Swanenburg Excerpted Testimony
•
1 like•525 views
Excerpted testimony of Christopher T. Swanenburg, August 26, 2013. Swananburg testifies at the trial.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
Recommended
Swanenburg v Boward 2nd Complaint
This is the second complaint that Swanenburg filed in Circuit Court, Newport News, D.Hayden Fisher represents Swanenburg
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 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.
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.
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
Swanenburg v Boward 2nd Complaint
This is the second complaint that Swanenburg filed in Circuit Court, Newport News, D.Hayden Fisher represents Swanenburg
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 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
Case File Log Swanenburg v Elliott
case filed in 2012 against CNU Lacrosse Player's Father. CASE DISMISSED with Prejudice
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.
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.
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
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..."
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.
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 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.
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
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.
More Related Content
More from swanmail
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.
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
Case File Log Swanenburg v Elliott
case filed in 2012 against CNU Lacrosse Player's Father. CASE DISMISSED with Prejudice
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.
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.
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
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..."
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.
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 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.
More from swanmail (20)
Swanenburg Suspension & Termination Letters March 2010
Swanenburg Suspension & Termination Letters March 2010
Plaintiff's [Swanenburg] Answers to Defendants First Set Interrogatories
Plaintiff's [Swanenburg] Answers to Defendants First Set Interrogatories
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
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
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.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
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
Business and Corporate Case Update (2024)
Presentation at the Idaho State Bar Business & Corporate Law Section's Annual Meeting on June 4, 2024
办理(waikato毕业证书)新西兰怀卡托大学毕业证双学位证书原版一模一样
原版纸张【微信：741003700 】【(waikato毕业证书)新西兰怀卡托大学毕业证】【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
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptx
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
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/.
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/.
Rokita Releases Soccer Stadium Legal Opinion
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is weighing in on the proposed MLS soccer stadium project.
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 .
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptx
Precedent, or stare decisis, is a cornerstone of common law systems where past judicial decisions guide future cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system. Binding precedents from higher courts must be followed by lower courts, while persuasive precedents may influence but are not obligatory. This principle promotes fairness and efficiency, allowing for the evolution of the law as higher courts can overrule outdated decisions. Despite criticisms of rigidity and complexity, precedent ensures similar cases are treated alike, balancing stability with flexibility in judicial decision-making.
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdf
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
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
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society. Abdul Hakim Shabazz Deposition Hearing in Federal Court
This is Abdul Hakim Shabazz deposition hearing in the Marion County Fairground Boards, money misappropriating scandal.
Recently uploaded (20)
Notes-on-Prescription-Obligations-and-Contracts.doc
Notes-on-Prescription-Obligations-and-Contracts.doc
The Main Procedures for Obtaining Cypriot Citizenship
The Main Procedures for Obtaining Cypriot Citizenship
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptx
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptx
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdf
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdf
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...
Abdul Hakim Shabazz Deposition Hearing in Federal Court
Abdul Hakim Shabazz Deposition Hearing in Federal Court
Agrarian Reform Policies in the Philippines: a quiz
Agrarian Reform Policies in the Philippines: a quiz