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 ...
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 (...
26
Your ability to assert your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not limited to cases where you are on trial or have been accused of a crime. Your ability to assert that right is also not an absolute bar against being ordered to testify: if you are given immunity, you can be forced to testify.
Alice cannot hold Bob in contempt – only the ...
12
This really depends if Alice's questions are during Direct Examination or Cross Examination.
If direct, Alice called Bob to the stand and Bob is testifying to his account of the events in support of Alice's client. Because of this Alice should be asking Bob to speak more on the matters and designed to elicit answers that are Bob's own words. Ordinarily ...
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,...
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
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 ...
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, ...
6
You are deeply confused, probably by the blogs of a conspiracy theorist (perhaps discussing the Sovereign Citizen Movement mentioned in the comments), whom it would be helpful for you to reference.
In fact, people with and without lawyers claim common law rights in the ordinary courts of the UK every day, in the lion's share of civil lawsuits. For example:
...
6
No.
You cannot be held liable for violating the EULA if you have never used the software and are only reporting what people who did use it told you. Of course, people bring groundless lawsuits all the time and you might have to defend such a lawsuit if you are sued.
In some places you could be subpoenaed to disclose your sources, and in others, a reporter'...
6
Don't bother spending your money on a lawyer: those threats sound like bluff. You can always hire one when your former employer brings you to court, which (taking into account the absurdity of his claims) will most certainly be "never".
Don't sign any agreements now, unless you need something to be signed (and in that case, make sure you understand what you'...
6
TLDR: the 5th Amendment is big dynamite, almost entirely made of unintended consequences. There are much better ways to do this.
Anyway, Bob swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That prohibits him from giving either of the answers he is being railroaded into, so he should say "I cannot answer in this format".
Bob needs to ...
5
This is a question of civil procedure more so than law. The customs and practices of civil procedure are established by legal precedent, not laws made by legislatures.
In general, a witness can answer a question however they want as long as it is responsive to the question. Litigators will attempt to bully a witness into certain types of answers, but this ...
4
The answer is going to vary from state to state and, even within a state, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
However, in general terms, non-judicial court officers, such as clerks of court and prothonotaries, will have specific tasks delegated to them by the court; they can make decisions on matters that the legal system does not consider to require ...
4
First off, the concept of "the whole truth" is legally undefined. It cannot possibly mean "everything that you know that is connected to this question", since otherwise a witness would be required to drone on and on for hours. Second, there is no way to determine what percentage of witnesses are not "telling the whole truth". We can be fairly certain that ...
4
A majority of the justices support the first opinion, written by Johnson, so Madsen (writing a separate concurring opinion) is referring to the previous opinion. "at 12" means "on p. 12" (special law talk), so at the top of p. 12 you see the quoted text. "n. 9" means "footnote number 9" (which is on p. 12).
4
Witness demeanor is absolutely relevant, both to evaluate the credibility of a witness and in a matter such as a child custody case, to evaluate the merits of what constitutes the "best interests of the child" which hinges, in part, on the interpersonal social skills of a parent in dealing with the parent's children.
Before I start investing time and ...
4
Some of this will vary by Jurisdiction, that is by country, and by state in the US, or by province in some other countries. This answer will be focused on the US. Other answers may address other countries.
Why did they only arrest the attacker and not the victim?
There is not enough information here to say, but stories from participants or witnesses ...
3
There are a number of manipulative things that an attorney can do (on cross-examination, to an opposing witness): badgering, leading, and limiting testimony to yes-no responses. The ABA describes "Qualities of a good cross-examination", which encourages questions answered "no". For instance, opposing counsel may ask "You have never used the Mark 4 Toxotron ...
3
Regarding the second part of your question:
The 7th Amendment does not apply in state court, so any right to a jury trial there would depend upon the constitution of the State of Texas (specifically Article I, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution). This is the case because the Bill of Rights applies by its terms only to the federal government. Under the ...
3
This would be virtually impossible to do from scratch. If you had the guidance of someone who successfully pursued a similar legal action it might be possible.
In theory you should be able to pursue grievances in court by becoming well versed in the applicable laws and rules, having impeccable attention to detail, exceptional deductive and writing skills,...
3
Why do you think this is a hypothetical case? The facts almost exactly match R v Rogerson ; R v McNamara (No 57) [2016] NSWSC 1207 (2 September 2016) - 3 men enter a storage unit, 2 men and one dead body leave. Each of the men claims the other committed the murder - the DPP charged both, they were tried together, the jury convicted both and they both ...
3
As an aside, it isn't uncommon to see case captions, especially in older cases, that are captioned, for example, "Jones v. District Court".
These lawsuits involve something of a legal fiction and usually involve what used to be known as "mandamus actions". In this context, a mandamus action is a form of appeal to a higher court with appellate or supervisory ...
3
A court can neither sue nor be sued as it is not a legal person.
The state (read government) can be (subject to sovereign immunity) in its administrative arm (i.e. not the judicial or legislative branches).
For your particular examples:
A suit filed by a fired employee (e.g. a court stenographer),
the court has no employees. Court stenographers et al ...
3
You can report that said clerk to the Monitoring Information System called SIWASMARI. Please don't bribe them as you will not change our criminal justice system.
You can also send some mail to the Monitoring Court Body located in
Kepala Badan Pengawasan MA RI Jl. Jend. Ahmad Yani Kav. 58 By Pass Cempaka Putih Timur Jakarta Pusat – 13011
You have to be ...
3
The Limitations Act of 1980 and its predecessors apply to civil actions brought by private individuals. It is not a criminal statute of limitations. I will answer with regard to civil cases, rather than criminal ones.
Section 40 of the Limitations Act of 1980 incorporates by reference a schedule of transition provisions that govern this question, and when a ...
3
if the witness ends up being not favorable to your case, then you can
have the judge declare him to be a "hostile" witness, therefore
allowing you to ask leading questions.
This is not really accurate.
A typically case where a witness would be called a "hostile witness" for leading question purposes would be a case where the plaintiff calls the ...
3
Hope you have a good prosecutor and a sympathetic judge
"They asked repeatedly how much she had to drink ..."
Objection: Asked and answered
"how she could claim not to remember certain details"
Objection: Calls for a conclusion/speculation. The witness is not a brain scientist, she cannot speculate as to why people remember some details and not others. ...
3
It sounds to me like the parties made proposals with an intent to draw them up and formalize them but didn't intend to form binding agreements.
The first agreement sounds vague. The second was committed to writing, suggesting that the written deal was to be the real agreement, and not executed. In the last case, it doesn't appear that there was an agreement ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
