Skip to main content

Home/ Victims of Crime/ Group items tagged Employees

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Nye Frank

elder abuse - 0 views

api.addthis.com/...offer

elder abuse financial

shared by Nye Frank on 30 Jun 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 30 Jun 10
     
    This is Google's cache of http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/Library/CANE/CANE_Series/CANE_FinancialExploitation.aspx. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 27, 2010 13:10:27 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Text-only versionThese search terms are highlighted: financial elderly person includes constitute property crimes regardless age victim california These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: exploytation acts thin includes U.S. Administration on Aging Home NCEA E-News State Resources Calendar About NCEA What We Do NCEA Partners NCEA Initiatives Find Help Help Hotline ElderCare Locator Find State Resources Resources for Families Adult Protective Services FAQ's Frequently Asked Questions Basics Resource for Professionals Nursing Home Abuse Resources Community Outreach Newsletter NCEA Listserve Online Links Promising Practice Library CANE Publications Events & Webcast Laws Statistic & Research Training Library Abuse Statistics Survey, Reports & Testimonies Research Briefs & Agenda National Incident Study Home > Library > CANE Printer Friendly Text Size: T T T Financial Exploitation of the Elderly: An Update of the Literature Financial exploitation of the elderly is becoming an increasingly familiar problem. Regular review of news headlines reveals that elders and vulnerable adults are victimized routinely by frauds, scams and identity theft, at the hands of strangers as well as loved ones, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. As technology advances, perpetrator
Nye Frank

$375,000 SETTLEMENT IN ELDER ABUSE/NEGLECT CASE - Experienced San Francisco Personal In... - 0 views

cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx

elder abuse neglect statutory law

shared by Nye Frank on 18 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 18 Mar 10
     
    Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657 provides: "Where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for . . . neglect as defined in Section 15610.57, . . . and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse, in addition to all of the remedies otherwise provided by law: (a) the court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. . . . (b) the limitations imposed by Section 337.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply . . . (c) the standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorneys' fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer". Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.57 defines "neglect" as the negligent failure of any person having care or custody of an elder to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise, and includes the "failure to protect from health and safety hazard". Civil Code § 3294(b) provides that an employer shall not be liable for punitive damages based upon acts of an employee unless the employer had advanced knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, or authorized or ratified the employee's wrongful conduct, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the authorization or ratification of an act of recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice must be on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation.
Nye Frank

CIV PRO OUTLINE - 0 views

74.125.155.132/search

mandamus

shared by Nye Frank on 31 Dec 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 31 Dec 09
     
    This is the html version of the file http://students.law.ucdavis.edu/LSA/files/outlines/Civ%20Pro%20-%20Unknown%20-%200203.doc. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. CIV PRO OUTLINE As of 5/1 1. WHAT'S CIVIL PROCEDURE? 1. Prescribes and administers process for enforcing rights and duties specified in substantive law 2. EVOLUTION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (pgs. 18-32) 1. Significant Anglo-Saxon institutions at time of conquest: 1. Crown 2. Local tribunals 1. Slow and uncertain in operation 2. Earliest forms of royal intervention 1. Executive 2. Administrative 3. Writ 1. Written directive from king to royal official/to individual/group of individuals ordering addressees to do/refrain from doing designated act 2. Procedural steps by which prosecuted not uniform 3. Praecipe 1. Executive command made without inquiry 4. Novel disseisin/querela 1. Derived from procedure in which judicial inquest of complaints heard first and then executive action followed 4. king's direct entertainment of complaints of subjects 3. Early evolution of royal courts 1. Medieval central government 1. King's court/curia regis 2. Why separate branches? 1. Administrative necessity for orderly record keeping 2. Historical fact that early Plantagenet kings had domains in France that were more important to them than England and which required their presence on continent for long periods of time (king absent a lot) 4. Common law procedure 1. Background of all medieval litigation was hope of bringing parties to some sort of voluntary accord
Nye Frank

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights Statutes - 0 views

www.fbi.gov/...statutes.htm

fbi federal law

shared by Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10
     
    Contact Us Your Local FBI Office Overseas Offices Submit a Crime Tip Report Internet Crime More Contacts Learn About Us Quick Facts What We Investigate Natl. Security Branch Information Technology Fingerprints & Training Laboratory Services Reports & Publications History More About Us Get Our News Press Room E-mail Updates News Feeds Be Crime Smart Wanted by the FBI More Protections Use Our Resources For Law Enforcement For Communities For Researchers More Services Visit Our Kids' Page Apply for a Job Civil Rights Statutes Civil Rights Home Federal Civil Rights Statutes Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities Title 18, U.S.C., Section 247 - Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 Title 18, U.S.C., Section 248 - Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(h) - Federal Explosives Control Statute Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 - Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 - Pattern and Practice Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured. Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or
Nye Frank

Standing to Assert Crime Victims' Rights - 0 views

www.cga.ct.gov/...2005-R-0119.htm

crime victims

shared by Nye Frank on 04 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 04 Jun 09
     
    JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT OF 2004 The federal Justice For All Act of 2004 (PL 108-405) enhances protections for victims of federal crimes and increases federal resources available to state and local governments to combat crime. Title I of the act, the "Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act," requires courts to ensure that crime victims are afforded the rights the act prescribes. It specifies that a crime victim, his lawful representative, or the attorney for the government may assert the rights in U. S. District Court. If the requested relief is denied, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus, which the appeals court must decide within 72 hours. A court's failure to afford a crime victim his rights is not grounds for a new trial, but a victim can move to reopen a plea or a sentence on that basis. The act does not authorize a cause of action for damages or create, enlarge, or imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for any breach by federal government officers or employees (§ 102). The act appropriates $ 7 million for fiscal year 2005 and $ 11 million each for fiscal years 2006-2009, in part, for the support of state organizations that enforce crime victims' rights and provide legal counsel and support services. The states where these organizations are located must have laws substantially equivalent to the federal law (§ 103).
  • Nye Frank on 04 Jun 09
     
    JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT OF 2004 The federal Justice For All Act of 2004 (PL 108-405) enhances protections for victims of federal crimes and increases federal resources available to state and local governments to combat crime. Title I of the act, the "Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act," requires courts to ensure that crime victims are afforded the rights the act prescribes. It specifies that a crime victim, his lawful representative, or the attorney for the government may assert the rights in U. S. District Court. If the requested relief is denied, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus, which the appeals court must decide within 72 hours. A court's failure to afford a crime victim his rights is not grounds for a new trial, but a victim can move to reopen a plea or a sentence on that basis. The act does not authorize a cause of action for damages or create, enlarge, or imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for any breach by federal government officers or employees (§ 102). The act appropriates $ 7 million for fiscal year 2005 and $ 11 million each for fiscal years 2006-2009, in part, for the support of state organizations that enforce crime victims' rights and provide legal counsel and support services. The states where these organizations are located must have laws substantially equivalent to the federal law (§ 103).
Nye Frank

land trust law Riverside County Water Board taking land from elders - 0 views

www.diigo.com/...draft_link_forward

Nye Frank Racing Riverside County water Board

shared by Nye Frank on 16 Aug 10 - Cached
  • All my mutual friends My mutual friends or emails No one. Just a note
  • Nye Frank on 16 Aug 10
     
    New York times called it the Probate Homicides Homicide Cover up of Nye Frank and continued stalking of Lee Frank Forestry -Federal Employees working part time with color of the law
Nye Frank

Home elder law - 0 views

www.californiacivilprocedure.com/_Procedure_Journals_Part_1.htm

civil rights cal law 368

shared by Nye Frank on 21 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 21 Mar 10
     
    Desktop 1Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more ▼Books Finance Translate Scholar Blogs YouTube Calendar Photos Documents Reader Sites Groups even more » racingnyefrank@gmail.com | Web History | Settings ▼ | Sign outSearch settings Google Account settings Google Advanced Search WebHide optionsShow options... Results 1 - 10 of about 87,500 for PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTSA. California Government CodeB. Federal Civil Rights Actions. (0.62 seconds) Search Options › All results Images Videos News Blogs Updates Books Discussions › Any time Latest Past 24 hours Past week Past year › Specific date range From: To: ex: 5/23/2004 › All results Social Nearby › All results Visited pages Not yet visited › Standard view Related searches Wonder wheel Timeline › Standard results Images from the page Fewer shopping sites More shopping sites Page previews Translated searchDid you mean: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. California Government Code. Federal Civil Rights Actions Search ResultsDisability Laws and Regulations | California Disability Access ...The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business ... based on disability include California Civil Codes Sections 54 through 55.2 .... action and prohibits employment discrimination by Federal government ... Section 508 established requirements for electronic and information ... www.disabilityaccessinfo.ca.gov/lawsregs.htm - Cached - Similar Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) govern civil procedure (i.e. for civil ... In addition to notice pleading, a minority of states (e.g., California) use an ... Rule 8(a) sets out the plaintiff's requirements for a claim: a "short and plain .... Chapter VI deals generally with the trial of civil actions, ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civ
Nye Frank

Leave shaded areas blank* Begin text of policy/procedure here - 0 views

cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx

fraud reporting compliance

shared by Nye Frank on 14 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 14 Oct 09
     
    The Compliance Hotline Policy outlines the various reporting mechanisms available to employees, agents, and contractors for the reporting of potential incidents of noncompliance, and also sets forth the manner in which reports of incidents of non-compliance are investigated by the Office of Compliance.
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
  • 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).
    • Nye Frank
      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)).
  • 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.
  • 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
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • 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)).
Gerald Payton

Perfect Way to Boost Employees' Self-Esteem - 1 views

I have been working with David Ferrier for two months now and with his expertise, he was able to help me boost the confidence of my team. He was great because he actively motivated my staff to exce...

started by Gerald Payton on 22 Oct 12 no follow-up yet
Nye Frank

Windows Live space's Blog - Windows Live - 0 views

politicsinlandempire.spaces.live.com/?_c01_BlogPart=blogentry&_c=BlogPart

southern district victim space

shared by Nye Frank on 23 Jun 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 23 Jun 10
     
    Crimes Causing Harm to Property Depending on the value of the property involved, as well as the level of violence, most property crimes fall into the category of felony in Texas. The legal definition of theft is unlawfully taking the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property. This definition is much broader than what most people think of as theft. It includes embezzlement, keeping found property without making a reasonable attempt to find its rightful owner, obtaining the services of another person or telecommunication services by fraud, shoplifting, unauthorized access to credit cards, and writing bad checks. Robbery is similar to theft; in fact, theft is a part of robbery. A person commits robbery if, during a theft, he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person, threatens a person, or places another person in fear of immediate injury or death. Aggravated robbery, which is a felony of the first degree, is a robbery in which a person is seriously injured or in which the defendant uses a deadly weapon. If the robbery causes fear of immediate injury or death to a victim who is 65 years of age or older, or who has a mental, physical, or developmental disability, the crime also constitutes an aggravated robbery. Burglary is entering into a building, portion of a building, or habitation with the intent to commit theft or a felony there. Not only is it burglary to enter a house unlawfully with the intent to steal money or property, but it is also burglary to enter with the intent to commit a felony such as arson or murder. White Collar Crimes http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/tx/law/c13.html#txc130500
Nye Frank

Lets find out together who is doing Probate Homicides - 0 views

Lets find out together who these political probate homicide members are. Building your wealth off of elders. Easy target http://www.diigo.com/search/g?cx=!partner-pub-7625644023173335%3Agqffh9-8lvc...

Probate Homicides Political Corruption Elder Colorado River Law Color of the Part Legislator Time Federal Employees

started by Nye Frank on 02 Jul 10 no follow-up yet
Nye Frank

Lets find out together who is doing Probate Homicides - 0 views

Lets find out together who these political probate homicide members are. Building your wealth off of elders. Easy target

Probate Homicides Political Corruption Elder Colorado River Law Color of the Part Legislator Time Federal Employees

started by Nye Frank on 02 Jul 10 no follow-up yet
1 - 14 of 14
Showing 20▼ items per page