2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@kinda_13 2 күн бұрын
bro you are saving my ass every day a decade later
@drg111yt 7 күн бұрын
But who CALLs the Grand Jury and how are they called and composed????
@USLawEssentials 7 күн бұрын
RANdomly. Citizens get a notice in the mail from the court, show up, and if selected do their civic duty.
@drg111yt 7 күн бұрын
@@USLawEssentials Thank you for getting me nearer the full tral.
@kennethkinsfather6150 8 күн бұрын
Shoutout to Darryl Brooks for sending me here
@joninja7916 12 күн бұрын
From the depp trial. So basically you can't put words in someone else's mouth especially when they're not in the court with you.
@Sizdothyx 15 күн бұрын
Who's here from the Dogpack404 videos?
@j.murray8957 19 күн бұрын
so sue the police department not the officer...
@RachelLovelace 21 күн бұрын
Crystal clear! Thank you!
@ericklymn5416 24 күн бұрын
Yea. Tell that title IVD/child. They violate the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment
@mahmmadAbraahim-o5w 24 күн бұрын
Mahamadabrhim
@butchjones1486 25 күн бұрын
Good info. Makes it a little clearer.
@user-st8jk4cn6u 27 күн бұрын
Qualified immunity is a foolish idea that courts dreamed up so that cops aren't held to accountability when they make a mistake or break the law even on purpose. When that happens the public (you and me) are the ones who have to pay for those mistakes because fines and judgements are paid for with our tax dollars from city, county and state taxes. The cops who break the law don't have to pay because of qualified immunity. QI must be stopped. The bill to stop it has been tabled in congress by corrupt politicians. Write your congressmen/women.
@yelo7242 Ай бұрын
Subtitles show the word "quark witnesses". In fact, this is "court witnesses". This is for non-native speakers.
@hyojinlee Ай бұрын
Thank you for this video!
@Tns85 Ай бұрын
Why? Would you need the case for controversy clause and when
@USLawEssentials Ай бұрын
Good question. There are at least two reasons. First, the idea is to make sure the judicial branch (federal court system) doesn't intrude on the powers of other branches of government - the legislative and executive branches. The courts can only hear certain types of cases and can't issue advisory opinions. Second, the requirement that the court can only hear actual cases and controversies helps prevent the courts from being overburdened. If anyone could bring a case without having suffered actual harm, we would encourage frivolous litigation where no one actually suffered an injury.
@Tns85 Ай бұрын
Thank you for explaining that to me! I am a first year paralegal student and sometimes youtube Can be a great reference thank you!
@terencewinters2154 Ай бұрын
Correct .
@nyamuochpaul4279 Ай бұрын
Thank you
@sheetalgowrea9108 Ай бұрын
Do yu have the video on specific and minimum contacts please?
@haafizxhmr Ай бұрын
is it the same with striking out?
@Ketoklubz Ай бұрын
Are civil wrongful termination cases worse in federal court ? What if a defendant from the same state is hiding and we can’t find her to serve ?
@annag3862 Ай бұрын
I would just add that it shall be made on the same grounds. A lot of students, like me, fall for this trick, when JMOL is brought on different grounds
@MurdaQ50 Ай бұрын
so i had tickets, i had zoom calls coming up, then that same day got scheduled as an expert, what does that mean
@JesUSking17 Ай бұрын
Well done gentlemen. *nod*
@luciokeyboards Ай бұрын
Here after dr. Disrespects tweet
@dominicc8332 2 ай бұрын
Yes yes, it all makes sense now. Bravo! Great work!
@NelmarSen 2 ай бұрын
0:50 wouldnt that be called a fee simple defeasable? glenda gave it to alexa under 1 condition
@askmshaymes 2 ай бұрын
Are you still responding to these chats via email?
@albertotorres321 2 ай бұрын
Muy bien muy útil que tengan un muy buen día
@lamar5803 2 ай бұрын
Great Education!
@filho4437 2 ай бұрын
Grand Jury's are more of a shield for the prosecutor than a defendant.
@truthfreedom8506 2 ай бұрын
What is the official commentary of the N.Y.U.C.C. called?
@USLawEssentials 2 ай бұрын
There are official comments to the UCC but I'm not aware of official state-specific comments.
@ez3333 2 ай бұрын
😇👍
@ez3333 2 ай бұрын
😇😂
@RajaMuzamal-ig5xe 2 ай бұрын
Sexy dikhana full sex dikhana sexy dikhana full
@lakeishamcfall4833 3 ай бұрын
Great stuff and I have t taken civ pro yet!
@tracyhazelton1878 3 ай бұрын
What can I do if the judge in circuit court has denied me due process? He is allowing the prosecutor to use recycled documents and holding me to a deferred prosecution agreement that I did not have any knowledge of or given a copy of until after the defense attorney had withdrawn from the case. I have tried to withdraw my plea and the judge refused the motion.
@marvinbrando722 3 ай бұрын
It is basically a santa inquisition
@RowlandKolajo 3 ай бұрын
thank you very much. 👌👍
@matthaytham1886 3 ай бұрын
I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT INTERPLEADER IS! HOLY COW! Why is it needs to be English before being understood? Why wouldn't I get it with Filipino words? Thanks for the good animation
@YvetteWilliams-xm6vs 3 ай бұрын
😢😂🎉❤
@omegaservices5909 3 ай бұрын
Helpful
@Turalcar 3 ай бұрын
If David didn't see her enter the bank this can probably be objected to as speculation. If that's because Debbie told David she was going to the bank, this is hearsay but allowed under the "statement against interest" exception.
@USLawEssentials 3 ай бұрын
Remember, for an opposing party statement you don't need the declaration against interest hook. .
@Turalcar 3 ай бұрын
@@USLawEssentials I suppose they don't need the declaration because if one side brings it up it's almost by definition against the opposing party's interest.
@USLawEssentials 3 ай бұрын
@@Turalcar It's a little different. When you're dealing with a party you don't need the statement against interest. Please look at FRE 801(d)(2)
@Turalcar 3 ай бұрын
@@USLawEssentials Weird. So it's not even an exception. Just not hearsay
@USLawEssentials 3 ай бұрын
@@Turalcar Right.I think the hearsay rules get a little odd (IMHO) but the distinctions are important if you're taking a law school exam or a bar exam.
@jeffking8890 3 ай бұрын
The Supreme Court decisions in the 1920s cases of Fairchild v. Hughes and Frothingham v. Mellon were wrong as there is no concept to limit bring a case to just 3 requirements or even the term of “standing”. The Government can act without a Constitutional basis which the remedy will not be able to redress the grievance or grievances. Even the act of passing a law in Congress can create an injury to the States as the Legislature had no authority to pass a bill or act that was not already in its power. The Federal Government has passed too many laws, bills, and acts in contradiction to the powers that were reserved for the States.
@kiranshah8011 3 ай бұрын
3 sister one brother one brother is expire after marrage his wife and two sons after expire his wife doing new marrage his mother inlow is only in his house three sister married now his mother is agree his properties is given three daughter hosekta hai please answer
@monkeybudge 3 ай бұрын
A lot of Trump fans need to understand standing
@coolmom5572 3 ай бұрын
thanks for explaining clearly what to expect at a Discovery for average people.
@jasminehendricks8304 3 ай бұрын
“Performance is the acceptance of the contract” couldn’t explained it any better!!
@yes-fy5gx 3 ай бұрын
Shared or concurrent??
@johnwerner69 3 ай бұрын
I'm here after i heard Kendrick say "and your homeboy need subpoena"
@prayenergy7376 3 ай бұрын
Lets say a Judge didn't get a mandatory certificate to deal with cases that had to do with "tieing your shoe", (just a hypothetical).... And the deffendent objects to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Would the defendent be correct that the court doesn't have subject matter Jurisdiction because the Judge is not qualified by not having approved credentials?
@sevyn13 3 ай бұрын
Abolish it!