Rhode Island Power Of Attorney Statute: Fill & Download for Free

In answering this question, I will start by explaining the “American rule” concerning litigation attorneys’ fees, then will discuss the source of that rule.The American RuleIn the U.S., the generally applicable American rule (which can be overridden by statute or contract) is that each party to a litigation is responsible for paying its own attorneys’ fees.The downside of such a rule is that if a prospective plaintiff can find a litigator with time on his or her hands who is willing to file suit on a contingency basis (the lawyer is paid only if the client wins), then a suit likely will be filed.Contrast the situation under the “English rule,” by which a losing party pays the other party’s attorney’s fees. A plaintiff with a weak case is much less likely to file suit for fear of having to pay the other party’s attorney fees. Accordingly, the American rule tends to increase the amount of litigation.The Source of that RuleThere is an excellent article on the source of the American rule at http://www.lawmoss.com/content/uploads/2013/04/EVERYBODY-PAYS-Atty-Feesthe-American-Rule-West-MB-Winter-2013-Newsletter.pdf. Quoting a substantial portion of that article:The Supreme Court of the United States first acknowledged the American rule in 1796 in a case involving maritime law entitled Arcambel v. Wiseman. In that case, the Circuit Court of Rhode Island had awarded damages and a charge of $1,600 in attorney fees against the losing party. On appeal, the Court succinctly rejected the charge:We do not think that the charge ought to be allowed. The general practice of the United States is in opposition to it; and even if that practice were not strictly correct in principle, it is entitled to the respect of the court, till it is changed, or modified, by statute.The general practice referred to by the Court, and to which we adhere today, springs from the American colonists’ desire for freedom from religious persecution, poverty, and oppression. In 1776, in declaring their independence from British rule, the colonists “submitted to a candid world” a list of “abuses and usurpations” in support of their cause. These included, among other things, King George III’s refusal to consent to laws for the public good, to establish judicial powers, and to allow the colonists to legislate for themselves. By 1783, the colonists had secured their independence, and they depended on equal access to the courts to vindicate the rights accruing from self governance.As the Court expounded in later cases, because “litigation is at best uncertain[,] one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.” Without the American rule, “the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel.” In this respect, the Court views the parties to be on equal footing:There is no fixed standard by which [attorney fees] can be measured. Some counsel demand much more than others. Some clients are willing to pay more than others. More counsel may be employed than are necessary. When both client and counsel know that the fees are to be paid by the other party there is danger of abuse. We think the principle of disallowance rests on a solid foundation . . . and sound public policy.Of course, parties to a lawsuit have some measure of control over their own attorney fees. Each case involves a continual assessment of cost versus benefit, risk versus reward. Each party has the right to choose its own legal counsel. An individual may choose to represent himself or herself. A party may choose to accept the consequences of its actions, forgo certain discovery, buy peace, prosecute an unremarkable case beyond all appearance of reason to protect a business model, or pursue a claim or defense based on a novel legal theory that may make new law. These decisions drive the fees.

Although the federal government does not normally regulate air guns, some state and local governments do; the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has compiled a list of states and selected municipalities that regulate air guns, finding that 23 states and the District of Columbia regulate air guns to some degree.[35]Two states (New Jersey and Rhode Island) define all non-powder guns as firearms; one state (Illinois) defines certain high-power and/or large calibre non-powder guns as firearms; three states (Connecticut, Delaware and North Dakota) define non-powder guns as dangerous weapons (but not firearms).[35]The remaining states which regulate air guns impose age restrictions on possession, use, or transfer of non-powder guns, and/or explicitly regulate possession of non-powder guns on school grounds.[35]New York City has a restrictive municipal ordinance regulating air guns.[35]Air guns were previously banned in San Francisco, but a state preemption statute struck down the ban, and the San Francisco District Attorney declared them legal as long as they are in compliance with state law.[36]New York state law prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from possessing an air gun.Along with state laws, local county laws or ordinances may be relevant to users of air guns. Generally, state laws do not mention air gun laws, but local counties do.<source> Air gun laws - Wikipedia

Oh, so many ways. This is really just a start. I’m going to focus on the structure of the Federal government rather than changes to individual rights (although some changes there would be helpful as well)Congress:Reapportion senate more fairly. Smaller states have too much power.Start with a baseline of 2 Senators per state.Add additional senator for every X percentage (to be determined) over a determined amount relative to the total US population. So, for example, perhaps California and Texas end up with a total of 4-5 (or more) senators today and NY and Florida get 3-4. Rhode Island and Montana stay with 2. In this way the senate maintains its essential character and purpose but is organized in a more fair way that still remains protective of smaller states.Add significantly to number of representatives in House, at least double it. Probably more.Provides Closer representation, dilutes influence poolAll nominations for federal positions (including Judges and cabinet members) must receive an up or down vote within 90 days.Amendment modifying commerce power such that Congress has the general power to regulate commerce within and among the states.Congressional terms extended to 4 years instead of two and staggered like the Senate to preserve midterm elections.Any matter must come to a full vote in either chamber if at least 40% of the respective members agrees to vote on it.President:Abolish electoral collegeMajority popular vote wins, plurality is not enough (for example you must get more than 50% to win outright)Runoff election between top two vote-getters in case of only a plurality won by a candidate. (will be costly. worth it.)Minimum age of 60 to be elected president.Amendment that President requires express congressional authorization for the use of force (or in support of other nations in the use of force)President maintains power to act in defense of the nation and honor duly ratified treaties.Defensive actions are presumptively validCommitment of troops abroad for more than 1 year requires express Congressional approval. Authorization must be re-authorized every year within 90 days.Congress must vote within 30 days when asked by the president to so authorize.Amendment providing that President may be investigated for any crimes or civil wrongdoing committed before or during presidential term but must be impeached and removed before he can be tried in criminal or civil court. Statutes of limitations shall be suspended during the term of presidency.Amendment to remove the pardon power from the president for himself, Principal Officers (like cabinet members) and any other political appointee including US attorneys, or anyone who made a significant campaign donation.Extend presidential term to 6 years per term.Supreme Court:Amendment to allow congress to pass a law establishing ethics rules SCOTUS must follow just like Federal judiciary under them. Violations are grounds for removal.Salary doubledMinimum age established at not less than 65 years old.Amendment clarifying the validity of Judicial Review (because I can’t believe we are at this point)President must nominate for a Vacancy within 30 days. Senate must provide up or down vote within 90 days. The power to Nominate shall survive the presidential term.Congress can raise the number of SCOTUS Seats a total of 1 seat in every presidential term. Such seats cannot be used until next presidential term.Voting:Mandatory national holiday for voting.AND national elections should take place over the course of at least a month of in person voting.There must be a polling place within 1 mile of every person in America or online or mail in voting for all those where this is not possible or practical.Voting Districts to be determined by a national nonpartisan commission.It shall be a civil violation with a compensation not less than the current yearly salary of a member of congress paid by the State to a person when that person who is ready and legally available to vote is delayed from voting at their designated polling place for more than 1 hour.Any state that improperly removes more eligible voters from the voter roles than were deciding factors in the previous election shall come under the supervision of the federal government under the Voting Rights Act for not less than 15 years.Federal Agencies:Amendment clarifying that congress has the power to establish independent and non-independent Federal Agencies with the power to promulgate rules under Congressionally enacted limits.The Justice Department shall be an Independent Agency though headed by one attorney General to serve for 6 years. AG can be removed for misconduct or incompetence through impeachment process. The AG and assistant AG’s must be selected from within the Department of Justice’s ranks of non-politically appointed career employees.Resignations by principal officers shall be presumptive firings unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.