I took the time to watch a recent course produced by Courtroom5 and the great information it gave, and I couldn’t help thinking how I definitely would have turned to Courtroom5 to help with my case had I known about it while my case was going on. Courtroom5 offers a magnificent service that can be very helpful to pro se litigants. I would highly recommend to any pro se who is in need of some help in prosecuting his/her case to turn to Courtroom5.
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. 
Stay in character, even when you don’t have a speaking role. “Your audience – the jury – is watching you from the moment they walk in, long before you say anything. Their only entertainment is watching you. They can’t check their phones, talk to one another or even lift their rears from their assigned seats. They’ll notice everything you do and draw conclusions about who you are.”
Oakland, CA: A Northern California owner and operator of two horse training facilities--Portola Valley Training Center in Menlo Park and Gilroy Gaits in Hollister, doing business as EWC & Associates Inc.—has been reigned in by federal court and ordered to pay $1,270,683 to 30 employees for several work visa program violations and California labor law violations.
After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made by the trial court. It isn't necessarily an automatic appeal after every judgment has been made, however, if there is a legal basis for the appeal, then one has the right to do so. The prevailing party may appeal, for example, if they wanted a larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court then affirms the judgment, declines to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverses—or vacates and remands. This process would then involve sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly request for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before final resolution.

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. 
The Las Vegas Municipal Court offers the Habitual Offender Prevention & Education (HOPE) Court. It is an alternative approach to sentencing that offers repeat offenders structured programs to try to help them rebuild their lives. The court has been featured in the local media because of its success. The target goal of HOPE Court is to decrease instances of criminal activity committed by an increasing large group of offenders who repeatedly consume large dollar amounts of city resources because they repeatedly end up back on the streets—loitering; being picked up again and again by police officers; back in city jail; back in court; and back in front of the judge. HOPE Court clients are indigent; they are not able to self-pay.
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]
×