Supreme Court Fraud Gal Corrupts Mediation Agreement

The Court Of Supreme Court
IV. THE COURT ERRED IN ENFORCING A MEDIATED AGREEMENT WHICH WAS
OBTAINED HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY THE GAL WHOM COMMITTED FRAUD UPON
THE COURT CORRUPTING THE IMPARTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT, THEREBY
MAKING THE WHOLE PROCESS VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW.
A. The actions of the court's appointed Guardian ad Litem constitute fraud on the court because they
corrupt the impartial functions of the court.
In Parramore v. Parramore, 61 Fla. 701, 703 (1911), the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the
decree of the trial court annulling the final decree of divorce due to fraud upon the court. The
defendant in Parramore tried to commit fraud upon the court to prevent his wife from fully and
fairly presenting her case in court. The defendant in Parramore "sued the complainant as being a
resident of the city of Waco, Texas, and swore in an affidavit attached to the bill of complaint that
the said complainant resided at Waco, Texas." Id at 796.
The court in the tenth circuit defined fraud on the court and other courts have adopted this
description as "fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the
parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury . . . It is thus fraud where the court or a
member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed
his judicial function –– thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly
corrupted." Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir. 1983);
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Court : The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court
Jenifer R. Roberts
Brown Mackie College
The Supreme Court
Introduction
This paper is going to describe the road from arrest to Supreme Court, and the two ways a
case can go t the Supreme Court.This paper will also identify the merits of a case that can lead to
the case going to the Supreme Court. Also why it is important to be prepared for the Supreme
Court, and some jobs of their jobs.
Summary
THE ROAD TO THE SUPREME COURT There are many different reasons a person can find
themselves in a court as the defendant.
When they do it all usually starts with an arrest. First the individual will have their initial
appearance. At the first appearance the judge obtains the defendant's address, name, and will
inform them of the charges against them. The defendant will either be appointed a lawyer or get
one on their own Myers, Myers, & Samaha, 2010).
Next is the preliminary hearing. This is where the judge hears the evidence and from the
witness(es). If the judge decides there is enough evidence that the person has committed a crime,

then the case will go go to arraignment, and the date will be set. This is where the case goes to
superior court (Myers, Myers, & Samaha, 2010).
Even though the defendant may not be in jail, they still will have to be present on the
arraignment date. On the date set the defendant will specify if they are guilt, not guilty, or
pleased no

Supreme Court Injustices
Article III:1 of the Constitution states that "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and
establish." The US Supreme Court currently has eight justices serving. The current justices are
(Chief Justice) John G. Roberts Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Anthony Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. For a justice to be
chosen, the president nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to
confirm the nomination. Due to the large affect that the supreme court has on our law, it is important
to have this balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. The
words "equal justice under law" are inscribed above the main entrance to the supreme court
building. These words remind that the duty of the supreme court is to ensure that the American
people are granted equal justice under the law, and that they are additionally to serve and protect the
US constitution. The challenge of the supreme court is interpreting the constitution, and adapting it
to modern day. Former Justice Marshall had expressed this by stating "we must never forget that it is
a constitution we are expounding... intended to endure for ages to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This term is then divided into "sittings" and "recesses" which alternate at roughly two week
intervals. Up to twenty–four cases can be argued in one sitting. The cases heard by the Supreme
Court set a precedent for cases going forward, and instructs the public on what behavior is and isn't
upheld by their constitutional rights. The court receives approximately 7–8,000 cases filed each
term. This directly impacts law enforcement as these case law decisions influence the ways in which
we conduct our duties at

Supreme Court Case
Supreme Court Case
Happy Villa
May 19, 2014
Loanan Ase
In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what
interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case.
The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are
brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading,
reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and
women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict
against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Accomplice Liability and Criminal Liability Accomplice liability consents the court to find a person
or persons criminally liable for actions committed by another person. Criminal liability is when a
person is commits the crime or act and that he or she intent to commit the crime at that moment.
Sergeant Cotton was acquitted of all criminal charges against him in the criminal side. However, the
Robert and Marian Tolan felt that the lower court's decision was not fair. I do agree with the Tolans.
I believe that courts did not take the evidence that was present to them inconsideration that Cotton
was guilty. Cotton carelessly made an error on typing in the car tag number that Robert Tolan and
his cousin was driving. Since, he made that mistake he is responsible criminal and civil. He should
have been since to prison time and he should be responsible of the wellbeing of Robert Tolan. On
the other hand Cotton was found not criminal liability for the charges in criminal court but Tolan
took his case to the Supreme Court. Cotton then was found responsible in civil court.
Difference between the various elements of crime including actus reus, mens rea, and concurrence
Mens rea, actus reus, and concurrence are all elements to a crime. These elements must be present to
charge a person with a crime. The guilty mind is known as the mens rea being that a person has the
intent to commit the crime with the mental capacity. The "actus reus" of an

Supreme Court History
The Supreme Court was made up by the Judiciary act of 1789. It was made up of six justices and
they had to serve on the court until they died or retired. The Supreme Court was put on Article 3 of
the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court is jurisdiction on all laws and they overlook
treaties of the United States. The first meeting of the Supreme Court was on February 1, 1790 in the
Merchant's Exchange Building in New York. Since 1935, they have decided a lot of America's
issues. Some include eliminating race, separating the church from the states, decided life or death
for capital punishments, and refined rights of criminal defendants. From 1801 to 1935 the Supreme
Court met in the US Capitol building. Chief Justice William Howard

The Supreme Court Essay
The Supreme Court The Supreme Court has had many different places where it was located over the
years. There has been a struggle to find a permanent home for the most powerful court of law. At
first, the meetings were in the Merchant Exchange Building in New York City. The court then
followed the nation's capitol to Philadelphia in 1790. In 1800 the court again relocated to
Washington DC. At first they spent their time meeting in various places. The place to find the
Supreme Court now is in Washington DC, on First Street located in Northeast. The Supreme court
was created during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 during which the delegates discussed the
necessity of a Supreme Court. The two major reasons for the need of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Not all cases get heard by the Supreme Court. A case can either go through the federal or the state
court system, the case comes to the Supreme Court. There are four different ways to reach the
Supreme Court. It can be through a petition for an extraordinary writ. There is also a request for
certification. A case can also be heard through an appeal, or a petition for a writ of certiorari. The
Supreme Court has nine judges, which serve. These judges assess cases. These Justices hold their
terms for life, "during good behavior" under Article III. The current Supreme Court Justices are
Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975. Ronald Regan appointed Justice
Sandra Day O'Conner to her term in 1981. Justice Antonia Scalia was appointed by Ronald Regan in
1986. Another Justice appointed by Ronald Regan is Anthony Kennedy in 1988. George Bush
appointed Justice David Souter in 1990. Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush in
1991. Bill Clinton appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Bill Clinton also appointed
Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is Chief
Justice William Rehnquist who was appointed Justice by President Richard Nixon in 1972 and
earned his appointment to being Chief Justice by Ronald Regan in 1986. The U.S. Supreme Court
has agreed to hear a case

The Supreme Court Library
What sort of online resources are available?
The Court's Web site, provides access to opinions, orders, docket, Court calendars, transcripts,
schedules, rules, visitors' guides, case–handling guides, press releases and other general information.
Opinions are typically accessible on the Web site within five minutes of their release from the
Bench.
Who can access the Supreme Court Library?
Supreme Court Rule 2.1 states, "The Court's Library is available for use by appropriate personnel of
this Court, members of the Bar of this Court, Members of Congress and their legal staffs, and
attorneys for the United States and for federal departments and agencies." The Supreme Court
Library's main mission is to assist the Justices in fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities with
the best reference and research support in the most efficient, ethical and economic manner. As time
permits, questions from the public directly pertaining to the history and work of the Supreme Court,
and requiring resources unique to the Supreme Court, may be answered.
Could the Supreme Court Library help me with a general legal research question?
No, your local law library is the best place to start. Please check the Library of Congress's Finding a
Local Library for a public library near you. If you are seeking legal assistance, please see ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Transcripts are listed by case name and date of oral argument. Transcripts are permanently archived
beginning with the 2000 Term on the Argument Transcripts page. The Supreme Court Library's
collection contains oral argument transcripts for 1968 to the present (with a sporadic collection
before that date). For more information about transcripts and the availability of audio recordings, see
Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments. Oral arguments are not

The Supreme Court Of India
1. INTRODUCTION
Most social movements in India since the 1970s have actively used the Courts–especially the
Supreme Court–as a part of their struggles. This has been possible because of the higher Courts'
activism, especially under the guidance and action of Public Interest Litigation. Through the
instrument of Public Interest Litigation, the Court liberated itself from traditional constraints in the
legal system so as to reach out 'to the weaker sections of Indian humanity.
The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward–looking approach since last few years,
particularly having regard to the socio–economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there
are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every
democracy. Either the Court adopts an activist approach or resigns itself to passive role. In a country
like India, judges adopt an activist approach to bring about social and economic change and to
improve the life conditions of the people and make basic human rights available to them. The
Supreme Court has revolved a new doctrine of judicial activism with a view of making basic human
rights meaningful and effective for the deprived and exploited sections of humanity.
Judiciary is the third wing of the Government empowered to administer justice to the people of
India. The Courts are protectors of an individual's Fundamental and Legal Rights when they are
violated. But in these days, access to Court is also a difficult task

Supreme Court Responsibilities
As you may know the Supreme Court is the highest federal court of the United States, which has
jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases that involve issues of the federal law. In
matter of fact the Supreme Court is the only court specifically established by the Constitution and
the rest of the courts been established by Congress. The Supreme Court established on June 21,
1788 which is roughly about 228 years ago and since then has had many Supreme Court justices
who have served for life. These justices that being appointed for life know that it's a great
responsibility and honor. Furthermore the current court includes great justices such as : Justice
Clarence Thomas is serving since October 15,1991, Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away, but
appointed a justice September 26, 1986, Chief Justice John G. Roberts since September 29, 2005,
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy since November 30, 1987, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg since August
10, 1993, Justice Sonia Sotomayor since May 26, 2009, Justice Stephen G. Breyer since August 3,
1994, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. since January 31, 2006, Justice Elena Kagan since August 7, 2010
and lastly Justice Neil M. Gorson.
One of the many responsibilities that the Supreme Court has is that they are the final judge in ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Constitution play an important part in the work of the United States Supreme Court? The U.S.
Constitution plays an important part in the U.S. Supreme Court because the Constitution is the law
of the land and they must make their decisions based on the Consituition. Their job is to uphold the
Consitutuion, they are supposed to use it as a basis for their chocies/decisions. The Consitution is
like a rule book for the government that tells the government what and what not to do which is
applied to the Supreme Court. Also because most of the time the Supreme Court is determining the
integrity of laws and statutes as they are applied by the Executive Branch or other governmental

The Supreme Court Of Victoria
For the purpose of this report, visits have been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday,
3rd of March 2016. The Supreme Court is located at 210 William Street, Melbourne. The court visits
are an essential experience for students taking part in law studies to further familiarise with the
Australian court system through actual participation in court proceedings. This report will aim to
provide a reflective discussion on the experiences and observations encountered at the Supreme
Court visits and also the overall structural system of the court system. The court hearing which will
be examined in this report is the trial of Fai Sing Yiu accused of stabbing a father of four to death at
lunchtime in Melbourne's Chinatown over a $24,000 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Trial Division is made up of three divisions: Crime, Common Law and the Commercial Court.
It hears the most serious criminal and civil cases in Victoria such as cases of treason, murder,
attempted murder and civil cases which involve greater amounts of money. The Trial Division can
also hear appeals from the Magistrates' Court and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
On arrival at the courts, all personal belongings are put through a compulsory security screening.
Security checks are undertaken to ensure the court remains a safe environment. The courtroom
draws a clear layout that distinguishes the various roles of the courtroom through the conspicuous
arrangements of the spaces. The courtroom itself is rather small, yet compact; the voices could be
heard clearly with speakers attached across the room.
There are many people involved in the courtroom system. Below is a list of the people you will see
in the Supreme Court:
Accused – The person whom the criminal case is brought upon, sometimes referred to as the
defendant. In this hearing, the defendant was Fai Sing Yiu.
Associate Judge – The person who carries out judicial function of the hearing, they do not hear
trials.
Barrister – Legal advocate who is briefed by a solicitor to present the case in court. In this hearing,
the defence barrister was Jarred Williams.
Solicitor – The person who represents the accused in court.
Informant – Police officer who

Supreme Court Issues
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest ranking federal court and was established in
1789. It plays a very important role in the government because it ensures that legal decisions are
constitutional, and all courts interpret the constitution correctly to assure that new legislation and
laws are consistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is currently made up of 9 justices,
there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. These Judges, like those in the past, have
been appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed by the Senate. They serve
unlimited terms, meaning that they hold these seats for life. Although the Supreme Court has helped
the U.S. in many ways there are still many changes that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is a current problem we're dealing with right now and it's affecting the Supreme Court because
it means there's a chance there could be a tie and decisions can't be made. It's also a problem that the
Senate is sabotaging the process in order to prevent the President from appointing someone to the
Supreme Court. For instance, when Scali passed away President Barack Obama was in office and he
nominated Merrick Garland but the Senate decided that they would not allow anyone to replace
Scalia until a new President was elected. They're making it impossible for the President to carry out
his

The U.s. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States of America. This is
expressed in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that, "The judicial power of
the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court."(1) They have jurisdiction over all matters
pertaining to federal and constitutional law, including the interpretation of such laws. Article III,
Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution clarifies the Supreme Court's judicial jurisdiction by stating that,
"Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"(1) The
powers granted to the judiciary in the U.S. Constitution have allowed the courts to overrule state
legislatures, Congress, governors, and even presidents. They are able to strike down laws, rules, and
regulations that are interpreted as violations of federal or constitutional law.
There are several factors that influence Supreme Court decision making, many of which fall into
two categories of influence: political and legal. Demonstrated in the attitudinal model, a judge's
attitudes are often shaped by their political background, and the views of their peers. A judge's party
affiliation is a political factor that influences their judicial decision making. The Court's policy of
adhering to Stare Decisis or legal precedents and their dedication to interpreting the original intent
of

The Supreme Court Essay
The foundation of the Supreme Court began with the earliest articles of the constitution. More
specifically, Section II of Article III dictated that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in
Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority..."(National Archives). This language laid out the legal
precedent for which the Supreme Court could be built. Due to the intentionally vague nature, the
founding fathers intended for the first Congressional Contingent to build the workings of the court.
Inspirations for such a Federal legal system arose from several sources. Chiefly among these sources
was British Common Law and the Magna Carta. The first Congress built the Supreme Court in its
original form of six judges, and from there, the court evolved in the early 19th century and exerted
its influence on the development of the United States of America. The founding fathers who helped
to develop the rationale of the Constitution outlined the section on the Supreme Court with a certain
sense of delicacy. In this way, the language they used didn't developed a framework for the Supreme
Court. There were several reasons for this tepid action. Firstly, the concept of an independent non–
partisan judiciary system, in the mind of the American citizenry, was too reminiscent of British
Royal Rule. The United States was fresh off an intellectual and physical battle with a perceived

Women And The Supreme Court
A few years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "People ask me sometimes,
when – when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court?
And my answer is when there are nine." Justice Ginsburg aims for a future where women can
achieve the same monopoly on the Supreme Court that men held for nearly two hundred years; she
is optimistic that someday, nine women will be able to reach the height of the American judicial
system. The path to an all–female Supreme Court is quite an unlikely one, but a strong and diverse
court with women and people of color could be created and would greatly benefit many
marginalized groups in the United States. In this paper, I will discuss a number of topics regarding
woman and the Supreme Court from historical precedents to objective research to the importance of
female judges and Justices and finally to the possibilities of the future. Each of these steps is vital to
fully understanding how we got to our country's current place in female jurisprudence and creating
future opportunities for women both on the Supreme Court and in all other levels of the judicial
system across the United States. In nearly the first two hundred years of the United States' existence,
not a single woman served on the Supreme Court of the United States. In that time, the court made
hundreds if not thousands of decisions that changed the lives of women around the country, but the
women had no say in how the cases were

The Supreme Court 's Court
The Supreme Court's ruling to allow same sex marriage has been a big change in this country and a
huge victory for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transexual) community. The ruling has
changed millions of American's lives and touched even more. In fact, my manager is a lesbian
legally married and being around them, for even a short amount of time, makes it obvious how
happy they are to be married.
As a religious man, I feel that it is unusual for me to support same sex marriage. Be that as it may,
after observing my manager with her wife and considering how many other couples in the LGBT
community could experience such happiness, there is no way that I could agree with denying them
the right to marry their loved ones. When I assess the situation, it simply comes down to letting
Americans live the lifestyle that they desire (within rationality) and putting them in the best position
to live happily. I think equal opportunity marriage does that very well.
As big of a step in the right direction as equal opportunity marriage is for the LGBT community,
there is still more steps to take. They still have many social issues that they have to deal with such as
discrimination and a lack of acceptance from our fellow Americans. Acceptance is always huge for a
minority group and discrimination is something that nobody wants to endure. The problem is that
often, people don't consider the negative effects that they have on others. A study was done on
students in 2009 on the

The Supreme Court Of Canada
The Supreme Court is one of the most influential ways in determining whether something is
considered to be "constitutional" in many developed countries around the world, including Canada.
Within this country, the Supreme Court is the highest Court of Appeal that both territories and
provinces can bring court cases to, making it extremely important in the way the country functions
(The Supreme Court of Canada, 2016). Within this country, the way the judges are chosen is
something that has recently come into consideration under the Trudeau government. The way the
Supreme Court is decided could change not only the way decisions are made, but could impact the
country overall. Since this is the case, the Prime Minister should be able to determine who the
members of the Supreme Court are with help from a committee, so long as all regions of the country
are represented and a mandatory retirement age is met. The Supreme Court of Canada did not have
an easy time at first. The first constitutional decision made by the court transpired in the year 1877,
but was then almost abolished when other laws were put in place depriving the high court of power
over provinces, but was eventually granted the power before the Great Depression in the late 1920s
(Roach, 2001). Ever since this, for one–hundred and forty one years, the Supreme Court of Canada
has been functioning in the same way as it had up until recently, when current Prime Minister, Justin
Trudeau, decided to do something

Supreme Court Justices
In Article Three of the United States Constitution, the framers established a judicial branch of
government that comprised of the Supreme Court and lower courts. In Article Two, the framers gave
the President of the United States the power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and, with Senate
confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. After being elected, the White House staff prepares a
list of possible candidates for the President to use as potential picks, usually consisting of judges,
politicians, and other individuals they consider to be appropriate for the nomination. Once the
candidate is selected, the White House staff sends out a vetting form for them to fill out and visits
the candidate to go over tax records and payments ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Personally, I have kept my opinions on President Trump down to a minimum because I think many
people are over–reacting about his ideas and crazy opinions. Yes, President Trump has shown us he
can potentially be a terrible President, but I think it is too early in his time to make crazy accusations
about him. President Trump will select the proper judges who he believes to be conservative and
rule in favor of his political beliefs. Potentially a new trend in the Supreme Court could be the take
over of conservative Justices, if President Trump is given the option to select another Justice to the
Court. This could potentially change the rulings in a few cases the conservatives did not have go
their way, but it could also lead to some that could benefit our country as well. I think critics of
Trump need to give it time, it is still early to make crazy assumptions about President Trump. For all
we know, he could end up making changes to our country that help benefit us in the long

Structure Of The Supreme Court
For us to assess how the Supreme Court determines which case they will hear, we must first analyze
the structure of the supreme court and how they get appointed. The original court in set the limit of
judges to 6 in 1789, but congress has since has changed that number to 9 in 1869 in which it remains
to this day. There is but one Chief Justice who is the highest ranking judge, and 8 associate justices,
all of which are uniquely diverse in ethnicity, religion, sex, ideology, and length of tenure.
The supreme court holds an annual session on the first monday in October and ends in late june.
More than ten thousand people petition the court but the court typically accepts less than 2 percent.
Many times the petitioner is asking the Supreme

Supreme Court Power
In the United States, the Supreme Court is considered "the highest court" (Ginsberg et.al. 2017:
375). It means that it is responsible for deciding if the government laws follow the Constitution.
Even though the Supreme Court has a small composition, the Module 9: Lecture 2 stated that it has
"9 members". These nine members are nominated for the president. For example, the recent
nomination was the new judge, Neil M. Gorsuch. Gorsuch, who was nominated for the President
Donald Trump, is the new member of the court. Thus, these illustrious judges become part of
Supreme Court. It is important to recognize that its power can be limited to the states law or
constitutions; however, it offers to give acts of Congress with the purpose of interpreting them. That
is how the Supreme Court does its job. To understand the purpose of the Supreme Court, it is
important to go back ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Madison. In 1803, the case of Marbury v. Madison was an example of how the U.S. Supreme Court
makes a decision in order to exercise its power. This power is best known as the judicial review. It is
defined as " the power of the judiciary to review, declare actions of the legislative and executive
branches invalid or unconstitutional" (382). In other words, this essential principle allows the courts
to judge the constitutionality of the laws of the government over the legislative and executive
branches. Supposing that the federal courts did not assert the power of the judicial review in the case
of Marbury v. Madison. In my opinion, this change would change the American political system
dramatically because the system would be divided into two branches. For example, one branch
would control by the Republicans, and the other groups controlled by the Democrats. According to
the Module 10: Lecture

Queensland Supreme Court
Introduction: The report that we have been studying and learning about is the magistrates court and
how there system works so that people pay the price for what they have done. Meaning different
consequences given for how bad the situation is. Research Method: To gather our information to
help us finish our report we did a series of different methods such as going on a class excursion
where we went to the court house to see it first hand, we also went to the police station where they
gave us a tour of what goes on in the police station and how crimes are dealt with and also
information given to us during classes. Police procedures: The procedures that police follow when
they arrest someone is that has done something wrong or they believe they have done something.
The police tell them that they are under arrest and tell the victim to put their hands behind there ...
The district court is Queensland's State intermediate court, it hears criminal cases such as rape and
armed robbery. The Magistrates Court of Queensland is the state's third level court, It deals with less
serious offences such as traffic infringements and burglary. The Children's Court of Queensland
deals with offences committed by young people under the age of 17 years who commit criminal
offences, unless the court orders that the matter be dealt with in an adult court. Most criminal cases
are heard, in some form, in the Magistrates court. The Magistrates Court also deals with: –some
minor family law matters (although most go to the Family Court) – some other Commonwealth
matters, such as those covered by the Customs Act 1901, the Social Security Act 1991 and the
Taxation Act 1953 –most domestic violence matters – applications for child–protection orders Court

The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to review or address cases that involve issues on a federal level
or of constitutional law, just as appellate courts hear cases on a state level. Their responsibilities
include deciding how to apply the principles of constitutional law to new matters and issues that
arise in today's day to day legal process; they also play the role of the "parent" to lower federal
appellate courts when their decisions on legal issues are contradicting to one another, overlap, goes
against constitutional rights, or allows room for confusion as to whose decision takes precedent.
Bottom line the purpose of the Supreme Court is to provide the rules and statues for state level
courts to abide by when they ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In my opinion this rule is of fairness because without drawing the line and having a court to reach a
final decision and establish authority legal matters could stay in appeal courts for years, constantly
being argued and picked apart. The part to the Supreme Courts process I will disagree with is being
able to decide what cases to hear and the justices serving for life terms. In my opinion both of these
factors allow room for bias and prejudice which should always be one of our constitutional rights
that are highly upheld, giving the supreme Courts random cases to address during their term,
increasing the length of their term allowing for more cases to be reviewed, and decreasing the term
of each judges years of service by switching justices after a given period of time will allow for
justice to be bigger than the messenger.
Reference
The Judicial System. (1996). In Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/entry/mwdlaw/the_judicial_system
Mosk, S. (1999). Federal Court Concepts. Retrieved from

Supreme Court History
Over the years, the Supreme Court has changed along with the situations and controversies of the
time period. The interpretations and connotations of many amendments and constitutional clauses
have grown and evolved throughout history, and it is the job of the justice system to adapt to match
these changes. As different situations and scenarios have presented themselves, the justices of the
Supreme Court have wrestled with moral, judicial, legal, and societal reasons to make decisions
regarding the rights of the accused. In many situations, there is not always a clear–cut divide
between right and wrong. This provides various challenges for the court system, as its members are
forced to make decisions based on a plethora of justifications. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The actions taken against Rochin were said to "shock the conscience" (Mabunda and Mikula 371). It
is against the constitution to allow these methods of obtaining evidence to occur because they
exceed the expectations for human decency by such a large margin (Finkelman and Urofsky 290).
Despite the fact that there is no direct constitutional statement prohibiting or even addressing this
type of behavior, it was clear to the Supreme Court that it should not be tolerated (290). The
methods of obtaining evidence clearly obstructed justice and fair play (Mabunda and Mikula 372).
Justice Frankfurter felt that they were "too close to the rack and screw to permit constitutional
differentiation (Finkelman and Urofsky 290). Other justices found Frankfurter's decision to be
correct, but they felt that the reasoning he used – due process of law – was too vague and difficult to
interpret (Mabunda and Mikula 372). Justice Black, who wrote a concurring opinion, believed that
the Fifth Amendment was better fit to defend Rochin (Finkelman and Urofsky 290). He stated that
the way in which the police obtained the evidence from Rochin was unconstitutional because the
Fifth Amendment

Supreme Court System
In 1789 the U.S. Supreme Court was established by the constitution of the united states.
Understandably it has changed and has been reworked of the centuries, although the core concepts
have stayed the same. Looking at the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court it consists of nine justices,
who are appointed by the president. The current U.S. Supreme Court justice include John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito Sonia
Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Many of these justice have been in office for decades others just a few
years but all have a long list of past positions. The U.S. Supreme Court plays a very essential role in
the constitutional system of our government. First, as the highest court in the ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Supreme Court the most commonly know is judicial review, also know as the ability of the Court to
announce a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, this is not found directly
within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case that we
researched previously Marbury v. Madison. In this case, the Court had to conclude whether an Act
of Congress or the Constitution was the absolute law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the
Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandates. A suit was brought under this Act,
the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution did not grant the Court to have original
jurisdiction in this case. Because Article VI of the Constitution authorized the Constitution as the
Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is conflicting to the
Constitution could not stand. In following cases, the Court also established its authority to strike
down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.Before the passage of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only relevant to the federal government.
After, the Supreme Court began ruling that all of its provisions were applicable to the states as well.
Thus, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a
Constitutional right is

The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is responsible for making some of the most important cases that set the tone for
society, as it continually ensures that the Constitution remains the law of the land. Many landmark
decisions have been made by the court that have impacted society in some of the most significant
ways; some of these cases include Marbury v. Madison (1803), Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Roe v. Wade (1973). Key decisions that are being made
don't simply impact the plaintiffs and defendants; rather they continually impact the public and the
present and future of these issues that have been decided, setting the tone for the rest of us. These
important decisions that have and are being made continue to cause much controversy as not all will
be agreed on by the public or even other political figures/branches for that matter. And with the way
that the court is organized, specifically with lifetime tenure, it can easily make the decisions look to
be immune from public opinion. Yet, at this same time, the court must look at how society operates
as well as its norms and values, which are impacted by these decisions. And from that aspect, it
doesn't seem that public preference is completely thrown out the window; it takes the ability of the
public to identify these concerns/issues that need to be addressed, as is the case when it comes to
public–policy making.
The nine justices of the Supreme Court make the most important decisions impacting the U.S.

The Court Of The Supreme Court
Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the only court explicitly established by the U.S. Constitution
and it is the uppermost federal court of United States. The Supreme Court stands as a guardian of
constitutional liberties and the final and concluding arbiter of the law. The Supreme Court is also the
final interpreter of federal Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court is the last and final authority in
deciding all cases and appeals which involve laws made by Congress under Constitution. The
Supreme Court can only adjudicate a bill or an act. It cannot initiate it. The Supreme Court has
deciding power whether an act passed by Congress is Constitutional or unconstitutional. Although
the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and places it at the head of federal judicial system in
U.S., it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. At establishment, six justices were appointed
as Supreme Court justices. As the time passed, the number was increased to ten and then decreased
to nine (The Supreme Court in the American System, 2013). At present, the justices of Supreme
Court consist of eight associate justices and the Chief Justice of United States, nominated by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. To maintain the independence of the judiciary and to protect
it from the influence of political branches of government, the justices of Supreme Court hold their
office for entire life and their salaries cannot be decreased during their term. Federal judges may be
vanished from

The Warren Court And The Supreme Court
In 1953, Chief Justice Earl Warren ascended to the Supreme Court after the death of former Chief
Justice Fred M. Vinson. Chief Justice Warren led the Supreme Court, most notably during the 1960s,
which were already a time of great social and governmental change. He, along with the rest of the
justices on his court, helped to shape both the both the court and the country during this time in
dramatic and long–lasting ways. The Warren Court took place during a period of rapid change in
American history, leading it to produce many impactful decisions that influenced the course of
federal and state laws for decades, as it took a judicial activist stance on how it approached
decision–making in cases regarding civil rights, the right to privacy, criminal due process, voting
rights and election law, as well as the first amendment. The Warren Court led the judicial system in
the United States for sixteen years, with 17 justices total, although its most impactful version existed
between 1962 and 1969. The court heard and ruled upon 197 cases in total during its tenure, many
of which dramatically shaped or created legal precedent. This court is best known for its expansive
federal control at what was seen as at the expense of states' rights and its heavy judicial activism,
enhancing the Bill of Rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in his control over the court, tried his best to
make sure to limit the arguments that the public might have by making sure that the decisions were
as close

Supreme Court Precedents
The Supreme Court does not have set terms. They usually stay in Supreme Court until they die or
retire. The Supreme court is important because they are the top court, they deal with the
constitutional and unconstitutional things, and involve others. They are the top court with the most
power. They are the highest court in the court systems. All court case work their way up to the
Supreme Court. They have e power of judicial review. They are the ones who set the precedents in
court for other future cases in courts. They are also the biggest check system in the checks and
balances. They deal with all things constitutional and unconstitutional. They get to choose the cases
they hear. And they really only hear like 100 cases a year. And the

Supreme Court Advantages
Examining the View that the Supreme Court is an Effective Protector of Civil Liberties In 1789, the
founders of the Constitution set out the power of the Supreme Court in Article III section 2, and,
arguably, in the Supremacy clause in Article 6. These clauses gave the Supreme Court the power to
protect the Constitution, and by doing so, the power to protect civil liberties. The strength of the
Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions.
One case that has significantly altered the power that the Supreme Court is able to exert was
Marbury v ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although he was a conservative judge, he was reluctant to relinquish power to Congress and
therefore it is a good example of a conservative judge seeking to maintain the balance of power
between the three branches of government that was established in the 60s and 70s. In the
Constitution, civil liberties are protected under the Bill of Rights set out in the first ten amendments.
The Constitution sets out what the government cannot do against a citizen, for example, the right of
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The Supreme Courts ability to protect the
Constitution is also the ability to protect civil liberties. The Court can hear cases where public, civil
or criminal law has been breached. The ability to hear cases on Constitutional law came as a result
of the Marbury v Madison case in which judicial review was established. The Supreme Court has
the power to protect civil liberties directly in a ruling, e.g. the case of Miranda v Arizona 1966.
Ernesto Miranda had confessed to kidnapping and raping an eighteen–year–old woman, but he had
not been informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel during police
questioning. The Court therefore overturned his conviction, and thus protected civil

The Supreme Court Of India
Most social movements in India since the 1970s have actively used the Courts–especially the
Supreme Court–as a part of their struggles. This has been possible because of the higher Courts'
activism, especially under the guidance and action of Public Interest Litigation. Through the
instrument of Public Interest Litigation, the Court liberated itself from traditional constraints in the
legal system so as to reach out 'to the weaker sections of Indian humanity.
The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward–looking approach since last few years,
particularly having regard to the socio–economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there
are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every ...
The traditional method of providing justice has operated to close the doors of Courts to the poor and
has caused denial of justice to millions of people. Only a person having ample of time and money is
able to afford the services of the judiciary. Justice P.N. Bhagwati rightly observed that our system of
administration of justice suffers two serious defects, namely, delay and expense.
Judicial Activism has opened up new dimensions for the judicial process and in the administration
of justice and has given a hope of the justice to the million starving people. The Fundamentals
Rights enshrined in the Constitution have no meaning for the large masses of people who are
leading a life a poverty and destitution, unless a socio–economic structure in which these rights
become meaningful for them is created. The concept of Public Interest Litigation intended to bring
justice within the reach of poor masses and to people who are not in a position to have access to
Courts. It was initiated for the benefit of a class of people, who had been denied their constitutional
and legal rights as they could not have access to the Courts on account of their socio–economic
disabilities. Public Interest Litigation or PIL is understood and treated as the citizens' invocation and
the use of the delivery of legal services in aid of and as a tool of administration of justice.
PIL is sometimes termed as

Supreme Court Segregation
US Supreme Court deems segregation unconstitutional following the case of Brown VS Board of
Education of Topeka. On May 17, 1954, the supreme court ordered all schools to integrate. The
supreme court announces a second ruling ordering all public schools to be integrated "with all
deliberate speed" (qtd. in History.com Staff. "Integration"), following the widespread resistance to
the original integration orders. The first school to be integrated was Central High School in Little
Rock, Arkansas on September 4, 1957. The integration of Central High School transformed
education in America by being the first school to be integrated, opening the door for other schools to
integrate, and gaining equality in education.
Paving the way for future generations ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There are many laws in place to ensure all students receive access to schools without their race
coming into play, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Green Factors, and the rejection of a
resegregation challenge. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned all forms of discrimination due to
race. Therefore, making segregation illegal and all acts of banning someone from a school because
of their race. The act also ensures that those who do not comply with the conditions stated, will be
prosecuted. The Green Factors were put into place in May of 1968. These factors are used to tell if a
school is integrated or not, as determined by the Supreme Court: "The judges establish six "Green
Factors" to be used in determining whether a school district has integrated, saying desegregation
meant no more black or white schools, just schools" (Hannah–Jones, Nikole). These factors allow
school districts to tell if their schools are integrated to the highest courts standards. In recent years,
the supreme court rejected the Nashville
resegregation challenge. Nashville, Tennessee recently went to the supreme court in hopes that they
could resegregate schools. This is because many neighborhoods in Nashville are segregated in the
form of race population, meaning there are more people of one race than any other in specific
neighborhoods: "Without the policies to promote integration the schools are segregated now just by
neighborhood" (DeMarr, Anna). This gives Nashville a logical reason to appeal to the Supreme
Court. However, it was shot down due to previous rulings that it is unconstitutional to have
segregated

Purpose Of The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court plays a vital role in our society. It has shaped our history and continues to shape
our future; however, with every decision that has to be made, there will be varying opinions. To
resolve these disputes, the Supreme Court follows strict guidelines to maintain order. These include,
but are not limited to, which cases can be heard, who can oversee the hearing, differing opinions in
court, evidence presentation, oral argument, motions in court, appearance of counsel, etc. The main
function of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and to ensure that no laws conflict with
its guidelines. In the Supreme Court hearing on November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court granted the
petition for certiorari. The Court framed the question

The Importance Of The Supreme Court
Of all of the options here I would say that the Supreme Court needs to be held to the will of the
people. I think that it is important for the citizens of the United States to be able to govern
themselves. What is happening is that people are too afraid to express how they really feel and do
not want to take the matters into their own hands so they want the Supreme Court to do it for them.
This is a mistake. The Court basically has full power to make an amendment whenever it is needed.
This should be stopped they are more powerful than Congress and that is a big problem. The
Founding Fathers did not want the Supreme Court to dictate the foundations of America. If I did not
have to choose and I could make my own circumstances I would say that

The Rise Of The Supreme Court
Introduction. When looking at the growth of the Supreme Court in regards to the American
economy, it is evolutionary in its growth. From the establishment of the Constitution on June 21,
1788 until present day the U.S. Supreme Court has been proactive in its adaptability toward the
growth of the economy while also protecting the best interest of the people and our basic
foundations of capitalism. Time changes all as the needs of our economy now are very different than
those of the past. The establishment of judicial review and judicial sovereignty paved the way for
the Supreme Court to play a leading role in the development of our nation and, more specifically,
the growth of our economy albeit with consistent disagreement with the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Few cases of significance came to the Court in the early years compared to that of later. Coupled
with the practice of seriatim, the likelihood that the Judicial Branch would share equal importance in
the "federal triumvirate" became evermore unlikely in the eyes of many (McCloskey 19). Second,
the court must gain acceptance for the idea of "judicial review, the power that is to refuse to enforce
an act deemed unconstitutional at either the federal or state levels." (McCloskey 18) Judicial review
is essential in the checks and balance system had never been practiced to this point. It was a theory
that was unproven. The fact that judicial review was just theory at this point hindered the idea of
judicial sovereignty. How could the court hold laws unconstitutional if there was no precedent to do
so? These three problems needed solving if the court was to be held equal in the federal triumvirate
and to preserve the Union (McCloskey 18–19). We see the first use of judicial review and
sovereignty during the infancy of our nation. Congress proposed twelve amendments in accordance
with the ratification of the Constitution. Of these twelve amendments, only ten were passed. These
became our Bill of Rights. Judicial review allowed the court to have a say but also raised other
questions such as whether or not the government powers should be broadly or

Supreme Court In America
Many American citizens aren't aware of the importance the Supreme Court has, the U.S. Supreme
Court's rulings are consistently changing the lives of every American. Three good examples of this
are, Planned Parenthood v. Indiana, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, and Grimm v. Gloucester
School Board, these are all cases that have affected Americans greatly. The present and future
changes in America are affected, and the decisions influence future issues and cases' outcomes.
Abortion debates have been taking place for centuries, just like the debates and arguments
supporting the women of America that have suffered to receive and maintain equal rights, and rights
in general. The case between Plaintiff Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, "PPINK," and
Indiana is important to all American women, Planned Parenthood is a non–profit organization to
provide healthcare and planning to women and families, this clinic also supports and provides
surgical abortions. Indiana passed a law to change abortion regulations, this law sets back women
who seek abortions and clinics ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Gloucester School Board effects the faculty and students of schools across America. Gavin Grimm,
an open transgender student at Gloucester High School wants to have access to the boy's restroom at
school, the boy's restroom was used until the Gloucester County School Board received complaints
from students and families. It's noted that Grimm suffers from gender dysphoria, to make his
transformation easier, all aspects, physical, mental, and social, must be transitioned also. The School
Board eventually banned Grimm from using the boy's restrooms in school, introducing a new
policy; this "rule" and the Supreme Court's ruling will impact many Americans apart of the LGBTQ
community and students all over America. Many schools, events like sports, field trips, etc don't
include bathrooms special for transgender citizens like a unisex restrooms, this will affect all
Americans, transgender or

An Argument Of The Supreme Court
The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and
mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two
opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial
Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while
others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of
a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to
serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Act created the Supreme Court and the lower court system. The check in power for the
President on the judiciary is the ability to appoint the judges to their seat, typically the judge shares
the views of the president that appointed them. The rest of Article III, Section I points to how judges
can serve stating, "shall hold Offices during good behavior." The good behavior portion of the
statement is constitutionally recognized that judges may serve to the end of their life time or leave
office voluntarily. Over time the meaning of life time has expanded and become the center of the
controversy surrounding the extent of service. The framers of the constitution found life tenure
appropriate for the justices of the Supreme Court as an expression of their importance to the
government, but also that the loss of their cognitive ability was an imaginary farce. Currently, the
lifetime appointment is to hold the integrity of the power granted to the court, to protect judges from
interference on decisions that effect the other branches of government. Keeping the Supreme Court
separate from the other branches upholds the integrity of the courts constitutional opinion.
Alexander Hamilton described it as "that independent spirit in the judges." It is important to
understand this under the original

The Us Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court
History, Jurisdiction & Current Justices
Introduction
The Supreme Court's annual term begins in October. Five justices constitute a quorum to hear a
case, and decision is rendered by majority vote. In the event of a tie, the previous judgment is
affirmed. Under the Judiciary Law, cases are brought to the court by appeal or by writ of certiorari.
Nine judges sit on the Court: the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The
president of the United States appoints them to the Court for life terms, but the U.S. Senate must
approve each appointment with a majority vote. The Supreme Court wields complete authority over
the federal courts, but it has only limited power over state courts. The Court ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Congress has authorized the Court to use its full appellate jurisdiction, except on rare occasions.
Current Justices of the Supreme Court
Members of the court are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Like
all Federal judges, they retain their office indefinitely. The size of the Supreme Court is not
prescribed by the Constitution; it is set by statute. By late 1999, a total of 108 Justices, 106 men and
2 women had sat on the bench.
William H. Rehnquist
WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST
During his early years on the Court, despite the presence of three other Republican appointees,
Rehnquist was often the only dissenter, espousing a view of states' rights and limited federal judicial
power that many regarded as outmoded.
Rehnquist also dissented in Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the majority based a woman's right to an
abortion on a constitutional right of privacy that arose not from the terms but from the "penumbras"
of the Bill of Rights. He wrote, "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the
scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters
of the Amendment."
When Warren Burger announced his resignation as chief justice and President Ronald Reagan
nominated Rehnquist as his replacement June 20, 1986, there was a firestorm of protest among
liberals. Sen. Edward Kennedy

The Supreme Court Is The Court
The American Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court has the final
say in issues that have been brought to lower court's but have been unresolved. The job of the
Supreme Court is to determine if the Constitution says what the end result of an issue should be. The
Supreme Court was designed to be unbiased and make it's choices purely based on what the law
says. The nine people who are appointed to the Supreme Court are called Justices. They are elected
to their position for the remainder of their life or until their resignation. As a result of the tenure
given to a Justice spots do not open up often at all. The President nominates the Justice based on a
few factors. First off experience is required. Many of the Justices where judges in a lower court such
as the Court of Appeals or had a very well respected private practice. Secondly the President often
nominates someone who shares his own political ideology. If the President is a conservative it is
likely that he will appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. Lastly gender and ethnicity
have recently become a factor in a Presidents decision. Up until 1967 all of the Justices had been
white males to fix this problem Lyndon Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall the first black
Justice. Later Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor the first female Justice. However a
presidential nomination is not enough to be a Justice. The nominee must be confirmed by the
Senate also by a majority vote.

The Court : The Supreme Court Exists
The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case–by–case
examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. In
spite of the fact that the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood
test given that blood–alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation
to embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a
warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated
that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as
such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception.
Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court
declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI
cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in
which this Court upheld a DWI suspect's warrantless blood test where the officer "might reasonably
have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a
warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of evidence,' " id., at 770 (Missouri v.
McNeely, 2013) How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majority
opinion was

Supreme Court Fraud Gal Corrupts Mediation Agreement

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Leslie Lee

More from Leslie Lee (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Supreme Court Fraud Gal Corrupts Mediation Agreement