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 Documents and related graphics published on the services could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. ESET and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the products and/or services and/or the programs. Information on the Site(s) or in documents available herein, may therefore be from time to time changed, and not corresponding to attributes of provided products and/or services.
In civil lawsuits, particularly in Small Claims Court, you can get a judgment by the Court for money owed you, but you may have great difficulty collecting the money. There are ways the Court can put pressure on the payee, with garnishment or a lien against the property. In these cases, you must be proactive in getting the court to use its power in any legal means necessary to get someone to pay, But, as they say, "you can't get blood from a turnip."
8. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Williamson v. Berry, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
One of the first steps that a criminal attorney will take is to request the discovery, or evidence, that the District Attorney plans to use against you. The attorney will then review that discovery to determine the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence against you and the merits of the overall case, and will then determine the risks associated with various defense strategies. Once this analysis is completed, the criminal lawyer will then discuss all of this information with you to determine which next steps to take.
San Antonio, TX On March 8, 2019, Joe William Contreras, along with 17 other service members filed a 3M Combat Arms defective earplug lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. According to the Complaint, Contreras and the other plaintiffs suffer from hearing loss because 3M Company and its predecessor sold millions of dollars’ worth of Combat Arms earplugs to the military without disclosing design flaws that rendered the product useless.
Paul Bergman is a Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and a recipient of a University Distinguished Teaching Award. His recent books include Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes to the Movies (Andrews & McMeel); Trial Advocacy: Inferences, Arguments, Techniques (with Moore and Binder, West Publishing Co.); and Represent Yourself In Court and The Criminal Law Handbook (both with Berman-Barrett, Nolo). He has also published numerous articles in law journals.
In trying a case, a defense attorney will work to highlight the favorable facts of your case and to show the State has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. He will do this in the process of examining the defense witnesses and cross-examining the State’s witnesses. The case will be summarized and important points highlighted in opening and closing arguments. Your attorney will also object to various components of the State’s case based on trial procedures and the rule of law.
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.
There was a study conducted in the Supreme Court Economic Review that shows why litigation financing can be practical and beneficial to the overall court system and lawsuits within the court. This study concluded that the new rules that were set for litigation financing actually did produce more settlements. Under conservative rules, there tended to be fewer settlements, however under the older rules they tended to be larger on average.
Whatever your case is about, I can't emphasize enough for you to take a morning off from work to go watch some cases in court. You'll eliminate some fear of the unknown, you'll start to see that attorneys go through a similar set of procedures that you are just as capable of performing yourself, and you'll get a feel for how to talk to the judge and those who might be in the same room as you.
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.