The National Liberty Alliance (NLA) is a proactive organization. You must do your homework, study the law, and be willing to put in the effort and time for your own paperwork. We DO NOT provide legal advice in anyway. If you do not want to learn the law and you want someone else to do the work for you, then you should consider other options than those on this site. But, if you want to help us stop judges and attorneys from stealing children, homes, and money from the people, then join us and register. If these things have happen to you, rest assured you are not alone. Many of our members have had children stolen, homes robbed, and many other injustices happen to them. Please make sure to signup so we can all make a difference. 

The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment. No portion of this course may be published, duplicated, shared, or used by anyone other than the currently registered subscriber.

It also names specific campus incidents in which it says the university restricted free speech, including a controversial event organized by the university group Young Conservatives of Texas called Catch an Illegal Immigrant, which got scrapped in 2013. The group had planned to have volunteers walk around campus with a label that said "illegal immigrant," and students who "caught" them would win gift cards. Backlash on campus spurred UT to issue a statement saying that if the group carried out the activity they would be "willfully ignoring the honor code."


The state caused my mother to die three months after they took her from her home and placed her in a nursing home, where she refused to eat and developed a giant bed sore. I have the evidence. I had the funeral home take pictures of her body. She weighed only 85-90 pounds all her life. When she died in the nursing home, she barely weighed 60 pounds. Before they took her from her home, the only physical problem she had was slight dementia. The trauma caused her to stop eating. 

Judge Hagedorn executed his campaign plan, delivered his message to the voters and withstood withering attacks from the left and the media. The left attacked him for starting a Christian school and for calling Planned Parenthood a “wicked organization.” Planned Parenthood went on to spend over $120,000 to try to defeat him. As a result, business groups, afraid of backlash, decided to stay out of this race, clearly intimidated by the most radical elements of the political left. Private polling showed Hagedorn down by nearly double digits and the political experts predicted a big loss for him. At one point the groups on the left were outspending those on the right by a 14-to-1 margin, as Eric Holder and liberals eyed a flip of the conservative leaning court.
“Moreover, while he filed his lawsuit in the state of Virginia, California law applies to this case and it outlines steps to demand corrections for the benefit of any individual who feels he or she has been libeled. In the over 10 months since the winery article appeared, Mr. Nunes has not once availed himself of the statute by writing to the Fresno Bee to demand that it publish a correction to any statement made about him.

It's also important to remember that your attorney understands the litigation process in a way that you don't. While you're a foreigner in the legal realm, your lawyer lives there. So, it's worth paying careful heed to your lawyer's advice. If you don't understand something, ask probing questions. However, always keep in mind that your lawyer has extensive professional training and experience in these matters.
His lawyer said he reckoned he would win his lawsuit and get the money if they ever got started on the trial; but then there was ways to put it off a long time, and Judge Thatcher knowed how to do it And he said people allowed there'd be another trial to get me away from him and give me to the widow for my guardian, and they guessed it would win this time.

A trial can to be the most risky option for resolving a case. This is because a third party, meaning a judge or jury, is determining your guilt or innocence. Even in the strongest of cases, judges and juries have found defendants guilty in the face of significant reasonable doubt. While you usually have appeal rights of some sort if you feel you are wrongfully convicted, you must be aware when opting for a trial that you are leaving your fate open to someone else’s decision making. This means that if you are found guilty, you are subject to whatever consequence the judge decides upon consistent with the law.

Lethal Take of Sea Lions: One of the most frustrating things you can face when you have a salmon or steelhead on the line, is a sea lion taking your catch. We have been directly involved in a successful lawsuit against the U.S. Humane Society to support the ODFW plan to use force against these problem predators. This is both an ESA issue and a human safety issue for sport anglers.
I have represented myself in various state and federal courts for years and have experienced firsthand just how unfair our system of justice can be against a person who decides to represent himself. Not long ago a federal judge looked me in the eye and told me just before the trial that I wouldn’t win. The judge did a lot of things during the trial to make it unfair for me, but I did win.
New Orleans: Thousands of patients who took Xarelto have settled, through multi-district litigation, with Johnson & Johnson and Bayer for three quarters of a billion dollars. Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers marketed the drug to physicians to prevent blood clots, but failed to inform them of Xarelto side effects, which could cause life-threatening complications such as internal bleeding, stroke and death.
However, it is often more convenient to refer to cases – particularly landmark and other notable cases – by a title of the form Claimant v Defendant (e.g. Arkell v Pressdram). Where a legal proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, a form such as In re, Re or In the matter of is used (e.g. In re Gault).[1] The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus, but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries, it is normally rendered as "and" or "against" (as in, for example, Charles Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Where it is considered necessary to protect the anonymity of a natural person, some cases may have one or both parties replaced by a standard pseudonym (Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade) or by an initial (D v D). In titles such as R v Adams, however, the initial "R" is usually an abbreviation for the Latin Rex or Regina, i.e. for the Crown. (For an explanation of other terms that may appear in case titles, see the Glossary of legal terms.)
I have been reading Fight your Ticket about California laws for years and don't know what I would do without it. It has helped me win in court and know just what to ask the cop giving the ticket. It helps research and I recommend these books. Now my grand niece is getting her license and does not live in CA so I picked this up for her. I hope she reads it, it really helps get a handle on interactions with the police when you get stopped.
In no event shell ESET and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortuous action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from the services. 
Pretty good book but in the real world it may not help you much. I decided to fight a ticket and the cop lied on the stand and I wasn't really prepared for that and the jurors were all dumb as a box of rocks and I could only choose 5 out of 30 to reject in Voir Dire. So the book has good ideas but the U.S. legal system is so jacked up that if you are a little guy you are going to have to bend over one way or another. Can't wait for the revolution, this system has to go.

There is also the ability of one to make an under oath statement during the pretrial, also known as a deposition. The deposition can be used in the trial or just in the pretrial, but this allows for both parties to be aware of the arguments or claims that are going to be made by the other party in the trial. It is notable that the depositions can be written or oral.[8]
×