The power of a Review Tribunal begins and ends by determining whether the record contains substantial, contradictory or untested evidence supporting the result; and the Tribunal must consider, on the benefit of the finding below, that it is entirely clear that the tatertum could reasonably have inferred evidence. A summary of Virginia`s statement shows that Virginia was «very disturbed and concerned about the possibility of losing her children the next day, and [she] would have signed a pact with the devil.» The Lawyer for the Virginia Divorce of Orange County testified that there was so much emotion and so much trouble… between Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez during this period. The testimony of Virginia`s Orange County divorce lawyer confirmed Virginia`s emotional stress and the fact that Thomas had a very strong impact on her. However, counsel for Thomas` divorce in Orange County argued that the evidence simply proved that Virginia signed the agreement because she wanted to avoid the custody hearing scheduled by Thomas and his Orange County divorce lawyer as part of their legal rights, and this is just a classic example of threatening to sue on the basis of a belief. This did not force. Other findings support the conclusion that Virginia signed under duress and that its implementation of the agreement was not just a compromise between legal rights and obligations. There is no doubt that the Orange County Divorce Court could reasonably have interpreted Thomas` threats as a threatening statement that he would illegally take the children to Mexico, so that she would never see them again if she had not signed the agreement.
Here, the argument of the immigration attorney of Thomas Orange County can not be without cause. The constraint is closely related to coercion, but does not necessarily involve a distinctive threat or come from a party involved. If, in one way or another, an external force crushes a person`s free will to refuse to sign, then there has been a constraint. In some situations, individuals may be able to provide written evidence of the threats that coercion existed. (1) the applicant`s training and business experience; 2. the applicant`s time before signing the property or access to the agreement; 3. the applicant`s role in deciding the terms of the contract; (4) the clarity of the agreement; (5) if the applicant has been represented or consulted by a lawyer; 6) if the consideration awarded against the waiver is greater than the benefits of the workers to whom the worker was already entitled by contract or by law;  if [the employer] encourages [d] or prevents the worker from consulting a lawyer;  if the worker had a fair opportunity to do so.