Do laws protect freedom?

As we know that the law was created to everything of our life is fair and right, but we can say with certainty that " Laws protect freedom"  we we need to make more clear:
The best answer I can muster is that it depends.
 
Freedom has different interpretations depending upon which nationality you live in or depending in which country you live in or depending upon your value system or shifts in your vaue system.
 
Sometimes we are told that rules or laws need to be drawn up in order to protect the freedom or perceived freedoms of the masses. 
 
For example, road signs are really important. ( Stop signs, traffic lights etc.)
Without them, people would get hurt. Is it infringing on my freedom when I have to stop and wait for the light to go green? I wonder. 
 
We all have to pay taxes. Is it infringing on my freedom when money is automatically taken out of my pay check whether I want to or not participate in all the government programs of my country or my employer or my union? I wonder. 
 
Then I have this weird idea that freedom is an illusion. 
 
I know one thing for sure. In nature, freedom is dangerous. The laws of nature have to be followed or you simply will not survive. 
 
You can dance in the medow full of daisies but I suggest you'd better be aware of predators out there.  To some of them, you are seen as prey.
 
I think of the native people on my dad's side. The laws never EVER protected their freedom or their way of life. 
 
Their lands were taken from them. All their customs and their culture was dessimated. Their value system was not respected. Children were taken away from them and put in orphanages. ( This was supposed to turn them into civilized people rather that keep on living like "savages".)
 
On and on it goes. 
 
Let's explore the phenomenon of organised religion.
 
Is the flock truly free. ( I was raised catholic.)
 
As soon as you are born the baby has to be baptised because apparently the new born baby is already a sinner. It is a ritual to rid the child of what the catholic religion terms as the original sin.
 

Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is, according to a Christian theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]

 
Does it truly make a difference whether the child in baptised or not? 
 
Are the parents truly free to chose? Perhaps. 
 
50 years ago, the thought of using your freedom of choice not to have your child baptised would have been scandalous.
 
Did the churches laws infringe on your freedom? In my case, yes. 
 
From a common sense point of view, laws in general are supposed to protect 
 the masses in order to assure the general well being of the group. 
 
In my opinion laws are not, at their core essence, designed to protect freedom. 
Freedom can mean so many things to so many different people.

Read More

The way to lawyers justify their fees

Pretty easily. Lawyers—just like doctors, plumbers, and mechanics—provide a service for matters that most people are incapable of resolving efficiently (or at all) by themselves. I may grumble when my car needs a new part or when I’ve got to pay to get my annual physical, but I lack both the skill and time to handle such issues myself, and therefore rely upon skilled professionals who have spent years performing such work. Nothing in life is free, so while I might not like paying certain fees, they are justified as long as they are linked to the work actually performed and are what I freely agreed to pay.

Lawyers are no different. If you hire me, I am going to spend my time (though no more than necessary) putting my years of experience to work on your behalf to resolve legal issues that you lack the time/skill to handle yourself. My rates are what the market will bear: what I charge right now allows me to remain reasonably busy with paying clients. If I (hopefully) become inundated with work, my time becomes more expensive for future clients, but if I can’t find a sufficient number of paying clients, then my fees would need to drop. It’s simple supply and demand. A lot of people lament the cost of lawyers, but that, too, is a product of the marketplace: all lawyers are trained-professionals who, at minimum, have completed 7 years of post-secondary education and have secured licenses. I think that services like LegalZoom that allow for simple legal tasks to be completed cheaply are a real benefit to consumers, and I have no issue with states allowing certain simple routine tasks to be completed by non-lawyers; people shouldn’t have to spend an arm and a leg to have what amounts to a boilerplate form completed. But complex matters? Even most lawyers aren’t particularly good at that, so those who are are going to be able (and should be able) to charge more.

 Additionally, 

The same way any service professional justifies their fees...

By charging what the service is worth to the recipient in a competitive market. Legal services provide value to the recipient, presumably (else customers would not buy them), and a good lawyer will base his fees rationally on the value delivered versus what other similarly situated lawyers are charging. If they charged higher fees they'd lose customers to the cheaper guys who do equivalent work. Of course, part of the issue is that it's hard to evaluate the value of legal work comparatively, just like car mechanics and dentists--but that's what yelp is for, I guess, and references.

One more thing to note: There are a ton of lawyers out there. People don't like to shop around for lawyers, similar to the way people don't like to shop around for car mechanics or dentists--because it's hard to evaluate skill and value based on short term outcomes. But if they did shop around, they'd quickly find that there's a wide range of lawyers and a wide range of fee structures available. In fact, that's the #1 way that in-house attorneys reduce legal spending: by shopping around and negotiating lower rates.

Read More

If you like to work at an ultra elite law firm

This is an issue which are concerned by many people and there are many different opinions, but in my opinion, it is very hard to generalize, because one's experience is a function of the particular deals, particular clients and particular partners you work for.
 
On average "ultra-elite" firms, however defined, have higher hours expectations, work on larger deals and tend to do more interesting/less commoditizable work. Your individual experience will vary, but I think on average that means that associates tend to work longer hours and do more interesting work. Top law firms also tend to recruit more associates from top law schools, so you'll be spending more time with Harvard and Yale grads than you would at a generic V100. 
 
Anecdotally, there does not seem to be any material difference in the types of work that are done by top law firms versus the V100 generally, and one sees more than just other top law firms across the table on deals. Again, anecdotally, I have not noticed any material difference in quality of work product between top firms and other firms, but have noticed a great deal of variation generallly, even within individual firms, so it would be hard to tell. People at top firms do not seem to look down on other firms; firm snobbery seems to exist only in law school, in my experience.

there are a few suggestions that it lead-in should tell you something as a starting point — almost none of the people I started with at my first firm still work there, and none of the people I knew at W and C still work at either place. There is very high turnover at the high end of biglaw; this turnover is expected and is actually necessary for the business model to work (even at W, which has relatively lower leverage than the rest of biglaw).

Read More

The difference between copyleft and copyright

There are many imformation to distingguish between copyleft and copyright, but i will provide some main things about them for you to understand clearly:

A copyright is a legal process used by creators and inventors to protect their work and to control distribution of their product.

The copyleft is an invented term, used to describe a copyright that requires anyone distributing a copy or derived copy to allow redistribution of their code. Specifically, the term copyleft refers to the GNU copyleft license (which is in fact, a legal copyright).

The copyleft is not the same as open source. Many licenses are not compatible with the copyleft. The BSD license which allows code to be taken and made proprietary. (Did you know Microsoft used BSD code in their command line FTP client in ages past?)

There are many many open source licenses, not just BSD and the GNU copyleft. There's the Artistic License, and the X11 license, and so many more.

Additionally, They're the opposite of each other. Copyleft means there's no ownership claimed by the originator and the item can be used and modified by anyone in anyway. Copyright means the originator claims ownership and has the right to dictate whether anyone else uses it. This typically means they don't allow changes or sharing and the owner can legally stop its use whenever discovered to be used without their permission.

Read More

How can I turn it into a movie from a book?

Period convert a book into a movie it's a long distance. It is not easy as you think, but you absolutely can do it. It must go through many steps:

Firstly, I am not going to say writing a book is easy, it isn’t. But writing it is just the first step. You don’t mention whether you were able to get the book published, or by who. But before you can even begin the process of getting it made into a movie you need to take it apart and rewrite it as a screenplay then you either need to sell that screenplay to a studio who can make the movie or raise the money to hire producers, directors, actors, camera people, …. all the various people that turn a screenplay into a movie.

Secondly, by the time all of that is done, the result may or may not be what you thought it would be, but now it is again time to sell it, this time to your audience.

Finally, Much of the tough work can be done by a studio if you succeed in selling it to them in the earlier step, but unless you have a good agent or an equally good lawyer (possibly both) you will not have much input into what the final product looks like.


After all, you need care about editing; to start with check the webpages of published authors who have had books they wrote turned into movies. Most of them are perfectly willing to answer sincere questions, but they won’t do the work for you and you will probably have to establish your own contacts the hard way.

Read More

Asbestos Lawyer

Asbestos Survey Simplified

Asbestos used to be one of the most important building material used for creating houses, buildings and infrastructures. Its properties like being fire resistant, having the ability to withstand heavy weight without breaking easily and being affordable have made it an essential product used by most builders. That was the case until the 1990s when it was discovered that asbestos had carcinogenic properties. These carcinogens were found to be the cause for cancer, pulmonary diseases and asbestosis. For these reasons, getting an asbestos survey were required to identify which areas were built with Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM).

Asbestos survey is required for all homes, buildings and infrastructures in order to ensure the health and safety of its occupants. The process of asbestos surveying is done to manage Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) or when there is a need to demolish or refurbish an existing infrastructure or building.

A management survey is used to find ACMs in areas that will not need any refurbishment. The team handling the survey will inspect the area to locate ACMs, take samples for analysis and check how much asbestos fiber the ACMs could produce if they are scratched or disturbed in any way. Management surveys are less invasive and will not damage your home or building as much as refurbishment or demolition surveys would. Once the ACMs are determined, the surveyors will provide a report as to whether or not the ACMs are manageable or not.

Refurbishment or demolition surveys are more extensive and invasive. They should be undertaken prior to any refurbishment or demolition projects in order to assess if the building contains ACM. This ensures that people living in surrounding areas will not be exposed to asbestos fibers once the refurbishment or demolition commences. This type of survey will include taking samples not just in areas that are easily seen like walls and floors but also areas that are hard to see and reach.

Read More