My girlfriend is 25, has a Law Degree and passed the Bar course in 2006, but didn't gain pupillage.
She has since been working as a defense Paralegal, with most of her work concentrating on major fraud cases.
She requires approximately 6 months non-contentious work to cross-qualify as a solicitor and is currently trying to find this work.
What other qualifications or experience does she need and how would she attempt to become a University Law Lecturer from her current position?How do I become a University Law Lecturer?
Normally, you need a PhD or any other recognised Doctorate on top of your degree to lecture students at Universities. The principle is that you should be one step higher than the students you're lecturing. So with a PhD you can lecture undergrad as well as Masters students.
If she's keen she should do a PhD. She's still young so she could do it part-time and mature into it. It's normally easier for more mature PhD students.
Good luck!How do I become a University Law Lecturer?
I'm pretty sure if she watches 72 CSI episodes, 142 Boston Legal episodes and 127 Law n Order Episodes, this will qualify her
hope this helped
Saturday, March 10, 2012
What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?
What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?
A. It will not be as costly to live after they are gone
B. It is too expensive to cover 100%
C. The law does not allow any more
D. There is an income tax exemption on life insurance benefits
Anyone?...The answer isn't A, because I got it wrong last time. Help?What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?
D. You don't pay taxes on life insurance benefits.What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?
learn more at http://finance1o1.blogspot.com
There is no "law" saying that life insurance must be limited to 75% gross annual income.
No such law in the U.S.
A. It will not be as costly to live after they are gone
B. It is too expensive to cover 100%
C. The law does not allow any more
D. There is an income tax exemption on life insurance benefits
Anyone?...The answer isn't A, because I got it wrong last time. Help?What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?
D. You don't pay taxes on life insurance benefits.What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?
learn more at http://finance1o1.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
What is the reason under current law for only insuring to 75% of gross income for life insurance coverage?There is no "law" saying that life insurance must be limited to 75% gross annual income.
No such law in the U.S.
Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain?
Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain? This seems to be an ungoing problem here in America why and what is your solution?Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain?
I believe you have been misinformed or are confused.Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain?
Because we've legislated ourselves into a corner. A fairly substantial population does *some* kind of criminal act(anything from speeding to DUI to smoking pot). There's not enough police to arrest them all, courts to try them all, or jails to hold them all.
In fact, we keep making more and more restrictive pointless laws.
My solution is that people quit whining, and handle their own business instead of relying on lawyers and the government. Not in every situation of course. But a hell of a lot more than they do now.Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain?
source: John Locke "The Second Treatise on Government"
***
A crime is something that a society agrees no one should do, because it takes something that "naturally belongs to" someone else. "Naturally belongs to" means exists in its present form because the someone else created it through their labor, or bought it with the fruits of their labor, or was endowed to the individual by our Creator [as in a person's body and/or mental health].
It follows that one fundamental human right is that the result of a person's labor is his. This is the essence of capitalism -- I created it, so I own it, and therefore I have the right to the exclusive use of it, and therefore the right to manage it as I see fit. From this flows the concept that theft is a crime, as well as violence, abuse, or the threat of either toward the mental, physical, or emotional health of anyone else.
***
The correct amount of punishment for a crime is that which will deter others from committing the crime, and/or will prevent the perpetrator from committing the crime again. Any punishment beyond that is excessive and amounts to evil for the sake of evil -- which is "naturally" a crime in and of itself.
***
What I think has happened in much of America is that punishments are not sufficient to deter either the actual criminal or others from doing the same.
Example: drunk driving. Driving while impaired puts other people at risk of injury or death. Since this unarguably takes form them via force or threat, it is a crime.
In the Scandinavian countries, driving after drinking is a very serious offense. Fines begin at a week's pre-tax wages and go up from there. Such individuals also lose their driving privilege for a minimum of three months -- no excuses, no exceptions. There are very few drunk drivers.
By contrast, in America, we have many drunk drivers and many repeat drunk drivers. At $250 for first offense, the fine is too small. Further, the offender's driving license is not automatically suspended at all.
I suggest that the punishment for drunk driving in America should be more like this: First offense: 1. a fine of two weeks pre-tax income, plus 2. driving license suspended for three months, plus until fine is paid. Second offense: 1. a fine of two month's pre-tax income and driving license revoked for a year.
Caught driving anyway on suspended license -- the perp is immediately found in contempt of court [he was ordered to not drive earlier] and jailed for the remainder of his license suspension. If he owns the vehicle, it is sold and the proceeds go to the victim's relief fund. If he doesn't own the vehicle, it is returned to the owner and the owner ordered by the court to not allow perp to use any vehicle again. [there are numerous subcases which need handling depending on circumstances]
Pretty quickly, anyone who violates a driving license suspension will be unable to borrow to buy a vehicle -- since the loan company would be at serious risk of losing their money. This gets habitual offenders out of cars.
I think you'll find that many of America's fines and punishments are similarly far too soft to effectively deter crime. Multiplying fines by approximately 10 and seizing and selling assets to pay them would probably help a great deal.
...
I believe you have been misinformed or are confused.Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain?
Because we've legislated ourselves into a corner. A fairly substantial population does *some* kind of criminal act(anything from speeding to DUI to smoking pot). There's not enough police to arrest them all, courts to try them all, or jails to hold them all.
In fact, we keep making more and more restrictive pointless laws.
My solution is that people quit whining, and handle their own business instead of relying on lawyers and the government. Not in every situation of course. But a hell of a lot more than they do now.Why is Law enforcement of existing laws and statutes going down the drain?
source: John Locke "The Second Treatise on Government"
***
A crime is something that a society agrees no one should do, because it takes something that "naturally belongs to" someone else. "Naturally belongs to" means exists in its present form because the someone else created it through their labor, or bought it with the fruits of their labor, or was endowed to the individual by our Creator [as in a person's body and/or mental health].
It follows that one fundamental human right is that the result of a person's labor is his. This is the essence of capitalism -- I created it, so I own it, and therefore I have the right to the exclusive use of it, and therefore the right to manage it as I see fit. From this flows the concept that theft is a crime, as well as violence, abuse, or the threat of either toward the mental, physical, or emotional health of anyone else.
***
The correct amount of punishment for a crime is that which will deter others from committing the crime, and/or will prevent the perpetrator from committing the crime again. Any punishment beyond that is excessive and amounts to evil for the sake of evil -- which is "naturally" a crime in and of itself.
***
What I think has happened in much of America is that punishments are not sufficient to deter either the actual criminal or others from doing the same.
Example: drunk driving. Driving while impaired puts other people at risk of injury or death. Since this unarguably takes form them via force or threat, it is a crime.
In the Scandinavian countries, driving after drinking is a very serious offense. Fines begin at a week's pre-tax wages and go up from there. Such individuals also lose their driving privilege for a minimum of three months -- no excuses, no exceptions. There are very few drunk drivers.
By contrast, in America, we have many drunk drivers and many repeat drunk drivers. At $250 for first offense, the fine is too small. Further, the offender's driving license is not automatically suspended at all.
I suggest that the punishment for drunk driving in America should be more like this: First offense: 1. a fine of two weeks pre-tax income, plus 2. driving license suspended for three months, plus until fine is paid. Second offense: 1. a fine of two month's pre-tax income and driving license revoked for a year.
Caught driving anyway on suspended license -- the perp is immediately found in contempt of court [he was ordered to not drive earlier] and jailed for the remainder of his license suspension. If he owns the vehicle, it is sold and the proceeds go to the victim's relief fund. If he doesn't own the vehicle, it is returned to the owner and the owner ordered by the court to not allow perp to use any vehicle again. [there are numerous subcases which need handling depending on circumstances]
Pretty quickly, anyone who violates a driving license suspension will be unable to borrow to buy a vehicle -- since the loan company would be at serious risk of losing their money. This gets habitual offenders out of cars.
I think you'll find that many of America's fines and punishments are similarly far too soft to effectively deter crime. Multiplying fines by approximately 10 and seizing and selling assets to pay them would probably help a great deal.
...
What does the law in West Virginia say about driving minors out of state lines even with parental permission?
My boyfriend is 17 and I'm 18, his family is having financial problems out of state and he needs to return to West Virginia. Could I drive and pick him up and drive him into WV while having parental permission from both sides and it not be against the law? Please answer and help soon, I need to know soon.What does the law in West Virginia say about driving minors out of state lines even with parental permission?
I think you should drive to DC and get with me babe. I'm 69 ;)What does the law in West Virginia say about driving minors out of state lines even with parental permission?
Seriously? There are no laws about driving minors across state lines like that. You're fine.
I think you should drive to DC and get with me babe. I'm 69 ;)What does the law in West Virginia say about driving minors out of state lines even with parental permission?
Seriously? There are no laws about driving minors across state lines like that. You're fine.
What kind of careers for a law school graduate who doesn't want to practice law?
My sister will have a Master's degree in forensic science and wants to work in a crime lab. She is having a tough time finding a job. She is now considering law school. Will this help her in her goal of working in a crime lab?What kind of careers for a law school graduate who doesn't want to practice law?
No, working in a crime lab will help her more. Working in that department as a clerk/low range lab tech will help.
She might consider moving to a remote area, so she can be the only coroner for miles around. She could end up with a county or state job. She could teach and do autopsies, too.
Try Alaska, Wyoming, Minnesota, indian reservations, or go back to school for her PHD.
Law school sucks, better to work in a lab as someone said. Law school will not help you with any career.
Forensic law would be a possiblity, possibly as an investigator. Lots of people do things other than regular legal work, but it's 3 years of really hard work. Is she up for it??
It's very difficult to find forensic science jobs. She just has to wait and keep an eye out--they will come up. I know someone who waited (in Hawaii) for two years and she now works at the police department.
It could help her in the crime lab. If she just wants help progressing her career and MBA could help.What kind of careers for a law school graduate who doesn't want to practice law?
Why do people answer questions if they have no idea what they are talking about?
Law school will 100% not help her get a job in a crime lab. If she wants to do research and write memos, law school is the answer. Seriously, you learn very little in law school that is useful. It is mostly theory. For many people it is the most expensive mistake of their lives.
If she loves to research and push paper, and is ok with 100k of debt then law school is the answer. Keep in mind, unless she attends a top 14 school, or is in the top 10% of her class, she will be hustling to get a job as an attorney for 40-55k. Seriously.
The job search can be frustrating, but it is even worse when your 100k in debt and have to do work that is mindless just to pay off your student loans. She should really research the decision to attend law school before jumping into it. Good luck.
I once worked at a temp in a Catholic hospital and all the priests and nuns in the administrative section had law degrees.dairy queen locations things to do in dc
No, working in a crime lab will help her more. Working in that department as a clerk/low range lab tech will help.
She might consider moving to a remote area, so she can be the only coroner for miles around. She could end up with a county or state job. She could teach and do autopsies, too.
Try Alaska, Wyoming, Minnesota, indian reservations, or go back to school for her PHD.
Law school sucks, better to work in a lab as someone said. Law school will not help you with any career.
Report Abuse
What kind of careers for a law school graduate who doesn't want to practice law?Forensic law would be a possiblity, possibly as an investigator. Lots of people do things other than regular legal work, but it's 3 years of really hard work. Is she up for it??
It's very difficult to find forensic science jobs. She just has to wait and keep an eye out--they will come up. I know someone who waited (in Hawaii) for two years and she now works at the police department.
It could help her in the crime lab. If she just wants help progressing her career and MBA could help.What kind of careers for a law school graduate who doesn't want to practice law?
Why do people answer questions if they have no idea what they are talking about?
Law school will 100% not help her get a job in a crime lab. If she wants to do research and write memos, law school is the answer. Seriously, you learn very little in law school that is useful. It is mostly theory. For many people it is the most expensive mistake of their lives.
If she loves to research and push paper, and is ok with 100k of debt then law school is the answer. Keep in mind, unless she attends a top 14 school, or is in the top 10% of her class, she will be hustling to get a job as an attorney for 40-55k. Seriously.
The job search can be frustrating, but it is even worse when your 100k in debt and have to do work that is mindless just to pay off your student loans. She should really research the decision to attend law school before jumping into it. Good luck.
I once worked at a temp in a Catholic hospital and all the priests and nuns in the administrative section had law degrees.
Is there a law that keeps you from buying a tattoo matchine and tattooing yourself or your friends?
I purchased a tattoo matchine kit. A bunch of single use needles tube and tips, ink caps... everything you would need to do safe tattooing. But now my question is can I practice and not be breaking the law? Can I accept money for the tattooes that I do? What are my limitations?Is there a law that keeps you from buying a tattoo matchine and tattooing yourself or your friends?
There's no law against purchasing equipment and tattooing yourself with said equipment without any special training or certifications/licenses. There may be laws against tattooing others, however.
In any case, just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Tattooing others is a very bad idea unless you know what you're doing. If you want to learn how, you can purchase synthetic tattooing skin to practice on. It doesn't cost that much. Once you get good at it, get the proper certifications and licenses, and open your own shop.
Actually in Missouri there is a proposed rule change that requires ALL tattooers to have either 600 hour apprenticeship or 300 hours of licensed tattoo schooling so you would be operating illegally.
there isn't a law against it, my mom is going to buy one for me along with the skin things to practise on
but i think this may only be in KY but if you get caught tattooing people from your home w/o your home being your business place you can get 30 days jail or an incredably huge fine
actually it IS against the law to tattoo another without the proper certs, ect.. it is hard to prove if you are, i am an apprentice in texas, i started out on myself, but soon realized that it was more complicated than just being an artist, picking up a machine and going to town..
You would be operating illegally if you were in Illinois, for instance. As of July 2007, you have to work out of a registered facility. Never mind that is completely unethical to be permanently marking someone's skin without proper training or knowledge of how to prevent cross contamination.
As far as I'm aware, this is the law: you have to be a licensed tattoo artist to do anything.
No law against buying them, you can get them on eBay easily.
Not so sure about tattooing others...
There's no law against purchasing equipment and tattooing yourself with said equipment without any special training or certifications/licenses. There may be laws against tattooing others, however.
In any case, just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Tattooing others is a very bad idea unless you know what you're doing. If you want to learn how, you can purchase synthetic tattooing skin to practice on. It doesn't cost that much. Once you get good at it, get the proper certifications and licenses, and open your own shop.
Actually in Missouri there is a proposed rule change that requires ALL tattooers to have either 600 hour apprenticeship or 300 hours of licensed tattoo schooling so you would be operating illegally.
Report Abuse
Is there a law that keeps you from buying a tattoo matchine and tattooing yourself or your friends?there isn't a law against it, my mom is going to buy one for me along with the skin things to practise on
but i think this may only be in KY but if you get caught tattooing people from your home w/o your home being your business place you can get 30 days jail or an incredably huge fine
Report Abuse
actually it IS against the law to tattoo another without the proper certs, ect.. it is hard to prove if you are, i am an apprentice in texas, i started out on myself, but soon realized that it was more complicated than just being an artist, picking up a machine and going to town..
Report Abuse
Is there a law that keeps you from buying a tattoo matchine and tattooing yourself or your friends?You would be operating illegally if you were in Illinois, for instance. As of July 2007, you have to work out of a registered facility. Never mind that is completely unethical to be permanently marking someone's skin without proper training or knowledge of how to prevent cross contamination.
As far as I'm aware, this is the law: you have to be a licensed tattoo artist to do anything.
No law against buying them, you can get them on eBay easily.
Not so sure about tattooing others...
My mother in law and I have different views on how to raise my daughter. What should I do?
I come from a traditional family with set rules and values. I recently gave birth to my daughter and I am going to be celebrating her one month birthday. In my family's tradition, we are supposed to shave her head. I want to follow that tradition, however my mother in law is opposed to it. She thinks it's barbaric and has been upset with my decision for the go-ahead. What should I do?My mother in law and I have different views on how to raise my daughter. What should I do?
I was going to say tell her to shut up..
..but really, what's the point of this tradition? Is it like a religious thing or just some silly crap your grandma made up?
Well, I guess you should probably still tell her to shut up, tell your own family the same, and you and your husband can make up your own minds.
When all is said and done, you are her mother. It truly is your choice. The only way that your mother-in-law (or anybody else, other than you or the father) should have any say is if you were an unfit parent, raising your child in an unfit environment and doing something completely wrong. Shaving your daughters head after 1 month really isn't a big deal, they don't have much hair after 1 month anyway. Your mother-in-law should back off, and let you carry on with your family traditions. It's not like you're being a bad mother by shaving your daughters head, it's no harm to the child at all. So, really, being the mother, unless your child's father disagrees, then it's your choice!
It's hair.......it's gunna grow back.My mother in law and I have different views on how to raise my daughter. What should I do?
although I have to say it seems a strage tradition to me, its not like its going to hurt her and there cant be that much to shave off anyways, if shes a month old. But all that aside, this is your daughter. Not your mother in laws. You need to discuss things with your husband and as long as you two are in agreement, who in the world is going to care about what she thinks about?? If she keeps bugging you then your husband needs to have a talk with her about boundaries. And you need to grow a backbone and put your foot down on matter that have nothing to do with your mil
Your 1 month old has enough hair that it'd even be noticeable if you shaved it? I would suggest against lathering her head up with shaving cream and taking a razor to it, but buzzers aren't going to cause any damage.
Remember that this is the person who raised your husband; she must not be all bad. She _has_ dealt with children and _does_ have valuable insight, perspective, and advice. Take it with respect and then make the best decision all around.My mother in law and I have different views on how to raise my daughter. What should I do?
You are her mother so you are allowed to say what goes. Although she may be upset you are her mom and you can do whatever you want, you are in charge. I think it should be up to you what goes...she is only the grandmother and although she may be upset and will be upset when you do it....it's not her place to try to control you and tell you what you can and can't do. It's your tradition that you want followed so go ahead and do it regardless!
There is no problem here...what you should do is raise your child the way YOU and YOUR HuSBAND want to raise her. Grandmothers don't get to descide...they raised their kids, now they get to enjoy their grandkids, while minding their own business and letting the parents raise them the way they see fit. Please note that I said this is yours and your husbands decision...not JUST YOURS.
It's your daughter not hers. You raise YOUR daughter how you want she can't do anything about it since it isn't her daughter. So go for what you want to do in your child's life.
You are the mother. It sounds like a pretty stupid tradition, but she probably doesn't have much hair anyway. Just be careful not to nick her tender skin.
Who shaves a one month olds head.
Go ahead follow your family tradition and shave her head.....lmao, this can't be real
It's your baby, not hers...
I think you're both silly. Who cares if a one year-old girl has hair?
She is YOUR daughter, it is a tradition in YOUR family, and you mother in law should stay out of it, and let you do what you want with your daughter. although, your husband should have a say in it. if he still thinks its okay, then go for it and who cares what she says, but if he doesn't, then talk to him about it :)
answer mine please?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
I was going to say tell her to shut up..
..but really, what's the point of this tradition? Is it like a religious thing or just some silly crap your grandma made up?
Well, I guess you should probably still tell her to shut up, tell your own family the same, and you and your husband can make up your own minds.
When all is said and done, you are her mother. It truly is your choice. The only way that your mother-in-law (or anybody else, other than you or the father) should have any say is if you were an unfit parent, raising your child in an unfit environment and doing something completely wrong. Shaving your daughters head after 1 month really isn't a big deal, they don't have much hair after 1 month anyway. Your mother-in-law should back off, and let you carry on with your family traditions. It's not like you're being a bad mother by shaving your daughters head, it's no harm to the child at all. So, really, being the mother, unless your child's father disagrees, then it's your choice!
It's hair.......it's gunna grow back.My mother in law and I have different views on how to raise my daughter. What should I do?
although I have to say it seems a strage tradition to me, its not like its going to hurt her and there cant be that much to shave off anyways, if shes a month old. But all that aside, this is your daughter. Not your mother in laws. You need to discuss things with your husband and as long as you two are in agreement, who in the world is going to care about what she thinks about?? If she keeps bugging you then your husband needs to have a talk with her about boundaries. And you need to grow a backbone and put your foot down on matter that have nothing to do with your mil
Your 1 month old has enough hair that it'd even be noticeable if you shaved it? I would suggest against lathering her head up with shaving cream and taking a razor to it, but buzzers aren't going to cause any damage.
Remember that this is the person who raised your husband; she must not be all bad. She _has_ dealt with children and _does_ have valuable insight, perspective, and advice. Take it with respect and then make the best decision all around.My mother in law and I have different views on how to raise my daughter. What should I do?
You are her mother so you are allowed to say what goes. Although she may be upset you are her mom and you can do whatever you want, you are in charge. I think it should be up to you what goes...she is only the grandmother and although she may be upset and will be upset when you do it....it's not her place to try to control you and tell you what you can and can't do. It's your tradition that you want followed so go ahead and do it regardless!
There is no problem here...what you should do is raise your child the way YOU and YOUR HuSBAND want to raise her. Grandmothers don't get to descide...they raised their kids, now they get to enjoy their grandkids, while minding their own business and letting the parents raise them the way they see fit. Please note that I said this is yours and your husbands decision...not JUST YOURS.
It's your daughter not hers. You raise YOUR daughter how you want she can't do anything about it since it isn't her daughter. So go for what you want to do in your child's life.
You are the mother. It sounds like a pretty stupid tradition, but she probably doesn't have much hair anyway. Just be careful not to nick her tender skin.
Who shaves a one month olds head.
Go ahead follow your family tradition and shave her head.....lmao, this can't be real
It's your baby, not hers...
I think you're both silly. Who cares if a one year-old girl has hair?
She is YOUR daughter, it is a tradition in YOUR family, and you mother in law should stay out of it, and let you do what you want with your daughter. although, your husband should have a say in it. if he still thinks its okay, then go for it and who cares what she says, but if he doesn't, then talk to him about it :)
answer mine please?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)