Skip to main content

Home/ Riverside County Crime Victims/ Group items tagged violations

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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

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

bivens federal tort law, legislative interferance - Custom Search | Diigo - 0 views

www.diigo.com/...g

Riverside County crime victim

shared by Nye Frank on 04 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 04 Feb 10
     
    581 F.2d 390After carefully considering both the legislative history surrounding the enactment ... While Bivens created a federal tort for certain violations of the fourth amendment ..... While this court has never directly held that a Federal law enforcement ... misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights. ... ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/581/581.F2d.390.77-1919.html Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, § 1680 (Bancoult v ...United States, 507 U.S. 197 (March 8 1993) (noting from the legislative history ... libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: ..... The idea is that State tort law is more fully developed than U.S. ..... Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, ... homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/bancoult-ftca.html Cleo F. Shoultz, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc ...This provision does not support a claim for such interference with a .... With respect to his claim based on the constitutional tort theory of Bivens v. ... Plaintiff argues that the intentional tort provision in the Federal Tort Claims ... liability without legislative aid and as at the common law" because it was ... cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/754/318/319372/ 00-1672.01A - USCA1 OpinionDavric and the man who owns it, Joseph Ricci, filed suit in federal court against ... The court also dismissed the state law tort claims against the official on the .... As the defamation and tortious interference claims Davric advances clearly .... under state tort law but it is not recoverable in a Bivens action. ... www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1672.01A From Bivens to Malesko and Beyond: Implied Constitutional Remedies ...between the legislative and judicial branches, this political catchphrase ..... Interestingly, the Bivens majority considered the implications of state tort law and ... In The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts, Professor Thomas
Nye Frank

Bloglines | My Feeds - 0 views

www.bloglines.com/myblogs

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
     
    Following the Court's decision in City of Canton, we granted rehearing and issued a new opinion, Wood II, that disavowed the gross negligence standard set out in our opinion in Wood I. Wood II also had the effect of modifying Fargo to the extent that Fargo relied explicitly on Wood I in setting a gross negligence standard--the modification of Wood I eliminated the legal foundation for Fargo. In sum, it is clear from Wood II that Wood I and Fargo are no longer good law to the extent that they set a standard of gross negligence for S 1983 violations. "Bare" gross negligence is never sufficient to sustain a S 1983 claim for a substantive due process violation. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 1996). It is also clear that deliberate indifference is always sufficient. Fargo and Wood II are helpful in defining the meaning of these standards and in shedding light on the murky area that lies between the two standards http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9315924
Nye Frank

Adult Protective Services - General - 0 views

74.125.155.132/search

adult protective services general

shared by Nye Frank on 11 Nov 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 11 Nov 09
     
    "Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES DIVISION OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 411 DIVISION 20 ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES -- GENERAL 411-020-0000 Purpose and Scope of Program (Effective 7/1/2005) (1) Responsibility: The Department of Human Services (DHS) Seniors and People with Disabilities (SPD) has responsibility to provide Adult Protective Services to older adults and to adults with disabilities whose situation is within its jurisdiction to investigate. (2) Intent: The intent of the program is to provide protection and intervention for adults who are unable to protect themselves from harm and neglect. (3) Scope of Services: The scope of services includes: (a) Receiving reports of abuse, neglect or self-neglect; (b) Providing and documenting risk assessment of reported victims; (c) Conducting and documenting investigations of reported wrongdoing; and (d) Providing appropriate resources for victim safety. (4) Availability: Adult Protective Services are available from the Department to any adult resident of a DHS-licensed facility, to Nursing Facility residents regardless of age, and to any adult residing in the community who meets the eligibility criteria listed in OAR 411-020-0015. Page 1 of 27 Page 2 (5) Statutory and Administrative Rule Guidance: Oregon has adopted laws and administrative rules to address different types of abuse or neglect to vulnerable adults. See Section 411-020-0010, Authority and Responsibility. (6) Intervention Model: (a) As a human services agency, the Department embraces a social model of intervention with a primary focus on offering safety and protection to the reported victim. The over-arching ethical value in Adult Protective Services is the obligation to balance the duty to protect older adults and adults with disabilities with the duty to protect their rights to self-determination. (b) The Department relies upon other key sources, such as law enforcement, legal, medical, and regulatory professi
Nye Frank

YouTube -Racing with Passion -Homicide Cover up of Nye Frank - 0 views

www.youtube.com/share

hate crimes elder victims bias riverside county

shared by Nye Frank on 04 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 04 Jan 10
     
    We have pre trial court today filing Rico and 1983 lawsuit in homicide cover up and civil rights violations
Nye Frank

injunction: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com - 0 views

www.answers.com/injunction

injuction by court order mandamus civil rights protection for future wrongs

shared by Nye Frank on 16 May 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 16 May 09
     
    An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do, or not to do, something in order to protect another's personal or property rights. A person who violates an injunction is in contempt of court and the court may fine or imprison him. An injunction usually is issued to prohibit an action. When it is used to command a positive action, it is called a mandatory injunction. During the 20th century, courts have used injunctions to protect and promote the civil rights of minorities, especially African Americans. For example, federal courts used injunctions to stop school district officials from continuing racial segregation in schools after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Courts also used injunctions to take positive actions, such as redrawing school district boundaries and ordering the busing of students between districts to achieve racially mixed schools. Thus, federal injunctions have become an important way of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals against infringement by state governments. See also Brown v. Board of Education
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

Your favorite web sites - StumbleUpon - 0 views

nyeandleefrank.stumbleupon.com

Nye frank riverside county homicide constitution civil rights da corruption Rod Pacheco

shared by Nye Frank on 02 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 02 Oct 09
     
    The Legislatures put in place laws of how a elder case is to be handled because of the neglect of the cases. Rod went over the Legislatures law to avoid Lee Franks civil Rights. Who will help her enforce them?
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Nye Frank on 02 Oct 09
     
    The Legislatures put in place laws of how a elder case is to be handled because of the neglect of the cases. Rod went over the Legislatures law to avoid Lee Franks civil Rights. Who will help her enforce them?
  • Nye Frank on 02 Oct 09
     
    The Legislatures put in place laws of how a elder case is to be handled because of the neglect of the cases. Rod went over the Legislatures law to avoid Lee Franks civil Rights. Who will help her enforce them?
  • Nye Frank on 02 Oct 09
     
    The Legislatures put in place laws of how a elder case is to be handled because of the neglect of the cases. Rod went over the Legislatures law to avoid Lee Franks civil Rights. Who will help her enforce them?
Nye Frank

NOTE: JUDICIAL DISCIPLINING OF FEDERAL JUDGES IS CONSTITUTIONAL. - 0 views

litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/...app

judge constitutional violations

shared by Nye Frank on 06 Sep 10 - No Cached
  • Nye Frank on 06 Sep 10
     
    Federal Judges
Nye Frank

My Library Crime Victims - 0 views

www.diigo.com/riverside

Riverside legislation stalking color of the law County crime mapping author library victims pacheco elder court

shared by Nye Frank on 03 Mar 10 - Cached
  • filter by tags, space-separated
  • news, interest
  • "She reiterated to Mr. Pacheco that it was cut and dry, the investigator had prepared a false report." Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Brady v Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose evidence helpful to the accused, including the credibility of a witness. Hunt said Pacheco told her not to disclose anything to defense attorneys in the unidentified case. Pacheco said there was a system set up in 2006, when Trask was district attorney, to review possible Brady violations and she did not follow that policy, he said. Hunt said in her lawsuit she did not know at the time that the same investigator was the subject of similar allegations in a case that was under review by the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office.
  • Nye Frank on 03 Mar 10
     
    I never imagined being a crime victim. I never dreamed of so much corruption. I am shocked it happens with official blind eye to such a extream it shuts down a community care for each other.
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.
Nye Frank

federal courts - 0 views

nyefrank.typepad.com

riverside county Nye crime law victims court pacheco elder

shared by Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10
     
    Providing the Context: The Federal Criminal Justice System In the United States, there are two distinct judicial systems: the federal judicial system that enforces federal laws, rules and regulations, and provides interpretations of the U.S. Constitution; and the various state and local judicial systems that enforce state laws, rules and regulations, and interprets the state constitution. The state courts have general power to decide nearly every type of case, subject only to the limitations of state law, the state's constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. In general, the state courts handle most criminal matters; the kinds of criminal violations that the general public thinks of as
Nye Frank

My Library tagged congress - 0 views

www.diigo.com/...congress

elder law congress crime victim nye frank racing

shared by Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10
     
    "Simple Middle Advanced * Filter: * All * Unread * Public * Private * Annotated 01 Mar 10 0More HeinOnline:LibrarySpecificHelp - HeinOnlineWiki more from heinonline.org - Snapshot - Edit - Delete - Share▼ * Send to... * Get Annotated Link... * Generate report... * Link to the meta page - Preview law treaties attorney general congress 25 Feb 10 0More ADVOCATING TO END ELDER ABUSE and Protect our Seniors!!! Corruption to eldersNegligent infliction of emotional distress more from elderabuseadvocate.blogspot.com - Snapshot - Edit - Delete - Share▼ * Send to... * Get Annotated Link... * Generate report... * Link to the meta page - Preview Racing Riverside County Legislation Congress Senator 24 Feb 10 0More My List: A Collection on "Federal Courts Congress Intent" (Congress,Crime,Victims,statutory,law,Federal,Court) | Diigo 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 more from www.diigo.com - No snapshot - Edit - Delete - Share▼ * Send to... * Get Annotated Link... * Generate report... * Link to the meta page - Preview Congress Crime Victims federal law court my list a 0More Congress rules for crime victims federal court - Google Search 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:c1K
  • Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10
  • Nye Frank on 16 Mar 10
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.
1 - 16 of 16
Showing 20▼ items per page