Group items tagged

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

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).

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).

California political group resources

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

Victim Rights in California [ TOP ] Victims of crime and the families of homicide victims have the right to: Know the current status of your court case. Be assisted if called as a witness. Attend all sentencing proceedings. Speak in person; address the court in writing; or be represented by an attorney at the time of felony sentencing to express your views concerning the defendant, the crime, and its effects on you and your family. Have the court order restitution from the convicted person. Request the Board of Prison Terms to provide notice of any hearing to review or consider parole eligibility or parole-setting for prisoner(s) in your case. You must keep the Board of Prison Terms informed of your current address if you wish to be notified. Speak personally; submit a letter, tape recording or video tape; or send an attorney to the parole hearing to express your views about the crime and the person responsible. Program Services Available [ TOP ] The following mandatory and optional services, mandated by the Office of Emergency Services, are provided: Mandatory Services Crisis Intervention Emergency Assistance Resource and Referral Assistance Follow-up Assistance Property Return Assistance Orientation to the Criminal Justice System Victim Impact Statement Assistance Court Escort/Court Support Case Status/Case Disposition Information Notification of Family/Friends Employer Notification Victim of Crime Claims Assistance Restitution Assistance Optional Services Creditor Intervention Child Care Assistance Witness Notification Funeral Arrangement Assistance Crime Prevention Information Witness Protection Assistance Temporary Restraining Order Information Transportation Assistance Court Waiting Area Employer Intervention Language Capabilities: Confidential language service available to translate all languages. State Victim of Crime Compens

Law, Tort, Administrative, Hate Crimes, Corruption, Sheriff,

"The uncontested facts show that Evans cannot satisfy the requirement of "affirmatively prov[ing] prejudice." It is inconceivable to us, and not merely improbable as in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 644 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 2257 n. 12, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), that Evans would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received. It just is not believable that Evans did all the things he does not deny having done, involving elaborate negotiations with the police over several hours, in some sort of alcohol-induced trance. In this respect the present case resembles Morgan v. Israel, 735 F.2d 1033 (7th Cir.1984). In evaluating the voluntariness of Morgan's failure to plead not guilty we said, "It is sufficiently clear that Morgan had no hope at all of an acquittal to enable us to infer that he would not have changed his plea to not guilty .... He admitted having shot Mallason; and when you shoot a person several times, with fatal results, the inference of deliberate homicide is irresistible .... The jury never would have believed that he lacked the ... elementary mental capacity required to form a murderous intent...." Id. at 1036. So here, no jury could have believed that Evans was not acting deliberately when he did all the things he did in the police station. Therefore, being told that if he had not been acting deliberately he would have been acquitted of some of the offenses with which he was charged could not have led him to change his plea and to win acquittal."

Court records changed.

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