Kill them with kindness. “Be nice to everyone in the courtroom. Kindness makes the world a better place, and it makes you a happier person. But if that’s not enough to convince you, consider this: Kindness makes you more likely to win your case. When jurors think you’re a good person, they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe good motives to what you say. If they think you’re nasty or dishonest, they’ll discount everything that comes out of your mouth.
Much of the 25-page court document lays out Valve’s alleged involvement in skins gambling, but the lawsuit also claims skins gambling hurts casinos. In order to operate, Quinault’s casino has to take steps to ensure fair and secure gambling conditions and pay taxes and fees to state and local governments. Valve, the lawsuit argues, doesn’t have to do any of that, creating an alleged unlevel playing field.
Take-Two and its subsidiary Rockstar filed the suit in January, striking back at a cease-and-desist notice from Pinkerton, which argued Red Dead Redemption 2 had infringed on its trademark. The publisher wanted a court to rule that its use of the Pinkerton name — as part of a game that emphasizes historical accuracy — was fair use. But GameDaily.biz notes that the suit was dropped today, apparently ending the dispute.
Substantial assistance is affectionately known as snitching. While it has a bad rap, it is an extremely useful tool when dealing with criminal cases. If you are not yet charged with a crime and are being investigated, providing substantial assistance can actually prevent you from being charged in some cases. If a warrant cannot be prevented with substantial assistance, charges can often be minimized and/or consequences can be reduced, often significantly.
RobecoSAM AG and its related affiliated and subsidiary companies can not guarantee that the hyperlinks set out on the sites will be accurate at the time of your access. Moreover, the sites pointed at by hyperlinks are developed and possibly maintained by persons over whom RobecoSAM AG or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have no control. We cannot and do not monitor the sites linked to our pages on the Internet. Accordingly, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies assume no responsibility for the content of any sites referenced to by any hyperlink or otherwise. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies believe that their making hyperlinks available to publicly accessible Web pages and newsgroups is legally permissible and consistent with the common, customary expectations of those who make use of the Internet.

You have a right to know how to win without a lawyer! Most don't know, and can't afford a lawyer, and lose needlessly!In just 24 hours or less you  will know what you need to know. I know, because I've been a case-winning lawyer 32 years. My step-by-step course reveals what other lawyers have hidden from you. Case-winning procedure, evidence rules, and court approved tactics you have a right to use ... without a lawyer! In just 24 hours or less you will know how to win step-by-step then enjoy the convenience of online access for a full year to keep learning, review the classes, take the quizzes, do legal research, and use my sample forms, flowcharts, explanations, references, and case-winning procedures and tactics to win your case! Can't afford a lawyer? Win without one! Paying a lawyer? Get what you're paying for!
If you find yourself up against a lawyer who won't stop rattling off legal citations or won't let you get a word in edgewise, you'll have to stand up for yourself. Tell the judge that you are representing yourself without a lawyer because you can't afford or justify the expense, and that you'll rely on the judge to apply the correct law and reach the right conclusions. Many judges will make an effort to keep the proceedings comprehensible to a self-represented party -- and will take steps to rein in an opposing lawyer who tries to take unfair advantage.
The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company[4] (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it as found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.[5]
×