Stand your ground Law

There is a lot of law revisions needed to complement the needs of our times. It is sad to say that we only see this need when a person has been a victim of a circumstance. Why does it always have to be there should be someone to suffer before lawmakers realized that a law needs some polishing? This is a reality and most lawmakers wouldn't admit it but this is the real situation. I can mention a number of laws that have flaws that needed to be addressed soon and I don't want to get attention from lawmakers because they wouldn't really step up until something tragic happens. Our morning papers are filled about what has happened recently and I am not really keen to draw attention but I should say that right from the inception of this law, I already knew about its shortcomings so now lawmakers are pointing fingers on who to blame. I should tell you that the tricky thing about a law is people have different perceptions about everything they read. One might have a different opinion about what a particular law means and another would have a different one too. The most important thing to consider for one to fully comprehend what the law is about is to know its rationale and make a research about the lawmaker who drafted it then you'll know what he truly means and what the law serves for.

Focal Point of Expertise

We should all know that lawyers have different areas of specialization. If you are a Real Estate Investor, you wouldn't be interested to get a lawyer who specializes in Family Law. People should be aware that one must be able to hire a lawyer depending on their specific need. Expertise is very important as this can be a precursor of how your case will be handled. It is important to know that your lawyer has wide knowledge armed with experience regarding the point of subject matter. There is just no settling for second rate that's why most of us are keen to deal with experts. If you need contracts drafted, one should be able to get Contract experts. I'm sure you wouldn't trust your contracts drafted by newbies and people who don't have enough experience to do it. Contracts are very complicated and should be handled well. Many people get in trouble because of ill-prepared contracts. It can very well determine the outcome of your transaction. That's why we highly recommend you to get Contract Experts to save yourself from unnecessary undertakings. Your contracts should protect you and your interest however, contracts that weren't prepared well can very much work to your disadvantage. The sad thing here is it's too late to make reparations as you are already bound from the moment you signed that contract. This is a very common mistake that most people make and this is a sad truth. Stop making those mistakes, have a Contract Expert work on your contracts and start protecting your self and your interest.

Procedural Law versus General Laws

I don't have any explanation for this predicament but as you have always known I've been very vocal with my frustrations with the Legal System. How do can we acquit someone of a crime he blatantly committed? I know I have to repeat this over again just to help people realize how important Rules of Courts are. It is something that members of the court should adhere to, from the magistrate to the clerks of court. It is really a strict set of rules that nobody is exempted from. It's either you follow this or totally waive your rights to defend yourself in court. Rules of Courts are very precise and certain. Each rule is well defined and there are no ambiguities as most of these deals with deadlines and how many days a certain party is allowed to file a counter or a reply. Unlike General Laws, where sometimes laws can be vague and it needs proper interpretation by the magistrates. That's why there are dissidents because some laws have different opinions and I will admit that some can be outdated and needs revision as they are not applicable to present times. One good example is the age of minors held for a crime. I think this really needs polishing because more and more minors are capable of committing crimes these days. Can you believe a 9 year old can rape? This may sound quite bizarre a decade ago but this is very prevalent these days. I hope that there are lawmakers reading my blogs so they'll have an idea that something really needs to get done. I'm sure they won't mind making "working laws" for the taxpayer's who pay their hefty salaries.

Procedural Law

I can tell you right now that I am not really a big fan of Rules of Court back in law school but the thing is, this actually plays a big part on one's case. Are you aware that even if you have a good case you can lose by technicalities? It will be very valuable to know that your counsel knows Rules of Court pretty well. One can use Procedural Laws to escape a liability and it only takes that small hole of opportunity to check whether the other party is lacking some technical requirements. Judges in Court are very particular with Rules of Court. If there is some essential requirement missing on a Motion one has filed I can tell you outright that that Motion will be denied. It doesn't matter if your Motion contains essential facts and significant evidence but once there's some technicality that wasn't properly followed, you know what will happen next. Do you think it's fair that some cases lose because of mere technicality? Personally, if you lose a case for this reason I think it was your mistake hiring an incompetent lawyer. Being a client you must be diligent enough to hire someone of reputable standing of winning cases. You can't really blame anybody here but yourself because you're the one who lacked good judgment. Don't be fooled that a lawyer graduated from whatnot law school because that doesn't say anything about him at all. I know many smart and very intelligent lawyers when they were still studying law but on trial, I have to say they just don't fit. Most smart and very Intelligent lawyers are better at desk jobs maybe because they are lacking with personality. A very good suggestion I can give you is hire a lawyer who have been doing Private Practice for many years because there's no substitute for decades of experience in trials.

Essential Elements

I am not very sure if you guys are quite familiar with some cases that are actually what we saw it to be very obvious. I don’t want to make some controversial topic as I respect every jurisprudence and how cases were decided by their respected jury but there are high profile cases from the past few months that have been oddly decided. I can state an example, there was this case where it was quite obvious that crime committed was murder but because there is one Element of Murder lacking then it couldn’t be decided as Consummated Murder. Well, jury may decide on it as first degree or second degree murder but not Murder. Laws are very technical that’s why we need to know these things. There are so many things that people don’t understand about the law because of its strict and confined rules. I have repeatedly have this in mind that it will be awesome if there’s a group of Attorney’s who can volunteer and do free public speaking on different aspects of law so that masses of people could somehow learn to understand how it goes. This can be very promising and a lot will really benefit from it. A bigger question though is would there be enough lawyers to volunteer for this kind of work?

Age Requirement

I am quite bothered by how many cases we hear everyday of crimes involving minors. I personally think that the government should really do something about this real quick. There must be some adjustment with the age requirement on what age of a minor can be held liable for a crime. This is just a thought, but what if you are a parent of a crime victim which involves a minor as a perpetrator? Court would send that minor to social services or other institution not penal in nature. Would you feel justice was served? I fully understand the rationale behind not mixing minor criminals with adults because it affects their holistic growth but has anyone thought of a penal institution for minors? I know this won't be easy but for those who are on the same page, I really do think a penal institution for minors will be a milestone. Minor criminals aged 9 to 14 can be put behind bars at a penal institution specially made for minors. Fifteen years old and older criminals can certainly be integrated with adults as this age group are expected to have sound discretion of their action and decisions. I know that some of you might not agree with me but social services won't work for minor criminals. These children need to be in a setting where they would feel they are paying time behind bars because what they did was a "crime". If minor criminals continue to be cradled in social services setting they will never feel remorse for what they did. The government should really do something about this rising criminality rapidly committed by minors.

Burden of Proof

Most complainants in almost every case I have ever encountered throughout my Legal Profession feel that courts side with the defense every time a judge stress that Burden of Proof lies in the accuser. Defense actually only needs to deny said claims and counter attack by telling the complainant to prove the accusation. Mostly complainants present material evidence and oral evidence by means of a witness. Now, what the defense have to do is to attack the credibility of the witness giving testimony in court. So as most of you can see the picture here this is the reason why most complainants feel that courts side by the defense but the rationale here is to give both parties a chance to prove their claims by presenting authentic, valid, and credible evidence. Courts cannot rule on something just because a complainant looks aggrieved. Of course, accused' also have rights and this is provided by the constitution. We should all understand it is not as easy it is to prove a claim in court so if you are thinking of filing a claim against another I will suggest that you better have adequate evidence to prove all your claim so you don't have to waste time and money in pursuing a case with no substance. I see a lot of cases go archived and some cases accused' were acquitted for lack of substantial evidence. It is best to keep all document of your transactions and receipts of everything and if you have some documents that needs authentication have them authenticated already because requesting this in different government offices can also take some time and we all know how it goes over there. Be always diligent of all your transactions so if something happens you are sure that you and your interest are well protected. 

Ignorance of the Law Excuses No One

I am sure that many of you here have heard this phrase "Ignorance of the Law Excuses No One". Many of us are aware of this phrase but very few put it to heart and most importantly, very few put it to practice. I understand that many people get in trouble because of their ignorance of the law. People make decisions without intervention of a lawyer and I can say that this is really something that could put you in trouble. Always remember that money you spend for a Legal Counsel is always worth the trouble of getting in trouble with the law. Nobody can go to court and face a judge and tell the judge that he was sorry he wasn't aware of the law. This can never be an excuse for anything at all. A judge can even cite you for contempt if you try to use this as a defense. No lawyer will ever advice you to use that excuse in court or maybe if one did, he wants to see you behind bars actually. I really think that people should think about this because most people I know take this for granted and they will only realize their mistakes when they already got themselves in trouble. I don't understand why most don't act on something until they get themselves in trouble or maybe this is just how most of us really are. I can say that this is not only about Laws but we should always be aware of things and take preventive actions rather than cure.

Rules of Evidence

It is very important to know the Rules on Evidence when one is defending a case in court. Many people can't believe their evidence wasn't accepted in court. This happen all the time and believe it or not it is kind of a common situation than it is not. There are hundreds of evidence refused in courts because they were illegally obtained. One should note that for Evidence to be accepted in court it must be obtained legally with the virtue of a valid search warrant and seizure. There are essential requirements for a warrant to be valid and it is important that all of these are met. Rules can differ in different states so it will be mostly helpful to get a counsel who is familiar with the local laws. No matter how strong and relevant your evidence is but if it was illegally obtained there is no way that will be accepted in court. It will be treated as mere scrap of paper and many people find this unreasonable but this is a strict Rule of Evidence that everybody must adhere to. I know many people get frustrated and puzzled by this rule because it seem very unjustifiable. What would you do if evidence is in front of you just waiting for you to pick it up? Do you have time to wait and apply for a valid search warrant and seizure if evidence is in front of you? Do you think that this evidence will still be there by the time you return with a valid warrant? These are some of the loopholes that i find with the Rules of Evidence and I can agree with how most people feel about this especially victims of a crime. We are very familiar with this kind of scenario and we can all just hope that there will be some sort of an act to make this rule better and reasonable.

Circumstantial Evidence

I want to share to all of you how effective Circumstantial Evidence can be. It is very rare that Lawyers and Investigators get to collect Direct Evidence that can truly point to a perpetrator but the good thing here is you can take advantage of what we call Circumstantial Evidence. Circumstantial Evidence can come in different forms. It can be a material evidence and can be testimonial evidence. There are many instances that Circumstantial Evidence is used in Courts though if you're not really a big fan of crime and trial courts series on TV you might not be very familiar with this. It is very helpful to use Circumstantial Evidence in forming a grounded concrete evidence against a perpetrator. The tricky thing here is how a lawyer will be able to connect all these Circumstantial Evidence to form a reliable evidence. I am sure that every lawyer who have presented Circumstantial Evidence have been objected by the adverse lawyer contending presumption of facts. It is very likely that connecting evidence is close to presumption that's why your Circumstantial Evidence must be viable and quite concrete to be accepted as Evidence in Court. I am sure that many of you are surprised sometimes that even if a complainant has all the evidence needed they still don't win the case. Are you wondering why? Evidence can't speak for themselves. You need a good Trial Lawyer to speak for those Evidence you have. It is interesting that I have seen some cases where a defending lawyer can even win a case without holding any evidence at all. Actually, if you are on the defense side there's no need to present evidence. Your role are more about counter attack. A Defense Lawyer should do everything to dispute the claim "by" presenting their evidence. It is only at this time that a defense will present Evidence.

The Politics of Medicines

I am sure you have heard about Branded Medicines produced by Big Time Medicine Manufacturers being given preference in bidding’s. I will admit that I don’t know much about the difference between Generic and Brand name Medicines. I know for a fact that they pretty much have the same composition only that they may vary labels and packaging. We all know that Generic Medicines are a whole lot cheaper compared to Brand name Medicines. But do you wonder why some of your medicines have been pulled out the market? Some people might dispute this but believe it or not, there’s still politics regarding this topic. Big Medicine manufacturers coerce politicians to manipulate bidding’s in their favor and this practice has become very common in different states. There are big controversies behind health care and this makes me sick in the stomach. Health care is something that should benefit people no matter what their status is in life. Generic Medicines were conceptualized to make medicines cheaper and more available to masses but this is not happening all because of politics, all because of money. Is this really what our society has become? Money-Greedy individuals who acts with no morals! I wish that people making all this happen rot in hell. Is this what we’re passing to the next generation? Take some action, start at home! Discipline your kids the right way and fear for your souls.

what is "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt?"

Some people might think that it is easy to prove "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt" when in fact, this is the hardest to prove. This is actually the concept that makes or break a case in court. No matter how much evidence you have against a defendant if there is some shadow of reasonable doubt, an accused cannot be proven and sentenced to guilt. Circumstantial Evidence is the most common type of Evidence that people present in court and this can be proved to be very helpful especially if the Trial Lawyer presents good and solid arguments in court. I hear many people question some court's decision and this is the answer. Most accused aren't proven guilty because of lack of evidence. Although in my own opinion, If a lawyer lacks evidence, he can compensate on this by rebuttals and technicalities. A good argument in Court is always a winner and that will take direct evidence to bring this down. Remember that the slightest cast of doubt to prove a party's guilt is enough to acquit him from charges. I know amazing trial lawyers who can acquit their clients even if guilt is pretty obvious. The thing in court is, one cannot contend that evidence is "pretty obvious" that is not enough, that will never be enough. That's why there are some Legal Practitioners who question the validity of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, despite various groups disputing this strict requirement of the law, there is nothing one can do really because this is the law and we can't change our laws just like that. It's not as easy as some people think. There are victims who weren't given justice because their perpetrator's guilt wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt and I see families cry over this strict requirement of the law. A very helpful thing is to experience watching a trial in court. I am sure that you will enjoy as most of it is almost close to watching a Legal Drama series and this can give you knowledge about some of your questions. I even see people clap their hands after a heated argument between lawyers in trial. I have been in Legal Practice for so long now but Trial Drama never fails to amuse me.