Friend Of The Court Case No. State Of - Michigan Courts: Fill & Download for Free

Short Answer: Absolutely not. What is between you and the IRS, and you and the father of your child are two different things. The father of your child does not have the right to just stop paying child support. I urge you to change the method of getting child support from “privately” to directly through the courts.Longer Answer: Here in Michigan we have Friend of the Court (FOC) which assists in child support and other family law matters. You can do this thing called “opting out” in which the payor writes a check and sends it to the Disbursement Unit located in Lansing, rather than have the money directly taken from the payor’s paycheck by his/her employer— called an IWO or Income Withholding Order.I have NEVER in 15 years of practice (nor will I ever) recommend to a payee client to receive child support by opting out of FOC services.. Why? Because it always always ends up that the payor sends whatever he/she feels like sending, when he/she feels like sending it.You can’t tell your son to not be hungry today, because daddy didn’t send the check. That’s not how raising a child works.Seek out the child support enforcement bureau in your state, or call an attorney. Here in MI, we have forms that someone can fill out (without an attorney) to get their child support case through the court system.

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.

I think we should see the actual report, not a short summary by Trump’s appointed stooge. It is conceivable the summary is correct, but also conceivable it is not only incorrect, but even a complete lie. Why do I say that? Well, Trump has already announced the report was a “total exoneration” of him, whereas Barr’s letter actually specifically said it was not. If Trump just completely made that up (which he did) then why should we assume the Barr summary was not also completely made up? There simply is no credibility here, Trump just removed any hope of that — so we need to see the report itself. And I also do not think the report itself necessarily will be credible. For example it has been claimed that (a) there are no plans to indict anybody else, and also that (b) no member of Trump’s family involved in his campaign (e.g. Ivanka, Eric, Jared Kushner) was ever interviewed by the Mueller team. I simply cannot see at present how both (a) and (b) can be true while still contending this was a genuine investigation and not a sham. (They perhaps could enjoy more credibility by also making available evidence, e.g. the evidence seen by the grand jury.)But you definitely are not going to know if nobody ever sees the report.UPDATE 11 april 2019: (a) Barr, testifying under oath before congress, was asked whether the Mueller report (which nobody in congress or the media had ever seen) had already been shown to… the people under investigation, i.e. the Trump team at the White House. He refused to answer.(b) Would Barr request that the court release the grand jury evidence? Barr refused. As opposed to every other comparable investigation (e.g. Starr report re Clinton, Cox report re Nixon) in which, in all cases, the grand jury evidence was released.(c) Barr claims he will release his bowdlerized version of the Mueller report in “mid April” which is about 10X longer delay than any previous such report ever experienced.(d) Media leaks claim members of the Mueller team dispute the Barr summary, and that said team had already helpfully prepared multiple summaries of their own… all of which have been kept secret so Barr instead could release his own “summary” letter to congress. Was anybody on the Mueller team consulted to review Barr’s letter before it went to congress? Barr answered: no.(e) Barr says he is censoring the report in 4 ways: (i) Grand jury information (ii) Material that might compromise intelligence sources and methods (iii) Information that could affect ongoing matters (iv) material that could affect the privacy and reputations of peripheral third parties.These 4 categories seem extremely broad and vague. Essentially everything in the report probably came thru the grand jury and/or intelligence agencies. Ongoing matters could be anything. “Third parties” could be anyone, including president Trump himself. I am unaware of any previous investigation like this in which the “privacy and reputations of peripheral third parties” were considered so worth protecting. This is quite an astonishing concern being shown by Barr here for all those poor fellows.(f) Congress asked the IRS to see Trump’s taxes. Under the income tax law, they get to see any taxpayer’s taxes. Well, the deadline for delivering the info has now passed. So, this non-delivery is simply illegal. And according to Trump, congress should consult his lawyers and attorney general Barr. But the tax law simply says certain congressional committee heads get any taxpayer return they want to see, with no involvement whatever by the AG or the lawyers of the taxpayer involved. This statement by Trump combined with illegal non-action by the IRS indicates to me that Barr has already participated in an illegal act at Trump’s behest. These are impeachment level crimes.STILL FURTHER UPDATE:Barr when head of the Justice dept office of legal counsel in 1989, refused to release a Justice Dept report about Panama to congress, but said he would prepare a summary of the main conclusions. Many years later the unredacted report came out proving Barr had highly distorted it in his summarization:Barr’s Playbook: He Misled Congress When Omitting Parts of Justice Dep’t Memo in 1989MORE GENERALLY:What perhaps bugs me even more than having a proven major criminal (I refer to the NY Times’ pulitzer-winning investigation of Trump-led tax fraud amounting to at least 100s of $millions) as US president, is the fact that he has successfully effectively corrupted the entire government by corrupting a large fraction of the Republican party. (This is following Putin’s playbook.) Some of the commenters to this answer are a case in point. I doubt that they, or virtually any Republican or anybody for that matter, would have pretended all this was perfectly reasonable if the president involved had been, e.g, Obama. And rightly so. The problem is that they now have just totally lost their ethical judgment. I.e. they have been corrupted. In, for example, Watergate, Republicans had ethics. Enough of them weren’t willing to go along with firing special prosecutors, refusing subpoenas, systematically shutting down all congressional oversight, having presidents and their close associates both committing proven crimes, etc, and acting as though it all were just fine and “no collusion proven.”UPDATE 18 April:Release of the redacted Mueller Report 446 pages, but with an estimated 700 pages of appendices completely removed. Even in this extremely redacted form (far more redacted than available) it was apparent within 1 hour that Barr’s “summary” had been an absolutely massive distortion. You can download the report here: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report.pdfhttps://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfBarr while 3 times refusing to answer under oath Congress questions about who he’d shown the report to outside Justice, who’d been briefed, etc (the NY Times later reveled “numerous” discussions had been held between Justice and Trump legal team about the report before its release, which Trump’s lawyers used to help them write a “rebuttal” ahead of time — which is absolutely deranged right there — and also one has to wonder why they are working so hard to “rebut” a “complete and total exoneration”…) also actually did make a factual claim. Barr said he would, from that point on, not be discussing the report at all until after it was released. That claim under oath was a flat out lie, as Barr then held a press conference to try to tell us all about the report before releasing it.UPDATE 19 April:Regarding the question of whether the entire Mueller investigation was designed to be, to at least some extent. a sham and whitewash, we have this amazing quote from page 2 vol II of the report: “we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes.”Another revealing fact: although a common investigative technique is to “follow the money,” the report seems to indicate there was zero attempt to do so for Trump’s finances. I repeat, zero, not even trying, not at all.REACTIONS TO MUELLER REDACTED-REPORT RELEASE:Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called for impeachment of Trump: “The report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack… To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways. The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President.”Some other Sens. have now joined Warren in claiming obstruction by Trump was severe enough that the House must under the constitution impeach Trump (e.g. Warren: “if any other human being had done [what Trump did] he would be in jail”), even though they expect the Republican-controlled Senate will not convict.Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) “It is good news that the evidence [was considered insufficient to charge],” but “I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President. Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders.”Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) however offered a rather different opinion to his co-Senator Romney, saying “Republicans learned a couple of decades ago when going through the impeachment process for Bill Clinton. It didn't turn out well for us. No reason why it would turn out well for [the Democrats] this time.” He went on “There is no there there. There is no evidence, not even a scintilla, of collusion. They don't suggest any type of obstruction charge. So they don't have it. [The Democrats] must be very disappointed that is how the system works.”But I must disagree with Lee re “not even a scintilla” and “don’t suggest any type.” (E.g there were over 140 documented contacts between at least 18 members of Trump’s campaign and Russian intelligence and/or high Russians close to Putin, 100% of which had been initially denied.) Those were simply flat out lies by Lee. I also disagree with Romney that it is “good news” there was not enough evidence. I would consider it to be “good news” if there were enough evidence that the report’s authors had regarded guilt or innocence as completely clear.Pres.Donald Trump [after the redacted report came out, as opposed to previously when he’d called it a “complete and total exoneration”]: “Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue. Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed. Because I never agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the ‘Report’ about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a . . . [nothing came after the dots]” Incidentally, Robert Mueller’s party affiliation is Republican. And Trump many times publicly said he was going to be happy to testify, but as he here correctly states for perhaps the first time, actually never agreed to.Fox News commentator (former Judge) Andrew P. Napolitano, also a personal friend of Trump: concluded Trump is guilty of at least 5 counts of Obstruction of Justice, but was not charged because of AG Barr’s personal belief that Presidents cannot obstruct justice, a belief not shared by Napolitano or virtually anybody else either. Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?UPDATE: Some Democrats now calling for AG Barr to resign in view of his distortions. E.g. Nancy Pelosi (Speaker) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in joint statement: Barr “deliberately distorted significant portions of Special Counsel Mueller’s report.” NY Times story comparing Barr’s “summarizing” statements side by side with Mueller report statements: How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s FindingsAs of 30 April: several news organizations, especially the Washington Post, have now determined that after Barr released his original 4-page summary on 24 March, Mueller wrote a 27 March letter to Barr expressing his displeasure with it. The Mueller letter advocated that Barr instead should simply release the Mueller report’s own already-available summaries immediately, and claimed Barr’s summary had (unlike his own) failed to “fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his conclusions. (Read Mueller letter: House Judiciary Dems on Twitter) Nobody including Barr himself was able to think of any prior occasion in US history when a special counsel had ever in writing rebuked an AG like this.Barr responded by keeping that letter secret (until it leaked out over a month later), refusing to do what it said, and testifying under oath to congress that he “did not know” what Mueller’s opinion of Barr’s 4-page summary was. That was a flat out lie. (Also in same testimony Barr noted that Trump had “fully cooperated” with the Mueller investigation. What universe does this guy come from?)Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA): “OUR Attorney General acts as Trump’s defense attorney. He can’t represent both. Barr must resign.” I am afraid I must agree with Swalwell: Any other attorney who tried to represent 2 sides in a case would be disbarred. For the top attorney in the country to behave this unacceptable way? Again, the fact that congressional Republicans systematically block any attempt to do anything about this, while the Democrats do nothing except whine, again, is a symptom of the fact that Trump as President (and by transitivity, Vladimir Putin) has effectively corrupted the entire US government.George Conway (lawyer & husband of top white house aide Kellyanne Conway): calls for Trump’s impeachment based on Mueller report based on (a) Trump’s massive failure to uphold his position’s “fiduciary responsibility,” and (b) comparison vs Nixon case: Opinion: Trump is a cancer on the presidency, he must be impeachedCOMPARISON:A certain amount of sanity can be restored by consulting public statements by important Republicans about the topic of obstruction of justice. E.g.Mitch McConnell (R-KY, senate leader): “Contrary to federal obstruction of justice laws and contrary to judge Wright’s protective order … President Clinton left the deposition, went back to the White House and called Ms Currie at home to ask her to come to the White House the next day, which, I might add, was a Sunday. … I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.”But McConnell had no problem endorsing Barr as AG, despite Barr having recently published a statement saying the opposite. And Clinton’s obstructions of justice seem to me less numerous and severe than Trump’s. For example, Clinton did not even try to fire anybody, and in particular not Ken Starr. So “obviously” McConnell would fully agree that Trump’s behavior at least merited an impeachment proceeding.UPDATE 5 May 2019: 370 former federal prosecutors (370 appears to be increasing substantially with time, think 1 day later has risen over 600) signed a joint letter saying “We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report” specifically multiple felony prosecutions of Trump for obstructing justice. Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president. Read the STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORSUPDATE 6 May: Speaker Nancy Pelosi argues against impeaching Trump, because she claims Dems should instead focus on winning the 2020 election by huge margins, and not slim ones because (she said) “Trump would not give up power voluntarily if he lost re-election by a slim margin next year.” Guess I am nowhere near as brilliant as Pelosi, since my mind is absolutely boggled by this “argument”…Treasury secretary S.Mnuchin refuses to allow congress to see Trump’s tax returns (even though the law says congress can see anybody’s tax returns just by asking) because “I have determined that [congress’s] request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.” This marks the first time this law has ever been challenged or any such request has ever been denied, in the entire history of the USA: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Secretary-Mnuchin-Response-to-Chairman-Neal-2019-05-06.pdfUPDATE 7 MAY: Trump asserts “executive privilege” over the entire Mueller report, in an effort to prevent anybody from seeing his “complete and total exoneration.” This is amazing. Under this theory, every investigation ever of any executive branch member by the justice dept would only ever be released [even just to congress, the overseeing body] if the president wanted it released. I mean, that sure sounds like a real democracy to me.UPDATE 8 May: Judiciary committee votes 24–16 to hold AG Barr “in contempt of congress.” If the whole House votes the same, then Barr will be subject to legal penalties such as fines or jail time. In theory. I mean, virtually any other human would be jailed. Anybody want to make bets on whether Barr is an extra special amazing human?UPDATE 18 May: Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) becomes the first Republican congressman to call for Trump’s impeachment. Amash said he’d concluded President Donald Trump committed "impeachable conduct" and accused Attorney General William Barr of intentionally misleading the publicHere are my principal conclusions:1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.4. Few members of Congress have read the report.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded by claiming that the Michigan Republican simply "wants to have attention" while Trump himself noted Amash was a “loser.”