Answer:
The Scopes Monkey Trial is also called The Scopes Trial. This scope was prosecuted in 1925 by a science teacher John Scopes for the teaching evolution in the school Tennessee public school which further made an illegal bill.
Scopes was not sure that he taught the subject clearly and right but he was sure that the material that he has been used is related to the evolution. But later on, John was charged for violating the Butler Act.
Answer:
Typical repercussions include;
1. Payment of huge amounts to resolve charges of corrupt practices by SEC.
2. Permanent bar from the securities industry.
Explanation:
The Securities Exchange Commission has among its other roles, the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It has been discovered that most organization engage in acts of corruption such as bribery in their business dealings.
When SEC finds organizations wanting in this regard, they charge them to court for violating their rules. Typical repercussions from the many examples of organizations who violated these rules include;
- being barred from the securities industry as in the case of Tim Leissner.
- majority of the companies listed, also paid huge amounts of monies running into millions of dollars to resolve the charges against them.
Answer:
Because I won at trial representing myself.
Explanation:
For statement 1. It is a positive to an extent. Stop sighs can often be covered in graffiti, which can began to cost more and more every time you repaint them. For statement 2 and 3. Traffic signals would cause less accidents because of the fact that they “force” you to stop, they give every car a chance to go, and give pedestrians the right of way to walk as well.
Answer:
The service repair company advised Travis of the issues with the steering problems. He disregarded the notice and decided to drive the four wheeler before fixing the issue. Therefore, Travis assumed all responsibility after knowingly driving the four wheeler after being told of its issues. The people who he hit and caused damaged or injury to would clearly have a case against him. Perhaps even if he wasn't aware of the problems and caused damage to their persons or property, he would still be at fault. However, in that situation, he would likely be able to go after the service repair shop showing negligence on their part for failure to disclose this information.
Explanation:
