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

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

"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 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.

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

Uncovering Misconduct in Riverside County- up against a big blue wall

http://www.diigo.com/search?what=you+tube+nye+frank+racing Stalking by the killer and his parents against a elder and her family is ok for Riverside County Sheriff an DA.This month Rod Pacheco will do a Victims march. In 2008 he got a award for a elder crime victim advocate program that he had Federal Funding for. Elder Lee Frank was told by County DA Victim Advocate there was not a elder advocate in RiversideCounty. But Rod Pacheco got a public award for his great program for elder advocate that year.

http://www.diigo.com/search?what=you+tube+nye+frank+racing Stalking by the killer and his parents against a elder and her family is ok for Riverside County Sheriff an DA.This month Rod Pacheco will do a Victims march. In 2008 he got a award for a elder crime victim advocate program that he had Federal Funding for. Elder Lee Frank was told by County DA Victim Advocate there was not a elder advocate in RiversideCounty. But Rod Pacheco got a public award for his great program for elder advocate that year.