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. 
His lawyer said he reckoned he would win his lawsuit and get the money if they ever got started on the trial; but then there was ways to put it off a long time, and Judge Thatcher knowed how to do it And he said people allowed there'd be another trial to get me away from him and give me to the widow for my guardian, and they guessed it would win this time.
Eventually, I found my sweet spot, talking to jurors as I would to my mother-in-law: a smart, empathetic woman I loved and admired and who brought out the best side of me. Think about someone in your life such as this. Stephen King writes his books toward an imagined ‘ideal reader.’ Make your closing argument toward an ‘ideal juror’ who you respect and like and who brings out the best in you. If you’re not sure you’re hitting the right tone, try to practice your opening on your own mother-in-law. The advice you get from a nonlawyer can be eye-opening.”
Daily Sun Cornell Chronicle Cornell Review Journal of Empirical Legal Studies International Law Journal Cornell Lunatic Kitsch Magazine International Affairs Review Cornell Policy Review Journal of Law and Public Policy Law Review Legal Information Institute Oyez Project Administrative Science Quarterly ILR Review Journal of Architecture Diacritics Epoch New German Critique arXiv
The International Journal of Legal Information is the official publication of the International Association of Law Libraries. Publishing three times a year, it seeks to advance the exchange of legal information throughout the world. Under the direction of its international editorial board and advisors, the IJLI serves the global community of law librarians, legal scholars, and practitioners through the publication of original articles, conference papers, bibliographies, book reviews, the International Calendar of conferences and events, and other documents concerning all aspects of law and law-related information.
But these attacks backfired and motivated the conservative base. They saw that the attacks on Hagedorn’s school were in effect imposing an unconstitutional religious test: that you cannot be a Christian and a judge. These groups were functionally persecuting Hegedorn for his religious beliefs. And whether voters held those same beliefs or not, they didn’t fall for the bigoted attacks. When voters heard about this, they were upset and motivated to take action. The conservative grassroots went out and knocked on doors, texted friends and family members, and delivered more votes for Hagedorn.  
During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in equity. An example of that distinction survives today in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The fusion of common law and equity in England in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit." In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity in federal practice, in favor of a single form referred to as a "civil action."

Oakland, CA The District Court for the Northern District of California has approved a settlement in a class action California unpaid wages lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Bisaccia v. Revel Systems, a group of inside sales representatives claim that Revel Systems, Inc. (Revel) failed to pay overtime wages as required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the terms of the settlement, a group of 149 plaintiffs will share a total of $2.75 million.
Women in Need of Change, or WIN Court, is the opportunity for chronic women offenders to invest in themselves and their future. WIN Court is a trauma-responsive court that addresses the behaviors of chronic women offenders arrested in the city of Las Vegas. WIN Court focuses on the individual’s core issues in relationship to trauma and co-occurring mental health behaviors. These traumas contribute to their choices of substance abuse, criminal activity and recidivism. The program offers each individual woman a toolbox to address past traumas in order to move forward to a future of exciting new choices. In a safe environment, the program builds on trust and respect to be able to identify the trauma, employ strategies to normalize the symptoms and manage the related triggers and their reactions. WIN Court addresses chronic women offenders who have amassed misdemeanor offenses within the jurisdiction of the city of Las Vegas change their lives. The participants volunteer to enter into an 18-month to 24-month commitment. The basic requirements may include:
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. 
Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout contained in this Web site and in the sites of other RobecoSAM AG companies or their related, affiliated and subsidiary companies are the exclusive property of RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies and may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent of RobecoSAM AG or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies. Permission is granted to print copies of this document, and to display and use this document with a computer solely for personal use.
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.
Residents use light rail during the afternoon hours in downtown Phoenix. Valley Metro CEO Scott Smith says he hopes to fix the light rail’s public image by implementing a new code of conduct that prohibits unruly behavior and gives light-rail security guards more flexibility to remove passengers. Valley Metro says there has been an increase in bad behavior on the light rail — actions that don’t rise to a criminal offense but do cause other passengers to feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Nick Oza/The Republic
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]

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.)
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.

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. 
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.
It would have taken six or seven months to get exact numbers. But every expert we talked to agreed that the volume was much higher for the Trump administration. The question then became why. As I wrote in an earlier story, when the losing streak started, it’s kind of like relationships. When one or two don’t work out, you can plausibly blame the other people. When the numbers mount, you have to think, maybe the problem is me, that is, maybe I’m doing something wrong.
A civil case, more commonly known as a lawsuit or controversy, begins when a plaintiff files a document called a complaint with a court, informing the court of the wrong that the plaintiff has allegedly suffered because of the defendant, and requesting a remedy. The remedy sought may be money, an injunction, which requires the defendant to perform or refrain from performing some action, or a declaratory judgment, which determines that the plaintiff has certain legal rights. The remedy will be prescribed by the court if the plaintiff wins the case. A civil case can also be arbitrated through arbitration, which may result in a faster settlement, with lower costs, than could be obtained by going through a trial.
If you find yourself up against a lawyer who won't stop rattling off legal citations or won't let you get a word in edgewise, you'll have to stand up for yourself. Tell the judge that you are representing yourself without a lawyer because you can't afford or justify the expense, and that you'll rely on the judge to apply the correct law and reach the right conclusions. Many judges will make an effort to keep the proceedings comprehensible to a self-represented party -- and will take steps to rein in an opposing lawyer who tries to take unfair advantage.
But these attacks backfired and motivated the conservative base. They saw that the attacks on Hagedorn’s school were in effect imposing an unconstitutional religious test: that you cannot be a Christian and a judge. These groups were functionally persecuting Hegedorn for his religious beliefs. And whether voters held those same beliefs or not, they didn’t fall for the bigoted attacks. When voters heard about this, they were upset and motivated to take action. The conservative grassroots went out and knocked on doors, texted friends and family members, and delivered more votes for Hagedorn.  

As we interviewed experts on the subject, including former Justice Department officials who keep track of these things, we realized that these numbers were extraordinary. No one had an exact count comparing, say, the Obama administration’s record in court after two years with the Trump administration. But as we researched the subject, we found studies estimating the average “win rate” for administrations in the courts was somewhere around 70% whereas the Trump administration appeared to be losing at least 70% of the time.

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.”
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]
×