Answer:
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
paragraphs are in the Explanation
Explanation:
Option 1: They shouldn’t because that’s there property that got destroyed.
There could have been something that the land owners wanted to tare down because they wanted to build something new, that could benefit them.
Its there property that they bought with there money they should be able to build something on it.
It might benifit society and themselves so I believe yes.
_________________________________________________________
Option 2: They should because it could be used for the government in some way.
It was frequently damaged by nature so they must have been tired of see it being rebuilt and destroyed.
It could be benifical to the area around it.
It could save the land owner money to
sorry if it’s not to your likeing or if it took so long
Answer: nevermind, ignore me
Answer:
It is a term used to show a crime where there was no victim or complaint to it. Some examples of those types of crimes are prostitution and drug abuse.
Explanation:
The answer was my explanation. Also can you mark me as brainliest pls
Answer:
Yes.
Under Civil and Pretrial Procedures, the comedian may add the additional intentional tort claim as a supplemental pleading to her already existing lawsuit against the actor. Moreover, the supplemental pleading is very timely.
Explanation:
When the comedian sues the actor for an intentional tort, she needs to show that the actor, who caused the harm to the car, acted willfully and knowingly. That means the actor deliberately caused the damage to the car in an act of recklessness. Since the supplemental pleading for intentional tort is timely, the comedian simply needs to demonstrate that the actor caused the damage to the car on purpose, knowing fully well that his act would damage the car or cause some harm.