A Little Activism on the Court?

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

I just don’t get it. Justice Robertson did the unexpected, and he did it in a very, very sneaky way.

When Obama tried to pass his stupid healthcare bill, he emphasized that the penalty for not complying was definitely not a tax. And, why did he do that? To make it more palatable for the American people to swallow, and to make it easier for the courts to uphold.

Well, a penalty like that should be unconstitutional under the interstate trade guidelines. And, the Court saw it that way as well.

So, what did Robertson do? He re-labeled the “penalty” as a tax and determined that it was, in fact, Constitutional because Congress can levy taxes.

Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!

The exact thing that Obama was trying to spin into something else was what got the court to vote 5-4 in favor of Obamacare! Wow, the guy really is an amateur.

And, this was from a judge who claimed judges should be referees or umpires, and who claimed he wanted to unify the Court.

Tax

This is bad – really bad. This country has never had something labeled a tax that is based on – essentially – nothing! We’ve never had what could be called a “head tax” – a tax that is levied just because someone exists. No, every tax we’ve endured has always been based on something. Property. Income. Money transactions.

But now, “they” can tax us for not doing something. Can you imagine where that could lead? Oh! My! God! The inmates are finally in charge of the asylum!

Wow. Earlier this week I felt pretty good about the Court upholding the Arizona immigration law. Now, it seems like a minor, minor victory.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 WallyDay.com
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Previous Post
Politics

What Do We Pay “Them”?

Next Post
Cheat Sheets

Free Format RPG ILE Alternatives to the TIME Opcode

Comments

    • Black Angel
    • December 7, 2013

    How Does The Supreme Court Incorporate Liberties Contained In The Bill Of Rights? How does the supreme court incorporate liberties contained in the Bill of Rights?
    What “test” for incorporation did the court establish in Palko v. Connecticut?

    View Comment
    1. Palko had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The State of Connecticut, pursuant to a state law that was unusual even at that time, took an appeal, and secured reversal, based on the fact that some error had occurred, and Palko was retried. On the second trial, he was convicted, and he was sentenced to death. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, and Palko appealed to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that his right to be free from double jeopardy had been violated. The Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. At that time, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy was not binding on the states, and, according to the Court, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was binding on the states, only incorporated those rights which were “of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.” Double jeopardy, according to the Court, was not one of those rights.

      Palko was later overruled in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), but that was too late for Mr. Palko, who was electrocuted in 1938. Palko was a cop killer, so maybe he got what he deserved.

      View Comment
    • Anna P
    • December 22, 2013

    What Is A Good Essay Question For Oedipus Rex, Running In The Family, Or The Book Fifth Business? Oedipus Rex by Sophocles
    Running in the Family by Michael Ondaatje
    Fifth Business by Robertson Davies

    It can be about any of these three books.
    It is for an oral inclass presentation..

    View Comment
      • Admin
      • December 22, 2013

      What do they share in terms of Narrative structure?

      For Fifth Business, you can talk about the usage of “masks”…..or the concept of Justice in Oedipus Rex.

      View Comment
    • Emily
    • December 23, 2013

    Was The Congress, The President Or Supreme Court Most Important During Civil Rights Movement? Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court were all important in the advancement of people???s civil rights during the post-World War II period. Select one of the above (Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court), and note how it supported the civil rights movement. Be sure to provide specific examples to support your point.
    Why is the Supreme Court most important?

    View Comment
      • Admin
      • December 23, 2013

      Everyone had a role to play but LBJ pushed through the law through congress, not the other way around.
      supreme court began the journey Lincoln initiated, but they could not change the law.

      View Comment
    • Jason39
    • January 11, 2014

    What Is The Purpose Of The American Center For Law And Justice?

    View Comment
    1. It is a religious rights organization, mainly focused on issues that impact evangelical Christians. I believe it was founded by Pat Robertson.

      View Comment
    • Evan G
    • January 15, 2014

    Liberals Is Obama The Most Honest Person To Ever Live? Is he even capable of telling a lie?
    You idiots!
    Obama is as big of a liar as any dictator or serial killer.
    my parents cant stand to listen to him say one thing then do the opposite.
    He’s a saboteur.
    You idiots!
    Obama is as big of a liar as any dictator or serial killer.
    my parents cant stand to listen to him say one thing then do the opposite.
    He’s a saboteur.

    View Comment
    1. He’s at least more truthful than ROMNEY, which I think is all that matters. Although I’m sure your parents disagree.

      Even if you hate Obama, you can expect his political position this week to kind of resemble his position last week. He does change his line, and he has broken some campaign promises, but he is consistent about many things.

      But with Romney – WHO KNOWS what Romney really thinks about ANYTHING?
      Because Mitt keeps changing his positions & his opinions all the time.

      Health care “individual mandates” — abortion — climate change — Mitt seems to change his positions depending on whose votes he wants at the moment. There’s no way to predict what he’ll be saying tomorrow if he finds it politicall useful.

      To answer your question, I’m a socialist, not a liberal, and long ago, I used to be a campus Christian. That’s one important reason I’m a socialist today; it has to do with my post-Christian hopes for brotherly love, the pursuit of justice, the pursuit of peace instead of war, and hopes for our society to show more compassion towards the poor.

      As Jesus recommended, pretty much, though with some details changed.

      To me as an ex-Christian, humans are ALL imperfect, and that obviously includes Obama. ALL of us are guilty of what Jerry Falwell — or Pat Robertson — or St. Paul in the Bible would call “original sin,” although I don’t think of “sin” exactly as Falwell & Robertson do.

      Well, since we’re ALL “sinners” in rightwing Christian terms, since we almost ALL tell lies at time — of course, Obama is capable of lying. Why should he be different from everybody else?

      Second Question — Is he the most honest person ever? Almost certainly not. It’s hard to imagine any successful politician who would be.

      But so what?

      Compared to Romney, Obama looks like Geo. Washington and Honest Abe Lincoln combined.

      You can trust Obama at least SOME of the time. But IMO, you can can hardly trust Romney at all.

      Just compare Romney’s positions on abortion, climate change, coal production and the “individual mandate” when he was governor of Massachusetts in 2006 to what he says now, and it’s easy to see that Mitt has very little respect for truthfulness. Obama isn’t perfect — but he has some.

      — democratic socialist

      View Comment
    • AWishingStar
    • January 30, 2014

    Magistrate Court VS Supreme Court, Victoria? Does anyone know the difference between Magistrate Court and Supreme Court in (Melbourne), Victoria?

    I was told that to go to court in Supreme Court could cost about $20k. Is that true? What about for Magistrate?

    And which one is faster?

    Thank you everyone.

    Cheers.

    View Comment
    1. I take it you’re asking this in respect to a civil dispute?

      The Magistrates’ Court is the lowest court in Victoria, and mostly hears matters that are relatively simple and/or involve relatively small amounts of money. It has a limit for civil disputes of $100,000. The presiding officer is, as you might have guessed, called a magistrate.
      The Victorian Supreme Court is the highest state court in Victoria (but still subject to appeals to the High Court). It hears the biggest and most complex cases, and there is no limit to the amount of damages it can award. The presiding officer is called a justice.

      You seem to have overlooked the County Court? This sits in between the Magistrates’ Court and the Supreme Court. It has no limits in terms of the amount it can award in damages, and the presiding officer is called a judge.

      The Magistrates’ Court is generally the cheapest and quickest, followed by the County Court, with the Supreme Court being the slowest and most expensive. You wouldn’t normally commence an action in the Supreme Court unless you had some particular reason for it. (It can do some things that other courts can’t, so sometimes it’s the only option.)

      The cost obviously depends on what sort of matter it is, and how far it goes. The vast majority of disputes are resolved before trial, so it’s usually not *that* expensive in practice. You often find that if you start the process of suing someone, that’s enough to make them see sense.
      But if you actually had to pay for a trial in the Victorian Supreme Court, and if it’s a reasonably complex matter, then you can expect the whole process to cost well over $20k. If you win then you can recover some of your costs from the other party, but not everything.

      Note that if you want to sue someone for less than $10,000, then the Magistrates’ Court will refer the case for arbitration. This is a sort of informal way of hearing the case, which is usually a lot quicker and cheaper than an actual trial, and a lot easier to deal with if you don’t have a lawyer.
      Speaking of lawyers, it would be a good idea to speak to one if you’re planning to sue someone.

      View Comment
    • Calaminh
    • February 6, 2014

    What Is Home Court In Basketball? If a basketball player???s shoes provide a perfect amount of friction on her home court, can she be sure the same shoes will work as well on an opponent???s court? Why or why not?

    What is Home Court?

    If it’s on the same COURT, made of the same material, than the answer is yes.

    If Home Court is like a court for another area, than the answer is no. What is a home court? Is it on the same field, but different section,

    or a completely different field?

    View Comment
    1. Home court is just the court she’s used to playing on and opponent’s court is another court she has to play on

      View Comment
    • Xxxxxxxx01
    • February 6, 2014

    The Court System? What type or why are some cases transfered from district court to superior court?

    View Comment
    1. DISTRICT COURT ; In the United States, district courts may refer to two different types of trial courts: state courts (in some U.S. states) or the general trial courts of the federal court system, known as United States district courts.

      State district courts do not exist in some states; in others, the term “district court” has different meanings. For example, Florida District Courts of Appeal are appellate courts, while Hawaii State District Courts are small-claims courts.

      The federal district courts have jurisdiction over federal questions (trials and cases interpreting federal law, or which involve federal statutes or crimes) and diversity (cases otherwise subject to jurisdiction in a state trial court but which are between litigants of different states and/or countries). There are 89 federal districts in the 50 states. United States district courts also exist in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. So, in total, there are 94 U.S. district courts. Decisions from these courts are subject to review by one of the 13 United States court of appeals, which are, in turn, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States

      SUPREME COURT ;The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS)[1] is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Justices serve “during good Behaviour,”[2] which terminates at death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.[3] The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but has original jurisdiction in a small number of cases.[4]

      It all depends on the size of the crime.

      View Comment
    • Xxxxxxxx01
    • February 13, 2014

    The Court System? What type or why are some cases transfered from district court to superior court?

    View Comment
      • Admin
      • February 13, 2014

      DISTRICT COURT ; In the United States, district courts may refer to two different types of trial courts: state courts (in some U.S. states) or the general trial courts of the federal court system, known as United States district courts.

      State district courts do not exist in some states; in others, the term “district court” has different meanings. For example, Florida District Courts of Appeal are appellate courts, while Hawaii State District Courts are small-claims courts.

      The federal district courts have jurisdiction over federal questions (trials and cases interpreting federal law, or which involve federal statutes or crimes) and diversity (cases otherwise subject to jurisdiction in a state trial court but which are between litigants of different states and/or countries). There are 89 federal districts in the 50 states. United States district courts also exist in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. So, in total, there are 94 U.S. district courts. Decisions from these courts are subject to review by one of the 13 United States court of appeals, which are, in turn, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States

      SUPREME COURT ;The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS)[1] is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Justices serve “during good Behaviour,”[2] which terminates at death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.[3] The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but has original jurisdiction in a small number of cases.[4]

      It all depends on the size of the crime.

      View Comment
    • Zardoz
    • February 16, 2014

    Pat Robertson Is Endorsing Rudy Giuliani, Is This Why? 1) He supports gay rights.
    2) He is pro abortion.
    3) He’s had three wives.
    4) His children hate him.
    5) Robertson is a phoney tv preacher.
    6) He’s trying to bring about the “end times”

    View Comment
      • Admin
      • February 16, 2014

      #5 plus maybe Giuliani promised to re staff the “justice” department with Regent’s grads

      View Comment
    • Stina♥
    • March 18, 2014

    Help With Rear Window!? In my essay i am trying to talk about the concept of truth, justice and identity in relation to rear window but i have no idea where to start
    any suggestions??
    THANK YOU!

    View Comment
    1. Good morning teachers and fellow students. The concept of 'truth' has often been considered an abstract phenomenon, often highly valued and sought after along with such other abstract ideals as freedom and love. The quest for an absolute 'truth' has often dominated mankind's international psyche as a pure truth, untainted and free from error, has been a source of preoccupation in a continual search for perfection.

      John Keates states that 'truth can be seen as parallel to beauty' as a precious commodity, yet the truth can also inevitably be manipulated and fabricated. Historian Keith Windschuttle noted that 'our representation of the world is inherently subjective'. This statement suggests that truth is relative to both ourselves and the various power structures in our society. Hence the truth that we uphold is the truth which best suits our need.

      The fact that all interpretations of a preconceived truth are relative to the individuals context, experiences and background leads to a representation of that truth. Such a representation is indicative of the values and beliefs of the composer, producing a symbolic construction of a version of reality. A representation of a truth is manifest in 'The Justice Game' by Geoffrey Robertson and in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' by Harper Lee as both texts seek to explore the concept of racial inequality in relation to justice and the law.

      The comparison between the two texts allows an exploration of the ways in which different medium of production may establish the relationship between representation and meaning. Through the effective utilisation of visual techniques displayed on the front cover of the 'Justice Game' we are made aware of the strong representation and bias that is to follow. Robertson's position on the cover is one of dominance while black and white contrasts allude to the factual elements contained within his text.

      Similarly, Robertson quotes his credentials alongside copious amounts of superlatives praising his work as a 'fearless and romantic lawyer'. In this manner we are already receiving a representation of the man through effective use of language. Correspondingly, in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' Lee effectively utilises a plethora of stylistic devices to establish the physical setting of the town of Maycomb.

      The use of the metaphor 'men's stiff collars wilted by nine' and alliteration in 'slowly shuffled' creates the image of a town as presented to the reader with that of an authorial representation. In the same vein, throughout 'Michel X' Robertson uses effective word choice to create a representation of Black Americans in prison. Michel is described as the 'token black' and the description of the inmates on death row builds tension, creating a poignant effect.

      This tension is broken by a moment of hope which creates Robertson's position as a hero, a role corresponding to that of Atticus Finch in 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Lee uses Atticus as a mouthpiece for tolerance, teaching his children that 'you'll never really understand a man until you get inside his shoes' thus Atticus creates his own version of the truth.

      In this way, Atticus fosters tolerance among his children, claiming that 'all men are equal in the courts' thus attempting to diffuse any tendencies towards racial discrimination. In this sense, Lee's own personal representation of issues of truth, justice and racial inequality are voiced through the character of Atticus and the use of an engaging first person narrative to create immediacy. In creating this representation, Lee employs realistic dialogue and the use of colloquialism from the southern USA to convey her opinions on the issues at heart.

      Likewise, in 'Michel X' Robertson utilises laguage to create empathy and to persuade the reader against the inhuman practices of the treatment of prisoners through a ghoulish description of the hangings. Such phrases as 'the body twists to and fro' and 'the breaking of the cervical vertebrae' are deliberatly chosen to position the reader in this way. Here, use of emotive language is delibratly used to create a representation of the truth.
      Similarly, Lee utilises the Mockingbird motif to represent the harmless and innocent characters of the story; Boo Radley and the Negro unjustly accused of rape, Tom Robinson. Through the use of symbolic imagery Lee likens these men to mockingbirds, and although Atticus claims that 'it's a sin to kill a mockingbird' the persecution of the innocent appears imminent, allowing Lee to challenge her readers with such rhetorical questions as "is the law always
      just?" And "are all people equal before the law?".
      The proceedings in the Maycomb courthouse may be likened to those of the morally corrupt cases in 'Show Trials'. As in Lee's novel, justice is not fairly administered as established social codes adhering to bigotry allow for white domination over blacks. This scene is effectively dramatised in the film version of 'To Kill A Mockingbird'

      View Comment
    • Arkayz_bible
    • March 31, 2014

    Should Nudist Websites Be Banned? There is a strong pedophile movement in Denmark and other parts of Europe, as well as in America (e.g. NAMBLA). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism

    Child porn is banned in America, although the Supreme Court has allowed text that depicts children in sexual situations. This has led to a boom in child sex stories on the Internet and these child sex stories attract many pedophiles and maybe even promote pedophilia to those unfamiliar with it.

    Even though child porn pictures are banned, pedophiles can still find pictures of naked little boys and girls simply by looking at nudist sites. Typically families go to nudist beaches and as such many naked children are present in nudist pictures, which allows the pedophile to satisfy his or her desires.

    Do you think, therefore, that nudist websites should be banned?

    View Comment
    1. Have you looked at many nudist websites? I am a active nudist and there are several nudist websites that I check out on a regular basis and most of them have NO PICTURES. There are a few exceptions–resorts for example want to show off their facilities but they usually don’t include people in these pictures or, if they do, they rarely show any “sensitive” areas of the body and p[retty much never show children.

      There are a handful of pictures floating around from some nudist magazines that were published in the mid-20th century and some of these pictures show children, but the same dozen or so pictures keep showing up on all the same websites. Hardly anything that will keep anyone, pedo or not, turned on for long.

      Most nudists are not exhibitionists. Most are very shy about being photographed nude and are even more shy about letting their kids be photographed nude. Some families will take family pictures on nude vacations, but these are private photos that they would never post on the internet.

      In other words, nudist websites are not the source of pedophilia or child porn. Child porn is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but banning perfectly legit nudist websites is not the way to solve it.

      View Comment
    • Niqabi
    • April 5, 2014

    Should Pat Robertson Be Arrested On Terrorism Charges For …? …calling for the assassination of someone he hates?

    The recent miami group of christian terrorists (they were NOT Muslims; they studied the bible, etc) were arrested simply for WANTING to murder, but had not taken any actions or even have an actual plan.

    So, what is the difference between this and Pat Robertson calling for assassination of a world leader? Is it okay because we don’t like who he wanted killed -Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez?

    George W Bush didn’t call on an assassination of Saddam – that would’ve been illegal & immoral. “Bringing him to justice” means a trial with evidence & sentencing, not “street justice” & murder.

    So, why isn’t Pat Robertsons desires treated like the boys from miami? Why doesn’t the government send someone undercover to entice and entrap Mr. Robertson? What of women with abusers stalking them? Men can’t be arrested unless they DO something.

    So, what do you think – should Mr. Robertson be arrested on terrorism charges or not? Why or why not? Thx!
    to wiserangle: http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/010882.php#more
    to silentsoul: The Mufti (Head Scholar) of Saudi Arabia on the New York Attacks (9-11): http://salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/CAF020015.pdf

    View Comment
    1. No…but I think that old man needs to retire. My grandmama would die if she knew I’d said that lmao! Seriously though… he ain’t right in the HEAD OMG I heard him talking about how god talks to him and tells him this n that lol. He definately needs to retire. As for being arrested? Nah; we have freedom of speech…unless someone actually does go kill the person then MAYBE.

      View Comment
    • K w
    • April 9, 2014

    Difference In Courts? How are appellate courts different from trial courts?

    View Comment
    1. Trial courts hear new evidence and issue verdicts. If you don’t like how that case came out or a decision by the judge during the case, you can appeal it and the appellate court hears the question of whether or not the trial court acted correctly. With very narrow exceptions, they can’t hear new evidence. They must stick to the record of the trial court and questions raised by the attorney arguing the appeal.

      View Comment
    • Kris
    • April 10, 2014

    What If Pat Robertson Was President Of The United States? What if Pat Robetson was President of the United States? With Little Richard as the Vice President, Michael Jackson as the Sec. of State, Arnold Schwarzeeneger as the Sec. of Defense, Jessica Simpson as Ambasador of the U.N, Paris Hilton as Sec. of Education, Joan Rivers as the Presidental Advisor, Jack Black as the Sec. of Homeland Security, Kevin Federline as White House Press Sec., Samuel Jackson as Speaker of the House, and Brittney Spears as the Chief Supreme Court Justice?
    When you answer this question, I want you to tell me what you think would happen to the U.S and the world what would happen if Pat was President and all those people were in those posistions. Then tell me what you would do!

    View Comment
    1. If Pat Robertson were president I would gouge my eyes out with a spork, then drag myself by the chin across the border to Canada where I should have gone as soon as Dub-ya got elected.

      View Comment
    • OFFICIAL YAHOO! UGLY PATROL
    • April 17, 2014

    Does Pat Robertson Think The New Orleans Oil Disaster Is God’s Will Or God’s Master Plan? I Need To Know…..?

    View Comment
    1. He said what he thinks, if that is what he said. The problem is how he thinks. He has things sorted out all wrong, so it’s hardly possible to follow his reasoning, unless you consider that he reads something and puts together disconnected ideas. I guess he is trying to understand what is happening in the world, but can’t say it and seems to have it all confused in his mind. For the most part he puts his ‘understanding’ ahead of reality. That’s a disconnect from reality, perhaps early signs of Alzheimers.. It’s too convoluted.
      I guess he is basing his conclusion on the idea that there is some kind of justice in everything, if we can find it, but I don’t think that takes into account that there isn’t much justice in injustice. I guess there is a logic in why something happened, like carelessness, greed or something, I suppose leaking is explained by physics. I’m not sure it’s planned in any sense we usually mean it or in that context. It does have causes, but they are too complex to calculate with present usual methods.
      It’s hard to relate the answer to what you are asking, not knowing why you need to know. That is not knowing what you need to know. Then it could be answered from that angle. If you mean what is his scriptural basis, I suppose it’s the mis-notion that God has everything planned, but things follow rules. If you got rid of physics, we would have less than an oil spill, we would have nothing. Right back where we started.
      If I have the choice between will and plan, it’s surely the will of physics and a plan gone awry, don’t you think? Someone messed up the plan to get cheap oil. Pat has mixed metaphors, contradictory ideas or a contradiction in terms or something like that. I guess he thinks it is God’s will and necessary to the unfolding of the plan. Will leads to plan leads to oil spill.

      View Comment
    • Jason
    • May 8, 2014

    What Is The Lowest Court Of Ontario? What is the lowest ranked court in Ontario? Thanks ?

    View Comment
    1. Provincial & Territorial –

      The Provincial and Territorial Courts in Canada are local trial “inferior” or “lower” courts of limited jurisdiction established in each of the provinces and territories of Canada. These courts typically hear criminal, civil (or "small claims"), family, traffic, and bylaw cases. Unlike the superior courts of Canada, the jurisdiction of the Provincial Courts is limited to those matters which are permitted by statute. They have no inherent jurisdiction. Appeals of Provincial Court decisions are usually heard by the superior court of the province.
      These courts typically evolved from older magistrate, municipal, or local courts. Many of these former courts were as likely to have lay magistrates or justices of the peace presiding as they were to have a judge who had formal legal training.

      Each province and territory in Canada has an “inferior” or “lower” trial court, usually called a Provincial (or Territorial) Court, to hear certain types of cases. Appeals from these courts are heard either by the superior court of the province or territory or by the Court of Appeal. In criminal cases, this depends on the seriousness of the offence. These courts are created by provincial statute and only have the jurisdiction granted by statute. Accordingly, inferior courts do not have inherent jurisdiction. These courts are usually the successors of older local courts presided over by lay magistrates and justices of the peace who did not necessarily have formal legal training. However, today all judges are legally trained, although justices of the peace may not be. Many inferior courts have specialized functions, such as hearing only criminal law matters, youth matters, family law matters, small claims matters, “quasi-criminal” offences (i.e., violations of provincial statutes), or bylaw infractions. In some jurisdictions these courts serve as an appeal division from the decisions of administrative tribunals.

      View Comment
    • Fantasy.no52
    • June 3, 2014

    Information On Courts At Different Levels? Accurate information on courts at differnt levels in the court hierarchy and their relevant personnal.

    View Comment
    1. Municipal courts; County courts; District courts; Criminal courts; Court of Criminal appeal; Federal court; Federal Court of Appeal; Supreme Court.

      Something like this.

      And then of course you have the Juvenile courts(somewhere in there) and the Justice of the Peace court.

      View Comment
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: