Jan 16, 2015 · How to beat any court case. 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 …
Compiled and published by J. R. Butler, Beat The Court .Com CARL MILLER On The United States Constitution Carl Shows You How: To keep and exercise your God-Given rights To understand and implement the laws To argue and win in court To handle cops, traffic stops, and judges 2 THE BEST OF CARL MILLER
If your legal issue involves things like First Amendment rights -- such as freedom of speech, press, and religion -- or privacy rights or due process right, a constitutional law lawyer may be able to help. Use FindLaw to hire a local constitutional law lawyer to assist you with your individual rights issue or help you understand how ...
Constitutional Lawyers. Constitutional law is what defines the relationship of the branches of a nation’s government – its executive, legislative and judiciary branches – and the relationships between its national (or federal) government and those of its subsections. In the United States of America these subsections are officially called ...
clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified in holding the law unconstitutional. This principle of course is in line with the rule that doubts in the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary (you).
Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, it was obvious that a JURY of "PEERS" must be people who actually know the defendant. How else would they be able to judge motive and intent?
S. 28 (1927). This is a search and seizure case which sets constitutional standards which we talked about in the Am Jur Sections. I especially want you to pay attention to note #3 here: Constitutional provisions for the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the court to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment therein. When a federal officer participates with a state official in a search so that in substance and in effect it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use in evidence of the things seized is to be tested in federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking were exclusively the federal agent.
First you need to understand that at the beginning of every one of these laws there is an enabling clause that basically says how the law shall be brought into being. And there is an argument that says that the law that is presently here today is based on some law in the past. On almost every one of these constitutions all the way up through our history, through articles of confederation, through the U. S. Constitution, and through various state constitutions they‟ll have an enabling law in the beginning. The enabling law allows them to bring their version of the constitution on what rights are there today; the rights that were had before are carried on, plus are further delineated by this constitution. But at no time do they have a right to abridge the previous document.
And also we should tell you that if anyone violates your rights, title 42 USC 1983: Every person who under color of statute, ordinance or regulation, customary usage of any state or territory, or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the depravation of any rights or immunities secured by the constitution or the laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law suit in equity or other proper proceeding for the redress. For the purpose of this section any act of congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Not The State! "You have rights that antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or retrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succintly stated as follows:
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
While juries usually get it right, sometimes, it's not about whether a particular matter is emotional or simple, complicated or straightforward. Sometimes people make decisions on who has the nicer suit, or who is more pleasant to deal with. So even if your case is good or even if it's not so strong.
Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
Right of Self-Representation. Defendants have the right to represent themselves, known as appearing pro se , in a criminal trial. A court has the obligation to determine whether the defendant fully understands the risks of waiving the right to counsel and is doing so voluntarily.
The right to representation by counsel in a criminal proceeding is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The government does not always go to great lengths to fulfill its duty to make counsel available to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. In general, however, defendants still have the right to counsel ...
Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “ [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”. This has applied in federal prosecutions for most of the nation’s history.
The right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require public defenders. Individuals have the right to representation by an attorney once a criminal case against them has commenced, and the Supreme Court has also recognized the right to counsel during certain preliminary proceedings.
Deprivation of a defendant’s right to counsel, or denial of a choice of attorney without good cause , should result in the reversal of the defendant’s conviction, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006).
The first question you're going to have when you open that envelope is, could this have possibly been me driving the car when the ticket happened? Is that even my car in the picture? If it is, do I drive on that particular road ever? Am I typically at work or otherwise occupied at the time that ticket was issued?
Given the above statement, you probably think you should just pay the ticket. But no. And we aren't advising you to pursue a quixotic quest like the law school professor we mentioned earlier - the one who spent hundreds of dollars and countless years of his life fighting a ticket for fun.
Depending on where you live and what happened, you might be able to handle this yourself. For example, if you are in Washington, and you were not the driver, it really is as simple as swearing that you were not the driver under oath through a sworn written statement. Bye-bye ticket.
What Happens After the Judgment Is Entered? A judgment can turn an otherwise uncollectible old credit account into a collectible amount of money. For instance, a statute of limitations may prevent a creditor from collecting funds you owe them, after a set number of years. But that same creditor may initiate a lawsuit against you—hoping ...
A judgment typically consists of the debt owed plus interest. The interest can accumulate from the time the judgment is recorded until the time it is paid in full. Other charges that may be levied are court fees, attorney fees, ...
Depending on your state, a judgment remains valid from 5 to 20 years or more. 5  6  That's a long time for a debt to follow you around. Furthermore, judgments show up on credit reports for up to seven years and may appear on background checks until the judgments expire, whichever is longer. 7 .
Under state law, a judgment is a lien on the property, which opens up a host of possibilities for creditors. 1 . If your state allows it, the judgment can file a levy with the court and your employer, instructing the employer to garnish a portion of your wages, to pay the creditor. Garnishments may also target bank accounts.