Results for: burden-of-proof Search Results
Family Filter:
1:03
*******www.russmanlaw****/drunk-driving/additional-dwi-defenses/ -Preponderance of evidence and truth beyond reasonable doubt are the two burdens of proof that are usually related with New Hampshire drunk driving case and it will be important to know the differences between these two. New Hampshire DWI Attorney Ryan Russman will help you take advantage of these proofs for you to win your DWI case. Russman Law Offices 14 Center Street Exeter, NH 03833 603.772.3433
3 Jan 2012
389
Share Video

2:07
BY TRACY PFEIFFER ANCHOR ALEX HOLLEY You're watching multisource U.S. news analysis from Newsy In an appearance at the University of New Hampshire, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pushed new guidelines to help universities and colleges prevent and respond to campus rape and sexual violence. Biden authored the 1994 Violence Against Women Act -- and in an emotional speech, said that nearly two decades later, the United States still isn’t getting the message. Pres. JOE BIDEN: “No means no. No means no if you’re drunk or you’re sober. No means no if you’re in bed, in a dorm, or on the street. No means no even if you said yes at first and you changed your mind.” (WSCH) The federal civil rights law Title IX requires schools to handle cases of sexual violence quickly and appropriately -- but the vice president argued, many do not have adequate systems to take complaints, protect victims, or notify victims of investigation results. (Video: NECN) A writer for Inside Higher Ed says the new federal guidelines are described as a clarification rather than a set of new rules, but do contain key differences. “The department is stipulating that the burden of proof required for colleges to take action is less than that required for criminal convictions, and stating that there are specific requirements that apply to colleges for incidents that take place off-campus.” An article from The Center for Public Integrity explains, this clarification has been sorely needed--with tragic consequences. “For years, college administrators have criticized the federal government for its lack of specific and consistent instruction on how to resolve student claims of campus rape; the confusion, critics say, has resulted in campus judicial processes that can leave student victims feeling further victimized.” But a writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, some legal experts, like Peter Lake, are concerned university investigations are quote- “inevitably fraught.” “Criminal prosecutors, for lack of evidence, decline to pursue many cases; under Title IX, colleges must. Peter F. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy: ‘We've been lured into doing something in a criminal-justice model that the criminal-justice system itself hasn't been able to deal with.’” The 19-page regulatory guidelines were reportedly mailed to colleges, universities, and school districts across the United States. Follow Newsy_Videos on Twitter Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
9 Apr 2011
647
Share Video

4:03
I discuss Atheist mascots the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn, which originated from Russell's Teapot, an idea of author Bertrand Russell.
6 Aug 2019
40
Share Video

8:19
Michael Greenberger, the former head of the CFTC's Division of Trading and Markets, testified yesterday before the Senate Commerce Committee on the topic of Energy Market Manipulation. He stated that the investment banks, namely Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), control the price of oil and natural gas through the ICE futures market. He cited that Morgan Stanley currently owns 27% of the natural gas futures. He stated that former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas sneaked the Enron loophole through a large piece of insignificant legislation years ago: the result was that regulations upon the futures industry were abandoned. This loophole eventually allowed the current CDO-subprime crisis, and the current energy market crisis because regulations, which once protected the market from manipulation, are no longer enforcable. Greenberger suggested that the current attempt of closing the Enron loophole by Senator Levin through the Farm Bill, would not work - as it would leave the government with the constant burden of proof to prove manipulation was occurring. Also it would only be enforcable on domestic market manipulators and not international ones. Greenberger said that legislation immediately closing the Enron Loophole with a broader, international scope would stop market manipultion and would cause oil prices to plunge over 25% overnight.
6 Jun 2008
1225
Share Video

1:33
Miranda Rights- Right to Remain Silent The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the use of involuntary statements and confessions at trial. The State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement allegedly obtained in violation of the Miranda doctrine. New Jersey requires the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt when the court determines if Miranda has not been fully complied with. State v Yough 49 NJ 587, 600-601 (1967), State v Whittington 142 NJ Super. 45, 49-50 (App. Div. 1976), State v Flower 224 NJ Super. 208, 213 (Law Div 1987) aff'd per curiam 224 NJ Super. 90 (App. Div. 1988). WHAT IS INTERROGATION? As set forth in NJ Practice , Vol. 32 Criminal Practice and Procedure (West 1998) Section 755, the United States Supreme Court in Rhode Island V Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) held that the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express questioning but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. It is "an established principle of our federalist system" that states may afford "individual liberties more expansive than those afforded by the federal constitution." State v Novembrino 105 NJ 95, 144-145 (1987). Generally, a statement given by a defendant is not admissible in a criminal case unless the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights before giving the statement and "in light of all the circumstances attending the confession it was given voluntarily." State v Hampton 61 NJ 250, 272 (1972). What is at stake is ensuring the use of effective procedural safeguards to secure the right of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that " no person shall be.... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is now made applicable to state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, once informed of his rights " a defendant may waive effectuation of these rights provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." State v Flower 224 NJ Super. 208, 213 (Law Div 1987) aff'd per curiam 224 NJ Super. 90 (App. Div. 1988). citing Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436, 444, 86 S. Ct 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed 2d 694 (1966); emphasis in Flower. In State v Flower 224 NJ Super. 208, 213 (Law Div 1987) aff'd per curiam 224 NJ Super. 90 (App. Div. 1988), the defendant had a low IQ and limited vocabulary. He gave confessions to police and a confession to DYFS. The court excluded the confession to the police, even though Miranda warnings were given and there was lack of coercion and an admitted waiver of rights by the defendant. The court concluded that since the Defendant could not understand his Miranda rights, he could not waive them. One cannot knowingly and intelligently waive a right that he cannot understand or appreciate. 224 NJ Super. at 216. The court also excluded confessions to a DYFS investigator on the same grounds since she was acting in a law enforcement capacity and failed to inform Defendant of his Miranda rights. Id at 220. Where it is charged that a confession was given under the influence of narcotics or during a withdrawal period, the central question of voluntariness remains the same, and the trial court must scrutinize all the pertinent facts attending the confession with particular focus on Defendant's demeanor, coherence, articulateness, capacity to full use of his faculties, his memory and his overall intelligence. State v Arcediano 371 F. Supp. 457 (D. NJ 1974); See also Wade v Yeager 245 F. Supp 62 (D. NJ 1964). The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. If the suspect is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to the point that he cannot understand his constitutional rights, then any waiver is void. If the suspect is suffering from a mental disability which renders him incapable of understanding his constitutional rights, then any waiver is void. The level of mental disability which would render a suspect incapable of understanding his constitutional rights is probably close to the point at which the suspect could be said to be incapable of managing his own affairs. Where circumstances cast doubt on knowing and intelligent quality of alleged waiver of right to counsel, there can be no waiver. State vs. Dickens 192 NJ Super. 290 (App. Div. 1983). Intoxication is grounds to suppress statements. See e.g. Common vs. Brithsher 563 A.2d 502, App granted 575 A.2d 107. (If Defendant's intoxication combined to render him incapable of understanding Miranda warning waiver of Miranda rights would be invalid); Common vs. Andel 477 A.2d 13 56 (1984); (Defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was vitiated by his intoxication, his eyes glaring and had a strong odor of alcohol. Statements made by defendant while in custody should suppressed.) The court has always set high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights Johnson vs. Zerbst 304 US 458 58 S. Court 1019, 82 Ed 146 (1938). In Common vs. Hosey 334 NE 2d 44 ( Mass 75 ) the court reversed and remanded a matter where tried judge allowed admission of defendant's statement to police where defendant was extremely high, extremely emotional and detected from reality. Due process requires not only that a conviction not be based on an involuntary confession but also that a trial court hold what has become known as a Jackson Denno hearing when a defendant contests the voluntariness of his statement. Miller vs. Dugger 838 F. 2d 1530 ( 11 Cir. 1988) cert. den 486 US 1061. 1085.S. Ct. 2832 100 L. Ed 2d 933 (1988). At the Jackson- Denno hearing and at oral argument, we will explain through cross-examination and witnesses the involuntary nature of any statements the state intends to produce. Very truly yours, KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN ATTORNEY AT LAW
13 Apr 2009
1481
Share Video

4:20
2009 update Wills and Estate Planning January 28, 2009 SPEAKER: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. (Author- Answers to Questions About Probate) The new NJ Probate Law and court decisions made a number of substantial changes in Probate and the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey. Main Topics: 1. The New Probate Law and preparation of Wills 2. 2009 increases in Federal Estate and Gift Tax exemption 3. NJ Inheritance tax 4. Power of Attorney 5. Living Will 6. Administering the Estate/ Probate/Surrogate 7. Question and Answer 1. Preparation of Wills When there is a confidential relationship coupled with suspicious circumstances, undue influence is presumed and the burden of proof shifts to the Will proponent to overcome the presumption. If there is undue influence in making of Will and transfer of Deed by persons in Confidential relationship, this could subject those persons to punitive damages in some instances, plus voiding of the Will. In the Matter of the Estate of Madeleine Stockdale, Deceased (A-121-06) Decided July 22, 2008 Contact a Probate Attorney for an in office consultation KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 More information at www.CentralJerseyElderLaw**** Wills, Trusts, & Estate Planning Forms available online at *******www.jdsupra****/profile/KennethVercammen_docs/
3 Feb 2009
333
Share Video

10:18
2009 update Wills and Estate Planning January 28, 2009 SPEAKER: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. (Author- Answers to Questions About Probate) The new NJ Probate Law and court decisions made a number of substantial changes in Probate and the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey. Main Topics: 1. The New Probate Law and preparation of Wills 2. 2009 increases in Federal Estate and Gift Tax exemption 3. NJ Inheritance tax 4. Power of Attorney 5. Living Will 6. Administering the Estate/ Probate/Surrogate 7. Question and Answer 1. Preparation of Wills When there is a confidential relationship coupled with suspicious circumstances, undue influence is presumed and the burden of proof shifts to the Will proponent to overcome the presumption. If there is undue influence in making of Will and transfer of Deed by persons in Confidential relationship, this could subject those persons to punitive damages in some instances, plus voiding of the Will. In the Matter of the Estate of Madeleine Stockdale, Deceased (A-121-06) Decided July 22, 2008 Contact a Probate Attorney for an in office consultation KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 More information at www.CentralJerseyElderLaw**** Wills, Trusts, & Estate Planning Forms available online at *******www.jdsupra****/profile/KennethVercammen_docs/
4 Feb 2009
245
Share Video

5:18
One of the major cases dealing with undue influence was Haynes v. First National State Bank of New Jersey, 87 N.J. 163, 75-76 (1981). Here the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof establishing undue influence shifts to the proponent when a will benefits a person who stood in a confidential relationship to the decedent and there are suspicious circumstances which need explanation. The suspicious circumstances need only be slight. Id. at 176. Moreover, when the evidence is almost entirely in the possession of one party and the evidence points to the proponent as asserting undue influence, a clear and convincing standard may be applied rather than the normal burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 183.Furthermore, the Haynes analysis was extended to situations in which there is a transfer of property where the beneficiary of the property and an attorney is on one side and the donor on the other. See Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478, 483 (App. Div. 1995).The court in Oachs determined that under circumstances such as these the donee bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of the gift, even in situations in which the donee did not dominate the decedents will. Id. at 485. This rule was established to protect a donor from making a decision induced by a confidential relationship the donee possesses with the donor. Id. Again, the burden is a clear and convincing standard. Id. The Supreme Court in Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 31 (1998), stated that when a donor makes a gift to a donee that he/she is dependent upon, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of his/her act. In these situations the donee must demonstrate that the donor had disinterested and competent counsel. Id. Likewise, undue influence is conclusive, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift without advice or a means of support, to a donee upon whom he/she depends. Id. *******www.njlaws****/Undue_influence...KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PCATTORNEY AT LAW2053 Woodbridge Ave.Edison, NJ 08817(Phone) 732-572-0500(Fax) 732-572-0030
2 Jul 2009
482
Share Video

9:54
How to shift the burden of proof to those who defend the state! Download the presentation and the references: *******www.fdrurl****/tn57
20 Oct 2009
157
Share Video

8:31
2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 *******njlaws****/wills_and_new_probate_law_of_nj.html?id=1055&a= The New Probate Statute of NJ revised various sections of the New Jersey law on Wills and estates. The Law makes a number of substantial changes to the provisions governing the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey. IF YOU HAVE NO WILL: If you leave no Will or your Will is declared invalid because it was improperly prepared or is not admissible to probate: * State law determines who gets assets, not you * Additional expenses will be incurred and extra work will be required to qualify an administrator * Judge determines who gets custody of your children * Possible additional State inheritance taxes and Federal estate taxes * If you have no spouse or close relatives the State may take your property * The procedure to distribute assets becomes more complicated-and the law makes no exceptions for persons in unusual need or for your own wishes. * It may also cause fights and lawsuits within your family When loved ones are grieving and dealing with death, they shouldn't be overwhelmed with Financial concerns. Careful estate planning helps take care of that. The Uniform Probate Code attempts to bring greater uniformity to the rules governing testamentary and non-testamentary transfers in response to the significant number of non-testamentary transfers that occur at the time of the decedent's death. For example, a new term, "governing instrument" has been incorporated as a definition in the substitute to include deeds, trusts, insurance and annuity policies, POD (pay on death) accounts, securities registered in beneficiary form (TOD), pension, profit sharing, retirement and similar benefit plans, and other wealth transfer instruments. The law also clarifies situations where writings that are intended as wills would be allowed, but requires that the burden of proof on the proponent would be by clear and convincing evidence. The law provides that divorce or annulment of a marriage, under certain circumstances, would revoke not only provisions of the former spouse's will, but also non-probate transfers occurring by reason of the decedent's death to the former spouse. The law expands the provisions requiring survival of a beneficiary by 120 hours to succeed to an interest of a decedent in non-probate transfers. The law also makes substantial revisions to the laws governing intestate succession. [Dying without a Will] For example, the substitute provides that the intestate share of a surviving spouse would be 100% of the intestate estate where all of the surviving descendants of the decedent are also the descendants of the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse has no other descendants. The surviving spouse would now be entitled to a larger share of the estate in the event that either a parent of the decedent survives a decedent who has no descendants, or there are descendants of the surviving spouse who are not descendants of the decedent. Finally, stepchildren of a decedent would be added as a final class of takers. The law expands the law with respect to disinheritance of a person who criminally and intentionally kills the decedent to include revocation of non-testamentary dispositions. The law consolidates the law concerning disclaimers of probate and non-probate property. The law clarifies that a fiduciary may, with court approval, disclaim any power or discretion held by such fiduciary, and may disclaim without court approval if the governing instrument so permits. This law would also make some changes with regard to small estates. Under the old law, upon filing an affidavit with the surrogate the surviving spouse is entitled to the assets of an estate without administration if the assets do not exceed $10,000; similarly, in situations where there is no surviving spouse and the assets of the estate do not exceed $5,000, the heirs are entitled to the assets without administration if one of the heirs files an affidavit with the consent of the remaining heirs. This law amends N.J.S.A. 3B:10-3 and 3B:10-4 to increase these amounts to $20,000 and to $10,000, respectively. Finally, the law expands the rules of construction formerly applicable only to Wills to other donative transfers. The law provides a limited statute of limitations with respect to creditor claims against a decedent's estate. KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 www.BeNotGuilty.Com
31 Dec 2012
498
Share Video

2:38
Are you certain you are paying / receiving the amount of alimony you are required / due? *******detective-zakynthinos****/Content.asp?Code=000098 In cases that one spouse cannot support themselves financially after a divorce, alimony is due to them by the other party. Naturally, in changed circumstances like a new relationship that possesses financial backing, alimony may be withdrawn, a development that is not welcome to the receiving party, who will refuse the alleged change for the better ever happened. The Law stipulates that the burden of proof belongs to the party wishing the change in the status-quo.
7 Jun 2013
458
Share Video

2:37
Is it possible that your alimony can be cancelled / withdrawn? *******detective-zakynthinos****/Content.asp?Code=000099 In cases that one spouse cannot support themselves financially after a divorce, alimony is due to them by the other party. Naturally, in changed circumstances like a new relationship that possesses financial backing, alimony may be withdrawn, a development that is not welcome to the receiving party, who will refuse the alleged change for the better ever happened. The Law stipulates that the burden of proof belongs to the party wishing the change in the status-quo.
7 Jun 2013
428
Share Video