Defendant Smith's Case

Legal research is not only about discovering how the law applies, it is also about determining how strong case is. Using legal research we are analyzing strength and weaknesses of client’s case, and using counteranalysis we determine how opponent can use weaknesses against us. In this paper we will establish why counteranalysis is important and why do we use it, when we use it and where we can apply it.

The defendant, Jim through his lawyer, has the right to appeal for another hearing of his case in a supreme court. When a state court decision is not satisfactory to the defendant because of lack of reasonable explanation, the defendant can ask for clarification for the decision made. The search and seizure of illegal drugs in Mr. Jim’s house was by nature illegal. To begin with the officers were acting on an invalid search warrant which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a police misconduct. The Fourth Amendment was implemented to guard the citizen's privacy rights and restricts the police against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, the drugs seized at Jim’s house should not be used as evidence to convict him. Jim

U.S.C. § 1915, 393 U.S. 367, at 369-370, 89 S.Ct. 580, 582, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969)

Offer Jones did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and confront the individual. As law enforcement officer Jones should contact his supervisor and inform them about the tip that he received about possible drug activity at that location. He could have got authorization from his supervisor to conduct surveillance to verify that there was actually drug activity going on at that location. But because this officer decided to stop the individual without concrete evidence made his actions

On 05/08/18, at approximately 10:56am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 4514 Starrett Court on a dangerous or vicious dog investigation (dog owner owner's address). I arrived on scene at approximately 11:25am. I met with victim Syed Naque, who stated he was outside his resident when a medium size dog (black) came up from behind him and bit him on his right thigh. Mr. Naque stated the dog continue to come at him in a aggressive manner even after he went inside the house, the dog would charged the side door. A next door neighbor had to get the dog to leave the area. Mr. Naque stated the dog owner did come over to apologize in regards to the incident. I explained Mr. Naque

Jones should not have been allowed to be used against him in his trial. Allowing the entry of his statements is a direct violation of his Constitutional rights. Mr. Jones was compelled to make the statements he made to Officer Booker. He would not have made them on his own free will. If an attorney had been present, as requested, his right to not incriminate himself would have been enforced.

P alleges false arrest. P alleges that he was grabbed and arrested by MOS outside his front door. P alleges that MOS informed his cousin that P fits the description. P alleges that he was strip searched at the precinct. MOS Michael Izzo observed two individuals engage in a hand to hand drug transaction inside the lobby of the building and radioed the description of the individuals. Defendant MOS Pizzarro, along with Sgt. Pichardo and MOS Jermaine Taylor observed two individuals who fit MOS Izzo’s description. MOS Pizzarro recognized one of the individuals as P. MOS Pizzarro had previously arrested P. MOS followed the other individuals into the adjacent building and arrested him. MOS recovered drugs from him. MOS Pizzarro came back to 2749

Now through undersigned counsel, come Defendant, Lauris Hollis ("Defendant"), who respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff 's claims against him. Defendant move this Court for a Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff has no cause of action, no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute the suit and it should be dismissed.

A: Standing to sue is the requirement that plaintiffs who sue must have a serious and vetted interest in a case, meaning the plaintiff has sustained or is in danger of sustaining a direct and substantial injury from the actions of the other(which can be the government)

Even if Officer Jones was knowledgeable of the defendant’s actions from his experience, this would have given him probable cause to search the defendant. However, the information given to him hadn’t been corroborated previously nor had it been reliable or authenticated. In conclusion Officer Jones should have gotten more information from the anonymous caller to see if he was in fact an informant, or should have conducted his own investigation into the allegations before he stopped, frisked, and arrested the defendant. This evidence will in fact become admissible in

Defendant SARAH MINER, owner, and operator of the Portola apartment complex, recently denied Plaintiff DARLAWILLIAMS, a former tenant, application to continue leasing her unit in the complex. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Defendant, alleging discrimination as the basis for her denial. The Plaintiff 's case against Defendant, however, is without merit. Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application because she received several noise complaints (Exhibit 1) throughout her tenancy, disrupting the peaceful residential community. Furthermore, Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application due to her failure to keep her unit in good condition; resulting in substantial damage to the unit and approximately $3,500 in repair

In my opinion, the charges should have been dismissed against the individuals that pleaded guilty through plea bargain. The reason is that the lawsuit was able to illustrate that the prosecutor was racially motivated to incarcerated American Americans, even if they were innocent. Secondly, there was no strong evidence introduced that would uphold a conviction. The tape recordings that they had were alleged to drug transition occurring, however, you could not hear anything but noise in the background. In addition, the credibility of the confidential informant was questioned, because his stories was switching back and forth indicating that it was possibly fabricated. Lastly, the military drug sweep was achieved unlawfully without the use of

SIMPSONVILLE, SC – On 6/3/2016 at approximately 1:39am Simpsonville Police Department officers responded to the Bradford Place Apartments at 402 West Georgia Rd. regarding multiple reports of shots fired. Upon arrival officers, spoke with four uninjured robbery victims. The victims described the suspect and stated that during the robbery one round was fired towards one the victims.

You are correct when you stated the bail amount of $200,000.00 is absurd, and your client did not commit any crimes nor did he put anyone's life in danger. I totally believe that the facts in this case should speak for itself. There was never ever any drug seen or seize, nor is it any proof the $500 that was in smith possession had something to do with drugs period. Furthermore your client has a job and having any amount of money on a person is not against the law, well I guess if it's a large amount than maybe your client will have should how he earn it. Smith should not be held over.

I currently working on this relationship account from one of our clients named Joseph Shilonne. However, I would be in need of some clarification in regards the customer net worth of 50MM. The DDR mentions that Mr. Shilonne represents two energy companies and that he has distribution rights for ORMET and Comercializadora Comertitlán, S. A.. What is his role with Ormet, does he has some significant ownership of this company that could justify his net worth of 50MM, and if it so, can you please provide any type of verbiage making connection to his net worth.