Sherrill schrieb am 31.01.2013, 18:48 Uhr:
Paul Tripp who refers to himself as "The Legend" made several phone calls to the president of Black Rose Productions, Inc.
identifying himself as Paul from Detroit seeking revenge against Tito Batista and his children. Paul Tripp "The Legend." On April 29, 2009 Tito Batista filed a formal complaint with the FBI IC3 crime unit. Mr. Batista is also filing formal complaints with the Nassau and Suffolk County Police Department, and the Detroit District Attorneys Office to have this individual arrested and prosecuted for extortion and threats of assault against Tito Batista and his family by Paul Firek fictitious name Vince Kline also known as Paul Tripp alias "The Legend." Paul Firek has been stalking and harassing Tito Batista, president of Black Rose Productions, Inc. for 10 years. He has finally crossed the line and exposed himself to legal prosecution for his threats and extortion. Paul Tripp "The Legend." This individual who in the past admitted to be on anti-depressants and illegal drugs was arrested for breaking into a private home and stealing a pedigree dog dog-knapping for ransom that he intended to sell in order to support his habit. Mr. Batista is concerned that this individual could be in New York to act out his threats. Paul Tripp "The Legend" please contact your local law authorities. Do not attempt to confront this individual he could be armed and he is extremely dangerous and appears to be suffering from paranoia and schizophrenia. Paul Tripp "The Legend" The AVI Audio Video Interleave format was developed by Microsoft. The AVI format is supported by all computers running Windows, and by all the most popular web browsers. It is a very common format on the Internet, but not always possible to play on non-Windows computers. Videos stored in the AVI format have the extension .avi. 2. The Windows Media Format The Windows Media format is developed by Microsoft. Windows Media is a common format on the Internet, but Windows Media movies cannot be played on non-Windows computer without an extra free component installed. Some later Windows Media movies cannot play at all on non-Windows computers because no player is available. Videos stored in the Windows Media format have the extension .wmv. 3. The MPEG Format The MPEG Moving Pictures Expert Group format is the most popular format on the Internet. It is cross-platform, and supported by all the most popular web browsers. Videos stored in the MPEG format have the extension .mpg or .mpeg. 4. The Quick Time Format The Quick Time format is developed by Apple. Quick Time is a common format on the Internet, but Quick Time movies cannot be played on a Windows computer without an extra free component installed. Videos stored in the Quick Time format have the extension .mov. 128 5. The Real Video Format The Real Video format was developed for the Internet by Real Media. The format allows streaming of video on-line video, Internet TV with low bandwidths. Because of the low bandwidth priority, quality is often reduced. Videos stored in the Real Video format have the extension .rm or .ram. 6. The Shockwave Flash Format The Shockwave format was developed by Macromedia. The Shockwave format requires an extra component to play. This component comes preinstalled with the latest versions of Netscape and Internet Explorer. Videos stored in the Shockwave format have the extension .swf. B. Creation of a Standing Committee RECOMMENDATION 2. A standing committee should be created to periodically review the Committees recommendations regarding the preferred formats for electronic discovery and ensure that they do not become obsolete.
Given the rapid changes and improvements in computer technology and software, the Committee recommends that a standing committee be created to periodically review its recommendations regarding the preferred formats for electronic discovery, and to suggest changes, if necessary, to ensure that they do not become obsolete.
Discovery for Pro Se Defendants RECOMMENDATION 3. The Conferences of Municipal Division Managers and Municipal Presiding Judges should create uniform procedures to ensure that pro se defendants are informed: 1 that they are entitled to discovery in certain cases; and 2 how to obtain that discovery.
The Committee recognized that there were many pro se defendants in the Municipal Courts, and many of those defendants did not realize that they were entitled to discovery or know how to go about obtaining that discovery. The Committee therefore felt that there was a need for some type of uniform mechanism that would inform pro se defendants of those facts.
For example, the court could read a standard statement at the defendants first appearance, or provide a form that listed the defendants principle rights and responsibilities in Municipal Court. If the latter, the defendant would sign the form to acknowledge that he or she had been informed of those rights and responsibilities.
In addition, to avoid bogging down the Municipal Courts with discovery requests in every case, the statement or warning would only be provided in cases that involved a consequence of magnitude. The Committee therefore recommends that this matter be referred to the Conferences of Municipal Division Managers and Municipal Presiding Judges for the development of uniform procedures, such as the creation of a standard form or an appropriate 130 statement, that would explain to pro se defendants in certain cases that 1 they were entitled to discovery; and 2 how to go about obtaining that discovery.
Jail/Corrections Discovery Issues RECOMMENDATION 4. The County jail and State correctional facilities should have uniform policies and procedures regarding 1 attorney visitation; 2 confidentiality; 3 accessibility to a language line or interpreters; and 4 dedicated, secure interview space.
During the Committees preliminary discussions, it learned of several jail and corrections-related issues that impeded the ability of defense attorneys to freely review discovery with their clients. It was reported, for example, that there were no consistent county jail or corrections policies regarding the use of laptop computers. Some jails and correctional facilities allowed attorneys to bring in their own laptops to view electronic discovery with their clients, while others only allowed the use of jail-owned laptops. Each jail and correctional facility also had different policies regarding the hours in which attorneys could visit with their clients. Another concern was that a number of jails did not have sufficient space set aside for attorneys to meet privately with their clients, or only had open, shared meeting areas in which conversations could be overheard. In one county, public defenders occasionally had to view discovery with their clients at the county prosecutors office.
In other jails, there were an 131 insufficient number of language lines, which hindered the ability of attorneys to communicate with clients who did not speak English. The Committee subsequently reviewed several sections of the Administrative Code, which governs adult county correctional facilities and attorney visitation.
Although the Administrative Code set forth the county jails requirements regarding inmate access to the courts and attorney visitation, the Codes provisions were broadly written, and relevant terms were rarely defined. The Code, however, does not define what qualifies as suitable meeting facilities, or as reasonable comfort.
Not only does that section of the Code give county sheriffs and jail wardens the option of requiring attorneys to provide notice of their intent to visit with their clients, but there is no definition of what constitutes reasonable notice. All that is required is that there be at least six hours set aside each business day for attorney visitation.
Consequently, county sheriffs and jail wardens have wide latitude in instituting their policies and procedures 132 regarding attorney visitation, and those policies and procedures vary widely from jail to jail. The Committee also conducted two separate surveys. The Committees surveys of county jails and public defenders revealed that there were no uniform, consistent policies in county jails regarding almost any aspect of attorney visitation. There were also different policies regarding the items that attorneys were allowed to bring into the facilities and whether they were required to leave during certain times of day. Some jails allowed attorneys to bring in anything that they wanted, with the caveat that all items were subject to a search. Other jails, however, only allowed attorneys to bring in case-related files and folders and prohibited everything else, including briefcases. Similarly, some facilities required attorneys to leave during meals, head counts and lockdowns; some allowed attorneys to stay; and others only required attorneys to leave during emergent operations. In addition, although the majority of county jails were able to quickly accommodate attorneys who wished to meet with their clients, long delays were common in others. Similar disparities existed with regard to the space set aside for attorney/client meetings. Some jails reportedly had sufficient space set aside for attorney/client meetings, while others did not. Some jails offered private, sound-proof rooms for attorneys to meet with their clients, while others provided cubicles in large, open rooms. In some jails, space was set aside strictly for Public Defenders and their clients. In others, space was set aside for all attorney/client meetings; and in some, attorneys competed for space with probation officers, parole officers and criminal case management employees. In addition, while the interview spaces 134 were viewed as secure in the majority of jails, it was felt that some jails had security issues because there were no panic buttons, or because the guards sight-lines could be easily obstructed.
It was also reported that the county jails differed in the amount of technological support that they were willing to provide. While the majority of county jails provided space with working electrical and telephone outlets and language lines, some reportedly did not.
In addition, some jails reportedly made it extremely difficult for attorneys to bring interpreters with them when meeting with clients who did not speak English, even interpreters who had been admitted into those same jails on previous occasions. The Committee is fully aware that safety of staff, inmates and visitors is the primary concern of county sheriffs and jail wardens.
The Committee is also aware that some, perhaps many, of the differences noted above are because the various county sheriffs and jail wardens have instituted policies and procedures that address safety concerns at their individual facilities. The Committee also recognizes that many county jails and correctional facilities are overcrowded and have severe space limitations.
Finally, the Committee acknowledges that budgetary concerns 135 may also be responsible for some of these differences. The Committee also believes, however, that these disparities serve to inhibit an attorneys ability to meet with his or her clients, review discovery with those clients, and to otherwise converse in a confidential and meaningful fashion with those clients. The Committee therefore recommends that the Sheriffs Association of New Jersey and the New Jersey County Jail Wardens Association work together to develop uniform policies and procedures regarding 1 all aspects of attorney visitation; 2 the availability of sufficient confidential space for attorneys to meet with their clients; 3 accessibility to a language line or interpreters; and 4 the availability of dedicated, secure interview space.
Video conferencing is available within State correctional facilities and almost all county jails. However, because video conferencing enables defense attorneys to engage in private, meaningful conversations with their clients while avoiding the difficulties associated with visiting county jails and State correctional facilities, the Committee believes that it should be universally available.
All county jail and state correctional facilities should have dedicated phone lines so that inmates may discuss their cases with counsel. In order to further enable inmates to discuss their cases with their attorneys, the Committee recommends that all county jails and State correctional facilities provide dedicated phone lines for that purpose.
The Committee believes that in order to ensure that its recommendations are implemented, and that any ensuing difficulties are resolved, the Judiciary must maintain a dialogue with county and local jail officials. The Committee therefore recommends that Assignment Judges, Criminal Presiding Judges, and Presiding Judges of the Municipal Courts meet with their county and local jail officials to discuss these proposals and devise implementation plans.
Thereafter, periodic meetings should be held to discuss the plans progress. Educational Issues RECOMMENDATION 8. The Judiciary should implement computer training courses for judges and attorneys, including courses for CLE credits. It was believed that this lack of knowledge was a significant factor in many of the issues regarding electronic discovery, particularly issues pertaining to unreadable computer disks. The same held true for judges. A number of judges reported that there were times when they wished to view a video related to a particular case, but had difficulty playing it. In order to obtain information from attorneys regarding the specific operating systems that their computers used, and the problems that they had encountered in the receipt and use of electronic discovery, the Committee developed a brief survey. The survey was sent to the Attorney General, County Prosecutors, the Attorney General Division of Criminal Justice, the Public Defender and Deputy Public Defenders, the County Bar 138 Presidents, and the Chairs of the State Bar Committees on Criminal Law and Municipal Practice for distribution among their respective members. The Committee received a total of 40 completed surveys, almost half of which were from the Somerset County Prosecutors Office.
The Committee also received a 12-page summary of responses from the Office of the Public Defenders regional offices. Although there was a tremendous variety of responses, the survey results essentially confirmed what the Committee had already heard: that the most common problem regarding electronic discovery was that attorneys were often unable to open the disks that they received, either because of incompatible equipment or software, or because the receiving agency did not have the software necessary to open the disk. The survey also confirmed that there were many different practical issues involving the use of electronic discovery, and that attorneys had developed many different ways to resolve those issues. Regarding educational issues, it was clear that the attorneys generally did not know very much about computer operating systems and the software that they used on a daily basis. For example, although the majority of responses to the Committees survey were from two agencies, the Somerset County Prosecutors Office and the Office of the Public Defender, there was a good deal of variation in the responses to a question regarding the operating systems and software that attorneys from 139 those agencies used. Presumably, the attorneys within those agencies would all use or have access to the same operating systems and software, so the responses to that question should have been similar. Only a small number of responses touched upon the need for computer training for attorneys, and only one response provided concrete suggestions for what that training should include: 1 methods for coping with technical issues, including troubleshooting common problems; 2 techniques for organizing and indexing digital files; and 3 developing the skills to use electronic equipment in court and in front of a jury. Based upon the survey results, as well as its substantive discussions, the Committee recommends that the Judiciary implement computer training courses for judges and attorneys, including courses for CLE credits. The Committee believes that these training courses would very substantially assist judges and attorneys in the area of electronic discovery. The Committee also recommends that courses be offered to judges who wish to have further training regarding computer use. A training course could, for example, be offered at the annual Judicial College.http://tinyurl.com/amtx2ln
dr dre schrieb am 31.01.2013, 18:25 Uhr:
Nette Website. Danke.
Auditorsource.Com schrieb am 31.01.2013, 18:23 Uhr:
Auditorsource.Com - The 3 greatest factors that will make your webpage a major hit as it continues to develop is: reputation, navigation, and wonderful content.
You just have to make certain decisions immediately after some cautious considerations. - Auditorsource.Com.
The words organic and organic are interpreted and implied as the exact same which means, but, there are distinct differences between the two. Some ecommerce merchants also use rented lists. - Auditorsource.Com.
Web Auditorsource.Com. The objective must be to create a record of phrases to target throughout your planet wide web pages, social networking world wide web web sites and blog posts. - Auditorsource.Com.
Now go at Auditorsource.Com. This sweetener to watch out for is aspartame and has been identified as the trigger of a variety of fatal illnesses. - Auditorsource.Com.
Auditorsource.Com - Explained just, its where all your linking structures originates from the content material up - in other words, you let all your content material created for your web-sites, blogs and articles do your hyperlink building for you. - Auditorsource.Com.
Cumparacoenzimaq10.com schrieb am 31.01.2013, 17:52 Uhr:
tsovmn qvcqx omega 3 tcxyog qqqod coenzima q10 buibvxm gjmewnz