How To Email Denver District Courts: Fill & Download for Free

Basically, their agenda is completely without merit and now we have proof of that. You can thank Kansas for that proof.Sam Brownback's Conservative Kansas ExperimentThis is what every Tea Party person needs to know. This is what every Republican needs to absorb as fact.We tried it here. It failed. And our state is broken.Thanks a lot. The good thing? He has no chance of being reelected as Governor of Kansas. Even Republicans think this has been a grand failure. So... get a clue.Wall Street JournalSam Brownback's Tax-Cut Push Puts Kansas Out on Its OwnFellow Republican Governors Are Slow to Follow Example Given His State's FinancesBy MARK PETERS and DAMIAN PALETTAUpdated June 10, 2014 9:06 p.m. ET"TOPEKA, Kan.—Two years ago, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback laid out an aggressive program of tax cuts to turn this slow-growing state into a Texas-like economic powerhouse—and serve as a model for Republican leaders in other states.So far, the results are serving as more of a warning than a beacon. Employment growth is below the national average, while Kansas faces plunging revenue, dwindling reserves and a rare debt downgrade.The Republican governor says his policies need time to trickle through the economy and that other states should use his example to show how lower income taxes can spur private-sector expansion. But neighboring states that once thought of keeping pace with Mr. Brownback aren't mimicking the cuts—"In tax-cut push, Kansas' Brownback is out on his ownThe Huffington PostPulling Back the Curtain on Sam Brownback's Kansas Financial MeltdownPosted: 05/12/2014 4:19 pm EDT Updated: 05/12/2014 5:59 pm EDT"Let's review, shall we? First there was the bad news from Kansas:TOPEKA -- Tax revenue in April dropped 45 percent from a year ago, the Kansas Department of Revenue announced Wednesday.The state's revenue for the year is $92.9 million less than projected earlier this month....Personal income tax revenue has decreased by $508 million compared with this point last fiscal year. That category also accounted for the discrepancy between Wednesday's numbers and estimates released earlier in the month. Income tax revenue was $89.6 million lower than expected.This huge and escalating shortfall occurred after Kansas's right-wing Republican legislature and governor, Sam Brownback, enacted huge and foolish tax cuts, the result of which was--as Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D-Topeka)explained--to transfer the tax burden from the rich to the middle and lower classes. The revenue shortfall also led Moody's to downgrade Kansas's debt, something that will cost its citizens even more money over the coming years as they borrow to make up the lost revenue."Pulling Back the Curtain on Sam Brownback's Kansas Financial MeltdownThe Kansas City StarFoolish tax cuts flushing Kansas and Sam Brownback down the drainBY YAEL T. ABOUHALKAH05/03/2014 6:32 PM05/03/2014 6:32 PM"A very bad week for Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback got even worse on Thursday with the news that Moody’s Investor Services had downgraded the state’s bond rating.On Wednesday, Brownback and Kansans found out that the state’sApril revenue collections had fallen $92 million short of forecasts.The state has a “sluggish” economy compared with its peers, Moody’s said, in a decision that will cost state taxpayers money because of higher future borrowing costs linked to the lower rating.Sure, these events are great political news for Brownback’s probable opponent, Democrat Paul Davis, in this fall’s election.It’s expected news for all those who have said for more than a year that huge and irresponsible tax cuts backed by Brownback and the GOP-controlled Legislature would be a financial disaster for the state. All of the warnings they have been issuing before and since the tax cuts took effect in early 2013 are coming true.But you know who’s really hurt the most by the downgrade and the revenue shortfall?The people of Kansas.They are the ones whose state-financed services are at risk of being reduced.That’s true when it comes to K-12 education, higher education or social assistance for people with disabilities.Kansans who are enrolled in the underfunded state pension system are at risk.Bottom line: The state’s very future has now been imperiled because of a radical tax experiment by ultra-conservatives in charge of the Legislature, many of whom Brownback helped put there."Read more here: Foolish tax cuts flushing Kansas and Sam Brownback down the drainUS NewsWhat’s the Matter with Kansas’ Tax Policy?Gov. Brownback wants to eliminate the income tax and force the poor to pay for it.By Pat Garofalo"Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., speaks at the Wisconsin GOP state convention Friday, May 11, 2007, in Lake Geneva, Wis.Kansas Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has presided over one of the most rightward lurches of any state in the nation, on issues such as health care, abortion and education. But the crown jewel of his administration has been a package of cuts to Kansas' income tax – the latest of which was signed into law today – part of Brownback's avowed goal to eliminate that tax in his state altogether.Yes, you read that right. Eliminate, as in cut to zero. To that end, Brownback is forging ahead with his push for repeal, before Kansans have even had to pay the rates that came with the last cut. "I think we can, I really do," Brownback said this week when asked by the Wall Street Journal if he can succeed in repealing Kansas' income tax, the top bracket of which is now 4.9 percent. "The experiences in some other states have been that when you cut income taxes, that your sales tax increase more than makes up for your income tax cut."The problem with that approach, however, is that replacing the income tax with a sales tax means replacing a tax largely affecting the well-off with one largely paid by the poor, who are disproportionately likely to spend all or most of their income (thus exposing it to the sales tax). As this chart from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows, just replacing 50 percent of the revenue lost by eliminating Kansas' income tax with sales tax revenue would seriously wallop those with lower-incomes."Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Wants to Eliminate the State Income Tax - US NewsThe New York TimesYes, if You Cut Taxes, You Get Less Tax RevenueKansas Tax Cut Leaves Brownback With Less MoneyJUNE 27, 2014"Kansas has a problem. In April and May, the state planned to collect $651 million from personal income tax. But instead, it received only $369 million."Continue reading the main storyThe New York TimesWhat’s the Matter With Kansas’ Schools?By DAVID SCIARRA and WADE HENDERSONJAN. 7, 2014"KANSAS, like every state, explicitly guarantees a free public education in its Constitution, affirming America’s founding belief that only an educated citizenry can preserve democracy and safeguard individual liberty and freedom.And yet in recent years Kansas has become the epicenter of a new battle over the states’ obligation to adequately fund public education. Even though the state Constitution requires that it make “suitable provision” for financing public education, Gov. Sam Brownback and the Republican-led Legislature have made draconian cuts in school spending, leading to alawsuit that now sits before the state Supreme Court."The New York TimesThe New York TimesCourt Orders Kansas Legislature to Spend More on SchoolsBy TREVOR GRAFF and JOHN ELIGONMARCH 7, 2014"TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas’s highest court ruled on Friday that funding disparities between school districts violated the state’s Constitution and ordered the Legislature to bridge the gap, setting the stage for a messy budget battle in the capital this year.With its ruling, the State Supreme Court averted, for now, a larger constitutional showdown by ordering a lower court to reconsider the most controversial part of the case — whether the public school system statewide was adequately funded. The lower court originally ordered an increase of more than $400 million in school spending, and the conservative-led majority in the Legislature had vowed to defy that order if it were upheld. Legislators said it was the job of lawmakers, not judges, to appropriate money."The New York TimesThe New York TimesAssociates of Kansas Governor Are Investigated Over Fund-Raising and LobbyingBy JONATHAN MARTINMAY 6, 2014"WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. is investigating fund-raising and lobbying activities of associates of Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, an inquiry that follows his efforts to consolidate control of the state’s Republican Party during his first three and a half years in office.The governor has denied any wrongdoing, but the aggressive tactics by his political team are now casting a shadow on his re-election this fall.Since as early as 2012 and as recently as last month, the F.B.I. has been interviewing former lawmakers and lobbyists in Topeka about whether some of Mr. Brownback’s current staff members and former aides-turned-lobbyists acted improperly in soliciting campaign contributions and clients, according to two Kansas Republicans, who refused to be identified because of the continuing inquiry. They said they have been questioned by an F.B.I. agent based in the Kansas capital."The New York TimesThe Huffington PostFederal Court Ruling: Kansas Can Strip Planned Parenthood Funds"Planned Parenthood's lawsuit challenged a Kansas law that requires the state to first allocate Title X money to public health departments and hospitals, which leaves no funds for specialty family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood.Kansas had argued Marten's ruling "emasculates the state of Kansas' autonomy and sovereignty rights" in the Constitution's 11th Amendment. The state contends the law restricting the distribution of federal family planning funds does not target Planned Parenthood because the statute itself does not name the group or even mention abortion."We are pleased with today's ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We will continue to defend Kansas law in regards to any further challenges," the Kansas attorney general's office said in an emailed statement."ABC News:"A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Kansas can strip two Planned Parenthood clinics of federal family planning money while the organization moves forward with its legal challenge of a state law it says is retaliation for its advocacy of abortion rights.Kansas is among several conservative states that have sought in recent years to strip Planned Parenthood of funding. At issue in Tuesday’s ruling is money distributed to states under Title X, a federally financed family planning program. The Title X money targets low-income individuals seeking reproductive services such as birth control, pregnancy testing, cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. It cannot be used for abortions.U.S. District Court J. Thomas Marten blocked enforcement of the state law in 2011, ruling that it unconstitutionally was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion rights and would likely be overturned. He ordered Kansas to continue funding Planned Parenthood until the case was resolved. He also found the state law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, saying states cannot impose additional requirements for entities to qualify for federal programs.A divided panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver overturned Marten’s rulings, saying Kansas can halt the funding. Tuesday’s decision is not a final ruling on the merits of the case itself, and the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. Given the split 2-1 ruling and the issues at stake in the litigation, it is also likely that the panel’s decision could be appealed to the full court for a rehearing."Federal Court Ruling: State Can Strip Planned Parenthood FundsMother JonesSam Brownback tried to create a conservative utopia—and put Kansas in play for the DemocratsEarly in his tenure, he said he wanted to turn Kansas into a "real, live experiment"for right-wing policies. In some cases relying on proposals promoted by the Kansas Policy Institute—a conservative think tank that belongs to the Koch-backed State Policy Network and is chaired by a former top aide to Charles Koch—Brownback led the charge to privatize Medicaid, curb the power of teachers' unions, and cull thousands from the welfare rolls.But his boldest move was a massive income tax cut. Brownback flew in Reagan tax cut guru Arthur Laffer to help sell the plan to lawmakers, with the state paying the father of supply-side economics $75,000 for three days of work.During the past four years, Brownback has taken every opportunity to stand against President Obama. He rejected the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act,depriving 78,000 residents of insurance, and approved a law to make sure his successor can't overturn that decision.In 2013, he signed into law the Paycheck Protection Act, which barred public-employee unions—including the 23,000 member Kansas National Education Association—from letting their members contribute money directly from their paychecks to political action committees.This has made it that much harder for the teachers' union to battle measures like one that passed in April. During the last weekend of the year's legislative session, Republicans rushed through a bill for additional education spending that was mandated by the state's Supreme Court—but not before adding to it a raft of conservative pet policies to reshape the state's public education system.The New York TimesThe Kansas Supreme Court Orders Kansas Legislature to Spend more on SchoolsTOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas’s highest court ruled on Friday that funding disparities between school districts violated the state’s Constitution and ordered the Legislature to bridge the gap, setting the stage for a messy budget battle in the capital this year.http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140307/109335.pdfThe RollingStoneThe Great Kansas Tea Party DisasterThat word, "experiment," has come to haunt Brownback as the data rolls in. The governor promised his "pro-growth tax policy" would act "like a shot of adrenaline in the heart of the Kansas economy," but, instead, state revenues plummeted by nearly $700 million in a single fiscal year, both Moody's and Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's credit rating, and job growth sagged behind all four of Kansas' neighbors. Brownback wound up nixing a planned sales-tax cut to make up for some of the shortfall, but not before he'd enacted what his opponents call the largest cuts in education spending in the history of Kansas.Read more: The Great Kansas Tea Party DisasterFollow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on FacebookTV 5Local News Investigation of Governor Brownbacks spending taxpayer funds as he cuts essential services.Video Landing PageBonus readingThe latest victims of Brownback's warped economic vision: prison guardsThe Pitch's guide to Kansas' shift from far right to very wrongNot even Wall Street is buying what Gov. Brownback is selling; Moody's has downgraded Kansas' state bondsKansas' most vulnerable now have even less health care, thanks to Gov. BrownbackSam Brownback's crusade against the Kansas Arts CommissionSam Brownback downplays his involvement in creepy prayer rally

Either a prosecutor or a defense attorney may ask the court to consider a person a hostile witness if they are not testifying favorably. It essentially means that the witness you call to testify is not on your side, i.e., is 'hostile' to your client's position. Nevertheless, you want to call that witness to testify in your case (in which you're trying to prove your case, not disprove the other side's) for other reasons, i.e., to fill in some facts that need to be stated for you to satisfy your burden of putting into evidence all of the facts necessary to demonstrate your entitlement to bring the claims your client has asserted. If the Judge accepts your assertion that the witness is hostile to your case, you are permitted to 'lead' the witness with questions like, 'isn't it true that the light was red when you first observed the blue car?' If the witness is not 'hostile' the lawyer is not permitted to 'lead' the witness, i.e., to suggest the answer to the question. All you're allowed to do is to ask open-ended questions like 'where were you on the 20th of March? Who, if anyone else, was also there?' Treating a witness as hostile is a mechanism to cross examine the witness when there are circumstances that dictate this. Here are 2 such circumstances:When you have called a witness in your own case in chief but they are an unfavorable witness or an 'adverse witness,' you may treat the witness as hostile and cross examine the witness. You technically do not have to request permission from the Judge but it is always good form and respectful if you do request such permission.When you have called a witness and are performing direct examination of this witness (because you believed they would testify as a favorable witness) but they start changing their story and are not cooperating, you may request permission to treat the witness as an adverse witness (aka 'hostile'). This allows the attorney to cross examine the witness.-Corri D. Fetman, Esq.Corri Fetman & Associates, Ltd.www.cfalawfirm.comUnder the rules of evidence, you are not supposed to ask leading questions of your own witness because leading questions suggest the answer. In other words, you can spoon feed answers to your witnesses, and that's not what the courts want. They want you to ask open ended questions so the witness can testify based on what they know instead of what the attorney tells them.For example, if you call a witness to testify that the light was red when the other side crashed into your client, the attorney cannot ask:"Isn't it true that the light was red?"Instead, they should ask 'What color was the light?' This way the witness answers based on their own experience.For the first question, the other side's attorney would object to the question as "leading."However, if the witness is 'hostile' for whatever reason then you may ask the court to declare the witness as hostile so you can ask leading questions, even if the attorney called the witness. Without such a showing, it is presumed that your own witnesses are not 'hostile', so opposing attorneys will object to your questions as leading.Usually, a 'hostile' witness is one that won't answer your questions, shows a bias against you, or other similar reasons. I once had a hostile witness in a criminal case where I was a prosecutor, and the witness was a cooperating criminal. He wouldn't answer my questions directly so I asked the judge to declare him a hostile witness.Here is Federal Rule of Evidence 611:http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_611-MATTHEW S. JAMESJames DefenseThe essence of the question is asking the court to recognize that the lawyer has called a witness to the stand on direct examination that is hostile to the claim or defense. Normally, a lawyer is given very little latitude when questioning witnesses favorable to her positions in the case. The lawyer is not supposed to ask a question that suggests the desired answer. Lawyers call these 'leading questions.' Think of them this way, a leading question essentially allows the lawyer to testify through the witness by designing questions that can only be answered in a yes/no format. Questions that begin with 'Isn't it true that...' or that in themselves are statements not asking for open explanation are leading questions. If I as a trial lawyer called the witness to the stand there is a normal presumption that the witness is favorable to me, therefore I cannot ask leading questions.When the lawyer asks the court to treat the witness as hostile, the lawyer is asking permission to lead the witness to make specific points from a witness that normally does not want those points made. Normally, unless the witness is actually an opponent in the litigation or a hired expert witness for an opponent, the court will not allow the witness to be treated as a hostile witness until the witness exhibits hostility to the sponsoring lawyers positions in testimony with non-leading, open ended questioning.-Lin McCrawMcCrawGanttBoard Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal SpecializationIf I am representing my client and call a witness, I generally expect that witness to support my case. Sometimes a witness will have information that is NOT supportive. Since I've called the witness, I may ask the court to name the witness as 'hostile.' That allows me to use the tools of cross-examination which are not generally allowed in direct testimony.-J. Kim Wright, J.D.Member, NC Bar1989 Graduate of University of Florida Lawhttp://www.cuttingedgelaw.com/The phrase appears in movies and television more so than in real life. However what it really means is that the lawyer is seeking the ability to ask 'leading' questions of the witness. A 'leading' question is one that suggests the answer desired by the lawyer. Examples include 'You never actually saw Bill that night, did you?' or 'You never reported the incident to management, did you?' Leading questions allow the lawyer to control the dialogue more easily so that the jury hears the testimony in such a way that is the lawyer's choosing while making it harder for the witness to avoid answering the question.Generally a lawyer cannot ask leading questions of witnesses unless the witness is on cross-examination or is being clearly evasive in the witness' answers (i.e. 'hostile'). So the lawyer is asking the judge to make the determination that the witness is being clearly evasive so as to allow the lawyer to ask leading questions. Certain witnesses are assumed to be 'hostile' and therefore it isn't necessary to ask for permission to ask leading questions. These can include opposing parties, people employed by opposing parties or otherwise under the influence or control of opposing parties.-John H. Barkley, Esq.Attorney at LawShustak & Partners, P.C.Certain questioning techniques are allowed when a witness is consideredhostile, which would otherwise be objectionable. The best example - alawyer can ask the witness questions that are leading in nature, which wouldotherwise not be allowed. A judge will grant such permission if the witness is not answering questions properly, being evasive or otherwise difficult.-Lance E. MuellerMueller, S.C.Generally speaking the phrase 'permission to treat a witness as hostile' is a cue to both the judge and the jury that a witness is not cooperating with the judicial process and/or is not being honest with their answers. An attorney can ask questions to a hostile witness that they would not be able to ask a friendly witness, so the allowance can broaden the manner of interrogation.-Matthew Reischer, Esqhttp://www.LegalAdvice.comNormally when a lawyer calls a witness they are only allowed to conduct direct examination. So for example, a question might be 'What time did you leave the store?' After a lawyer finishes questioning a witness the other side gets to cross examine the witnesses. In cross examination you can ask leading questions. A leading question might be 'Isn't it true that you left the store at 4:30?' The advantage to a leading question is that the lawyer is providing the information to the court through the witness.When a lawyer calls a witness who is non-cooperative or refuses to answer questions, they can, at the discretion of the judge, be considered hostile. When a witness is determined to be hostile the lawyer on 'direct' can then use leading questions to facilitate their testimony.This technique is used if you require the testimony of the adverse party,or someone close to them (parent, spouse, employee, etc.) in order to make a critical point in a case. A lawyer has to be careful though, because judges don't always grant the request. Then you are stuck trying to 'pull' what you need from direct questions, and then the other lawyer gets to lead what might be a very friendly witness to them.I have tried civil, criminal and family court cases involving direct and cross examination of witnesses, and dealt with the 'permission to treat the witness as hostile' question in a multi-day trial just a few weeks ago.-James R. Snell, Jr.Attorney at LawLexington, South Carolinawww.snelllaw.comThis is when a lawyer asks a Judge permission to ask a witness, usually his own, leading questions (You saw my client sign the contract, correct?) on direct examination. Leading questions usually are only asked during cross examination. A hostile witness is someone who's testimony is contrary to the facts and law the lawyer seeks to present, therefore the lawyer must now impeach the testimony of the witness. A witness on cross examination is presumed to be hostile, so the lawyer does not need to seek the court's permission to treat the witness as hostile.-Andrellos MitchellAttorney & Counselor at LawLaw Office of Andrellos MitchellThe short answer is that it means the lawyer is asking the judge if the lawyer may insert a ring through the witness's nose and lead the witness wherever the lawyer leads.Now, why might that lawyer need that permission and why might the judge grant it? Well, broadly speaking, there are two rules that lawyers must follow at trial concerning the manner in which lawyers question witnesses. On direct examination, a lawyer generally may not 'lead the witness.' On cross-examination, the lawyer may do so, and generally will use nothing but leading questions.Direct examination is the type of examination that, generally speaking, occurs when a lawyer is putting on his client's case-in-chief and calls a witness to the stand to testify. The lawyer must not lead the witness during questioning on direct examination. A leading question is one that suggests the answer, such as, 'You left the bar at about 10:00 p.m. on that night, correct?' 'Yes.' But if the lawyer has the witness on direct examination, the lawyer may not lead. Instead, the lawyer has to resort to who, what, why, when, and how questions, or 'Please explain to the jury . . .' or 'Please tell the Court . . .' So, back to our example about the guy leaving the bar, on direct examination the question becomes, 'Now, on the night of the accident, Mr. Client, about what time did you leave the bar?'On cross examination, which occurs when the lawyer is questioning a witness called or clearly associated with an adverse party, the lawyer is permitted to lead the witness. Cross examination is great fun for trial lawyers, because in essence, they get to do the testifying. In theory, the lawyer just puts the words in the witness's mouth, and ideally all the witness says is yes or no. And as a result, the lawyer has much greater control over the course of the testimony. Well-coached witnesses will fight you, but there are other techniques for dealing with that problem. By contrast, direct examination involves much less control by the lawyer and can be more challenging for that reason.So what's with this permission-to-treat-witness-as-hostile question? Well, on occasion a lawyer may have to call a witness in his client's case-in-chief who is just not all that fond of the lawyer's client. Now, if that witnesses is someone clearly identified with an adverse party in the case-let's say plaintiff calls to the stand in her case-in-chief an employee of the corporate defendant-then the lawyer may get to call the witness 'under cross-examination.' In that instance, the lawyer can start with leading questions right out of the gate, from the first question. But let's suppose the witness I have to call is a former employee of my client and for reasons totally unrelated to this case, that ex-employee is just not a real fan of my client anymore. The judge probably will not permit me to call the witness in my client's case-in-chief 'on cross examination' right out of the box. Instead, I may have to begin the questioning as if on direct examination with my usual non-leading, who, what, where, when, and why questions. If, however, the witness starts going off on my client, clearly demonstrating hostility and damaging my oh-so-well-crafted story for the jury, then I turn to the judge and say, 'Your Honor, may I have permission to treat the witness as hostile?' And if the judge grants that permission, I may now start using leading questions to get the witness to where I want to go.-Charles PenotThe Law Offices of Charles Penot, PLLCWhen a lawyer asks permission to treat a witness as hostile, they are doing that so that they can 'lead' the witness. When an attorney calls a witness and questions him or her, that is called a direct examination and the attorney must ask open-ended questions rather than leading questions. This is a more amiable conversation than a cross-examination, during which leading questions are asked (wherein the answer is implied). Unfortunately, sometimes a witness that may be helpful to your case does not want to cooperate and therefore, your client will be better protected if you can ask leading questions (it's also easier to elicit the answer you want). The attorney must request permission to treat the witness as hostile so that the leading questions are not objectionable.-Shari-Lynn Cuomo Shore, Esq.Wolf & Shore, LLCwww.wolfandshorelaw.comWhen a lawyer asks to treat a witness as hostile they are asking the Judge for permission to question the witness in a certain way. Traditionally when a lawyer calls a witness in their case in chief (i.e. the plaintiff's lawyer calls the defendant as a witness on the plaintiff's behalf), the witness may not be favorable to the parties case (i.e. the defendant doesn't want to testify on the plaintiff's behalf). When you are calling your own witness that is determined to be hostile you may do certain things such as ask leading questions 'Weren't you there on that night' instead of 'Where were you on this night'. It basically involves starting the question off assuming the answer or using questions that solicit yes and no answers. The goal of leading questions is to solicit information the witness is otherwise going to be elusive in providing when asking open ended or less direct questions.Attorney's usually have an unfettered right to ask leading questions on cross-examination, so if the plaintiff's lawyer calls the defendant as a witness, when the defendant's attorney is cross examining her at that time, the defendant's attorney may automatically (subject to each state's rules) use leading questions.-Tiffany S. FrancAttorneyhttp://www.pklaw.com/Generally, a witness must ask open-ended questions when examining their own witnesses and can only cross-examine (i.e., ask leading questions) when questioning witnesses called by an opposing party. However, sometimes a lawyer needs to call as a witness someone who is not cooperative and acting hostile to the lawyer and his client. If that happens, the lawyer can ask the judge for 'permission to treat the witness as hostile.' If the judge agrees, the lawyer can then ask leading questions. A judge will review both the witness's manner on the stand and any interest adverse to the lawyer and his client. So, most frequently, a lawyer tries to question his witnesses with open-ended questions and seeks permission to treat as hostile after the witness demonstrates hostility and un-cooperativeness. Nevertheless, sometimes a lawyer can ask before even questioning if it is clear that the witness will be adverse. If not granted, he can request again if the witness is, in fact, hostile to the initial questions.-Thomas J. Simeone, Esq.Simeone & Miller, LLPwww.SimeoneMiller.comThe meaning or purpose of asking the court for leave to treat a witness as hostile is that the attorney is seeking leave to ask leading questions (which are generally not allowed on direct examination of a witness that the attorney has called to testify) and to possibly impeach or discredit the witness with his/her prior statements or conduct.It is generally used when a witness who is either thought to be neutral, or even un-helpful to the attorney's client in some respect, has to be called because they can offer some key piece of evidence that cannot be introduced otherwise.-John R. O'Brien, AttorneyChicago, IllinoisLicensed in Illinois since 1978An adverse or hostile witness is a witness whose trial testimony, on DIRECT examination, is "adverse" or "hostile" to the lawyer questioning the witness. For example, a lawyer calls the complainant at trial when the lawyer represents the defendant who supposedly victimized the complainant. The lawyer can ask that the complainant be designated "hostile" because the complainant is adverse to the defense position. Allowing the witness to be designated hostile allows the lawyer to then ask LEADING questions. A leading question calls for a "yes" or "no" answer. The direct examination then proceeds in a leading manner (as if the witness is being cross-examined).-Neal Davis is a criminal defense attorney in Houston, Texas and founder of the Neal Davis Law Firm, PLLC. Neal is board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in criminal law and has garnered national recognition for defending cases before the US Supreme Court and Texas courts.www.houstoncriminaldefenselawyers.comYou are asking the judge to allow you to ask the witness leading questions, which have presumptive elements about them and may even suggest the answer.Some witnesses are adverse by nature - party opponents for instance. They are hostile witnesses by nature and will usually erect vague and ambiguous answers to your questions. They can drag the case on with such antics. Who, what, when, where and why are not leading. "Isn't it true?" is a leading question and allowed during cross examination or if the court allows leading questions on direct examination of a hostile witness.-Dr. Shawn Council, Esquire, LPDAttorney at LawDoctorate of Law & Policywww.shawncouncil.comAn angry witness is stewing on the witness stand poised to pounce at any moment on our hero - the social pariah of a lawyer who is taking on corrupt government, big business, or vile criminals. As our hero fires off several rounds of questions, he's outmatched by the cunning of the witness. Until suddenly, our hero screams out, 'Permission to treat the witness as hostile?' The judge readily grants the motion and a high stakes drama unfolds which eventually leads to the witness's shocking confession before a stunned jury.But permission to treat a witness as hostile isn't usually all that exciting. The rules of evidence allow attorneys to use leading questions in cross examination against the opposing counsel's witness. A leading question is a question that implies the answer and usually involves a yes or no question. For example, these types of questions might start with 'Isn't it true you...."Usually, these types of questions are improper with one's own witnesses. The jury needs to hear testimony from the witness, not the lawyer. So, a lawyer should ask his own witness open ended questions such as who, what, where, when, why, and how. The idea behind the rules is that the opposing counsel's witnesses may be biased or untruthful and leading questions are a tool to fully examine the accuracy of a witness's statement, whereas one's own witnesses must be free to explain what he or she witnessed and not influenced by an attorney trying to win a case. And yet there are times when the attorney's own witness is evasive or prone to be hostile by virtue of the circumstances of the case. In those times, a court may grant latitude to use leading questions because the attorney's own witness is not much different from that of opposing counsel. This is a very common tool when witnesses recant prior testimony.While this fun declaration is usually not as exciting as it's portrayed in the media, it's a very useful tool to the skilled lawyer to get to the bottom of the matter.-Mark Heath, criminal defense attorney,http://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/Please see the following articles for more information about jobs related to criminal law:Matt Murphy, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Orange County, CaliforniaHow to Become a District AttorneyConsidering a Career as a District Attorney?The Life and Career of Attorney Nancy Grace, Who Turned Lawyer after the Murder of Her Fiance.Top 39 Tips for New Litigation Associates and Trial Lawyers: How to Be a Good Litigation AttorneyJob Opportunities in Criminal LawJury Consultants Continue to be in Hot DemandThe Life and Career of Marcia Clark Criminal Defense AttorneyA Television show for military related crimes by former pilot turned Lawyer : Lt. Cmdr. "Harm" Rabb. Jr.Please see the following articles for more information about jobs related to criminal law:Make a career change as Public DefenderThe Rocky Balboa of Criminal Defense Law: Joseph TacopinaThe Life and Career of Tony Serra: Criminal Defense LawyerDefending the Mob: Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Rick HalprinTop 39 Tips for New Litigation Associates and Trial Lawyers: How to Be a Good Litigation AttorneyJob Opportunities in Criminal LawJury Consultants Continue to be in Hot DemandA Television Show for Military Related Crimes by Former Pilot Turned Lawyer: Lt. Cmdr. "Harm" Rabb. Jr.Share+1TweetLinkedinArticle CategoryLegal JobsLegal ArticlesLegal Career AdviceAttorney Career AdviceAttorney Q & AFeatured TestimonialsBeing the comprehensive and well managed site that it is, I do not think that LawCrossing needs any suggestions.StephenFactsLawCrossing Fact #233: We provide inspirational quotes and testimonials to further motivate you throughout the job-search process.Benefits of LCRelated JobsJob titleAssociate AttorneyLocationMiami, FLDescriptionWe are a very busy commercial litigation boutique. We are seeking an associate attorney with at l...Share+1TweetLinkedinApply nowNOW TRENDING ON BCG ATTORNEY SEARCHThe Most Important Characteristic Attorneys Need to Succeed and Why It Is Almost Impossible for Them to Keep ItTop 20 Reasons Why There Is No Better Profession Than Practicing LawLaw School Grades and Your CareerMOST POPULAR ARTICLESThe Right and Wrong Reasons for Switching Jobs as an AttorneyPart 2: Erin Brockovich Losing Ed MasryWhen Being a Lawyer Is Not for You: How to Successfully Transition into the Job of Your Dreams!2013 LawCrossing Salary Survey of Lawyer Salaries in Best Law Firms2015 LawCrossing Salary Survey of Lawyer Salaries in Best Law Firms60 Nontraditional Jobs You Can Do with a Law Degree (and Should Strongly Consider Doing)Try Us For FreeEmail:Try Us For FreeOnly LawCrossing consolidates every job it can find in the legal industry and puts all of the job listings it locates in one place.We have more than 25 times as many legal jobs as any other job board.We list jobs you will not find elsewhere that are hidden in small regional publications and employer websites.We collect jobs from more than 250,000 websites and post them on our site.Increase your chances of being seen! Employers on public job boards get flooded with applications. Our private job boards ensure that only members can apply to our job postings.Testimonial of the WeekI was able to obtain my new job through LawCrossing. I love your service! Hopefully, I won't need your help for a while, but if I do, I'll certainly sign up again. I have already told others about your great site.Theresa D. ColoradoShare Your Testimonial+ Read More TestimonialWhy Everyone Prefers LawCrossing to Other Job SitesClick hereLegal Job Market UpdatesStay Ahead. Get your weekly career digest giving you:the latest legal jobslegal employment news and trendscareer advice and moreGet it nowFeatured JobsTax - International Attorney in Detroit, MIDetroit, MIApply NowLitigation Attorney / Litigation - Appellate Attorney in Berkeley, CABerkeley, CAApply NowContract Law Attorney in Chicago, ILChicago, ILApply NowTop Actively Interviewing JobsLegal Resume / Cover Letter WriterDallas, TXApply NowIP Attorney with 2-4 years of Electrical Engineering experienceDallas, TXApply NowTrademarks Attorney with 3-5 years of IP experienceChicago, ILApply NowJob of the DayLitigation AttorneySeattle, WAAnglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten LLP (AFRCT) seeks a litigation attorney in Seattle, WA area with a minim...Employer: AFRCT, LLPApply for freeGet the rankingUseful LinksUS News Law School Rankings 2016Associate Resources on BCG Attorney SearchLegal Job Market: Facts and FiguresAdd LawCrossing to My FavoritesQuestions?What is LawCrossing?Who Else Is Ready to Never Have to Worry About Recessions and the Legal Job Market Again?Why Job Boards Are Evil!Blow Away Your Competition with LawCrossingGet More Employers to Respond to Your Applications and Hire YouWhy You Are Not Aware of 95% of the Jobs Out ThereWhy LawCrossing's Marketing Problem is Good for YouWhy It is Important to See Every Job Site There isPrivate versus Public Job BoardsWhy You Need to Manage Your Job Search in One PlaceWho Else Wants Their Phone Ringing Off the Hook With Quality Job Interviews?Do Not Use Another Job Board Until You Read ThisReal-Time Job UpdatesSign up free and receive new jobs by email as soon as they become available.First NameEmailAreas of PracticeSelectAntitrust and Trade RegulationBankruptcyConstructionCorporateEmploymentEnergyEnvironmentalERISA/Employee BenefitsGovernmentHealth CareImmigrationInsuranceIntellectual Property - LitigationIntellectual Property - OtherIntellectual Property - PatentIntellectual Property - Trademark/CopyrightInternet/E-CommerceIP/Technology TransactionsLitigationOtherPatent Agents/Technical SpecialistsReal EstateSecurities LitigationTaxTelecommunicationsTrust and EstatesWhite Collar CrimeRegions of InterestSelectAlabamaAlaskaArizona - OtherArizona - PhoenixArkansasCalifornia - Los AngelesCalifornia - Oakland/East BayCalifornia - Orange CountyCalifornia - OtherCalifornia - SacramentoCalifornia - San DiegoCalifornia - San FranciscoCalifornia - Silicon Valley/San JoseColorado - DenverColorado - OtherConnecticut - HartfordConnecticut - OtherDelaware - OtherDelaware - WilmingtonDistrict of ColumbiaFlorida - MiamiFlorida - OrlandoFlorida - OtherFlorida - TampaGeorgia - AtlantaGeorgia - OtherHawaiiIdahoIllinois - ChicagoIllinois - OtherIndiana - IndianapolisIndiana - OtherIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMaryland - BaltimoreMaryland - OtherMassachusetts - BostonMassachusetts - OtherMichigan - DetroitMichigan - Grand RapidsMichigan - OtherMinnesota - Minneapolis/St. PaulMinnesota - OtherMississippiMissouri - Kansas CityMissouri - OtherMissouri - St. LouisMontanaNebraska - OmahaNebraska - OtherNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York - AlbanyNew York - BuffaloNew York - New York CityNew York - OtherNew York - RochesterNorth Carolina - CharlotteNorth Carolina - OtherNorth Carolina - RaleighNorth DakotaOhio - CincinnatiOhio - ClevelandOhio - OtherOklahomaOregonPennsylvania - OtherPennsylvania - PhiladelphiaPennsylvania - PittsburghRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennessee - NashvilleTennessee - OtherTexas - AustinTexas - DallasTexas - HoustonTexas - OtherTexas - San AntonioUtahVermontVirginia - NorthernVirginia - OtherVirginia - RichmondWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming- Asia - China - Beijing- Asia - China - Other- Asia - China - Shanghai- Asia - Hong Kong- Asia - Japan - Other- Asia - Japan - Tokyo- Asia - Other- Asia - Singapore- Asia - Thailand- Asia - UAE - Abu Dhabi- Asia - UAE - Dubai- Australia - Melbourne- Australia - Other- Canada- Europe - Belgium - Brussels- Europe - Belgium - Other- Europe - England - London- Europe - England - Other- Europe - France - Other- Europe - France - Paris- Europe - Germany - Dussel- Europe - Greece - Athens- Europe - Germany - Munich- Europe - Germany - Other- Europe - Greece - Other- Europe - Holland - Amsterdam- Europe - Holland - Other- Europe - Italy - Other- Europe - Italy - Rome- Europe - Other- Europe - Russia - Moscow- Europe - Russia - Other- Europe - Spain - Madrid- Europe - Spain - Other- Mexico- South AmericaSubmitJob Search TipDon't forget your greatest resource for insider information-current or past colleagues, vendors, service providers. Ask everyone you know for information. You may be surprised by who knows what.What Members are SayingMeganI found the site to be very useful. For attorney jobs, I have not found any other site with nearly as many listings.GraceThe site was extremely useful. I found an attorney position in New York City so I am very satisfied. I will probably end up telling my friends about it.+ More success stories+ Share your success story with usTop Law Firm SalariesWhat Do In-House Attorney Positions Pay?A Comprehensive Guide to Bar Reciprocity: What States Have Reciprocity for Lawyers and Allow You to Waive into the BarWhat Is the Average Salary for Your Job?Exclusive Report: 2017 State of the American Legal Job MarketTestimonial of the weekOut of all the other job boards I have used, LawCrossing was definitely the most impressive. I have received many job interviews from jobs I applied to on your site.Mark Herskovitz Los Angeles, CA+Read More TestimonialShare Your TestimonialAll we do is research jobsOur team of researchers, programmers, and analysts find you jobs from over 50,000 career pages and other sourcesOur members get more interviews and jobs than people who use "public job boards"© 2017 LawCrossing Privacy statement | Site mapShoot for the moon. Even if you miss it, you will land among the stars.

in district courts in Colorado public defenders make $270 per hour for three months. there are kickbacks for the judge. so she wants as much aCTION FOR THREE MONTHS EACH.in family court she can appoint state funded guardian - but they also get paid by the affluent party on her behalf and by the poor party on behalf of the judges and justices.in Colorado there are also publicly funded attorneys hunting for rentersRenting in ColoradoA political process is one by which a person comes up with a scheme for a legislator to transfer tax money to them, and half goes to that legislator as a campaign donation.Here’s how attorneys in the judicial, legislative and executive influence the law. Just one example. There is a lot of equity in real estate at the moment. So attorneys have put their attention into stealing them. This is true for Colorado 2019. No legal advice here - the law is never upheld:The judicial has independent legislative and executive powers. They legislated as follows:They are giving themselves so many billions for public defenders for poor renters. A public defender makes $270 per hour for three months. There is a cut in it for the judge.Attorneys go out to meet poor people and convince them to come to courtJudges can expunge eviction records - that means that a landlord has no way of recognizing a serial evictee. I know a woman who had successfully completed her third eviction and already found her fourth victim landlord.Evictees don’t have to pay rent for 90 days while eviction takes placeLandlords are not allowed to just lock out a renter who doesn’t pay. They must come and pay a judge and an attorney first.Governor Hickenlooper in the Colorado Capitol and other attorneys have signed the following bills:A landlord can’t take a security deposit beyond what a screening company takes.A landlord can’t reject a felon just for fear of ending up in court.Evictees get 10 days notice to avoid paying rent on top of the 90 days already given by the courts.Attorneys in the Boulder City Council and the Denver City Council passed the following ordinances:A landlord can’t reject a tenant just because they qualify for a public defenderLights outside at night must be dim, to take advantage of all of these felons living in your buildings as a result of the Capitol attorney work.I’m not sure who’s responsible for this, but if you go to karma credit online and file a dispute on any credit problem then the credit reporting agencies have 20 days to respond. If they don’t they automatically reverse the complaint against you. This is what happens in most cases. Your credit score is meaningless to landlords.The result? Most landlords will leave most of their income with judges and attorneys……. Nothing new…..And this is how the political process influences law…….Your renter may be an attorney. Or they may be entitled to a public defender. Public defenders in Colorado make $270 per hour. There are kickbacks in it for the judge. They get incentives to cause damage or be evicted.ResourcesAttorney is the number one preferred occupation for sociopaths.Judges take kickbacks per appointment. They don’t want to work - it all works based on agreement between attorneys….1.Your state’s Introduction to Rules of Professional Conduct, by Lexis, available from your local Supreme Court Law Library. They’ll send you a copy by email for a fee. Your attorney is unregulated and doesn’t have to represent your interests. They are bound by no Rules. No requirements of them. They don’t need a contract. They can enter general representation powers without your consent. This is a collection of later rulings that are an abuse of discretion.2.Your state’s Rules of Civil Procedure 15.4, by West, available from your local Supreme Court Law Library. They’ll send you a copy by email for a fee. Your attorney is empowered to wave away all of your civil rights and legal entitlements without your consent or knowledge. No law or Rules of Evidence apply. These are abuse of discretion ruling.3.Your judge can “moot” a criminal investigation by admitting to the bribes and retiring. No criminal prosecution.Attorneys will do anything in their power to stop you from reading the real law books….. If you don’t read you’ll weep later….I made Judge Angela Arkin retire in admittance to bribes in the Triple Paid Guardian ad Litem Court Scam. Not before suffering fraudulent incarceration, illegal search and seizures and danger to my life and health. I got no compensation, except that the defamation campaign is over and I have a cute story to tell... and a few more....However, in 2018 our Governor Hickenlooper deregulated the police force. They can engage in any crime without indictments. So it may not be possible to get judges to retire anymore….. The problem is that the executive branch is typically a check-and-balance to the government. So Colorado Governor Hickenlooper fixed this problem.Judge Zachary Illia Malkinson put me in jail without a warrant and out of jurisdiction for 4 days and then 4 months. Deputy Bain of Boulder County Sheriff’s Office gets paid by robbing people. Mostly the homeless, but not limited.I’ve written about the Attorney Regulation Board and judges regulation elsewhere on quora.State Rules of Civil Procedure 15.4The case does not have to be compelling. It is all about the financial benefits to the judge. She takes kickbacks per appointment so any ruling that will bring more and more criminals to her door is profitable. Additionally there is bribe. All evidence will be ignored in court if there is an agreement between attorneys. They write a law but then they write a conflicting law that allows them to put you at peace and also take their bribes and not be limited by any Rules of Evidence.Courts work on Agreement Between Attorneys. Such agreement makes the circumstances of the crime irrelevant to the court. They won’t be considered.The attorneys are not saying that the criminal didn’t commit the crime. All they are saying is that there is an agreement that he should not be held responsible. That is enough.In the original law, as was created in the Federal level, R.C.P 15 was created to ensure that the parties can, at any time, stop litigation through an agreement and cut on legal costs. Your state’s R.C.P 15.4 is a result of abuse of discretion by a judge. She misapplies the law of oral agreements. Your attorney, can, with a moment of silence and without your knowledge agree with the other side. She might look at evidence just to make the “hearing” longer or more convincing. However, the evidence is no longer valid. She hopes you appeal it and throw more greens her way. It will not help. It is the law. It is an error in the law that only the Supreme Court can fix. They will not.Read your State’s Rules of Civil Procedure 15.4 to see it for yourself in their own words. You will not believe it otherwise and attorneys will do anything in their power to change the law on time if they are discovered. There are millions of ways to achieve the same greedy purpose.You can get your State’s Rules of Civil Procedure 15.4 from your local Supreme Court law library. They may email you a copy for a fee.A judge takes kickbacks per appointment and bribes. The more business brought before her the more profit. A public defender in Colorado makes $270 per hour for three months. That means that she needs to let criminals come back repeatedly, every four months or so, and put the innocent in private prisons for life. It means that she must sell out the legal entitlements of those entitled or else she’d end up with out of court settlements. A private prison makes $156 per night per person. That’s hotel fee. But they just get a bunk bed in a tiny cell. Its great business. If you are rich and connected, it may be wise to let you go. However, if you are vulnerable the judge can put you into good use.Obama’s wife started wearing designer clothes after opening a bunch of private prisons. You should try it! Jimmy Carter said, “The government isn’t here to solve your problems. The government is your problem.” Follow the ones who minimize him and figure out their intentions.Secretary Adulterates Court RecordsJudge Zachary Ilia Malkinson is part of a large family of judges and attorneys who regularly steal assets. They are currently trying to purchase the Wimbledon II Condominiums in Boulder, CO, for a profitable development. My husband, Harlan Leigh Stein, refuses to divorce me so I cannot sell them my condo. Two relatives of Judge Zachary Ilia Malkinson - Kelly Livingston who intended to purchase my condo and McKenna Renee Hodges - filed a Motion for Civil Protection against me after a year of stalking and harassing me. They tried to make me to go court myself, by stalking and harassing me along with their family for 11 months. I knew that the judge can turn the case against me. I have 7 years of experience with our legal system because of my husband. I made Judge Angela Arkin retire because of the Triple Paid Guardian Ad Litem Court Scam bribe scheme. I have written about it elsewhere on quora.Both women claimed to be living above me so as to prevent me from entering my home. In reality, they’ll stalk me anywhere in the 50 states. The secretary adulterated their personal information for this purpose. They also changed my birth date on one of the cases so the clerk doesn’t tell me of both.During my divorce the record of the Initial Management Conference was altered to indicate that my husband’s attorney was representing me, while my husband was pro-se. they hoped to attach a guardian ad litem to me.Supreme CourtGeorge Washington created the Supreme Court two years after independence. He gave the judicial independent legislative and executive powers. Unconstitutional and undemocratic. He probably had crime in mind, and was bribing the judges with your own cash.The Supreme Court has the power to correct any errors in the law. In a justice’s view any law that obstructs their power to take bribes or make more money in court through kickbacks or that puts them in danger of a criminal prosecution or loss is an error. They’ll correct it instantly. They meet every week and take their jobs extremely seriously.A judge in the lower courts can send a case to the Supreme Court if she finds her profit margins are going low. There was a detective who could, even with the Miranda rights warning, get one confession after another. This was not good for the judge. She takes kickbacks per appointment and it looks bad to keep the cases long, long, long when the detective has done such a good job.So she sent the case to the Supreme Court being “concerned” that although the person received his Miranda rights he still didn’t fully understand them.