COMES NOW, the Defendant, Gary H. Rappold, and files this, his Pretrial Brief, and further alleges: 1. The subject presented on this brief is the appropriate legal and fair adjudication of the contested issues for equitable distribution, alimony, and counsel fees in addition to the affirmation of the Plaintiff’s ability to be gainfully employed and capacity to contribute to her own support. 2. Plaintiff is requesting an equitable distribution award of $140,000, permanent alimony in the amount of $350 per week, and payments of her counsel fees (Exhibit A). Defendant believes these requests are exorbitant, unreasonable, and without merit. This opinion is consistent with longstanding precedent of NJ statutory and case law. 3. In short, the Defendant shall present irrefutable documentary evidence as well as decisive inferences complying with NJ law to validate his position, in contrast with the Plaintiff’s exhaustive and misguided litigation stratagem, irrelevant and deficient evidence, and undue reliance on flawed suspicions. 4. The Complaint for Divorce was filed on August 8, 2013. An Answer and Counterclaim for Divorce were filed by Defendant on September 12, 2013. 5. A Motion for Pendente Lite Relief was filed by Plaintiff on August 28, 2013. Defendant filed Cross-Motion to preceding motion on September 18, 2013. On the return date October 3, 2013, (a) Order for Defendant to pay Robert W. Mayer $5,000.00 retainer was denied without prejudice, (b) Order to freeze all accounts of Gary H. Rappold was denied, (c) Order to exempt Defendant’s checking account from being frozen to pay all monthly and day-to-day expenses was granted, (d) Order for Defendant to pay pendente lite alimony to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ility. 24. The Defendant's inability to retain counsel and his inferior bargaining position to defend against an action of divorce should not allow the Plaintiff to be afforded further leverage by reason of the inequality of representation. 25. New Jersey law requires a Court to consider the earning capacities, educational levels, vocational skills, and employability of the parties in deciding alimony and equitable distribution. Defendant offers clear and convincing evidence to refute Plaintiff’s inability to be gainfully employed. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should decide to impute the germane income to the Plaintiff for purposes of calculating alimony and allocation of marital debt. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s petition for a cash reward and payment of her counsel fees must be dismissed with prejudice.
Based on their conversation, on December 30, 1963, Wolodzko and Dr. Anthony Smyk upon request of the plaintiff’s husband without her consent or knowledge signed a promised
One of the dissenting opinions refers suspiciously to the State prosecutor and medical expert which is important to this case.
Life. Life is what gives you the ability to think, to speak, to breath and to be a part of this world. It is worth more than any amount of money, your life is priceless. Without it, we would seize to exist; our world would be utter darkness. Honourable Judge, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, today Mary Maloney stands on trial before you. A woman who took the away the life of not just an innocent citizen, but her very own husband. She was thought to be an ordinary women, a typical housewife and a soon to be loving mother. However, the facts presented before you today conclude that Mary Maloney was not just an unordinary detective’s wife, but also a murder. On April 13th 1953, the life of Patrick Maloney came to a tragic end because of leg of lamb in the hands of Mary Maloney. For the following reasons, Mary Maloney, wife of the deceased, is guilty of 1st degree murder.
In the interest of solving a problem efficiently, the jurors who determine the outcome of a conflict should be limited to only the individuals directly involved. Lawyers typically tend to take control of criminal scenarios which is reinforced by ‘leaving it to the professionals’, a view in which I contest. Christie describes the lawyers as “professional thieves” While considering the professionalism and experience of lawyers, lawyers would better serve the people is they obtained from ignoring their own clientele’s voices. In relation to modern law, the cases transitions over time to disregard the presence of one of the parties, the defendant or the victim, in favour of involving the state. I agree with Christie’s statement because the role of the law is settle disputes. The lawyers are defending or prosecuting the individuals involved in the case through advising and explanations. Through this process, the victim’s do not get to express their opinions in court unless they are on the stand testifying. Proactively, the lawyers take the conflict into their hands as they solve the conflict for the individual. I wholeheartedly agree with Christie’s points related to modern law and believe that he emphasis the same beliefs as me regarding conflict
Procedural History: The petitioner, who was serving as an active member in the United States Coast Guard, was facing a general court martial in New York for sexually abusing the underaged daughters of fellow Coast Guard members while serving at his previous duty station in Alaska and at his current duty station in New York. Solorio filed a motion to dismiss the charges stemming from Alaska arguing the court did not have jurisdiction of these alleged crimes as they were committed in his privately owned home. The military judge granted the motion to dismiss finding that the charges stemming from Alaska were not “service connected,” therefore, they could not be heard in a military court martial. The Government appealed to the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Military Review, which overturned the judges dismissal and restored the charges. The petitioner then appealed the decision to the United Supreme Court (Solorio, 1987).
In Canada, our criminal trial process is based around an adversarial system. What this means is that the disputants are represented by professionals in the field of law. These professionals are called lawyers. The lawyers work so that the truth of the trial is brought forward and justice is served for the greater community. In the adversarial system it is believed that the search for truth is best served by the parties themselves, through their lawyers and not through the judge. This means that lawyers determine the issue in dispute and decide the best way to argue them. Judges generally play a very passive role in the trial process. Their job is merely to ensure a fair trial for the accused, and to make an unbiased, neutral decision at the end of the trial. This decision is based upon the evidence brought forward by the two teams of lawyers during the criminal trial.
Kenneth explanation that he was only “basing [his] decision on law, just as juries did
On October 30, 2017 at approximately 2041 hours, I responded to the area of Amaya Terrace and Brightview Boulevard, Lake Mary, Seminole County in reference to a disturbance. Upon arrival, I made contact with Deputy Sheriff Pace who was speaking with three individuals.
There was a 6-3 decision vote for New Jersey. The search that ended with T.L.O's marijuana being found was reasonable. The majority opinion included: Warren Burger, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell F. Jr., William Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The opposing Justices included: Thurgood Marshall, William J Brennan Jr., and John Paul Stevens.
The court case is United States District Court Southern District of Texas. United States of America ~vs~ Adrian Torres the location is on 515 Rusk Street, Houston Texas 77002. The presiding Judge is David Hittner in room 8509 at 10:30 a.m. The people in the court room were not that many but it felt like it was taking for ever to hear the judge call him up to the stand to hear his case outcome. The experience was different being that I was just there to observe the process and I was sort of amazed on how professional a direct the judge was. The judge readdressed that he was given an opportunity and failed to comply with the rule but yet again had failed the system and was aware that he was at fault. You could hear it in his tone of voice that he already had a
Divorce is a growing epidemic in Canada and the United States. It affects both parties involved, being the spouses, and also has a profound affect on children of the marriage. Recently our government has been revising the old divorce act. It was apparent that it was time to revise the act because it did not properly protect the children from being caught in the middle of things.
(divorce). It says that both a man and a woman have an equal right to
First off let me start by saying that there’s is a huge difference between what an arrangement is portrayed on television, and how it really is in the real world. Based on what I have seen on television I can picture an arrangement occurs in a good size room where it’s a big room where half the room is where the public can sit, and the other half consist of the judge, the prosecutors next to the defendant leaving a gap between them, and on the side is where the jury sits.Yet today when I when to go see one in person what I saw was not what I expected.
“Divorce can be a difficult time for a family” (Family Means). Marriage isn’t meant to be perfect, but that doesn’t mean things won’t work out as planned. Once a marriage occurs both parties are likely to imagine a great future ahead of them. No one wants to think about the possibility of getting a divorce. It’s important to realize that just because you feel compatible with your spouse doesn’t mean that you all are compatible. Along the way, the road will begin to get tough. As soon as that happens, you’re less determined that the marriage will return to how it was in the beginning. This brings about the question of whether we should reform laws to make it harder to divorce. There are difficulties in reforming laws to make getting a divorce
Even in such cases, a divorce was barred in cases such as the suing spouse’s procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or