LEGAL ASSISTANT JOBS LONDON

legal assistant

paralegal: a person with specialized training who assists lawyers
A staff member of a law office or firm, usually performing certain clerical tasks without any training as a paralegal, but over time probably capable of performing paralegal activities. Assistant’s time may not be billed to the client. Compare Paralegal.
Paralegal is a term that is used in most jurisdictions to describe a non-lawyer who assists lawyers in their legal work. This is true in the United States and many other countries.

london

United States writer of novels based on experiences in the Klondike gold rush (1876-1916)
The capital of the United Kingdom, in southeastern England on the Thames River; pop. 6,377,000. London, called Londinium, was settled as a river port and trading center shortly after the Roman invasion of ad 43 and has been a flourishing center since the Middle Ages.It is divided administratively into the City of London, which is the country’s financial center, and 32 boroughs
An industrial city in southeastern Ontario, Canada, north of Lake Erie; pop. 303,165
the capital and largest city of England; located on the Thames in southeastern England; financial and industrial and cultural center
London is the capital of England and the United Kingdom. It is the largest metropolitan area in the United Kingdom and the largest urban zone in the European Union by most measures.

jobs

Steven (Paul) (1955–), US computer entrepreneur. He set up the Apple computer company in 1976 with Steve Wozniak and served as chairman until 1985, returning in 1997 as CEO. He is also the former CEO of the Pixar animation studio
(job) occupation: the principal activity in your life that you do to earn money; “he’s not in my line of business”
(job) a specific piece of work required to be done as a duty or for a specific fee; “estimates of the city’s loss on that job ranged as high as a million dollars”; “the job of repairing the engine took several hours”; “the endless task of classifying the samples”; “the farmer’s morning chores”
(job) profit privately from public office and official business

AHHH AT LAST…………

Obama Declares Peace
By JED BABBIN on 5.28.13 @ 6:06AM

Peace for our time? Not on Obama’s watch.

It was only last week that I posed the question of how long the war the terrorists are waging against us will continue. President Obama answered that question in his 23 May speech at the National Defense University. His answers should scare the hell out of you.
My question was posed in the context of the answer given by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Michael Sheehan in a congressional hearing the week before my column appeared. His answer to the “how long” question was “I think it’s at least ten or twenty years.” Sheehan was clueless. And so is Obama. The president has proclaimed a lack of interest in victory, and like Sheehan, he cannot describe—as “outcome-based warfare” doctrine requires—what the world should look like when the war is over.

But now we know how Obama will answer these questions and the question of how he will handle national security during his remaining years in office. As usual, his speech was burdened with contradictions but not to so great an extent that it disguised his clear intentions.

Near the beginning, and at various points throughout the speech, Obama said that we are still threatened by terrorism—“from Benghazi to Boston”—and that we need to continue our fight against al-Qaida and its allies. And, of course, we do because those enemies—al-Qaida, Hizballah and so many others—have not been defeated. Not to be bothersome about it, but neither have Iran and Syria, which are two of the major sponsors of Islamic terrorism.
Obama said, “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Neither I nor any president can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil nor stamp out every danger to our open society.” Evidently he wants to reduce terrorism to a level we can tolerate. Really?
And, most of all, Obama wants to repeal the legal authority for us to conduct this war. He believes the 12-year old Authorization for the Use of Military Force has outlived its usefulness. He said, “So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

Let’s take these things one at a time. First, while admitting that the terrorist enemy hasn’t been defeated, Obama is ready to repeal the AUMF. There’s only one problem with that: The enemy gets a vote in when the war is over, and if the enemy isn’t defeated, his vote is a resounding “no.”
Obama said repeatedly that al-Qaida and its allies were still a major threat. (He said their “core” is on a “path to defeat in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Which means they—with their Taliban allies—still can achieve victory in both nations. Obama said that we would rely on Afghan security forces to ensure that “…al-Qaida can never again establish a safe haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.” Good luck with that.)
If, as Obama admits, al-Qaida and its affiliated forces are determined to keep fighting (as the four victims in Benghazi would testify if they were alive, al-Qaida and its allies manifestly are) there are only two choices. Either we fight until they are defeated, or we lose the war.

Obama means to establish a Kerryesque terror “overwatch” strategy, as Kerry proposed in his 2004 campaign. But how do you reduce terrorism to a tolerable level?
That’s not possible to do, unless Islamic terrorism is so limited so that it cannot again reach the United States or our allies. But that’s a quixotic dream. Islamic terrorists are never long content with killing each other and innocent civilians in their world. Our intelligence operations will never be good enough to spot every terrorist cell that wants to blow up a U.S. airliner, a nightclub in London, or a seaside restaurant in Israel. The ideology that is Islam requires it.
It may be politically impossible for Obama to undo the AUMF in whole or in part. The reason for that is that Obama is trying, again, to create a political fiction. The war isn’t over just because he says it is. It’s only over when we win or lose. And while we are aghast at Obama’s approach to terror, we’d better pay more attention to what may be another Obama assault on our constitutional freedoms.

Unreported by the media, Obama’s speech included a proposal for a “Privacy and Civil Liberties Board.” What is that? In Obama’s words, speaking about why we don’t deport people or imprison them without evidence, he said “That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the s

Legal Assistant

Apparently Reilly likes the new office and has taken to curling up under the desk at my feet!