Marriage based green card – Uncontested Divorce Forms

Marriage based green card – Uncontested Divorce Forms

Marriage based green card – Uncontested Divorce Forms

Marriage based green card - Uncontested Divorce Forms

Matrimony is a wonderful connection of closeness, attention and adores in which the two of you work at the improvement of each other. When lovers opt to marry, they naturally usually do not intend the relationship to end in the breakup. Even so, it can be unfortunate that numerous lovers discover that they simply could not keep on living jointly and must bust separate. The emotional tension away from each other, the legal facet of declaring divorce paperwork can even be extreme and mind-boggling. If both sides are about the same program, uncontested separation varieties will make stuff a lot easier. If you wish to avoid the hassle of an extended time consuming authorized process and exposing you to ultimately scrutiny, officially, there is the directly to contest a divorce but also you can opt for an uncontested separation and divorce. Once your competition the separation and divorce reports registered from your loved one, marriage based green card you will be grilled in the courtroom and amazingly, it is not necessarily likely to be pleasant expertise in any way. That’s a simple fact.

Breakup apps are understood to be possibly at-problem or no-problem divorce.

Legal requirements will allow that you could document divorce paperwork merely according to incompatibility and irreconcilable dissimilarities without the need of supplying reasons (good reasons or issues) for submitting separation and divorce. If you wish to it is possible to allege problems but you must show them in the courtroom, of course.

No matter which type of breakup you end up picking, it all depends after you regardless of whether you want to the tournament it or not. Uncontested separation could be filed using uncontested divorce forms, a straightforward method that includes every one of the problems related to separation. You can data file uncontested breakup varieties all by yourself or allow

Marriage based green card virtually 50% in the partnerships in the USA

What the law states makes it easier for married couples by offering an option of submitting separation paperwork by doing simple but substantial uncontested breakup varieties by themselves.

For those who decide to contest a divorce, you should be ready for it. A contested divorce means you need to be prepared for attacks coming from all sides. It is an extended and complex process of finding. It demands professional systematic questioning, a procedure known as the interrogatory. Every party has got to deliver a long list of concerns using a lawyer and also the other must answer under oath.

The interrogatory consists of queries about your financial situation, components organized singly or collectively no matter whether these folks were received just before or during the marital life, all resources and options of any, earnings and outstanding debts another economic subject. Every single state and counter-top declare is keenly contested with and law firms from either side might demand documentary facts in assist of every single proclamation manufactured in the breakup reports.

This is then an operation generally known as Deposition a pretrial interrogation in which you and one or more see are needed to respond to questions beneath oath. Normally, this is conducted inside a lawyer’s place of work. The truth is then suggested in the courtroom in which the main aim of the legal representatives is always to build about the loopholes identified within the other party’s declare and make a deal a better offer for their customers.

Continue reading

Copyrights & Trademarks

Copyright is a relevant part of our lives and yet, despite its impact on our lives, people have insufficient knowledge of what copyright is. Following are questions I am often asked by clients developing their website, looking for photos/artwork to use on their materials, or those interested in protecting their business logo.

How can copyright help my business?
If your business creates original works, copyright protection could be an important part of ensuring its success.

There are several benefits of copyright protection on intellectual property. Copyright is a type of intellectual property and like other property rights it can be sold or licensed. It can also be transferred and inherited. This could actually be a source of constant income for you. If your business owns the copyright in a piece of work – be it an advertising jingle, a technical manual, song lyric or a magazine article – you can control how it’s used commercially.

For example, you could charge every time someone uses your artwork, plays your jingle on the radio, transfers your manual to the internet, makes copies of your song lyrics or reprints your magazine article.

How do you establish copyright ownership?
Copyright an automatic legal right. Today, copyright protection is secured automatically when a work is created. A work is considered “created” when it is put down on copy or record for the first time. This means that your online content is given copyright protection as soon as you write it. It doesn’t even have to be posted for the world to see, it just has to be in a fixed form (i.e. not memorized in your mind).You can’t apply or register for copyright protection, however, copyright protection can be bought, sold or transferred.

In publishing your website design and content to the Internet, you are exposing your copyrights to the World Wide Web. Once you copyright your website you will have credible third-party substantiation that your work was yours even before you posted it. Should someone steal it, you can file for copyright infringement.

Can I take a photo (or article snippet) from off another website and use it?
Thieving content such as article, blog, photo or music without giving credit to the original author/owner or without written permission is not only unethical, it is also illegal. Don’t put yourself and your site in danger of lawsuits and other problems. As site owners, you have enough issues maintaining and managing your site and converting visitors into customers. Don’t publish someone else’s content just because you don’t see a copyright notice. Make sure everything on your site is original or appropriately accredited.

Is website content protected in the US or under International Copyright laws?
There is, unfortunately, no such thing as an international copyright that protects your work around the world. Copyright protection depends on the national laws of each particular country or the individual copyrights trademarks policies. Most countries offer protection to foreign works under various international copyright treaties and conventions, but keep in mind that worldwide protection is not guaranteed.

Why put a copyright notice then?
The primary reason to include a copyright notice is that it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Displaying a copyright notice may also help you if your work is infringed and you file a copyright infringement suit. If a property copyright notice appears on the material that was stolen, the court will not give any consideration to any attempted defence based on innocent infringement.

How can I find out if my work has been/or is being stolen?
There are many tools to check for copies of your website content on the net. If you come across a site which duplicates your content, you can first contact the person that posted the information and ask them to remove it. If they refuse, you can file a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) infringement with Google, Yahoo and MSN, as well as having their site removed by their host. You could even file a legal suit. Tools are also available to prove that your content was posted prior to theirs using tools such as WayBackMachine and WhoIs.

What is trademark? What purpose does trademark serve?
A trademark is a symbol, phrase, word, or logo that can identify and distinguish you from any other person or company.

Should I trademark my business name?
If you want to protect your company’s name, slogan and logo from being stolen and used by someone else you can get that protection when you trademark a name. If you choose not to trademark a name you risk people misusing your brand name/selling fraud products by copying your name/logo which could land you in a lot of trouble, not to mention the risk of losing everything you’ve worked so hard for.

To protect your trademark rights throughout the entire United States, you must register and trademark a name at the federal level. And, if you do it all by yourself, there’s a lengthy process you will have to go through.

Continue reading

Lifland Pearlman Herrmann Knopf

Lifland Pearlman Herrmann Knopf

Lifland Pearlman Herrmann Knopf

Lifland Pearlman Herrmann Knopf

Lifland Pearlman Herrmann Knopf

Founded in 1924, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP is dedicated to the general practice of law at the highest level of professional competence, striving to achieve maximum benefit for its clients in the most efficient and professionally responsible manner.

The firm has a wide ranging litigation practice at both the trial and appellate levels of the federal and New Jersey state court systems, having successfully litigated cases up through and including the United States Supreme Court. The firm regularly handles complex and sophisticated commercial litigation, including class and derivative litigation, in the areas of corporate and securities fraud, lender and accounts’ liability, consumer protection, franchise, anti-trust, qui tam, RICO, employment and intellectual property.

The firm also represents clients in substantial matrimonial actions involving divorce, custody, division of property and support as well as pre- and post- nuptial planning and agreements. Firm members have expertise in chancery and probate litigation as well as both federal and state criminal proceedings. The firm also has a significant tort practice that includes personal injury, medical and legal malpractice, product liability, environmental matters and toxic torts.

The firm regularly represents creditors, debtors and third parties in bankruptcy cases ranging from individual insolvencies to complex reorganizations and related problems.

Its active transactional practice includes business planning, mergers, acquisitions, investments and franchising. The firm offers a broad scope of legal services to its clients in corporate and financial transactions. Its real estate group provides practical knowledge and extensive expertise in the purchase, sale, development and financing of commercial and residential properties, together with land use and environmental regulatory matters.

Many members of the firm are recognized thought-leaders in their particular areas of practice and have written, lectured and taught regularly. Articles authored by firm members have been published in leading legal publications and repeatedly cited in reported decisions including those of the New Jersey Supreme Court. The firm is consulted frequently by other members of the bar throughout the United States and the firm acts as counsel in New Jersey to more than 100 leading law firms and practitioners in the state and beyond.

The firm’s clientele includes many national and international corporations, local and regional companies, the State of New Jersey (which the firm represents in both securities and environmental litigation), government agencies and public and private pension funds as well as individuals from all walks of life, presenting problems requiring a high degree of professional skill and practical counseling. Uniquely, numerous clients have continued to retain the firm for generations.

Above all, the firm takes great pride in the high quality of services rendered and in its steadfast dedication to the diligent representation of the interests of each of its clients.

The firm has been involved either as sole counsel, lead or co-lead counsel, liaison counsel or in which we have otherwise participated substantively to a significant extent in numerous prominent cases, including:

  • In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., ___ F.3d___, No. 10-2077, 2012 WL 2877662 (3d Cir. June 16, 2012) (rejecting the “scope of patent” test in favor of the “quick look rule of reason analysis for imposing liability on brand and generic companies for restraints of trade accomplished through “reverse payment” or “exclusion” agreements.
  • Aviva Partners LLC, et al. v. Exide Technologies, et al., U.S.D.C., District of New Jersey, 3:05-cv-3098 (MLC/LHG) ($13.7 million settlement on behalf of the class)
  • In re Amerada Hess Corporation Securities Litig., Docket No. 02-03359 (District of New Jersey) ($9 million settlement on behalf of the class)
  • In re: Cambrex Corp. Securities Litig., Docket No. 03-4896 (District of New Jersey) ($3,150,000 settlement on behalf of the class).
  • In re Merck & Co. Sec., Derivative & Erisa Litig., 493 F. 3d 393 (3d Cir. 2007)(the use of after acquired information obtained through discovery may be utilized to establish demand futility in shareholder derivative litigations)
  • Rolnik v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Superior Court of New Jersey ($43 million recovery);
  • In re Remeron Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 02-2007, District of New Jersey ($75 million recovery);
  • In re Lucent Securities Litigation, 327 F. Supp. 2d. 426 (D.N.J. 2004)($517 million recovery);
  • In re AT&T Securities Litigation, Master File No. 00-5364 (GEB), District of New Jersey ($100 million settlement);
  • In re Honeywell International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:00cv03605 (DRD), District of New Jersey and 211 F.R.D. 255 (D.N.J. 2002)($100 million recovery)
  • United States of America, ex. rel; Thomas G. Quinn v. Omnicare Inc., et als., Docket No. 03-2187, (3d. Cir. 2004)(successfully obtaining a summary judgment on behalf of defendants which was affirmed by the Third Circuit);
  • Varsolona v. Breen Capital Services Corp., 360 N.J. Supp. 292 (App. Div. 2003), aff’d as modified, 180 N.J. 605 (2004);
  • Williams et als. v. Chatmon, et als., Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County ($1.6 million jury verdict in securities litigation);
  • In Re: PSE&G Shareholder Litigation, 173 N.J. 258 (2002); see also, 315 N.J. Super. 323 (Ch. Div. 1998);
  • Burgo v. Volkswagen of Amer., 183 F. Supp. 2d. 683 (D.N.J. 2001)($1.3 million recovery);
  • California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Chubb Corp., 127 F. Supp. 2d.
  • In re: Nazi Era Cases Against German Defendants, 135 F. Supp. 2d. 537 (D.N.J. 2000); 198 F.R.D. 429 (D.N.J. 2000);
  • In re: Diet Drug Litigation, This Matter Relates to: Lynn Vadino, et. al., v. American Home Products Corp., et al., Case Code #240, Docket No. 3042-97, (Law Div. 1999)($2.5 billion dollar total recovery);
  • In re: Nice Systems Securities Litigation, 188 F.R.D. 206 (D.N.J. 1999);
  • Burger-Fischer v. DeGussa AG, 65 F. Supp. 2d. 248 (D.N.J. 1999);
  • Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377 (D.N.J. 1998)($16.25 million recovery in class action securities litigation);
  • In re: Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98-917 (MLC)($11.5 million recovery);
  • In re: Mobilemedia Securities Litigation, 28 F. Supp. 2d. 901 (D.N.J. 1998)($23.95 million recovery);
  • Grassi v. Information Resources, Inc., 63 F. 3d. 596 (7th Cir. 1995)(class action securities litigation tried to conclusion);
  • In re: Hibbard Brown Securities Litigation, Master File No. 93 Civ 1150, MDL Docket 962 ($150 million approved claim in bankruptcy);
  • In re: General Tire & Rubber Co. Securities Litigation, 726 F. 2d. 1057 (6th Cir. 1994);
  • Gelles v. TDA Industries, 44 F. 3d. 102 (2d. Cir. 1994) (establishing standards in the Second Circuit on the “in connection with” principle for securities fraud);
  • Easton & Co. v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶’s 96,595, 97,294 and 97,348 (D.N.J. 1993)($2.75 million recovery);
  • Resolution Trust Corp. v. DiDomenico, 837 F. Supp. 623 (D.N.J. 1993);
  • In Re: Bronze and Copper Anti-Trust Litigation, Master File No. 93-4673 (AET), District of New Jersey;
  • V. Rachael Lerch, et als. v. Citizens First Bancorp, et al., 805 F. Supp. 1142 (D.N.J. 1992) and 144 F.R.D. 247 (D.N.J. 1992)($4 million recovery in securities litigation);
  • Zinberg v. Washington Bancorp, et al., 138 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 1990)($2.1 million recovery in securities litigation);
  • In Re: C.R. Bard, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 90-948 (AMW), District of New Jersey ($18.1 million settlement);
  • In Re: The Regina Company, inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 88-4149 (HAA), District of New Jersey ($7.3 million recovery);
  • Pearl Newman, et al. v. On Line Software International, inc., et al., Civil Action No. 88-3247 (JLL), District of New Jersey ($4.1 million recovery during trial in class action securities litigation);
  • Rose Cammer, et als. v. Bruce M. Bloom, et als., Civil Action No. 88-2458 (AJL) (See 711 F. Supp. 1264 (D.N.J. 1989)($15 million recovery);
  • In Re: Todd Shipyards Securities Litigation, Master File No. 88-2580 (DRD), District of New Jersey ($12.6 million recovery);
  • Willis v. Rubiera Zim, 705 F. Supp. 205 (D.N.J. 1988);
  • Reufenacht v. O’Halleran, 737 F. 2d. 320 (3d. Cir. 1984), aff’d, sub. nom. Gould v. Reufenacht, 471 U.S. 701 (1985)(succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to disavow the “sale of business doctrine” and afford a private right of action under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws to those who purchase businesses by acquiring stock rather than assets);
  • Emanuel Metz, etc. v. Jupiter Industries, et als., Civil Action No. 85-c-08414, Northern District of Illinois ($3.1 million recovery in class action securities litigation);
  • In Re: California Life Insurance Company Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 400 (LEW), Central District of California ($3.25 million recovery);
  • In Re: General Public Utilities Corporation Securities Litigation, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 1983-1984 Transfer Binder, ¶99,566 (D.N.J. 1983)($24.5 million recovery); and
  • Abramowitz v. Posner, 672 F. 2d. 1025 (2d. Cir. 1982) and 513 F. Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1981 shareholder derivative litigation).
Continue reading