Are prescribed burns legal in Russia? One (badly written) article from 2009 seems to suggest that prescribed burns are illegal in Russia. Is that (still) the case? And if, to the contrary, they are legal, who can authorize them? What I could find out from a more recent (and somewhat better written) 2015 article in the same venue: Starting with the first East-West international conference “Fire in Ecosystems of Boreal Eurasia” (Goldammer &amp; Furyaev 1996) and the Fire Research Campaign Asia-North (FIRESCAN) (FIRESCAN Science Team 1996, 2013) a dialogue with the forestry authorities of Russia (and the predecessor administration in the former Soviet Union, the State Forest Committee) has been initiated to replace the fire exclusion policy in the protected zone of the Russian Federation, Mongolia and Kazakhstan by an integrated fire management approach, which would include the use of natural fire and prescribed burning (Goldammer 2013a). Between 2008 and 2013 three major scientifictechnical events have taken place in Mongolia and Russia. The First International Central Asian Wildland Fire Conference “Wildland Fires in Natural Ecosystems of the Central Asian Region: Ecology and Management Implications” was held in Mongolia in 2008 and had significant impact on the review of past approaches in forest and fire management and on the ongoing process to formulate fire management policies in the region (Byambasuren &amp; Goldammer 2013). In 2012 and 2013 two “International Fire Management Weeks” were organized in Krasnoyarsk Region, Russia, and resulted in the formulation of recommendations for adapting the fire management policy of the country with reference to the use of prescribed fire, allowing natural wildfires to burn within prescription and to take advantage of natural regeneration processes.1 The aspect of changing fire regimes as a consequence of climate change and land-use change has been addressed in a dedicated conference in 2013 and resulted in a strong warning to the governments of the region that the changes ahead may result in a threat by dangerous fires in future. That seems to suggest that at least until 2013 prescribed burn was either not legal or not practiced in Russia. So has anything changed in that regard?
It is legal, by Ministry of Nature order from 24th September 2019, but under strict control, by specially educated people, and only as part of other counter-fire measures, such as fire strips. Should be noted, that order restricts firing only grass, not setting trees on fire: Факторами, исключающими проведение профилактических выжиганий на участке, являются: а) наличие многоярусного строения древостоя, которое создает условия для развития верхового пожара; translated as: Factors that preclude preventive burning on the site are: a) the presence of a multi-tiered structure of the forest stand, which creates the conditions for the development of a riding fire; Paragraphs 14 and 15 also specifies forests, where such measures cannot be applied: Профилактические выжигания не применяются в лесах, относящихся к категориям защитных лесов в соответствии с пунктами 1, 2 части 2 статьи 111 Лесного кодекса Российской Федерации 2. Профилактические выжигания не рекомендуется применять в лесах, относящихся к категориям защитных лесов в соответствии с пунктами 3, 4 части 2 статьи 111 Лесного кодекса Российской Федерации 3. translated as: Preventive survival in forests related to the categories of protective forests in accordance with clause 1, 2 of part 2 of article 111 of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation 2. Preventive survival is not recommended for use in forests belonging to the categories of protective forests in accordance with clause 3, 4 of part 2 of article 111 of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation 3. Protective forest is an (mostly) artifically created forest, which protects some natural or unnatural object. For example such forest may protect river banks from destruction. Also, it is widely presented as 'protective forest strips' - along fields or railway - to protect both from wind. It is enough widespread thing in Russia and China. It is not widespread-used in the West, maybe because of that I do not see english wiki page about it.
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case. It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required? In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
Article 75 says that It devolves upon the Storting: (a) to enact and repeal laws; to impose taxes, dues, customs and other public charges, which shall not, however, remain operative beyond 31 December of the succeeding year, unless they are expressly renewed by a new Storting Article 97 says that "No law must be given retroactive effect" . The combined effect of these provisions is that any changes in the law effected this year could apply to tax years after 2020 but not including 2019. So the law as written supports your understanding. Skatteetatten seems to agree since the rules are listed as covering 2019.
The Soviet Union generally had no copyright treaties with the western world before 1973. So, anything before then is public domain. The USSR had a policy of public domain and considered anything published to be the property of the "people", including anything published in the west. Even for works produced after 1973, they would have to be registered for copyright in the United States to claim a copyright here.
Private prosecution is allowed in New Zealand, so one possibility would be to conduct the prosecution yourself. You could either do that as a case of destruction of property, or under the Animal Welfare Act. It is not guaranteed that your charging document will be accepted (for example, if your document lacks the required content). An alternative would be to apply political pressure to the Crown Law Office, to persuade them to pursue the matter.
He has this phrased like it's the ability to decide which laws you follow, and that it's an ability being withheld from the general public (although I seriously doubt that at least the former is the case). This is yet another false claim made by "freemen" or those who claim "common law defences". Notice of Understanding has no legal meaning unless the context demands that it evidences a meeting of the minds for the purposes of contract formation. It is a well-settled principle of common law that in order to be bound by a contract, there must be an agreement. Put simply, I cannot bind someone simply by sending them a Notice unless it is a right conferred on me by some earlier statute or legislation, or legally binding agreement. I tried searching for a solid definition, but all I could find was people/organization's Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights. The reason you've found nothing official about the terms Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights is that there is nothing official or legal about those terms. They are ordinary terms with ordinary meaning being bastardised by deluded people who believe they can fine the government and refuse to be bound by the law of the land. Of course, none of this holds up. What is the purpose of declaring your Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights? It might make you feel better, even though it has no legal, practical or other effect.
Questions about "why a law is ..." are political questions not legal questions and you may get better traction on politics. However, I will address the legal issues and offer some speculation on the politics. The states named in the preamble to the Constitution (an Act of British Parliament) as original states were New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Western Australia was not named at the time of the passing of the Act or Royal Assent because the people of that colony had not vet made their mind up. Legal Issues WA decided to join in a vote held on 31 December 1900 and Australia came into being on 1 January 1901. Therefore, even though not named as such, WA was an "original state". Since all 6 states in the Federation are "original states" the clauses have no practical effect at present. However, there have been a number of proposals to add new states, either by subdividing existing states or by granting statehood to the territories of Northern Territory and/or the Australian Capital Territory. If such were to come to pass, the clauses would have practical effect. In 1998, Norther Territorials rejected an offer of statehood that would have given them 3 senators as a state and 2 representatives based on population (currently they have 2 senators and 2 representatives). Clearly, they were not being given the same privileges as an "original state". In 2015 all Australian governments agreed in principle that the NT should become a state by 2018, however, as it is now 2017 and no action has been taken this seems unlikely. Political Issues Politics is complicated: just as much in the late 19th century as it is in the early 21st. Negotiations between the colonies were fraught and federation was by no means a certain outcome. New Zealand and Fiji dropped out early and each forged its own path to nationhood. However, by the late 1890s it was clear that the 5 eastern colonies would federate with or without Western Australia. It seems likely that this provision served multiple purposes including: putting pressure on WA to join at the outset - the deal they got as a "Johnny come lately" may not have been as good. protecting "white" Australia - the drafters of the Constitution were men of their times, that is to say: racist, misogynist bigots. Any non-original states were likely to be former British colonies in the Pacific or South-East Asia, this clause would allow the nation to reduce the influence these non-white states might have.
Depends on where you are, and what law would be broken and why. In germany, there is the concept of rechtfertigender Notstand (justifying emergency). If there is a present danger to a Rechtsgut (legally protected interest), one can take necessary and proportional steps against another legally protected interest. Say I walk through a winter landscape and there is a person who has broken through the ice of a lake (a present danger of the loss of life). Nearby is a yard with a ladder leaning on a shed. I would be allowed to enter the yard (normally trespas) and take the ladder (normally theft) in the rescue attempt (life counts for more than a ladder, using a ladder is necessary/appropriate for an ice rescue). The details are, as usual for Law SE, complicated.