Posts Tagged witness statements
Car crash victims are quite often unaware of their entitlements to accident injury compensation. Dealing directly with an insurer means they will most likely offer you the lowest possible payout. so the question is what can you do? to make sure you get everything to which you are entitled to under the laws in the State or Territory in which the motor vehicle accident occurred.
Well the first thing to do is to follow all the correct procedures and this includes speaking to the right people. Here is a step by step process to follow when you have been involved in a car accident.
Gather as much information as possible. This includes full contact details of the other drivers involved and any witnesses. also try to obtain police reports and witness statements if possible. In order to claim for accident injury compensation the incident MUST have been reported to the police. Report the incident immediately if you haven’t done so already.
Seek medical attention
Seek medical attention right away. you may think you are ok but proper examination is a must. Some injuries like whiplash are not felt straight away. Documenting all medical treatment is required, even to the extent of keeping a daily dairy of how you feel, what treatment you had that day, and where you had the treatment. When it comes to accident injury compensation claims the more information to support your claim the better. Documenting all your medical examinations is necessary to support your insurance claim for accident injury compensation.
Lodge a claim
There are strict time limits that apply to lodging a claim. It is important to do so straight away. if you need forms or advice on how to complete the forms, you can contact the Australian Injury Helpline who offer free services to accident victims.
Speak to a lawyer
It can be hard to find a good lawyer and is best to seek advice from one who is recommended and a specialist in your type of claim and under the laws in the State or Territory of injury. the Australian Injury Helpline offers a free information service to injured victims and also a free referral service to specialist solicitors. Solicitors are hand selected and recommended based upon success rates and level of personalised services.
Getting the right support and advice early following an accident is imperative. Speak to a specialist who understands personal injury law in your State or Territory.
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Frances Herbert and her wife, Takako Ueda, were looking forward to the New Year’s Eve family concert at the Baptist Church, the town fireworks on the pond and then a night at home to celebrate the arrival of 2012.
But federal immigration authorities have told Ueda she needs to leave the United States for her native Japan by Dec. 31, a move that would split up a couple who have been together more than a decade and were married under Vermont law in April.
Their relatively rare case illuminates the difficulties that binational gay couples face at a time when the Obama administration has pledged not to uphold federal marriage law in courts but the rest of the executive branch — including immigration authorities — still follows the letter of the law.
Federal immigration authorities demand extensive documentation showing that a binational couple claiming to be married really are: witness statements, property records, utility and other household bills showing both names and the like often are required. Herbert said she and Ueda submitted 600 pages of such evidence with their application.
“It’s despicable,” Herbert said. “We had 600 pages of proof, and 599 of them were completely ignored. one line on one page” — the one that said they were both women — “is what they paid attention to.”
Herbert, a 51-year-old home care provider, and Ueda, a 56-year-old graphic designer, live in the southern Vermont town of Dummerston and got letters Dec. 1 from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, telling them that Ueda had to leave the country within 30 days. Ueda’s student visa expired in July.
They had applied for “relative alien” status on the basis that she was the spouse of a U.S. citizen, but the federal agency denied that petition.
The letter to Herbert, who had applied to be Ueda’s sponsor, said that under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law saying the government would not recognize same-sex marriages, they couldn’t be considered spouses. DOMA defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
“Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex,” wrote Robert Cowan, a U.S. CIS official. “Therefore, under the DOMA, your petition must be denied.”
Only a handful of states recognize same-sex marriages. Experts say there are not reliable numbers on how many couples find themselves in a similar situation to that of Herbert and Ueda, but it’s believed the number is small. Many binational same-sex couples don’t seek spousal status for fear of being rejected because of DOMA.
Steve Ralls, spokesman for Immigration Equality, a nonprofit legal aid group that works on immigration and sexual orientation issues, said one San Francisco couple remained together despite getting government notices that one of the men, an Australian, needed to leave the country, while a New Jersey man’s partner had been deported to Peru.
President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced in February that the administration would no longer defend DOMA in court in the cases in which it is being challenged. but until the issue is resolved, executive branch agencies, including those within the Department of Homeland Security, it remains the law of the land.
But Leslie Holmans, second vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association, said that even after getting the types of letters Herbert and Ueda got, some same-sex, binational couples benefit from “prosecutorial discretion” by immigration authorities.
She said many federal prosecutors believe “our systems are so overcrowded that what we really need to be doing is concentrating on people who are a risk to our country. What’s happened is that we have seen some same-sex couples go before the immigration court and ask for prosecutorial discretion.” Government lawyers often respond by “either dismissing cases or they’re not enforcing the notice of deportation.”
Holmans said the situation is far from ideal because affected immigrants are left in “legal limbo,” still without recognized immigration status and unable to get a job or seek other government benefits.
Scott Titshaw, a professor at Mercer University Law School in Georgia who has practiced immigration law and written articles on DOMA, said Ueda and Herbert most likely shouldn’t fear Ueda’s imminent arrest but “still have plenty to worry about.” He said if Ueda traveled abroad, then she might be barred from re-entering the U.S. With local authorities in some states cracking down on illegal immigrants, Ueda might also want avoid travel to places like Arizona and Alabama, which both have strict immigration laws.
By Alexandra Marriott
Fair Work Australia has denied a major employer the right to use a lawyer at a hearing, ruling it had the ability and resources to represent itself effectively without extra assistance.
Zoos Victoria had sought permission, required under section 596 of the Fair Work Act, for a lawyer to defend them against an employee seeking an unfair dismissal remedy.
Under section 596, parties at Fair Work Australia can be represented by a lawyer if it “would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently”, if they’re unable to represent themselves effectively or to create a fairer hearing between the parties.
Commissioner John Lewin ruled that, as a well-resourced statutory authority with human resources specialists, and as a member of the Australian Industry Group, whose representative filed submissions and witness statements, Zoos Victoria was not entitled to the representation.
The Commissioner noted that the employee was representing himself and thus “no unfairness…would accrue if Zoos Victoria was not granted permission to be represented by a lawyer”.
The complexity, or lack of it in this specific case, also meant the case could be dealt with efficiently without need for a lawyer, said Commissioner Lewin, and its employer organisation could represent them without permission in any case.
Any additional efficiency gained through the use of a lawyer would likely have arisen purely out of convenience to the employer, and convenience is “not a relevant statutory provision”.
The case confirms employers, especially well resourced businesses, have no explicit right to legal representation in Fair Work Australia cases, unless there is a complexity to the matter that would require specific legal advice, or an inability to represent themselves. However employers always have the right to use non-legal representation whenever they wish.
VECCI industrial relations consultants can represent your business before any Fair Work Australia hearing. Visit the VECCI website for further details.
this entry was posted on Thursday, March 24th, 2011 at 1:41 pm and is filed under Workplace. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
In January this year a search warrant was executed at my property. I had a small hydroponic operation in my spare room. 4 larger plants growing and 8 new cuttings.
I was video taped during the search and had to answer questions. it was very early in the morning and my brain certainly was not switched on. I was growing the plants for my personal use and it was my first ever cultivation. I thought i had clearly stated that it was intended for personal use, but i have since been charged with intent to sell or supply.
I have been in and out of court 6 times this year with my not guilty plea for intent to sell or supply and now have a hearing date set for trial early this December.
I just received witness statements from the officers involved and a DVD of the search.. unfortunately i haven't got a leg to stand on, i thought i answered the officers questions regarding me possibly selling or supplying correctly but somehow because of my nerves i said ''maybe'' to their questions instead of clear ''no's''.
so it looks like they have every right to charge me for intent to sell and or supply. I'm due to have my daughter on the week of my hearing so im very heavily pregnant, im freaking out big time with anxiety attacks and vomiting. What do i do? Id much rather plead guilty and get it over and done with instead of making a fool out of myself in court.
I'm in Western Australia by the way.
A lawyer already told me that if i plead guilty or not guilty all ill get is a fine, my children will not be taken away and that the case isn't serious enough that im entitled to a lawyer through legal aid because there is no chance of a prison sentence.I just want advice on how to go about changing my plea since i don't have a lawyer to help me.
I just noticed your question because i was online looking for some information and came across your issue.
I'm a criminal barrister in Sydney, NSW that is on the NSW Legal Aid panel for general crime. I'm not able to give you complete advice on the law in Western Australia however I can give you some basic advice on next steps you might take.
It is difficult to answer your question thoroughly without knowing under which legislation you have been charged by police and which section of the Act. With drug matters there is always a concern for the community so you should speak to Legal Aid about your charge. Legal Aid can assist you to not only prepare your case but advise you what is your best option. please do not heed advice from legal professionals that have not seen your documentation. I Note there is an income and assets test for legal aid for criminal matters in NSW so I assume there is a similar test in WA for legal aid. It is imperative that you seek legal advice from competent lawyers who run your type of matters most days of the week.
If you are questioning whether or not to change your plea you should speak to a lawyer before doing so as they can look at your case and advise you on what the best course for you is and any possible penalties. there are various factors that your lawyer will take into account when advising you what is the best course for you to take – that is, whether to continue your plea of not guilty or change your plea to guilty. Such factors in NSW are any prior criminal history you might have, the quantity of the drug you had in your possession as well as other matters.
Depending on where the matter is up to in the court you might be able to ask for an adjournment to seek legal advice and submit an urgent application for legal aid.
I hope this information is of assistance to you.