what is louisiana's policy on doc forfeiture of good time?
340259
I have no clue but try a search engine ... thats what I would do!
845774
Yes, they can take your car, your house, and any thing else associated with the crime. It is part of RICO Anti-racketeering law.\n\nOh, and you still have financial responsibily for the confiscated items.
106425
Here is the website for refund information.\n\nhttps://webtax2.rev.louisiana.gov/status/refund/
282985
It's in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:\n\n"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."\n\nIf a person is found guilty of a crime, but later evidence shows up to prove he is innocent, he can request a new trial. In so doing, he would basically be waiving this portion of his 5th Amendment right. \n\nIf a person is found innocent, but later evidence shows up to prove he is guilty, the governmetn cannot violate his 5th Amendment right and re-try him for the same crime. But there is a loop-hole. He could be charged for a different crime. The 4 cops tried for beating Rodney King were found innocent, but then later re-tried for violating his civil rights. Same crime, different charges.
1084293
not only is it immoral..it is stealing and if you get caught on camera or wittnesses they will lock your behind up..thats theft by taking.....finders keepers or not. if you find it....turn it in.you would want the same done for you if it was your belongings.
173182
I can't locate the statue you are requesting. However the people who would know are located here - http://www.lac.org/lac/main.php?view=profile&subaction1=MI  You can see for yourself information that will help you. Also you can always go look up the statues listed there and see if there is something about misdemeanors.\n\nTypically things are not automatically expunged - but require you to ask the court to make them so - this envolves filing papers witht he court, and the ever popular filing fees. In our area it is $80 per charge!
393948
Would need to know where in Louisiana and when. There was a serial killer who followed that m.o. Try looking up the archives of news stations within that location, or even the newspapers. The Daily Advertiser has archived stories, if I'm not mistaken.
68301
Its not a nationwide law, its specifc to the state and even to the municipality.  In New Orleans, they are very liberal with regard to walking around on the street with an open container.  In NYC, you can't do that, you'll get a ticket.
1101253
Love the music.  Keeps my heart in Louisiana
846063
I live in Florida, but I believe this rule of law applies to all states. I'm sure someone out there will post otherwise if I am incorrect.\n\nHere, if you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE CAR, you cannot claim ignorance as a defense. The law assumes that, as the sole inhabitant of the vehicle, you are knowledgeable about the contents of said vehicle, and therefore, responsible for said contents. The only time you can claim ignorance of the contents is if there were other people in the car at the time of the stop, search, and seizure.\n\nMy ex-husband found this out when he was stopped while driving (alone) and the cops found drug paraphernalia in his vehicle. His "defense" that the stuff didn't belong to him was thrown out of court based on the law I stated above.\n\nIf you were alone in the vehicle, there ISN'T any "proving your innocence". The law already assumes you are culpable.
399841
In Louisiana only one person has to be aware that the recording is being made. So, yes, it may be used in a court of law.  Sorry.\n\nThe only states where it requires two parties to be notified that a recording is being made are\n\nCalifornia\n Illinois\n Montana\n \nConnecticut\n Massachusetts\n New Hampshire\n \nDelaware\n Maryland\n Pennsylvania\n \nFlorida\n Michigan\n Washington
286148
Most of the rules are China based.\nTry reading the case of an American that was singled out for example punishment.\nOnce in China pirate copies are easily spotted but please do not buy them as they only strengthen the Mafia here.\nIf you want real DVDs search for the word Dakou to see what the big recording corporations dump over here.
999372
Louisiana state board of pardons and paroles. Just enter that in a search engine and you should find it. Most states allow you to look up that info free from the PPboard website.
909362
I'm not familiar with the medical staff in that area.  Now ask me about Louisiana and I can give you some references.  \n\n/doc
961762
In the US it's gotta be New Orleans.  Worldwide, I would guess any communist country.  I see some people put Mexican cops.  I was once in Mexico with my wife and was talking with to Mexican cops.  Later, as we walked past their post again, one of the cops recognized me and asked me if I wanted to buy his police ball cap for five bucks.  I declined.  My wife said that they probably needed the money.  I didn't doubt that, but I told her it would be my luck that if I bought the cap I would probably be arrested for stealing it and then I would end up in a Mexican jail.  The cop would be five bucks richer, get his cap back and I'd have to pay a hefty fine.
459319
IN property law often times ACTUALLY Holding on to an object or occupying a some land is often decisive.\n\nFor example: if you are walking down a street and someone snatches your purse and is then caught, YOU do not have to prove that the purse is ACTUALLY yours, that you did not steal it yesterday etc etc, before the person is convicted as a thief. All you have to show to convict that person of theft is that you were just holding on to a purse before he snatched it. \n\nSimilarly if your purse is stolen and is not found within 5 years(statute of limitations) the thief basically now owns the purse, because there is no way you can prosecute him.\n\nThis doctrine also often applies to real property. If you actually LIVE on the land(but don't have a legal title, basically you are squatting) you can kick off a new trespasser without showing title. And if you live on the land long enough(usually 10 years) You will get a Title to it, and the person who had it before but did not use the land looses it(This is known as adverse possession).\n\nSo basically often(90% of time) the entitlement to property will be useless or irrelevant while ACTUAL POSSESSION will control.
1138885
In answering your question I have to address two distinct legal ramifications (1) criminal (2) civil. Your question appears to call for a criminal asnwer b/c you ask if it is "unlawful" breaking the law IE: committing a crime, but you later refer to "small claims court" which is civil. Where do your interest most lie? In the criminal or civil arena.\n\nIf you can prove who the culprit is there could be a criminal case for a crime such a vandelism, destruction of property etc. I doubt that theft would fly. The conduct described would require something else it is too far of a stretch, more of a leap from vandelism to theft. To charge someone with the crime of theft they state must be able to prove certain elements beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest burden in our country)\n\nThe elements differ in each state so you would have to look at your state's criminal code, (revised statutues) Common elements are:\n(1) the person\n(2)took something of value\n here you have to be able to prove the actual value , of the paper (not of its potential earning capacity as a marketing and advertising tool) the value is what determines the grade or level of the theft, whether it is a misdemeanor or felony\n(3) Belonging to another\n(4)without authorization\n(5) with the INTENT to permanently deprive the owner\nYou have to be able to prove each element Beyond a reasonable doubt, not just a few. SO even if you have concrete evidence s in your example a photogram (and that is assuming your photograph would ever be permitted into court as evidence b/c the rules of evidence are another whole story, but each piecce of physical evidence has to be authenticated, proven to be that is what it purports to be. When you have a photograph and it is taken by a police officer during a criminal investigation, then during a motion to supress the evidence (which you can always count on the defense attorney to fiel in an effort to exclude any evidence that is prejudicial to his client. in the above example the polioce officer would be able to testify at the hearing as to the authenticity of the photo. He would be able to say that he toook the photo on such and such day, that there was nothing obstructing his view when he took it, that the camera was functioning properly , it was checked for any date or imaging error s prior to its use and the results of that test were logged and he of course has that log with him in court. And yes he is trained in the field of taking photographs at night or whenever it was at that partivuliar angle and so on and. so on... No it was not raining that day, here I have my notes it was a bright sunny day etc. \n"officer what day was the photo taken?"\n"Feb 10, 2006\n"and today is June 21st?""yes"\nwhere has that photo been between Feb and now how do we know that it has not been tampered with or altered in any way. "b/c as soon as I took the photo on my digital camera I printed it in the presence of oficers a & B, then I I initialed the back of it and dated it, placed it in an acid free phot safe protective sealed bag, put a tag on the bag and again initialed the bag. the bag was then sealed with this red label that cannot be removed w/o a knife. It was then transported the the evidence room and here is a copy of the evidence log showing where i truned i over to sgr. smith a t1.22 p.m, and it has not been checked out for any reason until today, where the log shows that the state and i checked it out for court and the balif escorted us to court with it. \nso it is physically impossible that the photo has ever been in anypne's hands but your, yes ! yada yada yada\nCop then takes out knife breaks seal in open court, i.d the photo, then the d.a. ask him "is theis photo in the same or exact condition it was in when you toook it?\nok, does this phot accuratel and faily depict the the image that you took on Fef....\n\nso assuming you can prove all of the other stuff lets