The court concluded that “[t]he crucial factor, from the standpoint of right to counsel, is that the defendant has an attorney guarding and protecting the rights of the defendant. Remember, however, these reports are not supposed to be seen by case agents, and there usually is a statement to that effect somewhere on the front page of the report. See Skidmore v. Travelers Insurance Co., 356 F. Supp, 670, 672 (E.D. La), aff’d, 483 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1973). For purposes of criminal enforcement, however, an individual who is a corporate officer or director, may be an «employer» within the meaning of the Act. See Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, supra, at 444 U. S. 632. Thus, the nexus between solicitation and the communication of information and advocacy of causes is present in the CFC as in other contexts. For example, Section 3143 contains the framework for release or detention of a defendant pending sentence or appeal. Montana Constitutional Convention, Verbatim Transcript, February 26, 1972, Vol. IV, p. 1014. Delegates agreed that justices courts are important, particularly in Montana’s small towns, and that justices of the peace do not have to be lawyers so long as they undergo mandatory training in the law.
See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). A defendant may waive the right to counsel, so long as the court determines the waiver is voluntary, knowing, intelligent, and unequivocal. The Court would point to three «justifications» for the exclusion of respondents. Held: 1. Solicitation in the context of the CFC is speech protected by the First Amendment. Here, the President could reasonably conclude that a dollar directly spent on providing food or shelter to the needy is more beneficial than a dollar spent on litigation that might or might not result in aid to the needy. Second, suits may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a federal cause of action for violation of “rights” secured by the federal laws and the Constitution.
Laws that waive sovereign immunity based on the acceptance of federal funds have a wide applicability. Section 3–5–202(1), MCA. When acting as an appellate court, district court judges review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. The supervisor denies this allegation. No one witnessed the alleged advances. CP’s inability to produce eyewitnesses to the harassment does not defeat her claim. Instead, respondents receive only those CFC contributions that are specifically designated to go to them. To phrase it in another manner, respondents only benefit from contributions that are the result of the free and voluntary choices of federal employees who make specific designations.