Skip to main content

Home/ Riverside County Crime Victims/ Group items tagged FACT

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Nye Frank

Fact (law) legal definition of Fact (law). Fact (law) synonyms by the Free Online Law D... - 0 views

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fact%20(law)

FACT FINDER OF MAY NOT DECIDE MATERIAL QUESTIONS

shared by Nye Frank on 24 Oct 09 - Cached
  • A question of fact receives the same treatment in a bench (non-jury) trial as it does in a jury trial. The only difference is that in a bench trial the same person resolves both questions of law and fact because the fact finder is the judge. Nevertheless, in a bench trial, a judge may not decide material questions of fact without first affording the parties the process of a trial
  • Nye Frank on 24 Oct 09
     
    A question of fact receives the same treatment in a bench (non jury ) traial as does in a jury trial. The only difference is that in a bench trial the same person resolves both questions of law and fact because the fact finder is the judge. Nevertheless in a bench trial, a judge may not decide material questions of fact without first affording the parties the process of a trail.
Nye Frank

759. Arbitrary Administrative Discretion-Federal Court Riverside Officials - 0 views

chestofbooks.com/...Administrative-Discretion.html

arbitrary administrative discretion Nye Frank Crime victims rights howstuffworks caching how

shared by Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10
     
    " Is this what Riverside County includes. Second time to Fraudulently state false facts to deny elder rights. Perjury Knowingly making false statement of material fact of falsely denying knowledge of a material fact is perjury, a felony. If you are aware of possible perjury, contact the appropriate enforcement agency or your County Attorney's Office immediately. Description This section is from the book "The Constitutional Law Of The United States", by Westel Woodbury Willoughby. Also available from Amazon: Constitutional Law. 759. Arbitrary Administrative Discretion Generally speaking, it may be said that while wide discretionary power may constitutionally be granted to administrative agents, that discretion must be one which must be guided by reason, justice, and impartiality, and must be exercised in the execution of policies predetermined by legislative act, or fixed by the common law. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins29 the court laid down the doctrine that the legislative investment of purely personal and arbitrary power in the hands of any public official is a denial of due process of law. " The very idea," say the court, "that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." 30 Of the ordinances in question the court say: "They seem intended to confer and actually do confer, not a discretion upon consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not as to places but as to persons. . . . The power given to them [the supervisors] is not confided to their discretion in the legal sense of that term, but is granted to their mere will. It is purely arbitrary, and acknowledges neither guidance, nor restraint." 29 118 U. S. 35G; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1004: 30 L. ed. 220. 30 Quoting and approving City of Balt
  • Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10
     
    Perjury Knowingly making false statement of material fact of falsely denying knowledge of a material fact is perjury, a felony. If you are aware of possible perjury, contact the appropriate enforcement agency or your County Attorney's Office immediately.
Nye Frank

An Elder Fights the Denial of Medicaid by Division of Medical Assistance and the Hearin... - 0 views

www.falseallegations.com/elderly-medical-assistance.htm

denial of medicaid constitutional rights

shared by Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10
     
    STANDARD OF REVIEW When determining a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, allegations of the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences [and annexed exhibits] which may be drawn therefrom in plaintiff's favor, are to be taken as true. Brum v. Town of Dartmouth, 44 Mass.App.Ct. 318, 321 (1998). Eyal v. Helen Broadcasting Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 429 (1991) and cases cited. See also Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kosteas, 378 Mass. 85, 87 (1979); Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977). Dismissal is also not appropriate where GiGi is entitled to any form of relief for any wrong or injury. Brum, at 321. Citron v. Nader, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Mass.R.Civ.P. 8(f). Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, article XI. "A complaint is not subject to dismissal if it could support relief on any theory of law" [Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kosteas, 378 Mass. 85, 89 (1979)], "even though the particular relief [which plaintiff] has demanded and the theory on which he seems to rely may not be appropriate." Nader, 372 Mass. at 104 (citations omitted). "A complaint should [also] not be dismissed simply because it asserts a new or extreme theory of liability or improbable facts." Jenkins v. Jenkins, 15 Mass.App.Ct. 934, 934 (1983). "[I]t is important that new legal theories be explored and assayed in light of actual facts rather than a pleader's suppositions." New England Insulation Co. v. General Dynamics Corp., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 28, 30 (1988) quoting 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §1357 at 603 (1969 and supp. 1987). Patriarca v. Center for Living and Working, Inc., 1999 WL 791888 at 4 (Mass.Super. Sept. 8, 1999) (Wernick, J.). ARGUMENTS 1.Where Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires all public employees of the three branches of the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be accountable to the people at all times, this court is precluded from applying
Nye Frank

California Charges Inland Empire Fundraisers With Felony Campaign Money Laundering | Al... - 0 views

74.6.146.127/...cache

false statement of fact

shared by Nye Frank on 16 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 16 Oct 09
     
    June 16, 2008 -- RIVERSIDE -- California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco today announced a 37-count indictment against Mark Anthony Leggio, James Lloyd Deremiah, and father-son team Nicola Cacucciolo, and
Nye Frank

FindLaw | Cases and Codes - 0 views

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...getcase.pl

1983 indifference minimum in standard case

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  • To sustain a S 1983 civil rights action, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that [such] conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right." 2 Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Here, it is undisputed that defendants were acting under color of state law. At issue here is whether Officer Smith, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, or Sacramento County engaged in conduct that deprived Lewis of a federally protected righ
    • Nye Frank
      Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
  • F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1990) (noting that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), likely "preserve[d] Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis for those instances in which a free citizen is denied his or her constitutional right to life through means other than a law enforcement official's arrest, investigatory stop or other seizure"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 851 (1990).
  • But when a law enforcement officer arbitrarily acts to deprive a person of life and personal security in the course of pursuing his official duties, constitutional due process rights may be implicated. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 331 ("The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government."). Section 1983 "contains no state-of-mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation of the underlying constitutional right." Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330 . See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330 . The underlying constitutional rights at issue here are substantive due process rights to life and liberty or personal security. In Daniels, the Supreme Court held that where an official's or government entity's conduct constitutes mere negligence, no substantive due process violation occurs. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328 . Daniels expressly left open the question whether something less than intentional conduct such as recklessness or gross negligence would suffice "to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 334 n.3. But in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), the Court held that nonintentional government conduct can violate the Due Process Clause and thus lead to S 1983 liability. City of Canton held that a municipality may be liable for a failure to train its employees when such failure demonstrates "deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact." Id. at 388.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Five circuits have addressed S 1983 liability in the context of high-speed pursuits. These circuits have applied various labels to the standard of conduct that may lead to liability. See, e.g., Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1296 (3rd Cir. 1994) (en banc) (overruling previous reckless indifference standard and adopting shocks the conscience standard); Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1992) (reckless disregard); Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 1991) (shocks the conscience), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1095 (1992); Roach v. City of Fredericktown, 882 F.2d 294, 297 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding gross negligence insufficient but not stating what standard should be applied); Jones v. Sherrill, 827 F.2d 1102, 1106 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding gross negligence or outrageous conduct sufficient in some circumstances). 4
  • In one such due process case, we held that either "gross negligence, recklessness, or `deliberate indifference'" was sufficient to state a substantive due process violation. Wood v. Ostrander, 851 F.2d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Wood
  • I"), reh'g granted and opinion modified by, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Wood II"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Relying on the standard set out in Wood I, we later held that "grossly negligent or reckless official conduct that infringes upon an interest protected by the Due Process Clause is actionable under S 1983." Fargo v. City of San Juan Bautista, 857 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1988). But Fargo's grossly negligent standard was explicitly based on Wood I, which was modified on rehearing and superseded by Wood II. In Wood II, we stepped back from the grossly negligent standard. We noted that an intervening Supreme Court decision, City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378 , had called into question this standard as set forth in Wood I and Fargo. Wood II, 879 F.2d at 588.
  • In Fargo, we defined gross negligence as "`more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention, but less perhaps than conscious indifference to the consequences.'" Fargo, 857 F.2d at 641 (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts S 34, at 212 (5th ed. 1984)). We also noted that an officer's state of mind is not an issue in a claim based on gross negligence, "although the contrary may be true where the claim involves recklessness." Id. at 642. Although we declined to decide whether an innocent state of mind would negate recklessness or "whether recklessness may be presumed conclusively from conduct," we did note that recklessness and deliberate indifference are equivalent in the sense that they both generally refer to conduct involving "a `conscious disregard' of public safety." Id. at 642 n.7. We also said that, "where state officials have notice of the possibility of harm, `negligence can rise to the level of deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for' the victim." Id. (quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 357 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). Because we concluded that a triable issue of fact remained as to whether the police officer's conduct might have been grossly negligent, we found it unnecessary to determine whether the officer's conduct might have risen to the more culpable standard of recklessness. Id. at 643
  • In Wood II, we redefined the standard forS 1983 substantive due process violations by police officers. As explained above, we recognized that the Supreme Court's decision in City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378 , had called into question our decisions in Wood I and Fargo that gross negligence was sufficient. Wood II, 879 F.2d at 588. Analyzing the facts in Wood under City of Canton's deliberate indifference standard, we concluded that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the police officer in Wood had been deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's interest in her personal security. Id. at 588.
  • Wood II makes clear that, in this circuit, an officer can be held liable for a S 1983 claim if that officer's conduct is delib erately indifferent to or in reckless disregard of a person's right to life and personal security.
  • Here, plaintiffs have alleged that Officer Smith violated the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department General Order regarding pursuits ("General Order")6 by instituting and then continuing the pursuit even when a reasonable officer would have known that to do so was in reckless disregard of Lewis's and Willard's safety. A violation of police procedures is relevant to determine whether a substantive due process violation has occurred. Fargo, 857 F.2d at 642. Police procedures are designed, in part, to guide officers when they engage in conduct that poses a serious risk of harm to either a suspect or to the general public. See id.
  • The General Order requires an officer to communicate his intention to pursue a vehicle to the sheriff's department dispatch center. But defendants concede that Smith did not contact the dispatch center. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the seriousness of the offense warrants a chase at speeds in excess of the posted limit. But here, the only apparent "offense" was the boys' refusal to stop when another officer told them to do so. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the need for apprehension justifies the pursuit under existing conditions. Yet Smith apparently only "needed" to apprehend the boys because they refused to stop. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the pursuit presents unreasonable hazards to life and property. But taking the facts here in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there existed an unreasonable hazard to Lewis's and Willard's lives. The General Order also directs an officer to discontinue a pursuit when the hazards of continuing outweigh the benefits of immediate apprehension. But here, there was no apparent danger involved in permitting the boys to escape. There certainly was risk of harm to others in continuing the pursuit.
  • In City of Canton the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference was the minimum standard of culpability necessary to maintain a S 1983 due process action against a municipality for a policy or custom of inadequate training of police officers. City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 388 . The Court reasoned that a municipality's inadequate training of its employees can only constitute a "policy or custom" when such inadequate training "evidences a `deliberate indifference' to the rights of its inhabitants." Id. at 389. But the Court also specified that the deliberate indifference standard "does not turn upon the degree of fault (if any) that a plaintiff must show to make out an underlying claim of a constitutional violation." Id. at 388 n.8. City of Canton thus did not explicitly overrule our decisions in either Wood I or Fargo because they involved claims of substantive due process violations against individual police officers.
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
     
    The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
Nye Frank

Statutory Protection of Older Persons - Accidents and Injuries - 0 views

injury.findlaw.com/...utory-protection-of-elder.html

elder statutory laws

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  • In most states, there is a system of adult protective services for investigating and remedying reported abuses. Moreover, some states have laws giving victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation a civil cause of action. Finally, in most states, the abuse or neglect of older people is also a crime.
    • Nye Frank
      Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
       
      Riverside County APS was contacted 3 times reported the homicide of Nye Frank. They refused to come out. Even though it is mandated. It also is a requirement for the coroner, and sheriff to report
  • All states have a system for reporting allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of the elderly, for investigating the allegations and, if the allegations are founded, for providing services to the older person to remedy the problems and prevent their recurrence. In fact, most states have mandatory reporting requirements with respect to such allegations. If an agency concludes that an allegation is founded, it will respond by offering the older person appropriate services, such as medical assistance, counseling, special transportation, assistance with money management, or placement in a different residential setting
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
     
    LakinChapman, LLC Nationwide www.lakinlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Nursing-Home-Neglect.asp Pioneers in nursing home abuse law 866-839-2021 Statutory Protection of Older Persons Today, all states have laws concerning the abuse, neglect or exploitation of older people, but these states may follow different approaches. In most states, there is a system of adult protective services for investigating and remedying reported abuses. Moreover, some states have laws giving victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation a civil cause of action. Finally, in most states, the abuse or neglect of older people is also a crime. Adult Protective Services Typically, before any civil or criminal action is commenced against a nursing home, a report will have been made to your state's adult protective services agency, or other system in place for the reporting and investigation of allegations of the abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly. All states have a system for reporting allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of the elderly, for investigating the allegations and, if the allegations are founded, for providing services to the older person to remedy the problems and prevent their recurrence. In fact, most states have mandatory reporting requirements with respect to such allegations. If an agency concludes that an allegation is founded, it will respond by offering the older person appropriate services, such as medical assistance, counseling, special transportation, assistance with money management, or placement in a different residential setting. Civil Actions Based on Statutes Some state legislatures have created causes of action involving the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of older people, which allow victims to bring civil actions against the perpetrators and/or their employees. These causes of action may authorize damages awards to victims, but may also authorize the issuance of injunctions and restraining or protective orders, for immediate relief from ongoing abuse
Nye Frank

Duke Law Journal: Krista M. Enns, Can A California Litigant Prevail In An Action For Le... - 0 views

www.diigo.com/...pl%3F48%2BDuke%2BL.%2BJ.%2B111

Nye Frank elder crime victim riverside county da

shared by Nye Frank on 01 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 01 Oct 09
     
    We need to speak up when something bad happens. There is more than 20 favors for covering up Nye Franks homicide owed. Nye was buying a newspaper, killed in front of Lee Frank. The audio of sheriff interview of Phil Reddish the father states to the homicide detective and prosecutor who and how to cover up case. And they did just that. No drug test of killer, no report of his probation to judge, court records changed, stalked elder victim, denied access to court, false statement of fact. Many favors will affect a lot more families. Please help stop this. It is very painful
Nye Frank

FindLaw | Cases and Codes - 0 views

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...getcase.pl

uscs 1983 and wrongful death under california state law

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Plaintiffs Teri and Thomas Lewis, Philip Lewis's parents, filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court against Sacramento County, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, and Officer Smith. The Lewises allege a deprivation of their son's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and wrongful death under California state law. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment on various grounds
    • Nye Frank
      Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
       
      Questions of Law
  • First, the district court assumed, without deciding, that Officer Smith had violated Lewis's constitutional rights. The court then addressed Smith's claim to qualified immunity. The court stated that plaintiffs had not presented, and it could not find, any "state or federal opinion published before May, 1990, when the alleged misconduct took place, that supports plaintiffs' view that they have a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right in the context of high speed police pursuits." The court therefore found that the law regarding Lewis's Fourteenth Amendment right to life and personal security was not clearly established and granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Smith on qualified immunity grounds.
    • Nye Frank
      Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
       
      constitutional rights
  • Because the court dismissed all federal claims, it declined to decide whether the county and the sheriff's department were also immune under California law. The court then dismissed without prejudice the state claims against the county and sheriff's department to allow plaintiffs to file those claims in state court.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • To sustain a S 1983 civil rights action, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that [such] conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right." 2 Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Here, it is undisputed that defendants were acting under color of state law. At issue here is whether Officer Smith, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, or Sacramento County engaged in conduct that deprived Lewis of a federally protected right. The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989))
    • Nye Frank
      Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
     
    LakinChapman, LLC Nationwide www.lakinlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Nursing-Home-Neglect.asp Pioneers in nursing home abuse law 866-839-2021 Statutory Protection of Older Persons Today, all states have laws concerning the abuse, neglect or exploitation of older people, but these states may follow different approaches. In most states, there is a system of adult protective services for investigating and remedying reported abuses. Moreover, some states have laws giving victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation a civil cause of action. Finally, in most states, the abuse or neglect of older people is also a crime. Adult Protective Services Typically, before any civil or criminal action is commenced against a nursing home, a report will have been made to your state's adult protective services agency, or other system in place for the reporting and investigation of allegations of the abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly. All states have a system for reporting allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of the elderly, for investigating the allegations and, if the allegations are founded, for providing services to the older person to remedy the problems and prevent their recurrence. In fact, most states have mandatory reporting requirements with respect to such allegations. If an agency concludes that an allegation is founded, it will respond by offering the older person appropriate services, such as medical assistance, counseling, special transportation, assistance with money management, or placement in a different residential setting. Civil Actions Based on Statutes Some state legislatures have created causes of action involving the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of older people, which allow victims to bring civil actions against the perpetrators and/or their employees. These causes of action may authorize damages awards to victims, but may also authorize the issuance of injunctions and restraining or protective orders, for immediate relief from ongoing abuse
Nye Frank

California Elder Abuse Act, Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA): S... - 0 views

www.preventelderabuse.com/alifornia-elder-abuse-act.html

elder abuse act legislative

shared by Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09
     
    California's Elder Abuse Act California's Elder Abuse Act has been in existence in its current state since 1991 and is officially known as the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (hereinafter "EADACPA" or simply, the "Elder Abuse Act"). The Elder Abuse Act, found at Welfare & Institutions Code §15600 et seq., sets forth a very detailed body of law that has since been interpreted by the California Supreme Court as providing for a distinct and recognized cause of action - that being a statutory cause of action for Elder Abuse and/or Neglect under Welfare & Institutions Code §15600 et seq. When properly proven, a claim for Elder Abuse and/or Neglect provides for certain enhanced remedies that are unwise unavailable under other common law causes of action. The Elder Abuse Act was created out of concern that the elderly members of our society are not receiving the care and attention they deserved - and are in fact being abused and neglected. In enacting the Elder Abuse Act, the California Legislature expressly recognized that elders (defined as a person greater than the age of 65) and dependent adults (generally defined as persons between the ages of 18 and 64 who confined to live in 24-hour medical facilities and/or who are not able to care for themselves due to medical disorders) are particularly subjected to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and that the state has a distinct responsibility to protect these persons. In its preamble, the Elder Abuse Act expressly states that the Legislature "desires to direct special attention to the needs and problems of elderly persons, recognizing that these persons constitute a significant and identifiable segment of the population and that they are more subject to risks of abuse, neglect, and abandonment." (See, Welfare & Institutions Code §15600). The statute further states that most elders and dependent adults who are at the greatest risk of abuse or neglect by their caretakers suffer "physical impairment
Nye Frank

iePolitics.com » Blog Archive » Yet Another - Critics rip integrity unit#comm... - 0 views

crittercollectibles.com/...her-critics-rip-integrity-unit

inland empire iepolitics.com riverside county norco politics san bernardino

shared by Nye Frank on 19 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 19 Sep 09
     
    Hoping the elections bring in new blood and the corruption in the Inland Empire slows down. My father a 68 year old man strangled in front of his 72 year old wife and having judo moves done on him dying from brain death in minutes. Denial of any access to justice because the father of the killer friend of the DA. This is what we all think of the 3rd world. The Riverside County Supervisors, Sheriff and Coroner put a false statement of fact in the court that we had to file a lemine to counter it. The judge removed himself. The employees that were let go some went to San Bernardino, Like Daima Calhoun in the DA office. Look for your self on line in you tube for Nye frank Racing. The father a Norco High teacher tells Daima how he will cover up the homicide http:nyefrank.typepad.com
Nye Frank

iePolitics.com » County of Riverside-Benoit- Victims of Crime - 0 views

cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx

Benoit Riverside County Elder Victims Supervisors Vote Govenor

shared by Nye Frank on 19 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 19 Sep 09
     
    Replacement for supervisor http://visualizedevelopment.blogspot.com Corruption is clear Benoit may want to look at the Elder Corruption Cover up in Riverside County. Famous Race Car Drivers Family had to file a Lemine to prevent the Supervisors of Riverside from making false statement of fact. Homicide of Nye Frank a elder
Nye Frank

Illinois Pro Bono | Federal Court Prison Litigation Project Handbook Part II - 0 views

www.illinoisprobono.org/index.cfm

indigent civil court appointed

shared by Nye Frank on 19 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 19 Sep 09
     
    Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992): Indigent civil litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to be represented by counsel in federal court. The district court, however, may in its discretion request counsel to represent indigent civil litigants in certain circumstances under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) . In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider: (1) the merits of the indigent's claim for relief; (2) the ability of the indigent plaintiff to investigate crucial facts unaided by counsel; (3) whether the nature of the evidence indicates that the truth will more likely be exposed where both sides are represented by counsel; (4) the capability of the indigent to present the case; and (5) the complexity of the legal issues raised by the complaint.
Nye Frank

Notable Court Cases Concerning Constitutional Issues - 0 views

www.lectlaw.com/lws48.htm

constitution

shared by Nye Frank on 31 Dec 09 - Cached
  • CON Argument: The constitution does not provide explicitly for Supreme Court review of state court decisions. Since it must have been foreseen by the drafters that conflicts would arise, the omission is evidence that the framers felt that such a powerful tribunal would produce evils greater than those of the occasional collisions which it would be designed to remedy. Thus, once an action is brought in state court, the federal court's sole remedy is to shift it to a lower federal court before it gets to the final court of the state, or simply to advise the high state court that they have improperly interpreted the constitution. The states are dually sovereign with the federal government, and not subject to the laws of Congress which limit their sovereignty.
  • Procedural Posture: The Virginia court, in the original case, found for Hunter The Supreme Court reversed, ordering the Virginia court to enter judgment for Martin under the authority granted by Section 25 of the Judiciary Act which gave the Supreme Court the power to review final decisions of the highest state courts rejecting claims based on federal law. The Virginia state court refused to comply with the order, claiming that Section 25 was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court had no constitutional right to review the final decisions of the state courts. The case is again being reviewed by the Supreme Court
  • The statute prescribed how the court should decide an issue of fact, and it denied effect to a Presidential Pardon, thus violating the separation of powers.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Issue: Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review state court judgments which concern federal issues, and which are not clearly based on an adequate and independent state law grounds. 5. Holding: Yes. If the state court decision does not] indicate clearly and expressly by means of a "plain statement" that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the state court ruling.
4Land.com.au AU

Attractive Opportunity for Property Investment in Perth - 2 views

I have chosen to reside in Perth because of its impeccable weather and affordable opportunities for property investment in Perth. In fact, this decision was one of the most important decisions I ha...

House and Land Packages Perth

started by 4Land.com.au AU on 26 Sep 11 no follow-up yet
Nye Frank

Law and the Elderly - 0 views

74.125.155.132/search

elder law judical corruption

shared by Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09
     
    http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/541.php News about judicial corruption
  • Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09
     
    Our courts, our laws do not protect elders
Nye Frank

N.D.R.Civ.P. 8. General Rules of Pleading - 0 views

www.ndcourts.com/...RULE08.htm

court rules

shared by Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09 - Cached
  • The leading case of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), makes clear that a complaint is sufficient if plaintiff would be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proven in support of the claim alleged.
1 - 20 of 20
Showing 20▼ items per page