#best civil lawyer in Supreme Court

[lawandlegal]

Advocate Narender Singh: Redefining Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India Excellence

Setting New Standards in Supreme Court Advocacy

Advocate Narender Singh is a trailblazer in the field of criminal law. Known for his expertise, he consistently sets benchmarks in Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India litigation. His practice revolves around precision, innovation, and relentless pursuit of justice.

A Stellar Career in Criminal Law

Narender Singh has handled a vast spectrum of criminal cases, from complex constitutional issues to landmark judgments. His unparalleled grasp of the Indian Penal Code and procedural law positions him among the top criminal lawyers in India.

Mastering Supreme Court Dynamics

Best Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India proceedings require in-depth knowledge and strategic planning. Advocate Singh has mastered these dynamics, ensuring his clients receive strong and effective representation. His ability to navigate the intricate procedures of the apex court is a hallmark of his practice.

Expert in High-Stakes Litigation

Advocate Narender Singh has a proven track record in high-stakes cases. He excels in defending clients facing serious charges, crafting strategies that lead to favorable outcomes. His experience includes:

Handling criminal appeals and revisions.

Filing and defending Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).

Securing bail and anticipatory bail in critical situations.

Why Advocate Narender Singh Is a Trusted Name

Legal Expertise: Deep understanding of criminal jurisprudence and court procedures.

Strategic Thinking: Ability to anticipate and counter opposing arguments.

Client-Centric Approach: Prioritizes clients’ needs with clear communication and personalized strategies.

Results-Oriented Practice: Delivers success through meticulous planning and flawless execution.

Redefining Advocacy Through Innovation

Narender Singh’s legal practice stands out due to his innovative approach. He combines traditional legal knowledge with modern techniques to address today’s challenges. His adaptability ensures success in even the most unprecedented situations.

Commitment to Justice and Fairness

Advocate Singh’s unwavering commitment to justice forms the foundation of his career. He believes in equal representation for all and works tirelessly to uphold the principles of fairness in every case he handles.

Navigating Complex Legal Issues with Confidence

Narender Singh specializes in resolving intricate legal matters, including:

Constitutional challenges and interpretations.

Cases involving national importance.

High-profile criminal defenses with significant legal implications.

Choosing Advocate Narender Singh for Supreme Court Matters

When facing a legal challenge in the Advocate for Supreme Court of India, you need an advocate with exceptional skills and experience. Narender Singh’s dedication, knowledge, and results-driven approach make him the ideal choice for criminal litigation.

Contact Advocate Narender Singh Today

For expert guidance and representation in Supreme Court criminal matters, Advocate Narender Singh is ready to assist. Reach out today and secure the legal expertise you deserve.

Conclusion

Advocate Narender Singh is redefining excellence in criminal law for the Lawyer for Supreme Court of India. His unparalleled expertise, innovative strategies, and client-focused approach have made him a standout figure in the legal community. Trust him to deliver justice with unmatched professionalism and integrity.

[dostoyevsky-official]

The Courts Can’t Stop the Trump-Musk Coup

Many of Trump’s orders are illegal, and unconstitutional, and brazenly so. Most good-faith lawyers can see that, but “good faith” does not describe the current state of the federal judiciary. Trump and MAGA have captured and corrupted the courts: They have seeded the lower courts with federal judges more loyal to Trump and his white-supremacist movement than they are to the law. They have stacked the Supreme Court with justices hostile to civil rights and equality. This doesn’t mean that cases brought by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, or Democratic state attorneys general are destined to fail. Their cases are righteous (and, legally speaking, right) and must be brought. Some might even succeed.

But the courts will not “save” us. They will not be the backstop protecting us from the Trump-Musk takeover, and any person who tells you otherwise, especially if that person is an elected Democrat in Congress, is selling you an excuse for inaction and complacency. Trump and Musk are barbarians at the gate; calling in the lawyers to tell them they’re trespassing isn’t going to halt their advance. Courts are not known for their harm prevention—they’re best used when trying to hold someone accountable for the harm they already caused.

The most obvious reason for this is that the courts move slowly. They are designed to move slowly. [...] If we’re very lucky, in a year or two we’ll get final rulings on whether Trump is allowed to do the bad things he started doing two weeks ago.

[...] The quickest tools the courts have at their disposal is the “temporary restraining order” (aka “TRO”) and the “nationwide injunction.” You’ve likely heard these terms before. These are temporary orders issued by a court that purportedly prevent the implementation of new laws or policies pending a full trial (or hearing) and ruling on the “merits” of a legal challenge. Often, these temporary orders themselves are appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which potentially delays the timeliness of these emergency actions), with the administration trying to lift the temporary stops so it can implement its policies while the courts sort out whether the policy is legal.

[...] In theory, these orders should be effective stopgaps. The problem is that the court has no enforcement mechanism. It has no army, no police force, no power to impose its will. Instead, the executive—in this case the president—is supposed to enforce the court’s orders. But what if Trump doesn’t? There is little reason to believe that Trump will enforce an adverse court ruling against himself. There is no reason to believe he’ll enforce one against Musk. He’s clearly not interested in enforcing the court order (and, you know, the entire piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed by his predecessor) against TikTok.

[...] Consider the constitutional crisis unfolding right now. Musk has reportedly seized access to the private information of every US taxpayer, and the payroll information of every government employee. He has no right to this information but… he has it. Who’s going to undo that damage? A court order released Thursday afternoon purportedly limited Musk’s access to Treasury files to two “special employees” with “read-only” access to the data. Musk has reportedly agreed to follow those rules. Who is going to make sure he does? Who is going to lead the crack team of forensic digital investigators to make sure that Musk is in compliance with this or any future court order? My guess is “no one.” Musk currently has a stranglehold on the government, and enforcement of his limitations is going to run on the “trust me, bro” system.

[...]There are any number of Trump orders that this Supreme Court is going to rubber-stamp, all while promoting the conservatives’ “unitary executive theory” that grants the president powers more commonly associated with those of a king. As we’ve already seen with the court’s decision to grant Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, Roberts and his co-conspirators have pre-decided that the best way to handle Trump is to ride it out, generally give him what he wants, and accrue as much power for themselves as possible. Power that they’ll be happy to redeploy once he’s gone and they are again dealing with an executive who will faithfully enforce their orders, like literally any sad-sack Democrat who ever manages to win election again.

I’m not saying that the courts do not matter. As I said, some good decisions will squeak through. [...] But the courts will not save us. Even a friendly court is not designed to save democracy from a democratically elected president, and most courts are not our friends to begin with.

[mariacallous]

The US supreme court heard one of the most consequential LGBTQ+ rights cases in its history on Wednesday, with arguments that laid bare the conservative supermajority’s broad threats to civil rights, bodily autonomy and decades of legal precedent.

In US v Skrmetti, the court is weighing Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, one of 24 state laws across the US prohibiting treatments that are part of the standards of care endorsed by every major medical association in the country.

The case originated with three trans youth and their parents who sued Tennessee, arguing the care – puberty blockers and hormone therapy – was medically necessary and “life-saving”. The Biden administration joined the case, asserting Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional.

The case hinges on the legal question of whether Tennessee’s healthcare ban constitutes a form of sex discrimination that merits “heightened scrutiny”, which would mean the case be returned to lower courts for a more rigorous review. But the oral arguments made clear that a ruling against the trans plaintiffs could have far-reaching implications for trans rights and anti-discrimination protections more broadly.’

The US and the ACLU argued that the law is discriminatory and bans treatments based on sex classifications; under Tennessee’s ban, cisgender boys with delayed puberty can be prescribed testosterone, but transgender boys are barred from accessing the same treatments for gender-affirming care. Tennessee argued that the law is an “across the board rule” to “protect minors” from “risky” medical interventions.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general, noted that the court would “turn its back on 50 years of precedent” if it sided with Tennessee’s arguments that the law does not constitute sex discrimination warranting closer scrutiny.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, repeatedly compared Tennessee’s ban with the prohibition on interracial marriage, overturned by the landmark Loving v Virginia decision in 1967: “Some of these questions … sound very familiar to me, [such as] the arguments made back in the day, the 50s and 60s, with respect to racial classifications.” Jackson later added: “I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases.”

“I share your concerns,” responded the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, the first out trans lawyer to appear before the court. “If Tennessee can have an end-run around heightened scrutiny … that would undermine decades of this court’s precedent.”

Kate Redburn, co-director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, explained after the arguments that there was the potential for an outcome that “would authorize a much broader range of sex discrimination, which has been previously found unconstitutional.

“There could be situations where the government could distinguish between people by sex, and courts would not intervene,” they continued, saying a ruling in favor of Tennessee could make it easier for states to pass policies that discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or other reproductive choices, for example: “Regulations that we now would say are based on stereotypes – especially stereotypes about what women’s proper role is – depending on how expansive this opinion is, those stereotypes could be authorized.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, also noted that a decision declaring that the ban on care is not discriminatory could open the door to bans on gender-affirming healthcare for all trans people, not just youth: “You’re licensing states to deprive grown adults of the choice of which sex to adopt.”

Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, responded that the “democratic process” was the “best check on potentially misguided laws”. Sotomayor interjected: “When you’re 1% of the population, or less, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn’t protect them. It didn’t protect women for whole centuries.”

“That was a chilling moment,” said Sydney Duncan, senior counsel at Advocates for Trans Equality, who sat in the courtroom. “Is the next step to ban adult healthcare? The state didn’t have a great answer there.” She noted that Tennessee’s law is rooted in “bad science” and misinformation. Doctors cited as expert witnesses for the state have repeatedly been discounted and rebuked by US judges for their lack of credentials and anti-trans bias, the Guardian recently reported.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, asked Prelogar about bans on trans people in athletics: “If you prevail here … would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play in women’s and girls’ sports?” Prelogar responded that the sports issue – which has become a focus of Republicans’ culture war – was related to a different legal question. Kavanaugh’s questions raised some concerns from advocates that the outcome could have broader impacts for LGBTQ+ rights beyond youth healthcare.

“The justices likely see this case as a potential harbinger of future litigation and constitutional questions about trans people’s equal protection,” Redburn said.

Rice also claimed that trans plaintiffs were seeking a “right to engage in nonconforming behavior”. Redburn said the remark was noteworthy and raised broader concerns about people’s rights to self-expression:

“You can see the motivation is not, as the state has suggested, to protect the health of children, which is something that states have a right to regulate, but instead is based on not only particular animus towards transgender individuals, but also a broader social vision that upholds a certain gender hierarchy.”

The conservative justices appeared reluctant to intervene and block Tennessee’s ban, which means the outcome next year could deliver a dramatic blow to trans rights at a time of escalating attacks on LGBTQ+ equality across the US.

“It’s so important that we understand this case as deeply connected to … laws on race and sex discrimination more broadly,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of United for Reproductive and Gender Equity (Urge), an advocacy group. “These questions of what is privacy, what is autonomy, can we control our bodies and our families – these are all intertwined.”

The questions from Jackson and Sotomayor, she said, made clear that “the struggle for the recognition of trans people’s humanity cannot be separated from questions of race and gender equality that have long been cornerstones of this nation’s jurisprudence”, McGuire said.

She noted that anti-abortion and anti-trans activism were closely linked and that this case would probably be followed by efforts to ban adult gender-affirming care, birth control, IVF and other healthcare: “We have seen the right use marginalized people as the tip of the spear for a much larger attack … This voracious desire to be involved in our most personal, private decisions has no end.”

Imara Jones, a podcaster and CEO of the news organization TransLash, who sat in the room, noted that the healthcare under threat was long established: “If you eliminate gender-affirming care, you’re going to be shortening people’s lives and diminishing the quality of their lives. It’s a very real impact. This is not a constitutional or esoteric consideration for trans people. It’s as personal as it gets.”

Bamby Salcedo, a longtime activist and president of the TransLatin@ Coalition, said she and other advocates were bracing for a harmful ruling, but added: “For many of us as a community, hope is the last thing that will die. Regardless of the outcome, we as people are resilient … and we are going to continue to exist despite the oppression we may experience because of this decision. We are going to continue to fight like hell for all of us to be protected.”

[batboyblog]

A Tale of Two Judges

In federal court in Florida today a judge struck down a Florida law banning gender affirming care for minors as well as rules from the state's medical authority that set up barriers to trans adults seeking care

At the same time a federal court in Texas blocked guidance from the Biden Administration's Department of Education that Title IX should be understood as protecting trans students

And I think this is a great illustration that elections last LONG after they're finished, one judge blasted Florida's law as unconstitutional and quoted Dr. King in framing trans rights as the same as the struggle for racial equality and called on the courts to support them. The other gleefully sided with Republicans with Texas AG Ken Paxton declaring "“Joe Biden’s unlawful effort to weaponize Title IX for his extremist agenda has been stopped in its tracks"

The Judge in Florida was Senior Judge Robert Hinkle, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, Hinkle took the semi-retirement known as senior status in 2016, but still hears cases as he did here. Hinkle also ruled in 2014 that Florida's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The Judge in Texas is Judge Reed O'Connor, He was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007. O'Connor is very active in the conservative Federalist Society, Conservative Lawyers and Texas Attorneys General try to file their insane, legally nonsense, show boat cases in his court because if they get him he'll rule for the Republican side and against the Democratic side no matter what. In 2016 he blocked Obama Admin rules that declared Title IX meant trans students should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. While the Obama team appealed, once Trump was elected the rule was pulled and the case died.... hm. O'Connor is best known as that crazy man who ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in 2018, he was reversed, he ruled the Indian Child Welfare Act was unconstitutional, he ruled in 2022 the US Navy couldn't require Navy SEALS get Covid vaccines.

all to say when you get into a voting booth remember one of the things you vote for is Judges, who have a huge amount of power, and you can either get cool progressive minded judges who will still be making ground breaking rulings to protect civil rights 28 years after being nominated, or you can get conservative hacks who rule whatever wing nut thing they see on Fox 18 years after being nominated. During his Presidency Trump got to nominate 234 federal judges (Biden is currently at 201) including 3 Supreme Court Justices (Biden has 1) And those judges will be with us for years not like 10 years, or even 20, or even 30, no no no, Judge Albert Branson Maris was nominated by FDR in 1936 and served till his death at age 95 in 1989, JFK's last nominee, William Joseph Nealon Jr., passed away still hearing cases at the age of 95 in 2018 (the second to last passed away the year before in 2017) LBJ's last judge, Jack B. Weinstein, only passed away in 2021, there are at least 7 Nixon judges still hearing cases, 50 years after Nixon Resigned from office in 1974. We will be dealing with Trump's Judges for 40-50 maybe more years. So keep that in mind when you vote.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 30, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 01, 2024

This morning, Time magazine published a cover story by Eric Cortellessa about what Trump is planning for a second term. Based on two interviews with Trump and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisors, the story lays out Trump’s conviction that he was “too nice” in his first term and that he would not make such a mistake again. 

Cortellessa writes that Trump intends to establish “an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.” 

He plans to use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million people. He is willing to permit Republican-dominated states to monitor pregnancies and prosecute people who violate abortion bans. He will shape the laws by refusing to release funds appropriated by Congress (as he did in 2019 to try to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to smear Hunter Biden). He would like to bring the Department of Justice under his own control, pardoning those convicted of attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and ending the U.S. system of an independent judiciary. In a second Trump presidency, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a European or Asian ally that Trump thinks isn’t paying enough for its own defense. Trump would, Cortelessa wrote, “gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

To that list, former political director of the AFL-CIO Michael Podhorzer added on social media that if Trump wins, “he could replace [Supreme Court justices Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and 40+ federal judges over 75 with young zealots.” 

“I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles?” Cortellessa wrote. No, Trump said. “‘I think a lot of people like it.” 

Time included the full transcripts and a piece fact-checking Trump’s assertions. The transcripts reflect the former president’s scattershot language that makes little logical sense but conveys impressions by repeating key phrases and advancing a narrative of grievance. The fact-checking reveals that narrative is based largely on fantasy. 

Trump’s own words prove the truth of what careful observers have been saying about his plans based on their examination of MAGA Republicans’ speeches, interviews, Project 2025, and so on, often to find themselves accused of a liberal bias that makes them exaggerate the dangers of a second Trump presidency. 

The idea that truthful reporting based on verifiable evidence is a plot by “liberal media” to undermine conservative values had its start in 1951, when William F. Buckley Jr., fresh out of Yale, published God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom.” Fervently opposed to the bipartisan liberal consensus that the federal government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, protect civil rights, and promote infrastructure, Buckley was incensed that voters continued to support such a system. He rejected the “superstition” that fact-based public debate would enable people to choose the best option from a wide range of ideas—a tradition based in the Enlightenment—because such debate had encouraged voters to choose the liberal consensus, which he considered socialism. Instead, he called for universities to exclude “bad” ideas like the Keynesian economics on which the liberal consensus was based, and instead promote Christianity and free enterprise.

Buckley soon began to publish his own magazine, the National Review, in which he promised to tell the “violated businessman’s side of the story,” but it was a confidential memorandum written in 1971 by lawyer Lewis M. Powell Jr. for a friend who chaired the education committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that insisted the media had a liberal bias that must be balanced with a business perspective. 

Warning that “the American economic system is under broad attack,” Powell worried not about “the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system.” They were, he wrote, a small minority. What he worried about were those coming from “perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” 

Businessmen must “confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management,” he wrote, launching a unified effort to defend American enterprise. Among the many plans Powell suggested for defending corporate America was keeping the media “under constant surveillance” to complain about “criticism of the enterprise system” and demand equal time. 

President Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, and when Nixon was forced to resign for his participation in the scheme to cover up the attempt to bug the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel before the 1972 election, he claimed he had to leave not because he had committed a crime, but because the “liberal” media had made it impossible for him to do his job. Six years later, Ronald Reagan, who was an early supporter of Buckley’s National Review, claimed the “liberal media” was biased against him when reporters accurately called out his exaggerations and misinformation during his 1980 campaign. 

In 1987, Reagan’s appointees to the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine that required media with a public license to present information honestly and fairly. Within a year, talk radio had gone national, with hosts like Rush Limbaugh electrifying listeners with his attacks on “liberals” and his warning that they were forcing “socialism” on the United States. 

By 1996, when Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News Channel (FNC), followers had come to believe that the news that came from a mainstream reporter was likely left-wing propaganda. FNC promised to restore fairness and balance to American political news. At the same time, the complaints of increasingly radicalized Republicans about the “liberal media” pushed mainstream media to wander from fact-based reality to give more and more time to the right-wing narrative. By 2018, “bothsidesing” had entered our vocabulary to mean “the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited.”

In 2023, FNC had to pay almost $800 million to settle defamation claims made by Dominion Voting Systems after FNC hosts pushed the lie that Dominion machines had changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and it has since tried to retreat from the more egregious parts of its false narrative. 

News broke yesterday that Hunter Biden’s lawyer had threatened to sue FNC for “conspiracy and subsequent actions to defame Mr. Biden and paint him in a false light, the unlicensed commercial exploitation of his image, name, and likeness, and the unlawful publication of hacked intimate images of him.” Today, FNC quietly took down from its streaming service its six-part “mock trial” of Hunter Biden, as well as a video promoting the series. 

Also today, Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump’s criminal trial for election fraud, found Trump in contempt of court for attacking witnesses and jurors. Merchan also fined Trump $1,000 per offense, required him to take down the nine social media posts at the heart of the decision, and warned him that future violations could bring jail time. This afternoon, Trump’s team deleted the social media posts. 

For the first time in history, a former U.S. president has been found in contempt of court. We know who he is, and today, Trump himself validated the truth of what observers who deal in facts have been saying about what a second Trump term would mean for the United States.

Reacting to the Time magazine piece, James Singer, the spokesperson for the Biden-Harris campaign, released a statement saying: “Not since the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today—because of Donald Trump. Trump is willing to throw away the very idea of America to put himself in power…. Trump is a danger to the Constitution and a threat to democracy.” 

Tomorrow, May 1, is “Law Day,” established in 1958 by Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower as a national recognition of the importance of the rule of law. In proclaiming the holiday today, Biden said: “America can and should be a Nation that defends democracy, protects our rights and freedoms, and pioneers a future of possibilities for all Americans. History and common sense show us that this can only come to pass in a democracy, and we must be its keepers.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[brian-in-finance]

Lawsuit Accuses Former Associate of Harvey Weinstein of Rape

A former model has filed a suit against Fabrizio Lombardo and Disney.

Fabrizio Lombardo, the former head of Miramax in Italy and a close associate of Harvey Weinstein, has been accused of rape in a lawsuit filed on April 6 in New York State Supreme Court. The suit was brought by Sara Ziff, a former model and the founder of the Model Alliance, an advocacy group for models and fashion creatives.

The suit alleges that Mr. Lombardo, assaulted Ms. Ziff in a New York City hotel in 2001 when she was 19.

Ms. Ziff is suing Mr. Lombardo, as well as Mr. Weinstein, Disney and its subsidiaries Buena Vista and Miramax, for abuse and negligence under the Adult Survivors Act. The A.S.A., which was passed in May 2022, extended, until November 2023, the rights of sex crime victims to bring civil claims that would otherwise have expired under the statute of limitations.

Mr. Lombardo — whom Mr. Weinstein once credited with saving his life and whose 2003 wedding involved Mr. Weinstein as his best man — often figured on the sidelines of the many stories about Mr. Weinstein’s predations on young women. He was named in the sexual harassment class action suit brought against the Weinstein Company and numerous related entities in October 2018. But this is the first time he himself has been accused of sexual assault in a court of law.

It is also the first time Ms. Ziff has spoken publicly about her own experience, despite being instrumental in helping others tell their stories of sexual abuse, specifically creating a help line for survivors at the Model Alliance.

“It’s taken over 20 years to process this,” she said in an interview in advance of filing the suit. “I couldn’t even talk to anyone about it for the first few years, let alone imagine taking legal action.” When the A.S.A. was passed, however, she said she began to reconsider.

Efforts to reach Mr. Lombardo were unsuccessful. Disney did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment.

Imran H. Ansari, a lawyer for Harvey Weinstein, wrote in an email: “Certainly Mr. Weinstein had no control over any alleged conduct by Mr. Lombardo, nor would he have any reason to know what Mr. Lombardo was doing nor where Mr. Lombardo was at the time that Ms. Ziff alleges she was raped. As such, Mr. Weinstein firmly denies that he has any liability for the alleged conduct of another.” (Mr. Weinstein was sentenced to a combined 39 years in prison for sex crimes in New York and Los Angeles.)

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Ziff met Mr. Lombardo in 2001 when she was considering becoming an actress; her agents brokered the meeting. Mr. Lombardo later invited her to a screening of a Miramax movie and said it would be a chance to meet Mr. Weinstein, then at the height of his power in Hollywood.

After the screening, the lawsuit says, Mr. Lombardo invited Ms. Ziff for a drink at the Mercer and said both Mr. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, would be there. When Ms. Ziff arrived, Mr. Lombardo brought her to a penthouse suite, with no one else present.

The lawsuit says that after making advances and being told by Ms. Ziff she had a boyfriend, Mr. Lombardo “pivoted her around onto the bed on her back,” lay on top of her and raped her.

“Ms. Ziff was in shock and lay in the bed, frozen. Mr. Lombardo fell asleep. Ms. Ziff woke up early the next morning, confused and alone in the hotel room. She walked home to her apartment, took a long shower, and cried,” the suit reads. The suit also says Ms. Ziff did not speak about the rape to anyone at the time. A few years later she told a fellow model, Caitriona Balfe (now an actress), about the assault.

Ms. Balfe confirmed that Ms. Ziff had told her about the rape during a fashion show season in Milan around 2005.

Ms. Balfe said she and Ms. Ziff never thought about making it public. “We were so young, and the crazy thing is as models we were being put in these really compromising situations all the time, and you just kind of accepted them,” Ms. Balfe said.

Now 40, and the mother of a young daughter, Ms. Ziff acknowledged that while her experience may have shaped her decision to go into advocacy and become the public face of models’ rights, she herself had been reluctant to do what she helped other models do.

“I feel more comfortable focusing on the discussions around policy,” she said. She and the Model Alliance are currently working on a new bill, the Fashion Workers Act, which focuses on regulating management agencies in order to prevent these abuses from happening. Co-sponsored by State Senator Brad Hoylman, the bill was introduced in the New York state legislature last year and will be reconsidered during the upcoming legislative session, after it was not passed the first time.

However, Ms. Ziff said, she had spent the last decade talking to other survivors, and in helping other people, she began to feel it was “the responsible thing” to come forward.

“I’ve been very anxious about it and at times wondered if I even want to go through this process,” she said. “I’ve spoken to other people who’ve gone through it and every single one of them says it’s a nightmare. But no matter how much I’ve tried to ignore it or minimize it, this is not my burden to hold.”

In 2017 Ms. Ziff filed a report with the New York City Police Department, though it did not lead to any charges. That was the year Mr. Lombardo was accused by four women, including the actress Asia Argento and the model Zoe Brock, of being Mr. Weinstein’s enabler — and employed by Miramax in part for that purpose. Mr. Lombardo emphatically denied the allegations in an interview with The New York Times.

Mr. Lombardo never appeared in court during the class action suit, and it was later settled as part of the Weinstein Company bankruptcy filing.

“I’ve always been frustrated by the fact that those people seem to escape any kind of accountability,” Ms. Ziff said. She said that when the A.S.A. was passed, she remembered going to the bill signing with the governor and with other women she had come to know over the years who had spoken out about their abuse and trauma.

“It felt like here was a real sense of possibility that perhaps we could do something about what happened,” she said, “even if it happened a very long time ago.”

Vanessa Friedman has been the fashion director and chief fashion critic for The Times since 2014. In this role she covers global fashion for both The New York Times and International New York Times. @VVFriedman

New York Times 7 April 2023

Remember… I’ve spoken to other people who’ve gone through it and every single one of them says it’s a nightmare. But no matter how much I’ve tried to ignore it or minimize it, this is not my burden to hold. — Sara Ziff

[alphaman99]

HISTORY THAT SHOULDN'T BE FORGOTTEN.

Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. He was imprisoned for 2 years without a trial, however...

The post-war Jefferson Davis: The famous trial that never was.

By Bill Ward

When the War Between the States ended, the victorious Northerners viewed Jefferson Davis, as the former President of the Confederate States of America, much differently than others who had served the Confederacy.

For example, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the meeting between the two generals was amicable. Lee was received and treated with courtesy as a senior officer. The terms were so apparently lenient, with Grant conceding to Lee’s requests on behalf of his soldiers, the surrender was referred to as “a gentleman’s agreement.”

However, even after signing a loyalty oath, Lee and other former Confederate Army officers and members of the CSA government were later disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens. But in the eyes of the northern public, Jefferson Davis was set apart for still a different kind of treatment.

On May 10, 1865, about a mile from the town of Irwinville, Georgia, Federal troops captured Davis. With his arrest on that spring morning, his government ceased to exist. His wife, Varina, and their children were sent to Savannah, where she was kept under virtual house arrest and forbidden to leave the city. Because the soldiers, carpetbaggers and Union supporters treated the Davis children so badly, Varina arranged for them to go to Canada along with her mother.

Davis had been taken back to Virginia and imprisoned in Fort Monroe, where he would stay for the next two years. At first, he was bound in leg irons. Guards watched him around the clock but were not permitted to speak to him. He was allowed no visitors; a light burned in his cell day and night; and his only reading material was a Bible. His treatment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

Many Northern Congressmen and newspapers were nothing short of vicious in their public attacks of Davis. They wanted to see him tried for treason and hanged. In one article, and in one very long sentence, the New York Times referred to Davis by every insulting comment and offensive name that was fit to print. Rhetoric far outran legal reasoning.

But if Davis was in an unusual legal predicament, so was the United States government. The dilemma faced by Washington was how to handle the Davis case. The government under Lincoln had created its own major obstacles by spending four years proclaiming that secessionists were “traitors and conspirators.” The U.S. military had silenced opposition to the administration by closing down newspapers that dared challenge the party line or to make the slightest suggestion that secession might be legal. Thousands of Northerners had been jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, and those thousands had friends with long memories in the Northern bar.

Northern lawyers were angry for having their clients locked in prison with no civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; having civilians tried by military courts for non-existent crimes; having a government that ignored the Supreme Court, setting itself above the constitutional plan of checks and balances. They didn’t like having to beg the president for justice for clients convicted by phony courts-martial or locked up for long periods without any trial. Under Lincoln, the U.S. government had become tyrannical, and certainly anything but a free and constitutional society.

The best lawyers of the day were willing to volunteer to defend Jefferson Davis, because they were angry at the way Lincoln’s government had trampled the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for four years. Even those who didn’t believe in secession were repulsed by the conduct of the Republican administration and the U.S. military.

Charles O’Connor of New York, one of the most famous trial lawyers of the era and a man of great stature in the legal profession, volunteered to be Davis’s counsel. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would be the trial judge.

But interesting things began to happen, and the government’s dilemma became even worse. University of Virginia Law Professor, Albert Bledsoe, published a book, “Is Davis a Traitor?” Bledsoe methodically took apart the case against secession, delivering a solid blow to the prosecutors and dampening their zeal to try Davis. Prosecutors actually began to look for a way to avoid trying him without vindicating the South.

Then another method was decided on for prosecution. The attorney general would bring in outside, independent counsel, as we have seen in modern times, such as in Watergate or the Clinton scandals. The government needed someone of great standing in the legal community to be the lead prosecutor. It chose John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew citing “grave doubts” about the validity of the case. The government could “end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury,” where Davis’s “crime” was alleged to have been committed.

President Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, thought the easiest way out would be to pardon Davis, as he had pardoned many other Confederates. But Davis refused, saying, “To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt.” He wanted a trial to have the issue of secession decided by a court of law — where it should have been decided to begin with — instead of on battlefields. Most Southerners wanted the same.

Northerners either forgot or were unaware of a great secessionist tradition in America. Southerners were not alone in their view that each state had the right to determine its own destiny in the Union. The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union.

That thought harkens back to an editorial by the Cincinnati (Ohio) Daily Inquirer, in the summer of 1861, after the “traitor” label was let loose by the North: “The Republican papers are great on treason. . . . It is treason to circulate petitions for a compromise or peaceful readjustment of our national troubles . . . to question the constitutional powers of the President to increase the standing army without authority of law . . . to object to squads of military visiting private houses, and to make search and seizures. . . to question the infallibility of the President, and treason not to concur with him. . . It is treason to talk of hard times; to say that the war might have been avoided. It is treason to be truthful and faithful to the Constitution.”

A year after John Clifford withdrew, the government appointed another special counsel, Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the novel, “Two Years Before the Mast.” But after reviewing the evidence, he agreed with Clifford; the case was a loser. Dana argued that “a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled…as a rule of law by war.” Dana observed that the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law.

Now, over two years after Davis’s imprisonment and grand jury indictments for treason, the stage was set for the great public trial of the century. Davis had been released from prison on a $100,000 bond, supported by none other than Horace Greeley, the leading abolitionist writer in the North and a former Lincoln supporter. Greeley and a host of others were outraged at the treatment Davis had received, being locked up in a dungeon for more than two years with no speedy trial.

Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius.

The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn't be tried and punished again for treason.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davis’s counsel, Charles O’Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.

In late December 1867 while the motion was pending, President Johnson granted amnesty to everyone in the South, including Davis. But the Davis case was still on the docket. In February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and a government attorney, they agreed that on the following day a motion for non-prosecution would be made that would dismiss the case. A guest overheard the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: “I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was, and that a trial should be insisted upon, which could properly only result in a complete vindication of our cause, and of the action of the many thousands who had fought and of the many thousands who had died for what they felt to be right.”

And so, the case of United States versus Jefferson Davis came to its end — a case that was to be the trial of the century, a great state trial, perhaps the most significant trial in the history of the nation — that never was.

[evilelitest2]

So, where do you fall on Leftism spectrum? I sure hope not believing in left armament or successful uprising disqualifies me from being futher left than a liberal.

oh this is a complicated question, but in short not wanting a violent revolution doesn't make you not a leftist, it just makes you not an idiot. My view of leftism is that it is about protecting human rights, which is my first priority. I think my leftism boils down to the following points

Liberalism: Negative Freedoms, aka Civil Liberties, protections against government tyranny

Examples: Right to free speech, Freedom of religion, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, habitus Corpus, innocence until proven guilty, warrant any sort of limit on state power

Socialism: Positive freedoms, aka things the government needs to provide to all citizens

Examples: Free education, Free housing, Free Healthcare, free food, land redistribution, free clothing, free lawyers, free support ect

Progressivism, aka Civil Rights, things to protect citizens from other Citizens, mostly in terms of opposing bigotry. So policies that fight back against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, nativism, religious intolerance, anti Semitism and antiquated cultural norms.

Democratic Republican (not the political party like pro Democracy) Pro Democracy: Democracy is the best government system that we have and the more proportional a democracy the better, we need to remove most authoritarian power structures. democracy should be designed to resist corruption and graft form the ground up

Examples: Ranked Choice voting, abolish the Senate, lower the voting age, popular election of Presidents, term limits, abolish gerrymandering, limit the Supreme Court

Green: Oh dear god, please make the environment less horrible we are going to die

Examples: AHHHHHHHHHHH

I generally think that leftists must balance all 5 of those, if not, its not leftism i want, intersectionality is the name of the game

now within Leftism I am a huge statist, I think the State is the most effective tool for implementing these policies, and the most powerful tool for the left (i also have a low opinion on human nature) I am anti utopian, I am pro intellectual and anti conspiracy theory

So I think that makes me a Progressive Social Democrat, since "humanist" isn't a political party (except in disco Elysium)

[knothappy]

Our constitutional scholars of the current Supreme Court have failed to pass what is currently being taught to our youth of today. The Judicial branch of our government has never been authorized to change the laws of this country. Their job is to settle differences between lower courts. The judges were to be of moral character and impartial to what comes before them. No where in the constitution does it say that a judge must be a lawyer. This was something that was added after the Declaration of Independence and Constitution was established. "We the People" was never meant to include P.A.C.'s or unborn humans. Appointments to the judicial branch were never to be used as a political tool. The laws of this country were to be created by our 2 branches of Congress. Nothing expressly forbidden in the constitution would return to the individual state governments. This includes how federal officials are to be elected. This is why a civil war was fought. The 3 amendments were adapted immediately after this war. They must be examined again before they are cast aside. The judiciary was always separate from the executive branch of the government. Our legislative branch serves as a check against the other 2 branches. Our government can best be described as a 3-legged stool. Not a 6-legged stool, which is what we have with conservative and liberal parties. This is why political parties are not mentioned in the constitution.

[lawandlegal]

Advocate for Supreme Court of India – Advocate Narender Singh

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India stands as the highest judicial authority in the country, ensuring justice and the interpretation of constitutional laws. Advocates who practice here hold significant responsibility in shaping legal precedents. Among them, Advocate Narender Singh is a well-known legal expert known for his vast experience and dedication to justice. Advocate Narender Singh is one of the best advocate for Supreme Court of India.

Also Check : Criminal Lawyer For Supreme Court of India

Who is Advocate Narender Singh?

Background and Education

Advocate Narender Singh is a prominent Supreme Court lawyer with years of experience in handling complex legal matters. He pursued his law degree from a prestigious university and has since established himself as a formidable legal practitioner in the Supreme Court of India.

Professional Experience

With decades of experience, Advocate Narender Singh has built a reputation for handling high-profile cases with precision and dedication. His legal acumen, strategic approach, and in-depth knowledge of constitutional law make him one of the leading advocates in the Supreme Court.

Understanding the Role of an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India

Responsibilities and Duties

A Supreme Court advocate is responsible for representing clients in the apex court, providing legal counsel, drafting petitions, and ensuring that justice is upheld through legal arguments and precedents.

Qualifications Required

To practice in the Supreme Court, an advocate must be registered with the Bar Council of India and pass the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) examination, which grants them the right to file petitions in the Supreme Court.

Legal Expertise and Specialization of Advocate Narender Singh

Areas of Practice

Advocate Narender Singh specializes in constitutional law, civil disputes, corporate litigation, criminal defense, and human rights cases. His diverse portfolio demonstrates his capability to handle a wide range of legal matters.

Landmark Cases Handled

Over the years, he has been instrumental in several landmark cases that have influenced the interpretation of legal principles in India.

How to Become an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India?

Academic Qualifications

Aspiring advocates must complete a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from a recognized institution and enroll with a State Bar Council.

Enrollment in Bar Council

After obtaining the law degree, an advocate must pass the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to become a registered lawyer.

Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Exam

Only those who pass the AOR exam can officially file cases in the Supreme Court, a prestigious achievement for any advocate.

The Importance of an Advocate in the Supreme Court

Role in Delivering Justice

Advocates play a crucial role in upholding constitutional rights, defending the innocent, and ensuring fair trials.

Impact on the Legal System

Through their arguments and case laws, Supreme Court advocates contribute to shaping legal precedents that influence future judgments.

Famous Cases Represented by Advocate Narender Singh

He has been involved in numerous notable cases, making significant contributions to Indian jurisprudence.

Challenges Faced by Supreme Court Advocates

Legal Complexities

Handling constitutional and legal matters requires immense knowledge, analytical skills, and strategic thinking.

Work Pressure and Ethical Responsibilities

Advocates face intense work pressure, maintaining ethical standards while dealing with sensitive legal issues.

Why Choose Advocate Narender Singh?

Experience and Track Record

His success rate and expertise in various legal fields make him a sought-after advocate.

Client Testimonials and Reviews

His clients appreciate his professionalism, dedication, and meticulous approach to cases.

The Process of Hiring a Supreme Court Advocate

Consultation and Case Evaluation

The first step is to discuss the case, understand its legal merits, and explore possible strategies.

Legal Fees and Procedures

Understanding the financial aspects of hiring a Supreme Court advocate is essential for clients seeking legal assistance.

Advocate Narender Singh’s Contributions to the Legal Field

Legal Publications and Writings

He has authored various legal articles and papers contributing to the academic side of law.

Training and Mentorship

As a mentor, he has trained many young lawyers, guiding them in their legal careers.

The Future of Advocacy in the Supreme Court

Trends and Legal Reforms

Legal reforms and technological advancements are shaping the future of the judiciary.

Role of Technology in Legal Proceedings

Digital case management and virtual hearings are becoming integral to the legal system.

Conclusion

G His contributions to the legal field have made a significant impact on India’s legal landscape.

FAQs

What is the significance of an advocate in the Supreme Court? Supreme Court advocates ensure justice by presenting cases and interpreting legal provisions.

How can one contact Advocate Narender Singh for legal assistance? He can be reached through his legal chambers or professional website.

What is the difference between an Advocate and an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court? An Advocate-on-Record has the exclusive right to file cases in the Supreme Court, whereas other advocates can argue cases.

How long does it take to become a Supreme Court Advocate? It typically takes over a decade, including education, practice, and passing the AOR exam.

What types of cases does Advocate Narender Singh specialize in? He specializes in constitutional law, civil disputes, corporate litigation, and criminal defense.

[bllsbailey]

Biden Judge Ho Fought Trump, Now Hearing DOJ, Adams Prosecution

New York Mayor Eric Adams' lawyer asked, top officials in President Donald Trump's Justice Department agreed, and seven prosecutors resigned in protest.

Now, it is up to Dale E. Ho, a second-year federal judge in Manhattan, to decide if Adams' corruption case goes away.

It is the biggest challenge of Ho's young judicial career, pitting the political pursuits of new Justice Department leadership in Washington against the objections of federal prosecutors in Manhattan who charged Adams last September and insist he be held accountable for allegedly taking bribes and illegal campaign contributions from foreign interests.

Ho, an Ivy League-educated former civil rights lawyer and law professor, is going to hear a case with serious implications for Adams' future as mayor and the Justice Department's desire to abandon prosecutions it no longer finds politically expedient.

Ho, who argued against Trump's first administration twice before the Supreme Court, is summoning the parties, including Adams, to his courtroom Wednesday as he seeks to drill down on the Justice Department's drive to end the case and the mayor's willingness to go along with that.

Ho, 47, was first nominated to the Manhattan federal bench by then-President Joe Biden in September 2021. But his civil rights background and admittedly "overheated rhetoric" on social media — including posts criticizing conservative members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voting on his nomination — made for a lengthy and contentious confirmation process.

In his confirmation questionnaire, Ho said he volunteered to make telephone calls, knock on doors and work as a poll watcher for President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Before the ACLU, Ho worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In college, he disclosed, he had written for a left-leaning student magazine called "The Princeton Progressive."

At Ho's confirmation hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called him an "extreme partisan" and accused Biden of "trying to put judicial robes" on a "partisan and radical agenda."

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Ho: "You're a smart man. I can tell. But I think you're an angry man."

The Justice Department's second-in-command, Emil Bove, has said it wants the case dismissed, in part, to ensure Adams' cooperation with Trump's immigration crackdown. Two prosecutors who quit rather than comply with Bove's orders last week to drop the case said the arrangement amounted to a "quid pro quo."

Adams' lawyer denies that.

Ho has moved deliberately since Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, stepped in and filed paperwork last Friday asking him to dismiss the case. Rather than simply sign the blank space above his name on the government's dismissal motion, Ho is seeking more information, interrogating motives and soliciting input from both sides on his options to resolve the matter.

It is a trait Ho has embodied throughout his career, said David D. Cole, the former national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, where Ho ran the Voting Rights Project for a decade before joining the federal bench in 2023.

"Dale Ho is one of the very best lawyers I've ever worked with. He is diligent, careful and unstinting in his pursuit of justice," said Cole, now a law and public policy professor at Georgetown University. "And, as may be relevant here, he is someone who fully appreciates both the limits and the responsibilities of his role."

Ho told the senators that if confirmed, "I'll do everything I can to ensure that everyone who comes before the court gets a fair shake, a fair opportunity to be heard, and ultimately equal treatment under the law."

Biden resubmitted Ho's nomination after midterm elections and the Senate confirmed him in June 2023 in a 50-49 party-line vote. Ho was sworn in two months later and was on the bench for about a year before Adams' corruption case landed in his courtroom — a randomly generated assignment.

Joshua Naftalis, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor who is not involved in Adams' case, said that until 80 years ago, cases were automatically dismissed by the parties, but the rules were changed in 1944 to require a judge to approve the dismissal of an indictment.

Ho's options for Adams' case appear limited, in part because the body that brought the case no longer wants to pursue it. But in a letter before her resignation last week, interim Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon cited a 1977 case in which a judge in the same court rejected the government's dismissal request, finding that doing so was "not in the public interest."

Ho has taken a hard line on Adams before. In December, the judge issued a 30-page ruling rejecting the mayor's request to dismiss a bribery count, one of five charges against him. Last month, Ho rejected the mayor's request for an inquiry into purported grand jury leaks, finding that he hadn't provided any evidence to back his claim.

Ho, the son of Filipino immigrants, was born and raised in San Jose, California, and now lives in Brooklyn, where he has served on the 2018 New York City Charter Revision Commission that capped the size of financial contributions to candidates for certain elected city offices.

Testifying to a House committee about voting issues in 2017, Ho said his grandfather, Raymundo Seña Estacion, fought for the U.S. in World War II and survived the Bataan Death March during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines.

"He was always keenly aware, even as a kid, where his parents came from and, frankly, what they escaped from — a country where power rested not in the people but in the whims of one leader," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in supporting Ho's nomination.

Ho graduated summa cum laude from Princeton in 1999 and he earned his law degree from Yale in 2005. In between, he started his career as a paralegal at the Manhattan district attorney's office — down the street from the court where he now works — and was later a law clerk for a Manhattan federal judge.

As director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, Ho wrote and testified extensively about legal voting issues, including racial gerrymandering, voting by mail and purged voter rolls.

In 2019, Ho argued before the Supreme Court in successfully challenging the first Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the Census. In 2020, he argued before the high court in challenging a Trump memorandum directing that undocumented immigrants be excluded from the population base used to apportion House seats. Ho's side lost, but Biden reversed Trump's memo when he took office.

[legesjurisassociatesdelhi]

How to Choose the Best Litigation Law Firms in Delhi?

The legal landscape in Delhi is vast and competitive, with numerous litigation law firms offering their services. Whether you are an individual or a business, finding the right law firm can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. But with so many options available, how do you identify the best litigation law firm in Delhi that suits your needs? This guide will walk you through essential factors to consider when making this critical decision.

Understanding Your Legal Needs

Before you start searching for a litigation law firm, define your legal requirements. Litigation covers a broad spectrum, including:

Civil Litigation (property disputes, contract enforcement, etc.)

Criminal Litigation (bail matters, defense, prosecution, etc.)

Corporate Litigation (business disputes, regulatory compliance, etc.)

Family Litigation (divorce, child custody, inheritance disputes, etc.)

Once you understand your needs, you can look for a firm specializing in the relevant area.

Research the Reputation and Experience

Delhi has a mix of established law firms and emerging legal practices. To ensure you're choosing the best, consider the following:

Firm’s Track Record: Review past cases handled by the firm and their success rate.

Years of Practice: Older firms with decades of experience often have seasoned lawyers with in-depth legal knowledge.

Client Testimonials: Look for online reviews, Google ratings, and client feedback to gauge the firm’s reliability.

Professional Associations: Firms associated with reputed legal organizations (Bar Council of Delhi, Supreme Court Bar Association) have credibility.

Expertise and Specialization

Litigation is highly specialized. Some firms focus on corporate litigation, while others excel in criminal or family law cases. Look for:

Dedicated Legal Experts: A firm with lawyers who specialize in your type of case.

Notable Achievements: Awards and recognitions in legal excellence.

Landmark Judgments: Check if the firm has handled any high-profile cases successfully.

Availability and Communication

Legal battles can be stressful, and having an accessible lawyer can ease your concerns. Ensure the firm provides:

Regular Case Updates: A good law firm keeps clients informed.

Transparent Communication: Lawyers should explain legal strategies in a simple and understandable manner.

Responsiveness: Quick replies to calls, emails, and queries.

Fee Structure and Transparency

Legal costs can be a deciding factor. Before finalizing a firm, clarify:

Consultation Charges: Some firms offer free initial consultations, while others charge for advice.

Billing Methods: Check if they charge per hour, per case, or on a contingency basis.

Hidden Costs: Ensure that all fees are clearly mentioned in the agreement.

Law Firm Size: Big vs. Small Firms

Both large and boutique law firms have their advantages:

Big Law Firms: Have vast resources, multiple specialists, and handle complex cases.

Boutique Firms: Offer personalized attention and are often more affordable.

Choose based on your case complexity and budget.

Court Representation and Negotiation Skills

A good litigation firm should excel in both court representation and out-of-court settlements. Look for:

Strong Litigation Strategies: A firm with an aggressive and strategic legal approach.

Negotiation Expertise: A firm that can settle disputes favorably without prolonged trials.

Ethical Standards and Professionalism

Integrity is crucial in legal matters. Ensure the firm adheres to:

Bar Council Rules: They should follow ethical guidelines set by the Bar Council of India.

No Conflict of Interest: Ensure the firm does not represent the opposing party in related matters.

Confidentiality Agreements: Your legal discussions must remain private and secure.

Accessibility and Location

Although many firms offer virtual consultations, having a law firm near the court where your case is filed can be beneficial. Consider:

Proximity to the High Court or Supreme Court: If your case involves higher courts, choose a firm experienced in those jurisdictions.

Branch Offices: Larger firms with multiple offices provide better accessibility.

Consultation and Case Assessment

Before finalizing a law firm, schedule a consultation to evaluate:

Lawyer’s Approach: Do they listen to your concerns and provide a strategic plan?

Understanding of Your Case: A good firm should analyze your case thoroughly and offer a realistic outlook.

Comfort Level: Trust your instincts—choose a firm where you feel confident and comfortable.

Final Thoughts

Choosing the best litigation law firm in Delhi requires careful consideration. Look beyond flashy advertisements and focus on experience, expertise, reputation, and client-centric service. The right law firm can be your strongest ally in securing a favorable legal outcome.

Take your time, do your research, and consult with multiple firms before making a final decision. Legal matters can be complex, but with the right legal team by your side, you can navigate them successfully.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is the average cost of hiring a litigation law firm in Delhi?A: Costs vary based on the firm’s reputation, case complexity, and lawyer’s experience. Some firms charge hourly, while others have fixed fees.

Q2. Should I hire an individual lawyer or a law firm?A: Law firms often have multiple specialists, making them better suited for complex cases, whereas individual lawyers might be a more affordable option for simpler cases.

Q3. How long does litigation usually take in Delhi courts?A: It depends on the nature of the case. Some cases are resolved within months, while others take years due to court backlogs.

Q4. Can I switch my lawyer if I am not satisfied?A: Yes, you can change lawyers at any stage, but it’s best to do so early to avoid delays.

By keeping these insights in mind, you can make an informed choice and secure legal representation that best meets your needs.

[imspardagus]

Dear Keir,

An open letter to Sir Keir Starmer, lately Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

I know how easy it is for us to lose sight of important things when we come under pressure, or think we have. So I thought I would write to you with a couple of reminders, just in case this was what happening to you.

Let me begin with the constitutional. We tend to forget in this country that Prime Ministers are Crown appointees. They are not elected and they have no “mandate from the people”. At best, and for a while, while their luck lasts, they have a mandate from their party. In this regard, they are of course significantly different from Presidents of the USA, whom, myopically, the Constitution of that poor bedevilled country chose to see individually mandated by what passes, if you close your eyes, for a democratic election and therefore entitled to claim to be invested with powers and privileges backed by the people (or at least a misled and misinformed section of the people).

No, I know it may seem like political pedantry, but it is very important that you grasp that it is MPs who are elected in this country and, by dint of that, Parliament is the supreme authority and you are Parliament’s servant. Even if everyone around you is insisting that you are the elected and mandated PM, it is just a lazy and convenient lie, and that way tyranny and downfall lie. Don’t believe me? Look behind you: Sunak; Truss; Johnson; May; Cameron.

You got your job because the King thought you could persuade a majority of those MPs to support whatever nonsense you put before them and suspend their duty as MPs and their consciences to do so. And things have been made easier for you by Parliament’s willingness to be whipped into serving that canard. But the constitutional truth is that it is they who hold the mandate, not you. That is why it is so easy for an unrepresentative part of them to ditch you when the going appears to get tough. Not so much of a mandate from the people then, eh?

You have to hold on to the fact that you are the CEO, not the Chairman of the Board and that what we call the Government is simply the executive, a group of fellow appointees who are accountable to Parliament, and, through Parliament and the courts, to the people. I know, everything conspires to make it look as if it is the other way round but it really isn’t. And that should be a blessing for you because you really don’t have an idea let alone an answer, do you? In the still of the night you would love for this cup – the poisoned chalice of appearing to rule the nation – to be taken away.

That is why you must, however hard it is, hold to the principle that you and your ministers are subject to the law. Only Parliament is above it. You have been a lawyer and a senior civil servant; you should understand that. And you should insist that everybody else understands it too. It’s a blessing really, to be able to say “I am going to uphold the law and act within it, not rail against it every time it seems to defy me. If Parliament wants to change the law, so be it. That is their prerogative, not mine.” You need, you see, to reset the boundaries between you and Parliament and between you and the courts. Make them take the responsibility they signed up for. And set yourself free. Free to serve. Then you will be able to sleep at night.

Returning to the US Presidency, Trump is the enemy of democracy and a bully. You know that. He is not a friend of the UK and he should not be your friend. My Mum was very clear on the company you should keep when I was growing up. I know she wasn’t a toolmaker but she was a very decent and proud Yorkshire woman from a poor but hard-working railwayman’s family.

My Dad wasn’t a toolmaker either. He was a career civil servant rather like you should have remained. He wasn’t a socialist either, any more than you are. But he had his sense of smell; and the stench of Musk and Trump would have had him retching, not fawning.

Fawning only buys you a moment’s acceptance but it comes at the price of a lifetime of subservience. To bullies and sleazeball gangsters like Trump, you are only as good as your next acquiescence. Is that all you think this country is worth?

Know who your true friends are, that’s what my non-toolmaker Mum taught me. Don’t play with the naughty boys. They only want one thing.

Keep faith with the truth, that’s what my non-toolmaker Dad told me. Living for another person’s lies will bring you no peace, no contentment.

If you don’t hold to these principles, in the end you will not be a toolmaker, Just a tool.

Just now, a tool is how you are presenting, and the public knows it – just look at your ratings. Tools get used then set aside. Tools don’t get to choose who they get used by. Tools get broken.

Don’t be a tool.

Lots of love,

Iain x

[webntrmpt2x]

Elie Mystal

Excerpt:

“Many of Trump’s orders are illegal, and unconstitutional, and brazenly so. Most good-faith lawyers can see that, but “good faith�� does not describe the current state of the federal judiciary. Trump and MAGA have captured and corrupted the courts: They have seeded the lower courts with federal judges more loyal to Trump and his white-supremacist movement than they are to the law. They have stacked the Supreme Court with justices hostile to civil rights and equality. This doesn’t mean that cases brought by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, or Democratic state attorneys general are destined to fail. Their cases are righteous (and, legally speaking, right) and must be brought. Some might even succeed.

“But the courts will not “save” us. They will not be the backstop protecting us from the Trump-Musk takeover, and any person who tells you otherwise, especially if that person is an elected Democrat in Congress, is selling you an excuse for inaction and complacency. Trump and Musk are barbarians at the gate; calling in the lawyers to tell them they’re trespassing isn’t going to halt their advance. Courts are not known for their harm prevention—they’re best used when trying to hold someone accountable for the harm they already caused.”

[career-pathways]

Law College in Patna: A Guide to Legal Education and Career Opportunities

Introduction

Choosing the right law college in Patna is the first step toward a successful legal career. Patna, the capital of Bihar, is home to several prestigious law institutions that offer courses like LLB, BA LLB, and BBA LLB. These courses help students build a strong foundation in legal education and open doors to various career opportunities in law firms, corporate sectors, and government agencies.

In this blog, we will explore the best law colleges in Patna, their courses, career opportunities, and why studying law in Patna can be a great choice for aspiring lawyers.

Why Choose a Law College in Patna?

1. Rich Legal Heritage

Patna has a strong legal history and is home to the Patna High Court, one of India’s oldest high courts. Studying law in Patna provides students with exposure to real-world legal proceedings, internships, and networking opportunities with experienced lawyers and judges.

2. Affordable Education

Compared to law colleges in other metropolitan cities, law education in Patna is more affordable. Students get quality education at lower tuition fees, making it an attractive option for aspiring lawyers.

3. Growing Legal Opportunities

With the rapid economic and industrial growth in Bihar, the demand for legal professionals is increasing. Law graduates from Patna have ample opportunities to work in corporate law firms, judicial services, litigation, and legal consulting.

Top Law Courses Offered in Patna

1. Bachelor of Laws (LLB)

Duration: 3 years

Eligibility: Graduation in any stream

Career Options: Lawyer, Legal Advisor, Judicial Services, Corporate Law

2. BA LLB (Integrated)

Duration: 5 years

Eligibility: 10+2 from a recognized board

Career Options: Litigation, Civil & Criminal Law, Government Jobs

3. BBA LLB (Integrated)

Duration: 5 years

Eligibility: 10+2 from a recognized board

Career Options: Corporate Lawyer, Business Consultant, Legal Analyst

Best Law Colleges in Patna

Here are some of the top law colleges in Patna that offer high-quality legal education:

Ambedkar Law College

This college is recognized by the Bar Council of India and affiliated with Patliputra University.

Offers LLB, BA LLB, and BBA LLB programs

One of the oldest and most reputed law colleges in Bihar

Chanakya National Law University (CNLU)

A premier law university in Bihar

Offers BA LLB, BBA LLB, and LLM programs

Excellent infrastructure and faculty

Amity Law School, Patna

Part of Amity University

Offers integrated BA LLB and BBA LLB programs

Modern campus and industry-focused curriculum

Bihar Institute of Law

Affiliated with Magadh University

Offers LLB and BA LLB programs

Known for its experienced faculty and legal research

Chandragupt Institute of Management Patna (CIMP) – School of Law

Provides a specialized law curriculum with business insights

Focus on corporate and business law

Career Opportunities After Studying Law in Patna

After completing a law degree from a top law college in Patna, students can explore various career paths:

1. Litigation and Advocacy

Law graduates can start practicing as advocates in district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court. They can also work under senior advocates to gain experience.

2. Corporate Lawyer

Many companies hire law graduates as corporate legal advisors to handle business contracts, mergers, acquisitions, and compliance.

3. Judicial Services

Law graduates can appear for Bihar Judicial Services Examination (BJSE) and become judges, magistrates, or public prosecutors.

4. Legal Consultancy

Graduates can work as legal consultants for firms, government agencies, and NGOs, providing advice on legal matters.

5. Academia and Research

For those interested in teaching, pursuing an LLM and PhD can lead to a career as a professor or legal researcher.

Admission Process for Law Colleges in Patna

The admission process for law colleges in Patna varies based on the institute and course. Here are the common ways to secure admission:

1. Entrance Exams

CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) – Required for admission to national law universities like CNLU.

BHU UET, DU LLB, LSAT – Other exams accepted by some private colleges.

BJSE (Bihar Judicial Services Exam) – For students who wish to become judges after their LLB.

2. Merit-Based Admission

Some law colleges in Patna provide admission based on 12th-grade marks (for BA LLB, BBA LLB) or graduation marks (for LLB).

3. Direct Admission

Private law colleges offer direct admission based on academic performance and personal interviews.

Conclusion

Choosing the best law college in Patna is a crucial decision for a successful legal career. With a strong legal heritage, affordable education, and growing job opportunities, Patna is emerging as a great destination for law aspirants. Whether you choose LLB, BA LLB, or BBA LLB, Patna’s law colleges provide the knowledge and skills required for a bright future in the legal profession.

If you are planning to pursue law in Patna, start by researching the best colleges, checking their eligibility criteria, and preparing for entrance exams. A career in law is not just rewarding but also a path to uphold justice and serve society.

Are you ready to begin your journey in legal education? Explore law colleges in Patna today and take the first step toward a successful legal career!

[trend932455660]

Best Supreme Court Lawyers in Bangalore

Finding the right legal representation for Supreme Court cases is essential for navigating the complexities of the Indian legal system. In Bangalore, HNCK and Associates have earned a reputation as one of the best legal firms for Supreme Court matters. Their expertise, dedication, and client-centric approach make them the preferred choice for individuals and businesses alike.

Whether you are dealing with a constitutional issue, a criminal appeal, or a civil dispute, HNCK and Associates can provide the guidance and representation you need. Contact them today to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards resolving your legal challenges.