WASHINGTON– Divorce lawyers acknowledge persons often make allegations of abuse in order to gain a legal edge. A report released today shows such claims are widespread, harmful to the children involved in such cases, devastating to persons falsely accused, and costly to the American taxpayer. The report, “False Allegations of Domestic Violence Cost Taxpayers $20 Billion a Year,” compiles government statistics and research studies to reach three conclusions:
Each year our nation spends $4 billion for domestic violence programs.
Each year about 175,000 children are involved in a divorce with a false allegation of domestic violence.
These claims contribute to $20 billion in public costs and taxpayer burden associated with single-parent families.
The report is published by RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – and is available at: www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf
Children are often harmed by false claims. Attorney Lisa Scott of Bellvue, Wash. notes, “The ones hurt most of all are the children kept away from a loving parent.”
The report highlights the recent case of Emily Hindle whose mother falsely accused the father of domestic violence in order to abduct the child. The mother later discontinued the child’s medical treatment, causing the child to lose her sight in one eye.
“False allegations of abuse are currently the greatest violation of due process in our legal system,” reveals family attorney Gregory Hession of Springfield, Mass. “In my practice, I’ve found the majority of the allegations used to obtain restraining orders are false or greatly exaggerated.”
Victims of false allegations are beginning to fight back. Former state Rep. Eric Major won a $500,000 award against the city of Birmingham, Ala., stemming from his 2004 arrest and subsequent acquittal on charges that he attacked his ex-fiancee.
False allegations often arise from programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act. RADAR recently launched a Fix VAWA Now! campaign to increase awareness of the need to reform ineffective and harmful domestic violence laws.
Contact: Mark Rosenthal, 781-956-1034, info@mediaradar.org
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org .
antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/false-abuse-accusations-cost-taxpayers-20-billion-report-finds-12315.html#ixzz1mytDGG8L
Monday, February 20, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Stalking is a crime which can be terrifying and can destroy a victim's life. So why would anyone make it up?
For four years, one woman claimed she was being terrorised by a stalker called "The Poet", who bombarded her with threatening letters in rhyme. A butcher's knife arrived from him at Christmas; he cut her telephone line; he threw concrete blocks at her home; he even abducted her, stabbing her in the back.
When she was found mailing letters from "The Poet" to herself, the middle- aged American woman confessed that he had never existed.
This case, reported in 1984, was the first claim of false stalking to be made. But now new research from Australia suggests that as many as 10 per cent of stalking claims may be fictitious.
"False Victimisation Syndrome" is just one of a new set of psychiatric disorders that has joined illnesses such as cancer, which are favourites among those who set out to dupe doctors. The motivation of the "pseudovictims" can seem mysterious, but most psychologists believe the behaviour is attention-seeking, the only way an isolated individual has of obtaining sympathy.
In their paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Australian psychiatrists Dr Michele Pathe and colleagues, examined 12 individuals who had falsely claimed to be victims of stalking. Significantly, none was in a stable relationship, a stark contrast with the true victims that the Australian doctors saw in their specialist clinic. This strongly suggests that it is the enlistment of help and support from others that drives the need to claim you are in danger.
According to psychologists, true victims of stalking are usually embarrassed by their situation and would rather not draw attention to themselves, in contrast to pseudovictims, who try as hard as possible to get assistance from others. Genuine sufferers are often reluctant to notify the authorities of their problem, fearing that this may even exacerbate their predicament, while false victims happily, even gleefully, come forward.
Another clue as to what is really going on lies in the rhythm with which incidents are reported. Pseudovictims tend to generate more complaints if it seems as though others may be losing interest in the case. But in three of the 12 cases reported from Australia the victims had suffered genuine stalking in the past, and had as a result become hypersensitive to a possible recurrence, seeing stalking in the blameless actions of others.
In six of the 12 cases Dr Pathe describes, the cause of the false claims was in fact a paranoid delusion about being followed, which the psychotic had incorporated into their fantasy life, perhaps because paranoia about stalking, fuelled by media reports, is currently so widespread. Yet the public fear of stalking is often based on a false picture generated by the media, which focuses on celebrity stalking, where disturbed fans are usually involved.
In cases involving ordinary members of the public, it is much more common for any stalking to be done by someone already fairly well known to the victim. Ironically, in one case reported by Dr Pathe the false victim of stalking was in fact a stalker - the false claim seemed to be an attempt to pre-empt the victim's complaint. This echoes another bizarre case from the US where a stalker took out an injunction against a victim, to stop the person following the stalker.
This begins to make psychological sense if you see stalkers as people so obsessed with their victims that they are unable to get thoughts of their quarry out of their minds, even when they may want to. In a sense, they themselves feel trapped by their targets.
However complex the problem of telling the genuine from the false in the weird world of stalking, one salient fact is incontestable: the time and energy devoted to investigating false claims takes away precious and increasingly meagre resources from genuine crimes and victims. But even when the authorities suspect they have a pseudovictim on their hands, the problem of how to confront the issue with the perpetrator can be a difficult one.
In another famous US case, a woman filed 60 complaints over six months, claiming that she had found underwear in her house with red hearts drawn on in lipstick, and that she had suffered break-ins and had found blood- soaked teddy bears left above her garage entrance so they would fall on those closing the door. One was found in her baby's cot. After several press conferences held by the victim, where she complained about the lack of interest of the local police, she was caught on videotape placing a teddy bear in her garage. It transpired that the motivation was an attempt to make living in her house so uncomfortable that it would force her reluctant husband to agree to move.
In 1995, Cyndy Garvey, the ex-wife of a famous baseball player, reported a number of stalking events to the Los Angeles police. After numerous phone calls pleading for help, she went to them with a black eye and damaged nose. It later emerged that she had in fact been harassing her ex-husband and an ex-boyfriend. She confessed that she manufactured the stalking incidents to exact revenge against her ex-boyfriend.
This is a common motivation - to inflict vengeance against a loved one who has ended a relationship. Alternatively an ex-partner may be galvanised into protecting the "victim" from a mysterious anonymous threat, and so fictitious claims of being stalked can connect you with someone who was not otherwise likely to return.
Dr Pathe and her colleagues suggest a sympathetic approach which acknowledges that false victims in most cases are distressed and disturbed individuals. Dr Kris Mohandie, a police psychologist at the Los Angeles Police Department who specialises in False Victimisation Syndrome, explains that their approach is to state to the pseudovictim that "events did not occur as you told us", but then to allow a face-saving exit for the perpetrators by portraying the falsehood as a "cry for help". After all, seeking a victim's role as the only way of achieving a sense of personal identity suggests something fundamentally wrong with their psychological development.
But perhaps the cause also partly lies in a society so obsessed by the cult of celebrity that anyone who is anyone must have their own stalker - the ultimate status accessory; the same society where assuming the role of a victim is increasingly the only way to get any attention.Dr Raj Persaud is a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in south London
When she was found mailing letters from "The Poet" to herself, the middle- aged American woman confessed that he had never existed.
This case, reported in 1984, was the first claim of false stalking to be made. But now new research from Australia suggests that as many as 10 per cent of stalking claims may be fictitious.
"False Victimisation Syndrome" is just one of a new set of psychiatric disorders that has joined illnesses such as cancer, which are favourites among those who set out to dupe doctors. The motivation of the "pseudovictims" can seem mysterious, but most psychologists believe the behaviour is attention-seeking, the only way an isolated individual has of obtaining sympathy.
In their paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Australian psychiatrists Dr Michele Pathe and colleagues, examined 12 individuals who had falsely claimed to be victims of stalking. Significantly, none was in a stable relationship, a stark contrast with the true victims that the Australian doctors saw in their specialist clinic. This strongly suggests that it is the enlistment of help and support from others that drives the need to claim you are in danger.
According to psychologists, true victims of stalking are usually embarrassed by their situation and would rather not draw attention to themselves, in contrast to pseudovictims, who try as hard as possible to get assistance from others. Genuine sufferers are often reluctant to notify the authorities of their problem, fearing that this may even exacerbate their predicament, while false victims happily, even gleefully, come forward.
Another clue as to what is really going on lies in the rhythm with which incidents are reported. Pseudovictims tend to generate more complaints if it seems as though others may be losing interest in the case. But in three of the 12 cases reported from Australia the victims had suffered genuine stalking in the past, and had as a result become hypersensitive to a possible recurrence, seeing stalking in the blameless actions of others.
In six of the 12 cases Dr Pathe describes, the cause of the false claims was in fact a paranoid delusion about being followed, which the psychotic had incorporated into their fantasy life, perhaps because paranoia about stalking, fuelled by media reports, is currently so widespread. Yet the public fear of stalking is often based on a false picture generated by the media, which focuses on celebrity stalking, where disturbed fans are usually involved.
In cases involving ordinary members of the public, it is much more common for any stalking to be done by someone already fairly well known to the victim. Ironically, in one case reported by Dr Pathe the false victim of stalking was in fact a stalker - the false claim seemed to be an attempt to pre-empt the victim's complaint. This echoes another bizarre case from the US where a stalker took out an injunction against a victim, to stop the person following the stalker.
This begins to make psychological sense if you see stalkers as people so obsessed with their victims that they are unable to get thoughts of their quarry out of their minds, even when they may want to. In a sense, they themselves feel trapped by their targets.
However complex the problem of telling the genuine from the false in the weird world of stalking, one salient fact is incontestable: the time and energy devoted to investigating false claims takes away precious and increasingly meagre resources from genuine crimes and victims. But even when the authorities suspect they have a pseudovictim on their hands, the problem of how to confront the issue with the perpetrator can be a difficult one.
In another famous US case, a woman filed 60 complaints over six months, claiming that she had found underwear in her house with red hearts drawn on in lipstick, and that she had suffered break-ins and had found blood- soaked teddy bears left above her garage entrance so they would fall on those closing the door. One was found in her baby's cot. After several press conferences held by the victim, where she complained about the lack of interest of the local police, she was caught on videotape placing a teddy bear in her garage. It transpired that the motivation was an attempt to make living in her house so uncomfortable that it would force her reluctant husband to agree to move.
In 1995, Cyndy Garvey, the ex-wife of a famous baseball player, reported a number of stalking events to the Los Angeles police. After numerous phone calls pleading for help, she went to them with a black eye and damaged nose. It later emerged that she had in fact been harassing her ex-husband and an ex-boyfriend. She confessed that she manufactured the stalking incidents to exact revenge against her ex-boyfriend.
This is a common motivation - to inflict vengeance against a loved one who has ended a relationship. Alternatively an ex-partner may be galvanised into protecting the "victim" from a mysterious anonymous threat, and so fictitious claims of being stalked can connect you with someone who was not otherwise likely to return.
Dr Pathe and her colleagues suggest a sympathetic approach which acknowledges that false victims in most cases are distressed and disturbed individuals. Dr Kris Mohandie, a police psychologist at the Los Angeles Police Department who specialises in False Victimisation Syndrome, explains that their approach is to state to the pseudovictim that "events did not occur as you told us", but then to allow a face-saving exit for the perpetrators by portraying the falsehood as a "cry for help". After all, seeking a victim's role as the only way of achieving a sense of personal identity suggests something fundamentally wrong with their psychological development.
But perhaps the cause also partly lies in a society so obsessed by the cult of celebrity that anyone who is anyone must have their own stalker - the ultimate status accessory; the same society where assuming the role of a victim is increasingly the only way to get any attention.Dr Raj Persaud is a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in south London
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Do You Know Someone with the Victim Mentality? It is True or False?
Often the only witnesses to Domestic Violence are the people involved. Since domestic violence most often takes place without the presence of witnesses, it is a charge that is easily abused. False reporting of domestic abuse in epidemic in Florida.
Once a false report is made, even if the complainant doesn't follow through, these cases are hard to stop and can have devastating personal and legal consequences.
False reporting and false accusations of domestic violence and abuse can occur when
There is a contentious divorce or a "custody battle" and one spouse cries "abuse" to gain an advantage. Sometimes, spouses will state they are victims of abuse because their spouse or significant other is a police officer, military member, lawyer or doctor, and has a professional license to lose.
This is no way is to take away from legitimate abuse, but it is imperative to remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Sometimes the Courts are forced to make a judgment call. Often times because of the emotional intensity of the situation, mistakes can be made in the initial granting of Domestic Violence Injunctions. People lie or omit information, which can lead to an arrest or a civil injunction.
The Courts In Florida look to Florida Statute 741.30 to determine whether there is an imminent fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence and the fear is reasonable. The statute reads:
"In determining whether a petitioner has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors alleged in the petition, including, but not limited to:
1. The history between the petitioner and the respondent, including threats, harassment, stalking, and physical abuse.
2. Whether the respondent has attempted to harm the petitioner or family members or individuals closely associated with the petitioner.
3. Whether the respondent has threatened to conceal, kidnap, or harm the petitioner's child or children.
4. Whether the respondent has intentionally injured or killed a family pet.
5. Whether the respondent has used, or has threatened to use, against the petitioner any weapons such as guns or knives.
6. Whether the respondent has physically restrained the petitioner from leaving the home or calling law enforcement.
7. Whether the respondent has a criminal history involving violence or the threat of violence.
8. The existence of a verifiable order of protection issued previously or from another jurisdiction. 9. Whether the respondent has destroyed personal property, including, but not limited to, telephones or other communications equipment, clothing, or other items belonging to the petitioner.
10. Whether the respondent engaged in any other behavior or conduct that leads the petitioner to have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence."
If the parties have never lived together, or do not have a child in common, a person can file a petition For Protection Against Repeat Violence. This is covered in Florida Statute 784.046. Action by victim of repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence for protective injunction; dating violence investigations, notice to victims, and reporting; pretrial release
violations.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Violence” means any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated
battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking,
kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical
injury or death, by a person against any other person.
(b) “Repeat violence” means two incidents of violence or stalking committed
by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of
the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner's
immediate family member.
(c) “Sexual violence” means any one incident of:
1. Sexual battery, as defined in chapter 794;
2. A lewd or lascivious act, as defined in chapter 800, committed upon or in
the presence of a person younger than 16 years of age;
3. Luring or enticing a child, as described in chapter 787;
4. Sexual performance by a child, as described in chapter 827; or
5. Any other forcible felony wherein a sexual act is committed or attempted,
regardless of whether criminal charges based on the incident
were filed, reduced, or dismissed by the state attorney.
(d) “Dating violence” means violence between individuals who have or have
had a continuing and significant relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on the
consideration of the following factors:
1. A dating relationship must have existed within the past 6 months;
2. The nature of the relationship must have been characterized by the
expectation of affection or sexual involvement between the parties; and
3. The frequency and type of interaction between the persons involved in the
relationship must have included that the persons have been involved over time
and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship.
The term does not include violence in a casual acquaintanceship
or violence between individuals who only have engaged in ordinary fraternization
in a business or social context.
(2) There is created a cause of action for an injunction for protection in
cases of repeat violence, there is created a separate cause of action for an
injunction for protection in cases of dating violence, and there is created a
separate cause of action for an injunction for protection in cases of sexual
violence.
(a) Any person who is the victim of repeat violence or the parent or legal
guardian of any minor child who is living at home and who seeks an injunction
for protection against repeat violence on behalf of the minor child has standing
in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection
against repeat violence.
(b) Any person who is the victim of dating violence and has reasonable cause
to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act
of dating violence, or any person who has reasonable cause to believe he or she
is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of an act of dating violence, or
the parent or legal guardian of any minor child who is living at home and who
seeks an injunction for protection against dating violence on behalf of that
minor child, has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an
injunction for protection against dating violence.
(c) A person who is the victim of sexual violence or the parent or legal
guardian of a minor child who is living at home who is the victim of sexual
violence has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an
injunction for protection against sexual violence on his or her own behalf or on
behalf of the minor child if:
1. The person has reported the sexual violence to a law enforcement agency
and is cooperating in any criminal proceeding against the respondent, regardless
of whether criminal charges based on the sexual violence have been filed,
reduced, or dismissed by the state attorney; or
2. The respondent who committed the sexual violence against the victim or
minor child was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in state prison for the
sexual violence and the respondent's term of imprisonment has expired or is due
to expire within 90 days following the date the petition is filed.
(d) A cause of action for an injunction may be sought whether or not any
other petition, complaint, or cause of action is currently available or pending
between the parties.
(e) A cause of action for an injunction does not require that the petitioner
be represented by an attorney.
(3)(a) The clerk of the court shall provide a copy of this section,
simplified forms, and clerical assistance for the preparation and filing of such
a petition by any person who is not represented by counsel.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the clerk of the court may not assess a
fee for filing a petition for protection against repeat violence, sexual
violence, or dating violence. However, subject to legislative appropriation, the
clerk of the court may, each quarter, submit to the Office of the State Courts
Administrator a certified request for reimbursement for petitions for protection
issued by the court under this section at the rate of $40 per petition. The
request for reimbursement shall be submitted in the form and manner prescribed
by the Office of the State Courts Administrator. From this reimbursement, the
clerk shall pay the law enforcement agency serving the injunction the fee
requested by the law enforcement agency; however, this fee may not exceed $20.
(c) No bond shall be required by the court for the entry of an injunction.
(d) The clerk of the court shall provide the petitioner with a certified
copy of any injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence,
or dating violence entered by the court.
(4)(a) The sworn petition shall allege the incidents of repeat violence,
sexual violence, or dating violence and shall include the specific facts and
circumstances that form the basis upon which relief is sought. With respect to a
minor child who is living at home, the parent or legal guardian seeking the
protective injunction on behalf of the minor child must:
1. Have been an eyewitness to, or have direct physical evidence or
affidavits from eyewitnesses of, the specific facts and circumstances that form
the basis upon which relief is sought, if the party against whom the protective
injunction is sought is also a parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of the
minor child; or
2. Have reasonable cause to believe that the minor child is a victim of
repeat sexual or dating violence to form the basis upon which relief is sought,
if the party against whom the protective injunction is sought is a person other
than a parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of the minor child.
So, If you do not meet the above requirements, don't file!
Once a false report is made, even if the complainant doesn't follow through, these cases are hard to stop and can have devastating personal and legal consequences.
False reporting and false accusations of domestic violence and abuse can occur when
There is a contentious divorce or a "custody battle" and one spouse cries "abuse" to gain an advantage. Sometimes, spouses will state they are victims of abuse because their spouse or significant other is a police officer, military member, lawyer or doctor, and has a professional license to lose.
This is no way is to take away from legitimate abuse, but it is imperative to remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Sometimes the Courts are forced to make a judgment call. Often times because of the emotional intensity of the situation, mistakes can be made in the initial granting of Domestic Violence Injunctions. People lie or omit information, which can lead to an arrest or a civil injunction.
The Courts In Florida look to Florida Statute 741.30 to determine whether there is an imminent fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence and the fear is reasonable. The statute reads:
"In determining whether a petitioner has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors alleged in the petition, including, but not limited to:
1. The history between the petitioner and the respondent, including threats, harassment, stalking, and physical abuse.
2. Whether the respondent has attempted to harm the petitioner or family members or individuals closely associated with the petitioner.
3. Whether the respondent has threatened to conceal, kidnap, or harm the petitioner's child or children.
4. Whether the respondent has intentionally injured or killed a family pet.
5. Whether the respondent has used, or has threatened to use, against the petitioner any weapons such as guns or knives.
6. Whether the respondent has physically restrained the petitioner from leaving the home or calling law enforcement.
7. Whether the respondent has a criminal history involving violence or the threat of violence.
8. The existence of a verifiable order of protection issued previously or from another jurisdiction. 9. Whether the respondent has destroyed personal property, including, but not limited to, telephones or other communications equipment, clothing, or other items belonging to the petitioner.
10. Whether the respondent engaged in any other behavior or conduct that leads the petitioner to have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence."
If the parties have never lived together, or do not have a child in common, a person can file a petition For Protection Against Repeat Violence. This is covered in Florida Statute 784.046. Action by victim of repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence for protective injunction; dating violence investigations, notice to victims, and reporting; pretrial release
violations.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Violence” means any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated
battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking,
kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical
injury or death, by a person against any other person.
(b) “Repeat violence” means two incidents of violence or stalking committed
by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of
the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner's
immediate family member.
(c) “Sexual violence” means any one incident of:
1. Sexual battery, as defined in chapter 794;
2. A lewd or lascivious act, as defined in chapter 800, committed upon or in
the presence of a person younger than 16 years of age;
3. Luring or enticing a child, as described in chapter 787;
4. Sexual performance by a child, as described in chapter 827; or
5. Any other forcible felony wherein a sexual act is committed or attempted,
regardless of whether criminal charges based on the incident
were filed, reduced, or dismissed by the state attorney.
(d) “Dating violence” means violence between individuals who have or have
had a continuing and significant relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on the
consideration of the following factors:
1. A dating relationship must have existed within the past 6 months;
2. The nature of the relationship must have been characterized by the
expectation of affection or sexual involvement between the parties; and
3. The frequency and type of interaction between the persons involved in the
relationship must have included that the persons have been involved over time
and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship.
The term does not include violence in a casual acquaintanceship
or violence between individuals who only have engaged in ordinary fraternization
in a business or social context.
(2) There is created a cause of action for an injunction for protection in
cases of repeat violence, there is created a separate cause of action for an
injunction for protection in cases of dating violence, and there is created a
separate cause of action for an injunction for protection in cases of sexual
violence.
(a) Any person who is the victim of repeat violence or the parent or legal
guardian of any minor child who is living at home and who seeks an injunction
for protection against repeat violence on behalf of the minor child has standing
in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection
against repeat violence.
(b) Any person who is the victim of dating violence and has reasonable cause
to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act
of dating violence, or any person who has reasonable cause to believe he or she
is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of an act of dating violence, or
the parent or legal guardian of any minor child who is living at home and who
seeks an injunction for protection against dating violence on behalf of that
minor child, has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an
injunction for protection against dating violence.
(c) A person who is the victim of sexual violence or the parent or legal
guardian of a minor child who is living at home who is the victim of sexual
violence has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an
injunction for protection against sexual violence on his or her own behalf or on
behalf of the minor child if:
1. The person has reported the sexual violence to a law enforcement agency
and is cooperating in any criminal proceeding against the respondent, regardless
of whether criminal charges based on the sexual violence have been filed,
reduced, or dismissed by the state attorney; or
2. The respondent who committed the sexual violence against the victim or
minor child was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in state prison for the
sexual violence and the respondent's term of imprisonment has expired or is due
to expire within 90 days following the date the petition is filed.
(d) A cause of action for an injunction may be sought whether or not any
other petition, complaint, or cause of action is currently available or pending
between the parties.
(e) A cause of action for an injunction does not require that the petitioner
be represented by an attorney.
(3)(a) The clerk of the court shall provide a copy of this section,
simplified forms, and clerical assistance for the preparation and filing of such
a petition by any person who is not represented by counsel.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the clerk of the court may not assess a
fee for filing a petition for protection against repeat violence, sexual
violence, or dating violence. However, subject to legislative appropriation, the
clerk of the court may, each quarter, submit to the Office of the State Courts
Administrator a certified request for reimbursement for petitions for protection
issued by the court under this section at the rate of $40 per petition. The
request for reimbursement shall be submitted in the form and manner prescribed
by the Office of the State Courts Administrator. From this reimbursement, the
clerk shall pay the law enforcement agency serving the injunction the fee
requested by the law enforcement agency; however, this fee may not exceed $20.
(c) No bond shall be required by the court for the entry of an injunction.
(d) The clerk of the court shall provide the petitioner with a certified
copy of any injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence,
or dating violence entered by the court.
(4)(a) The sworn petition shall allege the incidents of repeat violence,
sexual violence, or dating violence and shall include the specific facts and
circumstances that form the basis upon which relief is sought. With respect to a
minor child who is living at home, the parent or legal guardian seeking the
protective injunction on behalf of the minor child must:
1. Have been an eyewitness to, or have direct physical evidence or
affidavits from eyewitnesses of, the specific facts and circumstances that form
the basis upon which relief is sought, if the party against whom the protective
injunction is sought is also a parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of the
minor child; or
2. Have reasonable cause to believe that the minor child is a victim of
repeat sexual or dating violence to form the basis upon which relief is sought,
if the party against whom the protective injunction is sought is a person other
than a parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of the minor child.
So, If you do not meet the above requirements, don't file!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
What Do You See In The Clouds?
Ethics of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, Security and Tips, Subject of New ABA Book
CHICAGO, Jan. 30, 2012 – As more businesses move their information technology systems into the cloud, lawyers need to ask if cloud computing is right for their firm. Cloud Computing for Lawyers, a new book from the American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section, features a discussion of cloud computing fundamentals; an overview of legal cloud computing products; and step-by-step instructions for implementing cloud computing in one’s practice—including practical tips for securing data. This book will help lawyers:
Understand the current state of cloud computing technology;
Weigh the risks and benefits of cloud computing;
Evaluate legal cloud computing applications like law practice management, billing, time tracking, e-mail and e-discovery software;
Consider the ethical considerations of storing client data in the cloud; and
Maintain security and privacy for online data.
Cloud Computing for Lawyers is written by Nicole Black, an author, blogger and speaker based in Rochester, N.Y. Black is also the founder of lawtechTalk.com, a company that educates lawyers about technology issues and provides legal technology consulting services.
Title:
Publisher:
Product Code:
ISBN:
Size:
Price:
Orders:
Cloud Computing for Lawyers
ABA Law Practice Management Section
5110724
978-1-61632-884-9
7 × 10
$79.95
800.285.2221 or www.shopaba.org
The ABA Law Practice Management Section is a professional membership organization providing resources for lawyers and other legal professionals in the core areas of the business of practicing law—marketing, management, technology, and finance—through its award-winning magazine, webzines, educational CLE programs, website and publishing division. For more than 30 years, LPM has established itself as a leader within the legal profession by producing ABA TECHSHOW, the world’s premier legal technology conference and expo, and through its publishing arm, which has more than 90 titles in print.
With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.
CHICAGO, Jan. 30, 2012 – As more businesses move their information technology systems into the cloud, lawyers need to ask if cloud computing is right for their firm. Cloud Computing for Lawyers, a new book from the American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section, features a discussion of cloud computing fundamentals; an overview of legal cloud computing products; and step-by-step instructions for implementing cloud computing in one’s practice—including practical tips for securing data. This book will help lawyers:
Understand the current state of cloud computing technology;
Weigh the risks and benefits of cloud computing;
Evaluate legal cloud computing applications like law practice management, billing, time tracking, e-mail and e-discovery software;
Consider the ethical considerations of storing client data in the cloud; and
Maintain security and privacy for online data.
Cloud Computing for Lawyers is written by Nicole Black, an author, blogger and speaker based in Rochester, N.Y. Black is also the founder of lawtechTalk.com, a company that educates lawyers about technology issues and provides legal technology consulting services.
Title:
Publisher:
Product Code:
ISBN:
Size:
Price:
Orders:
Cloud Computing for Lawyers
ABA Law Practice Management Section
5110724
978-1-61632-884-9
7 × 10
$79.95
800.285.2221 or www.shopaba.org
The ABA Law Practice Management Section is a professional membership organization providing resources for lawyers and other legal professionals in the core areas of the business of practicing law—marketing, management, technology, and finance—through its award-winning magazine, webzines, educational CLE programs, website and publishing division. For more than 30 years, LPM has established itself as a leader within the legal profession by producing ABA TECHSHOW, the world’s premier legal technology conference and expo, and through its publishing arm, which has more than 90 titles in print.
With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
