A self-represented person, as a practical matter, has no choice but to engage with the court when an oral argument is conducted. A person present in a courtroom likewise has an obligation to acknowledge a judge addressing them.
Usually it wouldn't be contemptuous to fail to appear at oral arguments of a fully briefed matter (e.g. a motion for summary ...
I've never seen such a maneuver attempted, but I have no doubt that it would be unsuccessful.
The Constitution requires that a waiver of one's Fifth Amendment rights be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. It does not require that the waiver be made in a signed writing, in a writing, explicitly, or even verbally.
If the court has authority to ...
Amendment VI provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) over ruled Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) which held that state courts had to appoint counsel if the defendant showed "special circumstances" ...
By "elect to speak for yourself in your own defense", I'm taking that to mean that you will do all the speaking for yourself.
In that case, in england-and-wales you are entitled to the assistance of anyone you like, whether legally qualifed or not. Such a person is known as a McKenzie friend, named after the person who won the right to have one.
Also in English Law, the rule is, if you intended serious harm to a person, and a person dies because of it, that's murder. This definition means that:
You didnt need to intend their death. Its enough to prove you intended to do them serious harm, and they died as a result of what you did. That's murder.
It doesnt have to be the same person. If you ...
Also applies to injuries and in tort law. See the eggshell skull rule.
Which says that if you intend to do a harm, "the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them."
So even if you manage to escape the murder charge, O.J. Simpson style, the victim's family gets another bite at the ...
What you describe could be construed as felony murder in it is a death that happened during the committing of a felony. You were in the process of assaulting the victim and then he slipped and hit his head against a rock and died from that. In some states felony murder carries the death penalty like Nevada for instance. Intentions are pretty clear, you don't ...
This will depend upon the legality of your actions so far, and how closely they are related to the death.
For instance, if you were chasing that person with the intent to kidnap them, torture and then kill them, it’s going to be murder because you are committing a crime and they die because of that.
If instead, you called and invited them to your house with ...
You're describing a murder
In English Law, the act of running from an attacker would be entirely within the realms of 'causation' (e.g. the attack caused them to escape) and is explicitly called out in case law as one of the things that an attacker would expect their victim to do in self-defence, hence remaining part of the attacker's responsibility.
You intended to kill them, you killed them, that's murder
California Penal Code Section 187(a):
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
California Penal Code Section 188(a)(1):
Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.
Crimes Act 1900 s18:
Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to ...
Edited in response to the question being edited
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with Californian law and my answer is based on my experience of English company law and from reading the relevant sections of the code you linked to in your question.
The provision you have quoted does not say that board members are required to have the same voting rights:
If the ...
If you want to keep things secret, don’t tell people
It is 100% legal for me to read your text messages, letters and emails, listen to your voicemail, watch your videos and look at your pictures and unless there is an expectation of privacy.
Your mobile phone would normally be considered private. However, if you give it to me and tell me the password then ...
Yes. By the fact that A did not take steps to protect the messages from B and used B's phone, A has no reasonable expectation of privacy from B and B is free to read and share those messages with anyone B sees fit.
Does Bob have a right to be presented such evidence or obtain a copy before a pre-trial conference, without his lawyer's co-operation?
Bob can't both be represented by a lawyer and represent himself at the same time. It's either one or the other.
So, the answer is "no" while the lawyer is still his lawyer. If Bob wants the evidence, he has two ...
Let's start with:
Bob's lawyer does not appear to be co-operating with Bob's wish to request the video.
Bob's lawyer does not have latitude to "not cooperate" with Bob. Bob is the client, Bob's attorney is bound to treat him as such. If Bob is unhappy, he may retain a different counsel. If Bob is receiving defense through a Public Defender, he ...
We can't possibly explain why, you would have to ask them for an explanation. It is a bit on the legally-questionable side, but that really depends on what all is in the letter, and what other letters you got. The Committee on Admissions and Awards and the Graduate Group in X almost certainly is not authorized to make official offers on behalf of the ...
The DMV technical manual describes a legitimate title, the "most legitimate" being "Complying Pink Title with Blue Border", from 12/03:
The face of the title is pink with a blue border and a white opaque
state seal. The reverse side of the title is blue. VOID appears on the
title if photocopied. The vehicle history (brand) information is
Here is the technical manual: you want 11.015. It says:
New Registered Owner Section—The name, address, and driver license or
identification card (DL/ID) number for each new registered owner must
be entered on the appropriate lines.
If an owner has not been issued a California DL/ID card, their
out-of-state DL/ID number, if any, is acceptable. Print the
Because of the First Amendment, there are no general law prohibiting publicizing the name of a criminal suspect in the US. Government records are public to some extent in most states, therefore a person might demand the name of suspects involved in crimes under a state's public records law. In Washington state, there are some specific crime-related ...
It's exactly the opposite. All arrests are public record under California Government Code 6254(f):
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law
enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the
extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety
of a person ...
There is no cognizable grounds for a criminal prosecution in those circumstances.
There are also no cognizable grounds for Bob to deny paternity, or to bring a civil action against Alice. Bob will be obligated to pay child support and to have all of the responsibilities of an unmarried co-parent with Alice.
The judgement is an asset of the estate
The executor can approach the court to have it enforced until the estate is would up.
As an asset, it must be dealt with in accordance with the will and bequeathed as instructed. This will involve approaching the court and having the judgement debt transferred to the relevant beneficiaries or keeping the estate active ...
That would be when he does so willfully and lewdly. Simple nudity is not illegal. See for instance in re Dallas W., where the court found that sexual intent is necessary: "'something more than mere nudity' must be shown", citing In re Smith (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 36. A propos this incident, the reported partial erection is not irrelevant.
There is no clear answer or dividing line regarding when a hotel expense is a necessary expenses, which an employer is required by law to reimburse an employee for in California.
The requirement to reimburse private sector employees for their expenses in California (which cannot be contactually waived, see Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 951 ...
The complaint alleges that Activision Blizzard continues to underpay women (¶¶ 53-63), refuse to promote women (¶¶ 64-74), terminate women because of their sex (¶¶ 75-84), retaliate against women for opposing sex discrimination (¶¶ 85-94), and so on. So the allegation is that the unlawful conduct is ongoing.
It is also not correct to say that DOJ normally ...
From the complaint, p. 9, DFEH brings the lawsuit for group relief in the public interest and on behalf of the female employees, citing CA code sections 12961 and 12965. Some kind of parens-patriae invocation, I suppose.
A government always has standing to enforce violations of its own laws in its own jurisdiction. The harm to its legally protected interest is its interest in enforcing its own laws. While the forum here is a civil action, the basic concept is the same one that authorizes a government to enforce its own criminal laws.
Also, a government agency may seek fines ...
Does Alice have to expressly announce if she or friends or family
would be recording and obtain therein the implied or an express
consent due to a covenant of good faith duty or since they don’t have
a contractual relationship, and Bob acts out of a statutory right of
Alice imposing in particular a duty on Bob, she has no such duty?
Alice and her counsel ...
At what distance does the hotel stay change from a frivolous expense to a reasonable expense?
The task of defining clear-cut benchmarks is within the legislator's province, and therefore beyond the judiciary's scope. At the same time, it is unlikely that legislation would define minutiae such as the minimum distance that entitles employee to reimbursement ...
In the end, either you and your company come to an agreement, or the matter goes to court. Any agreement will be cheaper than going to court, even if you win. In court, the judge would look at the facts, and decide whether the hotel was a work-related travel expense (quite sure it is) and whether you had the right to create that work-related travel expense.
An employee must follow the lawful and reasonable directions of their employer
An employer must reimburse the employee for reasonable work expenses
In both cases “reasonable” is an objective legal standard. It doesn’t matter what the employer or the employee thinks, the direction or the expenses are reasonable or they aren’t. That said, if the employer and ...
You have two questions here. A search by the government must be reasonable, under the 4th Amendment, meaning that a warrant is required or exigent circumstances must exist. Simple entering (without searching) is governed by Civil Code 1954. The law governing residential rentals is not explicit, because a a dormitory might be considered not to be a "...
In E&W this might be covered by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Regulation 3(1) prohibits "unfair commercial practices".
Regulation 2(1) defines a commercial practice as:
any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or commercial
communication (including ...