In 1975, I talked to an editor at the Indianapolis Star about my being slandered. He introduced me to reporter Carolyn Pickering and asked her to follow up. I gave her copies of the Retail Credit report and Tuohy's malpractice. She said she'd look into it and did write a story, which was published on June 3, 1976, headlined Attorney Fees Seen Forcing Liquidation Of Insurance Firm discussing Judge Dugan's attempted reinsurance of UNAC's assets. Judge Dugan held an emergency hearing and awarded $300,000 in legal fees to be paid by UNAC to various attorneys. The emergency existed because Judge Dugan was going on vacation. A Chicago firm was paid $167,362.50; A Virginia firm was paid $64,237.50; Dillon, McCarty, Hardeman and Cohen (Dillon was the former Democratic attorney general for Indiana) was paid $17,887. Dillon and Gregory Hahn, treasurer of the Marion County Democratic Central Committee, were appointed by Judge Dugan as local counsel for the out of state firms, which means Dillon and Hahn were involved in total payments exceeding $230,000. The firm of Tuohy, Gleason and Mercer was paid $48,960. Tuohy was paid even though he had no records of time spent and didn't perform any legal functions on behalf of the company. ............................................................................................................................................. Judge Dugan was tried before a jury in Indianapolis. The action was United States of America v. Michael T. Dugan, II, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Cause No. IP88-78-CR. Other persons admitted paying bribes and taking payoffs. The jury verdict was returned May 26, 1989, finding Dugan guilty on a variety of charges of bribery and extortion, including a true bill of unlawfully obtaining money (a $1,000 bribe) from James Eckman, President of First Equity Security Life Insurance Company (which Eckman had admitted).

Rebuttal to the most popular IRS lie and deception. Attach to response letters or legal pleading. Disclaimer: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm For reasons why NONE of our materials may legally be censored and violate NO Google policies, see: https://sedm.org/why-our-materials-cannot-legally-be-censored/

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

This book examines the history of the legal discourse around political falsehood and its future in the wake of the 2012 US Supreme Court decision in US v. Alvarez through communication law, political philosophy, and communication theory perspectives. As US v. Alvarez confirmed First Amendment protection for lies, Robert N. Spicer addresses how the ramifications of that decision function by looking at statutory and judicial handling of First Amendment protection for political deception. Illustrating how commercial speech is regulated but political speech is not, Spicer evaluates the role of deception in politics and its consequences for democracy in a contemporary political environment where political personalities, partisan media, and dark money donors bend the truth and abuse the virtue of free expression.

Jill Elaine Hasday's Intimate Lies and the Law won the Scribes Book Award from the American Society of Legal Writers "for the best work of legal scholarship published during the previous year" and the Foreword INDIES Book of the Year Award for Family and Relationships. Intimacy and deception are often entangled. People deceive to lure someone into a relationship or to keep her there, to drain an intimate's bank account or to use her to acquire government benefits, to control an intimate or to resist domination, or to capture myriad other advantages. No subject is immune from deception in dating, sex, marriage, and family life. Intimates can lie or otherwise intentionally mislead each other about anything and everything. Suppose you discover that an intimate has deceived you and inflicted severe-even life-altering-financial, physical, or emotional harm. After the initial shock and sadness, you might wonder whether the law will help you secure redress. But the legal system refuses to help most people deceived within an intimate relationship. Courts and legislatures have shielded this persistent and pervasive source of injury, routinely denying deceived intimates access to the remedies that are available for deceit in other contexts. Intimate Lies and the Law is the first book that systematically examines deception in intimate relationships and uncovers the hidden body of law governing this duplicity. Hasday argues that the law has placed too much emphasis on protecting intimate deceivers and too little importance on helping the people they deceive. The law can and should do more to recognize, prevent, and redress the injuries that intimate deception can inflict.