Fraudulent license means that the license was obtained through illegal means. In this case, when someone has a fraudulent license, it is very problematic because he or she may be charged with different legal cases, or worse, may face revocation. Fraudulent license is considered as a criminal case so the punishment is also heavy. Cases like this involves identity theft. This would undergo thorough investigation which prevents the person from resuming his normal living.
Answer:
Each state has varying depths of domestic law, but all require child support and maintenance whether the couple is married or not. Both the mother and the father are equally responsible for the child no matter their marital status. Visitation is also something that would need to be determined. Here in our state, we have a formula that is used based upon income, debts, etc., to determine what amount the child support should be from the other parent that does not have physical custody. If both the mother and father have joint physical and legal custody, then both are responsible for maintaining the child's welfare and expenses equally. If one parent has custody and the other has visitation, then child support is typically required of the parent that has visitation only. A paternity test would be the first order of business to determine whether Michael is the father. I am not familiar with any state that mandates marriage, that would be considered slavery which was abolished.
Explanation:
Answer:
true
Explanation:
A Part 36 offer can be made at any time, including before the commencement of proceedings. However, although an early offer can provide substantial cost benefits and costs protection, a party may not be in a position to make an informed offer until proceedings have been commenced.
Hope this helps..please vote with thanks please
Let me find out the quick answer
In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed in response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals, offering broad protections for whistleblowers at public companies in order to encourage fraud reporting. Private companies were considered immune to the law.
But in 2014 the Supreme Court heard a challenge to SOX, and ruled that even though the plaintiffs were not employees of the publicly traded company, the SOX whistleblower statute applied to them. The reason? They suffered retaliation for reporting alleged fraud involving financial reporting of a publicly-traded company.
Here’s what the law now says:
SOX covers employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors.
SOX covers privately-owned companies if they provide services for publicly-traded ones. Answer:
Explanation:
