Group items tagged

1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009 CHAPTER 611A CRIME VICTIMS: RIGHTS, PROGRAMS, AGENCIES DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 611A.01 DEFINITIONS. 611A.015 SCOPE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS. 611A.02 NOTIFICATION OF VICTIM SERVICES AND VICTIMS' RIGHTS. 611A.021 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO REQUEST WITHHOLDING OF CERTAIN PUBLIC DATA. 611A.03 PLEA AGREEMENTS; NOTIFICATION. 611A.0301 RIGHT TO SUBMIT STATEMENT AT PLEA PRESENTATION HEARING. 611A.031 VICTIM INPUT REGARDING PRETRIAL DIVERSION. 611A.0311 DOMESTIC ABUSE PROSECUTIONS PLAN AND PROCEDURES; PILOT PROGRAM. 611A.0315 VICTIM NOTIFICATION; DOMESTIC ASSAULT; CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT; HARASSMENT. 611A.032 INACTIVE. 611A.033 SPEEDY TRIAL; NOTICE OF SCHEDULE CHANGE. 611A.034 SEPARATE WAITING AREAS IN COURTHOUSE. 611A.035 CONFIDENTIALITY OF VICTIM'S ADDRESS. 611A.036 PROHIBITION AGAINST EMPLOYER RETALIATION. 611A.037 PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; VICTIM IMPACT; NOTICE. 611A.038 RIGHT TO SUBMIT STATEMENT AT SENTENCING. 611A.0385 SENTENCING; IMPLEMENTATION OF RIGHT TO NOTICE OF OFFENDER RELEASE AND EXPUNGEMENT. 611A.039 RIGHT TO NOTICE OF FINAL DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASE. 611A.0392 NOTICE TO COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION GROUP. 611A.0393 CRIME ALERTS; VIOLENT CRIMES; DISABLED ACCESS. 611A.0395 RIGHT TO INFORMATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S APPEAL. 611A.04 ORDER OF RESTITUTION. 611A.045 PROCEDURE FOR ISSUING ORDER OF RESTITUTION. 611A.046 VICTIM'S RIGHT TO REQUEST PROBATION REVIEW HEARING. 611A.05 PENALTIES NO BAR TO CIVIL REMEDIES. 611A.06 RIGHT TO NOTICE OF RELEASE. ELECTRONIC MONITORING 611A.07 ELECTRONIC MONITORING TO PROTECT DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS; STANDARDS. BARRING PERPETRATOR RECOVERY 611A.08 BARRING PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES FROM RECOVERING FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING CRIMINAL CONDUCT. SEXUAL OFFENSES; DOMESTIC ABUSE AND VIOLENCE 611A.19 TESTING SEX OFFENDER FOR HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. 611A.20 NOTICE OF RISK OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION

This is Google's cache of http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance/id23.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 22, 2010 22:26:17 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Text-only versionThese terms only appear in links pointing to this page: http www vsb org profguides actions_jul06 dec06 html Citizens' Demand For An Investigation of Criminal Conspiracy by Beltway Attorneys and Judges Ib. Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint for Conspiracy Home | Letter to Congress on the Denial of the Right to Impartial Judicial Review of Misprision of a Felony | Our Purpose | Aug. 28, 2009 Letters to Preseident Obama and Gov. Kaine to Direct Response to Petition for Cert. | U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Cert. to DC Circuit to Oppose Disbarment based on VSBDB Void Order | I. Transmittal Letter to Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in the District of Columbia | Ia. D.C. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR CONSPIRACY BY JUDGES, GOVERNMENT AND BELTWAY LOBBYIST/ATTORNEYS | Ib. Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint for Conspiracy | Ic. MEMO IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT TO INDICT JUDGES FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY DEPRIVING FATHER OF RIGHTS | II. Transmittal Letter to Federal Criminal Complaint filed E.D. of Virgina | III. Transmittal Letter to Federal Criminal Complaint In Pennsylvania for Misprision of a Felony | IV. Transmittal Letter Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in Colorado for Obstruction of Justice. | V. TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR JUDGES CABRANES ET AL. VIOLATING VOID ORDER DOCTRINE | Becoming a Member | Contact Us | Calendar of Events | Members Page | Newsletter | Links United States District Court District of Columbia ________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. John G. Roberts, et al., ________________________________________________) AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION 1. I am a Citizen

Constitutional basis for legislation Congress derived its power to pass the Sherman Act through its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, Federal courts only have jurisdiction to apply the Act to conduct that restrains or substantially affects either interstate commerce or trade within the District of Columbia. This requires the plaintiff must show that the conduct occurred during the flow of interstate commerce or had an appreciable effect on some activity that occurs during interstate commerce. [edit] Elements A Section 1 violation has three elements:[16] An agreement which unreasonably restrains competition and which affects interstate commerce.

[Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause] - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEOTA ANN FRANK, pro se 16789 Valley High Drive Banning, CA 92220 (951) 849-1311 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Leota Ann Frank, Plaintiff, vs. Daima Calhoun, Michael Rushton or his successor, Cecelia Placencia, Kim Emmerling, Stanley Sniff, John Shultz, Dan Wilhelm, Jesse Martinez, Andre O'Harra, Mark Fajardo, MD, Brent Secrest, Alan Wesergeldt, Riverside Board of Supervisors, Adult Protective Services, Victim's Compensation Board, inclusive Defendants )))))))))) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CV10-643 PA (PJWx) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER OF APRIL 5, 2010 On April 5, 2010, Judge Percy Anderson issued an Order to Shaw Cause why Plaintiff's complaint against defendants "should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction." Plaintiff submits this response and evidence appendix (hereafter Appendix) as answer to the show cause order as to why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As the scope of the "Order to Show Cause" is specifically directed at

Lee Frank and Nye Frank were accused of a crime, without right to defend

Crimes Causing Harm to Property Depending on the value of the property involved, as well as the level of violence, most property crimes fall into the category of felony in Texas. The legal definition of theft is unlawfully taking the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property. This definition is much broader than what most people think of as theft. It includes embezzlement, keeping found property without making a reasonable attempt to find its rightful owner, obtaining the services of another person or telecommunication services by fraud, shoplifting, unauthorized access to credit cards, and writing bad checks. Robbery is similar to theft; in fact, theft is a part of robbery. A person commits robbery if, during a theft, he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person, threatens a person, or places another person in fear of immediate injury or death. Aggravated robbery, which is a felony of the first degree, is a robbery in which a person is seriously injured or in which the defendant uses a deadly weapon. If the robbery causes fear of immediate injury or death to a victim who is 65 years of age or older, or who has a mental, physical, or developmental disability, the crime also constitutes an aggravated robbery. Burglary is entering into a building, portion of a building, or habitation with the intent to commit theft or a felony there. Not only is it burglary to enter a house unlawfully with the intent to steal money or property, but it is also burglary to enter with the intent to commit a felony such as arson or murder. White Collar Crimes http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/tx/law/c13.html#txc130500

"The uncontested facts show that Evans cannot satisfy the requirement of "affirmatively prov[ing] prejudice." It is inconceivable to us, and not merely improbable as in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 644 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 2257 n. 12, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), that Evans would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received. It just is not believable that Evans did all the things he does not deny having done, involving elaborate negotiations with the police over several hours, in some sort of alcohol-induced trance. In this respect the present case resembles Morgan v. Israel, 735 F.2d 1033 (7th Cir.1984). In evaluating the voluntariness of Morgan's failure to plead not guilty we said, "It is sufficiently clear that Morgan had no hope at all of an acquittal to enable us to infer that he would not have changed his plea to not guilty .... He admitted having shot Mallason; and when you shoot a person several times, with fatal results, the inference of deliberate homicide is irresistible .... The jury never would have believed that he lacked the ... elementary mental capacity required to form a murderous intent...." Id. at 1036. So here, no jury could have believed that Evans was not acting deliberately when he did all the things he did in the police station. Therefore, being told that if he had not been acting deliberately he would have been acquitted of some of the offenses with which he was charged could not have led him to change his plea and to win acquittal."

This formal approach to the meaning of due process could obviously have limited both Congress and the state legislatures in the development of procedures unknown to English law. But when California's abandonment of indictment by grand jury was challenged, the Court refused to be limited by the fact that such proceeding was the English practice and that Coke had indicated that it was a proceeding required as "the law of the land." The meaning of the Court in Murray's Lessee was "that a process of law, which is not otherwise forbidden, must be taken to be due process of law, if it can show the sanction of settled usage both in England and in this country; but it by no means follows that nothing else can be due process of law." To hold that only historical, traditional procedures can constitute due process, the Court said, "would be to deny every quality of the law but its age, and to render it incapable[p.1348]of progress or improvement."23 Therefore, in observing the due process guarantee, it was concluded, the Court must look "not [to] particular forms of procedures, but [to] the very substance of individual rights to life, liberty, and property." The due process clause prescribed "the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions. . . . It follows that any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law."24 http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:zSDVmdAbFyMJ:www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag2_user.html+Extending+Due+Process+to+Undisclosed+Evidence&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://nyefrank.typepad.com Elder Crime Victims and Victims of misuse of the judicial system corruption in the Riverside County DA, Superior Courts, Probate courts