If and when two or more parties require to solve an issue, any issue through arbitration consequently remaining out of court, a way will always be found and used, be such a way a direct or duplicate of cultural norms, traditions, costumes, religion, or law acts. If and when two parties require to solve an issue, any issue according to a set, or sets of rules, such rule or rules will be the very limits of the arbitration. A general attorney type of structure before any commencement of any such forms of arbitration might increase the ability of each instance. Be in regards to the court, in regards to the parties, in regards to the costs, in regards to the good or bad reputation of each, enabling a country and private firms to offer and acquire the best in regards to costs, effectiveness, efficiency, and reputation. Having undertaken such a process and a court structure is fallowed after all, then a court will be at a better position in order to assess the case, is an opinion which already has been expressed amongst some of the best practitioner's in arbitration. It so, because it avoids any situations where a party usess a state of arbitration (which in technical terms is a literal existence) in order to gain an advantage later to be used in a court, any court. Including the very arbitration structure itself. Maybe a very good option is to put forward any arbitration as a product, a completely private product (including the whole process it involves) which is available through as a replica of a judicial system, this means such a product can be regulated, especially if and when being so it means actual law applies to it. In doing so the process avoids one of the most fundamental issues of arbitration, which is all arbitrations are nullified simply by and of the existence of that which supposedly gives rise to any arbitration, that being always a contract, the contract. The existence of a contract and the corresponding contract law applicable to it, makes any arbitration nullified as of its start. Whereas a product, a private law product is from its Inception legally binding, but most importantly it can be always arbitrable, and in being a product enforceable by and of contract law. As a consequence the possibility for a peaceful and beneficial solution will more then likely be achieved. Always considering a solution is aimed as a requirement, desire and outcome. © E.D

So did symbol on coin for every each country change they material rate ?

His royal corrupt judges in operation kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGTWe2SAdrZjerssi=hk-XgfGjJ-m65uft

Promo SM 😌

a splendid lecture!

Thanks to everyone concerned, especially all the brave sailor's.

Was Ashby v. White (1703) ever overruled? if not then why did L. Leggett deny comp for injuria sine damno?

What is a litigation attorney in banking? in general terms

What a warm and welcome way of inviting applications…

legs tits!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone relate this Google v Lloyd Judgement with Dworkin's interpretive theory and what might Judge Hercules would do in such position. ? Is this case decided on Policy rather Principle? Judges hardly went betond the RULES ?

Enjoy the superb view with playback speed of 0.25 and enlarged display🥰 😳🔎▽👙💮🌺”15:22 27:21”😍😍😍 This is a great reward!!🥰🥰🥰

#nikkobriteramos

*This barrister woman kept stupendously rocking her chair laterally and swirling it which is unprofessional not to mention silly. No one taught her manners to seat before the panel properly?*

2 lovely ladies😁

Great.

Great

Hi gentlemen ,my family and I need your firm's assistance.My grandfather left many millions after his murder in the offshore islands namely Jersey and the IOM.I will email your office tomorrow.kind regards Jordan Durante

So interesting! Definitely subscribed with interest.

dont like delte immediatly

My question would be to data that is required to produce the results. With new crimes, ie involving AI, perhaps misuse of Lethal Autonomous Systems, accidents involving Autonomous Vehicles, how much data is enough to build up an adequate amount to produce reliable results.

Victoria is hottt

All those people telling me Frankfurt will usurp London as the financial capital of Europe: A German payment processor and financial services provider called Wirecard AG just went under. Wirecard held a banking licence. It should have been one of the most compliance laden entities in Germany. It had achieved listing scrutiny by simply taking over an existing call centre company. Allegations of accounting malpractices have trailed Wirecard AG since the early days of its incorporation on 1999. BaFIN, the German banking regulator, chose to ignore it. In 2019 the Financial Times published a series of investigations along with whistleblower complaints and internal documents. STILL BaFIN ignored the issue. Instead they investigated short-sellers for market manipulation, threw some in jail and filed criminal charges against the journalists who wrote ultimately correct articles about the company! On 25 June 2020, Wirecard filed for insolvency after revelations that €1.9 billion was "missing". The rumours and whistleblowers had been right. This holder of a banking licence had been beset by profit inflation, accounting irregularities and audit failures. BUT here is the real kick. BaFIN has a staff of only 15 and s budget of 6 million. The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) brings together under one roof the supervision of banks and financial services providers, insurance undertakings and securities trading. With 15 people. And you think Frankfurt will replace London.

fextyhackers,com can help you on any hacking service you are requesting for.

Another person has remarked on what they perceived to be brilliance on the part of the speakers. I however am quite baffled at Robert Griffiths QC's opening speech. Apart from virtually delivering zero new insights and sorely lacking any nuance, it did not address the topic of a battle for survival at all, which is astonishing given that it was the topic of the event. It is a real irony that his speech came after the one by Hilary Heilbron QC who was calling for London lawyers to not be complacent.

This was Brilliant~ thank you for expressing your concerns regarding "mediation". Even though I am in the U.S. I will be engaging in the process, very soon (divorce). I can only hope my mediator shows as much care and value, to resolve our concerns (no custody thank GOD!) as all of you have. Especially "Nick" @53:00 mark, in the bottom corner with the V-neck sweater --- he touched my heart with his concerns!!

As a new mediator i found this really helpful. I was very worried by your male, grey panel. Although to be fair you were probably more open than I thought you might be

One has to admire the brilliance of the speakers, good luck London 🇬🇧

This whole charade is a disgrace. Shame on you all.

“Supremacy. I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.” Bill of Rights [1688] www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction For any one of you to claim to be ‘constitutional experts’ and not to invoke the Bill of Rights in discussion is either disingenuous or or embarrassingly ignorant. The Bill of Rights is still current legislation and has primacy over any subsequent bill, statute or other legal instrument. It has never been revoked and is protected by every member of Parliament when taking their oath as well as the monarch who promises to act in accordance to the law as presented to William of Orange which created the ‘constitutional monarchy’; the system we still live under to this day. The Treaty of Rome and all subsequent treaties are null and void anyway. End of. Supremacy of EU law over British Law is and always was unlawful, illegal and treasonous.

18.00

How about we divide the country in 2 at spaghetti junction and set up a northern alliance. So we can govern our selves under common law ?

It's hilarious they bring up this but only when it's suits them The UK Constitution is a useless as a chocolate T pot. The London south live in an island called the M25 and believe that they are supreme to everyone else in the uk

REVOKE ARTICLE 50..

Isn’t Fascism just wonderful ?

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnvSc2uumLVkopo Must watch if you want facts on the People having the power and not Parliament. Dispelling myths on Parliamentary Sovereignty

Blind Eye Knowledge, about a party being decietful in acting, as if they are un-aware of a breach. Though the term seems frivilous, as such information, if known, may be a serious offence! Sent 3.10pm, 4.4.19., by [email protected].

The key point is, how do practitioners and other legal professionals, estimate what is a risk? Given, vicarious and other liabilities are more easier to define? But the benchmarks, are not so simple: Sent on 1.55am: 4.2.19., by [email protected]!

Fantastic sir but i was looking for the important conventions of British constitution

. 41:03 .

Can you please comment on the law now, after the SC judgment in Versloot! Thank you!

This video is so helpful, precise and brilliantly presented! Thank you

Hi there.. May I ask... After studying Constitutional law during my time in the theatres of war until now, I became aware many years ago that Article.61 Magna Carta was LAWFULLY INVOKED on March 24th 2001. This was publicly announced in the Telegraph dated the same day. The Barons committee who invoked this ancient clause have not since received redress for the grievance to which the petition of Article. 61 Magna Carta 1215 was served to the Monarch, which was to not give her royal assent to the signing of the treaty of Nice (France) and therefore, I had a decision to make. Either stand under the law, together with the whole realm and the Barons, or, stand with the treasonous Monarch and her agents/Government who stripped us of our sovereignty, and handed power over us to a foreign entity. It was clear from the Heath Government that we were "shoehorned into the EU" and it was treason. However, Article. 61 MC 1215 had not been invoked, regardless of how upset anyone may have been about the situation. Therefore, I transferred my Oath from the Monarch to the Barons committee, and I STAND under law, WHICH IS A.61 MC 1215, until the Barons committee inform me and the whole realm they have received redress.. I would welcome any comments. For as I beleive and understand matters, until the Barons receive redress, and that would mean justice for the treason committed, then sadly, one may debate any and all other issues regarding constitutional law, however, please confirm in detail this not to be the case.. My kindest regards to all... Standing in Honour. With no ill will or vexation.

the government took us into the EU illegally in the first place, so constitutionally you can argue that we're not in the EU and that it's all a charade. Constitutional change requires a referendum, but we were already in the European Community (which then became the EU) when we had the voted in 1975. The vote was 'should the UK remain a part of the EC?'. As such, it proves clearly that the government never had a mandate for taking us into the EU and therefore the European Communities Act 1972 could be repealed for being illegal.

If we don't leave, with full control of immigration, the Tories will be relegated to one place behind the Liberal Democrats.

If we don't leave, with full control of immigration, the Tories will be relegated to one place behind the Liberal Democrats.

Fuck this lot, all they are doing is procrastinating and looking for reasons to stay in. The vote was won to leave, get on with it.Typical bunch of lawyers arguing about bullshit all day long instead of getting on with what needs to be done.

There is no UK constitution because it would have to include the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Peerage, none of which are democratic institutions. Once in constitution they could never again be challenged. So there will never be a UK constitution because these non democratic institutions hold the power.

According to British experts on our constitution, Edward Heath taking Britain into the eu was, and still is illegal. It was also an act of treason on part of Heath as he was PM, and also the Queen who was head of state and could have vetoed Heath handing over our sovereignty to the eu, but she did nothing!

The people have voted and spoken ..... deal with it ....for once do what the people ask .....if they had listened to the people over the years it would not have come to this ..... its not the people fault it has come to this .... it is the ones who did not listen for decades ......