The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution-
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 241
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 both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 242
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under \\\"color of any law\\\" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under \\\"color of any law,\\\" the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 245
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:
a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:
a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public College;
b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;
d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;
e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.
3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001
Fraud and False Statements
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
18 USC Sec. 1203
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 55 - KIDNAPPING
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1203
STATUTE
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.
United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 109 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 2234. Authority exceeded in executing warrant
Whoever, in executing a search warrant, willfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year. U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 2235. Search warrant procured maliciously Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant to be issued and executed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.
Section 2236. Searches without warrant
Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined for a first offense not more than $1,000; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This section shall not apply to any person -
(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or
(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or
attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has
committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having
committed a felony; or
(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the
consent of the occupant of the premises.
More on Section 2236
Title 42 USC Section 1983
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer\\\'s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia
Title 42 USC Section 1983 Information
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 14141
This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
FRAUD
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party\\\'s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (OK for system to lie?)
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
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
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Due Process
In NH abuse and neglect cases, parent's are NOT allowed to be heard! Due process rights are violated every day in NH.
Due Process
An essential maxim of law states simply, "A judge who rules without first hearing both sides, though his judgment may be just, is not himself just."
Justice implies this essential right to be heard.
One might rather say, true justice requires the right to be heard. The court should give both parties an equal opportunity to present the facts and law on which the court is required to rule with regard to those facts. Each side has a different point of view, but both are given an equal chance to argue their case free from the court's prejudice or penalty.
Anything less is ... well ... un-American!
But!
Simply arguing to a judge that your "constitutional rights have been violated", and expecting such a simplified argument to move the court to do something in your favor is a waste of time.
Courts don't operate that way - nor should they.
Courts act on pleadings and motions (usually after a hearing where both sides argue their motions in person or after the court has read and considered written motions supported by memoranda and responses in opposition.
The average courtroom is witness to dozens of complex and sometimes heated legal arguments in the space of an average day. The typical judge reads hundreds of pages of pleadings, motions, notices, and memoranda - not to mention official documents and court records - between the time the judge arrives at the courthouse in the morning and the hour when the judge finally heads home to be with family at the end of the day. Multiply this judicial workload by the number of judges in a typical courthouse, then multiply by the number of days in a year, and you quickly realize why there must be order in the court.
Courts have strict rules that govern everyone
At least, that's the way it's supposed to work!
If you don't understand how to draft powerful pleadings and move the court with persuasive proof, you don't stand a chance against an experienced lawyer.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Due Process
An essential maxim of law states simply, "A judge who rules without first hearing both sides, though his judgment may be just, is not himself just."
Justice implies this essential right to be heard.
One might rather say, true justice requires the right to be heard. The court should give both parties an equal opportunity to present the facts and law on which the court is required to rule with regard to those facts. Each side has a different point of view, but both are given an equal chance to argue their case free from the court's prejudice or penalty.
Anything less is ... well ... un-American!
But!
Simply arguing to a judge that your "constitutional rights have been violated", and expecting such a simplified argument to move the court to do something in your favor is a waste of time.
Courts don't operate that way - nor should they.
Courts act on pleadings and motions (usually after a hearing where both sides argue their motions in person or after the court has read and considered written motions supported by memoranda and responses in opposition.
The average courtroom is witness to dozens of complex and sometimes heated legal arguments in the space of an average day. The typical judge reads hundreds of pages of pleadings, motions, notices, and memoranda - not to mention official documents and court records - between the time the judge arrives at the courthouse in the morning and the hour when the judge finally heads home to be with family at the end of the day. Multiply this judicial workload by the number of judges in a typical courthouse, then multiply by the number of days in a year, and you quickly realize why there must be order in the court.
Courts have strict rules that govern everyone
At least, that's the way it's supposed to work!
If you don't understand how to draft powerful pleadings and move the court with persuasive proof, you don't stand a chance against an experienced lawyer.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Allegations & Proof
unhappygrammy-When your not allowed to speak, how can you prove anything? (which goes against "Due Process")
Allegations & Proof
To win your case:
Allege all the Facts
Prove all the Facts
Alleging all the necessary facts is like drawing plans for a workshop project. You make a detailed drawing of all the parts and how they fit together. Expert workmen always begin with a plan, then they follow their plan.
Pleadings are your lawsuit blueprint ... whether you're a plaintiff or defendant. Pleadings are the tool you use to allege all the facts that support your case. They give you and the court a clear vision of the final result you seek. In your blueprint pleadings you set out the facts that support the legal basis that requires the court to rule in your favor.
Failure to start with powerful pleadings always results in a weak case and foreseeable failure in court.
Your pleadings' weakness is the other side's strength.
If you're a plaintiff, the blueprint is a "complaint" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your cause(s) of action (what federal courts call a "claim on which the court can grant relief"). You make it clear that the court is obligated to rule in your favor if you prove your alleged facts by the greater weight of admissible evidence.
If you're a defendant, your blueprint is an "affirmative defense" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your defenses. You counter the plaintiff's allegations of fact with allegations of your own. Prove the facts of your affirmative defenses by the greater weight of admissible evidence.
Most pro se people (non-lawyers going to court on their own) draft pleadings as if they were writing a "letter to the judge", weaken their case at the very start by failing to lay out a powerfully complete blueprint for their proofs.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Allegations & Proof
To win your case:
Allege all the Facts
Prove all the Facts
Alleging all the necessary facts is like drawing plans for a workshop project. You make a detailed drawing of all the parts and how they fit together. Expert workmen always begin with a plan, then they follow their plan.
Pleadings are your lawsuit blueprint ... whether you're a plaintiff or defendant. Pleadings are the tool you use to allege all the facts that support your case. They give you and the court a clear vision of the final result you seek. In your blueprint pleadings you set out the facts that support the legal basis that requires the court to rule in your favor.
Failure to start with powerful pleadings always results in a weak case and foreseeable failure in court.
Your pleadings' weakness is the other side's strength.
If you're a plaintiff, the blueprint is a "complaint" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your cause(s) of action (what federal courts call a "claim on which the court can grant relief"). You make it clear that the court is obligated to rule in your favor if you prove your alleged facts by the greater weight of admissible evidence.
If you're a defendant, your blueprint is an "affirmative defense" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your defenses. You counter the plaintiff's allegations of fact with allegations of your own. Prove the facts of your affirmative defenses by the greater weight of admissible evidence.
Most pro se people (non-lawyers going to court on their own) draft pleadings as if they were writing a "letter to the judge", weaken their case at the very start by failing to lay out a powerfully complete blueprint for their proofs.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
unhappygrammy-NH Court's will NOT admit evidence proving innocence of a parent. If the evidence comes into light after the adjudicatory hearing, which happens often due to hidden records, the Judge claims it's too late. The court-appointed puppet won't push for the evidence to be admitted. He claims he work's for the court, not the client.
Admissibility of Evidence
The most critical thing about evidence rules is how they apply to "admit" certain matters to be considered by the court and limit or exclude other matters.
This first classification of evidence rules, therefore, deals with admissibility.
A witness statement, for example, might tend to prove or disprove some of the issues in controversy (i.e., it might be "relevant" to the outcome of your case) and yet be inadmissible for one or more reasons. Being relevant alone, is not enough. Other factors must be considered before the court can determine if evidence is admissible. Each of these will be covered in detail during this tutorial. Some those factors follow.
Relevance - ability to prove or disprove an issue material to outcome of the case
Credibility - reliability of witness or tangible evidence
Privilege - protection afforded certain kinds of evidence (e.g., attorney-client)
Prejudice - tendency to confuse, mislead, or waste time
If a party offers evidence that is not likely to prove or disprove any issue material to the outcome of the case, not worthy of being relied upon as true, protected by a privilege, or likely to cause prejudice that may outweigh its ability to prove or disprove any issue, it should be excluded as inadmissible, and an appropriate objection should be made as soon as possible - preferably before the court hears the evidence.
Unless a matter is admissible, it should never be heard by the court. If it gets in by accident (the too-frequent result of unlawful efforts of parties trying to get away with whatever the judge will allow) the matter should not be considered by the court.
It should have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Of course, once it's in, it's in!
Only admissible evidence should be considered by the court.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
The most critical thing about evidence rules is how they apply to "admit" certain matters to be considered by the court and limit or exclude other matters.
This first classification of evidence rules, therefore, deals with admissibility.
A witness statement, for example, might tend to prove or disprove some of the issues in controversy (i.e., it might be "relevant" to the outcome of your case) and yet be inadmissible for one or more reasons. Being relevant alone, is not enough. Other factors must be considered before the court can determine if evidence is admissible. Each of these will be covered in detail during this tutorial. Some those factors follow.
Relevance - ability to prove or disprove an issue material to outcome of the case
Credibility - reliability of witness or tangible evidence
Privilege - protection afforded certain kinds of evidence (e.g., attorney-client)
Prejudice - tendency to confuse, mislead, or waste time
If a party offers evidence that is not likely to prove or disprove any issue material to the outcome of the case, not worthy of being relied upon as true, protected by a privilege, or likely to cause prejudice that may outweigh its ability to prove or disprove any issue, it should be excluded as inadmissible, and an appropriate objection should be made as soon as possible - preferably before the court hears the evidence.
Unless a matter is admissible, it should never be heard by the court. If it gets in by accident (the too-frequent result of unlawful efforts of parties trying to get away with whatever the judge will allow) the matter should not be considered by the court.
It should have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Of course, once it's in, it's in!
Only admissible evidence should be considered by the court.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
What is Hearsay Evidence?
In NH "Hearsay Evidence" is admitted into court at Preliminary hearings of abuse and neglect. Parent's are not given the opportunity to speak. This is how DCYF stole my granddaughter in 2005, after the DCYF Lawyer told the Judge of a false report called in against my son-in-law, which had already been proven false almost two week's before the hearing.She claimed the report was true, even though she already knew it was false. The transcript/CD has been kept from us due to the Lawyer's dirty little secret that she committed perjury in court.We haven't seen my granddaughter since October of 2005 due to the unethical practices of a DCYF Lawyer.
What is Hearsay Evidence?
You must understand what hearsay is if you want to win in court.
It isn't what you think it is.
In court, "hearsay" has a very technical meaning that you must understand completely
Let's start with a simple definition of hearsay.
"An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it says."
Consider the first part of the definition.
What is an out-of-court statement? Well, it's just what it says, a statement made by someone somewhere other than "in court". Such statements may be made in writing, verbally, or painted in the sky with smoke trails from an airplane. If the statement is not made in court, it is an "out-of-court statement".
But, there's more! If a statement is made at a deposition where a certified court reporter is creating a transcript, it is considered as being made "in court". Both sides are invited to participate in depositions and ask questions, so neither side can complain they didn't have an opportunity to examine the deponent witness under oath. Courts treat deposition statements as being "in court".
The key point to latch onto here is that both sides have an equal opportunity to question the person making the statement under oath. A statement made by a witness at a deposition may in fact be hearsay, if the witness is testifying to what someone else said, but it is what the other person said that is hearsay ... the part that was said out-of-court by someone who could not be questioned under oath by both sides.
If the person who actually made the statement - the pilot in a sky writing airplane or the unknown author of some cryptic intra-office memo, for example - is not "in court" under oath and subject to be cross-examined, the statement is inadmissible hearsay (unless it falls into one of the exceptions).
Now for the interesting second part.
Is the statement offered to prove the truth of what it says?
If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove what it says, it is not hearsay ... even though the statement is made out-of-court, is not under oath, and neither side has an opportunity to cross-examine. In order for a statement to be hearsay, it must be offered to prove the truth of what it says!
"She said she'd bake a cake after church next Easter Sunday." If a witness testifies her neighbor said this, and if the other side objects, you should make clear to the court that the statement is not hearsay. If the witness testifies to what her neighbor said she was going to do, then the out-of-court statement is only offered to prove what the neighbor said, not that what she said was true. If it isn't offered to prove the neighbor actually went to church or baked a cake, then it isn't hearsay ... even though it was an out-of-court statement.
Don't let the other side trick you!
You must fully understand hearsay and the hearsay exceptions if you want to win your case.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
What is Hearsay Evidence?
You must understand what hearsay is if you want to win in court.
It isn't what you think it is.
In court, "hearsay" has a very technical meaning that you must understand completely
Let's start with a simple definition of hearsay.
"An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it says."
Consider the first part of the definition.
What is an out-of-court statement? Well, it's just what it says, a statement made by someone somewhere other than "in court". Such statements may be made in writing, verbally, or painted in the sky with smoke trails from an airplane. If the statement is not made in court, it is an "out-of-court statement".
But, there's more! If a statement is made at a deposition where a certified court reporter is creating a transcript, it is considered as being made "in court". Both sides are invited to participate in depositions and ask questions, so neither side can complain they didn't have an opportunity to examine the deponent witness under oath. Courts treat deposition statements as being "in court".
The key point to latch onto here is that both sides have an equal opportunity to question the person making the statement under oath. A statement made by a witness at a deposition may in fact be hearsay, if the witness is testifying to what someone else said, but it is what the other person said that is hearsay ... the part that was said out-of-court by someone who could not be questioned under oath by both sides.
If the person who actually made the statement - the pilot in a sky writing airplane or the unknown author of some cryptic intra-office memo, for example - is not "in court" under oath and subject to be cross-examined, the statement is inadmissible hearsay (unless it falls into one of the exceptions).
Now for the interesting second part.
Is the statement offered to prove the truth of what it says?
If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove what it says, it is not hearsay ... even though the statement is made out-of-court, is not under oath, and neither side has an opportunity to cross-examine. In order for a statement to be hearsay, it must be offered to prove the truth of what it says!
"She said she'd bake a cake after church next Easter Sunday." If a witness testifies her neighbor said this, and if the other side objects, you should make clear to the court that the statement is not hearsay. If the witness testifies to what her neighbor said she was going to do, then the out-of-court statement is only offered to prove what the neighbor said, not that what she said was true. If it isn't offered to prove the neighbor actually went to church or baked a cake, then it isn't hearsay ... even though it was an out-of-court statement.
Don't let the other side trick you!
You must fully understand hearsay and the hearsay exceptions if you want to win your case.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
unhappygrammy-This is an awesome story! A story about a mother and the love of her son, who beat all odd's. A mother and son in this day and age wouldn't stand a chance living the way they did. The state would have stepped in and turned their life into a nightmare. She took care of her son and stood by him. Isn't that what mother's are for?
Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
Hard times 'worth it' for new Bolts running back, mother
BY KEVIN ACEE, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.
Ryan Mathews’ mom, Tricia Mathews, never missed any of her son’s football games. Alex Horvath / Bakersfield Californian
There wasn’t room for much in the Mathews home when Ryan Mathews was a baby.
Only the necessities fit in a Cutlass Supreme.
The boy, a few months old, had two cloth diapers. He would wear one of them, while the other dried after his mom washed it.
Tricia Mathews, 16 years old, would get her daily meal in a Riverside soup line. She did odd jobs to pay for her baby’s milk.
The Cutlass, turned so many shades of green by the sun, would be parked in a church parking lot at night. What clothes they had were stored in the trunk. There was drinking water up front, some soap to use when showering in a nearby park.
There was a blanket and a pillow, and mom and son would sleep wrapped up in it and each other.
This story could have gone down a much different path than it has.
“I don’t know why,” Tricia Mathews said. “Maybe there was a bigger plan.”
Maybe it’s coming to fruition now.
Her son, Ryan Mathews, is about to become a millionaire. He’s going to play running back for his favorite team, taking over for his favorite player.
“All the suffering I went through is worth it for this moment for him,” Tricia said, speaking by phone Friday morning. “All those tired nights I wanted to quit but I didn’t, it was worth it to see his face when he picked up that phone.”
That would be the phone to answer the call Thursday night from Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith after the Chargers had made a bold move up in the draft to select Ryan Mathews 12th overall, making him the successor to the iconic LaDainian Tomlinson.
By the time Ryan hung up, Tricia was in tears.
“We made it,” she told her son.
Friday, after his introduction to the San Diego media, Ryan Mathews said, “That’s exactly what it is. We did make it. She’s worked very hard and done everything she can to turn me into the man I am today.”
Tricia also told Ryan that he’s grown up now, that it is his time.
But, in a way, this moment is hers, too.
“I am proud of myself,” she allowed. “I had a lot of people tell me I was doing a horrible job raising my son. I just did what I felt. I raised him from my heart.”
Yes, she worked a lot and sometimes Ryan was left alone “earlier than some people might think is right.” She let him dye his hair blond when he was 8, “because that’s what he wanted to do.” There weren’t a lot of rules in the home, “but he didn’t break any.”
She never missed a football game since he began playing. She made sure Ryan knew he was loved. She worked whatever job could be worked so he could have whatever he needed.
Tricia was in Fresno with Ryan on Thursday. She moved there from Bakersfield when he went to college and moved to Tennessee after this past football season was over.
“I’m going to live my life now,” she said.
Ryan Mathews said he’ll do whatever he can for her.
“She’s the reason we made it,” he said.
The “we” Mathews referred to was his brother, Dante, actually his closest friend since third grade whose mom abandoned him when the boys were about 13. Tricia took the boy in and eventually attained guardianship.
“Several times she could have called it quits,” Ryan Mathews said. “She never did. She’s a real strong woman with a tremendous heart.”
Tricia Mathews spoke matter-of-factly about the startling road she and her son have traveled. She said a few times she didn’t know how or why she made the decisions she did.
“I loved my little baby boy I had,” she said. “I wanted to give him something I didn’t have, and that was a good life.”
She came from a broken family, did not know her father. Her mother, clean 15 years now, was a drug addict at the time Tricia got pregnant.
Ryan’s father, who never married Tricia, left before the baby was born. According to Tricia, he has seen Ryan four times, most recently six years ago. She refused to apply for welfare and has never sought child support.
After a few months living in the car, Tricia simply decided, “This isn’t who I am.”
She sold the Cutlass for $100, used that on a bus ticket and moved in with her grandmother in Tehachapi. She got a job (jobs), saved some money and got an apartment.
Tricia “did a little bit of everything,” including washing dogs. She worked the 6 a.m. shift at a gas station and waitressed in the afternoon. For a while, as a third job, she drove around a landscaping crew on weekends.
She eventually got hired as a wind server operator, working 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in the middle of nowhere.
“All by myself,” she said with a laugh. “I stopped watching scary movies real quick.”
She worked her way up, getting into data analysis before leaving the company after moving to Fresno, though she continued to work.
“I never stopped working,” she said. “I just kept trying to get better in life. … You can either be a victim in life or work hard to get something.”
It rubbed off.
By many accounts a kid without a character blemish, Ryan went through a brief period in high school where he was skipping class. He failed some. He wanted to quit football.
“That was our one argument in his whole life,” Tricia said. “… I told him you’re not going to quit because of this funk you’re in.”
Ryan had a lot of work to do to get out of his academic hole. While other seniors were enjoying their final months, he had to double up on classes, trying to get eligible for college.
“I thought, ‘He’s not going to get through it. He didn’t do it when it was easier, he’s not going to do it when it’s this hard,’ ” Tricia recalled. “But he did it. I’m so proud of him. He did stick to it and persevered. He just proved to me he’s a little me.”
Kevin Acee: (619) 293-1857; kevin.acee@uniontrib.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/24/against-all-odds/
Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
Hard times 'worth it' for new Bolts running back, mother
BY KEVIN ACEE, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.
Ryan Mathews’ mom, Tricia Mathews, never missed any of her son’s football games. Alex Horvath / Bakersfield Californian
There wasn’t room for much in the Mathews home when Ryan Mathews was a baby.
Only the necessities fit in a Cutlass Supreme.
The boy, a few months old, had two cloth diapers. He would wear one of them, while the other dried after his mom washed it.
Tricia Mathews, 16 years old, would get her daily meal in a Riverside soup line. She did odd jobs to pay for her baby’s milk.
The Cutlass, turned so many shades of green by the sun, would be parked in a church parking lot at night. What clothes they had were stored in the trunk. There was drinking water up front, some soap to use when showering in a nearby park.
There was a blanket and a pillow, and mom and son would sleep wrapped up in it and each other.
This story could have gone down a much different path than it has.
“I don’t know why,” Tricia Mathews said. “Maybe there was a bigger plan.”
Maybe it’s coming to fruition now.
Her son, Ryan Mathews, is about to become a millionaire. He’s going to play running back for his favorite team, taking over for his favorite player.
“All the suffering I went through is worth it for this moment for him,” Tricia said, speaking by phone Friday morning. “All those tired nights I wanted to quit but I didn’t, it was worth it to see his face when he picked up that phone.”
That would be the phone to answer the call Thursday night from Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith after the Chargers had made a bold move up in the draft to select Ryan Mathews 12th overall, making him the successor to the iconic LaDainian Tomlinson.
By the time Ryan hung up, Tricia was in tears.
“We made it,” she told her son.
Friday, after his introduction to the San Diego media, Ryan Mathews said, “That’s exactly what it is. We did make it. She’s worked very hard and done everything she can to turn me into the man I am today.”
Tricia also told Ryan that he’s grown up now, that it is his time.
But, in a way, this moment is hers, too.
“I am proud of myself,” she allowed. “I had a lot of people tell me I was doing a horrible job raising my son. I just did what I felt. I raised him from my heart.”
Yes, she worked a lot and sometimes Ryan was left alone “earlier than some people might think is right.” She let him dye his hair blond when he was 8, “because that’s what he wanted to do.” There weren’t a lot of rules in the home, “but he didn’t break any.”
She never missed a football game since he began playing. She made sure Ryan knew he was loved. She worked whatever job could be worked so he could have whatever he needed.
Tricia was in Fresno with Ryan on Thursday. She moved there from Bakersfield when he went to college and moved to Tennessee after this past football season was over.
“I’m going to live my life now,” she said.
Ryan Mathews said he’ll do whatever he can for her.
“She’s the reason we made it,” he said.
The “we” Mathews referred to was his brother, Dante, actually his closest friend since third grade whose mom abandoned him when the boys were about 13. Tricia took the boy in and eventually attained guardianship.
“Several times she could have called it quits,” Ryan Mathews said. “She never did. She’s a real strong woman with a tremendous heart.”
Tricia Mathews spoke matter-of-factly about the startling road she and her son have traveled. She said a few times she didn’t know how or why she made the decisions she did.
“I loved my little baby boy I had,” she said. “I wanted to give him something I didn’t have, and that was a good life.”
She came from a broken family, did not know her father. Her mother, clean 15 years now, was a drug addict at the time Tricia got pregnant.
Ryan’s father, who never married Tricia, left before the baby was born. According to Tricia, he has seen Ryan four times, most recently six years ago. She refused to apply for welfare and has never sought child support.
After a few months living in the car, Tricia simply decided, “This isn’t who I am.”
She sold the Cutlass for $100, used that on a bus ticket and moved in with her grandmother in Tehachapi. She got a job (jobs), saved some money and got an apartment.
Tricia “did a little bit of everything,” including washing dogs. She worked the 6 a.m. shift at a gas station and waitressed in the afternoon. For a while, as a third job, she drove around a landscaping crew on weekends.
She eventually got hired as a wind server operator, working 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in the middle of nowhere.
“All by myself,” she said with a laugh. “I stopped watching scary movies real quick.”
She worked her way up, getting into data analysis before leaving the company after moving to Fresno, though she continued to work.
“I never stopped working,” she said. “I just kept trying to get better in life. … You can either be a victim in life or work hard to get something.”
It rubbed off.
By many accounts a kid without a character blemish, Ryan went through a brief period in high school where he was skipping class. He failed some. He wanted to quit football.
“That was our one argument in his whole life,” Tricia said. “… I told him you’re not going to quit because of this funk you’re in.”
Ryan had a lot of work to do to get out of his academic hole. While other seniors were enjoying their final months, he had to double up on classes, trying to get eligible for college.
“I thought, ‘He’s not going to get through it. He didn’t do it when it was easier, he’s not going to do it when it’s this hard,’ ” Tricia recalled. “But he did it. I’m so proud of him. He did stick to it and persevered. He just proved to me he’s a little me.”
Kevin Acee: (619) 293-1857; kevin.acee@uniontrib.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/24/against-all-odds/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)