Answer: It is a proper question
Explanation:
The witness is making a claim about what had transpired between the defendant and the plaintiff and in order for their testimony to stand, they need to have integrity such that a reasonable person can believe their testimony in this case.
In asking about the false claim that the witness had once filed, the defendant is trying to establish that the witness has no integrity and so in proving their untruthfulness, the defendant hopes to convince the court that the witness does not have enough integrity to be a witness.
Answer:
I assume you are talking about the legal naturalization process.
Explanation:
Naturalization is the legal process a non-U.S. citizen undergoes to become a citizen of the United States. A person can become a citizen of the United States through one of the following ways: Through the naturalization process. By deriving citizenship from his or her parent when the parent naturalizes.
These legal requirements help the immigration service ensure that only those people who are sincere in their desire to become U.S. citizens become naturalized.
<em><u>now gimme brainliest >:3</u></em>
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
I think that it is agricultural labor!
Answer:
Option d. All of the above must be evidenced by a record for the agent to have authority
Explanation:
A power of attorney is a written authorization to represent or act on another's behalf in private affairs, business, or some other legal matter. The person authorizing is the principal while the person authorized to act is the agent or the attorney-in-fact. An agency relationship is a relationship where the principal allows an agent to act on his or her behalf.
Since all of the above are agency contracts, they must be evidenced by a record to be valid. There must be a legally binding document between the principal and the agent for the relationship to be valid.