California Legal Last Will and Testament Form for Married Person with Minor Children

I know a mononymous person (who has one legal name; no separate given and family names) and he said something along the lines of using one ofNameName .Name 'Mr NameName NameNFN Name (‘No First Name’)until he finds a variation that is accepted.Ah, found where I might have read it - one of the top comments on Page on reddit.com, by ‘saizai’ (Sai).Another result is that some departments/organisations/sites consider his name to be a family name, others consider it to be a given name.

Under the Criminal Code of my home country (Canada), assault is a possible charge, but because a concussion is more than just minor bodily harm (with the same penal code defining "bodily harm" similarly to how English criminal law defines "grievous bodily harm"), the charge may be assault causing bodily harm (an equivalent to which in some Australian states and mainland territories is "assault occasioning actual bodily harm").The particular crime that you committed likely does not have a component that makes you eligible to be charged under US federal law because I can't think of any high school in California that is located on federal land. As to what charge(s) you may face under California law, I don't know because the laws of such American states often vary widely from state to state i.e. it's not like Canada or the Republic of Ireland where the penal code applies across the nation.

If a wealthy father passes away and wills his fortune to just one favorite child, how is it legal for other children left out to contest his will and in some instances, win? Doesn't a person have a right to decide where his money goes?It’s perfectly “legal” in most places, but (as everyone else has pointed out), the laws in different places have different requirements.In some places, it is necessary for the deceased to have NAMED all his children in his Will and either bequeath something or SPECIFICALLY say “I am deliberately NOT leaving <> anything” (or legalese words to that effect). For instance, comedian Jerry Lewis specifically disinherited all of his children from his first marriage and left his entire estate to his family with his second wife. And that was perfectly legal.Any Will can be contested, if those contesting have grounds and the money to do so. The most common reason, of course, is to claim that the one child who got it all exerted undue influence over the deceased and essentially either coerced or conned him/her into disinheriting the others. If he deceased actually put the reason he/she wasn’t leaving them anything into the Will, or made it clear to the attorney drawing up the document that this was his/her “sound mind” decision that the others don’t get anything, then the protest will probably fail.My sister asked our mom to specifically disinherit her because Sis didn’t need it and my brother and I could use the extra money. Mom agreed, but the sneaky old lady actually left my sister 10% because she also made Sis the Executrix of the estate. Mom figured that’d pay Sis for her time in getting the estate settled. My brother and I thought that wasn’t fair - we felt she should have gotten 1/3, but my sister refused to take any extra.

This would be in keeping with the idea of individual freedom, in that, each person should be free to define his own thinking and his own life absent those real actions, not opinions, that are detrimental to another or to society.In keeping with the tradition of American freedom to think independently as noted here with a Thomas Jefferson quote from 1802 in a letter to the Baptist Bishops of Danbury CT. The Bishops were intent on making the Baptist Church the default religion of the new“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government signNow actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”Freedom of religion is a great deal more that deciding what god one may or may not believe in; it is the freedom to think independently, to hold with value those opinions that may differ from others or from government as opposed to a government sponsored and centered belief, which in itself may become intellectually stifling and oppressive to the imaginative mind.Freedom of Religion is also freedom from a religious mandate to believe or to hold one religious belief above all others. The definition of religion is simply the claim that my belief is of “supreme importance” which may also apply to that secular or political ideology and even to that atheistic belief or opinion that gods do not exist. Religious belief is not exclusive to the supernatural, but, rather, inclusive of all opinion.As an Atheist, my Atheism is my opinion of life and living, my religious belief, and I consider it of “supreme Importance” to me, and do I believe that others should think the same, yes, I do. Do I believe that I should make or force others to believe as I do, no.Hopefully there will come a day, in keeping with the thought, the wish and the dream of Martin Luther King, that we are judged not by the god one may or may not belief in, ”—- but by the content of their character.”“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King, Jr.To respond directly to the question of what religion is best for America and in keeping with the definition of religion as something of supreme importance, I would say that the American Constitution is, by far, the best religion for American