An effective criminal lawyer will know if the plea you are being offered is a good plea or a bad one. If there are multiple charges, an experienced attorney will try to get some of them dropped or to have them consolidated. If the plea calls for active prison time, the attorney will work to try to minimize this time and have sentences served concurrently rather than consecutively if there are multiple charges.
Legal financing can be a practical means for litigants to obtain financing while they wait for a monetary settlement or an award in their personal injury, workers' compensation, or civil rights lawsuit. Often, plaintiffs who were injured or forced to leave their jobs still have mortgages, rent, medical expenses, or other bills to pay. Other times, litigants may simply need money to pay for the costs of litigation and attorneys' fees, and for this reason, many litigants turn to reputable legal financing companies to apply for a cash advance to help pay for bills.
Two-thirds of the cases accuse the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a nearly 73-year-old law that forms the primary bulwark against arbitrary rule. The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.
Without responding to their vacuous arguments, I noticed the court of "Schultz vs. IRS", US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, wherein it was ruled that a "Notice of Lien or Levy" is NOT a lien or levy. I argued that a lawful lien or levy must have a federal property seizure warrant signed by a federal judge to be valid. The IRS routinely skips this step.
A criminal case may in some jurisdictions be settled before a trial through a plea bargain. Typically, in a plea bargain, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge than that which was originally brought by the grand jury or prosecutor. A defendant who goes to trial risks greater penalties than would normally be imposed through a plea bargain.
1. “A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.” 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.
“Like many students and families across the country, we are also outraged that parents, outside actors and university employees may have committed fraud surrounding admissions at universities," UT spokesman J.B. Bird said. "The actions alleged by federal prosecutors against one UT employee were not in line with that policy and may have been criminal. They do not reflect our admissions process."
The Telephone Counseling Line provides education and information regarding residential tenant-landlord disputes. Lines are busy, and callers are encouraged to keep trying. Phones are answered by trained housing counselors who offer options, refer callers to other agencies, or suggest legal assistance through Legal Aid, lawyer referral services, etc. The counselors can discuss tenant-landlord rights and responsibilities as described in the Texas Property Code and other sources. However, no attorneys are on staff and ATC counselors cannot offer legal advice. Anyone needing legal advice should contact an attorney.
Prepare to defend court victories politically: Winning in court often isn’t enough, as opponents can mount attempts through legislatures or at the ballot to reverse good decisions and otherwise try to delegitimize the win. State constitutional amendments nullified court victories in Hawaii in the 1990s and stripped away the freedom to marry in California in 2008. Advocates should be completely prepared to fight back against efforts to overturn the rulings, and should also work post-victory to allay concerns, refute falsehoods, and solidify support so as to leverage the win. In Massachusetts, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court victory on the freedom to marry was immediately followed by attempts in the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the freedom to marry. Without the strong leadership of MassEquality, supported by national groups and funders, and many months of public education work and organizing across the state, the nation’s first marriage state could have been a short-lived triumph. Similarly, in New Mexico in 2013, we prepared for an eventual state Supreme Court ruling on marriage by launching one of our joint campaigns, New Mexico United for Marriage, focused singularly on protecting the ruling, organizing in the legislature, and directing state-wide attention to the joy brought on by the freedom to marry.
The WIN Court program is dedicated to the treatment and recovery of each participant; assisting with developing a transition plan to set them on a journey of a new life and provide the foundation for a successful future filled with possibilities. WIN Court focuses on teaching balance, resilience and empowerment. They complete an intensive supervised program where they work hard to embrace healthy and productive lifestyles through education, substance abuse treatment, mental health and/or individual therapy, vocational training, financial and life skills. The women do the tough introspective work and commit themselves to their recovery. They learn parenting and communication skills in order to reunite with their children and estranged families. The woman are empowered through effective coping skills, self-esteem, confidence, dignity and communication skills. At graduation, they are hopeful and ready to embark into a life of recovery, independence and success. For more information call 702-38-COURT.
Los Angeles, CA It is clear that workers who show up for a shift but are then told to go home because there is not enough work are entitled to wages under California law. The decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, a recent California unpaid wages lawsuit takes it a step further. If you have to call before your scheduled shift is to begin to find out if you really should go in, then you are entitled to wages for a portion of your shift, even if the answer is “no.”
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). 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.)
Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching a state of trial, they can still be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (e.g. the Erie doctrine, for example in the United States), or vice versa. It is also possible for one state to apply the law of another in cases where additionally it may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether the plaintiff has standing to participate in a lawsuit. About 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not even have the ability to even enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are theoretically outside their reach.