Why did Christopher Tran warn Judge Kelly about the Minister for Immigration&#39;s power to cancel Djokovic&#39;s visa? I find this detail in the recent Novak Djokovic's Australian visa saga quite interesting. On Monday, 10 January 2022, when Judge Kelly delivered his decision to reinstate Djokovic's visa, Christopher Tran (the lawyer acting for the government) told the judge that the Minister for Immigration is now contemplating using his &quot;personal power of cancellation&quot; (which is exactly what happened days later and was sustained by the Federal Court on 16 January 2022). So, when Mr Tran said that to Judge Kelly, the judge thanked him for the warning, adding: &quot;I could have been something approaching incandescent if I had discovered that for the first time... this evening or the early hours of tomorrow.&quot; Why did Mr Tran warn the judge? Was that an attempt to make the judge change his mind and think again, like &quot;look man, why bother reinstating the visa if it will [possibly/probably/likely/definitely] be cancelled anyway&quot;? Is that what should be read between the lines? If so, how does it sit with lawyer/courtroom ethics and the expectation of judicial independence? Mr Tran would have known that Judge Kelly was supposed to make decisions independently on the merits of the case — not taking into account what the exec branch of the government might then do. Does what Mr Tran said to the judge demonstrate that he in fact did not necessarily expect the judge to be entirely independent, but expected him to possibly be prone to make decisions taking into account the politics and what the government might do? Was that the exec branch attempt to bully the judicial branch?
Video of that portion of the hearing can be found on the court's YouTube channel. It doesn't seem like anything nefarious. My interpretation is that Mr. Tran is just giving Judge Kelly this information because, if the Minister for Immigration does cancel the visa, Djokovic will probably challenge that decision as well, meaning more court proceedings and more work for Judge Kelly. So Judge Kelly appreciates knowing about this in advance, so that he and the court staff can immediately start getting ready to handle that case, and plan their schedules accordingly. This is based on some further context in the video, around 12:00. Judge Kelly says (with some editing on my part): It would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone else to get up to speed if there is to be another Tait v. Queen [[1962] HCA 57] type application. So I expect to be fully informed in advance if I am required to continue to be available for any further [unclear] proceeding that is to be sought. [...] Now if I am to be called on short notice to deal with another interim injunction [...] this court is fully entitled to be informed, in the way that you have quite properly done this afternoon and for which I am grateful. Is that clear, Mr. Tran? Also note that Mr. Tran prefaced his remark (around 6:15) with &quot;to avoid any unintended discourtesy to Your Honor and court staff -- I wouldn't want Your Honor and court staff to hear this through any other means.&quot; This fits more with the idea that he's informing the judge just so that he knows what's coming. Mr. Tran knows that this will be an inconvenience for Judge Kelly and he wants to minimize it by making sure he has as much advance notice as possible. Finally, note that Mr. Tran's statement about the probable visa cancellation comes immediately after Judge Kelly had just pronounced his order (2:10-6:10), ordering that the visa revocation be quashed and that Djokovic be released, and ending the proceedings in the case currently at hand. I'm not even sure whether the judge could unilaterally change his mind at that point. But if Mr. Tran had wanted to influence Judge Kelly's decision, you'd think he would have said something much earlier. Waiting until after the decision was announced seems much more like he is trying to avoid even any appearance of trying to influence the decision.
Generally speaking, courts take whatever time they need to write their decision and then release it close to immediately. In cases where a judge believes she has the information she needs, she may rule "from the bench," announcing a decision and entering an order for the parties to comply, and then follow up with a written order later. The research process is fairly open-ended, but legal research databases are pretty advanced, and a good researcher can generally get his hands on the vast majority of what he'll need in very short order. But practically speaking, there are few limits on how long that process takes. A litigant who was growing impatient could seek a writ of procedendo to force a court to move faster, but my experience indicates that most attorneys wouldn't attempt that move unless a decision had been pending for at least a year with no action, which would be unusual.
So my answer depends heavily on a clarification. Are the Police Suspicious or do they have a warrant? This is a big difference in the two behaviors as the former is not a thing, from a strictly legal perspective, and the police should not be harrassing Bob, who doesn't want to talk to them, when they should be making calls to get a warrant (If the police think Bob is being disorderly, they will arrest him and Bob should zip it, get an attorney down to the station, and let the Lawyer yell at the cops... and the judge... and the prosecutor and whoever else... If it's the latter case, they don't need to ask Bob to have Bob come outside... they can kick in the door and arrest Bob or remove him as part of executing the warrant. That's why you have them. In the situation as described, it reads like there was some crime in the area and the police think Bob may have some knowledge about it (he need not have done it, they could be looking for a witness). Bob does not have to say anything to the cops as per his rights against self-incrimination, so Bob tells them he does not wish to speak to them, possibly in an irksome manner and the Police won't take no for an answer. Perhaps they really think Bob might be the criminal... this doesn't necessary mean they have evidence to arrest Bob on. Perhaps Bob was identified by a guy off of security camera footage... maybe it was Bob, or maybe it was Bob's evil twin he never knew about and Bob's been home all night Keeping Up With The Kardassians (anyone knows Bob knows he can't stand going a week without knowing what Kim and Kanye are doing). Either way, it could be enough for a search warrant but just wanting to talk without a warrant, Bob can refuse and they need to respect that. Again, it's probably a bad faith arrest, but the street is not the place to have that fight... save it for the courts.
The Star Vancouver has a good article outlining the actual charges. Meng is not charged with "violating an embargo" but with defrauding U.S. financial institutions. It may be easier to report that the "crime" is violating sanctions but it's a little more nuanced. Meng is charged with defrauding U.S. financial institutions in order to avoid sanctions. From the article: The U.S. authorities allege Meng committed fraud by telling an HSBC executive her company was in compliance with U.S. sanctions against Iran limiting communication technology. The meeting took place in 2013, but the location was not revealed. HSBC is based in London with operations in the United States. Joanna Chiu, the Star reporter who followed the bail hearing, tweeted: US banks became concerned about the relationship between Huawei and subsidiary SkyCom. Meng told banks the two were separate when in fact "Huawei is SkyCom. This is the alleged fraud". Supposedly, the claims were in a PowerPoint presentation made to a financial institution in 2013. As a result of those claims, banks in the U.S. cleared financial transactions for Huawei. The nexus between Meng, Huawei, SkyCom and U.S. law is Meng making claims to HSBC that Huawei is not related to SkyCom inducing U.S. based financial institutions to unknowingly engage in transactions that violated sanctions with Iran. Thus, the fraud charge against Meng.
You cannot stop the claim. But the good news is that claims of jurisdiction by many countries are routinely ignored by many other countries. So enforcement attempts might fall short. I've written things here that might get me into real trouble with the authorities of North Korea if I ever traveled there and if they were able to match my real-world identity with this account. But I don't plan to travel there. Likewise, before I went to Turkey I should probably review what I've written about their government, and then wonder if it is worth the risk. Probably yes, it wasn't very incendiary. But my home country and those I tend to visit (if there is no pandemic ongoing) would not extradite me for what I wrote.
It's not regulated by international law. Depending on the laws of the intended destination country, it may be the case that none of the members of the family are permitted to enter, or that they can enter, but only two can enter as a "couple", while the others are legally completely separate (or even excluded from the country). According to one blog, at present in the United States, a foreign national must actually intend to practice polygamy in the United States to be ineligible for an immigrant visa. The current law does not prevent a polygamist or someone who practiced polygamy in the past or expresses a belief in polygamy from being eligible for an immigrant visa. But aliens coming to the United States to practice polygamy are barred. Before 1990, there was a law on the books by which someone who merely "advocated the practice of polygamy" could have been barred. This question has been answered on Quora for the U.S., again for the U.S. (where the question asked about "US and EU"), and for Canada. Basically, the whole family can't legally immigrate as a unit. However, determining who is the "real" wife, if any of them, would depend on the facts of the case, the specific laws of the target jurisdiction, and the purpose of the determination. It could very well be that every one of the other marriages would void a new marriage in the destination country and entitle the children to child support, but none of them would entitle the wife to a spouse's visa or the father to visitation rights after a purported divorce. See also this answer about whether it's possible for a married immigrant to commit bigamy by entering the United States pretending to be unmarried. Sure there are people who try, and it's more likely to succeed with the cooperation of the foreign spouse(s), but it's against the law and can be grounds for deportation, imprisonment, annulment of the second marriage, or exclusion of any polyspouse who is outside the country.
Your main misunderstanding is that opposing counsel cannot testify. He can ask a question, such as "Did you say ...?", which provides Einstein an opportunity to answer in a way that maintains the credibility of his testimony, but consel cannot just enter his own testimony into the record. In addition, counsel on "his side" has the opportunity to pose appropriate clarifying questions, e.g. could ask "Did you repudiate that idea 88 years ago?", though there is a problem that the attorney may not have the technical expertise to recognize the subject-matter question that they should ask. Expert testimony does not attempt to determine the state of scholarship in an area, it attempts to resolve a specific factual matter. The two are not the same thing. Einstein would not testify as to what his general and special theories of relativity say, except in a bizarre universe where some person is accused of the crime of denying the theory of relativity. Instead, he might be testifying for the defense, where the defendant is accused of an act that (it turns out) is physically impossible in light of the theory of relativity. If Einstein had been in the habit of posing random mutually-contradictory conjectures on a weekly basis, opposing counsel's question could be relevant to establishing that the witness's testimony is not reliable. Theoretically, counsel could "hint" that the witness is scientifically flighty, so Einstein would have to have a credible explanation for changing his position. It is easy to demonstrate that scientists in general do change their positions as knowledge expands, so Einstein's burden would not be very substantial.
In general the act must be a crime in both countries for an extradition to proceed, but the extradition treaty between countries A and B likely has more specific provisions as well. C's involvement is generally limited to consular assistance, but there have been instances where countries have offered to incarcerate their citizens for convictions in other countries. The country of citizenship certainly does not have priority to extradite or try its citizens, and it is unlikely that the country seeking to prosecute would have much interest in another country taking over the case.