Legal Case Study: The Superior Court Case

I returned Ms Dunlap call. She said wants to place a formal complaint against the CPS worker Miranda Larson because she illegally removed her children based on false accusations. She stated that Miranda, like the entire CW are doing criminal activities. She then asked me if I had talked to her attorney? What was my conversation about, What did I disclose to them? What did they told me about her? "Be honest" she said. I informed her that I do contact her attorney because in one her DHS 0170 form the Discrimination Complaint form, she provided us her attorney's phone number and my conversation was about how can we contact her. She said that we should not be talking to her attorney because she just fired her.

By which became a contract on 11/28/2010 we were charged $2500 for legal services but the contract states deposit is not refundable under any circumstances. My first payment started on 11/12/2010 for the total amount of $1,020.00 when I made my first payment I took all my required documents to fill out all the packets I was given for immigration to send them, the benefited are Rogelio Medina and Norma Medina. The request was from our son Jesus Medina. On 7/21/2011 I was sent an appointment for my finger prints before that I received receipts of payments which I made on 6/15/2011 for the amounts of $420 and $1,070 plus $1,000 on 9/6/2011 for the total amount of 2,490 I was also charged and extra 1,250 for his service making the grand total

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Biloxi H.M.A., LLC formerly d/b/a Biloxi Regional Medical Center and now d/b/a Merit Health Biloxi (the “Hospital”), by and through undersigned counsel, and files this its Response to William Kennerly, M.D.’s (“Kennerly”) Rule 59 Post Judgment Motion (the “Motion”), and would show this honorable Court as follows.

*** For the purpose of this assignment, I am assuming the following is correct ***

The court appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in divided opinion, reversed, with approval, the Court of Appeals concluded that must be read against the background of charitable trust law.

On January 2010, The Supreme Court backed the right of corporations such as Walmart, Target, and KMart to spend their money on political campaigns. The Supreme Court's Ruling was that this action is supported by the corporations first amendment rights. This decision superseded prior understanding of the subject.

Civil cases are when citizens are suspected of committing a crime, while criminal cases are when people with a criminal background are suspected of committing a crime. In a criminal case prosecutors look for undeniable proof in order to easily jail criminals. In civil courts, the goal of a lawyer is to find as much evidence as possible in favor of their position. People in civil courts are not necessarily criminals. They just want to win some money from the court case. There are no prosecutors or government lawyers in a civil court because people are just suing each other. There is a jury in criminal courts to decide whether or not the suspect is guilty or innocent.

I conducted a conference call with Vice President of Claims, Mr. Petro. I advised that overall I found no deficiencies in their management of claims or in their reserve practices, other than the two claims where the adjuster did not comply with Hylant’s reserve protocol. It was suggested that should have a more formalized litigation bill review where someone other than the adjuster review for proper billing and litigation compliance. Mr. Perto believes the current process in place where the adjusters audit the legal invoice is adequate at this time, but will take it under consideration.

I would hire Jody because she is a “certified physician coder through AAPC” that is required by state and federal law. When an agency or organization performs a review and grants recognition to an institution that meets specific standards; which are required, it is accredited. This accreditation process is done so that facilities can pinpoint when organizations do “not” meet these standards and to endorse those that “do” meet these standards by state and federal laws.

Analysis. In his analysis of the first issue, Justice Breyer began by noting that the Court has

Gonzaga university is well respected private school in the west of the USA. The school prepares students to get their dream job. Most of the student get the job of their dreams. Unfortunately, one of the students did not get job because of the school. The graduate asked Gonzaga university provide an affidavit of good moral character from the collage to the future employer. The teacher certification specialist at university provided damaging information. The specialist mention student by name and revealed that student was engaged in sexual misconduct. The student did not received affidavit and a job, because of the school official overheard conversation about student had sexual misconduct by undergraduate student. After that, University made an investigation and refuse to certify to student affidavit of good moral character. The student sued the university. I take side of the student, because university should not give the student’s information.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that a person has the right to represent himself or herself at a criminal trial based on case law from Faretta v. California (Cabell, 2012). Many people have a preset notion that those who wish to represent themselves are mentally ill, obtuse, believe they can “beat” the system, or simply are arrogant (Cabell, 2012). I do believe in certain jurisdictions it would be an advantage to conduct a defense pro se.

Standards for obligation to state-run mental organizations in Massachusetts are defined by statute. Most admissions fall under one of the following classes:

In this week chapter, we learn more about Federal Courts which deals with caseloads and case filings. Also, there are a lot of aspects that are involves in case filings in U.S Courts such as civil, criminal, prisoner petitions, and minor criminal. Furthermore, the rule of four has been a major factor when choosing which cases to review every year. And, I believe if we want to reduce the amounts of federal caseloads we need to adapt to a similar approach like the one specialized federal courts use when deciding which cases to hear. According to Neubauer & Meinhold (1991), “These courts are called specialized federal court because they are authorized to hear only a limited range of cases “(p. 64).

I, Jenny CReATON, do hereby retain the services of DAISY, Attorney-at-Law to act for and on my behalf in the matter related to the estate of CRATON.