88
That will amount to refusal to testify.
The judge will warn you that, for a summoned witness, a refusal to testify means contempt of court and you will be asked that question again. After a second "No" you go to jail for contempt of court, and the trial will most likely be adjourned until you make up your mind to answer "Yes".
45
Yes, it's actally happened. Several outfits have filed cases by the hundreds, and they were even literally photocopies.
And it works rather well, until one victim stands up for what's right - and then the house of cards comes tumbling down.
Molski
For instance, due to a minor ADA issue (toilet paper roll 2" too low etc.) poor Jarek Molski was injured ...
answered Nov 23 '20 at 1:35
Harper - Reinstate Monica
12.8k2 gold badges18 silver badges55 bronze badges
35
Let's be quite brutal here.
Inexperienced driver doesn't mean the driver made a mistake. Lots of friends in the car doesn't mean they interferred with his driving. Loud music in the car is totally legal. "Perhaps was distracted" - "perhaps" you were distracted by looking at the passengers of this car instead of yielding?
It seems that you ...
34
What should I do?
Don't get intimidated, don't sign/accept/submit to his "agreement" now that you are securing employment elsewhere, and make sure that henceforth all your communications with the CEO & his startup be --or continue to be-- in writing.
The CEO's attempt to be reimbursed is pure non-sense because hitherto there is no mutually agreed ...
33
Just like every other contested assertion
They hear the testimony (evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, redirect), look at whatever physical evidence and submissions on the law that the party wishes to make. The other party will do the same. They weigh the evidence including such vital considerations as to whether they think one party or the other or both ...
30
What happens if I negatively answer the court oath regarding the truth?
You would be given few more opportunities to rectify, very likely with the judge pressing you to answering properly. But a persistent negative will put you in [direct,] civil contempt of court for disrupting the proceedings. It is called direct because the seemingly vexatious conduct is ...
30
In England & Wales
A witness who attends court but who refuses to take the oath or
affirmation, or who improperly refuses to give evidence, is liable to
be fined or imprisoned.
In the magistrates’ court, s.97(4) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
enables the court to impose up to one month’s imprisonment or a fine
up to £2500 for any of the following acts ...
29
This is normal. It only seems imbalanced because only the prosecutor has been able to call witnesses so far.
Under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 611:
Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading ...
27
No international body has jurisdiction
Australia is a sovereign nation which means it has sole jurisdiction over its immigration policy. So, short answer: no international body has jurisdiction.
Who does have jurisdiction?
As it seems that the decision made is that the points you have been assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP)...
27
There is no limit, per se, but intentional disruption of the courts is regarded as Vexatious Litigation and in some countries (the united-kingdom for example) the court may prohibit a person from making any further applications or carrying out litigation without permission.
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an ...
27
Can the courts hold someone indefinitely for contempt of court?
Yes. This is civil contempt which is imposed to compel compliance with a court order that the disobedient person has the ability to comply with, rather than criminal contempt which is limited to a set time period to punish disrespect for the Court in an instance that is over and complete.
Often,...
19
In some jurisdictions, California probably being the most well-known in the US, there are Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which allow a defendant to file an anti-SLAPP claim (for sake of clarity I'm going to keep calling that person the "defendant") when the plaintiff's suit appears to have been filed for the purpose of ...
19
A judge has the authority to determine what law applies to a case and to instruct the jury accordingly, and also has the authority to determine which evidence is admissible.
Presentation of a defense, in practice, involves presentation of evidence supporting a legal theory.
In order to be admissible in evidence in an evidentiary hearing or trial, the ...
17
No.
The government may not establish laws to keep members of a particular race out of the jury pool. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, (1879) (“The statute of West Virginia, which, in effect, singles out and denies to colored citizens the right and privilege of participating in the administration of the law, as jurors, because of their color, though ...
16
In Germany there are fairly wide-ranging reasons to legally refuse to testify; close relatives and spouses don't need to help prosecuting their loved ones and it is legally impossible to put an accused under oath.
Even if not accused, one can legally refuse to testify (let alone under oath) if that statement would be self-incriminating.
But your question ...
15
"CAM CONTR/ACC 2>CONT" refers to F.S. 106.08(7)(B), under which Artiles is charged with "making or receiving two or more campaign contributions over or in excess of the limits," as well as engaging in a conspiracy to do so.
"ELECTION CODE/FALS" refers to F.S. 104.011(1), under which Artiles is charged with "swearing or ...
13
What if someone purposefuly tries to file a court case every minute to disrupt the court can the person be punished in India or USA?
There is no official rate limit, but in the USA that person might be blacklisted as vexatious litigant. This blacklisting triggers a "filter-out" process intended to validate that the lawsuit is not blatantly ...
11
The judge would reject the defendant's guilty plea and proceed to trial.
This is a common part of a plea colloquy, which is a standard (often scripted) conversation that occurs between the judge and a defendant who is pleading guilty to ensure that the plea is voluntary and made with knowledge of its possible consequences. It seeks to ensure that the ...
10
What should I do?
I would take one of two approaches. Either
Ignore him until he actually takes you to court, at which point hire a lawyer, or
Hire a lawyer now and demand that he communicate with you only through your lawyer.
I would prefer the first course of action because I assume that either he will run out of steam eventually and stop bothering you,...
10
It depends on the situation
In a criminal case
When the government is prosecuting a criminal case, they are represented by a prosecutor. For a federal case, that prosecutor would be a United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA). For a state case, they'd be a District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney, or Assistant District Attorney.
...
10
A case can be "dismissed" at (most) any time (however, the further along in the process a case is, the less likely a judge will allow a case to be dismissed without very good reason).
A case can be dismissed with or without "prejudice", which in this legal context means essentially "finality". A case dismissed with prejudice ...
8
You don't.
The only proper venue to raise the concern you do would be an Australian court or administrative agency process.
Each country is the judge of its own immigration policies.
There are no international courts which would have jurisdiction over the dispute you describe.
8
What are the things that I should prepare for this session, in terms
of order of dress, language, content?
Dress
In an actual court room, suit and tie is preferred for men and formal dress for women for lawyers and professionals.
Your "Sunday best" or what you would wear to work on a typical day would be appropriate if you don't have a suit and tie or ...
8
There is no such law mandating this layout, nor is there any law permitting the defendant to demand a change to it. The arrangement seems most likely to have been driven by security concerns when courts began removing "the dock" and letting the defendant past the bar to sit with his attorneys. One court has also concluded that it was meant to assist the ...
8
While trials don't have a set time, generally the length of a trial is based on its complexity (and to a certain degree, also the gravity of the charge). Simpler cases (e.g. breaking and entering) will generally take less time to hear than more complex cases (e.g. a violation of proper calculation procedure of an SEC mandated income report concerning ...
8
TL;DNR: YES!
A "motion to dismiss" a suit asks the Court do exactly what you say. It asks the Court to dismiss the suit as legally invalid, even if the facts alleged in the suit are correct. A motion to dismiss is usually filed in response to the initial complaint. A defendant can ask for dismissal on a variety of grounds. These range from, "this court ...
7
This is not a quote, per se, rather, it is a meme. It is attributed to Gilbert Gray, and according to The Independent Saturday 7 March 1998 was originally:
"I take it, Mr Gray, that your client is familiar with the maxim: Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Indeed my lord, responded the QC drily.
"In Barnsley they speak of little else."
However, ...
7
Generally speaking, courts take whatever time they need to write their decision and then release it close to immediately. In cases where a judge believes she has the information she needs, she may rule "from the bench," announcing a decision and entering an order for the parties to comply, and then follow up with a written order later.
The research process ...
7
Not at all
Well, except that a contempt of court charge would also apply.
The bailiff would make an arrest and transfer custody to the police who would follow their normal process. Witnesses would be interviewed and ultimately testify. The judge , as a witness would not be able to hear the case so it would be brought before another judge.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible