Color Of Law Deprived You of a Constitutional Right....? Then this is for you!!

"Section 242 of Title 18 makes it illegal for someone to intentionally violate a person's constitutional rights or legal privileges while acting under the authority of the law." 

The Department of Justice's, Civil Rights Division, states that the "The meaning of Section 242, acts under "color of law" are not only not only done by federal acts, but state, or local officials within their lawful authority use them too," (DOJ). 

DOJ, also statesthat a Violations committed by those in authority under the guise of legal authority, known as the "color of law," are serious offenses that deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. These violations are specifically outlined in statues and include actions such as false arrests, excessive use of force, and discriminatory treatment. It is essential that justice is served in such cases, as those who act without regard for the law erode the trust and integrity of the justice system", (DOJ).

Fig 1 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) - comprehensive, independent, and nonpartisan information on federal enforcement, staffing and funding, https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/107/ (last visited Sep 15, 2023).

    "The offense carries severe consequences that include imprisonment up to a lifetime or death penalty based on the crime's circumstances and its consequences on the victim," (DOJ). 

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

 "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section 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," (DOJ). 

 Cite 

Deprivation of rights under color of law, Civil Rights Division (2021), https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law (last visited Sep 15, 2023).

F.T.P

 

Removal or Withdrawal of Counsel

 
Defendant’s Request to Remo            
Although a defendant does not have the right to appointed counsel of his or her choice, the court must engage in an adequate inquiry into a defendant’s request for the replacement of appointed counsel. The court must appoint different counsel if continued representation by original counsel would result in ineffective assistance of counsel, involve a conflict of interest, or otherwise violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. State v. Glenn, 221 N.C. App. 143 (2012) (general dissatisfaction or disagreement over trial tactics insufficient basis to appoint new counsel); State v. Hutchins, 303 N.C. 321, 335 (1981) (“In the absence of any substantial reason for the appointment of replacement counsel, an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he wishes to present his own defense.”); see also State v. Williams, 363 N.C. 689 (2009) (defendant only expressed uncertainty to trial judge about why attorney who had previously withdrawn from case had been reappointed and did not make request for substitute counsel; trial judge therefore was not required to hold hearing on removal).
Defense Counsel Request to Withdraw
Possible grounds for a defense attorney’s request to withdraw are many and varied, and are not reviewed here. See, e.g., G.S. 15A-144 (counsel may move to withdraw for good cause). Ordinarily, it will be sufficient if defense counsel indicates to the court the general basis for moving to withdraw, and it is for grounds other than to cause undue delay in the proceedings. A trial court may hold an in camera hearing if necessary to inquire further. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 487 & n.11 (1978); State v. Yelton, 87 N.C. App. 554, 557 (1987).
Removal by the Court for Cause
In limited circumstances—for example, because of a significant conflict of interest—a court may remove retained or appointed counsel even over the client’s objection. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (court may override waiver of conflict of interest and replace counsel preferred by defendant); State v. Rogers, 219 N.C. App. 296 (2012) (court could remove defendant’s retained counsel based on serious potential for conflict of interest even if conflict never materialized).
Removal at the Request of the Prosecutor
A prosecutor may also move to disqualify counsel for the defense if there are legitimate grounds for the motion. See State v. Yelton, 87 N.C. App. 554, 556–57 (1987) (state filed motion alleging conflict of interest where one attorney represented two co-defendants – court held that “in effect, the State merely brings the conflict issue to the court's attention” and although such issues are usually raised by the defendant, “there is no reason why the State may not also raise the question before trial”).

SUBMIT BRIEF/MOTION 
Portions of this entry were excerpted from the 2013 North Carolina Defender Manual, Volume I, Chapter 12.6.

Waiver of prosecution on domestic violence cases

Rule 609 defines when a party may use evidence of a prior conviction in order to impeach a witness. The Senate amendments make changes in two subsections of Rule 609.

 It is intended that convictions over 10 years old will be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. The rules provide that the decision be supported by specific facts and circumstances thus requiring the court to make specific findings on the record as to the particular facts and circumstances it has considered in determining that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial impact. It is expected that, in fairness, the court will give the party against whom the conviction is introduced a full and adequate opportunity to contest its admission.

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

Rules 403 and 611(a) provide sufficient authority for the court to protect against unfair or disruptive methods of proof.

rEvidence of the conviction is admissible only if:

(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and

(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.

(c) Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:

(1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or

(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

What is RCW 10.99 035?

(1) A law enforcement agency shall forward the offense report regarding any incident of domestic violence to the appropriate prosecutor within ten days of making such report if there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed, unless the case is under active investigation.

Rule 609 defines when a party may use evidence of a prior conviction in order to impeach a witness. The Senate amendments make changes in two subsections of Rule 609.

Search Reasources

Today's Defintion -Abeyance

 Today's Defintion is a word that has meaning to a plea bargain...

the word is ......

abeyance

According to the definition, on wex.com, of the meaning of

Primary tabs

An abeyance is a temporary suspension of activity while awaiting the resolution of some other proceeding without which the activity in abeyance cannot continue. 

In the case of a plea in abeyance, the defendant enters a conditional plea of guilty which is then held in abeyance subject to a set of conditions. If the defendant fulfills these conditions, the charges are dropped. If the defendant fails to complete the conditions, the guilty plea is entered. For example, a defendant may be required to undergo a drug addiction treatment program or have a guilty plea entered. 

Appeals can also be held in abeyance, usually to await the outcome of another court case which concerns similar issues. 

In property law, abeyance occurs when the true owner of property cannot immediately be determined. In these scenarios, that property is held in abeyance with no one able to exert ownership rights until the true owner can be determined. 

[Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Rule 35 in Federal Court

 What is a Rule 35 motion in federal court?

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) permits a court, upon the government's motion, to impose a new, reduced sentence that takes into account post-sentencing substantial assistance, and that new sentence may go below the recommended guideline range and any statutory mandatory minimum penalty.

Meaning of Abuse

     (2) "Abuse" means the willful action or inaction that inflicts injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment on a vulnerable adult. In instances of abuse of a vulnerable adult who is unable to express or demonstrate physical harm, pain, or mental anguish, the abuse is presumed to cause physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Abuse includes sexual abuse, mental abuse, physical abuse, and exploitation of a vulnerable adult, which have the following meanings:

Recognizing a finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous

Refrence CaseText

 (1) If a party asserts that they are being subjected to abusive litigation, the court shall attempt to verify that the parties have or previously had an intimate partner relationship and that the party raising the claim of abusive litigation has been found to be a victim of domestic violence by the other party. If the court verifies that both elements are true, or is unable to verify that they are not true, the court shall set a hearing to determine whether the litigation meets the definition of abusive litigation.

(2) At the time set for the hearing on the alleged abusive civil action, the court shall hear all relevant testimony and may require any affidavits, documentary evidence, or other records the court deems necessary.

RCW 26.51.040

Added by 2020 c 311,§ 4, eff. 1/1/2021.

Judge's Summary — recognizing a finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous

 “[I]f the petitioner has proved the allegation of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault by a preponderance of the evidence , and the respondent cannot show that his or her actions alleged to constitute abuse were otherwise justified under the law, the court shall issue a full order of protection [....]” Section 455.040 (emphasis added). “'Preponderance of the evidence' is defined as that degree of evidence that 'is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows the fact to be proved to be more probable than not.”' Suhr v. Okorn , 83 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Mo.App.W.D.2002) (quoting State Bd. o f Nursing v. Berry , 32 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Mo.App.W.D.2000) ).

All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 cumulative as currently supplemented, unless otherwise noted.

Potection under the Adult Abuse Act. According to the statute, “domestic violence” occurs when “abuse or stalking [is] committed by a family or household member [....]” Section 455.010.5.

In his sole point on appeal, Hartl argues that the order of protection should not have been granted because C.L. failed to prove she was in fear for her physical safety. Assault and stalking both require a fear of physical safety. Hartl bases his entire argument on a single statement made by C.L. during her testimony. When asked about the June 11 incident, C.L. stated that “[she] felt safe herself, but [she] was just mad.” Therefore, Hartl claims that this proves C.L. was not in fear for her physical safety.

On June 11, Hartl knocked on C.L.'s door for thirty minutes while trying to talk to her.

was actually fearful about the situation, and acted in a way that a reasonable person would to attempt to protect herself from such a threat

to fear physical harm and that a reasonable person would have experienced such fear. We find that Hartl's actions amounted to stalking. Further, the same actions also establish that Hartl was guilty of “abuse” of the victim, as he assaulted her by grabbing her arm on at least two occasions and unlawfully entering her home. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not error in granting C.L. a full order of protection.

“The fact that Hartl fails to even recognize the fear that he placed C.L. in as a result of his actions is further proof of the need for the Adult Abuse Act.” C.L. v. Hartl, 495 S.W.3d 241, 245 n.7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)C.L. v. Hartl, 495 S.W.3d 241, 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)

abuse of process

 

Primary tabs

Researching laws and rules and things about the legal process and technicalities,I came across a site called wex.com,  it states, Abuse of process is a common law tort that involves the misuse of legal process(es) for an ulterior purpose. Abuse of process is one of several-actionable-offense - aimed at discouraging bad-faith litigation attempts. Indeed, courts hold the authority to sanction parties for bringing frivolous action, and parties also have a right to action under the claim of malicious prosecution. 

Generally, the elements for abuse of process are:

 (1) the use of an illegal or improper use of process;

 (2) an ulterior motive or improper purpose; and in some jurisdictions 

(3) to cause more harm to a litigant, the real ma-coy of victims!

I feel sorry for everybody that can feel that pain still, that knows 

what I mean by saying the "Real Victim!"

#1     So I have to file an arbitration petition to have a judicial proceeding over the abuse of process statue. 

Abuse of process has been described as misusing a "criminal or civil process against another party for a purpose different than the proceeding's intended purposes" and thereby causing the party damages (e.g., arrest, seizure of property, or economic injury). 

For instance, it's like what I am going through- dating - a - "Narcissistic Prick!" The classic case when dealing with the "abuse of process" consequently is any sort of actions taken by the so called "victim" in attempts to hurt the actual innocent victim, to coerce and control the defendant making them do some collateral thing which they could not be legally and regularly compelled to do. Such as break a restraining order, staying in such a violent and unhappy enviorments, and or to deal with the physical violence without protection from the law, (WEX).

charging a person with a crime while knowing that the person was not responsible for the crime, the court can held the employer liable for abuse of process, for initiating criminal charges while knowing that the charges were unsupported by probable cause.

In regard to defenses to abuse of process, there is disagreement among jurisdictions on whether good-faith reliance on an attorney's advice in bringing action serves as a complete defense. Still, attorneys who bring the improper process can be held liable to the damaged party as well."(WEX).

[Last updated in December of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Ciite: https//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abuse_of_process