situations. Women were expected to be married by the end of their teenage years, and were overlooked in conversations as being unable to contribute anything valid. When elections were first started, women were not allowed to vote, they were barely allowed the right to run their own homes.
As society has progressed, we have seen women moving from the back of the line, to the front of the public eye, occupying more and more positions of authority and respect. More women now than ever are working outside the home, and proving their own worth without a man to hold them up. Many women are even choosing to not get married, as well as not have children, although experts are suggesting this will have implications for future generations.
With the push towards women's rights, there has also been pushes towards expanding the rights for the lesbian community. More women are stepping forward to fight for the rights that they are owed and due, alongside those already afforded to the male homosexual community. Women have been taxpayers for as long as men have, at the same rates, and there are daily battles and struggles to overcome the problems and oppression that women are faced with, especially within the homosexual community to level this unfairness.
Even in today's society and the move away from sexism there is still a notable difference in the amount of money a man earns compared to the amount of money a woman earns for the same job. This is regardless of experience, training, and education, as many employers still feel women lack the competence to work within a competitive environment. There are always major differences in the way issues are handled and there seems to be new differences appearing each and every day.
How society adapts is the important part, we are on the brink of the first woman in history winning a democratic party bid for the Presidency and this makes a wonderful time for women. We are in the days, weeks, months and years following the Clinton presidency, and since then, Hillary Rodham Clinton has set an exception example for women by stepping out from behind her husband's shadow and making a name for herself in the political arena. With her impact on the forthcoming Presidential elections still unknown, it will be interesting to see the effect this has on women's rights both domestically and across the world.
Women are fighting and struggling each and every day to prove their worth, but with each day that passes a small victory for women's rights, we are proving each and every day that we are a force to be dealt with. Many people are eagerly awaiting the day when men and women are truly treated as equals. It might be 2 days from now or perhaps 20 years from now, but it is a work in progress and will be accomplished. By working together with the community as a whole, and avoiding a destructively defensive view point, women can promote their interests, as can men, to create a truly equitable environment.
These positions were not possible previously, with widespread social reform needed to bring about this change. In previous years, women were only allowed to work on the family farm, or be a teacher, rather than being afforded experience in practical situations. Women were expected to be married by the end of their teenage years, and were overlooked in conversations as being unable to contribute anything valid. When elections were first started, women were not allowed to vote, they were barely allowed the right to run their own homes.
As society has progressed, we have seen women moving from the back of the line, to the front of the public eye, occupying more and more positions of authority and respect. More women now than ever are working outside the home, and proving their own worth without a man to hold them up. Many women are even choosing to not get married, as well as not have children, although experts are suggesting this will have implications for future generations.
With the push towards women's rights, there has also been pushes towards expanding the rights for the lesbian community. More women are stepping forward to fight for the rights that they are owed and due, alongside those already afforded to the male homosexual community. Women have been taxpayers for as long as men have, at the same rates, and there are daily battles and struggles to overcome the problems and oppression that women are faced with, especially within the homosexual community to level this unfairness.
Even in today's society and the move away from sexism there is still a notable difference in the amount of money a man earns compared to the amount of money a woman earns for the same job. This is regardless of experience, training, and education, as many employers still feel women lack the competence to work within a competitive environment. There are always major differences in the way issues are handled and there seems to be new differences appearing each and every day.
How society adapts is the important part, we are on the brink of the first woman in history winning a democratic party bid for the Presidency and this makes a wonderful time for women. We are in the days, weeks, months and years following the Clinton presidency, and since then, Hillary Rodham Clinton has set an exception example for women by stepping out from behind her husband's shadow and making a name for herself in the political arena. With her impact on the forthcoming Presidential elections still unknown, it will be interesting to see the effect this has on women's rights both domestically and across the world.
Women are fighting and struggling each and every day to prove their worth, but with each day that passes a small victory for women's rights, we are proving each and every day that we are a force to be dealt with. Many people are eagerly awaiting the day when men and women are truly treated as equals. It might be 2 days from now or perhaps 20 years from now, but it is a work in progress and will be accomplished. By working together with the community as a whole, and avoiding a destructively defensive view point, women can promote their interests, as can men, to create a truly equitable environment.
What Does The Law Mean To You?
Although we all have an understanding of what law is, and generally why it's appropriate that it should be in place to serve and regulate our conduct in society, we seldom think of what law actually means in an everyday context. What is law for the average Joe in the street? How does law impact on our lives from day to day? Indeed, is the law a distant concept with which we find it hard to relate? In this article we will look at some of the fundamental ways law operates in society, in addition to the nature of the law as we know it.
For some people, they feel as though the law is there merely to protect their interests, and that they have no need for daily interaction. However, they assume that if the day comes where their behaviour is called into question, the law will operate, the course of justice will be run, and the will of the people will be fulfilled. This is perhaps a naïve interpretation of the function of law, and indeed the way it operates in our lives throughout the day. For instance, at the top level we have the constitution, establishing parameters within which the government can and cannot act to protect the citizens of our nation. That has an overwhelming effect on the way in which our government and indeed our country is run, which has a knock on effect on everything we do throughout the day and how we do it. Even at a local level, the law interacts with the services we are provided, the jobs we work and pretty much everything to do with the lives we lead. A distant concept? I don't think so.
The law does not just operate in criminal spheres, nor is it confined to merely constitutional matters and the distribution of power. Law is a significantly more sophisticated tool in the orchestration of the day-to-day organisation of society, through regulating not only personal conduct but also the way we act in business situations. Take for example the everyday task of boarding a train. The law regulates many aspects of this feat: (1) the criminal law and the constitution permits us to board public transport. (2) The constitution permits us to make contract with another. (3) The laws of contract permit us to form a contract for transport with the train company, and ensure that that contract is fulfilled. (4) The laws of contract and tort allow us to board without fear of injury, or with remedy should the worst happen. Finally the law of ownership and currency allows us to hand over money in consideration for this service, which is of value to the other contracting party. In fact, the law regulates just about everything we do, and is vital in doing so to ensure the smooth running of community and every aspect of our lives.
The law is not some abstract notion that can and will protect us when we need to rely on it. The law is an integral part of democratic life, and something which regulates our conduct, and in essence allows us to act according to our own desires within reason. Some may think the law is too restrictive in certain areas, but it works. The law serves its function as regulating our behaviour very well, and if it doesn't? We can change it.
The fact is, law has been an important part of society since it began, with implied legal and social orders and boundaries that could not be crossed. Today, it is a sophisticated network of guidelines and regulations which is adapted to shape the way we live our lives from one day to the next. There is no doubt that the law is important to the citizen, and plays a profound impact on the lives of the people on a daily basis.
For some people, they feel as though the law is there merely to protect their interests, and that they have no need for daily interaction. However, they assume that if the day comes where their behaviour is called into question, the law will operate, the course of justice will be run, and the will of the people will be fulfilled. This is perhaps a naïve interpretation of the function of law, and indeed the way it operates in our lives throughout the day. For instance, at the top level we have the constitution, establishing parameters within which the government can and cannot act to protect the citizens of our nation. That has an overwhelming effect on the way in which our government and indeed our country is run, which has a knock on effect on everything we do throughout the day and how we do it. Even at a local level, the law interacts with the services we are provided, the jobs we work and pretty much everything to do with the lives we lead. A distant concept? I don't think so.
The law does not just operate in criminal spheres, nor is it confined to merely constitutional matters and the distribution of power. Law is a significantly more sophisticated tool in the orchestration of the day-to-day organisation of society, through regulating not only personal conduct but also the way we act in business situations. Take for example the everyday task of boarding a train. The law regulates many aspects of this feat: (1) the criminal law and the constitution permits us to board public transport. (2) The constitution permits us to make contract with another. (3) The laws of contract permit us to form a contract for transport with the train company, and ensure that that contract is fulfilled. (4) The laws of contract and tort allow us to board without fear of injury, or with remedy should the worst happen. Finally the law of ownership and currency allows us to hand over money in consideration for this service, which is of value to the other contracting party. In fact, the law regulates just about everything we do, and is vital in doing so to ensure the smooth running of community and every aspect of our lives.
The law is not some abstract notion that can and will protect us when we need to rely on it. The law is an integral part of democratic life, and something which regulates our conduct, and in essence allows us to act according to our own desires within reason. Some may think the law is too restrictive in certain areas, but it works. The law serves its function as regulating our behaviour very well, and if it doesn't? We can change it.
The fact is, law has been an important part of society since it began, with implied legal and social orders and boundaries that could not be crossed. Today, it is a sophisticated network of guidelines and regulations which is adapted to shape the way we live our lives from one day to the next. There is no doubt that the law is important to the citizen, and plays a profound impact on the lives of the people on a daily basis.
Washington D.C. in the House
After being told no for the last 200 years, the House of Representatives have okayed a bill that would allow a House of Representatives position to be created for the residents of the District of Columbia. This is a complete shock to some, who analyze the situation and state that technically the District of Columbia is not a state and has no right to a representative in the house.
Along with adding a member of the house for the D.C. area, Utah has been given a fourth seat. Now the bill is passed along to the Senate to have a final approval but with the District of Columbia not being a true state, many are expecting the bill to be squashed. Some may not have realized but 200 years ago it was determined that the District of Columbia would be banned from a seat in the House since it was not a state.
Utah was declined an additional seat in the house after falling shy of the required residents to acquire a fourth seat after the last census. However, since they are in the process of adding additional seats and Utah is so very close to the requirements it is expected that by the next election they should have the required number of residents to justify the additional seat.
This is a major milestone in the House of Representatives, which has sat at 435 seats since 1960; it has been over 45 years since additional seats were added to the house. Opponents of the new bill have all been quick to point out that while it's wonderful that the House is looking to grow, the Constitution clearly states that the members of the House are chosen by the people of the states, which since the District of Columbia is not a state, causes a major snafu in the plans of the Democratic majority House.
The House is slated to keep the 437 seats even after the 2010 census, which is when Utah is slated to be expanding to a 4th district. While this is the first time this measure has actually passed the House, it is not the first time it has been discussed, nor debated. Back in 1978, it was mentioned that the District of Columbia should be given a vote in the House of Representatives; however, the amendment was discarded after it was unable to be ratified by a quorum three-fourth majority of the states.
Once again, the measure was attempted in 1993; however, this attempt was focused around moving the District of Columbia into statehood and transforming the District into a full-fledged state of the United States. This proposal was also rejected, so this is a major victory that has been attempted several times previously. Whether it will pass through the Senate, and ultimately receive legal effect, is still left to be determined.
Many have argued that the District should be allowed a seat in the House, since the residents of the District pay taxes and fight in the wars of this country just like residents of any other state. The debate and battle rages on, and it will be a rather interesting experience to see if the District is able to win their bid to a permanent seat in the House.
Along with adding a member of the house for the D.C. area, Utah has been given a fourth seat. Now the bill is passed along to the Senate to have a final approval but with the District of Columbia not being a true state, many are expecting the bill to be squashed. Some may not have realized but 200 years ago it was determined that the District of Columbia would be banned from a seat in the House since it was not a state.
Utah was declined an additional seat in the house after falling shy of the required residents to acquire a fourth seat after the last census. However, since they are in the process of adding additional seats and Utah is so very close to the requirements it is expected that by the next election they should have the required number of residents to justify the additional seat.
This is a major milestone in the House of Representatives, which has sat at 435 seats since 1960; it has been over 45 years since additional seats were added to the house. Opponents of the new bill have all been quick to point out that while it's wonderful that the House is looking to grow, the Constitution clearly states that the members of the House are chosen by the people of the states, which since the District of Columbia is not a state, causes a major snafu in the plans of the Democratic majority House.
The House is slated to keep the 437 seats even after the 2010 census, which is when Utah is slated to be expanding to a 4th district. While this is the first time this measure has actually passed the House, it is not the first time it has been discussed, nor debated. Back in 1978, it was mentioned that the District of Columbia should be given a vote in the House of Representatives; however, the amendment was discarded after it was unable to be ratified by a quorum three-fourth majority of the states.
Once again, the measure was attempted in 1993; however, this attempt was focused around moving the District of Columbia into statehood and transforming the District into a full-fledged state of the United States. This proposal was also rejected, so this is a major victory that has been attempted several times previously. Whether it will pass through the Senate, and ultimately receive legal effect, is still left to be determined.
Many have argued that the District should be allowed a seat in the House, since the residents of the District pay taxes and fight in the wars of this country just like residents of any other state. The debate and battle rages on, and it will be a rather interesting experience to see if the District is able to win their bid to a permanent seat in the House.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The UK Constitution: Does it Exist?
The UK is one of the few developed countries in the world without a written constitution. Despite this, its economy is prospering as it strengthens its position as one of the richest nations in the world. On top of that, it is pivotally located within the European federal framework in spite of its comparatively small geographic land mass and population. This raises an obvious question as to the mechanisms of governance: if there isn't a constitution, how has the UK survived in this form, and how can it continue to prosper in a modern era without any distinct definitively specified legal order
The United Kingdom is unlike most other nations in the world in that it has not suffered any major constitutional change since the Middle Ages. Since that time, it has been predominantly governed by a monarch in conjunction with his or her parliament. That said, it has proven to be of continuing success throughout the ages without the strict written form that many countries have adopted. From this has sprung an unprecedented flexibility, and the UK has effectively developed its own (non-binding) constitutional conventions to keep the country running smoothly. Additionally, the bi-cameral (or dual chamber) parliament plus the necessary monarchical ratification serves to provide a comprehensive set of checks and balances which would otherwise be provided through a written constitution.
The statement that the UK is lacking a constitution is misleading. Of course there is no written document, but the UK has a rich and diverse legal tapestry that works fluidly and has so for centuries. This fluidity has allowed for adaptation when necessary, and has allowed the UK to flourish and develop where others didn't have the chance. Behind the scenes is an equally strict and wrought-iron code of conduct, which can partially be derived from codes of practices, Acts of Parliament and other 'bits and pieces'. Although there may not be a constitution present in the sense of a single definitive document, the UK most certainly operates on the foundation of a constitution that keeps the country running smoothly on a daily basis.
A major aspect of the UK constitution is the thorough legislative process required for legal enactment. Any bill must firstly be proposed to the House of Commons, an elected body of representatives empowered with the power of legislative initiative. The first chamber proposes legislation and debates the provisions in depth, before agreeing on a final draft to pass to the second chamber, known as the House of Lords. The House of Lords are largely un-elected, with 'membership' passed down from generation to generation, or new members proposed by the House of Commons. They then have the right of veto, and an ability to refer back to the first chamber their proposed changes to any bills. This ensures no rushed legislation passes, and in theory should cover all eventualities. After passing both Houses, it is referred to the monarch, who has a personal responsibility to ensure any legislation is in accordance with the will of the people, and is morally justified. Although the monarch hasn't used her power of veto since the 17th century, it is still an important constitutional safeguard in the UK.
The UK constitution might not seem obvious initially, but there is most certainly an intricate web of governance and practice lying underneath its blank exterior. It has been described as the most successful constitution in the world, and this is bolstered by its perpetual success and lack of problems since its early evolution.
The United Kingdom is unlike most other nations in the world in that it has not suffered any major constitutional change since the Middle Ages. Since that time, it has been predominantly governed by a monarch in conjunction with his or her parliament. That said, it has proven to be of continuing success throughout the ages without the strict written form that many countries have adopted. From this has sprung an unprecedented flexibility, and the UK has effectively developed its own (non-binding) constitutional conventions to keep the country running smoothly. Additionally, the bi-cameral (or dual chamber) parliament plus the necessary monarchical ratification serves to provide a comprehensive set of checks and balances which would otherwise be provided through a written constitution.
The statement that the UK is lacking a constitution is misleading. Of course there is no written document, but the UK has a rich and diverse legal tapestry that works fluidly and has so for centuries. This fluidity has allowed for adaptation when necessary, and has allowed the UK to flourish and develop where others didn't have the chance. Behind the scenes is an equally strict and wrought-iron code of conduct, which can partially be derived from codes of practices, Acts of Parliament and other 'bits and pieces'. Although there may not be a constitution present in the sense of a single definitive document, the UK most certainly operates on the foundation of a constitution that keeps the country running smoothly on a daily basis.
A major aspect of the UK constitution is the thorough legislative process required for legal enactment. Any bill must firstly be proposed to the House of Commons, an elected body of representatives empowered with the power of legislative initiative. The first chamber proposes legislation and debates the provisions in depth, before agreeing on a final draft to pass to the second chamber, known as the House of Lords. The House of Lords are largely un-elected, with 'membership' passed down from generation to generation, or new members proposed by the House of Commons. They then have the right of veto, and an ability to refer back to the first chamber their proposed changes to any bills. This ensures no rushed legislation passes, and in theory should cover all eventualities. After passing both Houses, it is referred to the monarch, who has a personal responsibility to ensure any legislation is in accordance with the will of the people, and is morally justified. Although the monarch hasn't used her power of veto since the 17th century, it is still an important constitutional safeguard in the UK.
The UK constitution might not seem obvious initially, but there is most certainly an intricate web of governance and practice lying underneath its blank exterior. It has been described as the most successful constitution in the world, and this is bolstered by its perpetual success and lack of problems since its early evolution.
The Scope and Nature of the Criminal Law
In our private lives, the area of law we will experience the most, either directly or indirectly would have to be the criminal law. Not necessarily through contravening its principals, the individual citizen will more commonly encounter its breadth in the course of their everyday lives, considering as a factor the legal ramifications of any desired conduct or decision in the decision making process. For most of us, we tend to live our lives within these predetermined boundaries with no second thought or question as to the morality of the prohibited option nor the moral authority behind it. In this article, it is proposed to look at the nature and scope of the criminal law in our society, and to discuss whether as an entity it is too intrusive, or whether it is naturally a required aspect of regulating society.
It is often said academically that the citizen enjoys freedom to act as he wishes in his life, subject to the regulatory provisions of the criminal law and the criminal justice system. It is thought that as citizens of a particular country, largely at freedom to choose where we live in the world, we impliedly accept the authority of the relevant legal provisions which, for the most part, regulate on a moral level. Of course there are exceptions, i.e. criminal laws of a regulatory or secondary nature which do not directly bear any moral message, such as speeding limits or parking restrictions. So, then, to what extent does the criminal law reflect morality, and further from what source is this morality derived?
The criminal law is said to operate in mind of the public good, and the benefit of society. It could, therefore, be argued to be crossing the boundaries into serious restrictions on liberty when it regulates personal conduct like drug use which may not have any wider impact than on that of the person indulging accordingly. Why should the criminal law impose restrictions on what a person can do with his or her own body? Surely our own freewill is a good enough justification for acting outwith the scope of the law in these types of scenario?
Furthermore an interesting area of the criminal law is potential liability for omissions. In this sense, the citizen can actually be punished without acting at all in a specific way. This takes the criminal law beyond a regulatory framework for the public good into an actual coercive force to make people positively act in a certain way. For example, in some jurisdictions there is a legal duty to report a road traffic accident. This means a citizen who is aware of the occurrence of such will have committed a criminal offence where he does not act in the prescribed manner. Again, this is surely affording a broad scope to the criminal law, which may be seen by some as intruding on the fundamental freedoms and values upon which most modern nations were built.
It is interesting to consider the real impact of the criminal law, and the sheer breadth of conduct it regulates. From the objectively morally wrong to the less obvious cases of imposition of liability, the criminal law places severe restrictions on the general principal of absolute liberty, which is clearly the subject of much academic and philosophical debate.
It is often said academically that the citizen enjoys freedom to act as he wishes in his life, subject to the regulatory provisions of the criminal law and the criminal justice system. It is thought that as citizens of a particular country, largely at freedom to choose where we live in the world, we impliedly accept the authority of the relevant legal provisions which, for the most part, regulate on a moral level. Of course there are exceptions, i.e. criminal laws of a regulatory or secondary nature which do not directly bear any moral message, such as speeding limits or parking restrictions. So, then, to what extent does the criminal law reflect morality, and further from what source is this morality derived?
The criminal law is said to operate in mind of the public good, and the benefit of society. It could, therefore, be argued to be crossing the boundaries into serious restrictions on liberty when it regulates personal conduct like drug use which may not have any wider impact than on that of the person indulging accordingly. Why should the criminal law impose restrictions on what a person can do with his or her own body? Surely our own freewill is a good enough justification for acting outwith the scope of the law in these types of scenario?
Furthermore an interesting area of the criminal law is potential liability for omissions. In this sense, the citizen can actually be punished without acting at all in a specific way. This takes the criminal law beyond a regulatory framework for the public good into an actual coercive force to make people positively act in a certain way. For example, in some jurisdictions there is a legal duty to report a road traffic accident. This means a citizen who is aware of the occurrence of such will have committed a criminal offence where he does not act in the prescribed manner. Again, this is surely affording a broad scope to the criminal law, which may be seen by some as intruding on the fundamental freedoms and values upon which most modern nations were built.
It is interesting to consider the real impact of the criminal law, and the sheer breadth of conduct it regulates. From the objectively morally wrong to the less obvious cases of imposition of liability, the criminal law places severe restrictions on the general principal of absolute liberty, which is clearly the subject of much academic and philosophical debate.
The INS, Role, and Responsibilities
In the days following the 9/11 attacks there have been many changes in the organization and how the government handles the flow of people coming into the country. The INS was first started as the organization that was responsible for handing the people who were applying for citizenship and residency. INS stands for Immigration and Naturalization Service, the organization charged with respecting the safety of the USA.
The INS is now responsible for many tasks that it never had before, including inspecting travelers who are entering and exiting the United States gates through more than 300 points of entry nationwide. Whether you are coming or going from the United States, you are likely to be passing through an INS worker who is responsible for helping make sure anyone who is wanted by the law is not able to gain entry to the country. Although largely a precaution, it is thought that this will be most helpful in preventing possible threats to national security.
Other tasks of the INS include handling the residence status of all who apply for residence and citizenship. They also handle and seek to regulate the status of all permanent and temporary immigration requests. The INS. also handles tourists, and students, as well as those coming for conventions, special classes, visiting family and all other business.
The INS has also been given the tasks of controlling all of the borders into the United States, especially the borders between Mexico and the United States and Canada and the United States. This is an extremely large task since the United States shares such large land borders with two other countries. This allows for an almost daily flow of people trying to enter the country illegally.
INS workers are also responsible for handling and removing all people who have no legal rights to be in this country. They are responsible for removing the parties in accordance with the laws, and by following all of the standards that are set in place for obtaining temporary status, or returning the person to the country where they came from.
In a report the INS released in 2001, there was 31,971 employees on staff. This resulted in a rate of 24,233 of these employees being classified as enforcement personal were used to enforce the laws, rulings and policies of this country. The INS today is a function of the Justice Department and serves mostly as an investigative unit, unlike many other departments, which serve as law enforcement units instead.
In recent years, the borders have had more illegal entry than previously, which has resulted in larger amounts of staff being added to help secure the borders and protect our country. Without being able to know who is entering our country, we are unable to truly protect our citizens and other people. Border patrol agents is the one largest area where the INS has seen growth in jobs available. Due to the increase of jobs in the border patrol, we are able to see much fewer illegal entries into the country.
As we progress into a country that is, more accommodating of people from various cultures it will be quite interesting to see how the INS is changed to adapt and become more friendly to the needs of all people, even those entering the country.
The INS is now responsible for many tasks that it never had before, including inspecting travelers who are entering and exiting the United States gates through more than 300 points of entry nationwide. Whether you are coming or going from the United States, you are likely to be passing through an INS worker who is responsible for helping make sure anyone who is wanted by the law is not able to gain entry to the country. Although largely a precaution, it is thought that this will be most helpful in preventing possible threats to national security.
Other tasks of the INS include handling the residence status of all who apply for residence and citizenship. They also handle and seek to regulate the status of all permanent and temporary immigration requests. The INS. also handles tourists, and students, as well as those coming for conventions, special classes, visiting family and all other business.
The INS has also been given the tasks of controlling all of the borders into the United States, especially the borders between Mexico and the United States and Canada and the United States. This is an extremely large task since the United States shares such large land borders with two other countries. This allows for an almost daily flow of people trying to enter the country illegally.
INS workers are also responsible for handling and removing all people who have no legal rights to be in this country. They are responsible for removing the parties in accordance with the laws, and by following all of the standards that are set in place for obtaining temporary status, or returning the person to the country where they came from.
In a report the INS released in 2001, there was 31,971 employees on staff. This resulted in a rate of 24,233 of these employees being classified as enforcement personal were used to enforce the laws, rulings and policies of this country. The INS today is a function of the Justice Department and serves mostly as an investigative unit, unlike many other departments, which serve as law enforcement units instead.
In recent years, the borders have had more illegal entry than previously, which has resulted in larger amounts of staff being added to help secure the borders and protect our country. Without being able to know who is entering our country, we are unable to truly protect our citizens and other people. Border patrol agents is the one largest area where the INS has seen growth in jobs available. Due to the increase of jobs in the border patrol, we are able to see much fewer illegal entries into the country.
As we progress into a country that is, more accommodating of people from various cultures it will be quite interesting to see how the INS is changed to adapt and become more friendly to the needs of all people, even those entering the country.
The Fairness of Limited Liability
Limited liability is one of the most successful commercial creations of all time, almost singularly responsible for the growth and expansion of capitalism. Encouraging risk and promoting successful enterprise through both small and large businesses alike, limited liability has been the driving force behind economic success in the Western world and is one of the most celebrated legal creations of all time. But what is it about limited liability that makes it so successful? Indeed, is the structure of limited liability fair as regards creditors, who ultimately bear the brunt of this mechanism?
Limited liability in general means a sacrifice of privacy in return for the benefit of limited personal liability. In layman's terms, this means that the company promoter is not personally liable for any of the company's debts, thus encouraging risk and promoting enterprise. For most small businesses, it is a lifeline, and without it the economy would level out and stifle with fewer new start-ups each year. At the back end, however, these businesses leave behind a trail of debts that ultimately result in financial loss for lenders and those that operate on credit terms. This raises the general question of whether limited liability as a creation is fair for the creditors it so apparently prejudices?
Limited liability has given life to companies across the world, by providing the reassurances necessary to entrepreneurs to take the risk, safe in the knowledge that personally speaking they should come out unscathed. From this, more companies have grown and flourished, which has led to more jobs and better state welfare for virtually all capitalist economies. The strength of this function has gone a long way towards building the great superpowers, and is seriously underestimated as a legal construct.
Limited liability leaves a gap in the pockets of those companies that lend money or offer their customers credit terms during the course of their business. As a consequence of the promoter's ability to walk away with his hands clean, many businesses find the squeeze of bad debts too severe, and end up having to take on credit of their own to meet the shortcomings. In theory, limited liability leaves creditors in a weak situation, with relatively limited powers to regain the full amount of any monies due.
In reality, limited liability doesn't operate in that way. Of course, many businesses go under every year as their owners walk free of encumbrance, but generally speaking the economic world does not work between insolvent companies. However, the flexibility allowed by limited liability has meant debt in a sense has become effective currency, and has helped businesses to survive during tough times, and to seek the financial help necessary without the appropriate risk.
Limited liability might be seen as slightly unfair at the razor's edge, but it works all round to ensure that everyone has access to credit and the benefits of limitation of damages when it is necessary. Ultimately, it promotes a more competitive, lower-risk environment within which business can flourish and economies can grow and multiply, providing jobs and economic strength to nations embracing its basic form. As legal fictions go, the limited company has undoubtedly prove itself to be one of the most popular ever created, and its growth looks set to continue as it is developed and refined across the world.
Limited liability in general means a sacrifice of privacy in return for the benefit of limited personal liability. In layman's terms, this means that the company promoter is not personally liable for any of the company's debts, thus encouraging risk and promoting enterprise. For most small businesses, it is a lifeline, and without it the economy would level out and stifle with fewer new start-ups each year. At the back end, however, these businesses leave behind a trail of debts that ultimately result in financial loss for lenders and those that operate on credit terms. This raises the general question of whether limited liability as a creation is fair for the creditors it so apparently prejudices?
Limited liability has given life to companies across the world, by providing the reassurances necessary to entrepreneurs to take the risk, safe in the knowledge that personally speaking they should come out unscathed. From this, more companies have grown and flourished, which has led to more jobs and better state welfare for virtually all capitalist economies. The strength of this function has gone a long way towards building the great superpowers, and is seriously underestimated as a legal construct.
Limited liability leaves a gap in the pockets of those companies that lend money or offer their customers credit terms during the course of their business. As a consequence of the promoter's ability to walk away with his hands clean, many businesses find the squeeze of bad debts too severe, and end up having to take on credit of their own to meet the shortcomings. In theory, limited liability leaves creditors in a weak situation, with relatively limited powers to regain the full amount of any monies due.
In reality, limited liability doesn't operate in that way. Of course, many businesses go under every year as their owners walk free of encumbrance, but generally speaking the economic world does not work between insolvent companies. However, the flexibility allowed by limited liability has meant debt in a sense has become effective currency, and has helped businesses to survive during tough times, and to seek the financial help necessary without the appropriate risk.
Limited liability might be seen as slightly unfair at the razor's edge, but it works all round to ensure that everyone has access to credit and the benefits of limitation of damages when it is necessary. Ultimately, it promotes a more competitive, lower-risk environment within which business can flourish and economies can grow and multiply, providing jobs and economic strength to nations embracing its basic form. As legal fictions go, the limited company has undoubtedly prove itself to be one of the most popular ever created, and its growth looks set to continue as it is developed and refined across the world.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The European Convention on Human Rights: The Wider Implications
The European Convention on Human Rights has seen vast changes to the legal framework of countries across Europe. By imposing fundamental freedoms and liberties in an indefeasible form, it has created a host of legal problems and issues for courts to tackle in an attempt to improve human rights. Distinct from the US, which already retains fundamental freedoms through its definitive constitution, much of Europe in particular the UK doesn't have the same codified provisions for its citizens. This has now been revolutionized by the ratification of the European Convention (ECHR), which sets out certain primary standards that must be attained in relation to each individual citizen. In this article, we will look at the advantages of the ECHR, and the wide-ranging impact it has had on the various constitutions around Europe.
The European Convention on Human Rights was established as an international treaty to afford a uniform standard of human rights treatment across Europe. Covering basic freedoms like the right to life through to trickier issues such as the right to liberty and the right to marry, ECHR has had an astonishing impact on Europe both legally and politically. In passing legislation, European governments have to as a matter of law legislate in accordance with the provisions contained within the ECHR. This means parliaments of signatory countries are being bound by their predecessors to legislate in a particular way, which has ruled out a number of would-be pledges and meant the reversal of certain national laws.
One area where this has caused problems is in abortion. The perpetual morality debate aside, abortion has been held to contravene the right to life provision in certain European countries. Although there is still great scope for challenge, this could potentially cause problems in the coming years as more and more cases of this nature are brought before the European court. Another major problem area is that of same sex marriages. The universal right to marry means that any provision stopping same sex marriage anywhere in Europe could potentially be struck down as illegal, requiring nations to actively realign their current provisions to avoid any discrimination. For this reason, the UK, amongst others, have taken proactive measures to permit same-sex marriages to avoid the embarrassment of a public ruling against them. This obviously raises problems of national power and freedom: nations are now utterly bound by the principles of European 'liberty', whether they like it or not.
Thankfully this social and legal upheaval is working towards a more liberty-orientated Europe. It is certainly taking time, and given the fact that the ECHR is over half a century old, its impacts are becoming more and more apparent as time wears on and as courts are presented with modern challenges located within the context of the original ECHR provisions. Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights is being regularly updated and amended to provide a steadfast constitution for the citizen whilst retaining the flexibility to adapt to contemporary situations. Although the ECHR and the provisions contained within it have met stiff opposition throughout their lifetime, most would now agree that the level of individual certainty provided by these fundamental freedoms is making for a better quality of life and reducing the scope for discrimination and prejudice across Europe.
The European Convention on Human Rights was established as an international treaty to afford a uniform standard of human rights treatment across Europe. Covering basic freedoms like the right to life through to trickier issues such as the right to liberty and the right to marry, ECHR has had an astonishing impact on Europe both legally and politically. In passing legislation, European governments have to as a matter of law legislate in accordance with the provisions contained within the ECHR. This means parliaments of signatory countries are being bound by their predecessors to legislate in a particular way, which has ruled out a number of would-be pledges and meant the reversal of certain national laws.
One area where this has caused problems is in abortion. The perpetual morality debate aside, abortion has been held to contravene the right to life provision in certain European countries. Although there is still great scope for challenge, this could potentially cause problems in the coming years as more and more cases of this nature are brought before the European court. Another major problem area is that of same sex marriages. The universal right to marry means that any provision stopping same sex marriage anywhere in Europe could potentially be struck down as illegal, requiring nations to actively realign their current provisions to avoid any discrimination. For this reason, the UK, amongst others, have taken proactive measures to permit same-sex marriages to avoid the embarrassment of a public ruling against them. This obviously raises problems of national power and freedom: nations are now utterly bound by the principles of European 'liberty', whether they like it or not.
Thankfully this social and legal upheaval is working towards a more liberty-orientated Europe. It is certainly taking time, and given the fact that the ECHR is over half a century old, its impacts are becoming more and more apparent as time wears on and as courts are presented with modern challenges located within the context of the original ECHR provisions. Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights is being regularly updated and amended to provide a steadfast constitution for the citizen whilst retaining the flexibility to adapt to contemporary situations. Although the ECHR and the provisions contained within it have met stiff opposition throughout their lifetime, most would now agree that the level of individual certainty provided by these fundamental freedoms is making for a better quality of life and reducing the scope for discrimination and prejudice across Europe.
Freelance Trader Taxation Law
They say the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes. For the sole trader, this is definitely the case, and at times it can seem like an overbearing pressure. Thankfully, for the sole trader there are many ways in which you can minimize liability to income tax and leave more in your bank account at the end of the month. In this article, we will look at some of the key features of tax management from the perspective of the sole trader, and some of the ways in which the sole trader can minimize the legal consequences of his operation.
As a sole trader, you are usually accountable for your profits in terms of income tax. This can be particularly problematic, given that the structure of income tax in most jurisdictions is a fairly heavy burden on the citizen, particularly those with higher incomes. The first thing that should be considered is incorporation. As a corporate entity, you will be required to handle more paperwork, but ultimately it will save you money. Corporation tax on profits is lower than income tax in the majority of situations, and dividend income carries less taxable weight than other income, for example wages and salaries. The first thing to do, as a sole trader within the top income tax bracket, is to incorporate, which could potentially save thousands every year.
The sole trader must be aware of the fact that there are certain items that cannot be discounted from income. In fact, certain everyday items must be declared and must give rise to tax. For example, say a self-employed solicitor is given a bottle of fine wine by a particular client every year as thanks for his service. This wine, although not initially apparent, will usually require declaration for tax, on the basis that it is an ongoing gift or benefit arising from employment. It is therefore important to watch what is included and what is ignored from your tax return. If you are at all unsure, it is better to include an item and pay tax, rather than running the risk of neglecting to mention its existence. Alternatively, it may be a good idea to consult a specialist on the particular laws of your jurisdiction, and to determine whether or not it would be possible to avoid liability.
Another important thing to remember is that there may be certain personal capital gains liability for disposal of a primarily business asset. As a sole trader, this means you will be liable to account for the disposal of the asset and any capital gains at market value, which can be a costly business. Again, it is probably advisable to consult a tax lawyer or tax adviser to minimize liability on disposal and to manage your tax liability more effectively.
Tax law is a particularly intricate area of the law, and one that is in perpetual change. This means the small business owner is required to keep one eye on tax developments to avoid being caught out, which means there is less room for focus on the core areas of business and making money. Alternatively, the advice of a tax specialist can be invaluable in minimizing overall liability and ultimately saving money from your tax bill every year.
As a sole trader, you are usually accountable for your profits in terms of income tax. This can be particularly problematic, given that the structure of income tax in most jurisdictions is a fairly heavy burden on the citizen, particularly those with higher incomes. The first thing that should be considered is incorporation. As a corporate entity, you will be required to handle more paperwork, but ultimately it will save you money. Corporation tax on profits is lower than income tax in the majority of situations, and dividend income carries less taxable weight than other income, for example wages and salaries. The first thing to do, as a sole trader within the top income tax bracket, is to incorporate, which could potentially save thousands every year.
The sole trader must be aware of the fact that there are certain items that cannot be discounted from income. In fact, certain everyday items must be declared and must give rise to tax. For example, say a self-employed solicitor is given a bottle of fine wine by a particular client every year as thanks for his service. This wine, although not initially apparent, will usually require declaration for tax, on the basis that it is an ongoing gift or benefit arising from employment. It is therefore important to watch what is included and what is ignored from your tax return. If you are at all unsure, it is better to include an item and pay tax, rather than running the risk of neglecting to mention its existence. Alternatively, it may be a good idea to consult a specialist on the particular laws of your jurisdiction, and to determine whether or not it would be possible to avoid liability.
Another important thing to remember is that there may be certain personal capital gains liability for disposal of a primarily business asset. As a sole trader, this means you will be liable to account for the disposal of the asset and any capital gains at market value, which can be a costly business. Again, it is probably advisable to consult a tax lawyer or tax adviser to minimize liability on disposal and to manage your tax liability more effectively.
Tax law is a particularly intricate area of the law, and one that is in perpetual change. This means the small business owner is required to keep one eye on tax developments to avoid being caught out, which means there is less room for focus on the core areas of business and making money. Alternatively, the advice of a tax specialist can be invaluable in minimizing overall liability and ultimately saving money from your tax bill every year.
Small Business Taxation Law
Taxation law is a complex and in-depth area of concern for the small business owner. With potential pecuniary and criminal consequences, it is of paramount importance to ensure as a business owner, you are familiar with the tax consequences in your jurisdictions, and the ways in which you can minimise your liability. Whilst one of the most legally important things to understand as a small business owner, taxation law also provides an excellent opportunity for saving money and increasing profitability within a small business environment. In this article, we will look at some of the main and most common tax implications of running a small business, and some of the most effective ways of ensuring you pay less tax through your small business operation.
Tax regimes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the implications of running a small business also vary, both in terms of the legal and financial requirements. Having said that, there are a number of common elements that transcend jurisdiction and appear in numerous guises across various systems that can be of use to the small business owner. One of the first things to consider as a small business owner is to establish a limited liability company. The primary reason for this is that limited liability companies usually provide a more relaxed tax regime as compared to income tax liability. A sole proprietor operating out-with the parameters of a corporate entity is liable to account for profits as income, which can lead to a greater tax liability and potential individual state contributions. As a corporate entity, the owner can pay himself via share dividends, which carry a lower tax liability and thus minimising his overall liability to tax. This is significantly better than paying oneself a wage, which bears the tax liability from both ends, i.e. the company is liable to taxation as is the employee.
Another essential for the small business owner is what is known as capital allowance. By means of capital allowance, business owners can offset the acquisition cost of assets on a graduated scale in accordance with the specific principles of the regime in question. This is in effect a deductible expense, which ultimately minimizes yearly tax liability. There is a particular benefit in that many regimes allow an accelerated relief for business assets. This can be exploited to an extent by acquiring assets through the business, for example a car, which can also be used for personal purposes. Rather than buying a car from personal income, buying it through the company allows you to offset the amount of the expense quickly against your business profits, which ultimately reduce your liability to tax.
Before embarking on any tax reducing strategies, it is important to ensure you are acquainted with the specific laws of your jurisdiction to avoid running into trouble with the authorities. In some of Europe, for example, there is a requirement to declare any specific tax minimizing strategies to the government to allow for rectification of loopholes. It is important to ensure you are acquainted with the specific laws to avoid potential criminal liability as a consequence of ignorance. By familiarizing yourself with the laws in your jurisdiction, you can avoid the potential pitfalls and create a tax planning strategy that provides the most cost effective solution for you and your small business.
Tax regimes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the implications of running a small business also vary, both in terms of the legal and financial requirements. Having said that, there are a number of common elements that transcend jurisdiction and appear in numerous guises across various systems that can be of use to the small business owner. One of the first things to consider as a small business owner is to establish a limited liability company. The primary reason for this is that limited liability companies usually provide a more relaxed tax regime as compared to income tax liability. A sole proprietor operating out-with the parameters of a corporate entity is liable to account for profits as income, which can lead to a greater tax liability and potential individual state contributions. As a corporate entity, the owner can pay himself via share dividends, which carry a lower tax liability and thus minimising his overall liability to tax. This is significantly better than paying oneself a wage, which bears the tax liability from both ends, i.e. the company is liable to taxation as is the employee.
Another essential for the small business owner is what is known as capital allowance. By means of capital allowance, business owners can offset the acquisition cost of assets on a graduated scale in accordance with the specific principles of the regime in question. This is in effect a deductible expense, which ultimately minimizes yearly tax liability. There is a particular benefit in that many regimes allow an accelerated relief for business assets. This can be exploited to an extent by acquiring assets through the business, for example a car, which can also be used for personal purposes. Rather than buying a car from personal income, buying it through the company allows you to offset the amount of the expense quickly against your business profits, which ultimately reduce your liability to tax.
Before embarking on any tax reducing strategies, it is important to ensure you are acquainted with the specific laws of your jurisdiction to avoid running into trouble with the authorities. In some of Europe, for example, there is a requirement to declare any specific tax minimizing strategies to the government to allow for rectification of loopholes. It is important to ensure you are acquainted with the specific laws to avoid potential criminal liability as a consequence of ignorance. By familiarizing yourself with the laws in your jurisdiction, you can avoid the potential pitfalls and create a tax planning strategy that provides the most cost effective solution for you and your small business.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Supreme Court Abortion Decision
After much deliberation and discussion, the Supreme Court has returned a critical strike to the core of women's rights in the abortion arena. The court in a 5-4 decision banned a medical procedure known as a partial-birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction. This abortion procedure was performed after the 20th week of pregnancy. While the pro-rights crowd is naturally upset over the ban, they are horrified over the fact that there are no exceptions to the ban that would enable a doctor to save the life of a woman if it was medically necessary to perform the procedure.
Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well. The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself. This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level. The Supreme Court's involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.
Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed? The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions. How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around? What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?
Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge's who are following Bush's wishes and desires in regards to the case. The case was sitting before a panel of judge's who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.
The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide. There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion. One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs. An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being.
While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons. There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life. What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?
Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well. The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself. This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level. The Supreme Court's involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.
Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed? The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions. How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around? What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?
Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge's who are following Bush's wishes and desires in regards to the case. The case was sitting before a panel of judge's who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.
The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide. There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion. One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs. An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being.
While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons. There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life. What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?
Succession Law: The Importance of Having a Will
Although we might not like to think of it, death is a certain fate for us all. When we pass away, our families will go through a stressful and traumatic time as they come to terms with their loss. At the same time, there is a requirement for the administration of our estate, and this is usually bestowed upon a close relative or friend during this already painful time. However, a lack of foresight and planning can be catastrophic, leaving behind a tangle of assets and liabilities and possibly a hefty inheritance tax bill, depending on jurisdiction. On top of that, the absence of a will can mean a distribution of assets on the basis of standard 'default' rules, rather than on the basis of your individual preferences. In this article, we will look at some common provisions in the absence of any will, and aim to justify the benefits of making a comprehensive and clear will during your lifetime.
Most jurisdictions will bear some liability to tax on death. This can be a specific problem for the administrators of estates, usually close friends, who must ensure every known asset and liability is accounted for before making legacies and signing off the tax bill. A major problem comes with the personal liability attributed to the administrators, which means that should anything 'slip through the net' which is later discovered, there may be increased liability to tax. In practical terms, this could mean a surprise bill for several thousand which has already been distributed in legacies and for which the administrator must personally account. Providing for these outcomes in a will is one of the best ways of avoiding this hassle and stress, and it can also be the best way to ensure all assets and liabilities are uncovered. By drafting an effective will, you can be sure your loved ones don't face financial hardship after you're gone.
In the absence of a will providing specifically for the administration of a deceased's estate, it is up to the laws of intestacy to determine what happens to the entirety of our worldly possessions. Unfortunately, this doesn't usually correspond with the way we'd like things to turn out. For example, in a number of jurisdictions there are automatic provisions for spouses and kids, meaning you can disinherit, even with a will. There is also usually a default order of preference of who gets what and how much they get, which doesn't necessarily match your favorite relatives, or correspond to actual family set ups. In fact, cohabitants might run into problems getting anything, including the house in which they live without proper testamentary provisions in their favor.
As you can see there are a number of obvious benefits to drafting a will during your lifetime. Sadly, many thousands of people die each year without making these provisions, and it really is a real headache for their friends and relatives who are left with the burden of a fair settlement. Intestacy causes hostility and stress, which can be readily avoided by just simply making a written will. If you haven't made a will, it is probably a good idea to make a appointment as soon as is convenient with a legal adviser to do so, to ensure your family are provided for as you would intend and to promote a favorable distribution of your estate on death.
Most jurisdictions will bear some liability to tax on death. This can be a specific problem for the administrators of estates, usually close friends, who must ensure every known asset and liability is accounted for before making legacies and signing off the tax bill. A major problem comes with the personal liability attributed to the administrators, which means that should anything 'slip through the net' which is later discovered, there may be increased liability to tax. In practical terms, this could mean a surprise bill for several thousand which has already been distributed in legacies and for which the administrator must personally account. Providing for these outcomes in a will is one of the best ways of avoiding this hassle and stress, and it can also be the best way to ensure all assets and liabilities are uncovered. By drafting an effective will, you can be sure your loved ones don't face financial hardship after you're gone.
In the absence of a will providing specifically for the administration of a deceased's estate, it is up to the laws of intestacy to determine what happens to the entirety of our worldly possessions. Unfortunately, this doesn't usually correspond with the way we'd like things to turn out. For example, in a number of jurisdictions there are automatic provisions for spouses and kids, meaning you can disinherit, even with a will. There is also usually a default order of preference of who gets what and how much they get, which doesn't necessarily match your favorite relatives, or correspond to actual family set ups. In fact, cohabitants might run into problems getting anything, including the house in which they live without proper testamentary provisions in their favor.
As you can see there are a number of obvious benefits to drafting a will during your lifetime. Sadly, many thousands of people die each year without making these provisions, and it really is a real headache for their friends and relatives who are left with the burden of a fair settlement. Intestacy causes hostility and stress, which can be readily avoided by just simply making a written will. If you haven't made a will, it is probably a good idea to make a appointment as soon as is convenient with a legal adviser to do so, to ensure your family are provided for as you would intend and to promote a favorable distribution of your estate on death.
Heterosexual Marriages - Gay Partnerships
The debate of gay marriages has been a very hot political topic for many years and with being such a hot topic it is almost astounding the number of places that have come out publicly either for or against the topic. While there are few states who allow the idea of a gay or same-sex marriage there are those more liberal affording almost equal rights. Massachusetts is the only state currently in the United States that allows same-sex marriages. The state of Rhode Island is generous enough to recognize as legal marriage any same-sex marriage that is performed in Massachusetts, which is a major victory for many same-sex supporters.
The elections of recent years have seen this as a very hot topic button, and with the White House, stressing that marriage involves a man and a woman only, not same-sexes many states have been very reluctant to allow the same-sex marriages. However, a few states have come forward and allowed same-sex civil unions, which are very similar to a marriage.
These states are California, Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont. The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex unions and soon the Governor of New Hampshire has stated publicly that he will sign a bill giving the ok to same-sex unions. This is a major victory for those who are supporting the movement.
While many states have not given the green light on the same-sex issue, there are states who are sitting around discussing the issues. Many couples who are fighting for their rights have argued that there is no difference in the way they run their households compared to their heterosexual counterparts. They have also stated that while they may be with a partner who is the same sex as them, they do still love their partner and should have the right to get married.
This has always been a hot topic, and likely will continue to be a hot topic for many years to come. With the issues raging within the states and at the national level it will likely be a very long time before the gay and lesbian rights groups are able to truly declare a victory for their cause. Nevertheless, there is some solace to be taken in the small victories as they occur, and another Governor of a state being willing to allow a civil union is at least a step in the direction towards a victory.
The fact remains that often the views of the individual states tend to reflect the views of the President. With a President in office who is a staunch opponent to the concept of same-sex marriage as well as civil unions it is unlikely to allow much room for many victories until a more accommodating, or rather liberal, President is in the White House.
Once the bill passes all of the channels, it can go into effect as early as next year for the New Hampshire residence who have long been awaiting this victory. With each state that gives this right to its residents, it opens the doors to more states to start becoming more tolerant of all their inhabitants. Finally, this is paving the way for America to join the bulk of Europe in recognizing the legal inequalities between straight and gay couples nationwide.
The elections of recent years have seen this as a very hot topic button, and with the White House, stressing that marriage involves a man and a woman only, not same-sexes many states have been very reluctant to allow the same-sex marriages. However, a few states have come forward and allowed same-sex civil unions, which are very similar to a marriage.
These states are California, Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont. The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex unions and soon the Governor of New Hampshire has stated publicly that he will sign a bill giving the ok to same-sex unions. This is a major victory for those who are supporting the movement.
While many states have not given the green light on the same-sex issue, there are states who are sitting around discussing the issues. Many couples who are fighting for their rights have argued that there is no difference in the way they run their households compared to their heterosexual counterparts. They have also stated that while they may be with a partner who is the same sex as them, they do still love their partner and should have the right to get married.
This has always been a hot topic, and likely will continue to be a hot topic for many years to come. With the issues raging within the states and at the national level it will likely be a very long time before the gay and lesbian rights groups are able to truly declare a victory for their cause. Nevertheless, there is some solace to be taken in the small victories as they occur, and another Governor of a state being willing to allow a civil union is at least a step in the direction towards a victory.
The fact remains that often the views of the individual states tend to reflect the views of the President. With a President in office who is a staunch opponent to the concept of same-sex marriage as well as civil unions it is unlikely to allow much room for many victories until a more accommodating, or rather liberal, President is in the White House.
Once the bill passes all of the channels, it can go into effect as early as next year for the New Hampshire residence who have long been awaiting this victory. With each state that gives this right to its residents, it opens the doors to more states to start becoming more tolerant of all their inhabitants. Finally, this is paving the way for America to join the bulk of Europe in recognizing the legal inequalities between straight and gay couples nationwide.
Stem Cell Research
This is a very 'hot button' issue that keeps arising in the face of politicians everywhere in the country. What if anything should the government involve itself in for the issues of stem cell research? How far should the government press into the fields of medical science research? Should the government interfere at all, or stand back and come up with laws to handle the consequences of such research?
It comes into question, how many ordinary Americans really know and understand what stem cell research is, how it can effect our lives, and what does it have the ability to do in the future? With topics such as abortion being very hot and causing pressures on all sides, it only seems natural that stem cell research should cause just as much controversy. Many supporters argue that the research gathered will be able to save millions of lives, while those opposing the research all argue that they are killing thousands of innocent children in the process.
This brings the question, where do the embryos come from? The majority of the embryos used in the research come from couples that have donated them, following a treatment for infertility; there are often 10 or more embryos left over after such procedures, which can be put to use in the laboratory environment. The options for those embryos are limited; they can be preserved, adopted to a needy couple, destroyed, or donated to medical research.
The embryos are only a few mere days past conception when they are frozen, and are unable to sustain life in any form on their own. From a legal standpoint, they are not living humans, and are not an infant since legally an embryo becomes an infant once the first breath of air is taken. This leaves the questions of who has the right to determine what can happen to them.
The embryos are the building blocks of people, yet, they have no rights themselves. Whom do they belong to? Who is responsible for ensuring they are taken care of? Many consider the embryos being used in research as the same category as murder. Is it actually murder when the child is never born, and is only conceived in a test tube? Who should really make the decision about how these embryos should be handled?
The embryos themselves are rich in stem cells, which scientists have said can help cure some of the worst diseases and conditions in the world. This makes the concept very tempting, but is this dabbling in aspects of science that shouldn't be used? Should humans really be trying to recreate whole body parts and organs from the stem cells in order to help a few, but at the expense of a few other lives?
The current administration has tried to place a ban on this research and block the use of the embryos. This has upset many supporters who feel this research is vital to the survival of the human race, while those who digress the ideas are upset that is has not been banned fully yet. Where is the better side to stand? Should we allow the government to meddle into the scientific aspects of medicine, or should we continue the research to save thousands, or millions of lives?
It comes into question, how many ordinary Americans really know and understand what stem cell research is, how it can effect our lives, and what does it have the ability to do in the future? With topics such as abortion being very hot and causing pressures on all sides, it only seems natural that stem cell research should cause just as much controversy. Many supporters argue that the research gathered will be able to save millions of lives, while those opposing the research all argue that they are killing thousands of innocent children in the process.
This brings the question, where do the embryos come from? The majority of the embryos used in the research come from couples that have donated them, following a treatment for infertility; there are often 10 or more embryos left over after such procedures, which can be put to use in the laboratory environment. The options for those embryos are limited; they can be preserved, adopted to a needy couple, destroyed, or donated to medical research.
The embryos are only a few mere days past conception when they are frozen, and are unable to sustain life in any form on their own. From a legal standpoint, they are not living humans, and are not an infant since legally an embryo becomes an infant once the first breath of air is taken. This leaves the questions of who has the right to determine what can happen to them.
The embryos are the building blocks of people, yet, they have no rights themselves. Whom do they belong to? Who is responsible for ensuring they are taken care of? Many consider the embryos being used in research as the same category as murder. Is it actually murder when the child is never born, and is only conceived in a test tube? Who should really make the decision about how these embryos should be handled?
The embryos themselves are rich in stem cells, which scientists have said can help cure some of the worst diseases and conditions in the world. This makes the concept very tempting, but is this dabbling in aspects of science that shouldn't be used? Should humans really be trying to recreate whole body parts and organs from the stem cells in order to help a few, but at the expense of a few other lives?
The current administration has tried to place a ban on this research and block the use of the embryos. This has upset many supporters who feel this research is vital to the survival of the human race, while those who digress the ideas are upset that is has not been banned fully yet. Where is the better side to stand? Should we allow the government to meddle into the scientific aspects of medicine, or should we continue the research to save thousands, or millions of lives?
Laws Against Sex offenders
With the high rise in the number of sex offenders who are also repeated offenders the federal government decided to impose laws requiring all convicted sexual offenders to register with the states in which they live. Although this measure is controversial, government officials are claiming that it is an increasingly effective method of avoiding re-offending in some of the most serious criminals. Is this an invasion of privacy that the states and politicians have imposed upon someone who has served their sentence, or is this a legitimate measure of control for some of society's most dangerous offenders?
At some point in time, it became acceptable for the government to track former criminals; in requiring them to register as an offender, they are essentially tracking the criminal. They do nothing more than monitor closely their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is quite scary, while it has occurred for a crime that fits the punishment, after all our children should be protected. It also comes with a price. Many people see this as an intense invasion of privacy and human rights, and in Europe under the banner of the European Convention on Human Rights, such procedures would almost certainly not be allowed.
Since beginning this and requiring that all sexual offenders register with their respective states, it opens the door for criminals of other crimes to be required to register. Once that occurs, it allows the governments to start requiring slowly that everyone be registered for one reason or another. Is this something that the people are willing to let happen? Should the government have full knowledge and control over where you go, who your friends are and where you work?
Many feel that the laws for the sexual offenders are not stiff enough; they call for stricter punishments and heavier penalties for these most despicable of criminals. This comes from the side of people that wish to seek nothing more than revenge. At the same time, if someone commits a crime whom is sent for mental help, instead of jail they are not required to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their punishment is much easier.
This can cause serious problems in terms of people not being registered that really should be registered as an offender. The main goal of the program is to protect the interest of the children; after all, they are the main resource worth protecting in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some have suggested implanting the offenders with a microchip that would enable law enforcement agencies to track the offenders' movements continuously. Is this something that the American public is willing to accept?
With this being talked about, what are the chances of this occurring for other crimes as well? What is the point of releasing someone from the judicial system if they are so dangerous that they must be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a child how safe do you feel knowing that there are people surrounding you whom have been convicted of serious crimes against others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The requirement for registration causes social problems and victimization for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who have shown themselves to be dangerous. This has the knock on effect of altering the course of justice, given that these people will have served the appropriate sentence for their crime, and hopefully have progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you think it should be handled? There are some people who truly believe that the registrations processes should be removed, that once their time is served the offenders should be allowed to disappear back into the woodwork and free to live their lives without being under the public scrutiny. These are the people who are looking to have yet another law changed, that could have some very devastating effects on society, particularly for our children in the coming generations.
At some point in time, it became acceptable for the government to track former criminals; in requiring them to register as an offender, they are essentially tracking the criminal. They do nothing more than monitor closely their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is quite scary, while it has occurred for a crime that fits the punishment, after all our children should be protected. It also comes with a price. Many people see this as an intense invasion of privacy and human rights, and in Europe under the banner of the European Convention on Human Rights, such procedures would almost certainly not be allowed.
Since beginning this and requiring that all sexual offenders register with their respective states, it opens the door for criminals of other crimes to be required to register. Once that occurs, it allows the governments to start requiring slowly that everyone be registered for one reason or another. Is this something that the people are willing to let happen? Should the government have full knowledge and control over where you go, who your friends are and where you work?
Many feel that the laws for the sexual offenders are not stiff enough; they call for stricter punishments and heavier penalties for these most despicable of criminals. This comes from the side of people that wish to seek nothing more than revenge. At the same time, if someone commits a crime whom is sent for mental help, instead of jail they are not required to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their punishment is much easier.
This can cause serious problems in terms of people not being registered that really should be registered as an offender. The main goal of the program is to protect the interest of the children; after all, they are the main resource worth protecting in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some have suggested implanting the offenders with a microchip that would enable law enforcement agencies to track the offenders' movements continuously. Is this something that the American public is willing to accept?
With this being talked about, what are the chances of this occurring for other crimes as well? What is the point of releasing someone from the judicial system if they are so dangerous that they must be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a child how safe do you feel knowing that there are people surrounding you whom have been convicted of serious crimes against others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The requirement for registration causes social problems and victimization for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who have shown themselves to be dangerous. This has the knock on effect of altering the course of justice, given that these people will have served the appropriate sentence for their crime, and hopefully have progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you think it should be handled? There are some people who truly believe that the registrations processes should be removed, that once their time is served the offenders should be allowed to disappear back into the woodwork and free to live their lives without being under the public scrutiny. These are the people who are looking to have yet another law changed, that could have some very devastating effects on society, particularly for our children in the coming generations.
legal theory on Positivist
The question of the character of law is primarily a simple one, although it presents a diversity of argumentation to make it an academic favourite and a thought-provoking topic of debate. Positivism is the term describing the school of legal thought that follows that law is an authoritative, binding, regulatory construct. It holds at its core the idea that law is enacted as an authoritative statement of how society must behave. It rejects the concept of any connection with morality, and suggests that there is no room for subjective consideration of the law - the law is, with no room for negotiation. Positivism has been criticised, particularly in Germany, as a means of affording tyranny and extremism to enter mainstream politics. It is said that the general concept of accepting and enforcing the law by virtue of its status allows unjust laws enforcing prejudice and discrimination respect by virtue of their enactment, placing an indefeasible trust in the legislature. As compared to other legal theories, positivism has gathered a great deal of respect and support across the world, making it one of the most prominent considerations of the nature of law.
Positivism places strength on the rules as they are laid down, on the premise that the process of the legislature is the time for challenge and interpretation. Although this may generally be the case, it does throw up some problems in relation to the practical consequences of certain enactments, which reflect better with experience the level of effectiveness. Another feature of the positivist movement is that rather than be guided by moral considerations, the law can be used in certain circumstances to determine what is right and what is wrong, on the basis of its status as in accordance with or against the law. Again this causes problems that have formed the basis of much academic argumentation in the area.
One of the main criticisms of positivism as a theory came in light of the linguistic considerations of HLA Hart, a leading international legal philosopher. He stated that the positive law is far from fixed in nature, for the simple reason that language is not fixed. For example, the famous scenario offered for this point is a sign in a local park stating 'no vehicles allowed'. This is by no means a fixed and definitive statement of the law, because 'vehicles' can be taken to mean a broad range of things. For the most part it will be fairly obvious what falls within the scope - no cars, vans, trucks or trains would be permitted. But what about skateboards? Bicycles? Are these covered within the definition of vehicles? There is no way of knowing from the text exactly what is intended by the law, so to positivism in this strict sense is flawed. Rather, a more sophisticated approach is required, which allows the law to be read in the light of pragmatic and policy considerations. This makes positivism more palatable as a concept, and strengthens its validity at the heart of legal philosophy.
Positivism is only one in a series of mainstream legal theories which satisfy the rational and logical requirements of academics and practitioners alike. Its intellectual sophistication sets it apart from the more basic natural law theory, although it is by no means an utterly definitive set of beliefs. All in all, this is an area of study that is rapidly developing, producing new and more complex arguments with every empirical text.
Positivism places strength on the rules as they are laid down, on the premise that the process of the legislature is the time for challenge and interpretation. Although this may generally be the case, it does throw up some problems in relation to the practical consequences of certain enactments, which reflect better with experience the level of effectiveness. Another feature of the positivist movement is that rather than be guided by moral considerations, the law can be used in certain circumstances to determine what is right and what is wrong, on the basis of its status as in accordance with or against the law. Again this causes problems that have formed the basis of much academic argumentation in the area.
One of the main criticisms of positivism as a theory came in light of the linguistic considerations of HLA Hart, a leading international legal philosopher. He stated that the positive law is far from fixed in nature, for the simple reason that language is not fixed. For example, the famous scenario offered for this point is a sign in a local park stating 'no vehicles allowed'. This is by no means a fixed and definitive statement of the law, because 'vehicles' can be taken to mean a broad range of things. For the most part it will be fairly obvious what falls within the scope - no cars, vans, trucks or trains would be permitted. But what about skateboards? Bicycles? Are these covered within the definition of vehicles? There is no way of knowing from the text exactly what is intended by the law, so to positivism in this strict sense is flawed. Rather, a more sophisticated approach is required, which allows the law to be read in the light of pragmatic and policy considerations. This makes positivism more palatable as a concept, and strengthens its validity at the heart of legal philosophy.
Positivism is only one in a series of mainstream legal theories which satisfy the rational and logical requirements of academics and practitioners alike. Its intellectual sophistication sets it apart from the more basic natural law theory, although it is by no means an utterly definitive set of beliefs. All in all, this is an area of study that is rapidly developing, producing new and more complex arguments with every empirical text.
Campaigning Online
Where in the world can a person check their mail, pay bills, check bank balances, book a vacation, and show support for their favorite political candidate all in the same place? Simple - online of course. Candidates and politicians are looking to cash in on the most impact for their time and what better way to become a part of that powerful trend than welcoming cyber space into their lives? Who knew that a craze that started a few short years ago with social websites such as MySpace.com would turn into a tool to be used so heavily in campaigns?
Barack Obama has enjoyed adding 100,000 friends to his MySpace page, and other campaigns are even adding other MySpace pages as well as joining into the Second Life craze that has struck recently, with many people looking to expand the internet as one of their major sources of advertisement. Each candidate has their own website of course, with a great amount of information on their individual views, their position on the issues, and what they wish to see happen in the country. Never before has the democratic process reached so close to home, now pulling in a new generation of voters to guide the future of the country.
Is this a good idea? Should candidates really be losing that personal and physical touch? However, this is actually one of the most prevalent ways to get information out recently, with websites popping up everywhere where political opinions can be viewed, and with sites such as digg.com becoming popular it enables sites with good content that is full of information people find fascinating or helpful to rise to the top, and help spread the word to the masses.
Seems almost like a grass roots type campaign. Yet it does not involve any physical interaction from the candidates. This is the ultimate tool that can be used to spread the word quickly about progress and updates in their campaign without ever leaving their house or office and interacting with those they so desperately need votes from. This seems to be a bit of a strange position to be taking, but with the internet reaching so wide and far, it is a tool that many politicians are utilizing, and to great practical effect.
Many are even recruiting volunteers to manage their spaces in Second Life as well as MySpace so that their time is better spent and their ability to reach even more people is extended further. Seems almost strange that volunteers are now able to help on campaigns that they never would have been able to work on before, but thanks to the internet, they are able to show support for their favorite candidate in a way never before seen.
How much further can this really go, with the possibility of the internet growing into an even larger portion of the campaign, it is very much possible to keep track of all the happenings and events in almost every political campaign and race without ever leaving the comfort of your home. Whether this engages the ordinary citizen on a more direct level will remain to be seen, and the outcome this will have on the voter demographic at the next election will surely be profound. Now if only the election voting could be handled online, securely it would truly be a virtual world...
Barack Obama has enjoyed adding 100,000 friends to his MySpace page, and other campaigns are even adding other MySpace pages as well as joining into the Second Life craze that has struck recently, with many people looking to expand the internet as one of their major sources of advertisement. Each candidate has their own website of course, with a great amount of information on their individual views, their position on the issues, and what they wish to see happen in the country. Never before has the democratic process reached so close to home, now pulling in a new generation of voters to guide the future of the country.
Is this a good idea? Should candidates really be losing that personal and physical touch? However, this is actually one of the most prevalent ways to get information out recently, with websites popping up everywhere where political opinions can be viewed, and with sites such as digg.com becoming popular it enables sites with good content that is full of information people find fascinating or helpful to rise to the top, and help spread the word to the masses.
Seems almost like a grass roots type campaign. Yet it does not involve any physical interaction from the candidates. This is the ultimate tool that can be used to spread the word quickly about progress and updates in their campaign without ever leaving their house or office and interacting with those they so desperately need votes from. This seems to be a bit of a strange position to be taking, but with the internet reaching so wide and far, it is a tool that many politicians are utilizing, and to great practical effect.
Many are even recruiting volunteers to manage their spaces in Second Life as well as MySpace so that their time is better spent and their ability to reach even more people is extended further. Seems almost strange that volunteers are now able to help on campaigns that they never would have been able to work on before, but thanks to the internet, they are able to show support for their favorite candidate in a way never before seen.
How much further can this really go, with the possibility of the internet growing into an even larger portion of the campaign, it is very much possible to keep track of all the happenings and events in almost every political campaign and race without ever leaving the comfort of your home. Whether this engages the ordinary citizen on a more direct level will remain to be seen, and the outcome this will have on the voter demographic at the next election will surely be profound. Now if only the election voting could be handled online, securely it would truly be a virtual world...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)