Lisa is Vinny’s fiance’, but also appears to play the part of Vinny’s paralegal, even though the paralegal title is never used to address her. The ethical issues involving Lisa are as follows: • According to the ABA, a paralegal is a person qualified by education, training or work experience, who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency or other entity and who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible. Nothing in this definition fits the characteristic of Lisa. She attends the trial as someone from the general public, but continued to “coach” Vinny as to the proper rules of the courtroom. Since there are no current regulations pertaining to the unauthorized practice of law by non attorneys, however Vinny (the lawyer) would have the authority to make sure that Lisa follows rules consistent of ABA model rule 5.3, the responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants.
So, there are many examples of not thinking for yourself and thinking for youself in this novel. In the novel the main character is Guy Montag and his wife Mildred Montag, and Mildred is the one who should be thinking for herself. She is letting the government get to her head, and everything they say she believes. Even though she is married to Montag, she thinks that the "parlor walls are her family" (Bradbury 49). Montag is her family, but she doesn't consider him as much as a family compaired to the parlor walls.
Executive Summary Kenneth Jones, the president of Viscotech, has a handful of regulatory issues to resolve before moving any further with operations. Ideally, the company would have considered SEC regulations before raising the $976,000 in December 1997 from 34 investors through the MIFT pool. Most importantly, Viscotech was desperate for money, so they did not notify the SEC, and accepted money for securities offered under Regulation A, which had not been finalized by the SEC staff. Viscotech advertised the MIFT as a trust, when it appears to be a contract to buy securities at a future date, but we argue that the security vehicle is exempt under Regulation A (see Exhibit 1) for the following reasons. Under the Securities Act of 1933, the MIFT does not automatically fall into the category of exempt securities, so the company must still file a offering statement with the SEC to avoid penalties.
Acceptance had been made twice by Stephanie-one by telephone message saying that she accepts to buy the bike, which has not been received by David; the second acceptance was written on a note given to her eldest sister stating an acceptance with a condition precedent. A condition precedent is a term in a contract which requires some event to occur before the contract can come into existence. Taking the first method of acceptance, based on the case ENTORE LTD V MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION [1955] 2 QB 327-“In the case of instantaneous communication, acceptance occur only when the offeror actually become aware of it”. Base on this decision, the agreement fail and thus no contract. Taking the second method of acceptance, Stephanie wrote a note of acceptance with the terms “subject to obtaining a loan on satisfactory term”.
The blood found on Hytch’s sandal could not be aged. The blood could have gotten there anytime and there was no evidence to support the theory that she bled before she died because the body has not been found. At his second trial Hytch’s defense lawyer, Harvey Walters, argued that the whole case against his client hinged on dodgy scientific evidence. The defense called its own forensic expert who disputed the DNA evidence linking Ms Antonio to a sandal worn by Hytch on the night of her disappearance and the jury subsequently acquitted him. REFERENCES Jackson, Andrew R.W., and Julie Jackson.
MV-6, Exhibit 1 at 1). The record also shows that Woody never appealed hi s conviction or sentence. His § 2255 Motion was his first and only attempt to challenge his sentence. Clearly Woody waived any objections to the PSR as sub mitted. The defendant had the responsibility to advise the Court of any claimed errors in the PSR.
This may pose a limitation regarding John’s claim whereby the gallery could potentially argue that John does not have a proprietary interest as the painting has not effectively been registered, which may exemplify the nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they lack) principle. The effect in equity of an unregistered voluntary transfer was in issue before the High Court in the leading case of Corin v Patton. In this case the wife had attempted to create a trust in favour of her by executing a transfer of her interest in the joint tenancy to a trustee. The wife died prior to registration without taking any action to obtain the certificate of title which would have enabled the transfer to be registered. The trial judge, McLelland J, held that the joint tenancy had not been severed.
3. No, Crowley may be not considered an “immediate family member” to Sybil because, by virtue of public policy, Crowley was not Sybil’s legal guardian at the time of her death. Statement of Facts Cora Crowley (“Crowley”) came to our office in order to “get justice” for her
Initially at registration, the parent or guardian information should have been asked and updated especially for a minor. This would have triggered the mother to respond about full custody issues that could be noted in the record. The next communication error occurred with the Pre-Op Nurse who wrote the mother’s cell phone in her personal notebook instead of the patient’s chart notes. She was the only nurse aware that the mother was leaving the hospital. Without her cell phone number in the chart notes, no other person was aware of the initial arrangements requested by the mother.
They allow the testator or testatrix to make such dispositions as he or she pleases without the details being made public, save only to the person who is bound to put into effect those wishes. Secret trusts fall into two categories: fully secret trusts and half-secret trusts. In a fully secret trust, property is given by will to a legatee absolutely without mention of any trust: the gift appears to be absolute and there is no trust on the face of the will (Thynn v Thynn (1684)). However, at any time during the testator's lifetime, the details of a trust and the intended