Can we withdraw a document if the signed witness declares that he did not see the parties signed on front of his eyes? Someone tricked me to sign a document without paying attention to content. The person also made 2 persons to sign the documents as witnesses. I want to withdraw the document, is it enough that the witnesses (or one of them) declares that he did not see the parties sign the documents in front of his eyes and consequently the witness is not valid?
Generally not With very few exceptions, documents do not need to be witnessed to be valid even where there is a space for a witness to sign. When you knowingly signed it you were making a legal declaration that you had read it, that you understood it and that you agreed to be bound by it. If you didn’t “pay attention to the content” then more fool you. As to being “tricked”, you would need to elaborate on this (in another question) it for this to have any effect it would need to ride to the level of misrepresentation or fraud - like substituting a different document for the one you had agreed to sign. You would also need evidence of the “trick”.
Lawyers may break confidentiality with client permission. You can also break your own confidentiality and talk to the prosecutor yourself. The prosecutor's response is up to the prosecutor; however, they tend to not be super excited about giving immunity to a witness for the defense if they might want to prosecute the witness later (and courts often are fine with that), so the more they suspect about your true role the less likely they are to grant it. No. If the feds later find truly independent evidence (they have the burden of showing it's truly independent), they can prosecute. Some states give transactional immunity to witnesses (you can't be prosecuted for crimes you testified about for any reason), but the Fifth Amendment doesn't require it and at least the feds aren't bound by state transactional immunity. It's hard to prosecute, but is possible if prosecutors play their cards right. Yes, it does allow civil liability. There is no right against self-incrimination in civil matters, only criminal liability. If the forced testimony leads to a lawsuit that bankrupts you, too bad.
The date and location of the signature merely documents when/where the signature was made, and doesn't have a lot of legal significance for ordinary contracts. This information is probably only useful if you need to argue that you could't have signed the contract because you weren't in that town on that day. Despite this small lapse your contract is perfectly valid, in particular you are required to make any payments that are part of this contract. It doesn't make sense to get this corrected. However, if any actual information (for example, you address) changed, then you should notify the gym to update the information.
You certainly can't legally steal anything, ever. If it is legal, it is not stealing. In particular, if it is your property, it isn't stealing. The question is really, "is it your property"? This will be jurisdiction dependant. I am familiar with England and Wales, and other common law jurisdictions may be similar. The fact you co-signed for the car definitely does not make it your property. It just means that out of the goodness of your heart, you agreed to reduce the finance company's risk by promising to pay if your ex-friend didn't. In E&amp;W, I don't think it is possible to register a car jointly, but there is a long page explaining that the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner of the car. My guess is that the car probably does not belong to you, so if you take it you will probably end up with a conviction for theft.
You can ask a law enforcement officer or district attorney to press charges. Generally, you cannot do so yourself. In practice, this kind of allegation is almost never criminally prosecuted. A prosecution would be particularly unlikely if the witnesses and/or notary confirmed his story that it was your father's signature or was authorized, and if the lawyer received no personal benefit from the will. Sentences for forging a will vary from state to state and sometimes depend upon the amount of personal benefit secured from doing so. Absent a huge personal benefit, it would probably be a minor felony punishable by a few years in prison or more likely, in the case of a lawyer without prior convictions, a deferred judgment, or probation and a fine. Proving that the signature is forged is extremely difficult and under certain circumstances a person trying to execute a will can lawfully have someone do it for them by directing the lawyer to do so in the presence of the witnesses (for example, if your father's hand was shaking too much to make it possible for him to sign his name due to a condition like Parkinson's disease). The witnesses to the will would be in a bad position to testify against him because they could face charges too if they witnessed the will despite knowing that it was not signed or authorized by the testator. You could contest the validity of the will due to an allegedly forged signature by raising a timely objection in a probate proceeding to have the will determined valid. In this proceeding, you would only have to show that it is more likely than not that this happened and the consequence would be that the will would be found invalid. In theory, you could sue the lawyer for damages to you caused by the alleged forgery, but only if you were harmed and realistically, only if the will was found to be invalid, which would eliminate any harm, unless the probate process has already been completed. Finally, you could complain to the attorney regulatory body in the state where the lawyer practices. If they found your allegations to be credible they would investigate. If they found that your allegations were probably true following an investigation and a hearing, they could suspend his license or disbar him.
Am I correct in arguing that the LHD never really had implied consent to begin with? In other words, does the failure to honour the express refusal inform us about the legitimacy of prior claims of implied consent? No. They had implied consent and had not intent at the outset to dishonor it. They have violated the patient's privacy right when consent was expressly withdrawn, and they discovered that they cannot easily comply and therefore did not comply. The fact that they have made it expensive for themselves to comply with their legal obligations going forward does not imply that they lacked implied consent at the outset, so they should have no liability for the time period from when the training materials started to be used until the time when implied consent ended. They are only responsible going forward for their failure to honor the patient's wishes. It is not at all exceptional for a legal obligation to turn out to be more difficult to comply with when it arises than was anticipated when the systems that make the legal obligation difficult to comply with were implemented. Health care companies aren't expected to be prophets who can foresee the complex confluence of factors that has painted them in a corner, particularly when a situation has never come up before the current one. It is likely that no one person was ever even simultaneously aware of all the facts necessary to know that this could happen. Someone in the IT department will often not be intimately familiar with what is going on in the training part of the operation and what the privacy rules that apply are and even if someone was, that someone may have been in no position to do anything about it at the time. Health care providers aren't supposed to be evaluated with 20-20 hindsight. Given that they almost surely did not and could not easily have known that they had made a future express withdrawal of consent very difficult to effectuate, scienter can't be attributed to it. And, honestly, they are in more than enough trouble simply trying to deal with the problem post-express withdrawal of consent when they did start to violate privacy laws.
Bribery always involves a public official or person with a legal duty (such as a witness in a legal proceeding). It is illegal for such a person to accept a bribe. See 18 USC 201. We speak metaphorically about "bribing" when we aren't actually talking about the same thing as the legal concept. Seen as a contractual matter outside the legal concept of bribery, a contract requiring a person to cover up a violation of the law would be unenforceable. However, it would be the crime of extortion to threaten to expose the criminal, so to rule that out, we would have to assume that the criminal knew that Jones could rat him out, and he offers Jones money to keep quiet. If the agreement were to "not testify", then that would be bribery. In other words, we have an almost perfectly innocent person, who acted entirely legally (did not extort, is not a public official, did not accept money in connection with testifying in court), and accepted money given for an unenforceable purpose which was breached. Their only fault was accepting payment to not turn a criminal in (and even then, they did turn him in). I can't find relevant US case law that definitely rules one way or the other. I believe though that the court would not order the money returned to the criminal – the court would do nothing to validate such a contract.
It doesn't really require anything beyond your say-so that it is what you say it is; that would be enough to satisfy the requirement for authentication. From there though, as with any evidence, it's going to be up to a jury to decide how much weight to give the evidence. So the more you can show them to prove that the record is real -- and to knock down any questions the opposing party will raise -- the more likely they are to believe it. So if you just bring a printout that looks like it could easily have been forged, the jury may be thinking about that. If you can bring in a data forensics expert to say the document couldn't have been faked, that's probably going to help. Addendum: As a practical matter, I wouldn't expect this to be much of an issue. Unless you're dealing with a savvy opposing party, the authenticity of e-mails seems to be generally assumed. Courts (1) generally assume that parties aren't perpetrating frauds; and (2) are generally run by judges with little to no technical savvy, who don't realize that one could forge an e-mail, let alone all the different ways it could be done. I've personally entered countless e-mail printouts without them being questioned, even though either party could have just gone down into the e-mail thread and changed what the other side had said earlier in the conversation. To avoid the issue, though, it might be that sending the e-mail to a Gmail account would elimimate the question.