Phillip is standing trial for robbery. His overall ability to adequately take care of himself and his ability to understand what is going on at trial have come into question. Before he goes to trial, it is important to assess whether he:
A) can be rehabilitated in incarceration. B) can afford to pay for a private attorney. C) is competent to stand trial.
D) has realistic chances for an acquittal.

To conclude the case of "Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse v Minister of Transport and Others (32097/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1; 2022 (2) SA 566 (GP)," it is necessary to analyze the judgment and its final outcome.

Locate the court's website or online portal by visiting the official website of the Gauteng Division of the High Court or the relevant judiciary website in South Africa. Searching for the case by using the provided case citation to search for the specific case on the court's website or database.

The case number "32097/2020" should help in locating the case. Get to the judgment Once you discover the case, you ought to be able to get to the complete text of the judgment, which can give the conclusion of the case and any important orders or decisions made by the court.

It's imperative to note that the particular conclusion of the case can as it were be decided by checking on the judgment itself, as the conclusion will depend on the realities, contentions, and lawful standards considered by the court.

To learn about Tax Abuse visit:

https://brainly.com/question/28337521

#SPJ4

Complete question: How can one conclude the case of o organization undoing tax abuse v minister of transport and others (32097/2020) [2022] zagpphc 1; 2022 (2) sa 566 (gp)? how can u approach a case?

Justices of the Federal and Supreme Courts are hired for life or until retirement, whichever comes first.

They remain in office until they pass away, resign, but are impeached and dismissed by Congress. The lifetime nomination is intended to give the judicial branch of the government stability and independence.

The President appoints justices to the federal and supreme courts with the advice and approval of the Senate. This procedure makes sure that the justices are suitably trained and experienced to do their duties. Once nominated, the justices are required to make decisions without respect to political pressure or the general public's view.

Although the political appointment of justices promotes independence and stability, it can make it more difficult to make sure that the courts reflects the needs and ideals of the period. Because of this, Supreme Court nominations are frequently divisive and intensely scrutinised by the general public and political figures.

Learn more about Federal here:

https://brainly.com/question/14080872

The presumption of innocence does not often deal with the removal of the burden of evidence, unlike other presumptions. There isn't actually a burden removed from the defendant. The burden of proof does not shift to the prosecution as a result of the presumption of innocence.

The concept of "presumption of innocence" is one that is proclaimed in numerous international treaties, and legal systems all over the world have come to understand the significance and crucial role that this presumption plays. However, there is little consensus on its significance and range of applicability. This article examines the broad goals of legal presumptions as well as numerous, occasionally incompatible, interpretations of the most well-known one. Many academics compare it to the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, it has no applicability before to or following a trial and is only an evidentiary rule (although an important one). The essay urges the adoption of a more comprehensive, normative strategy.

To learn more about innocence visit:

https://brainly.com/question/22878354

#SPJ1

Answer:

Article I of the U.S. Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It also outlines the powers of Congress such as the ability to raise taxes and regulate interstate commerce.

Article II lays out the executive branch, the President, and their powers such as the ability to make treaties and conduct foreign policy.

Article III establishes the judicial branch of the federal government, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. It also outlines the jurisdiction of the court system and the limits of the judicial powers.

Explanation:

Answer:

American horror story’s cast so hot because they are celebrities and famous people. Like if you are the director, you wouldn't hire someone unattractive. This answer goes to any other movies/series .

In the case of Gilroy v. Conway, 391 N.W.2d 419, 1986 Mich. App. Lexis 2633 (Court of Appeals of Michigan, 1986), Conway did not act ethically.

The following reasons can be used to back up the assertion:
Firstly, Conway did not provide Gilroy with a good reason for terminating his contract without cause. Even though the contract had an 'at will' provision, which gave Conway the authority to end the agreement without cause, the contract also required the parties to act ethically and in good faith. This means that Conway should have given Gilroy a justifiable reason for ending the contract.Secondly, Conway made an ambiguous statement that misled Gilroy into believing that his services were still required. When Gilroy requested a definite answer about the project's duration, Conway did not provide one. Instead, he provided an ambiguous response that led Gilroy to believe that his services were still needed.Thirdly, the court stated that the case was not fair and equitable. This was because Conway's defense relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence that was prejudicial. According to the court, the hearsay evidence lacked foundation, and there was no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. In conclusion, Conway did not act ethically in this case. The court's opinion was correct since Conway violated the terms of the contract by not providing Gilroy with a justifiable reason for terminating his contract without cause. The outcome was not fair and equitable since Conway's defense relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence that was prejudicial. The court should have taken into consideration the ethical requirements of the contract, which Conway breached by terminating the agreement without cause and misleading Gilroy about the project's duration.

To Know More about consideration visit:

brainly.com/question/33159085

#SPJ11

Out of the above-mentioned alternatives, it may be said that the supremacy clause is formed with an intention to declare that the national laws take precedence over the state laws in the judicial branches. Therefore, the option D holds true.

The Supremacy Clause is an integral inclusion in the National Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, the supremacy clause also takes the regulation to maintain that the laws made by the federal authorities will have a precedence over those created under the state laws.

Learn more about the supremacy clause here:

https://brainly.com/question/2212707

#SPJ4

Complete question

the supremacy clause of the constitution declares which of the following: question 1 options:

the president is the supreme commander of the armed forces

the supreme court can veto legislation through an advisory opinion

the supreme court is subject to recall by a 2/3rds vote in the senate

national laws take precedence over state laws

Normally punishments fit the crime more than the criminal. Countries have big long lists of minimum and maximum sentances for particular crimes. Within this there is a little leaway dependent upon the state of mind of the criminal, repeat offences and what their motivation was.

The given statement "A single act can be both a tort and a crime" is true because both of them are resulting breach of particular persons' rights.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or injury to another individual, while a crime is a violation of a law that is punishable by the state or government. An action can be considered both if it results in harm or injury to another person and also violates a law. In such cases, the victim can seek compensation through a civil lawsuit, and the state can pursue criminal charges against the offender.

Therefore, an act can be both a tort (resulting in a lawsuit and civil damages) and a crime (resulting in criminal charges and penalties). Examples include assault, battery, and fraud.

So, it is true that a single act can be both a tort and a crime.

To learn more about Tort and Crime visit:

https://brainly.com/question/15403575

#SPJ11

Answer:

A price ceiling prevents a price from rising above a certain level. Hence, the name price "ceiling". If the price is set below the equilibrium price what results is the quantity demanded will exceed the quantity supplied. Two things will be achieved either the excess in "demand" and "shortages" will ensue. Whereas, the price floor prevents the price from plummeting below a certain level or threshold.

Explanation:

Price Ceiling and Price Floors prevent the price from going either up or down.

*Please note that this not a legal or "law" related question. This is an Economics Social Science one.

The correct answer is d. simple assault. Simple assault is not included as an index crime under the "violent crimes" category.

Index crimes, also known as Part I offenses, are a classification system used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track and report crime statistics. The four main categories of index crimes are murder, aggravated assault, robbery.

Simple assault, which involves minor or less severe physical harm or the threat of harm, is generally classified as a misdemeanor offense rather than a violent crime. While simple assault is a criminal offense, it is not specifically categorized as an index crime under the violent crimes category.

Learn more about Simple assault

https://brainly.com/question/30228356

#SPJ4

Answer:

True

Explanation:

The first amendment allows not only the freedom of assembly but also the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to protest.

Answer:

bus what languages not able to understand jio to Baramma that he looked another jio your Venum Kan Lulu gi

Answer:C

Explanation:people living in the Midwest and the south mostly vote democratic

societal:  Societal refers to something that has to do with society or how society is set up. [formal]

"Social" refers to interpersonal interactions and social groupings within a society, whereas "societal" refers to society as a whole and as a system. Since "societal" is a social science term, its application is more formal and scholarly. Rarely will you hear it mentioned in casual conversation or on the nightly news. The shared values or ideas that exist and are accepted in a certain population are referred to as a society's culture. These views are usually shared by the majority of individuals in uniform cultures, while several separate value systems coexist in more varied cultures.

To learn more about Societal  click the link below:

brainly.com/question/13170161

#SPJ4

The Supreme Court decision to stop the removal of Native Americans in the Indian Removal Act was Worcester v. Georgia.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was an act passed by the United States Congress under President Andrew Jackson's administration that authorized the forced expulsion of Native American communities from their ancestral homelands east of the Mississippi River to the western region of the continent. The act was a manifestation of the federal government's determination to acquire land for white settlers.

The Supreme Court decision to stop the removal of Native Americans in the Indian Removal Act was Worcester v. Georgia. Worcester v. Georgia was a Supreme Court ruling issued in 1832 in which the court affirmed that indigenous tribes were distinct political communities and that the state of Georgia could not enact laws to regulate the conduct of Native Americans in their territories. As a result, the Supreme Court's decision rendered the Indian Removal Act's expulsion of Native Americans illegal.

For more about Worcester v. Georgia:

https://brainly.com/question/30432964

#SPJ11

Answer:

I may not be 100% correct but I believe its B

The criminal equivalent of the civil tort known as false imprisonment is called "Unlawful Restraint" or "Unlawful Detention." Unlawful restraint occurs when one person intentionally restricts the freedom and movement of another individual without their consent and without any legal justification or authority to do so. It involves confining or restraining someone against their will, restricting their liberty and freedom of movement.

The key elements of unlawful restraint in criminal law are similar to those in the civil tort of false imprisonment. These elements include the intentional act of restraining someone, the lack of consent from the person being restrained, and the absence of any lawful authority or justification for the restraint. The act must involve a significant interference with the individual's liberty, such as physically restraining them, confining them to a specific space, or preventing them from leaving a particular area.

Unlawful restraint is considered a criminal offense because it violates an individual's fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. It is generally treated as a misdemeanor or a lower-level offense, although the severity of the offense and the potential penalties can vary depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances.

It is important to note that unlawful restraint is a distinct criminal offense separate from other crimes involving confinement or restraint, such as kidnapping or false imprisonment. While the elements of these offenses may overlap to some extent, unlawful restraint specifically focuses on situations where an individual is unlawfully restrained without consent and without any lawful authority to do so.

In summary, unlawful restraint is the criminal equivalent of the civil tort of false imprisonment. It involves intentionally restraining someone without their consent and without any legal right to do so. This offense infringes upon an individual's freedom of movement and personal liberty, and it is considered a criminal offense punishable under the law.

To know more about Movement visit-

brainly.com/question/11223271

#SPJ11

Answer:   Involuntary Manslaughter

Explanation:  

It is believed that Terry did not intentionally commit a crime. Intent would have resulted in a murder case. Murder, whether or not it is  premeditated or unpremeditated, is intentional. The difference with manslaughter is that: voluntary manslaughter, while requiring intent, also involves a circumstance in which a reasonable person becomes emotionally disturbed and fueled by passion or impulse rather than judgement. Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing that results from criminal negligence or recklessness. (no intent or heat of passion).

Elements of crime committed:  

Actus Reus and the element of harm come into play with Terry's case. Because there wasn't causation for his brother's death, the intent element isn't present. Terry has no guilty state of mind.

Based on the available options and the situation described, the truth of the case is that Shawn is guilty of the offense of concealment.

The offense of Concealment is a term that is used to describe the offense committed with direct or indirect intent.

Generally, the concealer must know at the moment of committing the deed, in any of the normative ways, that the good comes from committing a deed provided by criminal law.

Therefore, in this case, since it is revealed that Shawn did not mention his farmhouse in Farmington in the bankruptcy proceedings and was later discovered by the mortgage firm and included in the proceedings, or will be concluded that Shawn is guilty of the offense of concealment.

Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is option A.

Learn more about the Offense of Concealment here: https://brainly.com/question/30033867

#SPJ1

Answer:

life sentence or life in prison

Answer:

It's C, Motivation

Answer:

Explanation:

Answer:

b which is concurrent jurisdiction

Answer:      Each state has a different approach to usury law. If you are a credit card holder in Kansas, the maximum interest rate is set at 15 percent. If you’re in South Carolina, the maximum rate is set at 8.75 percent for credit card debt.

Explanation:

The major factors that go into how judges make decisions in their cases. are

Generally, A judge is an individual who presides over the proceedings that take place in a court of law, either on their own or as a member of a panel of judges.

The judge will listen to all of the witnesses as well as any additional evidence that may be provided by the prosecution or the defense. On the basis of the evidence that has been provided as well as in compliance with the law, the judge will make a determination as to whether or not the accused individual is guilty. In the event that the accused is found guilty, the court will subsequently impose the appropriate penalty.

Read more about judge

https://brainly.com/question/1059156

#SPJ1

Answer: A Power to spend

Explanation:

Power to spend refers to the authority of a person or an organization to use or allocate funds for a specific purpose. In the context of government, it usually relates to the ability of government officials to decide how public funds should be spent to address various issues and concerns, such as infrastructure, health care, education, defense, and social welfare.

The power to spend is often associated with the budget-making process, which involves identifying priorities, analyzing the costs and benefits of different programs and projects, and making decisions on where to allocate limited resources. In democratic societies, the power to spend is usually vested in elected officials who are accountable to the public, through various oversight mechanisms such as audits, evaluations, and public hearings.

The power to spend can have significant implications for the economy, as government spending can influence employment, inflation, interest rates, and economic growth. Therefore, the power to spend should be exercised prudently, transparently, and with regard to the long-term consequences of budget decisions.

Answer: 75%,  or 67 votes/ two-thirds of the 100 Senators

Explanation: