Is it Violation of Constitutional Law if ..

[zddoodah]

the settlement agreement is illegal due to omission of important clauses like tax liability .

Huh? What sort of case? Why would you think a settlement agreement include anything about "tax liability," and why would you think the omission of such a clause would render the agreement "illegal"?

The aggrieved appealed on it with Appellate Court and the appeal accepted .

How was this party aggrieved? Did this person sign the settlement agreement? What does "the appeal accepted" mean? Does it mean that the appellate court reversed what the lower court did? Otherwise, there is no "acceptance" when it comes to first appeals.

Are the constitutional and fundamental rights of the aggrieved party (which believes the settlement agreement is illegal ) violated in this situation ?

Nothing you have written indicates any sort of constitutional issue whatsoever. Of course, your post is vague and largely devoid of relevant factual information, so it's impossible to have any certainty about this.

As aggrieved party I felt the settlement was unfair and hence appealed .

If you thought the settlement was unfair, why did you agree to it? Dissatisfaction with a settlement is not a valid basis for an appeal.

Appeal is accepted based on duress ,coercion and public policy violation.

What public policy? How were you coerced or under duress?

I was curious to know if any constitutional violations occurred in this situation .

Without any actual facts, there is no way anyone here could speak intelligently about this.

 

[quincy]

Huh? What sort of case? Why would you think a settlement agreement include anything about "tax liability," and why would you think the omission of such a clause would render the agreement "illegal"?



How was this party aggrieved? Did this person sign the settlement agreement? What does "the appeal accepted" mean? Does it mean that the appellate court reversed what the lower court did? Otherwise, there is no "acceptance" when it comes to first appeals.



Nothing you have written indicates any sort of constitutional issue whatsoever. Of course, your post is vague and largely devoid of relevant factual information, so it's impossible to have any certainty about this.



If you thought the settlement was unfair, why did you agree to it? Dissatisfaction with a settlement is not a valid basis for an appeal.



What public policy? How were you coerced or under duress?



Without any actual facts, there is no way anyone here could speak intelligently about this.

Read his previous thread.

 

[Just Blue]

Huh? What sort of case? Why would you think a settlement agreement include anything about "tax liability," and why would you think the omission of such a clause would render the agreement "illegal"?



How was this party aggrieved? Did this person sign the settlement agreement? What does "the appeal accepted" mean? Does it mean that the appellate court reversed what the lower court did? Otherwise, there is no "acceptance" when it comes to first appeals.



Nothing you have written indicates any sort of constitutional issue whatsoever. Of course, your post is vague and largely devoid of relevant factual information, so it's impossible to have any certainty about this.



If you thought the settlement was unfair, why did you agree to it? Dissatisfaction with a settlement is not a valid basis for an appeal.



What public policy? How were you coerced or under duress?



Without any actual facts, there is no way anyone here could speak intelligently about this.

This isn't OP's case. OP appears to be assisting the plaintiff, who is in India. It seems to me OP may be in danger of practicing law without a license.

 

[quincy]

This isn't OP's case. OP appears to be assisting the plaintiff, who is in India. It seems to me OP may be in danger of practicing law without a license.

Not only is the plaintiff in India, I believe careers4u100 is also in India. And the plaintiff apparently has an attorney.

The DOL complaint itself was filed in 2006. It seems careers4u100 stepped in to assist his associate (the plaintiff) but has always seemed a bit over-involved in the plaintiff’s legal matter.

 

[adjusterjack]

Don't need to argue about the who or the where. The answers don't change.

 

[quincy]

Don't need to argue about the who or the where. The answers don't change.

Agreed. There is also an attorney involved and this attorney should be able to answer any additional questions careers4u100 might have - if the plaintiff permits his attorney to discuss his legal affairs with careers4u100.