Hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony, when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip. (See: Hearsay in United States law ) (Related Reading)
hearsay exceptions May want to add this to your knowledge base. Here is a link for further explaination http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/evid-803.htm (added 08/09-GPC-will be expanding)
hearsay rule n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness' memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to....") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available---most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable. (See: hearsay, admission against interest, dying declaration)
http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Registry.htm#State_Statutes_Summaries
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Friday, March 26, 2010
Perjury-Allowed in NH Family Courts
Perjury
v. also known as forswearing, is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about one's age, unless that person's age is a key factor in proving the case. (added 8/08GPC)
v. also known as forswearing, is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about one's age, unless that person's age is a key factor in proving the case. (added 8/08GPC)
Due process of law in NH-Not Afforded to Parents and Grandparents by NH Courts
Due process of law
a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. The American Constitution which provides "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and applied to all states by the 14th Amendment. From this basic principle flow many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights. (Related Reading: 1)Due process information from Wiki; 2)Proposed Due Process Act California)(Rev:12/09 GPC)
http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Registry.htm#State_Statutes_Summaries
a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. The American Constitution which provides "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and applied to all states by the 14th Amendment. From this basic principle flow many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights. (Related Reading: 1)Due process information from Wiki; 2)Proposed Due Process Act California)(Rev:12/09 GPC)
http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Registry.htm#State_Statutes_Summaries
Preponderance of evidence is all it takes to Steal a Child in NH
Preponderance of evidence in NH is NOTHING but Hearsay!
A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.
The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence.
Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+evidence (added 2/08-GPC)(Related Reading: Burden+of+Proof+Begone.pdf (added 8/09)
http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Registry.htm#State_Statutes_Summaries
A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.
The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence.
Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+evidence (added 2/08-GPC)(Related Reading: Burden+of+Proof+Begone.pdf (added 8/09)
http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Registry.htm#State_Statutes_Summaries
Federal Bureau of Investigation-PUBLIC CORRUPTION
PUBLIC CORRUPTION
Why It’s Our #1 Criminal Priority
03/26/10
Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.
Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities?
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.
Q: Can you describe the kinds of public corruption that the FBI investigates?
A: It really runs the gamut. Bribery is the most common. But there’s also extortion, embezzlement, racketeering, kickbacks, and money laundering, as well as wire, mail, bank, and tax fraud. Right now, based on our intelligence on emerging trends, we are focused specifically on several major issues: corruption along our national borders; corrupt officials who take advantage of natural disasters or economic crises to divert some of the government’s aid into their own pockets; and a myriad of officials who may personally benefit from the economic stimulus funding.
Special Agent Patrick Bohrer
Q: Where do you find this corruption?
A: Just about everywhere—at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the country. And I should point out, the vast majority of our country’s public officials are honest and work hard to improve the lives of the American people. But a small number make decisions for the wrong reasons—usually, to line their own pockets or those of friends and family. These people can be found—and have been found—in legislatures, courts, city halls, law enforcement departments, school and zoning boards, government agencies of all kinds (including those that regulate elections and transportation), and even companies that do business with government.
Q: How does the FBI investigate public corruption?
A: We’re in a unique position to investigate allegations of public corruption. Our lawful use of sophisticated investigative tools and methods—like undercover operations, court-authorized electronic surveillance, and informants—often gives us a front-row seat to witness the actual exchange of bribe money or a backroom handshake that seals an illegal deal…and enough evidence to send the culprits to prison. But we have plenty of help. We often work in conjunction with the inspector general offices from various federal agencies, as well as with our state and local partners. And we depend greatly on assistance from the public. So let me end by saying, if anyone out there has any information about potential wrongdoing by a public official, please submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office. Your help really makes a difference.
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/mar10/corruption_032610.html
Why It’s Our #1 Criminal Priority
03/26/10
Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.
Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities?
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.
Q: Can you describe the kinds of public corruption that the FBI investigates?
A: It really runs the gamut. Bribery is the most common. But there’s also extortion, embezzlement, racketeering, kickbacks, and money laundering, as well as wire, mail, bank, and tax fraud. Right now, based on our intelligence on emerging trends, we are focused specifically on several major issues: corruption along our national borders; corrupt officials who take advantage of natural disasters or economic crises to divert some of the government’s aid into their own pockets; and a myriad of officials who may personally benefit from the economic stimulus funding.
Special Agent Patrick Bohrer
Q: Where do you find this corruption?
A: Just about everywhere—at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the country. And I should point out, the vast majority of our country’s public officials are honest and work hard to improve the lives of the American people. But a small number make decisions for the wrong reasons—usually, to line their own pockets or those of friends and family. These people can be found—and have been found—in legislatures, courts, city halls, law enforcement departments, school and zoning boards, government agencies of all kinds (including those that regulate elections and transportation), and even companies that do business with government.
Q: How does the FBI investigate public corruption?
A: We’re in a unique position to investigate allegations of public corruption. Our lawful use of sophisticated investigative tools and methods—like undercover operations, court-authorized electronic surveillance, and informants—often gives us a front-row seat to witness the actual exchange of bribe money or a backroom handshake that seals an illegal deal…and enough evidence to send the culprits to prison. But we have plenty of help. We often work in conjunction with the inspector general offices from various federal agencies, as well as with our state and local partners. And we depend greatly on assistance from the public. So let me end by saying, if anyone out there has any information about potential wrongdoing by a public official, please submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office. Your help really makes a difference.
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/mar10/corruption_032610.html
"85% of all child abuse reports are unfounded"
"85% of all child abuse reports are unfounded"
20 HRS, 59 MINS AGO
March 24, 2010
For 10 years, I have been saying-
85% of all reports are unfounded- nothing happened.
Of the remaining 15%, at least half of those, nothing happened either.
The remaining 7 or 8 percent are likely "neglect" due to POVERTY. It is the SYSTEM that is out of control.
I have been challenged on my 85% figure, which admittedly I have been quoting since the year 2000, which was accurate at that time.
Therefore, I am making this update, based on the most recent report from the government agency "childwelfare.gov"--
Child Maltreatment 2007: Summary of Key Findings
Numbers and Trends
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published:2009
This factsheet presents excerpts from Child Maltreatment 2007, a report based on data submissions by State child protective services (CPS) agencies for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2007. The full Child Maltreatment 2007 report is available on the Children's Bureau website: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/index.htm
How many children were reported and received an investigation or assessment for abuse and neglect?
During FFY 2007, an estimated 3.2 million referrals, involving the alleged maltreatment of approximately 5.8 million children, were made to CPS agencies. An estimated 3.5 million children received an investigation or assessment.
Approximately 62 percent (61.7 percent) of referrals were screened in for investigation or assessment by CPS agencies.
Approximately 25 percent (25.2 percent) of the investigations or assessments found at least one child to be a victim of abuse or neglect, with the following report dispositions: 24.1 percent substantiated, 0.6 percent indicated, and 0.5 percent alternative response victim.
Almost 75 percent of the investigations or assessments determined that the child was not a victim of maltreatment, with the following dispositions: 61.3 percent unsubstantiated, 6.1 percent alternative response nonvictim, 5.7 percent "other," 1.6 percent closed with no finding, and 0.0 percent intentionally false.
Please note that you have to do some math to come up with the figures we are looking for.
The latest stats now show only 38% screened OUT to begin with.
Of the 62% screened IN, 75% of those were determined NO ABUSE.
[The math= 75% of 62%= 46.5%. So 38%+46.5%=84.5%]
Remember, these figure come from CPS reports to NCCAN (National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect), and I believe CPS like I believe in the tooth fairy. Oh yes, I am saying THEY LIE. This is required for Collecting the Federal Funding Streams.
They certainly can't tell the truth- that there really isn't nearly the problem the propaganda says there is.
Especially note the absurd 0% "Intentionally False" figure.
I am still willing to say that less than 5% of all reports are REAL abuse, by the definition that any sane person THINKS is abuse.
COMMENT on this story
"Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." --Aesop (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist
If CPS hasn't attacked YOUR FAMILY yet, see If you are ever approached by anyone from social services.... and WHEN THEY COME AFTER YOU
Learn as much as you can, as fast as you can at "How To Fight CPS"-
http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html
Get YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ON THE RECORD with your Sworn Affidavit-
http://familyrights.us/bin/FORMS/sworn_affidavit.html
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights Association
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home" ©
"The Voice of America's Families" ©
Have you seen AFRA News Today?
http://familyrights.us/news
I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to give legal advice. If you need legal advice, see AFRA's Lawyer Friends who certainly are not pretenders (http://familyrights.us/info/law) I merely relate the things I learned in the past that seemed to work in my own case or things that others have related to me that worked in their cases. I provide information for free and do not expect to receive any form of payment or reward on this side of heaven. Therefore, DO NOT rely on this information as legal advice. Real Legal advice would come from a real lawyer who hates CPS and prepares a VIGOROUS DEFENSE against a negative (proving nothing happened) instead an ATTORNEY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorn) talking you into a plea bargain (http://familyrights.us/bin/The_Problem_with_Plea_Bargaining.htm)
http://familyrights.newscred.com/editorials/1374/85-of-all-child-abuse-reports-are-unfounded
20 HRS, 59 MINS AGO
March 24, 2010
For 10 years, I have been saying-
85% of all reports are unfounded- nothing happened.
Of the remaining 15%, at least half of those, nothing happened either.
The remaining 7 or 8 percent are likely "neglect" due to POVERTY. It is the SYSTEM that is out of control.
I have been challenged on my 85% figure, which admittedly I have been quoting since the year 2000, which was accurate at that time.
Therefore, I am making this update, based on the most recent report from the government agency "childwelfare.gov"--
Child Maltreatment 2007: Summary of Key Findings
Numbers and Trends
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published:2009
This factsheet presents excerpts from Child Maltreatment 2007, a report based on data submissions by State child protective services (CPS) agencies for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2007. The full Child Maltreatment 2007 report is available on the Children's Bureau website: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/index.htm
How many children were reported and received an investigation or assessment for abuse and neglect?
During FFY 2007, an estimated 3.2 million referrals, involving the alleged maltreatment of approximately 5.8 million children, were made to CPS agencies. An estimated 3.5 million children received an investigation or assessment.
Approximately 62 percent (61.7 percent) of referrals were screened in for investigation or assessment by CPS agencies.
Approximately 25 percent (25.2 percent) of the investigations or assessments found at least one child to be a victim of abuse or neglect, with the following report dispositions: 24.1 percent substantiated, 0.6 percent indicated, and 0.5 percent alternative response victim.
Almost 75 percent of the investigations or assessments determined that the child was not a victim of maltreatment, with the following dispositions: 61.3 percent unsubstantiated, 6.1 percent alternative response nonvictim, 5.7 percent "other," 1.6 percent closed with no finding, and 0.0 percent intentionally false.
Please note that you have to do some math to come up with the figures we are looking for.
The latest stats now show only 38% screened OUT to begin with.
Of the 62% screened IN, 75% of those were determined NO ABUSE.
[The math= 75% of 62%= 46.5%. So 38%+46.5%=84.5%]
Remember, these figure come from CPS reports to NCCAN (National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect), and I believe CPS like I believe in the tooth fairy. Oh yes, I am saying THEY LIE. This is required for Collecting the Federal Funding Streams.
They certainly can't tell the truth- that there really isn't nearly the problem the propaganda says there is.
Especially note the absurd 0% "Intentionally False" figure.
I am still willing to say that less than 5% of all reports are REAL abuse, by the definition that any sane person THINKS is abuse.
COMMENT on this story
"Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." --Aesop (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist
If CPS hasn't attacked YOUR FAMILY yet, see If you are ever approached by anyone from social services.... and WHEN THEY COME AFTER YOU
Learn as much as you can, as fast as you can at "How To Fight CPS"-
http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html
Get YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ON THE RECORD with your Sworn Affidavit-
http://familyrights.us/bin/FORMS/sworn_affidavit.html
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights Association
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home" ©
"The Voice of America's Families" ©
Have you seen AFRA News Today?
http://familyrights.us/news
I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to give legal advice. If you need legal advice, see AFRA's Lawyer Friends who certainly are not pretenders (http://familyrights.us/info/law) I merely relate the things I learned in the past that seemed to work in my own case or things that others have related to me that worked in their cases. I provide information for free and do not expect to receive any form of payment or reward on this side of heaven. Therefore, DO NOT rely on this information as legal advice. Real Legal advice would come from a real lawyer who hates CPS and prepares a VIGOROUS DEFENSE against a negative (proving nothing happened) instead an ATTORNEY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorn) talking you into a plea bargain (http://familyrights.us/bin/The_Problem_with_Plea_Bargaining.htm)
http://familyrights.newscred.com/editorials/1374/85-of-all-child-abuse-reports-are-unfounded
Child left alone; foster mom facing charges
Child left alone; foster mom facing charges
THE CLARION-LEDGER • MARCH 24, 2010
A Jackson woman was arrested today for allegedly leaving her young foster son at home alone while she went out of town on a business trip.
Sharon Robinson, 33, is charged with felony child neglect, according to the Jackson Police Department’s arrest docket.
Robinson’s 9-year-old foster son was alone for more than 24 hours, Hinds County Sheriff’s Department Capt. Henry Glaze said.
“This wasn’t a matter of a couple of minutes or even a couple of hours,” Glaze said.
Authorities were notified by neighbors after the boy went to them complaining of hunger.
Robinson is being held at the Hinds County Detention Center. Bond has not been set.
The child has been placed in the custody of the Department of Human Service.
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100324/NEWS/100324041/1001/news
THE CLARION-LEDGER • MARCH 24, 2010
A Jackson woman was arrested today for allegedly leaving her young foster son at home alone while she went out of town on a business trip.
Sharon Robinson, 33, is charged with felony child neglect, according to the Jackson Police Department’s arrest docket.
Robinson’s 9-year-old foster son was alone for more than 24 hours, Hinds County Sheriff’s Department Capt. Henry Glaze said.
“This wasn’t a matter of a couple of minutes or even a couple of hours,” Glaze said.
Authorities were notified by neighbors after the boy went to them complaining of hunger.
Robinson is being held at the Hinds County Detention Center. Bond has not been set.
The child has been placed in the custody of the Department of Human Service.
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100324/NEWS/100324041/1001/news
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)