Mistake Of Fact Hearing

Question: If denied unemployment due to (their) mistake of a fact on documen, can the decision be reversed w/out hearing? The fact in question, has to do with "being on-duty" as opposed to "off-duty"...The "alleged" infraction happened off-duty but the determination letter clearly states it happened "on-duty". I don't know but it to me, it seems like an open and shut case and the decision should be simply reversed, period...Any thoughts on this?...thanks!!!

Answer: Cases always look "open and shut" to the parties. They just disagree on the result.

Question: Preliminary hearing? I live in PA. I've got a preliminary hearing in a month on a 3rd degree misdemeanor charge of furnishing alcohol to a minor (1 count). This is my first offense and I'm a college student. What will happen at this hearing? Facts of the case: - Undercover cop saw me give a couple 40's to my 20-year-old friend. I was cooperative with the officer and given a citation. - Neither of us had anything to drink prior nor was a vehicle involved. We were simply walking. - I've never been in trouble with the law before. This was a dumb mistake and I'm accepting responsibility so I plan on pleading guilty to the charge because the case is very cut-and-dry. I cannot afford an attorney, but I'll request a public defender. I don't know if it's worth it though because I'd rather just plea guilty and move on with my life.

Answer: First do you have an attorney? You should get one. the DA will listen to your attorney with one you have a much better chance of being able to plea bargin or even getting the charge dismissed after so many months have passed and you have not broken any criminal laws. Considering you are probably barely over 21 and you were giving alcohol to your 20 yr old friend there is a good chance things wont be that bad for you. the best thing that happened is that you have learned from your mistake.

Question: preliminary hearing? I live in PA. I've got a preliminary hearing in a month on a 3rd degree misdemeanor charge of furnishing alcohol to a minor (1 count). This is my first offense and I'm a college student. What will happen at this hearing? Facts of the case: - Undercover cop saw me give a couple 40's to my 20-year-old friend. I was cooperative with the officer and given a citation. - I've never been in trouble with the law before. This was a dumb mistake and I'm accepting responsibility so I plan on pleading guilty to the charge.

Answer: Providing Alcohol to Persons Under 21 In Pennsylvania, as in every state and the District of Columbia, it is illegal for a person to provide alcohol to anyone under 21 years of age. An exception to Pennsylvania’s law is allowed for religious purposes. A violation of this law is a 3rd degree misdemeanor punishable by: • A fine of $1,000-$2,500 and/or up to 1 year imprisonment on a first offense. • A fine of $2,500 and up to 1 year imprisonment for subsequent offenses. Allowing Alcohol Possession or Consumption by Persons Under 21 On Private Premises, currently 15 states have specific laws in place prohibiting an adult from allowing possession or consumption of alcohol by individuals under the age of 21 on a premise under his/her control. In Pennsylvania, an exception is allowed for religious purposes. A violation of this law is a 3rd degree misdemeanor punishable by: • A fine of $1,000-$2,500 and/or up to 1 year imprisonment on a first offense. • A fine of $2,500 and up to 1 year imprisonment for subsequent offenses. The court will look at your background, employment status, education, etc., and most likely suspend any jail sentence but impose court costs and fines in addition to placing you on probation!

Question: Why are we being punished for God's mistake? Hear me out before you answer...? The fruit gave us knowledge of good and evil... so before we ate of the fruit, we were ignorant to the fact that eating it was wrong. Yes "God" said not to, but how did we know that listening to him was the right thing to do? And why did he let an ignorant creature go up against an angel (Lucifer)? We didn't have the knowledge to make that decision. But assuming that is irrelevant, since we made that mistake, and we were created in "his" image, does that mean he is also prone to making mistakes? And since we weren't perfect, God didn't create a perfect being, which would mean he's not perfect... correct? I'm getting alot of great answers... but there's still some things that aren't answered. Like why did "He" let an ignorant being go up against an angel? And it'd also be nice to know what happened to the millions of people that died before Jesus.

Answer: In the first place, it was our mistake that we did not pay any heed to His advice. By giving that advice, He made us aware of the fact that He was in a position to give advice and we would be better off to follow that. However, we are human beings and we may commit mistakes and God does not punish us for our mistakes but forgives us. Just think how many mistakes you have committed since your birth and still you are enjoying life. What we csonsider as punishment are just reminders from the Almighty that we must learn from our mistakes and do not commit the same sin twice.

Question: Have you ever considered this? Or would you? I have a 19 month old daughter, and since the day I had I have wanted to have another child.. and when I do end up having another, I will probably want another one after that.. (I love children, and have always wanted to have many of them!) HOWEVER! I had a C-Section with my daughter, and made the "mistake" of asking my Dr. how long my body will take to heal before being able to safely conceive and carry a baby... IN FRONT OF MY HUBBY!! The Dr.s answer was 2 years. 2 years!?! I have only heard one year, and have, in fact, heard of some women who don't even wait that long. Now, of course, the hubby won't even discuss having another until our daughter turns 2! In the back of my mind I have considered "forgetting" to take the pill... Or conveniently needing an antibiotic at the right time... But I would feel horrible for doing something like that to my hubby. Would you consider it? Would you do it? Could you? I'm not planning on it... I was just wondering if anyone else out there has ever thought about it... For example: The classic angel on my right shoulder, devil on my left. Sometimes the devil just whispers in my ear. I won't do that, and I never would. I was just wondering if the "devil" ever whispered in anyone elses ear.

Answer: I wouldn't ever be minipulative enough to plan a pregnancy without my partner. You could do some research online and show him how long it does take to heal. I know a few woman who have been pregnant only several months after having a baby. You could also speak to him about how you are feeling and he might give in. x

Question: tell me how to stop someone from making a mistake? how can you help a son that will not listen to you,when you try to tell him his older girlfriend is cheating on him and is lieing about it. i know this for a fact but he is not hearing me.may i add his (older) girlfriend is really not a looker shes more of an ulgy duck. he is planing on marrying this (older) women and making this life changing mistake. i need some help to help him see the light at the end of the tunnel. please help. god bless

Answer: you really can't stop it only be there supporting him and helping to pick up the pieces if it does all go wrong. if you try to stop it you will create distance between him and you and effectually be pushing them closer together so offer him a chance to voice his feelings and let him know that you will always support his choices rather than judge them i know its harder said then done but its for the best all round. only from making mistakes do we learn.

Question: Anyone else sick of hearing about Nicole Kidman offending the Aborigines by playing the didgeridoo? Here's the story: http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/articl… I saw it on the news about 4 times yesterday. Let it go already! (It also annoys me that we claim her as "Aussie", when in actual fact she was born in Hawaii, to Australian parents...) It seems celebrities can make one little mistake, then be crucified for it. What do you think?

Answer: Nicole Kidman considers herself Australian, even if she is Hawaii born, her being born overseas doesn't really mean much... culture is more then just where you were born. I think that it is a big deal that she disrespects Aboriginals, they are Australian. She is Australian and is in the movie Australia, she talks on oprah about how wonderful Australia is.... yet she doesn't know or respect Indigenous culture!?!? I don't think this is a little mistake. I'm guessing that some white Australians don't care or think this doesn't matter... that is a shame, it's sad that they have such a limited view. I think that Indigenous people and their culture should be respected.

Question: I have heard that the first bombing of London during WWII was a mistake. If so, why was it continued? I read somewhere that the first German bombing of London during WW2 was done by a pilot who had lost his way, and that it was unintentional. In fact, London itself was considered off limits as it was not a military target at first. If this was true, then why did the Germans then start bombing London in earnest?

Answer: The change of german tactics was a mistake. They started of bombing RAF airfields to basically get rid of the RAF thus ensuring air superiority. Apparently this tactic was working and fighter command was on its last legs when the krauts decided to bomb london instead. So the first bombing of london could be considered a mistake. Not through a pilots error, just a bad choice of tactics.

Question: Why do we unknowingly make the mistake of repeating a word? And not find out until you proofread it? Sometimes I'd type something, and find "and and", or "you you", and it's a tad creepy because it's like the brain glitched or something. Why didn't I notice the mistake? What causes this in humans? Is it the echo of your own thoughts, perhaps? I'd like to hear some theories, and hopefully some facts as well :) "Wisdom of Age": That was an awesome answer :)

Answer: Well, basically, your brain is processing information faster than your fingers can register. So what happens is, the nerves get mixed signals (when you are mentally multitasking 2 or more thoughts) and "just to be sure" your brain repeats the message, to make sure your fingers got it all down (while typing, or writing). This is unbeknown to you, because it's a subconscious act (You're too busy with the "thoughts", why should your brain interrupt for a word?). Get it? Email me, if I wasn't clear on something :)

Question: Why do Rightists Constantly Mistake Liberalism for Socialism? Most are completely incapable of determining the difference between anything, and blame all their problems on "liberals and socialists," as if somehow the two are exactly the same. Liberalism is in fact an enemy of Marxism, and is generally a form of free-market enterprise even if it's not "laissez-faire" or as radical as libertarianism. "We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency." -Mao Tse-Tung. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people wo Since the work is too long to post. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv… Socialism does not entail state-ownership of the means of production; it entails the people to have access to the means of production. The state then withers away and society becomes a stateless society in the communist stage. So differences are only imaginary? Jeez, what a well thought out and true statement... And to those who didn't read any of the quote, congratulations, you just proved a point: You literally wish to remain uninformed rather than educate yourselves.

Answer: Because most things are seen by them as black or white. Their opinion vs everything else. Do not expect too much from people who cannot see beyond there own narrow view of the world.

Question: What do you think about Limbaugh now that he made a mistake? I looked at this story about Limbaugh making a mistake recently about some supposed Obama Thesis. I clicked on the little video link where it showed an excerpt of him admitting his mistake and he goes on to talk a little about that mistake. He is right though, left wingers do put a lot of words in his mouth, and they never apologize. In fact none of them apologized about any mistakes they made about Bush. In fact, I've never heard a liberal journalist/talk show host ever apologize for a mistake they made that made the conservative/Republican side look bad. Are we to believe that liberal talk show hosts are above human and never make mistakes? Sheep might believe that. Oh, yeah, a lot of us are becoming that now. And it's true, left wingers do put words in Limbaugh's mouth, but who cares, he's right wing. The left wing has all but made it illegal for the right wing to talk anymore. From the White House condemning the free press and speech of the single right wing broadcast news that's left to the constant condemning and twisting to the point of lying of anything any far right person says. And if you think Democrat vehement condemnation won't birth new laws, then you're naive and haven't been paying attention to what they've tried to do in the past. Anyhow, you better answer quick, I've found that most moderators here seem to delete most far right leaning questions. I'll try and pick a "best answer" quick, but I have to wait until at least a good number appear because I want a good "best answer," not just a cliche one. Karate Kid: Thank you, I half believe that any liberal apologized, but if so, then great, I've heard of one.

Answer: Everybody can make a mistake. Limbaugh is in the entertainment business and should not be held to the same standards as the media and government. Look at Bush and Osama's stimulus mistakes. Rush didn't cost the tax payers any where near as much.

Question: Who dislikes the fact that people blame and abuse thier children for their mistakes part 2? I asked this question, and I am giving others a chance to answer, please don't be mean nor nasty, I am just trying to get inside peoples head and see where they stand regarding these issues, Often I have seen people get upset that people are getting ready to pass this law or hitting a child until a certain or below an age, and people have become infuriated, so I want to know who hates The fact that the babies are the ones getting blamed for the parents, mistakes, what advice can you give to kids that ask :WHAT DID I DO WRONG: "WHAT DO I NEED TO CHANGE sO THAT MY PARENTS WILL STOP YELLING AT ME? I hear and see this alot of times, and i was one of those kids, my dad smokes,abused me and my family he is in another state now, But I know that it isn't my fault, and I am standing up telling kids that it is not their fault that parents make mistakes, and that we are not their tragidy but their miracle, and their gift from God, Do you agree or disagree and why?? Just a thought

Answer: First off, I believe there is a fine line between abuse and discipline. No child for any reason should ever be abused. However, some form of discipline is needed unless you want to have a child who is completely out of control. I myself grew up w/ an abusive stepfather. He was very quick to anger for any reason and I would get the crap spanked out of me. Now that I'm older I have a 2 year old. I'm always going back and forth about disciplining her b/c some kids just aren't going to work w/ "timeouts" or whatever. I've tried just about every form of discipline and she doesn't seem to care or be bothered by it. The only thing that's ever gotten results for me was popping her. I've never spanked her but I've popped her leg or hand and I make sure that right after that I sit her down and explain to her what she did wrong and why I popped her. Being a parent, I know how hard it is to raise a child to be independent but at the same time respect you. No child should grow up feeling like they were a mistake or anything like that.

Question: How many of you really eat grits? I hope I am mistaken. My son in law from Wisconsin hadn't a clue about grits or hushpuppies before he came south to visit. Unfortunately my son ordered his b-i-l some in a restaurant and we didn't butter and salt them up for him. He was a stranger to the delightful flavor of a hushpuppie also. In fact had never heard of them. Do folks across the big pond have any experience on these dining delights.

Answer: I KNOW that NO "Self Respecting" Southerner Would EVER Eat (INSTANT) Grits ! ! !

Question: cop is killed is it guys' fault? would guy be charged with killing? TRUE FACTS: Cop hears woman screaming that someone stole her purse, cop sees 2 blocks down from his patrol car a man running the street with a backpack. cop assumes it's the same guy who robbed the woman and runs after guy. cop runs after guy into a run down building guy runs up 3rd floor cop catches up and stops him. cop tells guy to turn around so he can search him, guy says "don't touch me" swiftly turns around and by mistake elbows the cop as he turns, cop falls down 2 flights of stairs and dies. does the guy get 2nd degree murder or what?

Answer: First Degree Homicide in my state. The needle or life in Central Prison.

Question: Is it common to be charged with vehicular manslaughter if someone dies in an accident that is your fault? I am only asking because of the unfortunate situation that Brandy is facing. In a question that someone asked on here, everyone seemed to respond by saying anyone else would be charged and go to jail, and felt that because Brandy is a celebrity, she is getting special treatment. I really don't feel that way, and really did not think that people being charged with vehicular homicide after an accident was common at all. In fact, I have never heard of this occuring unless it was a DWI, which is not the case in this situation. I have always hated driving and have always been scared of the idea that I am controling a deadly weapon. The idea that if I make a mistake and kill someone never sits well with me and I drive only when I have to. However, it never crossed my mind that I could end up in jail if I had an accident that was my fault. Does this really happen as often as the people that answered that question suggest.

Answer: it does happen, but i feel because she is a celebrity that they are trying to charge her,like you stated in most cases i'd say 9 outta 10 it is dui or dwl witch you get charged with that

Question: Do kids really need to know if Mommy and Daddy were married? My 5 year old informed me last night that she thinks her father and I use to be married. Her dad isn't a very good man. And I am proud of myself for realizing that before I made the mistake of marriage. I have never told my daughter that we were married. In fact, I thought she had heard me before telling other grownups that we weren't married. .. Should I set her straight or let her continue to think that we use to be married? I can see pros and cons either way I turn. I don't want her to feel like I lied to her when she finds out the truth in a few years. But I also don't see much point in making her know the truth right now. ... 5 year olds love to share their knowledge about what is going on around them. Her 17 year old cousin was called a lot of horrible things when she was young because she admitted to people that her parents weren't married. I'm thinking of continuing what I have been doing... If anybody asks, I will tell them the truth. She will eventually catch on. Right?

Answer: You shouldn't lie to her because even though she is five, it will come back to you. You can simply say you were in love but it didn't work out and that there are all types of families out there. Things are different-my daughter was never called anything because I am not married and I know friends of her that are divorced, single parents, etc. I suggest a book-Love is what makes a family. It's great for her age and it is about all differnettyes of familes. If you are proud that you didn't marry the wrong guy-let her know that-you are a strong women and she will look up to that.

Question: Does Obama support Black Liberation Theology? The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology By Jeffrey Schmidt Now, suddenly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is misunderstood. Suddenly, so-called black liberation theology is misunderstood. Wright's successor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Reverend Otis Moss III, won't bow to the wishes of "they" to shut up. It begs the question: "Who are they?" The larger white cultural? Or liberals and Democrats who see all this unfavorable publicity hurting the election chances of Barack Obama? The sad truth is that neither the Reverend Wright nor black liberation theology is being misunderstood. Both, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama, are being exposed. God, in fact, works in mysterious ways. And unless it's the aforementioned liberals and Democrats who are trying to hush up Wright, Moss and others of their ilk, sensible Americans want to hear more, for knowledge is power, the power to combat hate. And make no mistake, what Americans are hearing, they don't like. In the Rasmussen poll, 73% of voters find Wright's comments to be racially divisive. That's a broad cross section of voters, including 58% of black voters. In an article in the Washington Post, unnamed ministers commented that black liberation theology "encourages a preacher to speak forcefully against the institutions of oppression..." And what might these institutions be? They are not specified. But it is safe to say that they are not the welfare state or the Democratic Party. Given that black liberation theology is a product of the dreary leftist politics of the twentieth century, the very vehicles employed by the left to advance statism certainly can't be the culprits. For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith. It is a political creed larded with religion. It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. Here, again, The Washington Post reports that "He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about...the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.'" Not very Martin Luther King-ish. Further, all the kooky talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. To listen to Wright -- more an apostle of the left than the Christian church -- the model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance. All of which leads to militancy. Militancy is important. It's the sword dangled over the head of society. Either fork over more tax dollars, government services and patronage or else. And unlike the Reverend Moss and his kindred, I'll specify the "else." Civil unrest. Disruptions in cities. Riot in the streets. Keeping blacks who fall into the orbit of a Reverend Wright at a near-boil is a card used by leftist agitators to serve their ends: they want bigger and more pervasive government -- and they want badly to run it. If any further proof is needed that black liberation theology has nothing to do with the vision of Martin Luther King -- with reconciliation, brotherhood and universality -- the words of James H. Cone, on faculty at New York's Union Theological Seminary, may persuade. Cone, not incidentally, originated the movement known as black liberation theology. He said to The Washington Post "The Christian faith has been interpreted largely by those who enslaved black people, and by the people who segregated them." No mention of the Civil War involving the sacrifices of tens of thousands of lives; no abolition or civil rights movements. No Abraham Lincoln. No Harriet Beecher Stowe. No white civil rights workers who risked and, in some instances, lost their lives crusading in the south to end segregation. And since the civil rights movement, society hasn't opened up; blacks have no better access to jobs and housing; no greater opportunities. The federal government, led by a white liberal, Lyndon Johnson, did not pour billions of dollars into welfare programs and education targeted at inner cities in an attempt to right old wrongs. And still does so. A black man, Barak Obama, on the threshold of winning his party's nomination for president, has in no way done so with the help of white voters in communities across the land. In the closed world of Cone, Wright and Moss, Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor are alive and well. Black victimhood is the doing of white society, not the doing of angry black leaders and leftists, who see advantage and profit in keeping too many people in black communities captive. Barack Obama knows all this, as a seventeen year congregant at Wright's church, and as a liberal community activist prior to his election to the Illinois Senate. That he feigns innocence, or that he professes forbearance for some of Wright's words because of the goodness of others, is not the line one expects from a post-racial politician. I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=928_TLwSl…

Answer: Obama is a chameleon. He will twist and turn and do and say, anything that advances his personal goals which embraces his support of Black Liberation Theology. Obama is truly a sick man, a fact America and the world will come to realize during his presidency.

Question: Why does the Right want a military trial for certain terrorists as facts say it is no better than civilian? I for one am with most Democrats, I do not care if a terrorist trial is held in a military or a civilian court. The facts and evidence shows that the terrorists are no better or worse treated in a military court. The punishment is also no more severe. These are the facts. What you hear from Republicans on the other hand are not facts but opinions. Democrats want justice and do not care how it is given. Precedent was to try them in civilian courts as the Bush administration and all Republican administration before have, suddenly we now hear that this was a mistake? Like I said earlier I do not know of any Democrats who have a problem with military courts and I am not sure why the Republicans think this is some kind of political thing? All Americans just want Justice it isn't a Democratic or a Republican thing. However I do think that the worlds opinion is somewhat important and that the trial whether civil or military should uphold the rules of law and follow the principles that the USA was founded on. I think this can be done better in a Civil court but if it can be done in a military court so be it. Why does the RIght seem to think that this cannot be done in civil courts and why is it a political point for them when this is American justice not the Right's? Military courts are nowheres near 90% faster than civilian courts. The facts do not show this. While costs are a concern we should not put dollar amounts on Justice. Remember that there were only 3 trial under Bush/Cheney and 300 civilian trials so the precedent is with the Civilian courts. None of the current Republican criticism matches and of the facts...not a one!

Answer: It is more political spin than anything else. What really needs to be established is whether or not the accused "terrorists" are criminals or enemy combatants. If they are criminals, they should be tried in criminal court. If they are enemy combatants they should be detained as prisoners of war and, under the Geneva Conventions, they cannot be tried in any court. Military tribunals have rarely been used, and have always been questionable under the Constitution.

Question: Could somebody please proof my paper??? if your just going to be rude don't do anything! but if you know what you're talking about, can you please proof my essay?? i don't care how much you correct, the more the better :) thank you!!! Transformations of The Crucible A crucible is a severe test. This definition applies to the play by Arthur Miller, The Crucible, because during the play the people went throught severe tests of charactor. Usually when people face life struggles they are forced to adapt or change in some way. During the play, many charactors had to alter because of what they had to endure and others did not. Some charactors that changed during the composition include Reverend John Hale and Elizabeth Proctor.However, one individual that did not change was Abigail Williams. Reverend Hale changed dramatically throuout The Crucible. At the beginning of the play Hale was very open-minded. He came into Salemn looking for the truth. In the begining he says, " No, no. now let me instruct you. We cannot look to superstition in this. The Devil is precise/ the marks of his presence are definite as stone, and I must tell you all that I shall not proceed unless you are prepared to believe me if I should find no bruise of hell upon her." Then towards the end of act one he began to go with the crowd. He was asking people questions indicating witchcraft. Some of these leading questions inluded: to Parris "Mr. Parris, you did not notice, did you, any living thing in the kettle? A mouse, perhaps, a spider, a frog-?", to Abigail "Did you feel any strangeness when she called him? A sudden cold wind, perhaps? A trembling below the ground?", and to Tituba "When the Devil come to you does he ever come-with another person? Perhaps another person in the village? Someone you know." Then in the second act he is still being a follower. He starts working for the court and after he is sent to Rebbecca Nurse's house he goes to the Proctor's because they have been accused. To them Hale says this, "This is a strange time, Mister. no man may longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon this village. There is too much evidence now to deny it. you will agree, sir?" In act three, Hale's charactor changes. Instead of just thinking what everyone else beleives he realizes that the whole witch hunt is a hoax. During the hearing he says about Abigail and the other girls, "You cannot beleive them!" John tries to get the court to listen to both sides of the story and actually try to hear the facts instead of what they want to hear. You can first tell that he is starting to doubt the court when he says to Parris, "Is every defense an attack upon the court? Can no one-?" Reverend Hale also tries to get the court to allow people to have a lawyer, particularlly John Proctor. He is extremely honest during the trials and only says what is true, not what he thinks the majority wants to hear. Reverend John Hale finishes Act three as a very brave man. Once he realizes that the court is false he tries to stand up for what is right. After nobody will listen to him he leaves the court, his final statement being, "I denounce these proceedings. I quit this court!". In the end of the play he has completely turned around. Instead of helping with the witch hunt he is doing whatever he can to stop it. Not only is he trying to help those accused, but he has realized what a mistake it was serving on the court in the first place. His remorse shows when he says, "Why it is all simple. I come to do the Devil's work. I come to counsel Christians they should belie themselves. His sarcasm collapses. Ther is blood on my head! Can you not see the blood on my head!!" At the end of The Crucible, Reverend Hale is a noble man. Elizabeth Proctor goes through a transformation in The Crucible. At the beggining of the play she is very pompous . Although she is loyal to her husband, she looks down upon him because he had an affair with Abigail Williams. She thinks that she is a perfect woman. When her and John argue about the affair she says, "John, if it were not aBigail that you must go to hurt, would you falter now? I think not." and "I see what I see, John." She takes no blame for the affair at all. Also, when John Hale comes to question the family she states, "I surely do. There be no mark of blame upon my life, Mr. Hale. I am a covanted Christian woman." Towards the end of the play Goody Proctor is more humble. After spending three months in jail she had thought about the affair. She realized that if she had paid more attention to John Proctor then the never would have needed to go to Abigail. Not only that, but she thinks of Proctor as a good man instead of inferior to herself. She also recognizes that she is far from perfect. Elizabeth goes to John in the jail and says, " John, it come to naught that I should forgive you, if you'll not forgive yourself. It is not my soul, John, it is yours. Only be sure of this, for I know it now: Whatever you will do, it is a good man does it. I have read my heart this three month, John. I have sins of my own to count. It needs a cold wife to prompt lechery." and " John, I counted myself so plain, so poorly made, no honest love could come to me! Suspicion kissed you when I did; I never knew how I shold say my love. It were a cold house I kept!" Elizabeth Proctor's nature changed for the better during the coarse of the witch trials. Abigail Williams did not change at all in The Crucible. At the beginning of the play she was a complete coward. Instead of taking responsibility for her actions, she put the blame on others. When Abigail was first accused of dancing, she tried to lie about it. Then when Parris asks her why she was discharged from Goody Proctor's service, instead of telling about how she had an affair with Elizabeth's husband, she says, "She hates me, uncle, she must, for I would not be her slave. It's a bitter woman, a lying, cold, sniveling woman, and I will not work for such a woman!" Once she was caught dancing in the woods, she said that someone had bewitched her and that's why she had done it. She blames the other girls, like Ruth, and Tituba for conjuring the spirits. She then tells the girls this, "Now look you. All of you. We danced. And Tituba conjured Ruth Putnam's dead sisters. And that is all. And mark this. Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you...I can make you swish you had never seen the sun go down!..." Then, once she had the power and all the people of the village fearing her, she used her power to seek vengence on those that she didn't like. Abigail continues lieing throughout the entire play.In the end she leaves town. Parris goes to Danforth and Hathorne and states, "Excellency, I think they be aboard a ship. My daughter tells me how she heard them speaking of ships last week, and tonight I discover my-my strongbox broke into." At the end of The Crucible, she is as much of a cowered as she was in the beggining. Instead of admiting that she lied and spareing all of the accused peoples lives, she leaves town and steals all of Parris' money. Of all the charactors mentioned above, Reverend John Hale underwent the most extreme change. He completely turned his point of veiw around. Instead of helping the court accuse people and just going with the crowd, he understood that what everyone else was doing was wrong and stood up for what he beleived in. John Hale took this crucible and used it to change himself for the better.

Answer: Transformations of The Crucible A crucible is a severe test. This definition applies to the play by Arthur Miller, The Crucible, because during the play the people went through severe tests of character. Usually when people face life struggles they are forced to adapt or change in some way. During the play, many characters altered because of what they had to endure; others did not. Two characters that changed during the composition were Reverend John Hale and Elizabeth Proctor. However, one individual that did not change was Abigail Williams. Reverend Hale changed dramatically throughout The Crucible. At the beginning of the play Hale was very open-minded. He came to Salem looking for the truth. In the beginning he says "No, no. Now let me instruct you. We cannot look to superstition in this. The Devil is precise/ the marks of his presence are definite as stone, and I must tell you all that I shall not proceed unless you are prepared to believe me if I should find no bruise of hell upon her." Then towards the end of act one he began to go with the crowd. He was asking people questions indicating witchcraft. Some of these leading questions included, to Parris: "Mr. Parris, you did not notice, did you, any living thing in the kettle? A mouse, perhaps, a spider, a frog?", to Abigail: "Did you feel any strangeness when she called him? A sudden cold wind, perhaps? A trembling below the ground?", and to Tituba: "When the Devil comes to you does he ever come with another person? Perhaps another person in the village? Someone you know?" Then in the second act he is still being a follower. He starts working for the court and after he is sent to Rebecca Nurse's house he goes to the Proctors' because they have been accused. To them Hale says: "This is a strange time, Mister. No man may longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon this village. There is too much evidence now to deny it. You will agree, sir?" In act three, Hale's character changes. Instead of just thinking what everyone else believes he realizes that the whole witch hunt is a hoax. During the hearing he says of Abigail and the other girls "You cannot believe them!" John tries to get the court to listen to both sides of the story and actually try to hear the facts instead of what they want to hear. You can first tell that he is starting to doubt the court when he says to Parris: "Is every defense an attack upon the court? Can no one-?" Reverend Hale also tries to get the court to allow people to have a lawyer, particularly John Proctor. He is extremely honest during the trials and only says what is true, not what he thinks the majority wants to hear. Reverend John Hale finishes act three as a very brave man. Once he realizes that the court is false he tries to stand up for what is right. After nobody will listen to him he leaves the court, his final statement being: "I denounce these proceedings. I quit this court!" In the end of the play he has completely turned around. Instead of helping with the witch hunt he is doing whatever he can to stop it. Not only is he trying to help those accused, but he has realized what a mistake it was serving on the court in the first place. His remorse shows when he says "Why it is all simple. I come to do the Devil's work. I come to counsel Christians they should belie themselves. His sarcasm collapses. There is blood on my head! Can you not see the blood on my head!!" At the end of The Crucible, Reverend Hale is a noble man. Elizabeth Proctor goes through a transformation in The Crucible. At the beginning of the play she is very pompous. Although she is loyal to her husband, she looks down upon him because he had an affair with Abigail Williams. Elizabeth believes herself to be a perfect woman. When she and John argue about the affair she says: "John, if it were not Abigail that you must go to hurt, would you falter now? I think not." and "I see what I see, John." She takes no blame for the affair at all. Also, when John Hale comes to question the family she states: "I surely do. There be no mark of blame upon my life, Mr. Hale. I am a covenanted Christian woman." Towards the end of the play Goody Proctor is more humble. After spending three months in jail she had thought about the affair. She realized that if she had paid more attention to John Proctor then he never would have needed to go to Abigail. Not only that, but she thinks of Proctor as a good man instead of inferior to herself. She also recognizes that she is far from perfect. Elizabeth goes to John in the jail and says: "John, it come to naught that I should forgive you, if you'll not forgive yourself. It is not my soul, John, it is yours. Only be sure of this, for I know it now: Whatever you will do, it is a good man does it. I have read my heart this three month, John. I have sins of my own to count. It needs a cold wife to prompt lechery," and "John, I counted myself so plain, so poorly made, no honest love could come to me! Suspicion kissed you when I did; I never knew how I should say my love. It were a cold house I kept!" Elizabeth Proctor's nature changed for the better during the course of the witch trials. Abigail Williams did not change at all in The Crucible. At the beginning of the play she was a complete coward. Instead of taking responsibility for her actions, she put the blame on others. When Abigail was first accused of dancing, she tried to lie about it. Then when Parris asks her why she was discharged from Goody Proctor's service, instead of telling about how she had an affair with Elizabeth's husband, she says: "She hates me, uncle, she must, for I would not be her slave. It's a bitter woman, a lying, cold, sniveling woman, and I will not work for such a woman!" Once she was caught dancing in the woods, she said that someone had bewitched her and that's why she had done it. She blames the other girls, like Ruth and Tituba for conjuring the spirits. She then tells the girls this: "Now look you. All of you. We danced. And Tituba conjured Ruth Putnam's dead sisters. And that is all. And mark this. Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you... I can make you wish you had never seen the sun go down!..." Then, once she had the power and all the people of the village fearing her, she used her power to seek vengence on those that she didn't like. Abigail continues lying throughout the entire play. In the end she leaves town. Parris goes to Danforth and Hathorne and states: "Excellency, I think they be aboard a ship. My daughter tells me how she heard them speaking of ships last week, and tonight I discover my-my strongbox broke into." At the end of The Crucible, she is as much of a coward as she was in the beginning. Instead of admitting that she lied, sparing the lives of those accused, she leaves town and steals all of Parris' money. Of all the characters mentioned above, Reverend John Hale underwent the most extreme change. He completely turned his point of view around. Instead of helping the court accuse people and just going with the crowd, he understood that what everyone else was doing was wrong and stood up for what he believed in. John Hale took this crucible and used it to change himself for the better.

Question: Shall I pay for the Judge’s mistake? I have a property and its title was held by a LLC. Due to the tenant’s failing to pay her rent, I file an eviction in Superior court of California, Alameda county in October, 2008. After the tenant was evicted, I filed the default court judgment for the rent recovery in December, 2008. Judge Frank Roesch was assigned to the case. After I had worked with Judge Frank Roesch for more than six months, he suddenly told me that awarding me the eviction judgment was the court’s mistake, and working with me for the default court judgment was anther mistake. He said I could not represent a LLC. What a mistake is it? In last ten months, I have filed and revised the court papers for more than 10 forms, and I clearly stated that I was not an attorney in every form, Had Judge Frank Roesch ever reviewed any of the forms I submitted? If the law does not allow me to represent my LLC, the court should reject my filing at the beginning, then, I might just transferred the ownership to my name immediately, and reissue another 3-day notice. In that case, all my loss is a 3-4 days of time. But now? Shall I have the tenant move back to the property and restart the eviction process? Why could Judge make any mistake for free, but I have to suffer the consequence? Why should I pay for the Judge’s mistake? Meanwhile, one way, Judge Frank Roesch asked me to hire an attorney, at the same time, he also told me that I would never have a chance to get my rent back anyway. It seems to me that Judge Frank Roesch already determined that he would never let me win the case, but, before he gives the judgment, he is more likely to see not only I lose the case but also I waste my attorney fee? What a judge Frank Roesch is? Also, according to Judge Frank Roesch, another reason Judge Frank Roesch rejected my case was that he told me that I already took the benefit from holding the property with a LLC, I should only get one way or the other, but both. Is Judge Frank Roesch a business man or a judge? Does Judge Frank Roesch judge a case according to the law, or based on how much favor he is willing to give each party? Even worse, the tenant has never showed up for any of the court hearing, but Judge Frank Roesch just totally ignored such fact. Why does not the tenant need to worry about her absence from the hearing? Could it be possible that Judge Frank Roesch has some kind of relation with defendant?

Answer: If you believe that a judge behaved improperly you can file a complaint with the state's agency that disciplines attorneys and judges. You do not need an attorney for that. If you are dissatisfied with a ruling you can appeal (so long as you do it within the very short time period allowed to file appeals.) Since appeals are filed in the appellate court, as the judge said -- even though rather late! -- you need an attorney.