Master of Social Work Program Agreement
Title IV-E Internship Program
NH DHHS Division for Children, Youth and Families
UNH Department of Social Work
and
, Grantee/Student
The Department of Health and Human Services, Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), hereafter referred to as the Agency; the University of New Hampshire Department of Social Work, hereafter referred to as Department; and , hereafter referred to as Grantee/Student, do hereby make and enter into this mutual agreement as specified below:
I. The Agency agrees to:
A. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Title IV-E grant, to pay the tuition for said Grantee/Student who is currently enrolled in the Master of Social Work Program at UNH, and has enough credits to be a senior.
B. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay all mandatory fees (i.e. registration costs) imposed on students by UNH.
C. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay a minimal stipend to the Grantee/Student if the Grantee/Student is a full-time student. This stipend may be used to purchase books, materials, and other necessities required to complete the program.
D. Coordinate, assist and/or arrange practica for the Grantee/Student within a child welfare related agency.
E. If the Grantee/Student is currently employed by the Agency, allow said Grantee/Student to work a “flex time” schedule that will allow attendance to classes and practica as required if during normal work hours of the Agency (8:00 AM-4:30 PM).
F. The DCYF Title IV-E Grant will not support other costs associated with the completion of the program including travel costs to and from classrooms and/or practica.
G. Notify the Grantee/Student of employment opportunities within the Agency that are deemed appropriate and for which the Grantee/Student meets the minimum job qualifications as required by the NH Department of Personnel.
II. The Grantee/Student Agrees to:
A. Participate in the Master of Social Work program and curriculum prescribed by the UNH Department of Social Work, subject to approval by the School’s faculty advisor.
B. Participate in the required courses as outlined for the Child Welfare Program within the Department of Social Work.
C. Refund to the Agency, the previously granted tuition, as well as all mandatory fees and stipends if said Grantee/Student:
a. Fails to complete the course(s), or
b. Receives a grade of C or less in the course(s), or a C+ for a Masters Level
D. Complete a service time commitment to the Agency of one-year full-time employment for each equivalent year of tuition and/or stipend assistance.
E. Grantee/Students that are not current employees of the Agency agree to accept employment within the Agency, if and when offered, in any of its district offices throughout the state when a vacancy is available.
F. Refund the entire amount of tuition and stipends, including an administrative fee of 10% of the total cost expended by the Agency if said Grantee/Student does not accept employment within the Agency or leaves said employment prior to the agreed amount of time stated in Section II, D.
G. No refund will be required if there is not employment opportunity within six (6) months of the Student’s completion of the Program or if the Agency does not hire the student within six (6) months.
H. The Grantee/Student agrees prior to program practicum to adhere to, submit to, and to sign in agreement:
a. That they possess a valid driver’s license, have reliable transportaton and liability insurance
b. A criminal records check
I. DCYF ethics policy:
a. Confidentiality policy
It is important to note that all stipends are dependent on a year-to-date Federal IV-E contract. Therefore it cannot be guaranteed that DCYF will finance your entire academic program.
Grantee/Student
Date
DCYF Director or Designee
Date
Chair of the Dept. of Social Work/ Designee
Date
http://www.shhs.unh.edu/sw/docs/CWTG_Agreement_MSW.pdf
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
CHILD SLAVE TRADE PROJECT
CHILD SLAVE TRADE PROJECT
NEW MATERIAL POSTED JULY 7, 2005: EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
Download PDF file of EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
PRESS RELEASE
July 3, 2005
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FEDERAL FUND REVENUE
Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.
Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:
Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."
The full text of CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench Guides SmallFile.pdf (35.1Mb)
A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:
Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.
Susan Goodman and Joan Hurley, Reasonable Efforts: Who Decides What’ s Reasonable? (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.) 1993, at 8.
Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seeking to assure receipt of federal funding without the court taking a meaningful look at reasonable efforts. In such states, words indicating the agency has made reasonable efforts are preprinted into court order forms used when removal of a child is authorized, and laws are structured so a judge cannot authorize a foster placement without a positive finding of reasonable efforts. Hardin, supra end. 7, at 54
The full text of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/CANCCourtPractices.pdf (569.6Kb)
Six pages of examples cited from CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing and RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases are available at
http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/SmokingGunAnoun.pdf (167.2Kb)
http://www.thesociologycenter.com/slavetrade.html
NEW MATERIAL POSTED JULY 7, 2005: EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
Download PDF file of EMERGENCY NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ORGANIZED CRIME ALERT
PRESS RELEASE
July 3, 2005
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FEDERAL FUND REVENUE
Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.
Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:
Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."
The full text of CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench Guides SmallFile.pdf (35.1Mb)
A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:
Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.
Susan Goodman and Joan Hurley, Reasonable Efforts: Who Decides What’ s Reasonable? (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.) 1993, at 8.
Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seeking to assure receipt of federal funding without the court taking a meaningful look at reasonable efforts. In such states, words indicating the agency has made reasonable efforts are preprinted into court order forms used when removal of a child is authorized, and laws are structured so a judge cannot authorize a foster placement without a positive finding of reasonable efforts. Hardin, supra end. 7, at 54
The full text of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/CANCCourtPractices.pdf (569.6Kb)
Six pages of examples cited from CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing and RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases are available at
http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/SmokingGunAnoun.pdf (167.2Kb)
http://www.thesociologycenter.com/slavetrade.html
Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license
unhappygrammy-Does NH DCYF have a requisite license to advertise our children and grandchildren for Adoption, or are they above the law on this one also?
Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license
State Statutes Results
New Hampshire
Adoption
Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 273 KB) publication.
Use of Advertisement
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 170-E:39
A child-placing agency licensed or operating under a permit issued by the department may publish advertisements of the services for which it is specifically licensed or issued a permit under this subdivision.
No person who is required to obtain a license or permit under this subdivision may advertise or cause to be published an advertisement soliciting or offering a child for placement unless the person has obtained the requisite license or permit.
Use of Intermediaries/Facilitators
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.
Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license
State Statutes Results
New Hampshire
Adoption
Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 273 KB) publication.
Use of Advertisement
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 170-E:39
A child-placing agency licensed or operating under a permit issued by the department may publish advertisements of the services for which it is specifically licensed or issued a permit under this subdivision.
No person who is required to obtain a license or permit under this subdivision may advertise or cause to be published an advertisement soliciting or offering a child for placement unless the person has obtained the requisite license or permit.
Use of Intermediaries/Facilitators
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.
Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010
Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
For many private adoption and foster care agencies, nonprofit status in the child protection business leaves plenty of room for lucrative rewards, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which confirms the findings of The Stork Market.
The newspaper’s review of federal tax returns and other public documents found numerous examples where top executives’ compensation accounted for one-fourth to one-third of agencies’ budgets. In many instances, administrative costs exceeded expenses on direct services for children.
This, despite the fact that private adoption agencies in Georgia are mandated by law to operate as nonprofit organizations. Big salaries for the agencies’ executives and corporate officers as well as overhead are paid for by adoption fees, none of which benefits the children the groups are supposed to help.
In 2008:
Faithbridge Foster Care Inc. allotted nearly 40 percent of its budget to its top officers.
Families First Inc. of Atlanta paid six employees more than $100,000 each in 2008, according to tax documents.
Chinese Children Adoption International, which has an Atlanta office, paid its top two officers — who are married to each other — a total of about $410,000 in 2006, the latest year for which its tax returns are available.
In 2007 Bethany Christian Services of Grand rapids, MI, with offices in Georgia -- which received $803,225 from the Georgia Department of Human Services for supervising foster children in 2009 -- paid the CEO $169,000, and $178,000 to the agency’s vice president. Bethany had a total budget of $9.1 million. However, $7.2 million, or almost four of every five dollars, went to management expenses. Another $1.2 million covered fund-raising costs — far more than the $694,000 that went to programs that directly served children.
A lack of industry standards and government rules enable people running such agencies to spend freely for their own benefit, said Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership.
“What you’re finding is certainly the trend in nonprofits,” Eisenberg said. “An increasing number of people are pushing for a kind of free market in nonprofits.”
He described directors who don’t challenge excessive spending as “totally incompetent.”
“There’s no accountability,” Eisenberg said. “There are no guidelines by the IRS, even on self-dealing. It’s just appalling.”
Posted by Affordable Housing at 3:14 PM
http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/
Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
For many private adoption and foster care agencies, nonprofit status in the child protection business leaves plenty of room for lucrative rewards, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which confirms the findings of The Stork Market.
The newspaper’s review of federal tax returns and other public documents found numerous examples where top executives’ compensation accounted for one-fourth to one-third of agencies’ budgets. In many instances, administrative costs exceeded expenses on direct services for children.
This, despite the fact that private adoption agencies in Georgia are mandated by law to operate as nonprofit organizations. Big salaries for the agencies’ executives and corporate officers as well as overhead are paid for by adoption fees, none of which benefits the children the groups are supposed to help.
In 2008:
Faithbridge Foster Care Inc. allotted nearly 40 percent of its budget to its top officers.
Families First Inc. of Atlanta paid six employees more than $100,000 each in 2008, according to tax documents.
Chinese Children Adoption International, which has an Atlanta office, paid its top two officers — who are married to each other — a total of about $410,000 in 2006, the latest year for which its tax returns are available.
In 2007 Bethany Christian Services of Grand rapids, MI, with offices in Georgia -- which received $803,225 from the Georgia Department of Human Services for supervising foster children in 2009 -- paid the CEO $169,000, and $178,000 to the agency’s vice president. Bethany had a total budget of $9.1 million. However, $7.2 million, or almost four of every five dollars, went to management expenses. Another $1.2 million covered fund-raising costs — far more than the $694,000 that went to programs that directly served children.
A lack of industry standards and government rules enable people running such agencies to spend freely for their own benefit, said Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership.
“What you’re finding is certainly the trend in nonprofits,” Eisenberg said. “An increasing number of people are pushing for a kind of free market in nonprofits.”
He described directors who don’t challenge excessive spending as “totally incompetent.”
“There’s no accountability,” Eisenberg said. “There are no guidelines by the IRS, even on self-dealing. It’s just appalling.”
Posted by Affordable Housing at 3:14 PM
http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/
Child Protective Services accused of ignoring a judge's order
Child Protective Services accused of ignoring a judge's order
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 2:17 AM EDT
Local News HeadlinesMore>>
Nye County Sheriff's Deputy shot & killed in the line of duty identified
McCarran International Airport unveils new parking payment system
19 year old charged with murder in death of teen
Child hit by vehicle near Palomino & Campbell
125 mph winds rip through Reno
Bodies of 2 Las Vegas men possibly found at Zion Nat'l Park
Las Vegas officials hold town hall for senior citizens
Family overcome with emotions at scene of apparent murder-suicide
Rory Reid says AZ immigration law "wrong-headed"
Suspect arrested after shooting at bail bondsman near Durango & Alexander
The last thing law enforcement wants to do is take a child from its parents. Still, they have to do exactly that thousands of times a year. But this story is different because of what they did with the child once they took her away from her mother.
The consensus is, keep a child with it's extended family whenever possible. That's the approach Child Protective Services wants to take. But Monday we met a woman who says they didn't do that in her case, even though they had a court order telling them to.
One thing is absolutely clear. Everybody wants what's best for baby Sara.
"She can't defend herself. She's only three months old," said her mother April Register.
When Child Protective Services was going to take away April's son and daughter, April knew she wanted her mother-in-law to have custody.
"She's a very strong woman. I trust her entirely," she said.
But they went to a foster family instead. CPS sayes a member of the grandmother's household failed criminal background checks.
5 days later, the 3 month old little girl was out of foster care, and in the hospital.
"When I saw her I saw how bad it really was. She had a diaper rash that was red and swollen that went all the way up her back. She had a deep cut on her knee," aid Register.
April's convinced that her 3 month old daughter was severely neglected, even abused while in foster care. Both Child Protective Services and North Las Vegas Police are investigating that. But no matter what the outcome of those investigations, the question remains: should those kids have been in foster care, or with their grandmother in the first place.
"Very surprised," said Attorney Tom Michaelides of the placement decision. "The reason why is there was no ambiguity in the judge's order."
Michaelides is handling the case for April. He says a family court judge had told CPS to place the kids with their grandmother. But they didn't.
"I've never in 15 years every had anybody completely ignore a judge's order like that. Especially a government agency," he said.
Even after all of that, Child Protective Services is sticking with their original argument. Today the kids were placed with their grandmother. And in court Monday, CPS told the judge, they still think he got it wrong.
Meanwhile, April Register herself is still under investigation for the incident that started all of this. A mistake, she says, that put prescription drugs in the hands of her son, and her son in an emergency room.
People are going ot want to know why are they in the system? We told her.
"They are going to come at me with whatever they can because they're in trouble right now. I'll do whatever it takes to get my kids back," she told us.
Child Protective Services told me, they just don't agree that baby Sara is best off in her grandmother's house. And they have different take on what landed the three-month-old in the hospital too. They say it wasn't abuse, but dehydration.
The foster parent assigned to take care of Sara and her brother brought them back to Child Haven - saying the kids were more than she could handle.
http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=10177951
Posted: Apr 14, 2009 2:17 AM EDT
Local News HeadlinesMore>>
Nye County Sheriff's Deputy shot & killed in the line of duty identified
McCarran International Airport unveils new parking payment system
19 year old charged with murder in death of teen
Child hit by vehicle near Palomino & Campbell
125 mph winds rip through Reno
Bodies of 2 Las Vegas men possibly found at Zion Nat'l Park
Las Vegas officials hold town hall for senior citizens
Family overcome with emotions at scene of apparent murder-suicide
Rory Reid says AZ immigration law "wrong-headed"
Suspect arrested after shooting at bail bondsman near Durango & Alexander
The last thing law enforcement wants to do is take a child from its parents. Still, they have to do exactly that thousands of times a year. But this story is different because of what they did with the child once they took her away from her mother.
The consensus is, keep a child with it's extended family whenever possible. That's the approach Child Protective Services wants to take. But Monday we met a woman who says they didn't do that in her case, even though they had a court order telling them to.
One thing is absolutely clear. Everybody wants what's best for baby Sara.
"She can't defend herself. She's only three months old," said her mother April Register.
When Child Protective Services was going to take away April's son and daughter, April knew she wanted her mother-in-law to have custody.
"She's a very strong woman. I trust her entirely," she said.
But they went to a foster family instead. CPS sayes a member of the grandmother's household failed criminal background checks.
5 days later, the 3 month old little girl was out of foster care, and in the hospital.
"When I saw her I saw how bad it really was. She had a diaper rash that was red and swollen that went all the way up her back. She had a deep cut on her knee," aid Register.
April's convinced that her 3 month old daughter was severely neglected, even abused while in foster care. Both Child Protective Services and North Las Vegas Police are investigating that. But no matter what the outcome of those investigations, the question remains: should those kids have been in foster care, or with their grandmother in the first place.
"Very surprised," said Attorney Tom Michaelides of the placement decision. "The reason why is there was no ambiguity in the judge's order."
Michaelides is handling the case for April. He says a family court judge had told CPS to place the kids with their grandmother. But they didn't.
"I've never in 15 years every had anybody completely ignore a judge's order like that. Especially a government agency," he said.
Even after all of that, Child Protective Services is sticking with their original argument. Today the kids were placed with their grandmother. And in court Monday, CPS told the judge, they still think he got it wrong.
Meanwhile, April Register herself is still under investigation for the incident that started all of this. A mistake, she says, that put prescription drugs in the hands of her son, and her son in an emergency room.
People are going ot want to know why are they in the system? We told her.
"They are going to come at me with whatever they can because they're in trouble right now. I'll do whatever it takes to get my kids back," she told us.
Child Protective Services told me, they just don't agree that baby Sara is best off in her grandmother's house. And they have different take on what landed the three-month-old in the hospital too. They say it wasn't abuse, but dehydration.
The foster parent assigned to take care of Sara and her brother brought them back to Child Haven - saying the kids were more than she could handle.
http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=10177951
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution-
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)