(in the US) There are only three pleas. Guilty - Not Guilty - and Nolo Contendre (no contest).
what code for a newletter do you i use umm i want to no one of yours pleas just do no if you are like a tomagotchie if you have your code pleas typ it for me ok. plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :( :( :( ............ what code for a newletter do you i use umm i want to no one of yours pleas just do no if you are like a tomagotchie if you have your code pleas typ it for me ok. plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :( :( :( ............
a satellite graveyard is a pleas on which when the satellites is out of use they put them their
A defendant that is not part of the suit but still can be blamed. The named defendant can use a fabre defendant to reduce its liability.
Counterclaim under FRCP 13.
The judge asked, "Has the jury reached a decision about the guilt or innocence of this defendant?"
you are defendant of being a lierCorrection--The above is wrong and makes no sense --- "I call the defendant to the stand" (this is a term you would here in a court trial ----- Tigersy2k3
Kathleen Pleas Ellis has written: 'Dietary intake and serum levels of zinc in pregnant alcoholic women' -- subject(s): Pregnancy, Complications, Alcohol use, Women
You may spell it out as you did, or you may use the numerical symbol "4".
to strike from the record
The trial ended in an acquittal for the defendant.
The three defenses to strict liability that defendants may use are: Assumption of Risk: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff knowingly engaged in an activity that involved inherent risks, thereby assuming those risks. Product Misuse: If a plaintiff uses a product in a manner not intended or warned against by the manufacturer, the defendant can claim that the misuse contributed to the injury. Comparative Negligence: In some jurisdictions, a defendant may assert that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm, potentially reducing or eliminating liability.
Wire Fraud can refer to many different things. Here are the legal requirements. -The defendant created or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; -The defendant did so with intent to defraud; -It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant would use wire communications; and -The defendant did in fact use interstate wire communications.