Washington @ MindSay 
seattle
The absolute worst case is when a person loses their life. Negligence is something you can pursue in court. No one should have to pay for someone else's mistake, especially if it results in bodily harm. That is why so many people turn to a Seattle auto accident attorney if they have been injured or have had a family member killed due to the fault of another.
When you sit down with a personal injury lawyer, he or she is going to need some information from you in order to review your claim. If you want to file motorcycle accident claims in Seattle, then the attorney is going to need a copy of the police report. The police report will show the details of the accident and will also include any witness statements. It will also list who was at fault for the accident. In some cases both parties are at fault and are cited.
Once fault has been issued, the police officer will ensure that both parties exchange insurance and personal information. Your personal injury attorney will need to have a copy of all the information that was given to you at the scene of the accident. If you or a loved one had to be taken to the hospital, then the attorney will need the ambulance and hospital records as well.
From this point it becomes a matter of determining how much negligence was your fault and how much was the other party's fault. Laws have been set up in many states that assign a certain percentage of negligence. The amount of negligence assigned will often determine the monetary amount of compensation that you receive.
The most important factor when winning personal injury cases is the proper documentation. Make sure you keep a copy of everything that is given to you. That way when your personal injury lawyer is in contact with the other party and his/her insurance company, the attorney has a firm ground to stand on when it comes to asking for a certain amount of money for damages. If the amount the other attorney offers is too low and they will not negotiate, your case could end up in court where a judge will make the final decision.
Woot.
Umm...i'm watching the Real World.
Drama Drama Drama...
my favorites are
Chet
Baya
Ryan.
Chet cause I'm in love with his style.
Baya cause she has like...no drama about her.
Ryan cause he's funny. I love his songs.
Buuutt yeah. Little bit about me.
im 15(in 18 days), i'm short, i love Taco Bell (its where I wish to live someday) and my best friends name is Katie.
Um, im really weird and I creep Katie a lot but...thats me.
I have like, an amazing boyfriend and I honestly love him. I've been waiting for a guy like him for way too long (ha, 3 years...)
I hate my mom, a lot...i can't wait to move out...
ummm...i plan to be a writer when im older, and i am already writing and maybe sometimes ill post a little bit of something.
I also plan on a TV show with Katie when were 18 and my sister too.
but that is if Katie will come to Lake Tahoe with me or Washington.
I don't think she will.
I plan to not go to college, go to community or something. I wanna be a pet breeder when im older, so if you want a weird breed, look me up! haha..
i think that is all for now...
ill post laterrr..
bye!
-Lisa
Israel has far fewer restrictions
Over the last week, many are asking why India does not "do a Gaza" on Pakistan, referring, of course, to an emulation of Israel's use of force against Terrorists Hamas-run Palestine, a territory from which rockets rain down on Israeli soil with reliable frequency (if not reliable destructiveness ...).
The answer for this question comes always with a painful grip on reality, is simple: India does not because it cannot.
Here are five reasons why:
1. India is not a military goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel's foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan's trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)
2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for "doing a Gaza" is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force--Hamas--that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can-- and does--contend that Pakistan's government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities-- which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists--would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.
3. Israel enjoys impressive support from many countries especially from the Americans, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state--apart, perhaps, from Britain--evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted "Israel lobby" (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast--while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan--enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel's "pull" in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.
4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack--no matter how surgical--by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India--and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a "strategic space," it would--right now--settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts. (Seven U.S Citizens were killed in Mumbai: Under U.S. law, those responsible--and this should include Pakistani intelligence masterminds--have to be brought to justice.)
5. Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations--and pretensions.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
