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.

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.


Nathan had been asked by the SEC to hold Musk in contempt over a Feb. 19 tweet where the regulator said he improperly posted material information about Tesla's vehicle production outlook without first seeking approval from company lawyers. The SEC said pre-approval had been a core element of the October 2018 settlement, which resolved a lawsuit over Musk's...
Once you know the elements you'll have to prove to win your case, you can figure out what types of evidence will help you prove each key fact. However, not every kind of evidence can be presented in a courtroom: Complicated rules of evidence determine whether a particular document, statement, or item is admissible in court. Although you don't have to master every detail of these rules, you should do enough research to make sure that you'll be able to present the evidence you need to win.
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. 
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.
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.
The second service of LII Bulletin is a preview and analysis service for upcoming Supreme Court cases. Subscribers to the Bulletin receive legal analysis of upcoming Supreme Court cases with the intention of providing sophisticated yet accessible previews of the cases.[18] LII selectively recruits second- and third-year students of the Cornell Law School to comprise the LII Bulletin editorial board.[18] The Bulletin editorial board is responsible for every aspect of the journal's management, from selecting decisions for commentary to researching, writing, editing, and producing the journal content in HTML.[20]
Lawsuits can become additionally complicated as more parties become involved (see joinder). Within a "single" lawsuit, there can be any number of claims and defenses (all based on numerous laws) between any number of plaintiffs or defendants. Each of these participants can bring any number of cross claims and counterclaims against each other, and even bring additional parties into the suit on either side after it progresses. In reality however, courts typically have some power to sever claims and parties into separate actions if it is more efficient to do so. A court can do this if there is not a sufficient overlap of factual issues between the various associates, separating the issues into different lawsuits.
×