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.

For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent

Prima Facia- So far blocked in court

Current issue -This is a request for assistance in ongoing stalking of a elder crime victim, and witness intimidation. Civil and Criminal violations to Leota Ann Frank a 74 year old elder, USA citizen, Civil Rights being violated by offical Misconduct under color of the law violations in Riverside County. Documented Fraud in Riverside Superior Court by the DA and his staff prosecutor Daima Calhoun, Coroner, APS, County Supervisors, DA Victim Advocate staff, and attorney all making a false Statement of Fact to try to prevent evidence of corruption in court. This was stopped by filing a Lemine by Lee Frank with help of internal affairs going around court staff obstruction to serve legal council of county. Proof in every step of corruption documented by mail, email and fax correspondence. Documented proof of officials knowledge and intention obstruction of justice. This Fraud includes official financial abuse. Unfortunately a prior denial by your agency with a reply that this crime was a incident and not a pattern of corruption has proven to be incorrect, and well documented by Melody Scott and the Care Center loss of License. Currently a lawsuit is filed pro se in Riverside County Superior Court, and Los Angeles Federal Court. The current judge states denial of Federal Court, giving indication that there may be Legislative involvement of Brian Floyd. Sheriff audio recording of Phil Reddish a Norco High Wrestling Coach and father of 27 year old attacker. Phil Reddish states on he has assistance by Brian Floyd past Chief Deputy prior position of Senator Rod Pacheco. Lee Frank has been unable to find a attorney to take a case for Civil Rights Violations by officials. The attack of 68 year old Nye Frank was done with intentional and professionally trained martial art moves that used strangulation and smothering techniques known to cause death. The autopsy factually documents the strangulation. The Coroner has homicide with natural cause of death on the report currently

We have a first opportunity for court

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

False Arrest The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:xsg_D3OUnnIJ:public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-misconduct-rights.html+false+claim+against+crime+victim+constitutional+violation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Brian Floyd the Legislative Rep in Riverside County that Phil Reddish states helping him to cover up homicide is now going against a mandamus to enforce the law

There are no common-law offenses against the United States, and one may be subject to punishment for crime in a federal court only for the commission or omission of an act defined by statute or regulation having legislative authority, and then only if punishment is authorized by Congress. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:c1KTay-Fv2EJ:www.answers.com/topic/criminal-law+legislative+homicide+cover+up+equal+to+criminal+conduct+chargeable&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are no common-law offenses against the United States, and one may be subject to punishment for crime in a federal court only for the commission or omission of an act defined by statute or regulation having legislative authority, and then only if punishment is authorized by Congress. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:c1KTay-Fv2EJ:www.answers.com/topic/criminal-law+legislative+homicide+cover+up+equal+to+criminal+conduct+chargeable&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Aldinger v. Howard, supra, held "only that a city may not be joined as a pendent party to an action when there is no independent source of federal jurisdiction over" that party http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:wRo-kHPJjvMJ:ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/572/572.F2d.98.76-2593.html+federal+cause+of+action+constitutional+violation+court+cases&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Brian Floyd the District Attorney Campaine managers brother showed up in court for Ty Reddish. He works for the group that represents the DA office. Right now they have a false statement of fact in Federal Court, maybe two. Exparte meetings with the judge already. This case can shine a light on some really bad things happening in Riverside County

Lee Frank is still a stalking victim with full knowledge of the current District Attorney and Sheriff along with the Supervisors

Since Monroe v. Pape, supra, this Court has consistently avoided attaching any requirement of ulterior purpose or improper motive to the statement of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. Cf. Nesmith v. Alford, 5 Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 110; Pierson v. Ray, 5 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 213, reversed on other grounds, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288. Of course, when an essential element of the wrong itself under well established principles of tort law includes the demonstration of an improper motive as in malicious prosecution

[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

Elder abuse, federal courts

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

I never imagined being a crime victim. I never dreamed of so much corruption. I am shocked it happens with official blind eye to such a extream it shuts down a community care for each other.

There are no common-law offenses against the United States, and one may be subject to punishment for crime in a federal court only for the commission or omission of an act defined by statute or regulation having legislative authority, and then only if punishment is authorized by Congress. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:c1KTay-Fv2EJ:www.answers.com/topic/criminal-law+legislative+homicide+cover+up+equal+to+criminal+conduct+chargeable&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are no common-law offenses against the United States, and one may be subject to punishment for crime in a federal court only for the commission or omission of an act defined by statute or regulation having legislative authority, and then only if punishment is authorized by Congress. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:c1KTay-Fv2EJ:www.answers.com/topic/criminal-law+legislative+homicide+cover+up+equal+to+criminal+conduct+chargeable&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are no common-law offenses against the United States, and one may be subject to punishment for crime in a federal court only for the commission or omission of an act defined by statute or regulation having legislative authority, and then only if punishment is authorized by Congress. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:c1KTay-Fv2EJ:www.answers.com/topic/criminal-law+legislative+homicide+cover+up+equal+to+criminal+conduct+chargeable&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Judge removed himself now says he qualifies. You have to ask yourself what motive does the DA have to have to have this judge in homicide cover up of Nye Frank. Just another example of more corruption in the Riverside County Courts

The judge who we filed a Lemine regarding corruption has now decided he can hear the case again

", concluding that the Navarros failed to offer any evidence of a County policy or custom of treating domestic violence 911 calls differently from non-domestic violence 911 calls, nor any evidence of a County policy or custom of depriving residents in minority neighborhoods of equal police protection, nor any evidence of the Sheriff's deliberate or conscious indifference to the rights of abused women or residents in minority neighborhoods. 2 The Navarros now appeal."

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.