Group items tagged

Results 1 - 10 of about 33,100 for nye frank drag racing, craig breedlove. (0.31 seconds) › All results Videos Forums Reviews › Any time Recent results Past 24 hours Past week Past year › Specific date range From: To: ex: 5/23/2004 › Standard view Related searches Wonder wheel Timeline › Standard results Images from the page Prices from the page More text Hide allMore searches: * Recently Used * News o CNN o New York Times o Wall Street Journal o Forbes o Time Magazine o Economist o LA Times o UK Telegraph o TechCrunch o Globe and Mail o Factiva * Communities o Twitter o Facebook o LinkedIn o Ning o Flickr o Yelp o Digg o Reddit o Delicious o Technorati o Google Groups o Fluther o Hacker News * Knowledge o Wikipedia o Google Books o Scribd o Docstoc o Google Scholar o Life Photos o RecipePuppy o SnappyFingers * Entertainment o YouTube o Last.fm o Huffington Post * Shopping o Amazon o Y! Shopping o eBay o StubHub o Dawdle * Search o Bing o OneRiot o Bit.ly Links o BackType o Twingly * WebMynd o WebMynd History o My Top Sites Sites | Configure | Help | FeedbackDoneBack We welcome your feedback: Add, remove, and rank your search tools. CloseYouTube CloseTwitter CloseLinkedIn CloseNing CloseFlickr CloseYelp CloseDigg CloseReddit CloseGoogle Books CloseScribd CloseDocstoc CloseGoogle Scholar CloseCNN CloseAmazon CloseBing CloseWebMynd History CloseLife Photos CloseRecipePuppy CloseNew York Times CloseDelicious CloseTechnorati CloseFluther CloseSnappyFinger

Results 1 - 10 of about 33,100 for nye frank drag racing, craig breedlove. (0.31 seconds) › All results Videos Forums Reviews › Any time Recent results Past 24 hours Past week Past year › Specific date range From: To: ex: 5/23/2004 › Standard view Related searches Wonder wheel Timeline › Standard results Images from the page Prices from the page More text Hide allMore searches: * Recently Used * News o CNN o New York Times o Wall Street Journal o Forbes o Time Magazine o Economist o LA Times o UK Telegraph o TechCrunch o Globe and Mail o Factiva * Communities o Twitter o Facebook o LinkedIn o Ning o Flickr o Yelp o Digg o Reddit o Delicious o Technorati o Google Groups o Fluther o Hacker News * Knowledge o Wikipedia o Google Books o Scribd o Docstoc o Google Scholar o Life Photos o RecipePuppy o SnappyFingers * Entertainment o YouTube o Last.fm o Huffington Post * Shopping o Amazon o Y! Shopping o eBay o StubHub o Dawdle * Search o Bing o OneRiot o Bit.ly Links o BackType o Twingly * WebMynd o WebMynd History o My Top Sites Sites | Configure | Help | FeedbackDoneBack We welcome your feedback: Add, remove, and rank your search tools. CloseYouTube CloseTwitter CloseLinkedIn CloseNing CloseFlickr CloseYelp CloseDigg CloseReddit CloseGoogle Books CloseScribd CloseDocstoc CloseGoogle Scholar CloseCNN CloseAmazon CloseBing CloseWebMynd History CloseLife Photos CloseRecipePuppy CloseNew York Times CloseDelicious CloseTechnorati CloseFluther CloseSnappyFinger

Results 1 - 10 of about 33,100 for nye frank drag racing, craig breedlove. (0.31 seconds) › All results Videos Forums Reviews › Any time Recent results Past 24 hours Past week Past year › Specific date range From: To: ex: 5/23/2004 › Standard view Related searches Wonder wheel Timeline › Standard results Images from the page Prices from the page More text Hide allMore searches: * Recently Used * News o CNN o New York Times o Wall Street Journal o Forbes o Time Magazine o Economist o LA Times o UK Telegraph o TechCrunch o Globe and Mail o Factiva * Communities o Twitter o Facebook o LinkedIn o Ning o Flickr o Yelp o Digg o Reddit o Delicious o Technorati o Google Groups o Fluther o Hacker News * Knowledge o Wikipedia o Google Books o Scribd o Docstoc o Google Scholar o Life Photos o RecipePuppy o SnappyFingers * Entertainment o YouTube o Last.fm o Huffington Post * Shopping o Amazon o Y! Shopping o eBay o StubHub o Dawdle * Search o Bing o OneRiot o Bit.ly Links o BackType o Twingly * WebMynd o WebMynd History o My Top Sites Sites | Configure | Help | FeedbackDoneBack We welcome your feedback: Add, remove, and rank your search tools. CloseYouTube CloseTwitter CloseLinkedIn CloseNing CloseFlickr CloseYelp CloseDigg CloseReddit CloseGoogle Books CloseScribd CloseDocstoc CloseGoogle Scholar CloseCNN CloseAmazon CloseBing CloseWebMynd History CloseLife Photos CloseRecipePuppy CloseNew York Times CloseDelicious CloseTechnorati CloseFluther CloseSnappyFinger

Page 1 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DECEMBER 1, 2008 UN UM E PLURIBUS Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Page 2 110 TH C ONGRESS " COMMITTEE PRINT ! No. 8 2nd Session FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DECEMBER 1, 2008 UN UM E PLURIBUS Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 Page 3 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY O NE H UNDRED T ENTH C ONGRESS JOHN CONYERS, J R ., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JERROLD NADLER, New York ROBERT C. ''BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts ROBERT WEXLER, Florida LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee HANK JOHNSON, Georgia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota LAMAR SMITH, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, J R ., Wisconsin HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California CHRIS CANNON, Utah RIC KELLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE KING, Iowa TOM FEENEY, Florida TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JIM JORDAN, Ohio P ERRY A PELBAUM , Staff Director and Chief Counsel S EAN M C L AUGHLIN , Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel ( II ) Page 4 FOREWORD This document contains the Federal Rules of Evidence, as amended to December 1, 2008. The rules were enacted by Public Law 93-595 (approved January 2, 1975) and have be

Page 1 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DECEMBER 1, 2008 UN UM E PLURIBUS Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Page 2 110 TH C ONGRESS " COMMITTEE PRINT ! No. 8 2nd Session FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DECEMBER 1, 2008 UN UM E PLURIBUS Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 Page 3 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY O NE H UNDRED T ENTH C ONGRESS JOHN CONYERS, J R ., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JERROLD NADLER, New York ROBERT C. ''BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts ROBERT WEXLER, Florida LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee HANK JOHNSON, Georgia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota LAMAR SMITH, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, J R ., Wisconsin HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California CHRIS CANNON, Utah RIC KELLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE KING, Iowa TOM FEENEY, Florida TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JIM JORDAN, Ohio P ERRY A PELBAUM , Staff Director and Chief Counsel S EAN M C L AUGHLIN , Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel ( II ) Page 4 FOREWORD This document contains the Federal Rules of Evidence, as amended to December 1, 2008. The rules were enacted by Public Law 93-595 (approved January 2, 1975) and have be

Page 1 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DECEMBER 1, 2008 UN UM E PLURIBUS Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Page 2 110 TH C ONGRESS " COMMITTEE PRINT ! No. 8 2nd Session FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DECEMBER 1, 2008 UN UM E PLURIBUS Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 Page 3 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY O NE H UNDRED T ENTH C ONGRESS JOHN CONYERS, J R ., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JERROLD NADLER, New York ROBERT C. ''BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts ROBERT WEXLER, Florida LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee HANK JOHNSON, Georgia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota LAMAR SMITH, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, J R ., Wisconsin HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California CHRIS CANNON, Utah RIC KELLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE KING, Iowa TOM FEENEY, Florida TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JIM JORDAN, Ohio P ERRY A PELBAUM , Staff Director and Chief Counsel S EAN M C L AUGHLIN , Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel ( II ) Page 4 FOREWORD This document contains the Federal Rules of Evidence, as amended to December 1, 2008. The rules were enacted by Public Law 93-595 (approved January 2, 1975) and have be

1 C ONSTITUTIONAL L AW O UTLINE I. The Building Blocks Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall - political struggle between John Adams and Federalists and successor Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans - Commissions for justices signed by Adams but not yet delivered when he left office; Jefferson administration refused to honor appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered - Marbury : would-be justice of the peace; brought suit directly in S.Ct. sought writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver their commissions - Madison : Secretary of State for Jefferson - Which branch shall have final say interpreting the Constitution? Q1: Does Marbury have a RIGHT to commission? Q2: Does he have a REMEDY? Q3: Is remedy a MANDAMUS? Q4: Can a mandamus be issued from THIS COURT? Marshall's Decision: a. Right to Commission: Yes, on facts and law he has a legal right b. Remedy: Yes, judicial remedy will not interfere improperly with executive's constitutional discretion (Marshall acknowledged that there are some Qs which legislature is better equipped to deal with but this is not one of them) c. Mandamus not allowed i. § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 allows Court to issue mandamus ii. Article III § 2(2) gives Court original jurisdiction in a few cases and appellate jurisdiction in the rest. Writ of mandamus not among the cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on S.Ct. Congressional statute at odds with Constitution d. Supremacy of Constitution: If S.Ct. identifies a conflict between const. provision and congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. i. Constitution is paramount: The very purpose of written constitution is to establish fundamental and paramount law. An act which is repugnant to C cannot become law of the land. ii. Who interprets: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicia

1 C ONSTITUTIONAL L AW O UTLINE I. The Building Blocks Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall - political struggle between John Adams and Federalists and successor Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans - Commissions for justices signed by Adams but not yet delivered when he left office; Jefferson administration refused to honor appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered - Marbury : would-be justice of the peace; brought suit directly in S.Ct. sought writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver their commissions - Madison : Secretary of State for Jefferson - Which branch shall have final say interpreting the Constitution? Q1: Does Marbury have a RIGHT to commission? Q2: Does he have a REMEDY? Q3: Is remedy a MANDAMUS? Q4: Can a mandamus be issued from THIS COURT? Marshall's Decision: a. Right to Commission: Yes, on facts and law he has a legal right b. Remedy: Yes, judicial remedy will not interfere improperly with executive's constitutional discretion (Marshall acknowledged that there are some Qs which legislature is better equipped to deal with but this is not one of them) c. Mandamus not allowed i. § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 allows Court to issue mandamus ii. Article III § 2(2) gives Court original jurisdiction in a few cases and appellate jurisdiction in the rest. Writ of mandamus not among the cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on S.Ct. Congressional statute at odds with Constitution d. Supremacy of Constitution: If S.Ct. identifies a conflict between const. provision and congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. i. Constitution is paramount: The very purpose of written constitution is to establish fundamental and paramount law. An act which is repugnant to C cannot become law of the land. ii. Who interprets: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial

1 C ONSTITUTIONAL L AW O UTLINE I. The Building Blocks Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall - political struggle between John Adams and Federalists and successor Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans - Commissions for justices signed by Adams but not yet delivered when he left office; Jefferson administration refused to honor appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered - Marbury : would-be justice of the peace; brought suit directly in S.Ct. sought writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver their commissions - Madison : Secretary of State for Jefferson - Which branch shall have final say interpreting the Constitution? Q1: Does Marbury have a RIGHT to commission? Q2: Does he have a REMEDY? Q3: Is remedy a MANDAMUS? Q4: Can a mandamus be issued from THIS COURT? Marshall's Decision: a. Right to Commission: Yes, on facts and law he has a legal right b. Remedy: Yes, judicial remedy will not interfere improperly with executive's constitutional discretion (Marshall acknowledged that there are some Qs which legislature is better equipped to deal with but this is not one of them) c. Mandamus not allowed i. § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 allows Court to issue mandamus ii. Article III § 2(2) gives Court original jurisdiction in a few cases and appellate jurisdiction in the rest. Writ of mandamus not among the cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on S.Ct. Congressional statute at odds with Constitution d. Supremacy of Constitution: If S.Ct. identifies a conflict between const. provision and congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. i. Constitution is paramount: The very purpose of written constitution is to establish fundamental and paramount law. An act which is repugnant to C cannot become law of the land. ii. Who interprets: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial

FAMED BUILDER NYE FRANK DIES Article from: Dirtsports Article date: October 1, 2007 Author: Anonymous | Copyright information Copyright Advanstar Communications, Inc. Oct 2007. Provided by ProQuest LLC. ( Hide copyright information ) Famed off-road builder Nye Frank passed away on August 5, 2007. Frank, who was 68 years old and considered by many to be one of the greatest motorsports builders of all time, died after an altercation with a 27-year-old neighbor. Frank had walked back to his Twin Pines, Calif., home with his wife after the event but was later found to be unresponsive. Paramedics were called and performed CPR, but efforts to revive him failed and Frank was pronounced dead a short-time later. Frank worked on everything from the famous Freight Train AA drag racer to Craig Breedlove's land-speed cars to Indy cars, and was associated with names such as Mickey ... Read all of this article with a FREE trial Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles:

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . . In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress' powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Ai

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . . In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress' powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Ai

Federal Criminal Enforcement It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies. These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including

What information should I include in a complaint to DOJ? Your complaint, whether alleging violations of criminal or civil laws listed in this document, should include the following information: Your name, address, and telephone number(s). The name(s) of the law enforcement agency (or agencies) involved. A description of the conduct you believe violates one of the laws discussed above, with as many details as possible. You should include: the dates and times of incident(s); any injuries sustained; the name(s), or other identifying information, of the officer(s) involved (if possible); and any other examples of similar misconduct. The names and telephone numbers of witnesses who can support your allegations. If you believe that the misconduct is based on your race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability, please identify the basis and explain what led you to believe that you were treated in a discriminatory manner (i.e., differently from persons of another race, sex, etc.). Reproduction of this document is encouraged.

This duty to accommodate is perfectly consistent with the well-established due process principle that, "within the limits of practicability, a State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard" in its courts. Boddie, 401 U. S., at 379 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).20 Our cases have recognized a number of affirmative obligations that flow from this principle: the duty to waive filing fees in certain family-law and criminal cases,21 the duty to provide transcripts to criminal defendants seeking review of their convictions,22 and the duty to provide counsel to certain criminal defendants.23 Each of these cases makes clear that ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State's failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts. Judged against this backdrop, Title II's affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice cannot be said to be "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior." Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532; Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86.24 It is, rather, a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end. For these reasons, we conclude that Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' §5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.

Sort by date / Sort by relevance Not finding it? Try our advanced search or look for ... * statistics from BJS * juvenile justice info from OJJDP * victim and victim service provider info from OVC * assistance programs from BJA * abstracts and publications from NCJRS Search all Office of Justice Programs agencies. [PDF] When Silenced Voices Speak: An Exploratory Study of Prostitute ... ... variance. Trained raters examined 123 closed homicide files (49 single and 74 serial victims, respectively) submitted fiom U. S. law ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/198117.pdf - 2005-02-11 - Text Version [PDF] Investigation and Prosecution of Homicide Cases in the US: The ... ... Document Title: Investigation and Prosecution of Homicide Cases in the US: The Process for Federal Involvement ... Homicide Cases in the US: ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/214753.pdf - 2006-07-17 - Text Version [ More results from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants ] [PDF] National Evaluation of Weed and Seed: Las Vegas Case Study ... 6 This crime measure includes four categories of violent crime-homicide, rape, robbery, and ... of Weed and Seed in Las Vegas was the exceptional level of ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/175697.pdf - 2005-02-11 - Text Version [PDF] Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research ... According to the Supplementary Homicide Reports of the FBI‟s Uniform Crime Reporting Program in 2005, 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225722.pdf - 2009-06-09 - Text Version [ More results from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij ] [PDF] Presenter Biographies ... of Three Cities: Labor Markets and Homicide," "Racial and Ethic Disparities in Imprisonment," "Racial/Ethnic Disparities and Exceptional Sentences in ... www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/events/nij_conference/2003/biographies.pdf - 2009-05-09 - Text Version [PDF] The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-Effec

Sort by date / Sort by relevance Not finding it? Try our advanced search or look for ... * statistics from BJS * juvenile justice info from OJJDP * victim and victim service provider info from OVC * assistance programs from BJA * abstracts and publications from NCJRS Search all Office of Justice Programs agencies. [PDF] When Silenced Voices Speak: An Exploratory Study of Prostitute ... ... variance. Trained raters examined 123 closed homicide files (49 single and 74 serial victims, respectively) submitted fiom U. S. law ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/198117.pdf - 2005-02-11 - Text Version [PDF] Investigation and Prosecution of Homicide Cases in the US: The ... ... Document Title: Investigation and Prosecution of Homicide Cases in the US: The Process for Federal Involvement ... Homicide Cases in the US: ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/214753.pdf - 2006-07-17 - Text Version [ More results from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants ] [PDF] National Evaluation of Weed and Seed: Las Vegas Case Study ... 6 This crime measure includes four categories of violent crime-homicide, rape, robbery, and ... of Weed and Seed in Las Vegas was the exceptional level of ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/175697.pdf - 2005-02-11 - Text Version [PDF] Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research ... According to the Supplementary Homicide Reports of the FBI‟s Uniform Crime Reporting Program in 2005, 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their ... www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225722.pdf - 2009-06-09 - Text Version [ More results from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij ] [PDF] Presenter Biographies ... of Three Cities: Labor Markets and Homicide," "Racial and Ethic Disparities in Imprisonment," "Racial/Ethnic Disparities and Exceptional Sentences in ... www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/events/nij_conference/2003/biographies.pdf - 2009-05-09 - Text Version [PDF] The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-Effec

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,840 for victim restitution funds , victims right to jury trial if denied . ( 0.43 seconds) Did you mean: victim restitution funds, victims right to jury trial is denied Search Results [DOC] Chapter 3 - 6 visits - Apr 21 File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML It reminds the judge, jury, court personnel, and parole boards of the real ..... Restitution is the oldest victim right. The concept of restitution dates back ..... hearings at which they were denied the opportunity to receive notice, ..... by the Crime Victims Fund, which is administered by the Office for Victims ... https://www.ovcttac.gov/nvaa2008/documents/participants_text/03%20Basic%20 Victims '%20 Right s.doc - Similar pages - [DOC] Draft changes to Ohio Revised Code 2930 & related Victim Rights - 2 visits - Mar 28 File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML Oct 1, 2008 ... A few Ohio judges have denied the right of victims to present both an oral and ... 8) Summary - Victims will have the right to restitution through a mandatory ... If a motion is made for modification of a restitution order, ... the Ohio Victim Compensation Fund, that restitution amount shall be paid ... www.ovwa.org/_uploaded/69.doc - Similar pages - [PDF] THE VICTIM IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML then be communicated to the issuing body (judge or grand jury). ... sentencing, the judge denied victims the right to speak. ... noted earlier, victims controlled the trial of their victimizer, but as the state took on the .... received in crime victim compensation funds. Unlike restitution and compensation ... meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR300000/newsletterpubs/ victims report.pdf - Similar pa

Criminal Resource Manual 1723 Protection of Government Processes ... The weight of authority, however, requires the government prove that the defendant had a specific intent to obstruct or impede a pending judicial proceeding ... www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01723.htm 5th Circuit: INTENT OF THREAT WILL DETERMINE SENTENCE | Article ... Therefore, sentencing enhancement would clearly...defendant had the specific intent to obstruct justice...threats he had the specific intent to ... www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-697020701.html 239 F.3d 159 Woodard argues on appeal that the district court failed to make a requisite finding that he had the "specific intent to obstruct justice," and erroneously ... bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/239/239.F3d.159.00-1323.823--.2000.html 5th Circuit: INTENT OF THREAT WILL DETERMINE SENTENCE | Organized ... A second issue before the court is whether the defendant had the specific intent to obstruct justice when he made his threats. ... findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200408/ai_n16058940/ 557 F.2d 233 ... to establish White's specific intent to obstruct justice and whether the ... Having determined that White possessed the requisite specific intent the court ... with the requirement that White be shown to have had the specific intent ... bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/557/557.F2d.233.77-1015.html Behavior of the Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial ... The court concluded that Mr. Binion's substantial rights had not been affected. ... evidence to prove that he had specific intent to obstruct justice. ... www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/34/1/126 by S Darani - 2006 - Cited by 1 - Related articles - All 2 versions 86 F.3d 263 ... that the defendant must have a specific intent to obstruct justice, "i.e., ... We need not decide in this case whether this specific intent requirement should be ... we think that he had the requisite specific intent to obstruct the ... bulk

This is the html version of the file http://contracabal.org/NewFiles/711-08-10-06-0317.pdf. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. Page 1 © Copyright 2006 by Paul Trummel. Contra Cabal #711-08-10/06-0317-2011. Page 1 of 5 Dereliction and Collusion - City of Seattle Contra Cabal 711-08-10 Alleged Dereliction and Unlawful Collusion among Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney, his assistants Michael J. Finkle and Robert W. Hood, in a consort with Stephen A. M-tch-ll, a Council House administrator, his directors, and their lawyers. Seattle Jewish Mafia (SJM), a faith-based initiative similar to Al Quaeda, has destroyed Contra Cabal web site three times. It attempted to silence the author and to cover up elder abuse by Council House directors using unlawful means to prevent constitutionally protected speech. [Seattle Jewish Mafia] [Kill the Messenger - WIP] With similar intent, Seattle City Attorney Thomas A. Carr, has issued six criminal indictments against the author. He has attempted to intimidate, silence, and return the author to jail on trumped-up charges - charges similar to those used by Judge James A. Doerty to jail and place him in solitary confinement (2002). Doerty's decision now awaits review by Washington Supreme Court. [Supreme Court Review] Carr's behavior, as an elected official, ranks as truly kafkaesque. In an attempt to preempt the Supreme Court decision, he has evidently tried to pervert the course of justice. Fabricating or interfering with evidence and threatening or intimidating witnesses both classify as criminal offenses punishable by a jail sentence. SJM has shown a pattern of racketeering (defined by the Civil Rights Act and RICO statute). A RICO pattern means two or more organized criminal acts which indicate ensuant activity. Those acts include conspiracy to commit crimes of coercion by wrongful use of force or fear. Instead of challenging the perpetrators, Carr and his team of lawyers have collud

This is the html version of the file http://contracabal.org/NewFiles/711-08-10-06-0317.pdf. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. Page 1 © Copyright 2006 by Paul Trummel. Contra Cabal #711-08-10/06-0317-2011. Page 1 of 5 Dereliction and Collusion - City of Seattle Contra Cabal 711-08-10 Alleged Dereliction and Unlawful Collusion among Thomas A. Carr, Seattle City Attorney, his assistants Michael J. Finkle and Robert W. Hood, in a consort with Stephen A. M-tch-ll, a Council House administrator, his directors, and their lawyers. Seattle Jewish Mafia (SJM), a faith-based initiative similar to Al Quaeda, has destroyed Contra Cabal web site three times. It attempted to silence the author and to cover up elder abuse by Council House directors using unlawful means to prevent constitutionally protected speech. [Seattle Jewish Mafia] [Kill the Messenger - WIP] With similar intent, Seattle City Attorney Thomas A. Carr, has issued six criminal indictments against the author. He has attempted to intimidate, silence, and return the author to jail on trumped-up charges - charges similar to those used by Judge James A. Doerty to jail and place him in solitary confinement (2002). Doerty's decision now awaits review by Washington Supreme Court. [Supreme Court Review] Carr's behavior, as an elected official, ranks as truly kafkaesque. In an attempt to preempt the Supreme Court decision, he has evidently tried to pervert the course of justice. Fabricating or interfering with evidence and threatening or intimidating witnesses both classify as criminal offenses punishable by a jail sentence. SJM has shown a pattern of racketeering (defined by the Civil Rights Act and RICO statute). A RICO pattern means two or more organized criminal acts which indicate ensuant activity. Those acts include conspiracy to commit crimes of coercion by wrongful use of force or fear. Instead of challenging the perpetrators, Carr and his team of lawyers have collud

earchable access to it via our online collection of publications. Book Overview Table of Contents Chapter 901 General Provisions 901.01 Scope 901.02 Purpose and Construction 901.03 Rulings on Evidence 901.04 Preliminary Questions (1) Judge Determines Admissibility (2) Admissibility when Relevancy Conditioned on Fact (3) Hearing out of Jury's Presence (4) Testimony by Accused (5) Weight and Credibility 901.05 Admissibility of AIDS Test Results 901.053 Admissibility of Helmet - Wearing Evidence 901.055 Admissibility of Lead-in-Dust Testing Evidence 901.06 Limited Admissibility 901.07 Rule of Completeness Chapter 902 Judicial Notice 902.01 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts 902.02 Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws 902.03 Ordinances and Administrative Rules Chapter 903 Presumptions 903.01 Presumptions in General 903.03 Presumptions in Criminal Cases Chapter 904 Relevancy 904.01 Definition of "Relevant Evidence" 904.02 Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible 904.03 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence 904.04 Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct (1) Character Evidence Generally (a) of the Accused (b) of the Victim (c) of the Witness (2) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts 904.05 Methods of Proving Character (1) Reputation or Opinion (2) Specific Instances of Conduct 904.06 Habit, Routine 904.07 Subsequent Remedial Measures 904.08 Compromise and Offers to Compromise 904.085 Communications in Mediation 904.09 Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses 904.10 Offers to Plead Guilty or No Contest; Withdrawn Guilty Pleas 904.11 Liability Insurance 904.12 Statement of Injured Person 904.13 Information Concerning Crime Victims 904.15 Communications in Farmer Assistance Programs Chapter 905 Privileges 905.01 Privileges Recognized Only as Provided 905.015 Use of Interpreter for Privileged Communi

earchable access to it via our online collection of publications. Book Overview Table of Contents Chapter 901 General Provisions 901.01 Scope 901.02 Purpose and Construction 901.03 Rulings on Evidence 901.04 Preliminary Questions (1) Judge Determines Admissibility (2) Admissibility when Relevancy Conditioned on Fact (3) Hearing out of Jury's Presence (4) Testimony by Accused (5) Weight and Credibility 901.05 Admissibility of AIDS Test Results 901.053 Admissibility of Helmet - Wearing Evidence 901.055 Admissibility of Lead-in-Dust Testing Evidence 901.06 Limited Admissibility 901.07 Rule of Completeness Chapter 902 Judicial Notice 902.01 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts 902.02 Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws 902.03 Ordinances and Administrative Rules Chapter 903 Presumptions 903.01 Presumptions in General 903.03 Presumptions in Criminal Cases Chapter 904 Relevancy 904.01 Definition of "Relevant Evidence" 904.02 Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible 904.03 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence 904.04 Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct (1) Character Evidence Generally (a) of the Accused (b) of the Victim (c) of the Witness (2) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts 904.05 Methods of Proving Character (1) Reputation or Opinion (2) Specific Instances of Conduct 904.06 Habit, Routine 904.07 Subsequent Remedial Measures 904.08 Compromise and Offers to Compromise 904.085 Communications in Mediation 904.09 Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses 904.10 Offers to Plead Guilty or No Contest; Withdrawn Guilty Pleas 904.11 Liability Insurance 904.12 Statement of Injured Person 904.13 Information Concerning Crime Victims 904.15 Communications in Farmer Assistance Programs Chapter 905 Privileges 905.01 Privileges Recognized Only as Provided 905.015 Use of Interpreter for Privileged Communi

relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant),

Page 1 Page 2 1 3/8/05 Commentary on The Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals 22 NYCRR part 500, Effective September 1, 2005 A. Structure The Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals apply to civil and noncapital criminal appeals, motions, criminal leave applications and certified questions from the Supreme Court of the United States, United States courts of appeal and state courts of last resort. The Court of Appeals recently rescinded in its entirety 22 NYCRR part 500 and approved a new part 500 which will be effective September 1, 2005. In addition to reflecting substantive changes and additions to the old Rules of Practice, the new Rules are organized into broad categories to eliminate duplication and provide a more logical sequence. New Rules 500.1 through 500.8 set out requirements applicable to all filings under these Rules. New Rules 500.9 through 500.19 relate to civil and noncapital criminal appeals. New Rule 500.20 contains procedures concerning criminal leave applications. Motions are addressed in new Rules 500.21 through 500.24. Orders to show cause, the Primary Election Session and certified questions are addressed in new Rules 500.25, 500.26 and 500.27, respectively. Finally, old Rule 500.13, relating to real property actions, was deleted as unnecessary. Page 3 2 B. General Requirements 500.1 General Requirements [Old Rule 500.1] New Rule 500.1 states the general requirements for papers submitted to the Court of Appeals. The Rule generally applies to "papers filed," which is defined in section 500.1(b) as all briefs, papers filed pursuant to sections 500.10 (Examination of Subject Matter Jurisdiction) and 500.11 (Alternative Procedure for Selected Appeals), motion papers and appendices. The typeface and font requirements match those recently adopted by the Appellate Division Departments following repeal of the portion of CPLR 5529 that set out specifications for such matters. New Rule 500.1(h) informs self-represented litigants that illegibl

Page 1 Page 2 1 3/8/05 Commentary on The Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals 22 NYCRR part 500, Effective September 1, 2005 A. Structure The Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals apply to civil and noncapital criminal appeals, motions, criminal leave applications and certified questions from the Supreme Court of the United States, United States courts of appeal and state courts of last resort. The Court of Appeals recently rescinded in its entirety 22 NYCRR part 500 and approved a new part 500 which will be effective September 1, 2005. In addition to reflecting substantive changes and additions to the old Rules of Practice, the new Rules are organized into broad categories to eliminate duplication and provide a more logical sequence. New Rules 500.1 through 500.8 set out requirements applicable to all filings under these Rules. New Rules 500.9 through 500.19 relate to civil and noncapital criminal appeals. New Rule 500.20 contains procedures concerning criminal leave applications. Motions are addressed in new Rules 500.21 through 500.24. Orders to show cause, the Primary Election Session and certified questions are addressed in new Rules 500.25, 500.26 and 500.27, respectively. Finally, old Rule 500.13, relating to real property actions, was deleted as unnecessary. Page 3 2 B. General Requirements 500.1 General Requirements [Old Rule 500.1] New Rule 500.1 states the general requirements for papers submitted to the Court of Appeals. The Rule generally applies to "papers filed," which is defined in section 500.1(b) as all briefs, papers filed pursuant to sections 500.10 (Examination of Subject Matter Jurisdiction) and 500.11 (Alternative Procedure for Selected Appeals), motion papers and appendices. The typeface and font requirements match those recently adopted by the Appellate Division Departments following repeal of the portion of CPLR 5529 that set out specifications for such matters. New Rule 500.1(h) informs self-represented litigants that illegibl

DA staff, DA victims advocate entire staff including manager, prosecutor, sheriff department, Court records, probation department, zero help from Attorney General, Fire Department, Internal affairs. The more corrupt they got promoted. Mike Rushton who was a homicide detective denied investigation, called a 40 year gap, elder zero history of fighting mutual combat, denied victims funds got promoted to a judge. The prosecutor (and head homicide) detective that the father of the killer tells how he got help high up in DA office also got promoted. Now in San Bernardino with the attorney that transfered a elders property to a friend of hers (maybe family???) instead of the elders child. She became trustee after his death it looks like on the title records and the deed is not his signature. What a team these two can make to prevent justice. Ty Reddish was on summary probation I asked the DA office to let the judge know. They did not do it so I wrote the head judge and asked to go to Ty Reddish probation hearing. He waited till afterwards and said we have to ask the DA. When there is zero oversight you get corruption just like we have. My mom and I have been denied all rights, services, even had the DA steal from my mom in keeping the Victims compensation . The Riverside County Supervisors looks like on web that they keep the money 3 years then claim it as unclaimed funds. That is not the purpose of the funds but there is no oversight. My dad was a famous race car builder and had a very good contract to build 3 off road pro trucks. Rod Pacheco was recently in news with it saying one of his promoters using elder funds for Rod Pacheco. The San Bernardino Care program is known for corruption and did not provide services for Nye who was 68. The killer of my dad stayed in jail 24 hours. He came out and stalked us and our neighbors with his family. The temp judge car seen there in the evenings. No criminal case number so I could not even start a lawsuit. After seeing how bad

Do not count on authorities to help in Elder Abuse. Help your family members by educating yourself and teaching the neighbors how to watch out for each other. My dad was killed in front of my mom in Riverside County. Systemic Corruption is not a big enough statement.

Intense feelings of anger, fear, isolation, low self-esteem, helplessness, and depression are common reactions to victimization

The Supreme Court in Owen undertook a textual analysis. By the Court's methodology, broad statutory language -- coupled with silence on the subject of privileges, immunities, and defenses -- means that municipalities are liable in federal court for civil rights violations. Owen, 100 S.Ct. at 1407. Its [the statute's] language is absolute and unqualified; no mention is made of any privileges, immunities, or defenses that may be asserted. Rather, the Act [§ 1983] imposes liability upon "every person" who, under color of state law or custom, "subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities of the Constitution and laws." And Monell [supra] held that these words were intended to encompass municipal corporations as well as natural "persons."

Seminole notwithstanding, these cases do not support the conclusion that a city is immune from suit under federal statutes. To the contrary, the Court has clearly established that municipalities can be amenable to civil rights suits in federal court. Owen, 100 S.Ct. at 1407; Monell, 98 S.Ct. at 2035- 2036; Mt. Healthy, 97 S.Ct. at 572. See also Howlett v. Rose, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2444 (1990) (holding that "Federal law makes governmental defendants that are not arms of the State, such as municipalities, liable for their constitutional violations," but acknowledging that the state and its arms are immune from the reach of § 1983).