The climate response team is made up of senior university administrators who take complaints from students via an online portal that include everything from derogatory comments made on Facebook to student organizations participating in traditions that could be perceived as insensitive. Since September 2017, it has investigated more than 100 reports of "expressions of bias" in posters, fliers, social media, whiteboards and verbal comments, among others, according to the nonprofit's data. The lawsuit says these investigations can result in formal discipline for incidents that include "wide swaths of protected expression."
Che Guevara imported preconditioned Communist to Cuba from the same region. Once the number hit critical mass, Castro crushed the free market and implemented hard line Communism. The Democratic Party is using the very same playbook.The Democratic Party is conducting a Communist Revolution, and without question, the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to the United States of America.

A number of other details are also registered besides your IP address, such as the type of connection, the browser you use, your computer's operating system and the pages you visited on the website. This data is collected by RobecoSAM AG and only used to harmonize the website to the wishes and preferences of the users as much as possible. By registering the most-visited pages, RobecoSAM AG can adjust the navigation menu to suit your needs. This information can also be used to track down any technical or other problems.
“Take-Two can confirm that the present-day Pinkerton Consulting and Investigation company has withdrawn its claims against Red Dead Redemption 2, and Take-Two will not continue legal action against Pinkerton. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a work of fiction set in the late 1800s that references historical entities active during that time,” a spokesperson for Take-Two told The Verge. Pinkerton didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.
Your theory must also be based on the law. For example, if you are accused of deliberately crashing into someone’s car, your theory of the case may be that the victim was negligent when she backed into the road. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s negligence will not relieve you of liability if you deliberately hit her. Therefore, your “theory of the case” could instead be that you didn’t deliberately hit her but only negligently did, or that she deliberately backed into you.
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.
It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.
AALL and chapter volunteers researched primary legal materials in the 50 states plus District of Columbia to determine if online legal materials are trustworthy and preserved for permanent public access. This collection brings together information from AALL's National Inventory of Legal Materials and updates, the Preliminary Analysis of AALL’s State Legal Inventories, the 2007 State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources and the 2009-2010 State Summary Updates.
The lawsuit from Quinault Nation, which owns and operates Quinault Beach Resort & Casino in Ocean Shores, Wash., alleges that Valve has facilitated the use of textured digital weapons, known as “skins,” in games such as Counter Strike: Global Offensive as collateral in online betting through third-party sites. The lawsuit argues that through so-called “skins gambling” Valve has “subjected Washington citizens to scam, unsafe and unfair gambling.”

If you can afford it, find a lawyer who specializes in the area of law that is the subject of the lawsuit. Some attorneys only practice criminal defense, or they specialize in defamation or employment law. You can find an experienced attorney by visiting your state’s bar association website, which runs a referral program. You can search by area of expertise.


Ensure that all media moments get maximum media coverage. Oftentimes, state LGBT groups simply didn’t have the capability to shape an opportunity for the press, pitch the story, and secure solid coverage in print and broadcast media.  As a result, Freedom to Marry created an in-house capacity to do just that.  We’d work with local organizers and attorneys to shape opportunities and maximize likelihood of coverage.  In certain states, like Wyoming, this resulted in several strong, front-page stories in the state’s most important newspaper as we rolled out a list of prominent Republicans and clergy who were in support of the freedom to marry.  We’d ensure that signers onto amicus briefs who we knew were newsworthy were available to speak to the press, sometimes holding media calls with key amici and other times offering exclusive stories to key outlets.  And we’d work closely with the legal teams, local reporters covering the legal cases, and editorial boards to ensure they had access to attorneys and plaintiffs at key moments (deadlines for filing briefs, lead-up to oral arguments, etc.), had the chance to ask questions, and understood our side of the case. And in every situation, once we’d secure a news story, positive editorial, or powerful broadcast piece, we’d amplify it through our Digital Action Center. 
Once you file the necessary papers to begin a lawsuit, you will face a number of deadlines -- for everything from requestingthat your case be heard by a juryto telling your opponent what evidence you plan to introduce at trial. Make careful note of these deadlines and make sure that you meet every one. The judge won't give you any leeway just because you are representing yourself -- and missing an important deadline could result in your case being thrown out of court.
Litigation was the pathway to the freedom to marry in many states. It often takes a judge to challenge prevailing assumptions (and even prejudice) that political decision-makers such as legislators or voters may be more unwilling to overcome. Early on, we won in state courts, first in Hawaii in the 1990s, then in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa. Later, we won in federal court, first in California, then in Utah, Oklahoma, and beyond, all the way up to the Supreme Court. In total, 25 of our final state victories (aside from the 13 final states we won at the U.S. Supreme Court) came through judicial rulings – 5 in state court and the rest in federal court.  Most of these court wins came through our movement’s legal arm – the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights – while a significant share were initiated by private attorneys and assisted by growing numbers of law firms eager to join in the progress. Several of these victories, though, were stripped away by political attack, and most of them would not have happened had we not built momentum in public understanding and even the politics of the marriage debate, creating the climate for the courts to rule in our favor and ensure that the public and elected officials would accept the outcome. 
The material and information in this site and in the sites of other entities of the RobecoSAM AG are provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied. The RobecoSAM AG and their related affiliated and subsidiary companies disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. It is your responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided.

© 2008–2019 WomensLaw.org is a project of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Inc. All rights reserved. This website is funded in part through a grant from the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided). NNEDV is a 501©(3) non-profit organization; EIN 52-1973408.
Identify evidence and witnesses. The parties in a lawsuit have the right to request copies of documents in each other’s possession or control in a process called “discovery.” In discovery, you can also request that the other party answer questions, either orally or in writing. If you request a document and the other side claims not to have it, research whether or not they have destroyed it.
Lawyers spend years learning how to question witnesses, present evidence, and make arguments in court. Before you make your courtroom debut, you should learn the basics abouthow to follow the procedures and rules of the courtroom and how to prove your case. First, ask the court clerk for a copy of your court's local rules, which may include everything from deadlines for various trial procedures to nitpicky restrictions on how small your font can be in documents you submit to the court. Second, read Represent Yourself in Court, by Paul Bergman and Sara Berman (Nolo), a great resource that explains how to handle every step in a civil trial.
Specifically, it names portions of the undergraduate catalogue, handbook of operating procedures and nondiscrimination policy that ban verbal harassment, including threats, insults and personal attacks based on a person's race, religion, gender, age and other personal characteristics, as well as portions of university and residence hall policies that prohibit uncivil behavior and harassment.
Father Isidore Ndagizimana became pastor of St. Thomas More Parish in Austin on July 2, 2012. He resigned that position on Oct. 9, 2017, and was placed on leave. He returned from leave and was then assigned to St. Mary Parish in Brenham on July 2, 2018 as an associate pastor (where the priests also serve the churches in Somerville and Old Washington on the Brazos). He was again placed on leave Aug. 21, 2018, and he remains on leave at this time.
It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.

AALL and chapter volunteers researched primary legal materials in the 50 states plus District of Columbia to determine if online legal materials are trustworthy and preserved for permanent public access. This collection brings together information from AALL's National Inventory of Legal Materials and updates, the Preliminary Analysis of AALL’s State Legal Inventories, the 2007 State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources and the 2009-2010 State Summary Updates.

It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.
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.)

At the close of discovery, the parties may either pick a jury and then have a trial by jury or the case may proceed as a bench trial. A bench trial is only heard by the judge if the parties waive a jury trial or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction.

×