Case File Log Swanenburg v Elliott
•
0 likes•3,406 views
The document outlines the pleadings and orders in a civil case regarding a complaint filed on December 28, 2012. The defendant filed special pleas in bar and demurrers on January 22, 2013 and February 4, 2013. The plaintiff opposed these on February 14, 2013. A hearing was held on March 14, 2013 where the plaintiff opposed the defendant's demurrer and special plea in bar. On May 29, 2013, the case was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff filed notices of appeal on June 24, 2013 and June 27, 2013.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
Recommended
Case File Log Swanenburg v Boward TI
Swanenburg files his second case against Boward in February 2013. Nonsuit with Prejudice in the pendency of sanctions.
Swanenburg v. Boward CL1400580V-04 Case File Log
Swanenburg's Sad Saga Ends! On April 1, 2015 Swanenburg's Sad Saga ended when a jury found for the defendant effectively ending his four year reign of legal terrorism against his former assistant coach.
A Motion for Sanctions was filed on April 22, 2015 against Swanenburg and his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher essentially arguing that Swanenburg and Fisher violated the rules of the court.
§ 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.
Except as otherwise provided in §§ 16.1-260 and 63.2-1901, every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, and the attorney's address shall be stated on the first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. A party who is not represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address.
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.
An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Case File Log Swanenburg v. Boward
Swanenburg files his first case against Boward on June 23, 2011 over one year after he is terminated by CNU
Transcript of proceedings 10 21 2014
Caution: This document contains repugnantly racist language
Transcript from a Motion for Sufficiency hearing conducted on October 21, 2014. Swanenburg's attorney spends much of the hearing complaining about WilliamsburgLax.com and it's author. Nonetheless, Swanenburg changed many of his admissions from deny to admit.
Plaintiff's [Swanenburg] Answers to Defendants First Set Interrogatories
Caution: Very graphic and offensive language contained within Swanenburg's answers to Defendant's first set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory #12 is particularly disturbing.
Swanenburg Suspension & Termination Letters March 2010
"...you may have engaged in inappropriate conduct to include excessive profanity and berating of players."
"We have discussed your conduct before.."
"The University is terminating your employment..."
Hayden Fisher "false and misleading" answers in US Court
The Court concludes that Fisher should be sanctioned for his reprehensible conduct. The minimum appropriate sanction sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct in the future is the denial of Fisher’s Application. Fisher will not be permitted to practice before this Court.
The Court finds Fisher’s conscious decision to withhold information concerning the public reprimand violated the duty of candor Fisher owed to the Court.* The certification made by Fisher in his Application was materially incorrect. It was both false and misleading.
*Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
Recommended
Case File Log Swanenburg v Boward TI
Swanenburg files his second case against Boward in February 2013. Nonsuit with Prejudice in the pendency of sanctions.
Swanenburg v. Boward CL1400580V-04 Case File Log
Swanenburg's Sad Saga Ends! On April 1, 2015 Swanenburg's Sad Saga ended when a jury found for the defendant effectively ending his four year reign of legal terrorism against his former assistant coach.
A Motion for Sanctions was filed on April 22, 2015 against Swanenburg and his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher essentially arguing that Swanenburg and Fisher violated the rules of the court.
§ 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.
Except as otherwise provided in §§ 16.1-260 and 63.2-1901, every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, and the attorney's address shall be stated on the first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. A party who is not represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address.
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.
An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Case File Log Swanenburg v. Boward
Swanenburg files his first case against Boward on June 23, 2011 over one year after he is terminated by CNU
Transcript of proceedings 10 21 2014
Caution: This document contains repugnantly racist language
Transcript from a Motion for Sufficiency hearing conducted on October 21, 2014. Swanenburg's attorney spends much of the hearing complaining about WilliamsburgLax.com and it's author. Nonetheless, Swanenburg changed many of his admissions from deny to admit.
Plaintiff's [Swanenburg] Answers to Defendants First Set Interrogatories
Caution: Very graphic and offensive language contained within Swanenburg's answers to Defendant's first set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory #12 is particularly disturbing.
Swanenburg Suspension & Termination Letters March 2010
"...you may have engaged in inappropriate conduct to include excessive profanity and berating of players."
"We have discussed your conduct before.."
"The University is terminating your employment..."
Hayden Fisher "false and misleading" answers in US Court
The Court concludes that Fisher should be sanctioned for his reprehensible conduct. The minimum appropriate sanction sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct in the future is the denial of Fisher’s Application. Fisher will not be permitted to practice before this Court.
The Court finds Fisher’s conscious decision to withhold information concerning the public reprimand violated the duty of candor Fisher owed to the Court.* The certification made by Fisher in his Application was materially incorrect. It was both false and misleading.
*Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
Show Cause Fisher US Bankruptcy Court
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
Fisher's Application to US Bankruptcy Court
Fisher explained that after speaking with another attorney about the matter, he decided that disclosure of the public reprimand was not necessary. Fisher advised that he had filed the Application in haste at the request of a client. Fisher explained that he had wanted to avoid drawing attention to the disciplinary action taken by the Virginia State Bar. Fisher contended that he did not mislead the Court by failing to make the disclosure requested in the Application because the reprimand was public. Fisher argued that, as the reprimand had come from an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and not from the Supreme Court itself, there had been no action in “any court” pertaining to his conduct or fitness. Accordingly, he concluded that disclosure of the reprimand
was not technically required.
Swanenburg Response to Sanctions
Swanenburg's Opposition to Motion for Sanctions. Ironically, Swanenburg through his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher now suggests that it is the defendant that is using the legal system to bully him.
Swanenburg and his attorney file 3 lawsuits that extend over the course of 4 years, nonsuit in the middle of a trial and now accuse the defendant of piling on the paper.
Contempt of Court Douglass Hayden Fisher
ORDER
(Contempt ofCourt for Failure to Appear)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on a rule requiring Counsel for Plaintiff, Douglass Hayden Fisher, Esquire, to show cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court for failure to appear before the Court for an Initial Pretrial Conference, which occurred on July 10, 2014. A copy ofthe rule was personally served on Counsel for Plaintiff by the U.S. Marshal.
At the show cause hearing on August 5, 2014, the Court held Counsel for Plaintiff in CONTEMPT OF COURT and ORDERED Counsel for Plaintiff to pay a $200 fine
within ten (10) days ofthe date ofthis Order. Payment SHALL be made to the Clerk, U.S. District Court
Judge's Order & Opinion August 14 2014
The Honorable Timothy S. Fisher, Seventh Judicial Circuit rules that Swanenburg's previously non-suited defamation case will proceed as Defamation per quod and that Defamation per se is Dismissed with Prejudice.
Judge Fisher also strikes 3 paragraphs from the amended complaint and leaving two others subject to evidentiary rulings.
Swanenburg Letter to Martin
Swanenburg's letter as part of his continuing actions against the coach that replaced him after what he refers to as his "unlawful termination".
This letter was apparently written over two years after his alleged discovery that predicated his first lawsuit. In this letter Swanenburg states that he will be filing at least two additional suits. Swanenburg also makes additional allegations against his former assistant coach with allegations allegedly obtained in discovery presumably from deposition testimony of another assistant coach who was part of the coaching staff that succeeded Swanenburg.
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedies at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech in a seemingly despicable attempt to bring legal scrutiny on to his former assistant coach.
Swanenburg Letter to Board of Visitors
Letter written by Swanenburg on June 24, 2010 apparently pleading his dissatisfaction with the university after his departure. The letter appears to be in response to the university's denial of his request for a board hearing.
Swanenburg's letter claims that the university intentionally harmed him, and "to fire a coach in the middle of a playing season suggests gross misconduct".
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedy involving the lacrosse programs at the University of Virginia.
Ironically, the letter is dated June 24, 2010 which is the same day that Swanenburg pleads that defamatory comments were made about him. Apparently, the letter is significant because it appears to be the beginning of the potentially frivolous litigation that has now lasted over 4 years.
Swanenburg Excerpted Testimony
Excerpted testimony of Christopher T. Swanenburg, August 26, 2013. Swananburg testifies at the trial.
Swanenburg Nonsuit Order in Tortious Interference Case
Nonsuit with prejudice order in tortious interference case against Boward. Nonsuit was asked for by plaintiff's attorney after sanctions were heard and court's decision was pending. Shortly after this order Swanenburg filed his second defamation case against Boward essentially arguing the same elements that were plead in this case.
Swanenburg Second Defamation Suit against CNU Lacrosse Coach
Swanenburg's second defamation suit against Boward. This suit alleges that Boward is now responsible for declining enrollment in Capital Lacrosse enrollment. Swanenburg now seeks $500,000 in compensatory and $350,000 in punitive damages. Suit was filed after Swanenburg was granted nonsuit in first defamation suit. Swanenburg now complains that defendant is tortiously interfering with his lacrosse business, does not specify damages.
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions
Motion for Sanctions in Swanenburg v. Boward. Sanctions contend that the actions Swanenburg has taken against Boward are filed for improper purpose. September 2013
Swanenburg v Boward Amended Complaint
Filed in the Circuit Court of Newport News, January 2014. In his amended complaint Christopher T. Swanenburg claims Tortious Interference with Economic Expectancy in Plaintiff's Lacrosse Business Interests. Swanenburg pleads camps "dwindling enrollment" and was forced to cancel his day camp due to lack of enrollment.
Amicus Curiae for Virginia Press Association
The Supreme Court of Virginia granted a motion filed by the Virginia Press Association and other media organizations to be a friend of the court in a case involving The Virginian-Pilot.
Attorneys on behalf of the VPA and eight media organizations on June 28 filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in the case Philip D. Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Companies LLC. On July 30, the court granted the motion despite objections from the plaintiff.
"Upon consideration whereof, the motion is granted and the brief amici curiae is considered filed," the court document reads.
Swanenburg v Boward 2nd Complaint
This is the second complaint that Swanenburg filed in Circuit Court, Newport News, D.Hayden Fisher represents Swanenburg
Secure Your Brand: File a Trademark Today
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
More Related Content
More from swanmail
Show Cause Fisher US Bankruptcy Court
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
Fisher's Application to US Bankruptcy Court
Fisher explained that after speaking with another attorney about the matter, he decided that disclosure of the public reprimand was not necessary. Fisher advised that he had filed the Application in haste at the request of a client. Fisher explained that he had wanted to avoid drawing attention to the disciplinary action taken by the Virginia State Bar. Fisher contended that he did not mislead the Court by failing to make the disclosure requested in the Application because the reprimand was public. Fisher argued that, as the reprimand had come from an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and not from the Supreme Court itself, there had been no action in “any court” pertaining to his conduct or fitness. Accordingly, he concluded that disclosure of the reprimand
was not technically required.
Swanenburg Response to Sanctions
Swanenburg's Opposition to Motion for Sanctions. Ironically, Swanenburg through his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher now suggests that it is the defendant that is using the legal system to bully him.
Swanenburg and his attorney file 3 lawsuits that extend over the course of 4 years, nonsuit in the middle of a trial and now accuse the defendant of piling on the paper.
Contempt of Court Douglass Hayden Fisher
ORDER
(Contempt ofCourt for Failure to Appear)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on a rule requiring Counsel for Plaintiff, Douglass Hayden Fisher, Esquire, to show cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court for failure to appear before the Court for an Initial Pretrial Conference, which occurred on July 10, 2014. A copy ofthe rule was personally served on Counsel for Plaintiff by the U.S. Marshal.
At the show cause hearing on August 5, 2014, the Court held Counsel for Plaintiff in CONTEMPT OF COURT and ORDERED Counsel for Plaintiff to pay a $200 fine
within ten (10) days ofthe date ofthis Order. Payment SHALL be made to the Clerk, U.S. District Court
Judge's Order & Opinion August 14 2014
The Honorable Timothy S. Fisher, Seventh Judicial Circuit rules that Swanenburg's previously non-suited defamation case will proceed as Defamation per quod and that Defamation per se is Dismissed with Prejudice.
Judge Fisher also strikes 3 paragraphs from the amended complaint and leaving two others subject to evidentiary rulings.
Swanenburg Letter to Martin
Swanenburg's letter as part of his continuing actions against the coach that replaced him after what he refers to as his "unlawful termination".
This letter was apparently written over two years after his alleged discovery that predicated his first lawsuit. In this letter Swanenburg states that he will be filing at least two additional suits. Swanenburg also makes additional allegations against his former assistant coach with allegations allegedly obtained in discovery presumably from deposition testimony of another assistant coach who was part of the coaching staff that succeeded Swanenburg.
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedies at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech in a seemingly despicable attempt to bring legal scrutiny on to his former assistant coach.
Swanenburg Letter to Board of Visitors
Letter written by Swanenburg on June 24, 2010 apparently pleading his dissatisfaction with the university after his departure. The letter appears to be in response to the university's denial of his request for a board hearing.
Swanenburg's letter claims that the university intentionally harmed him, and "to fire a coach in the middle of a playing season suggests gross misconduct".
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedy involving the lacrosse programs at the University of Virginia.
Ironically, the letter is dated June 24, 2010 which is the same day that Swanenburg pleads that defamatory comments were made about him. Apparently, the letter is significant because it appears to be the beginning of the potentially frivolous litigation that has now lasted over 4 years.
Swanenburg Excerpted Testimony
Excerpted testimony of Christopher T. Swanenburg, August 26, 2013. Swananburg testifies at the trial.
Swanenburg Nonsuit Order in Tortious Interference Case
Nonsuit with prejudice order in tortious interference case against Boward. Nonsuit was asked for by plaintiff's attorney after sanctions were heard and court's decision was pending. Shortly after this order Swanenburg filed his second defamation case against Boward essentially arguing the same elements that were plead in this case.
Swanenburg Second Defamation Suit against CNU Lacrosse Coach
Swanenburg's second defamation suit against Boward. This suit alleges that Boward is now responsible for declining enrollment in Capital Lacrosse enrollment. Swanenburg now seeks $500,000 in compensatory and $350,000 in punitive damages. Suit was filed after Swanenburg was granted nonsuit in first defamation suit. Swanenburg now complains that defendant is tortiously interfering with his lacrosse business, does not specify damages.
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions
Motion for Sanctions in Swanenburg v. Boward. Sanctions contend that the actions Swanenburg has taken against Boward are filed for improper purpose. September 2013
Swanenburg v Boward Amended Complaint
Filed in the Circuit Court of Newport News, January 2014. In his amended complaint Christopher T. Swanenburg claims Tortious Interference with Economic Expectancy in Plaintiff's Lacrosse Business Interests. Swanenburg pleads camps "dwindling enrollment" and was forced to cancel his day camp due to lack of enrollment.
Amicus Curiae for Virginia Press Association
The Supreme Court of Virginia granted a motion filed by the Virginia Press Association and other media organizations to be a friend of the court in a case involving The Virginian-Pilot.
Attorneys on behalf of the VPA and eight media organizations on June 28 filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in the case Philip D. Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Companies LLC. On July 30, the court granted the motion despite objections from the plaintiff.
"Upon consideration whereof, the motion is granted and the brief amici curiae is considered filed," the court document reads.
Swanenburg v Boward 2nd Complaint
This is the second complaint that Swanenburg filed in Circuit Court, Newport News, D.Hayden Fisher represents Swanenburg
More from swanmail (20)
Swanenburg Nonsuit Order in Tortious Interference Case
Swanenburg Nonsuit Order in Tortious Interference Case
Swanenburg Second Defamation Suit against CNU Lacrosse Coach
Swanenburg Second Defamation Suit against CNU Lacrosse Coach
Recently uploaded
Secure Your Brand: File a Trademark Today
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
原版仿制(aut毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰理工大学毕业证文凭毕业证雅思成绩单原版一模一样
原版纸张【微信：741003700 】【(aut毕业证书)新西兰奥克兰理工大学毕业证文凭】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
一比一原版麻省理工学院毕业证(MIT毕业证)成绩单如何办理
毕业原版【微信:41543339】【麻省理工学院毕业证(MIT毕业证)】【微信:41543339】成绩单、外壳、offer、留信学历认证（永久存档真实可查）采用学校原版纸张、特殊工艺完全按照原版一比一制作（包括：隐形水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠，文字图案浮雕，激光镭射，紫外荧光，温感，复印防伪）行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备，十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，业务范围有加拿大、英国、澳洲、韩国、美国、新加坡，新西兰等学历材料，包您满意。
【我们承诺采用的是学校原版纸张（纸质、底色、纹路），我们拥有全套进口原装设备，特殊工艺都是采用不同机器制作，仿真度基本可以达到100%，所有工艺效果都可提前给客户展示，不满意可以根据客户要求进行调整，直到满意为止！】
【业务选择办理准则】
一、工作未确定，回国需先给父母、亲戚朋友看下文凭的情况，办理一份就读学校的毕业证【微信41543339】文凭即可
二、回国进私企、外企、自己做生意的情况，这些单位是不查询毕业证真伪的，而且国内没有渠道去查询国外文凭的真假，也不需要提供真实教育部认证。鉴于此，办理一份毕业证【微信41543339】即可
三、进国企，银行，事业单位，考公务员等等，这些单位是必需要提供真实教育部认证的，办理教育部认证所需资料众多且烦琐，所有材料您都必须提供原件，我们凭借丰富的经验，快捷的绿色通道帮您快速整合材料，让您少走弯路。
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
留信网服务项目：
1、留学生专业人才库服务（留信分析）
2、国（境）学习人员提供就业推荐信服务
3、留学人员区块链存储服务
→ 【关于价格问题（保证一手价格）】
我们所定的价格是非常合理的，而且我们现在做得单子大多数都是代理和回头客户介绍的所以一般现在有新的单子 我给客户的都是第一手的代理价格，因为我想坦诚对待大家 不想跟大家在价格方面浪费时间
对于老客户或者被老客户介绍过来的朋友，我们都会适当给一些优惠。
选择实体注册公司办理，更放心，更安全！我们的承诺：客户在留信官方认证查询网站查询到认证通过结果后付款，不成功不收费！
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense Counsel
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
Highlights_of_Bhartiya_Nyaya_Sanhita.pptx
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
The Main Procedures for Obtaining Cypriot Citizenship
You can discover more details on the main procedures for obtaining Cypriot citizenship at https://immigration-cyprus.co/obtain-citizenship-in-cyprus/.
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.pptx
This presentation is regarding the reserve bank of india act
1比1制作(swansea毕业证书)英国斯旺西大学毕业证学位证书托业成绩单原版一模一样
原版纸张【微信：741003700 】【(swansea毕业证书)英国斯旺西大学毕业证】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptx
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
Abdul Hakim Shabazz Deposition Hearing in Federal Court
This is Abdul Hakim Shabazz deposition hearing in the Marion County Fairground Boards, money misappropriating scandal.
怎么购买(massey毕业证书)新西兰梅西大学毕业证学位证书注册证明信原版一模一样
原版纸张【微信：741003700 】【(massey毕业证书)新西兰梅西大学毕业证学位证书】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Recently uploaded (20)
ADR in criminal proceeding in Bangladesh with global perspective.
ADR in criminal proceeding in Bangladesh with global perspective.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense Counsel
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense Counsel
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
The Main Procedures for Obtaining Cypriot Citizenship
The Main Procedures for Obtaining Cypriot Citizenship
Debt Mapping Camp bebas riba to know how much our debt
Debt Mapping Camp bebas riba to know how much our debt
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptx
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptx
Abdul Hakim Shabazz Deposition Hearing in Federal Court
Abdul Hakim Shabazz Deposition Hearing in Federal Court
Case File Log Swanenburg v Elliott
- 1. Return to Case Main Menu Logoff Newport News Circuit - Civil Division Pleadings/Orders Detail Case Number: CL1203999V-04 Filed Type Party Judge Book Page Remarks 12/28/12 Initial Filing PLT VC COMPLAINT 01/22/13 Plea DEF SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR DEMUR 01/24/13 Notice Of Hearing SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR &DEMUR 01/24/13 Other - Catch All LETTER FROM CT TO ATTYS 02/04/13 Plea DEF SPEC PLEA IN BAR &DEMURRER 02/14/13 Opposition PLF TO DEMUR&SPECIAL PLEA IN B 02/19/13 Response DEF TO OPP TO SPEC PLEA B &DEM 02/22/13 Notice Of Hearing DEF AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 02/22/13 Brief DEF REPLY TO PLF PLEA IB & DEM 02/22/13 Brief DEF IN SPT OF SPEC PLEA IB&DEM 03/14/13 Opposition PLT TF DEF DEM & SPCL PLEA IN BAR 04/18/13 Other - Catch All TF JUDGES LETTER 05/29/13 Dismissal Order With Prejudice TF DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 06/24/13 Notice NOTICE OF APPEAL 06/27/13 Notice NOTICE OF APPEAL 08/20/13 Other - Catch All T HOLLINS DC; (3) LETTERS Return to Case Main Menu Logoff Build #: 3.6.32.1