recognizes our relationships to each other and the responsibilities that those relationships create. There was an employer-employee relationship between the NHA and Mr. Tso. That relationship created duties and responsibilities between the NHA and Mr. Tso. It has been determined that the NHA wrongfully damaged that relationship. There are many ways to address a damaged relationship, and in this case the issue was addressed formally by the Labor Commission and the courts. The NHA now has the responsibility to compensate Mr. Tso as directed by the courts. To disregard the responsibilities of a relationship, or to refuse to make amends as required, is shameful and without rationale. See Arizona Public Service Co. v. Office of Navajo Labor Relations, 6 Nav. R. 246 (Nav.Sup.Ct.1990) (<HOLDING>). The NHA argues that the “U.S. Department of
holding that each plaintiff is liable for fees if he would have been entitled to his fees if he had prevailed holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that the district courts refusal to instruct on duress was proper where defendant testified that he set up a cocaine deal because he feared a prospective buyer was mafiaconnected and would kill him or someone in his family if he did not act recognizing the saying to describe someone who has misbehaved as he acts as if he had no relatives