The Fabiani Law 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 external thread of foreign armies on French soil and the internal threat to the french revolutionary government , which

The proposition by Austin to reduce various types of law into a single form, as command of the Sovereign backed with sanctions had invited much criticism. One of the flaws in his proposition is that not every law is coercive in the way that it is backed with sanction. To view law as command backed by threats of sanction is to overlook a significant part of the legal system.

In Matter of Castelli, 131 A.D.3d 29, 11 N.Y.S.3d 268, (2. Dept. 2015), the defendant, James D. Castelli, was charged with aiding a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to adequately supervise the work of a non-lawyer, permitting a nonlawyer to practice law under his firm name, and delegating banking responsibility to his paralegal without oversight. The defendant allowed his paralegal, Taradash, to use business cards that identified the firm as “Castelli Law Group,” without indicating that he was a paralegal. He also allowed Taradash to perform interviews, explain legal procedures with clients, enter into agreements using the defendant’s signature, prepare and signed pleadings with the signature stamp, and send letters to insurance carriers. The defendant

“The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very large extent is in dispute between Great Britain and the Republic of Venezuela. . . . Venezuela

To provide a balance in specific nations and considerations of cross cutting, the issues must go beyond national boundaries. The traditional contrast of adversarial versus legal systems will be to determine what impacted each system that may have on preventing wrongful convictions and whether or not the traditional difference remains viable or needs revision. The number of public policies intended to reduce the number of these convictions and compensate more fairly and just to those who are the victims of these mistrials.

Nations. At the same time the French government made it quite clear that there could be no negotiation

During the same time, the Venezuelans also began to woo the support of the United States of America by appealing to that nation to support their claims. However, the United States, during that period, refused to become involved. Venezuela, itself, never diverted from its view that arbitration was the only means of settling the border dispute.
Despite its refusal to be involved in the issue in 1877, the policy of the United States by 1886 began to take a decisive turn when it offered advice to the British Government to solve the issue. By then, the United States had achieved great economic strength and international political stature, and many leading American politicians viewed their country as a major competitor to Great Britain in the field of international politics.
In 1895, Grover Cleveland, who was then serving a second term as President, realised that his administration was losing popularity especially among western and southern farmers and workers everywhere in the country. He and his Secretary of State, Richard Olney, in an attempt to divert attention from the domestic problems that faced the country, decided to adopt a vigorous foreign policy. They, therefore, agreed, inter alia, to support the Venezuelan side in the boundary dispute with Great Britain.
Through the efforts of the Cleveland administration, a resolution was introduced in the

This incident, along with the progressive method of using Christian ethics and the progressive belief of pragmatism, changed Roosevelt’s idea about the Monroe Doctrine. Roosevelt believed that Christian citizens had “the duty of bearing one another’s burdens.” This belief influenced him to interpret the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine as “to safeguard like independence and secure like permanence for the lesser among the New World nations” as well as to prevent European colonization in the Western Hemisphere. However, after the Venezuela crisis, Roosevelt saw that the original doctrine was not enough to safeguard peace in the Western Hemisphere. He realized that wrongdoing from Latin American nations, for example, that Venezuela did not pay debts to European countries, could lead to European aggression in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt was afraid that the aggression stayed permanently and contravened the Monroe Doctrine. Using pragmatism to make the Monroe Doctrine not the “the emptiest of the empty phrases,” he stated that the United States had a duty to supervise ineffective Latin American governments, whose instability and economic problems could

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

This act was intended toward the neighbor country which was Latin America. It was strongly supported by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States Administration in the affair to Latin America and Europe during 1933-1945. The Policy meant that US would keep looking out on Latin America in a more nonviolent way to maintain solidity of US.

“In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

Venezuela, located in the Latin American region, is a country that has been characterized by its abundance of oil reserve. A natural resource that has shaped the history and development of the country, affecting its economic, social and most important is political spheres. For many years Venezuela was controlled by authoritarian regimes. The country, being very important in the sense of geo-politics due to its abundance of oil, has been a key player in the international arena and most important, to those that for many years kept the country under their regime. It was not until 1958 that Venezuela experienced the change to democracy and a stable democracy was kept between the two main political parties of the time, Accion Democratica (AD)

In 1940 the U.S. gave Brazil a 45 million dollar credit to build and operate a steel mill. They also accepted Mexico’s expropriation of U.S. oil companies with in Mexico and helped write the Venezuelan oil bill of 1943 which required U.S. oil companies to share at least 50 percent of their profits .This was a big step in the right direction for the United States to repair relations with Latin America. Even though there were some Latin American countries who were skeptical of the situation, eleven countries signed the agreements including Cuba, Brazil, Haiti, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ecuador, and Venezuela . These agreements were to establish more trust in the United States for the Latin American countries, but some Latin Americans were unconvinced of the United States’ intentions.

On the present case being addressed to the International Court of Justice in dealing with the matter of sovereignty over the Island of Manca, the issue of legality belonging to which side of the parties at dispute is put forward. The problem however, lies in, the period at which the dispute took place, for International law has not evolved at that time unlike in this day and age.