The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision on the matter of Sharon Fox is currently reserved
When it comes to the Oct. 25, 2022 decision of Court of King’s Bench Justice Alison Rothery, tthe Crown and Sharon Fox agreed on at least one thing.
When Jan. 6 investigators sought answers from John Eastman, the Republican lawyer respondent with predictable pushback: He argued that he couldn’t testify because his work related to keeping Donald Trump in power after his 2020 defeat was protected by attorney-client privilege.
It was at that point that the political world received a helpful legal primer about the limits of the legal protection: Communications between attorneys and clients are not protected if they’re discussing committing crimes. (Eastman ultimately took the Fifth.)
Today, the same issue is coming to the fore in a way the former president isn’t going to like —
Photo: Rashid Umar Abbasi
In January, trial attorney Joe Tacopina flew from his Connecticut home to Florida to meet Donald Trump, who was in need of more lawyers to represent him in a year of astonishing legal exposure. At first, Trump and his advisers wanted to scatter his attention across multiple fronts. “I said, ‘Guys, I’m not going to be involved in ten cases,’” Tacopina explained. “When we get involved with someone, we do a deep dive.” He did some triage and decided the most pressing case was the one brought by E. Jean Carroll. After a couple of meals
“With a fast-moving pandemic, no one is safe, unless everyone is safe”
Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed
The virus has now spread over the globe, causing tremendous physical, financial and social breakdown on every continent, nation, state, province and individual. This terrible predicament has come from the spread of the catastrophic and disastrous corona virus disease.
As future and current apparatus, medications, treatments, and science must be made available to the medical community, intellectual property regimes have become a concern not only in India but around the world. Normally, IPR holders are afforded exemption from third-party use of their intellectual property
The gag order issued by a judge in the Idaho murders case is “likely unconstitutional”, according to outside criminal defense attorney Philip Holloway
“The gag order in the #IdahoMurders case is likely unconstitutional under the #1st Amendment,” Holloway wrote in a tweet on Monday. Holloway is not directly involved in the Idaho murders case.
Following the arrest of 28-year-old Bryan Kohberger in the deaths of Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison Mogen, 21, Ethan Chapin, 20 and Xana Kernodle, 20, a judge in Latah County, Idaho, issued a nondissemination order, or a gag order, barring anyone involved in the case to speak
Kochi: New allegations have been raised against Saiby Jose Kidangoor, who has been accused of receiving money from his clients in the name of bribing high court judges. Kothamangalam native Basil James made the accusations against Saiby, who appeared against him in the court in a divorce case. He alleged that Saiby took Rs 5 lakh from him offering to withdraw the criminal charges against him.
Basil said that he handed over the amount at the advocate’s house in Divine Nagar. “Following this, the case at the Judicial First Class Magistrate court in Aluva was withdrawn. However, the case in
