Be fair and do not take advantage of your own knowledge as a source of power, every legal person has equal rights before the law. Privacy is generally a good argument if you are a person who seeks to mind your own business, you can refrain from answering and change subject if you do not wish to reply. You can also use an argument that is based on case law, a precedent, consequence/risk and that based on humanitarian basis. It is only human to make a mistake after all and it is only moral to ask for forgiveness. The past is not necessarily a reflection of the future, but nobody knows the future this is a known philosophical fact. At times it is good to delay stating the obvious, it makes people feel ashamed of themselves if it is a very sensical argument or a reasonable explanation for the events where you are made to feel under the blade or within the accusation pitch as I like calling the prosecution lawyer's introductory speech. Ask for evidence when you know there is none. Plead guilty if you are guilty, however you can always try making a false statement, just be aware that you might be accused of taking a false oath or perjury. Psychological arguments are sensical when you are explaining what happened in the context that you feel is a reasonable action taken in the circumstances where certain matters were not within your control. Some propose a counter-accusation, however be careful of reading too much between the lines, it makes prosecution lawyers feel angrier and they might retaliate with stronger evidence if they had the intention of being polite to you initially. Lawyers are polite people they make a statement and they usually follow up with evidence in a subtle fashion, sometimes even joking about it. They are really close to putting a rope around your neck awaiting for the Inquisitor to hang you after the magistrate or judge has no option but to find you guilty. I would daresay this is a form of pleasure in inflicting emotional pain upon others which can be compared to sadism, an unethical form of sexual activity and in this case, you should quote your rights and the code of ethics to make the prosecution lawyer appear mean and disgraceful in the eyes of the jury, if there is one. Shaming and naming is thought to be an interesting way of convincing people, but it can also fire back as there can be accusations of libel, verbal harassment, slander, defamation out of making untrue or exagerrated statements, therefore one has to careful distinguish between facts, arguments, and, emotional cues, preferably sticking to factual arguments if you fall short of evidence. A friend once had a personal issue against me, and, I realised this through the repeated number of phone calls on my mobile phone, so immediately I wanted to setup a traceable log of events that would lead me to file lawsuit back if he continued to threaten with personal direct or indirect libellous charges, the main trick to use here is heftiness and neatness in writing out complaints on nuisances, and, avoiding mention of identifiable names as investigations can be done by legal professionals thereafter. Let's say you want to use an accusation as a form of defense, this is a negotiation tactic, where you no longer take the vests of the innocent lamb, but take on the role of the devil and start firing back accusations based on what you know about the other party, the party that you want to annihilate in front of a judge, with the just intention to avail from justice so that you do not lose. Life is an auction, you might think, so you place the bid on the table, like you do when you are playing poker. If you are innocent and you are sure that there is no strong evidence, ask for evidence, so the argument falls back on their feet. It is useful and rewarding to ask for compensation if you are the injured party bearing in mind that injury can be physical, psychological, consequential and assuming that in the area of civil litigation everything has a penalty, the higher you pitch your accusation the stronger your argument appears to be in its presentation, so you feel that you are more convincing as you hit more penalty points and these may increase your chances and those of your attorney of scoring points leading to earning money for compensation, after all, you badly need that payment, and, so does your lawyer, his performance depends on how his influencing skills fare in the courtroom and if we read codes of ethics even outside of the courtroom. Finally, renegation, silence, and, right to not incriminate yourself are valid principles by which to defend yourself. One can resort to privacy when your back is against the wall, and, unless you receive an order, you can drag your feet in defense of your own stance. This is called the lion's approach. Another socially acceptable excuse is the time saving disclaimer, that is, you are always busy and you do not like to lose time therefore you seek the most efficient means to an end, however, the counter-argument would be that you might not have done enough diligence in your approach in this manner, as there is a rapid and a less-than rapid route to litigation, and, both appear to be in use in litigation as communication and presentation approaches. Nevertheless diligent commercial procedures are a way of presenting yourself as a professional to the courts of law and this is usually seen in better light as is the way you present yourself, the clothes you wear and so on. Socially acceptable does not mean that it will be acceptable by the magistrate or the judge, it just means that it is a way of beating around the bush. Reneging and delaying can be useful time-saving procedures, however be aware that procedures are in place to administer diary notes as they are scheduled by the Courts of Law. Sometimes you can find instances where you feel you have been treated unfairly and therefore the charter of fundamental human rights, is a good line of thought in your appeals, which have to be presented as a recourse through a private or a state-appointed lawyer. Privacy is another good line of defense, as is a personal need for security or safety, thus this is a good excuse not to pick up a phone call when you are not sure you can identify the caller, are unsure what to expect from the telephone call, or is expected to cause disruption which is unplanned for and is not within your responsibilities or your immediate control. There are many circumstances which are beyond your control, including the weather. Technology is inherently difficult to troubleshoot you can shift the blame upon the person to whom you communicated or ought to have communicated the issue as they should be aware of how to monitor their own infrastructure and to poll for information accordingly, you might argue. Technology includes computers, cars, electronic devices and anything else you might have paid for or acquired which you have not manufactured yourself, basically. b)find a strong argument e.g. do research and find similar cases and see how others have defended themselves. I prefer arguments based on science and those based on social sciences such as economics or normative rules of behaviour, which does not mean that someone who is normative is guilty by our own perception. One should also be aware of the possibility of emotional blackmail, it is observed on persons of the female gender who rely on their ability to use their weakness as a strong argument. Downplaying and rationalizing does give rise to lack of objectivity as we tend to forget our own assumptions as the brain is thought to process around 70,000 thoughts per day. c)gather witness e.g. more people who can provide objective reasoning to the argument you are making would give rise to increased perception of credibility so that you do not feel that you are a minority in a system that is ruled by a majority. We must not confuse democracy with justice, justice is meant to render justice down to the individual case level and can indicate that people would feel that their privacy is no longer a civil right therefore questions have to be relevant and appropriate, even in an interrogation. c) avoid using in-ethical practices as a litmus test. e.g. the element of surprise can be difficult to handle to some people and although researchers might be aware of overt and covert research methods, covert research methods might appear to come across as rude which may have a negative impact on the mood of the authority involved. People do not enjoy being used as guinea pigs of experiments. Avoid being caught in the act, but if you are, my suggestion is to be honest and open about your reasoning, however this my personal philosophy, based on the tenet that people tend to dislike liars as they find that liars are a waste of time. There are also legal consequences for being dishonest or lying under oath, in countries where religion appears to have an influence over popular culture. Nevertheless basic presentation, and, negotiation skills might help you prepare your argument in an educated fashion. Moreover, experience indicates that people who have authority tend to be strict or understanding as the propensity of their interest to make a buck through penalizing citizens appears to be obvious in the eyes of the public. d) Silence is the answer, when you know they have nothing against you, or else, when you have nothing to add as adding more information might inflict more grievous accusation against you. The chairperson (magistrate or judge) may order you to speak, but you can remain tight lipped, and, the police should have read out your rights to yourself in the first place, if they did not they disregarded the procedure and one should notify the defense lawyer about it or else you clarify your complaint succinctly. Some people use martial arts, and know when kicks, punches, and, use of a baseball bat can be claimed to be a legitimate act of self-defence. It is also possible to get a license for a firearm, such as a pistol, the police of Malta even organize ceremonial auctions of weapons that are no longer considered modern. e) Keep moving, for example, when you are heading straight into a parking lot you realize you have taken up the parking reserved for handicap, and, you might not have realized or might have ignored this because you were late for a meeting, you can keep moving on, and, await the parking ticket. Next time round, find a parking space that is not reserved for persons with a handicap though, once bitten, twice shy! Further reading 1. Criminal Code available online here. 2. Civil Code available online here. 3. Courts of Law, Malta available online here. 4. Commonlii.org available online here. 5. Right of self-defense available online here. 6. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, available online here. 7. Times of Malta, available online here, the news from the Courts of Law are usually posted under National news. A print edition is also available. 8. Malta Today, available online here. 9. Huffington Post Crime, available online here. 10. Copblock.org available online here. 11. The politics of victimization, available online here. 12. Administrating Victimization: The Politics of Anti-Social Behaviour and Hate Crime Policy, available online here. 13. Crime Today, online social media page available here. 14. Huffpost Crime, online social media page available here. 15. Machine Learning Forensics for Law Enforcement, Security, and Intelligence, available online here. 16. Malta Today, Court and Police Section, available online here. 17. Mirror (UK), Crime section, available online here. 18. Al Jazeera, Human Rights Section, available online here. 19. Amnesty International, available online here. 20. European Court of Human Rights, available online here. 21. United Nations, available online here. 22. Investopedia, available online here. Internet
Saturday, October 31, 2015
How to defend yourself
Yesterday, I went to the Courts of Law,at Republic street, Malta, and, having a basic knowledge of legal training, I socialize with people and help them with their presentation skills in the case of witness and defence, in preparation for a trial:
a) Find a story that makes the accused person appear to breach the law e.g. if your neighbour says that you have thrown dust in their private property, ask them whether the dust is then arising and invading the open air that forms part of your airspace within your private property if you have an apartment above your neighbour and your neighbour is so perfectionist that he sues you for improper civil behaviour of some sort. That is, if honesty is not the best policy, as some might argue, it is sometimes a good and ethical approach to a defence argument, based on the notion that common sense and the interrogations will theoretically be in place to reduce the incidence of untruthful narrations, usually under oath, remaining credible. Some persons lose their identity documents, this can delay the proceedings when you have little to add to the statements, unless you want to make questions. I find litigation a good example of explaining conflicts, it makes people appear to feel confused and I do write about some of these on my wall, on my social media page where I have a fake name, because I do not like people snooping on my private posts, in a country where everyone minds your business. This is one of my preferred socially acceptable replies to antipatique interview questions about employment gaps for example, it is available online.AArguments based on notions of socialism, commonly accepted norms of behavior, science and knowledge that can have a positive tone or a concilatory one if it is evident that you are admitting guilt are a good way to compromise. Procedural errors are a common way of nitpicking on perceived lack of fairness in the processing of an accusation, with human rights being a commonly cited text. Nevertheless what might be socially acceptable and what is legally acceptable as an excuse for bending the rules, are different and you might find that there is a conservative legal interpretation of laws.
Be fair and do not take advantage of your own knowledge as a source of power, every legal person has equal rights before the law. Privacy is generally a good argument if you are a person who seeks to mind your own business, you can refrain from answering and change subject if you do not wish to reply. You can also use an argument that is based on case law, a precedent, consequence/risk and that based on humanitarian basis. It is only human to make a mistake after all and it is only moral to ask for forgiveness. The past is not necessarily a reflection of the future, but nobody knows the future this is a known philosophical fact. At times it is good to delay stating the obvious, it makes people feel ashamed of themselves if it is a very sensical argument or a reasonable explanation for the events where you are made to feel under the blade or within the accusation pitch as I like calling the prosecution lawyer's introductory speech. Ask for evidence when you know there is none. Plead guilty if you are guilty, however you can always try making a false statement, just be aware that you might be accused of taking a false oath or perjury. Psychological arguments are sensical when you are explaining what happened in the context that you feel is a reasonable action taken in the circumstances where certain matters were not within your control. Some propose a counter-accusation, however be careful of reading too much between the lines, it makes prosecution lawyers feel angrier and they might retaliate with stronger evidence if they had the intention of being polite to you initially. Lawyers are polite people they make a statement and they usually follow up with evidence in a subtle fashion, sometimes even joking about it. They are really close to putting a rope around your neck awaiting for the Inquisitor to hang you after the magistrate or judge has no option but to find you guilty. I would daresay this is a form of pleasure in inflicting emotional pain upon others which can be compared to sadism, an unethical form of sexual activity and in this case, you should quote your rights and the code of ethics to make the prosecution lawyer appear mean and disgraceful in the eyes of the jury, if there is one. Shaming and naming is thought to be an interesting way of convincing people, but it can also fire back as there can be accusations of libel, verbal harassment, slander, defamation out of making untrue or exagerrated statements, therefore one has to careful distinguish between facts, arguments, and, emotional cues, preferably sticking to factual arguments if you fall short of evidence. A friend once had a personal issue against me, and, I realised this through the repeated number of phone calls on my mobile phone, so immediately I wanted to setup a traceable log of events that would lead me to file lawsuit back if he continued to threaten with personal direct or indirect libellous charges, the main trick to use here is heftiness and neatness in writing out complaints on nuisances, and, avoiding mention of identifiable names as investigations can be done by legal professionals thereafter. Let's say you want to use an accusation as a form of defense, this is a negotiation tactic, where you no longer take the vests of the innocent lamb, but take on the role of the devil and start firing back accusations based on what you know about the other party, the party that you want to annihilate in front of a judge, with the just intention to avail from justice so that you do not lose. Life is an auction, you might think, so you place the bid on the table, like you do when you are playing poker. If you are innocent and you are sure that there is no strong evidence, ask for evidence, so the argument falls back on their feet. It is useful and rewarding to ask for compensation if you are the injured party bearing in mind that injury can be physical, psychological, consequential and assuming that in the area of civil litigation everything has a penalty, the higher you pitch your accusation the stronger your argument appears to be in its presentation, so you feel that you are more convincing as you hit more penalty points and these may increase your chances and those of your attorney of scoring points leading to earning money for compensation, after all, you badly need that payment, and, so does your lawyer, his performance depends on how his influencing skills fare in the courtroom and if we read codes of ethics even outside of the courtroom. Finally, renegation, silence, and, right to not incriminate yourself are valid principles by which to defend yourself. One can resort to privacy when your back is against the wall, and, unless you receive an order, you can drag your feet in defense of your own stance. This is called the lion's approach. Another socially acceptable excuse is the time saving disclaimer, that is, you are always busy and you do not like to lose time therefore you seek the most efficient means to an end, however, the counter-argument would be that you might not have done enough diligence in your approach in this manner, as there is a rapid and a less-than rapid route to litigation, and, both appear to be in use in litigation as communication and presentation approaches. Nevertheless diligent commercial procedures are a way of presenting yourself as a professional to the courts of law and this is usually seen in better light as is the way you present yourself, the clothes you wear and so on. Socially acceptable does not mean that it will be acceptable by the magistrate or the judge, it just means that it is a way of beating around the bush. Reneging and delaying can be useful time-saving procedures, however be aware that procedures are in place to administer diary notes as they are scheduled by the Courts of Law. Sometimes you can find instances where you feel you have been treated unfairly and therefore the charter of fundamental human rights, is a good line of thought in your appeals, which have to be presented as a recourse through a private or a state-appointed lawyer. Privacy is another good line of defense, as is a personal need for security or safety, thus this is a good excuse not to pick up a phone call when you are not sure you can identify the caller, are unsure what to expect from the telephone call, or is expected to cause disruption which is unplanned for and is not within your responsibilities or your immediate control. There are many circumstances which are beyond your control, including the weather. Technology is inherently difficult to troubleshoot you can shift the blame upon the person to whom you communicated or ought to have communicated the issue as they should be aware of how to monitor their own infrastructure and to poll for information accordingly, you might argue. Technology includes computers, cars, electronic devices and anything else you might have paid for or acquired which you have not manufactured yourself, basically. b)find a strong argument e.g. do research and find similar cases and see how others have defended themselves. I prefer arguments based on science and those based on social sciences such as economics or normative rules of behaviour, which does not mean that someone who is normative is guilty by our own perception. One should also be aware of the possibility of emotional blackmail, it is observed on persons of the female gender who rely on their ability to use their weakness as a strong argument. Downplaying and rationalizing does give rise to lack of objectivity as we tend to forget our own assumptions as the brain is thought to process around 70,000 thoughts per day. c)gather witness e.g. more people who can provide objective reasoning to the argument you are making would give rise to increased perception of credibility so that you do not feel that you are a minority in a system that is ruled by a majority. We must not confuse democracy with justice, justice is meant to render justice down to the individual case level and can indicate that people would feel that their privacy is no longer a civil right therefore questions have to be relevant and appropriate, even in an interrogation. c) avoid using in-ethical practices as a litmus test. e.g. the element of surprise can be difficult to handle to some people and although researchers might be aware of overt and covert research methods, covert research methods might appear to come across as rude which may have a negative impact on the mood of the authority involved. People do not enjoy being used as guinea pigs of experiments. Avoid being caught in the act, but if you are, my suggestion is to be honest and open about your reasoning, however this my personal philosophy, based on the tenet that people tend to dislike liars as they find that liars are a waste of time. There are also legal consequences for being dishonest or lying under oath, in countries where religion appears to have an influence over popular culture. Nevertheless basic presentation, and, negotiation skills might help you prepare your argument in an educated fashion. Moreover, experience indicates that people who have authority tend to be strict or understanding as the propensity of their interest to make a buck through penalizing citizens appears to be obvious in the eyes of the public. d) Silence is the answer, when you know they have nothing against you, or else, when you have nothing to add as adding more information might inflict more grievous accusation against you. The chairperson (magistrate or judge) may order you to speak, but you can remain tight lipped, and, the police should have read out your rights to yourself in the first place, if they did not they disregarded the procedure and one should notify the defense lawyer about it or else you clarify your complaint succinctly. Some people use martial arts, and know when kicks, punches, and, use of a baseball bat can be claimed to be a legitimate act of self-defence. It is also possible to get a license for a firearm, such as a pistol, the police of Malta even organize ceremonial auctions of weapons that are no longer considered modern. e) Keep moving, for example, when you are heading straight into a parking lot you realize you have taken up the parking reserved for handicap, and, you might not have realized or might have ignored this because you were late for a meeting, you can keep moving on, and, await the parking ticket. Next time round, find a parking space that is not reserved for persons with a handicap though, once bitten, twice shy! Further reading 1. Criminal Code available online here. 2. Civil Code available online here. 3. Courts of Law, Malta available online here. 4. Commonlii.org available online here. 5. Right of self-defense available online here. 6. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, available online here. 7. Times of Malta, available online here, the news from the Courts of Law are usually posted under National news. A print edition is also available. 8. Malta Today, available online here. 9. Huffington Post Crime, available online here. 10. Copblock.org available online here. 11. The politics of victimization, available online here. 12. Administrating Victimization: The Politics of Anti-Social Behaviour and Hate Crime Policy, available online here. 13. Crime Today, online social media page available here. 14. Huffpost Crime, online social media page available here. 15. Machine Learning Forensics for Law Enforcement, Security, and Intelligence, available online here. 16. Malta Today, Court and Police Section, available online here. 17. Mirror (UK), Crime section, available online here. 18. Al Jazeera, Human Rights Section, available online here. 19. Amnesty International, available online here. 20. European Court of Human Rights, available online here. 21. United Nations, available online here. 22. Investopedia, available online here. Internet
Be fair and do not take advantage of your own knowledge as a source of power, every legal person has equal rights before the law. Privacy is generally a good argument if you are a person who seeks to mind your own business, you can refrain from answering and change subject if you do not wish to reply. You can also use an argument that is based on case law, a precedent, consequence/risk and that based on humanitarian basis. It is only human to make a mistake after all and it is only moral to ask for forgiveness. The past is not necessarily a reflection of the future, but nobody knows the future this is a known philosophical fact. At times it is good to delay stating the obvious, it makes people feel ashamed of themselves if it is a very sensical argument or a reasonable explanation for the events where you are made to feel under the blade or within the accusation pitch as I like calling the prosecution lawyer's introductory speech. Ask for evidence when you know there is none. Plead guilty if you are guilty, however you can always try making a false statement, just be aware that you might be accused of taking a false oath or perjury. Psychological arguments are sensical when you are explaining what happened in the context that you feel is a reasonable action taken in the circumstances where certain matters were not within your control. Some propose a counter-accusation, however be careful of reading too much between the lines, it makes prosecution lawyers feel angrier and they might retaliate with stronger evidence if they had the intention of being polite to you initially. Lawyers are polite people they make a statement and they usually follow up with evidence in a subtle fashion, sometimes even joking about it. They are really close to putting a rope around your neck awaiting for the Inquisitor to hang you after the magistrate or judge has no option but to find you guilty. I would daresay this is a form of pleasure in inflicting emotional pain upon others which can be compared to sadism, an unethical form of sexual activity and in this case, you should quote your rights and the code of ethics to make the prosecution lawyer appear mean and disgraceful in the eyes of the jury, if there is one. Shaming and naming is thought to be an interesting way of convincing people, but it can also fire back as there can be accusations of libel, verbal harassment, slander, defamation out of making untrue or exagerrated statements, therefore one has to careful distinguish between facts, arguments, and, emotional cues, preferably sticking to factual arguments if you fall short of evidence. A friend once had a personal issue against me, and, I realised this through the repeated number of phone calls on my mobile phone, so immediately I wanted to setup a traceable log of events that would lead me to file lawsuit back if he continued to threaten with personal direct or indirect libellous charges, the main trick to use here is heftiness and neatness in writing out complaints on nuisances, and, avoiding mention of identifiable names as investigations can be done by legal professionals thereafter. Let's say you want to use an accusation as a form of defense, this is a negotiation tactic, where you no longer take the vests of the innocent lamb, but take on the role of the devil and start firing back accusations based on what you know about the other party, the party that you want to annihilate in front of a judge, with the just intention to avail from justice so that you do not lose. Life is an auction, you might think, so you place the bid on the table, like you do when you are playing poker. If you are innocent and you are sure that there is no strong evidence, ask for evidence, so the argument falls back on their feet. It is useful and rewarding to ask for compensation if you are the injured party bearing in mind that injury can be physical, psychological, consequential and assuming that in the area of civil litigation everything has a penalty, the higher you pitch your accusation the stronger your argument appears to be in its presentation, so you feel that you are more convincing as you hit more penalty points and these may increase your chances and those of your attorney of scoring points leading to earning money for compensation, after all, you badly need that payment, and, so does your lawyer, his performance depends on how his influencing skills fare in the courtroom and if we read codes of ethics even outside of the courtroom. Finally, renegation, silence, and, right to not incriminate yourself are valid principles by which to defend yourself. One can resort to privacy when your back is against the wall, and, unless you receive an order, you can drag your feet in defense of your own stance. This is called the lion's approach. Another socially acceptable excuse is the time saving disclaimer, that is, you are always busy and you do not like to lose time therefore you seek the most efficient means to an end, however, the counter-argument would be that you might not have done enough diligence in your approach in this manner, as there is a rapid and a less-than rapid route to litigation, and, both appear to be in use in litigation as communication and presentation approaches. Nevertheless diligent commercial procedures are a way of presenting yourself as a professional to the courts of law and this is usually seen in better light as is the way you present yourself, the clothes you wear and so on. Socially acceptable does not mean that it will be acceptable by the magistrate or the judge, it just means that it is a way of beating around the bush. Reneging and delaying can be useful time-saving procedures, however be aware that procedures are in place to administer diary notes as they are scheduled by the Courts of Law. Sometimes you can find instances where you feel you have been treated unfairly and therefore the charter of fundamental human rights, is a good line of thought in your appeals, which have to be presented as a recourse through a private or a state-appointed lawyer. Privacy is another good line of defense, as is a personal need for security or safety, thus this is a good excuse not to pick up a phone call when you are not sure you can identify the caller, are unsure what to expect from the telephone call, or is expected to cause disruption which is unplanned for and is not within your responsibilities or your immediate control. There are many circumstances which are beyond your control, including the weather. Technology is inherently difficult to troubleshoot you can shift the blame upon the person to whom you communicated or ought to have communicated the issue as they should be aware of how to monitor their own infrastructure and to poll for information accordingly, you might argue. Technology includes computers, cars, electronic devices and anything else you might have paid for or acquired which you have not manufactured yourself, basically. b)find a strong argument e.g. do research and find similar cases and see how others have defended themselves. I prefer arguments based on science and those based on social sciences such as economics or normative rules of behaviour, which does not mean that someone who is normative is guilty by our own perception. One should also be aware of the possibility of emotional blackmail, it is observed on persons of the female gender who rely on their ability to use their weakness as a strong argument. Downplaying and rationalizing does give rise to lack of objectivity as we tend to forget our own assumptions as the brain is thought to process around 70,000 thoughts per day. c)gather witness e.g. more people who can provide objective reasoning to the argument you are making would give rise to increased perception of credibility so that you do not feel that you are a minority in a system that is ruled by a majority. We must not confuse democracy with justice, justice is meant to render justice down to the individual case level and can indicate that people would feel that their privacy is no longer a civil right therefore questions have to be relevant and appropriate, even in an interrogation. c) avoid using in-ethical practices as a litmus test. e.g. the element of surprise can be difficult to handle to some people and although researchers might be aware of overt and covert research methods, covert research methods might appear to come across as rude which may have a negative impact on the mood of the authority involved. People do not enjoy being used as guinea pigs of experiments. Avoid being caught in the act, but if you are, my suggestion is to be honest and open about your reasoning, however this my personal philosophy, based on the tenet that people tend to dislike liars as they find that liars are a waste of time. There are also legal consequences for being dishonest or lying under oath, in countries where religion appears to have an influence over popular culture. Nevertheless basic presentation, and, negotiation skills might help you prepare your argument in an educated fashion. Moreover, experience indicates that people who have authority tend to be strict or understanding as the propensity of their interest to make a buck through penalizing citizens appears to be obvious in the eyes of the public. d) Silence is the answer, when you know they have nothing against you, or else, when you have nothing to add as adding more information might inflict more grievous accusation against you. The chairperson (magistrate or judge) may order you to speak, but you can remain tight lipped, and, the police should have read out your rights to yourself in the first place, if they did not they disregarded the procedure and one should notify the defense lawyer about it or else you clarify your complaint succinctly. Some people use martial arts, and know when kicks, punches, and, use of a baseball bat can be claimed to be a legitimate act of self-defence. It is also possible to get a license for a firearm, such as a pistol, the police of Malta even organize ceremonial auctions of weapons that are no longer considered modern. e) Keep moving, for example, when you are heading straight into a parking lot you realize you have taken up the parking reserved for handicap, and, you might not have realized or might have ignored this because you were late for a meeting, you can keep moving on, and, await the parking ticket. Next time round, find a parking space that is not reserved for persons with a handicap though, once bitten, twice shy! Further reading 1. Criminal Code available online here. 2. Civil Code available online here. 3. Courts of Law, Malta available online here. 4. Commonlii.org available online here. 5. Right of self-defense available online here. 6. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, available online here. 7. Times of Malta, available online here, the news from the Courts of Law are usually posted under National news. A print edition is also available. 8. Malta Today, available online here. 9. Huffington Post Crime, available online here. 10. Copblock.org available online here. 11. The politics of victimization, available online here. 12. Administrating Victimization: The Politics of Anti-Social Behaviour and Hate Crime Policy, available online here. 13. Crime Today, online social media page available here. 14. Huffpost Crime, online social media page available here. 15. Machine Learning Forensics for Law Enforcement, Security, and Intelligence, available online here. 16. Malta Today, Court and Police Section, available online here. 17. Mirror (UK), Crime section, available online here. 18. Al Jazeera, Human Rights Section, available online here. 19. Amnesty International, available online here. 20. European Court of Human Rights, available online here. 21. United Nations, available online here. 22. Investopedia, available online here. Internet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)