WHITE COLLAR CRIMES ABUSE OF PROCESS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT LAWYER MISCONDUCT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT : Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations- ETHNIC BIASEDNESS/ETHICAL INTIMIDATION/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT )/URL http://goo.gl/upj2d9 ABUSE OF PROCESS WHITE COLLAR CRIME RACIAL PROFILING VIOLATION OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS TO EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW COLOR OF LAW COMPLAINT PUBLIC CORRUPTION CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT/VAWA

Title VI (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/byagency/hhscrranprm.pdf)

ACAP THE FLORIDA BAR INQUIRY COMPLAINT FORM http://goo.gl/h9wjQr

THE FLORIDA BAR ATTORNEY/CONSUMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ACAP)

http://goo.gl/h9wjQr
COMPLAINT REGARDING FRAUD ON THE COURT
AGGRAVATED WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

775.0844 1st Aggravated white collar crime

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.php

(CF OPERATING PROCEDURE NO. 180-4

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/cfops/180%20Inspector%20General%20%28CFOP%20180-XX%29/CFOP%20180-4,%20Mandatory%20Reporting%20Requirements%20to%20the%20Office%20of%20Inspector%20General.pdf2

regarding complaint

http://goo.gl/h9wjQr
COMPLAINT REGARDING FRAUD ON THE COURT
AGGRAVATED WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

775.0844 1st Aggravated white collar crime

775.0844 1st Aggravated white collar crime. STATE OF FLORIDA OFFENSE CODE LISTING- § 112.313(8), Fla. Stat.

Civil contempt is conduct directed against the rights of the opposing party.

law-imposed obligation ;"an act or omission tending to obstruct or
interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the
dignity of the court or respect for its authority. There are two
kinds, direct and constructive." 249 S. 2d 127, 128. direct contempt
openly and in the presence of the court, resists the power of the
court, 102 A. 400, 406; and consequential, or constructive contempt
results from matters outside the court, such as failure to comply with
orders.

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.courtr.html

BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
AND COURTHOUSE RECORDS CHECKS

By: Ralph D. Thomas

A background investigation done making use of a courthouse records check as the meat of the investigation is an area of investigation that is interesting and can provide the investigative agency with a great deal of business. However, before we go into the actual machanics of doing such an investigation, we need to look at exactly what it is we are talking about and who can use this serivce on a volume bases.

First, an examination of what information can be found at the courthouse will give us a review of who can use such a service. Generally, most courthouse records is public record and can be reviewed by just about anyone. Second, a complete courthouse records check can turn up mounds of details concerning most people who live in the county. Think of the different departments within the courthouse:

1) AUTO TAG REGISTRATION
2) BUSINESS LICENSE
3) REAL ESTATE PROPERTY RECORDS
4) TRAFFIC RECORDS
5) TAX RECORDS
6) CIRCUIT CIVIL RECORDS
7) SMALL CLAIM CIVIL RECORDS
8) CIRCUIT CRIMINAL RECORDS
9) COUNTY CRIMINAL RECORDS
10) VOTER REGISTRATION
11) GENERAL INDEX RECORDS
12) FISHING AND HUNTING LICENSE
13) MOBIL HOME REGISTRATION
14) MARRIAGE RECORDS
15) BUILDING PERMITS
16) COUNTY POLICE RECORDS
17) PROBATE RECORDS

The list could go on through a dozen or so minor records kept by the county. The point is that a courthouse records search can be used very effectivly for a fast background investigation in the development of all kinds of information on any one person living within the county. In fact, a courthouse records check is a standard part of insurance claims investigations and is often used in a skip trace.

One of the secrets in going to the courthouse to check courthouse records is that a great deal of people just do not know such an all-incompassing investigation can be done including some private investigators. For example, lawyers might know to have their clerk check auto tag registration from time to time but most have no idea that a complete investigative profile can be worked up on someone in a very short time checking all kinds of records. Even some investigators who are somewhat familiar with records checks have no idea such a great volume of information can be found at the court house. They tend to think of records at the court house in various departments and run down one day to check tax rolls unaware of the fact that needed information could be pulled from several dozen or so other departments.

Consider who could use such a service. What do you come up with? We will cover some prime targets.

THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Think of ways in which a court house records check could help the praticing attonrey. Assets checks could be run before expensive litigtation is started. Witnessess could be located quickly and cheaply. Background data could be obtained concerning witnesses who where about to be cross-exaimined. The legal market is a very large market for such a service. However, the lawyer needs to be shown not only that your coursthouse records checks can be made, but how to sue them. This author had flyer sent out one time to every lawyer in a certain geographic area explaining how to use such a service along with inexpensive rates. Building from a small base of clients, this service developed into a volume of 40 to 60 checks per week at about $65.00 per assignment.

This author can give you several examples of where this kind of service was very helpful to the legal profession. At one time seven law firms ordered was has been called a hidden assets check. These lawyers were using this service to see if prospective defendants had any assets before litigation was started. As a result of this service, these law firms could drop those cases in which no assets could be found before litigation was started. Several other law firms specialized in defendending criminal charges. They would first obtain a police rpoert that listed witnesses to the criminal charge. A bkacground check was run on these witnesses which was then used when the witness was cross-examined. One of the must interesting cases involved a former tentant who claimed he had returned to his old apartment to pick up the rest of his personal belongings. To make a long story short, the landlord filed a police report charging that the defendant broke and entered his building. The police obtained a signed statement from a witness who stated that she lived right next door. In fact, a court house records check revealed that the witness did not live at the apartment house but was an investor in the landlord's buildings. The information was used to impeach the witness and the case was dropped.

THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Unlike lawyers, insurance claims people know what a court house records check can do and give out volumes of such assignments every day. Court house records checks are used by the insurance industry both for underwriting and claims investigation.

EMPLOYERS
Employers have a need to obtain vital information about a prospective employee before they are hired. A pre-employment/background investigation can be packaged using court house records very economically. This author knows of several investigative firms who have customized such pre-employment investigative services for various types of businesses. One of the most successful pre-employment investigative firms in the UNited States today is Fidelofacts with an office in just about every major city in the United States. One successful agency decieded to specialize in a pre-employment investigation for car dealerships. The investigative package consisted of a court house records check, a credit bureau check, an MVR check, and a check of former employers. This investigative agency charged $70.00 per case and was obtaining assignments from over three dozen large auto dealerships.

GENERAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY

A great deal of people do not know this but most major credit bureaus have a person who collects general information from general indexing at the court house. General indexing will contain a record of suites and juddgements, tax liens, uniform commerical codes and other various summery documents from other departments found in the county court house. Facts from these documents often end up in your creidt file at the credit bureau. Businesses do keep track of their competors of which a court house records check can provide them with a great deal of info. Properly marketed, this approach can bring in a great deal of assignments.

There are also a number of specialty information brokers who sell information compiled from court house records. Various sales organizations are intersted in obtaining lists of people who might have just purchased a new home or just married. Such lists are compiled bycourthouse searchers and then resold several times over. Wouldn't an insurance agent specializing in homeowner's insurance be interested in a fresh list of new homerowners? Of course he would and he would be wiling to pay top dollar for it. Another vast makret along this line is a list of mortgage forclosures. Such lists contain the names and addresses of people who are about ready to lose their home. Real estate investors are very interested in these lists. In Austin Texas there is such a list being sold on the newstand for $25.00 per issue.

The trick in this specialization is volume. At one time, a Central Florida agency developed a very large caseload consisting of various pre-packaged investigative services. They had a flat rate charge of $50.00 per court house records check but also maintained a policy of haveing a wholesale rate of $25.00 per case. You will see what I mean be a wholesale rate in a second. The firm was doing an average of 100 checks per week and about half of them were being billed at the wholesale rate. That coverts to about $3750 per week in money.

WHOLESALE CLIENTS
There is a market within the investigative market. Some investigative agenices, insurance adjusting firms and auto repossession agencies don't have the case load to keep traveling to the courthouse that would make it cost effective. They are then willing to firm such assignments to an independent contractor who is down at the courthouse almost every day. These clients are not easy to get but can greatly ad to your caseload.

PRIVATE CITIZEN MARKET
The private citizen generally has no idea that a vast background investigation can be used by checking courthouse records. Private citizens might have a number of reasons they would want a background investigation done on someone and $40 t0 $50 is an investigative fee that the average person could afford. However, they can not order a report if they don't know such a service exist.

The first trick is obtaining assignments in this business is to price your service so that the checks are not a major expense and try to work off of volume. In reality, I have seen fifty to sixty assignments done at the court house in one day. If you could get that kind of volume, your flat rate charge per assignment could be very low. However, it is going to take almost twice as long to write the report as it does to do the investigation. Even at ten assignments per day at a flat rate charge of $35.00 is very good money (350.00 per day).

The second trick in obtaining assignments is to package your service so the prospective client can see the value. Note that the successful investigative agency who specialized in checking out employment applicants for auto dealerships did not call his service a court house records check by a pre-employment/background investigation for car salesman. The service was customized to meet the needs of his client base.

Combination services which are customized are likely to include other records checks For example, the investigative service auto dealerships had an MVR records check. This is a state check of driver's licence records to see if the prospective salesman had a good driving record. Those who did not could not be placed on some commerical insurance policies. It would stand to reason that the new car sales repsesentive would be driving company cars if he become a salesman. Note also that a credit bureau check was obtained. Such information will reveal if the subject is behind in his bills and could stand working for a very low income until his sales ability was developed.

You should have a good grasp of this market and what it consists of. Let us now take a look at an actual court house records check. A trip to the courthouse will include (hopefully) at least ten cases. The records located at the courthouse are departmentialized. That is, you will not find all the records in just one place. This will require to to make the rounds of the different records departments in the court house. Orgainized notes must be kept for each case. Before starting such a serivce, it would be wise to do a few practice runs on yourself and a few ofyour friends. Pick about six or seven people. Your going to be surprised what kind of information can be developed if you have never run this type of investigation before.

HERE IS WHAT INFORMATION FROM A CASE MIGHT LOOK LIKE:

SUBJECT: John V. Alexander

AUTO TAG REGIRSTRATION: Shows subject has a 1980 Ford T-Bird registered in his name. Shows his date of birth as 5-12-50. Shows his address as 2714 Copeland Drive, Anytown Florida. Tag was renewed 5/86. Also shows a John V. Alexander and a Karen P. Alexander at the same address owning a 1978 Ford LTD. Vin number for 1980 Ford T-Bird is 2876858495697. Vin umber for 1978 Ford LTD is 69780894712437.

(NOTE: If investigation is an assets check you should also make us of this information to run a title trace through the state title office. This will reveal the lein holder of the above vechiles)

BUSINESS LICENSE: Shows one John V/ Alexander has license number 686797967 for the purpose of conducting a retail gift shop at 798 Main Street since August 1971. The name of the business is Universal Gifts.

REAL ESTATE PROPERTY: Shows John V. and Karen Alexander purhcased the home at 2714 Copeland Drive in September of 1969 for $69,500.The morgage holder is First National Bank for $60,000 with payment of $329.78 per month.

Shows Mr. John V. Alexander to own the property at 798 Main Street purchased on August 12, 1971 with no lien.

(NOTE: If assets check is being done a legal description of the property should be obtained.)

CIRCUITE CIVIL RECORDS: Reveals that in June of 1980 one Paul Grover sued John V. Alexander record store for a slip and fall. Case was settled out of court. Mr. Alexander's lawyer was Robert Griffin.

Shows that Karen Alexander filed for a devorce on 3-22-71 which was withdrawn. Mrs. Al;exander's lawyer was Stan Gordon.

COUNTY CIVIL: Reveals no litigatition.

COUNTY CRIMINAL: Shows that John V. Alexander date of birth as 5-12-50 was arrested for DWI and taken to the county jail on 3-20-79. Record shows Mr. Alexander pleaded guilty and paid a $750 file as well as attended better driving school. The record lists Mr. Alexander's Social Security number as 235-78-4567.

CIRCUIT CRIMINAL: Shows no record for John V. Alexander.

VOTER REGISTRATION: Shows Mr. John V. Alexander as a registered Democrat 2-15-85.

You can see the type of information that develops. Special attention should be given to the reason for the check. For example, if this investigation was for a life insurance underwriting report further investigation might be wanted concerning the drinking habits of Mr. Alexander. If it was for a hiudden assets check, you might want to check further with state records to determine more information on the subject's busines activity.

In your trial run to the courthouse for practice, you will likely find that this type of investigation goes on at the court house everyday. In fact, it would be my bet that at least 100 such investigations are going on in your county right now. It is your job to obtain your share of the assignments.

If you are not that familar with your county's court house records it will take you some time to get use to them. You might find several departments

that will not just give any stranger who walks in access to the records. However, once they know who you are and what you are doing you will generally be able to walk right in and start digging.

Indexing of records take various forms. You will find some small county records use old ledger systems. Other types of record indexing systems will be kept on microfish unites. The most modern counties will have everything on computer. You may or may not need a clerk to help you look up the indexes. Almost all indexes are sectioned by year or month and then list the names in alphicial order.

You will likely find it necessary to run one name through a tri-county area. Such a check will make give a better chance to developing all the needed information. In fact, most people in today's mobel society move in and out of counties on a daily bases. Usually charges for the second county are less.

There are also times when you will run accros massive volumes of records to review. These flat rate cases should be then upgraded to an hourly rate charge.

Anyone reporting in good faith shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false report or counsels another to make a false report is guilty of a felony of the third degree punishable by up to five years in prison. In addition, the department may impose a fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Each time that a false report is made constitutes a separate violation. A false report is a report of child abuse, neglect or abandonment or adult abuse, neglect or exploitation that is made to the central abuse hotline which is not true and is maliciously made for the purpose of:

Harassing, embarrassing, or harming another person;
Personal financial gain for the reporting person;
Acquiring custody of a child or vulnerable adult; or
Personal benefit for the reporting person in any other private dispute involving a child or vulnerable adult

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.courtr.html

Section 39.205, Florida Statutes (F.S.) states what the department has to do concerning false reporting for children and Section 415.111, F.S. addresses with false reporting for adults.

http://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/abuse-hotline/false-reporting-guidelines

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B84_tgjFbXNLaWZvT1pYSmZVV3c/edit?usp=sharing

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Subject: false kidnapping complaint used to abate retroactive child support proceedings/ child exploitation case/financial crimes Fwd: Abuse of process complaint filed against Dr. Grove re: Isis Shaw Fwd: PRATICTIONER OF RECORD ON FILE THE DATE OF ALLEGED KIDNAPPING & MISSING PERSONS COMPLAINT 02/03/2011 BY FELICIA HANDLEY Fwd: caught.net AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED REGARING POLICE MISCONDUCT
To: ffetf@usdoj.gov

ffetf@usdoj.gov

false kidnapping complaint used to abate retroactive child support proceedings/ child exploitation case/financial crimes Fwd: Abuse of process complaint filed against Dr. Grove re: Isis Shaw Fwd: PRATICTIONER OF RECORD ON FILE THE DATE OF ALLEGED KIDNAPPING & MISSING PERSONS COMPLAINT 02/03/2011 BY FELICIA HANDLEY Fwd: caught.net AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED REGARING POLICE MISCONDUCT

assisting criminal nonsupport and fraudulent claims against the child's natural parent to abate child support recovery

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Subject: RE: Abuse of process complaint filed against Dr. Grove re: Isis Shaw Fwd: PRATICTIONER OF RECORD ON FILE THE DATE OF ALLEGED KIDNAPPING & MISSING PERSONS COMPLAINT 02/03/2011 BY FELICIA HANDLEY Fwd: caught.net AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED REGARING POLICE MISCONDUCT
To: "katherine.schuler" <Katherine.Schuler@ocps.net>

Katherine Schuler

to give you a better understanding as to how Jarrid Williams ascertained a child custody order the following information regarding a false kidnapping complaint is being forwarded to your attention in addition to the address and contact information of Isis' primary practitioner and witness to the account of the incident being false because Isis was seen in the practitioner's office on the day the allegations were made.

document attached

Dr. Sheila Shaw

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Subject: PRATICTIONER OF RECORD ON FILE THE DATE OF ALLEGED KIDNAPPING & MISSING PERSONS COMPLAINT 02/03/2011 BY FELICIA HANDLEY Fwd: caught.net AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED REGARING POLICE MISCONDUCT
To: RWallsh@sao9.org

2003 FL titleXLVI crimes chapter 787

787.03

False complaint

Fwd: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (Fla. Stat. § 775.085 Enhances penalty for crimes evidencing "prejudice based on the race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, mental or physical disability, or advanced age of the victim." >> More information) COMPLAINT- PEER REPORTING -Attorney General's Office regarding Rule 84 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct contains the following statements on attorney misconduct-18 USC Chapter 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Deviation from the essential requirements of the law; the case law, beginning with Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987),12 and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995),13 clearly demonstrates that the “departure” and “irreparable injury” standards do not provide the district courts with much guidance as to when or why they should step into an ongoing trial court proceeding

Failure to respond to an official inquiry with no good cause shown may be a matter of contempt and processed in accordance with rule 3-7.11(f) of these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

(h) willfully refuse, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, to timely pay a child support obligation; or

(i) engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

If the sexual conduct commenced after the lawyer-client relationship was formed it shall be presumed that the sexual conduct exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship. A lawyer may rebut this presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual conduct did not exploit or adversely affect the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

The prohibition and presumption stated in this rule do not apply to a lawyer in the same firm as another lawyer representing the client if the lawyer involved in the sexual conduct does not personally provide legal services to the client and is screened from access to the file concerning the legal representation.

...

Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, or agent and officer, director, or manager of a corporation or other organization.

CC:

compliance <compliance@report-it.com>, Administration@doh.state.fl.us,

federal inspector <donald.white@oig.hhs.gov>, domestic <nationalsafeplace@ymcalouisville.org>,

domestic <sportinsociety@neu.edu>, public policy <uspirg@pirg.org>,

public policy <litigatio@citizen.org>, public policy <info@publicampaign.org>,

Civil rights <Edwin.Woo@hhs.gov>, civilrightscomplaint@nilc.org,

ETHICS <Gary.Lindbergh@hhs.gov>, info@policevolunteers.org,citizencorps@dhs.gov,

police misconduct <citizensnvw@bellsouth.net>

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Subject: Fwd: DOC-Federal Bureau of Prisoner Identification on drug distribution , manufacturering and saless; G17259; Jarrid Deshaun Williams, prinicipal judicial criminal activity to assist the nonparent by concealing drug histories, criminal and mental hea

To: compliance <compliance@report-it.com>, Administration@doh.state.fl.us, federal inspector <donald.white@oig.hhs.gov>, domestic <nationalsafeplace@ymcalouisville.org>, domestic <sportinsociety@neu.edu>, public policy <uspirg@pirg.org>, public policy <litigatio@citizen.org>, public policy <info@publicampaign.org>, Civil rights <Edwin.Woo@hhs.gov>, civilrightscomplaint@nilc.org, ETHICS <Gary.Lindbergh@hhs.gov>, info@policevolunteers.org, citizencorps@dhs.gov, police misconduct <citizensnvw@bellsouth.net>

complaint regarding commission of white collar crimes

INTENTIONAL NONDISCLOSURE THAT CAUSED MATERNAL INJURIES, TRIAL ERROR, NEGLIGENCE,

TITLE 42 SECTIONS 666 AND 654, 657 COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION CITATION FROM THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE US CODE

§ 657. Distribution of collected support

EVIDENCE OF INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT THROUGH MISCONDUCT Fwd: professional misconduct/Fw: 877.19 Hate Crimes Reporting Act/Misuse of office/Color of law/ipv- exintimatepartner violence; http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-8PSRLS/$file/2010HateCrimesReport.pdf

WHITE COLLAR CRIME/ Fwd: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT- PEER REPORTING -Attorney General's Office regarding Rule 84 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct contains the following statements on attorney misconduct-18 USC Chapter 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Failure to respond to an official inquiry with no good cause shown may be a matter of contempt and processed in accordance with rule 3-7.11(f) of these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

(h) willfully refuse, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, to timely pay a child support obligation; or

(i) engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

...

DETAILS OF COMPLAINTS CONTINUED:

NO DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE ENTERED REGARDING THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER'S MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS AS RECORDED WITH THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION, AS RECORDED WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA, AS RECORDED WITH THE FLORIDA CORRECTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISIONS, FLORIDA PRISONS, FLORIDA PAROLE BOARD, CRIMESTOPPERS, AND SEXUAL PREDATORS DIVISIONS

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM

PRINICIPAL JUDICIAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Subject: G17259; Jarrid Deshaun Williams, prinicipal judicial criminal activity to assist the nonparent by concealing drug histories, criminal and mental health problems

To: sportinsociety@neu.edu, sportsleadership@adelphi.edu, sportleadership@adelphi.edu, nationalsafeplace@ymcalouisville.org, domestic coalition <llevine@jwi.org>, Domestic Violence <media@ndvh.org>, legalabuse@gmail.com, cir@cir.org.police, carlpers@ix.netcom.com

crime ring/ associated parties:

prior prison record(s) regarding predatory stalking/criminal acts

G17259; Jarrid Deshaun Williams

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM

PRINICIPAL JUDICIAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Subject: G17259; Jarrid Deshaun Williams, prinicipal judicial criminal activity to assist the nonparent by concealing drug histories, criminal and mental health problems

crime ring/ associated parties:

prior prison record(s) regarding predatory stalking/criminal acts

G17259; Jarrid Deshaun Williams

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT/ASSISTING CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT & CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY ACT VIOLATIONS, FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION LAWS, SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 654,655,666,NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,BUSINESS TORT LAW VIOLATIONS

http://www.hinshawlaw.com/the-lawyers-lawyer-newsletter---recent-developments-in-risk-management-03-09-2012/

Duty to report misconduct; code of conducthttps://www.facebook.com/OrangeClerk?ref=ts#!/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830?fref=ts&rf=144393985578228

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Subject: EVIDENCE OF INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT THROUGH MISCONDUCT Fwd: professional misconduct/Fw: 877.19 Hate Crimes Reporting Act/Misuse of office/Color of law/ipv- exintimatepartner violence; http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-8PSRLS/$file/2010HateCrimesReport.pdf

To: jennifer.woody@dhhs.nc.gov

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Subject: Fwd: professional misconduct/Fw: 877.19 Hate Crimes Reporting Act/Misuse of office/Color of law/ipv- exintimatepartner violence; http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-8PSRLS/$file/2010HateCrimesReport.pdf

To: info@policevolunteers.org

http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/National_Deadbeat_Dad_List

TITLE 42 SECTIONS 666 AND 654, 657 COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION CITATION FROM THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE US CODE

§ 657. Distribution of collected support

Federal Child Support Laws

There are two federal child support laws that dictate what can and should be done with fathers who aren't paying child support.

The Child Support Recovery Act

The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 prescribes misdemeanor penalties for parents who fail to pay child support. For a court to levy these penalties, the parent must be required by a court order to pay child support, and there must be documented evidence of said parent's failure to pay.

The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act

The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 prescribes felony punishments for nonpaying parents who cross state lines in an attempt to evade making child support payments. For prosecution, multiple state's law enforcement and child support agencies work together to locate and return the nonpaying parent to the state in which he owes child support. For prosecution, the nonpaying parent must owe more than $5,000, be able to pay the overdue support, have intentionally not made required payments and have crossed state lines to avoid making payments.

State-Level Enforcement

Financial support is considered the right of the child and not the parent. Therefore, child support failure-to-pay proceedings are managed by each state's child support enforcement agency on behalf of the child and child support laws vary from one state to another. Some agencies will assist you with obtaining a court order declaring the child's right to financial support, while others require that you complete this step on your own.

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: "parental.equality@gmail.com" <parental.equality@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 6:19 PM

Subject: Fw: ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST Hershkowitz Russell S Attorney Category: Bankruptcy Law [Edit] 1110 Douglas Ave Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 (407) 786-2889 http://www.russellhlaw.com

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: "secretary@parentalequality.ie" <secretary@parentalequality.ie>

Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 12:15 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: "nc100bw@nc100bwcincinnati.org" <nc100bw@nc100bwcincinnati.org>; "Information@ChicagoNCBW.org" <Information@ChicagoNCBW.org>; "info@ncbwde.org" <info@ncbwde.org>; "info@ncbwmanhattan.org" <info@ncbwmanhattan.org>

Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:34 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: "Joe.Follick@fldoe.org" <Joe.Follick@fldoe.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:45 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: "Joe.Follick@fldoe.org" <Joe.Follick@fldoe.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:41 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: American Association <ethics@acainternational.org>; Ethics <contactOGE@oge.gov>; Ethics <ethics@indiana.edu>; "Ethics@eppc.org" <Ethics@eppc.org>; ETHICS <Gary.Lindbergh@hhs.gov>; INDIANA ETHICS <micagood@indiana.edu>; ethics <Robin.Rone@americanbar.org>; ethics <Daniel.Serrano@americanbar.org>; ethics <diversity@americanbar.org>; ethics <Nicole.Rivera@americanbar.org>; Government Ethics <ContactOGE@oge.gov>; ETHICS <Edgar.Swindell@hhs.gov>; ethics agencies <scottopengov@eog.myflorida.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:13 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:58 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: Violence Education <HigherEdCtr@edc.org>; police misconduct <simpson@civilrights.org>; police misconduct <community.newark@usdoj.gov>; police misconduct <Special.Litigation@usdoj.gov>; police misconduct <freedman@voicenet.com>; police misconduct <nacole@nacole.org>; police misconduct <policeoversight@yahoogroups.com>; police misconduct <detcoalition@att.net>; police misconduct <media@aclu.org>; police misconduct <cleslie@midwesthumanrights.org>; police misconduct <info@nacole.org>; police misconduct <justcause@lawcollective.org>; police misconduct <jfloyd@JohnTFloyd.com>; POLICE MISCONDUCT <isha@cs.com>; police misconduct <media@judicialwatch.org>; police misconduct <citizensnvw@bellsouth.net>; police misconduct <info@aele.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:47 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:39 PM

Subject: ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST Hershkowitz Russell S Attorney Category: Bankruptcy Law [Edit] 1110 Douglas Ave Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 (407) 786-2889 http://www.russellhlaw.com

Thank you for contacting the Attorney General's Office regarding ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT/ASSISTING CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT . Our staff will process it as soon as possible and, if necessary, respond appropriately. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens such as yourself. If you wish to keep abreast of the activities of this office, you may wish to consider a subscription to our electronic newsletter Weekly Briefing. Or perhaps our Consumer Alerts. Should you wish to subscribe to either, or both, publications, please visit oursubscription page.

COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST

RUSSELL SCOTT HERSHKOWITZ, Esquire=

Retained 407-786-2889(

1110 Douglas Ave

Altamonte Springs, FL 32714

(407) 786-2889

http://www.russellhlaw.com

http://www.hinshawlaw.com/the-lawyers-lawyer-newsletter---recent-developments-in-risk-management-03-09-2012/

Duty to report misconduct; code of conducthttps://www.facebook.com/OrangeClerk?ref=ts#!/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830?fref=ts&rf=144393985578228

( TORT LAW: A tort is a civil wrong resulting from a violation of a legal right not created by contract for which monetary redress is provided. This may be (a) an act or (b) an omission. More formally, a tort may be defined as a wrongful act or omission arising in the course of social re ships other than contracts which violates a person's legally protected rights for which the law provides a remedy in the form of an action for damages.

There are two basic classifications of torts: (a) negligence which is the result of an unintentional act (b) intentional acts or omissions which results in a breach of someone's rights. There is a third group in this area that should be explained. It is referred to as strict liability.)

8-2.241

Civil Laws Governing Law Enforcement Misconduct

BUT ALSO LAWS THAT ARE FOR THE PREVENTION OF NEGLECT OF THE CHILD.

827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.—

intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to

a child; or

expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm,

Subject: professional misconduct, failure to comply nonprofit compliance, ethnic biasness and duty to report misconduct by attorney of judicial misconduct

signed and filed a valid declaration of paternity that has the force and effect of a judgment, enforceable by contempt

REQUIREMENT OF STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 466. [42 U.S.C. 666] (a) In order to satisfy section 454(20)(A), each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures, consistent with this section and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program which the State administers under this part:

Sec. 466. [42 U.S.C. 666] (a

(iv) Use of paternity acknowledgment affidavit.—Such procedures must require the State to develop and use an affidavit for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity which includes the minimum requirements of the affidavit specified by the Secretary under section 452(a)(7) for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, and to give full faith and credit to such an affidavit signed in any other State according to its procedures.

THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF DUTY/NEGLECT OF DUTY WHEREAS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WOULD HAVE REMEDIED AN EXTENSIVE DELAY IN PROVIDING ADEQUATE CHILD SUPPORT OR FINANCIAL SUPPORT. IT IS ALSO MORE THAT SUSPECTED THAT THE UNTIMELY DELAYS AREASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING BREACH(ES)

the 1996 reforms require States to adopt laws that give the CSE agency authority to initiate a series of expedited procedures without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other administrative agency or judicial tribunal

and

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act

and

MISUSE OF OFFICE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW

You cannot use information available to you because of your job, but not

available to the public, for your personal benefit or for the benefit of others.

§ 112.313(8), Fla. Stat.

Title VI allows persons to file administrative complaints with the federal departments and agencies that provide financial assistance alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal funds.

Under Title VI, EPA has a responsibility to ensure that its funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. This prohibition against discrimination under Title VI has been a statutory mandate since 1964 and EPA has had Title VI regulations since 1973.

EPA's Office of Civil Rights is responsible for the Agency's administration of Title VI, including investigation of such ...

A registered support order is confirmed and immediately enforceable unless the respondent files an objection in a record within a fixed period of time, almost invariably the 20 days suggested originally, Sections 603 and 607.

Section 604.

TITLE 42 SECTIONS 666 AND 654, 657 COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION CITATION FROM THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE US CODE

§ 657. Distribution of collected support

The following is an abstract from the Administration for Children and Families' website and the Administration for Child Support Enforcement, both of which publish all statutory guidelines for the collection of child support and payments thereof to the recipient.

collection and distribution of child support payments Within this site it is defined as follows Frequently Asked Questions about Child Support Collection/Distribution For answers to questions about your own case, you need to check with your local or state child support office. State CSE agency telephone numbers and addresses are at (English):http://ocse3.acf.dhhs.gov/int/ directories/ext/IVd_list.cfm (Spanish):http://ocse3.acf.dhhs.gov/int/ directories/ext/Espanol_IVd_ list.cfm State CSE agency web site links are on our web site at the following location:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ programs/cse/extinf.htm#exta The following general information may be helpful: If the state collects more in a month than is to be paid to the family for their current and past due support, the rest of the money can be used to repay the state and federal governments for cash assistance * AFDC or TANF * that a family received. Also, child support agencies can recover all or part of the costs of their services from people who are not in a cash assistance program. These can include the cost of legal work done by agency attorneys or the costs of locating a parent, for example. The money may be deducted from the child support payment, or it may be collected from the noncustodial parent. For more information on changes in the law and how they may affect you, as well as the cost recovery practices of your State, you should contact your State child support enforcement agency.

Case Type: Paternity DOR

Date Filed: 08/29/2005

Location: Div 42

Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482005DR014270A001OX

Related Case Information Related Cases

2002-DR-006249-O (Paternity)

Party Information

Lead Attorneys

Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN BARBARA FANCHER (LIMITED) JONES, Esquire

Retained

407-849-1133(W)

Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS ALBERTO

Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS

05/15/2012

Order Denying (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Petitioner's Motion/Writ of Habeas Corpus Contesting Custody Order)

09/19/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Denying Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus/Contempt of Court Order)

03/30/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set Arrears)

02/17/2011

Final Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (on motion withdrawal of motion to set reserved arrears)

10/22/2010

Report/Recommendation and Final Judgment (Judicial Officer: Roche, Renee A)

Comment (Petition for Support)

05/09/2006

Final Judgment

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

08/07/2012 Letter

to Judge Evans (Faxed) w/attached Re: Child Support

05/07/2012 Civil Cover Sheet

05/07/2012 Motion

for writ of Habeas Corpus contesting custody order/Modification of visitation w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12)

05/07/2012 Birth Certificate

as to Male Child

04/02/2012 Motion

for writ habeas corpus contesting custodu order w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12)

04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address

12/05/2011 Letter

Amended Letter/Writ of Habeas Corpus to Hearing Officer/Court

11/14/2011 Notice of Change of Address

09/14/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus

contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11)

09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus

contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11)

09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus

contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11)

04/06/2011 Returned Mail

03/28/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: Report and Recommendation

03/28/2011 Court Minutes

03/28/2011 Supplemental Financial Statement

03/28/2011 Notice to Depository

Request for Multiple Adjustments to Collections

03/28/2011 Certified Notice of Delinquent Support

03/28/2011 Child Support Information Sheet

03/22/2011 Returned Mail

03/11/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

and Notice of Hearing on 3/28/11 @ 8am in Rm 540 (Re-Closed 03/30/11)

02/24/2011 Copy/Copies

of Child Support and Federal Law

02/24/2011 Memorandum

from Office of the Attorney General Re: Prosecutive Guidelines & Procedures for Child Support Recovery Act of 1992

02/24/2011 Notice of Change of Address

02/23/2011 Answer

02/18/2011 Alias Summons Returned Served

7/28/10

02/14/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: No Action

01/14/2011 Returned Mail

01/04/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

Reserved (reclosed 2/17/11)

01/04/2011 Notice of Hearing

2/14/11 @ 8am

11/29/2010 Notice of Change of Address

10/22/2010 Order for Income Deduction

10/19/2010 Petition/Motion (1:00 PM) (Magistrate Winslow, George) Parties Present

Result: Report and Recommendation

10/19/2010 Child Support Information Sheet

10/19/2010 Exhibit(s)

Pet #2 (Support Guidelines Worksheet)

10/19/2010 Exhibit(s)

Pet #1 (Supplemental Financial Statement)

10/19/2010 Court Minutes

10/08/2010 Returned Mail

09/20/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial

10/19/10 @ 1pm

Rm.540

09/17/2010 Notice for Trial

Non-Jury

08/12/2010 Response

with Regards to Summons Received Regarding Child Support

06/14/2010 Alias Summons Issued

04/09/2010 Summons Returned Unserved

12/17/2009 Request for Admissions

(supplemental support) to

12/17/2009 Petition

supplemental for support & other relief (Re-Closed 10/22/10)

12/17/2009 Financial Affidavit

12/17/2009 Certificate of Compliance

12/17/2009 Summons Issued

re: supplemental petition for support

11/01/2006 Notice of Change of Address

Notice of Change of Address|NOTICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS

09/28/2006 HRS673 to Bureau

HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU

Letter|LETTER FILED FROM JUDICIAL ASSISTANT

07/19/2006 Letter

Letter|LETTER FILED TO JUDGE RE: CHILD SUPPORT

05/09/2006 Final Judgment

Final Judgment|FINAL JUDGMENT PATERNITY RECORDED

05/09/2006 Disposed by Non-Jury Trial

Disposed by Non-Jury Trial|DISPOSED BY NON JURY TRIAL

05/09/2006 Order for Income Deduction

Order for Income Deduction|ORDER FOR INCOME DEDUCTION

05/08/2006 HRS673 to Bureau

HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU

04/28/2006 Court Minutes

Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING

04/28/2006 Affidavit

Affidavit|STATE CASE REGISTRY INFORMATION

04/28/2006 Affidavit

Affidavit|FINAN

CIAL STATEMENT

04/28/2006 Status Hearing (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A)

04/28/2006 Non-Jury Trial (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A)

03/29/2006 Request to Produce

Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO

03/29/2006 Notice for Trial

Notice for Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL

03/29/2006 Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 04/28/2006 08:00 A.M.

03/29/2006 Order for Non Jury Trial

Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [04/28/2006] 08:00 A.M.

03/28/2006 Notice of Filing HLA Tissue Typing

Notice of Filing HLA Tissue Typing|NOTICE FILING HLA TISSUE TYPING

03/28/2006 Request for Admissions

Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO

02/09/2006 Notice

Notice|NTS OF PARENTAGE TESTING APPOINTMENT 03/01/06 @ 1:20 P.M.

01/10/2006 HRS673 to Bureau

HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU

01/05/2006 Child Support Information Sheet

Child Support Information Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET

01/05/2006 Child Support Information Sheet

Child Support Information Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET

01/05/2006 Financial Affidavit

Financial Affidavit|SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT

01/05/2006 Court Minutes

Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING

01/05/2006 Non-Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated)

01/05/2006 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated)

12/06/2005 Notice for Trial

Notice for Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL

12/06/2005 Request to Produce

Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO

12/06/2005 Order for Non Jury Trial

Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [01/05/2006] 09:00 A.M.

12/06/2005 Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 01/05/2006 09:00 A.M.

12/05/2005 Answer

Answer|ANSWER

10/31/2005 Summons Returned

Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005]

10/31/2005 Summons Returned

Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005]

10/27/2005 Answer Denying Allegations

Answer Denying Allegations|ANSWER DENYING ALLEGATIONS

08/29/2005 Initial Judge Assigned

Initial Judge Assigned|INITIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED EVANS, ROBERT M 42

08/29/2005 Petition

Petition|PETITION - DOR

08/29/2005 Civil Cover Sheet

Civil Cover Sheet|CIVIL COVER SHEET FILED

08/29/2005 Notice of Social Security

Notice of Social Security|NOTICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

08/29/2005 Financial Affidavit

Financial Affidavit|FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT

08/29/2005 Certificate of Compliance

Certificate of Compliance|CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

08/29/2005 Request for Admissions

Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO

08/29/2005 Summons Issued

Summons Issued|SUMMONS ISSUED

Financial Information

Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN

Total Financial Assessment 50.00

Total Payments and Credits 0.00

Balance Due as of 11/14/2012 50.00

Case Type: Child Support DOR

Date Filed: 01/06/2010

Location: Div 42

Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482010DR000170A001OX

Related Case Information Related Cases

2011-DR-006367-O (Child Support)

Party Information Lead Attorneys

Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN KARENA ANA ELENA (LIMITED) TANGELRODRIGUEZ, Esquire

Retained

407-849-1133(W)

Respondent WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN

Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS

03/24/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set Arrears)

01/12/2011

Final Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (on Withdrawal of Motion to Set Reserved Arrears)

04/06/2010

Final Judgment (Judicial Officer: Roche, Renee A)

Comment (for Support Recorded)

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

08/02/2012 Answer

w/att (Unsigned)

05/07/2012 Motion

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

05/07/2012 Birth Certificate

as to Female Child

04/23/2012 Summons Returned Unserved

04/12/2012 Summons Issued

04/11/2012 Request for Admissions

(Support)

04/11/2012 Petition/Motion for Modification

04/11/2012 Civil Cover Sheet

04/02/2012 Motion

for writ of habeas corpus constesting custody order w/att

04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address

11/14/2011 Notice of Change of Address

03/21/2011 Motion (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: Report and Recommendation

03/21/2011 Court Minutes

03/15/2011 Returned Mail

03/02/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

and Notice of Hearing on 3/21/11 @ 1:30pm in Rm 540 (Re-Closed 03/24/11)

03/01/2011 Civil Cover Sheet

01/10/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: No Action

12/02/2010 Notice of Hearing

on 1/10/11 @ 8am

12/01/2010 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

Reserved (Re-Closed 01/12/11)

12/01/2010 Civil Cover Sheet

11/29/2010 Notice of Change of Address

04/06/2010 Order for Income Deduction

03/31/2010 Petition/Motion (8:00 AM) () Parties Present

Result: Report and Recommendation

03/31/2010 Supplemental Financial Statement

03/31/2010 Support Guidelines Worksheet

03/31/2010 Child Support Information Sheet

03/31/2010 Court Minutes

02/12/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial

3/31/10 @ 8am Rm.540

02/12/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial

3/31/10 @ 8am Rm.540

02/10/2010 Notice for Trial

Non Jury

02/04/2010 Summons Returned Served

1/16/10

01/28/2010 Answer

w/att

01/06/2010 Summons Issued

01/06/2010 Civil Cover Sheet

01/06/2010 Petition

FOR SUPPORT AND OTHER RELIEF

01/06/2010 Request for Admissions

01/06/2010 Financial Affidavit

01/06/2010 Certificate of Compliance

Financial Information

Respondent WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN

Total Financial Assessment 15.00

Total Payments and Credits 15.00

Balance Due as of 11/14/2012 0.00

05/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 15.00

05/20/2010 Counter Payment Receipt # DR-2010-15610 WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN (15.00)

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: compliance@report-it.com; crimestoppers@state.de.us; pmartin@blackcommerce.org; blackindustry@excite.com; publisher@blackcommentator.com; lblackwelder@betacenter.org

Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:50 AM

Subject: Fw: Duty to report misconduct; code of conduct https://www.facebook.com/OrangeClerk?ref=ts#!/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830?fref=ts&rf=144393985578228 Fw: www.nap.edu? understanding what is &reporting child abuse & neglect mandatory,FW: judicial misconduct,police misconduct, assisting criminal nonsupport FL 112 violations, Legal abuse/misuse of office,

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "MAILER-DAEMON@yahoo.com" <MAILER-DAEMON@yahoo.com>

To: nine09digits@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:52 AM

Subject: Failure Notice

Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.

<info@noworlando.org>:

No MX or A records for noworlando.org

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Received: from [98.138.90.52] by nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2013 13:52:03 -0000

Received: from [98.138.89.173] by tm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2013 13:52:02 -0000

Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jun 2013 13:52:02 -0000

X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3

X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 48447.60481.bm@omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com

Received: (qmail 86436 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jun 2013 13:52:01 -0000

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1371563521; bh=OKjkB6vT91+z4+OZtSfIBtHzhhfVMTG/ucRcr3enh0s=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=b+mlr0nxULOiyv9wbUclzsw/vj75ejkkk0OkqVbCTd67QEkJuvtwCwlP9dFggDc8hBL7pq80PHsjqVQL8FKfZ/C7GZMQHU0+fwXxWZQSMh5kNLLfpz9yGXjUtN8zRHG5XdXFrGeWbsGSPw7OlxnY1LgXdKvlJfcsD5pcgfU40SE=

DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;

s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;

h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;

b=D1qtUODHvSJ1LEMhBDw23uHZTQbaBUyZaO2c1rORs/BQtC5WN1cK/aqfseD+ouiShcYyWQ5HuyamTuT8sTAnUzjpKMBYG41r3ea9hGWJzED7pSsCZGmevMmj2TGB+Y36JQ0ZQwpBRUttm1LX0x0iUOZHFBDVzIyDm1N6YHoXMuA=;

X-YMail-OSG: _J5LgOAVM1lBSN3IrQKYyS4uyjZQSLdVuoEPfqNgdBwnbd9

LrCaD8hmB_QcH7vQJnKGVlYMNchW8vtsfTgVzjEA73wMQOwG_HuVHMTz_8WH

aRUAHfviVUTmigOa.FXjpftpwYt8U6tC3HFcCAPvjIDbe2J1tI5DSH53KGxk

rQXoyvkzXkMmFSTsvpmXElxZDGswsnOLaYEdU0uKk.CcZzAV0Ppdqek64JG0

Hl5MNa7hq5k8FppXlUYKuMwp8H61qnzIYTAbGtWtCkH_l8iHkMx0Tyb2Z0D.

slUw.6tR51PUIpG_8tE5Af3pMNmLUAFdyHiC3uEM5zZK7ntIfzVo6J3HfVDF

gkfQ0gxCLorOPA5aZhA39RSfB9iOXcsBuF2fCMq88_vTbSG9QGfFKkrw5muT

saOXJLiXsGoGDZb5pviqiWihj1XDe4ghIQ312hcYR2B4iknGYzs85WUfH7.l

4yw7DsvxHR7i.f2z00we9fTVM40P8SKFzNrrEy.5mfaF0f6NB3DPaggm.0Cg

DMqIRSLtp6k2h0p8cWXAhPSguCNX_XbR638ne7Qqkb1cfEI6wLIyQSp9KkMq

j8IL13XlcBvusPCALyzY1AMn7aYB8hXC2S3CdnMhCDzt9XzzJHT1F.44CqIl

WHxv11II.PgKduazd0vhAknLjsOWHek5IfrYhVXM2JtU25nh10QR1UHdpZFE

E.ffKlz2vPW8IIpNqSVfIiXtVmmeR8hBb6SR4BPWcYHQsN9QlPu_n9K7pT8c

ArZSEQ3X7FmM4caJFc97ZT03FEmc-

Received: from [4.28.160.121] by web120406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:52:00 PDT

X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,CgotLS0tLSBGb3J3YXJkZWQgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLQpGcm9tOiBTaGVpbGEgU2hhdyA8bmluZTA5ZGlnaXRzQHlhaG9vLmNvbT4KVG86IGdldGhlbHBAbmN2Yy5vcmcgClNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgTWF5IDE1LCAyMDEzIDk6MjYgUE0KU3ViamVjdDogRnc6IGlzIHJlcyBpcHNhIGxvcXVpdHVyLSBuZWdsaWdlbmNlLSByYWNpYWwgcHJvZmlsaW5nIGNvbWxhaW50CiAKCgoKCgotLS0tRm9yd2FyZGVkIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tCkZyb206IG5pbmUwOWRpZ2l0c0B5YWhvby5jb20KVG86IFJvYmluLlJvbmVAYW1lcmkBMAEBAQE-

X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.147.553

References: <1368667612.16291.BPMail_high_carrier@web120403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Message-ID: <1371563520.86344.YahooMailNeo@web120406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:52:00 -0700 (PDT)

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

Reply-To: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

Subject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

To: NOW <florida_now_president@yahoo.com>, NOW <now@now.org>,

Now <info@noworlando.org>, Philadelphia Now <philadelphianow@yahoo.com>

In-Reply-To: <1368667612.16291.BPMail_high_carrier@web120403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1635569886-1802081282-1371563520=:86344"

--1635569886-1802081282-1371563520=:86344

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1635569886-1282065844-1371563520=:86344"

--1635569886-1282065844-1371563520=:86344

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A=0A----- Forwarded Message -----=0AFrom: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo=

.com>=0ATo: gethelp@ncvc.org =0ASent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:26 PM=0ASub=

ject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint=0A =

=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A----Forwarded Message----=0AFrom: nine09digits@yahoo.com=

=0ATo: Robin.Rone@americanbar.org, Daniel.Serrano@americanbar.org, Rachel.P=

atrick@americanbar.org, diversity@americanbar.org, Deidra.Franklin@american=

bar.org, Nicole.Rivera@americanbar.org, minorities@americanbar.org=0ASent: =

Thu, May 2, 2013 1:48 PM EDT=0ASubject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligenc=

e- racial profiling comlaint=0A=0A=0A=0A=C2=A0=0Ahttp://purehealthsystems.c=

om/Banners/fgh2o2-yellow.gif=0A=0A----- Forwarded Message -----=0AFrom: She=

ila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>=0ATo: police misconduct <simpson@civilrig=

hts.org>; police misconduct <community.newark@usdoj.gov>; police misconduct=

<Special.Litigation@usdoj.gov>; police misconduct <freedman@voicenet.com>;=

police misconduct <nacole@nacole.org>; police misconduct <policeoversight@=

yahoogroups.com>; police misconduct <detcoalition@att.net>; police miscondu=

ct <media@aclu.org>; police misconduct <cleslie@midwesthumanrights.org>; po=

lice misconduct <info@nacole.org>; police misconduct <justcause@lawcollecti=

ve.org>; police misconduct <jfloyd@JohnTFloyd.com>; POLICE MISCONDUCT <isha=

@cs.com>; police misconduct <media@judicialwatch.org>; police misconduct <c=

itizensnvw@bellsouth.net>; police misconduct <info@aele.org>; "watchdog@jou=

rnalsentinel.com" <watchdog@journalsentinel.com>; Domestic Violence <media@=

ndvh.org>; police misconduct <media@judicialwatch.org>; police misconduct <=

media@aclu.org>; "media@bradynetwork.org" <media@bradynetwork.org>; "media@=

ncmec.org" <media@ncmec.org>;=0A"media@defenselink.mil" <media@defenselink.=

mil> =0ASent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:27 PM=0ASubject: is res ipsa loquit=

ur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ANegligence can b=

e proven with circumstantial evidence and one type is res ipsa loquitur. Th=

is is a latin term which means, "the thing (act) speaks for itself. There m=

ust be four elements present to prove or show negligence with this doctrine=

. They are:=0A>=0A> =0A>=0A> a) The accident could not have ordinarily occu=

rred without someone being negligent.=0A>=0A> b) The accident is caused by =

an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.=0A>=0A> c=

) The injured party (plaintiff) did not=0Acontribute to the negligence.d) T=

he evidence as to the explanation of the accident is more available to the =

defendant than to the plaintiff.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE=0A=

IPV=0AEXINTIMATE RETALIATORY DONSTIC VIOLENC=0ASubject: VAWA,=0AMISCONDUCT =

BY PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR=0AADMINISTRATOR, JUDICIAL =

HEARING OFFICE TO ASSIST AND EVADE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OBLIGOR/ AS=

SISTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE OBLIGOR INCLUDING NEGLECT, NEGLIGENCE, CHI=

LD ABUSE FAMILY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPLAINTANT: DR. SHEILA JOCELYN SHAW, DB=

A=0ASUBJECT OF COMPLAINT VAWA, =0AFALSE REPORT=0ANEGLIGENCE-=0AMISCONDUCT =

=0ABY=0APRINCIPAL JUDICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER /ADMINISTRATOR, JUDICIAL=

HEARING OFFICER, TO ASSIST AND EVADE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OBLIGOR/=

ASSISTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE OBLIGOR INCLUDING NEGLECT, NEGLIGENCE,=

=0ACHILD ABUSE FAMILY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE regarding false complaint/perjury b=

y CPI=0A(CPI 5617503201,COLOR OF LAW, RISS USED TO ASSIST CRIMINAL NONSUPPO=

RT practioner visit on 02/03/2011) and Principal;=0Athe following statement=

was provided by the PRINCIPAL authority of whom Orange County Home Educati=

on=0A(School Choice) office is governed whereas not one inquiry was made or=

requested from DCF or the court,=0Anot=0Aone inquiry or request was made t=

o the children's practicioners, regarding a threshold rather fabrication of=

new medical records ascertained in 2010 long after neonatal,immunization r=

ecords, daycare physicals had been obtained for ten years plus, none of whi=

ch were presented by DCF as demonstrative records to evident any such=0Aall=

egations were true.=0AINTENTIONAL OMISSIONS RESULTING IN MATERNAL INJURY AN=

D LEGAL ERROR, including the following statement and letter:On Thu, 2/3/11,=

Bernier, Christopher S. <christopher.bernier@ocps.net> wrote:=0AFrom: Bern=

ier, Christopher S. <christopher.bernier@ocps.net> Subject: RE: Home School=

Enrollment To: "'nine09digits@yahoo.com'" <nine09digits@yahoo.com> Cc: "Sh=

oemaker, Toney" <toney.shoemaker@ocps.net>=0ADate: Thursday, February 3, 20=

11,=0A9:16 AM Dr Shaw, We are in=0Areceipt of your hand written note. In re=

ading it carefully, we have no understanding of the DCF complaint or your i=

ssues related to Ferncreek. We have no documentation of such. We suggest yo=

u follow those issues up with Ferncreek or the learning community office. W=

e would like to thank you and confirm we have=0Areceived enrollment/transcr=

ipt information for your student for the 2008-2009 school year. Again, we a=

re more than happy to take your student and wish to not frustrate you, but =

the information we have been seeking is for the 2006 =E2=80=93 2007 and 200=

7-2008=0Aschool=0Ayears. Please see highlighted section in email below. Ple=

ase call=0Aus so we can end the confusion and reach a solution so your chil=

d can enroll.=0AChristopher Bernier Principal School Choice Services 407-31=

7-3200 ext 2706=0AFURTHER MISCONDUCT WAS CONTINUED WTH AN ABATEMENT TO STOP=

COLLECTION OF TEN PLUS YEARS OF CHILD SUPPORT AND RECOVERY FEES OWED BY TH=

E OBLIGOR IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES INVOLVING=0ATHE SAME CHILDREN IN ALLEGATIO=

NS OF KIDNAPPING AND CHILD ABUSE CLAIMS, FALSELY MADE BY THE CPI.=0AINVOLVI=

NG CASES: =0ARegister of ActionsCase No. 2010-DR-000170-OSHAW, SHEILA JOCEL=

YN KARENA vs. WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =

=C2=A7 =C2=A7 Case Type: Child Support DOR =0ADate Filed: 01/06/2010 Locati=

on: Div 42 Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M=0AUniform Case Number: 482010D=

R000170A001OX AND CASE NUMBERS Case Type: Paternity DOR Date Filed: 08/29/2=

005 Location: Div 42 Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M Uniform Case Number:=

482005DR014270A001OX=0ARelated Case Information Related Cases 2002-DR-0062=

49-O (Paternity) Party=0AInformation Lead Attorneys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA=

JOCELYN =0ABARBARA FANCHER=0A(LIMITED) JONES, Esquire Retained 407-849-113=

3(W)=0AMisuse of office color of law manipulation of records DCF RFA case..=

Registers of action involving criminal judicial misconduct, pricipa judicia=

l illegal conduct, nonprofit noncompliance with the MODEL=0ANONPROFIT CORPO=

RATION ACT 1987 CASE NUMBERS 482002DR00626249A001OX AND CASE NUMBER 2005DR1=

4720-O CARLOS ALBERTO GONZALEZ OBLIGOR 582676689 Registers of action involv=

ing criminal judicial misconduct, pricipa judicial illegal conduct, nonprof=

it noncompliance with the MODEL NONPROFIT CORPORATION ACT 1987 CASE NUMBERS=

482002DR00626249A001OX AND CASE NUMBER 2005DR14720-O CARLOS ALBERTO GONZAL=

EZ OBLIGOR 582676689..Family violence against the minor's sibling cases num=

ber 05-DR- 014270, VAWA EXINTIMATE PARTNER RETALIATORY VIOLENCE CRIMINAL EN=

TERPRISING=0AHISTORY FEDERAL DOC NUMBER G17259 JARRID DESHAUN WILLIAMS DEAD=

BEAT CASE NUMBER=0A482010DR000170A00-OX, =E3=80=80 =E3=80=80 Why is HSLDA I=

nvolved in CPS Investigations?=0AIn the late 1980s and early 1990s, investi=

gations of=0Ahomeschooling families were common because people who either d=

id not understand homeschooling or were opposed to it reported these famili=

es for educational neglect and truancy. HSLDA defended many families=0Aface=

d with investigations, even appearing in court on their behalf to prove tha=

t homeschoolers were doing anything but neglecting their children=E2=80=99s=

education. HSLDA has also worked tirelessly to decrease the number of unne=

cessary CPS investigations by ensuring that adequate measures are in place =

to protect innocent families from what can be a traumatic intrusion into th=

eir private lives. In 2001, HSLDA lobbied Congress to include a variety of =

safeguards in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the fed=

eral legislation that=0Aprovides funding for social services departments. W=

hile Congress did not include=0Aall of our suggested reforms, two of the mo=

st important=E2=80=94social=0Aworker training in family rights and mandator=

y disclosure of=0Aallegations to the accused=E2=80=94were included in the K=

eeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. How Frequently are Homeschoo=

lers Investigated? It is impossible to know how many homeschooling families=

are=0Ainvestigated for child abuse and neglect, but in HSLDA=E2=80=99s exp=

erience, the number of investigations initiated solely because a family has=

chosen to homeschool has significantly declined over the past 30 years. Ho=

wever, many innocent families are still wrongly reported. Statistics show t=

hat up to 60 percent of children removed from their homes by social workers=

were taken away from their parents without probable cause to suspect abuse=

. Approximately 30 percent of reports that are investigated include only on=

e child found to be a victim of=0Aabuse or neglect. Fifty-eight percent of =

the reports are found unsubstantiated.1=0AWhen homeschooling families are r=

eported for abuse or neglect,=0Athe allegations often include a mention of =

school attendance as well as=0Aother accusations, and in most cases, they a=

re unfounded. Unfortunately, allegations are often made by family members, =

neighbors, or acquaintances who are upset with the family and use the child=

welfare=0Asystem for retaliation. It is important to note that some states=

have statutory penalties for knowingly making a false report. Over the yea=

rs, HSLDA has represented thousands of families during CPS investigations. =

Our lawyers have also litigated and won a number of cases on behalf of home=

schoolers (search active cases or our archives). Are CPS Investigations Leg=

al? While social workers are required by law to investigate tips of abuse a=

nd neglect, they are still not free from the constraints of the Fourth Amen=

dment=E2=80=94thus, there is=0Aboth a legal and an illegal way to conduct t=

hem. In his article, "The Fourth=0AAmendment=E2=80=99s Impact on Child Abus=

e Investigations," Michael=0AFarris explains the balance of the state=E2=80=

=99s responsibility with individual and family=0Arights, stating that in a =

1999 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sai=

d it best, "The government=E2=80=99s interest in the welfare of children em=

braces not only protecting=0Achildren from physical abuse, but also protect=

ing children=E2=80=99s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes a=

nd in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents."2 In general, unre=

asonable searches and seizures are banned under the Fourth Amendment, and a=

ll warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. There are, however,=

two recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement for child abuse inves=

tigation: 1) If the adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker=

his/her free and voluntary consent to enter=0Athe home; or 2) If the socia=

l worker possesses evidence that meets two=0Astandards: a) It satisfies the=

legal standard of establishing=0Aprobable cause; and b) The evidence demon=

strates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the=0Ahealth of th=

e children. In other words, if a parent gives a social worker permission fo=

r entry into the home, then the social worker is acting legally. If the par=

ent denies permission, the=0Asocial worker can attempt to obtain a warrant,=

and the social worker can enter with that or with probable cause that exig=

ent circumstances exist. What Should Homeschoolers Do? Make sure you know t=

he specific statutes of your state. Child "abuse" and "neglect" are terms d=

efined in and governed by state statutes. In the event of an investigation =

on your family, do not give the social worker permission to enter your home=

, and call HSLDA immediately. You may also find it helpful to review HSLDA=

=E2=80=99s article "The Social Worker At=0AYour Door: 10 Helpful Hints" (a =

members-only resource). What is HSLDA doing=0Ato improve the situation? HSL=

DA is always seeking to=0Aimprove child welfare laws at both the state and =

federal levels. Some of the measures we would like to see enacted are:=0A1)=

CPS may only place founded reports on the state's central registry of chil=

d abuse and neglect. (In some states, unfounded reports are placed on the c=

entral registry, which not only=0Acauses harm to innocent people but is als=

o a violation of due process.) 2) Caseworkers must inform families if a rep=

ort is anonymous. (There is a difference between anonymous and confidential=

=E2=80=94reporters=E2=80=99 names should be kept confidential, but anonymou=

s reports are not as reliable as those made by known reporters.) 3) Parents=

must be allowed to select an unrelated adult to be present during intervie=

ws of their children. 4) Investigations must cease immediately upon discove=

ry that the allegations are false. Continuing=0Athe investigation process d=

espite proof of innocence only traumatizes the=0Afamily and wastes state re=

sources. 5) Parents must=0Ahave access to the records of their investigatio=

ns. HSLDA also continues to assist with incorporating the following two fed=

eral CAPTA=0Arequirements into state codes: 1) Requiring child protective s=

ervices workers to be trained in their duty to protect the statutory and co=

nstitutional rights of those they are=0Ainvestigating. 2) Requiring child p=

rotective services personnel to advise individuals subject to a child abuse=

and neglect investigation of the complaint or allegation made against them=

. Notes 1. Children=E2=80=99s Bureau. (2003). Child Maltreatment. U.S. Depa=

rtment of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/=

programs/cb/pubs/cm03/index.htm. 2. Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999=

). =E3=80=80 Search Menu Refine Search Back Location : Orange County Regist=

er of ActionsCase No. 2002-DR-006249-OSHAW, SHEILA J vs. GONZALEZ, CARLOS A=

=C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 Case Type: Paternity Date=

Filed: 04/24/2002 Location: Div 38 Judicial Officer: Kest, Sally D M Unifo=

rm Case Number: 482002DR006249A001OX Related Case Information Related Cases=

2005-DR-014270-O (Paternity) Party Information=0ALead Attorneys Petitioner=

SHAW, SHEILA J BARBARA FANCHER (LIMITED)=0AJONES, Esquire=0ARetained 407-8=

49-1133(W) Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS A RUSSELL SCOTT HERSHKOWITZ, Esquire=

Retained 407-786-2889(W) Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS 11/10/2=

004 Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 01/01/=

2007 Case Reassigned to Division Case Reassigned to Division|CASE REASSIGNE=

D TO JUDGE 38 02/11/2005 Notice Notice|NOTICE OF CONCLUSION OF REPRESENTATI=

ON 11/10/2004 Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing Final Order of Dismiss=

al After Hearing|FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AFTER=0AHEARING RECORDED 09/24/20=

04 Affidavit Affidavit|AFFIDAVIT TO=0ATERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS 09/24/2004 =

Court Minutes Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING=0A09/24/2004 Status Hearing (9:=

00 AM) (Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivate=

d, Deactivated, Deactivated, Smith, Maura T) 09/13/2004 Pluries Summons Uns=

erved Pluries Summons Unserved|8TH PLURIES SUMMONS=0AUNSERVED 07/28/2004 Pl=

uries Summons Served Pluries Summons Served|7TH=0APLURIES SUM SVD 6/22/2004=

07/27/2004 Notice of Hearing Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING [09/24/20=

04] 09:00 A.M. 07/16/2004 Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss|MOTION TO DIS=

MISS 07/14/2004 Notice Appearance of Counsel Notice Appearance of Counsel|N=

OTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (ATTY HERSHKOWITZ) 07/14/2004 Notice of Unav=

ailability Notice of Unavailability|NOTICE OF NON-AVAILABILITY (ATTY HERSHK=

OWITZ) 07/01/2004 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|8TH PLURIES=

SUMMONS ISSUED 07/01/2004 Affidavit of=0ALost/Destroyed Instrument Affidav=

it of Lost/Destroyed=0AInstrument|AFFIDAVIT OF LOST SUMMONS 04/16/2004 Plur=

ies Summons Issued Pluries Summons=0AIssued|7TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 01/0=

6/2004 Returned Mail Returned Mail|RETURNED MAIL OF 12/26/2003 Notice of Ac=

tion Issued Notice of Action Issued|NOTICE SUIT 1 PUB (1) MLD RET: 2/5/04 1=

2/26/2003 Affidavit Affidavit|AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT=0ASEARCH & INQUIRY 12/2=

6/2003 Certificate of Mailing Certificate=0Aof Mailing|CERTIFICATE OF MAILI=

NG 10/13/2003 Pluries Summons Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|6TH PLURIES=

SUMMONS UNSERVED 09/12/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|=

6TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 09/03/2003 Motion for Default Motion for Default=

|MOTION FOR DEFAULT (NOT ENTERED/NO RETURN OF SERVICE) 09/03/2003 Motion Mo=

tion |MOTION TO AMEND MOTION FOR DEFAULT 09/03/2003 Affidavit Affidavit|AFF=

IDAVIT AND MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES FOR PETITION FO MOTION DEFAULT 09/03/2=

003 Motion for Default=0AMotion for Default|MOTION FOR DEFAULT (NOT ENTERED=

/NO RETURN=0AOF SERVICE) 09/03/2003 Motion Motion |AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR =

DEFAULT MOTION TO=0AESTABLISH PATERNITY ETC 09/03/2003 Affidavit Affidavit|=

AFFIDAVIT AND MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES FOR PETITION FO MOTION DEFAULT 09/0=

3/2003 Pluries Summons Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|5TH PLURIES SUMMON=

S UNSERVED 08/04/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries=0ASummons Issued|5TH P=

LURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 07/31/2003 Request=0Afor Admissions Request for Admis=

sions |AMENDED REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 06/09/2003 Pluries Summons Unserved P=

luries Summons Unserved|4TH PLURIES SUMMONS UNSERVED 05/21/2003 Pluries Sum=

mons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|4TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 05/01/2003 Th=

ird Party Summons Third Party Summons |3rd plurries SUMMONS RETURNED UNSERV=

ED 02/11/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|3RD PLURIES SUM=

MONS ISSUED 12/26/2002 Pluries Summons Served Pluries Summons Served|2ND PL=

URIES SUM SVD=0A11/21/2002 RET: 12/11/2002 11/08/2002 Pluries Summons Issue=

d=0APluries Summons Issued|2ND PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 09/24/2002 Pluries Su=

mmons=0AUnserved Pluries Summons Unserved|PLURIES SUMMONS UNSERVED 08/30/20=

02 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 07/=

29/2002 Summons Returned Summons Returned|ALIAS SUMMONS RETURNED UNSERVED 0=

7/03/2002 Alias Summons Issued Alias Summons=0AIssued|ALIAS SUMMONS ISSUED =

05/15/2002 Summons Returned Summons=0AReturned|SUMMONS UNSERVED 04/24/2002 =

Initial Judge Assigned Initial Judge Assigned|INITIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED MACKIN=

NON, C Z 30 04/24/2002 Petition Petition|PETITION FILED 04/24/2002 Civil Co=

ver Sheet Civil Cover Sheet|CIVIL COVER SHEET FILED 04/24/2002 Financial Af=

fidavit Financial Affidavit|FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 04/24/2002 Certificate of C=

ompliance Certificate of Compliance|CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 04/24/2002 Af=

fidavit of Need Affidavit of Need|AFFIDAVIT OF NEED 04/24/2002 Request for=

=0AAdmissions Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 04/24/2002=0AA=

ffidavit of Non Military Service Affidavit of Non Military=0AService|AFFIDA=

VIT OF NON MILITARY SERVICE 04/24/2002 Summons Issued Summons Issued|SUMMON=

S ISSUED Search Menu Refine Search Back Location : Orange County Register o=

f ActionsCase No. 2005-DR-014270-OSHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN vs. GONZALEZ, CARLOS=

ALBERTO =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 =C2=A7 Case Type:=0APate=

rnity DOR Date Filed: 08/29/2005 Location: Div 42 Judicial=0AOfficer: Evans=

, Robert M Uniform Case Number: 482005DR014270A001OX Related Case Informati=

on Related Cases 2002-DR-006249-O (Paternity) Party Information Lead Attorn=

eys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN BARBARA FANCHER (LIMITED) JONES, Esquir=

e Retained 407-849-1133(W) Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS ALBERTO Events & Ord=

ers of the Court DISPOSITIONS 05/15/2012 Order Denying (Judicial Officer: E=

vans, Robert M) Comment (Petitioner's Motion/Writ of Habeas Corpus Contesti=

ng Custody Order)=0A09/19/2011 Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judic=

ial Officer:=0AEvans, Robert M) Comment (Denying Petitioner's Writ of=0AHab=

eas Corpus/Contempt of Court Order) 03/30/2011 Report/Recommendation/Hearin=

g & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Comment (Final Order on Motio=

n to Set Arrears) 02/17/2011 Final Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M=

) Comment (on motion withdrawal of motion to set reserved arrears)=0A10/22/=

2010 Report/Recommendation and Final Judgment=0A(Judicial Officer: Roche, R=

enee A) Comment (Petition for Support) 05/09/2006 Final Judgment OTHER EVEN=

TS AND HEARINGS 08/07/2012 Letter to Judge Evans (Faxed) w/attached Re: Chi=

ld Support 05/07/2012 Civil Cover Sheet 05/07/2012 Motion for writ of Habea=

s Corpus contesting custody order/Modification of visitation w/att (Re-Clos=

ed 5/15/12) 05/07/2012 Birth Certificate as to Male Child 04/02/2012 Motion=

for writ habeas corpus contesting custodu order w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12)=

=0A04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address 12/05/2011 Letter Amended Letter/=

Writ=0Aof Habeas Corpus to Hearing Officer/Court=0A11/14/2011 Notice of Cha=

nge of Address 09/14/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus contempt of court order w/a=

tt (Re-Closed 09/19/11) 09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus contempt of court =

order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11) 09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus contempt =

of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11) 04/06/2011 Returned Mail=0A03/28/=

2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer=0AWinslow, George) Result: Report a=

nd Recommendation 03/28/2011 Court Minutes 03/28/2011 Supplemental Financia=

l Statement 03/28/2011 Notice to Depository Request for Multiple Adjustment=

s to Collections 03/28/2011 Certified Notice of Delinquent Support 03/28/20=

11 Child Support Information Sheet 03/22/2011 Returned Mail 03/11/2011 Moti=

on Set Arrears/Repayment and Notice of Hearing on 3/28/11 @ 8am in Rm 540 (=

Re-Closed 03/30/11) 02/24/2011 Copy/Copies of Child Support and=0AFederal L=

aw 02/24/2011 Memorandum from Office of the Attorney General Re:=0AProsecut=

ive Guidelines & Procedures for=0AChild Support Recovery Act of 1992 02/24/=

2011 Notice of Change of Address 02/23/2011 Answer 02/18/2011 Alias Summons=

Returned Served 7/28/10 02/14/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Wins=

low, George) Result: No Action 01/14/2011 Returned Mail 01/04/2011 Motion S=

et Arrears/Repayment Reserved (reclosed 2/17/11) 01/04/2011 Notice of=0AHea=

ring 2/14/11 @ 8am 11/29/2010=0ANotice of Change of Address 10/22/2010 Orde=

r for Income Deduction 10/19/2010 Petition/Motion (1:00 PM) (Magistrate Win=

slow, George) Parties Present Result: Report and Recommendation 10/19/2010 =

Child Support Information Sheet 10/19/2010 Child Support Information Sheet =

10/19/2010 Exhibit(s) Pet #2 (Support Guidelines Worksheet) 10/19/2010 Exhi=

bit(s) Pet #1 (Supplemental Financial Statement) 10/19/2010 Court Minutes 1=

0/08/2010 Returned Mail 09/20/2010 Order for Non=0AJury Trial 10/19/10 @ 1p=

m. Rm.540 09/17/2010 Notice for Trial Non-Jury=0A08/12/2010 Response with R=

egards to Summons=0AReceived Regarding Child Support 06/14/2010 Alias Summo=

ns Issued 04/09/2010 Summons Returned Unserved 12/17/2009 Request for Admis=

sions (supplemental support) to 12/17/2009 Petition supplemental for suppor=

t & other relief (Re-Closed 10/22/10) 12/17/2009 Financial Affidavit 12/17/=

2009 Certificate of Compliance 12/17/2009 Summons Issued re:=0Asupplemental=

petition for support=0A11/01/2006 Notice of Change of Address Notice of Ch=

ange of Address|NOTICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS 09/28/2006 HRS673 to Bureau HRS673=

to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU 07/19/2006 Letter Letter|LETTER FILED FROM JUDI=

CIAL ASSISTANT 07/19/2006 Letter Letter|LETTER FILED TO JUDGE RE: CHILD SUP=

PORT 05/09/2006 Final Judgment Final Judgment|FINAL JUDGMENT PATERNITY RECO=

RDED 05/09/2006 Disposed by Non-Jury Trial Disposed by Non-Jury Trial|DISPO=

SED BY NON JURY TRIAL 05/09/2006=0AOrder for Income Deduction Order for Inc=

ome Deduction|ORDER FOR INCOME=0ADEDUCTION 05/08/2006 HRS673 to Bureau HRS6=

73=0Ato Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU 04/28/2006 Court Minutes Court Minutes|MINU=

TES HEARING 04/28/2006 Affidavit Affidavit|STATE CASE REGISTRY INFORMATION =

04/28/2006 Affidavit Affidavit|FINANCIAL STATEMENT 04/28/2006 Status Hearin=

g (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deact=

ivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A) 04/28/2006=0ANon-Jury Tri=

al (8:00 AM)=0A(Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, De=

activated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A) 03/29/2006 Request to =

Produce Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO 03/29/2006 Notice for Tria=

l Notice for Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL 03/29/2006 Notice of Hearing N=

otice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 04/28/2006 08:00 A.M. 03/29/2006 Order=

for Non Jury Trial Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [04/2=

8/2006] 08:00 A.M.=0A03/28/2006 Notice of Filing HLA Tissue Typing Notice o=

f Filing HLA Tissue=0ATyping|NOTICE FILING HLA TISSUE TYPING=0A03/28/2006 R=

equest for Admissions Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO 02/=

09/2006 Notice Notice|NTS OF PARENTAGE TESTING APPOINTMENT 03/01/06 @ 1:20 =

P.M. 01/10/2006 HRS673 to Bureau HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU 01/05/20=

06 Child Support Information Sheet Child Support Information Sheet|CHILD SU=

PPORT INFORMATION SHEET 01/05/2006 Child Support Information=0ASheet Child =

Support=0AInformation Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET 01/05/2006 Fina=

ncial Affidavit Financial Affidavit|SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 01/05/=

2006 Court Minutes Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING 01/05/2006 Non-Jury Trial =

(9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deac=

tivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated) 01/05/2006 Status Hearing (=

9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deact=

ivated,=0ADeactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated) 12/06/2005 Notice for Tria=

l Notice for=0ATrial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL=0A12/06/2005 Request to Prod=

uce Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO 12/06/2005 Order for Non Jury =

Trial Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [01/05/2006] 09:00 =

A.M. 12/06/2005 Notice of Hearing Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 01/=

05/2006 09:00 A.M. 12/05/2005 Answer Answer|ANSWER 10/31/2005 Summons Retur=

ned Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005] 10/31/2005=0ASummons Retur=

ned=0ASummons Returned|SUMMONS SER

[remainder of message body omitted; too large]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Subject: BARBARA FANCHER,TANGELRODRIGUEZ, Esquire,(Judicial Officer: Roche,(Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Renee(Judicial Officer Winslow, George),
To: ombudsman <John.R.Peterson@dep.state.fl.us>, "Ombudsman@dos.state.fl.us" <Ombudsman@dos.state.fl.us>, ombudsman <Lisa.Kelley@dep.state.fl.us>, Ombudsman <Bonnie.Hazleton@dep.state.fl.us>, "pennsylvania health, Abuse<ncea@nasua.org>, ACE <acepresident@acecashexpress.com>,, ACE <acepresident@acecashexpress.com>, ACES, <aces@childsupport-aces.org>, ACESGROUP, <aceschildsupportenews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>, ACLU, <aclufl@aclufl.org><paffairs@oig.hhs.gov>, Environmental Justice, <environmental-justice@epa.gov>, Ethics <contactOGE@oge.gov>,, Ethics <ethics@indiana.edu>, family violence, <fvdinfo@ncjfcj.org>, Federal Victims" <victimsrights@ic.fbi.gov>, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov

BARBARA FANCHER,TANGEL RODRIGUEZ, Esquire,Hershkowitz Russell S Attorney(Judicial Officer: Roche,(Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Renee(Judicial Officer Winslow, George)

Complaint regarding the subsequent violations:

FALSE STATEMENTS

MISCONDUCT

FALSE KIDNAPPING REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO THE JUVENILE COURT

LEGAL PHILANTHROPY

MISUSE OF OFFICE

INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE

LEGAL ABUSE

LAWYER MISCONDUCT

ETHNIC BIASNESS

MOCKERY

TRIAL ERROR

INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS

absent advance directives from practioners of which the child was

a patient

> 9457320158 (RFA CASE NUMBER 1143172973)

Div 42

Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482005DR014270A001OX

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830

Duty to report misconduct

The duty to report misconduct is one

of the ethical duties imposed on attorneys in the United States by the rules governing

professional

responsibility. With certain exceptions, an attorney who becomes aware that either a fellow attorney or a judge has committed an act in violation of the rules of e...

BARBARA FANCHER,TANGELRODRIGUEZ, Esquire,(Judicial Officer: Roche,(Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Renee(Judicial Officer Winslow, George),

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act

and

MISUSE OF OFFICE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW

You cannot use information available to you because of your job, but not

available to the public, for your personal benefit or for the benefit of others.

§ 112.313(8), Fla. Stat.

EPA's Office of Civil Rights is responsible for the Agency's administration of Title VI, including investigation of such ...

Section 604.

TITLE 42 SECTIONS 666 AND 654, 657 COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION CITATION FROM THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE US CODE

§ 657. Distribution of collected support

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ programs/cse/extinf.htm#exta

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Subject: WHITE COLLAR CRIME/ Fwd: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT- PEER REPORTING -Attorney General's Office regarding Rule 84 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct contains the following statements on attorney misconduct-18 USC Chapter 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
To: "pennsylvania health, Abuse<ncea@nasua.org>, ACE <acepresident@acecashexpress.com>,, ACE <acepresident@acecashexpress.com>, ACES, <aces@childsupport-aces.org>, ACESGROUP, <aceschildsupportenews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>, ACLU, <aclufl@aclufl.org><paffairs@oig.hhs.gov>, Environmental Justice, <environmental-justice@epa.gov>, Ethics <contactOGE@oge.gov>,, Ethics <ethics@indiana.edu>, family violence, <fvdinfo@ncjfcj.org>, Federal Victims" <victimsrights@ic.fbi.gov>, contact@nw3c.org

http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/0B6C8E5CDCA464D685257172004B0FBD

4-8 MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT

A lawyer shall not:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule;

(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;

(g) fail to respond, in writing, to any official inquiry by bar counsel or a disciplinary agency, as defined elsewhere in these rules, when bar counsel or the agency is conducting an investigation into the lawyer's conduct. A written response shall be made:

(1) within 15 days of the date of the initial written investigative inquiry by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board of governors;

(2) within 10 days of the date of any follow-up written investigative inquiries by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board of governors;

(3) within the time stated in any subpoena issued under these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (without additional time allowed for mailing);

(4) as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or order of the referee in matters assigned to a referee; and

(5) as provided in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure or order of the Supreme Court of Florida for matters pending action by that court.

Except as stated otherwise herein or in the applicable rules, all times for response shall be calculated as provided elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and may be extended or shortened by bar counsel or the disciplinary agency making the official inquiry upon good cause shown.

Failure to respond to an official inquiry with no good cause shown may be a matter of contempt and processed in accordance with rule 3-7.11(f) of these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

(h) willfully refuse, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, to timely pay a child support obligation; or

(i) engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

Comment

Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer's behalf. Subdivision (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take, provided that the client is not used to indirectly violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offense carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of rule 4-1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law.

Subdivision (c) recognizes instances where lawyers in criminal law enforcement agencies or regulatory agencies advise others about or supervise others in undercover investigations, and provides an exception to allow the activity without the lawyer engaging in professional misconduct. The exception acknowledges current, acceptable practice of these agencies. Although the exception appears in this rule, it is also applicable to rules 4-4.1 and 4-4.3. However, nothing in the rule allows the lawyer to engage in such conduct if otherwise prohibited by law or rule.

Subdivision (d) of this rule proscribes conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Such proscription includes the prohibition against discriminatory conduct committed by a lawyer while performing duties in connection with the practice of law. The proscription extends to any characteristic or status that is not relevant to the proof of any legal or factual issue in dispute. Such conduct, when directed towards litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, physical characteristic, or any other basis, subverts the administration of justice and undermines the public's confidence in our system of justice, as well as notions of equality. This subdivision does not prohibit a lawyer from representing a client as may be permitted by applicable law, such as, by way of example, representing a client accused of committing discriminatory conduct.

A lawyer's obligation to respond to an inquiry by a disciplinary agency is stated in subdivision (g) of this rule and subdivision (h)(2) of rule 3-7.6. While response is mandatory, the lawyer may deny the charges or assert any available privilege or immunity or interpose any disability that prevents disclosure of a certain matter. A response containing a proper invocation thereof is sufficient under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This obligation is necessary to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the disciplinary system.

Subdivision (h) of this rule was added to make consistent the treatment of attorneys who fail to pay child support with the treatment of other professionals who fail to pay child support, in accordance with the provisions of section 61.13015, Florida Statutes. That section provides for the suspension or denial of a professional license due to delinquent child support payments after all other available remedies for the collection of child support have been exhausted. Likewise, subdivision (h) of this rule should not be used as the primary means for collecting child support, but should be used only after all other available remedies for the collection of child support have been exhausted. Before a grievance may be filed or a grievance procedure initiated under this subdivision, the court that entered the child support order must first make a finding of willful refusal to pay. The child support obligation at issue under this rule includes both domestic (Florida) and out-of-state (URESA) child support obligations, as well as arrearages.

Subdivision (i) proscribes exploitation of the client or the lawyer-client relationship by means of commencement of sexual conduct. The lawyer-client relationship is grounded on mutual trust. A sexual relationship that exploits that trust compromises the lawyer-client relationship. Attorneys have a duty to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of clients. Engaging in sexual relationships with clients has the capacity to impair the exercise of that judgment.

FALSE STATEMENTS

MISCONDUCT

FALSE KIDNAPPING REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO THE JUVENILLE COURT

LEGAL PHILANTHROPY

MISUSE OF OFFICE

INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE

LEGAL ABUSE

LAWYER MISCONDUCT

ETHNIC BIASNESS

MOCKERY

TRIAL ERROR

INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS

http://www.hinshawlaw.com/the-lawyers-lawyer-newsletter---recent-developments-in-risk-management-03-09-2012/

Duty to report misconduct; code of conducthttps://www.facebook.com/OrangeClerk?ref=ts#!/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830?fref=ts&rf=144393985578228

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Mary Sue Hamlet <mshamlet@twcny.rr.com>

Date: Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Subject: Re: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT- PEER REPORTING -Attorney General's Office regarding Rule 84 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct contains the following statements on attorney misconduct-18 USC Chapter 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

To: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

Hello Sheila,

I spoke with you on the phone last week. I got another email, so I thought I would respond so you can see where it came from.

Please, please, please remove me from your assorted email lists.

Mary

On Jul 12, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Sheila Shaw wrote:

400 W. Robinson St. (Hurston South Tower) Ste. # S-509, Orlando, FL 32801-1718

http://www.hinshawlaw.com/the-lawyers-lawyer-newsletter---recent-developments-in-risk-management-03-09-2012/

Duty to report misconduct; code of conducthttps://www.facebook.com/OrangeClerk?ref=ts#!/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830?fref=ts&rf=144393985578228

8-2.241

Civil Laws Governing Law Enforcement Misconduct

Attorney Misconduct Complaint

400 W. Robinson St. (Hurston South Tower) Ste. # S-509, Orlando, FL 32801-1718

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:33 PM

Subject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: "Joe.Follick@fldoe.org" <Joe.Follick@fldoe.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:42 PM

Subject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: NOW <florida_now_president@yahoo.com>; NOW <now@now.org>; Now <info@noworlando.org>; Philadelphia Now <philadelphianow@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:52 AM

Subject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

To: gethelp@ncvc.org

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:26 PM

Subject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

----Forwarded Message----

From: nine09digits@yahoo.com

To: Robin.Rone@americanbar.org, Daniel.Serrano@americanbar.org, Rachel.Patrick@americanbar.org,diversity@americanbar.org, Deidra.Franklin@americanbar.org, Nicole.Rivera@americanbar.org,minorities@americanbar.org

Sent: Thu, May 2, 2013 1:48 PM EDT

Subject: Fw: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

http://purehealthsystems.com/Banners/fgh2o2-yellow.gif

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Sheila Shaw <nine09digits@yahoo.com>

"media@defenselink.mil" <media@defenselink.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:27 PM

Subject: is res ipsa loquitur- negligence- racial profiling comlaint

Negligence can be proven with circumstantial evidence and one type is res ipsa loquitur. This is a latin term which means, "the thing (act) speaks for itself. There must be four elements present to prove or show negligence with this doctrine. They are:

> a) The accident could not have ordinarily occurred without someone being negligent.

> b) The accident is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.

> c) The injured party (plaintiff) did not

contribute to the negligence.d) The evidence as to the explanation of the accident is more available to the defendant than to the plaintiff.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

IPV

EXINTIMATE RETALIATORY DONSTIC VIOLENC

Subject: VAWA,

MISCONDUCT BY PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR

ADMINISTRATOR, JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICE TO ASSIST AND EVADE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OBLIGOR/ ASSISTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE OBLIGOR INCLUDING NEGLECT, NEGLIGENCE, CHILD ABUSE FAMILY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPLAINTANT: DR. SHEILA JOCELYN SHAW, DBA

SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT VAWA,

FALSE REPORT

NEGLIGENCE-

MISCONDUCT

PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER /ADMINISTRATOR, JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER, TO ASSIST AND EVADE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OBLIGOR/ ASSISTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE OBLIGOR INCLUDING NEGLECT, NEGLIGENCE,

CHILD ABUSE FAMILY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE regarding false complaint/perjury by CPI

(CPI 5617503201,COLOR OF LAW, RISS USED TO ASSIST CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT practioner visit on 02/03/2011) and Principal;

the following statement was provided by the PRINCIPAL authority of whom Orange County Home Education

(School Choice) office is governed whereas not one inquiry was made or requested from DCF or the court,

not

one inquiry or request was made to the children's practicioners, regarding a threshold rather fabrication of new medical records ascertained in 2010 long after neonatal,immunization records, daycare physicals had been obtained for ten years plus, none of which were presented by DCF as demonstrative records to evident any such

allegations were true.

INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS RESULTING IN MATERNAL INJURY AND LEGAL ERROR, including the following statement and letter:On Thu, 2/3/11, Bernier, Christopher S. <christopher.bernier@ocps.net> wrote:

From: Bernier, Christopher S. <christopher.bernier@ocps.net> Subject: RE: Home School Enrollment To: "'nine09digits@yahoo.com'" <nine09digits@yahoo.com> Cc: "Shoemaker, Toney" <toney.shoemaker@ocps.net>

Date: Thursday, February 3, 2011,

9:16 AM Dr Shaw, We are in

receipt of your hand written note. In reading it carefully, we have no understanding of the DCF complaint or your issues related to Ferncreek. We have no documentation of such. We suggest you follow those issues up with Ferncreek or the learning community office. We would like to thank you and confirm we have

received enrollment/transcript information for your student for the 2008-2009 school year. Again, we are more than happy to take your student and wish to not frustrate you, but the information we have been seeking is for the 2006 – 2007 and 2007-2008

school

years. Please see highlighted section in email below. Please call

us so we can end the confusion and reach a solution so your child can enroll.

Christopher Bernier Principal School Choice Services 407-317-3200 ext 2706

FURTHER MISCONDUCT WAS CONTINUED WTH AN ABATEMENT TO STOP COLLECTION OF TEN PLUS YEARS OF CHILD SUPPORT AND RECOVERY FEES OWED BY THE OBLIGOR IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES INVOLVING

THE SAME CHILDREN IN ALLEGATIONS OF KIDNAPPING AND CHILD ABUSE CLAIMS, FALSELY MADE BY THE CPI.

INVOLVING CASES:

Register of ActionsCase No. 2010-DR-000170-OSHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN KARENA vs. WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN § § § § § § § Case Type: Child Support DOR

Date Filed: 01/06/2010 Location: Div 42 Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482010DR000170A001OX AND CASE NUMBERS Case Type: Paternity DOR Date Filed: 08/29/2005 Location: Div 42 Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M Uniform Case Number: 482005DR014270A001OX

Related Case Information Related Cases 2002-DR-006249-O (Paternity) Party

Information Lead Attorneys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN

BARBARA FANCHER

(LIMITED) JONES, Esquire Retained 407-849-1133(W)

Misuse of office color of law manipulation of records DCF RFA case..Registers of action involving criminal judicial misconduct, pricipa judicial illegal conduct, nonprofit noncompliance with the MODEL

NONPROFIT CORPORATION ACT 1987 CASE NUMBERS 482002DR00626249A001OX AND CASE NUMBER 2005DR14720-O CARLOS ALBERTO GONZALEZ OBLIGOR 582676689 Registers of action involving criminal judicial misconduct, pricipa judicial illegal conduct, nonprofit noncompliance with the MODEL NONPROFIT CORPORATION ACT 1987 CASE NUMBERS 482002DR00626249A001OX AND CASE NUMBER 2005DR14720-O CARLOS ALBERTO GONZALEZ OBLIGOR 582676689..Family violence against the minor's sibling cases number 05-DR- 014270, VAWA EXINTIMATE PARTNER RETALIATORY VIOLENCE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISING

HISTORY FEDERAL DOC NUMBER G17259 JARRID DESHAUN WILLIAMS DEADBEAT CASE NUMBER

482010DR000170A00-OX, 　　 Why is HSLDA Involved in CPS Investigations?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, investigations of

homeschooling families were common because people who either did not understand homeschooling or were opposed to it reported these families for educational neglect and truancy. HSLDA defended many families

faced with investigations, even appearing in court on their behalf to prove that homeschoolers were doing anything but neglecting their children’s education. HSLDA has also worked tirelessly to decrease the number of unnecessary CPS investigations by ensuring that adequate measures are in place to protect innocent families from what can be a traumatic intrusion into their private lives. In 2001, HSLDA lobbied Congress to include a variety of safeguards in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the federal legislation that

provides funding for social services departments. While Congress did not include

all of our suggested reforms, two of the most important—social

worker training in family rights and mandatory disclosure of

allegations to the accused—were included in the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. How Frequently are Homeschoolers Investigated? It is impossible to know how many homeschooling families are

investigated for child abuse and neglect, but in HSLDA’s experience, the number of investigations initiated solely because a family has chosen to homeschool has significantly declined over the past 30 years. However, many innocent families are still wrongly reported. Statistics show that up to 60 percent of children removed from their homes by social workers were taken away from their parents without probable cause to suspect abuse. Approximately 30 percent of reports that are investigated include only one child found to be a victim of

abuse or neglect. Fifty-eight percent of the reports are found unsubstantiated.1

When homeschooling families are reported for abuse or neglect,

the allegations often include a mention of school attendance as well as

other accusations, and in most cases, they are unfounded. Unfortunately, allegations are often made by family members, neighbors, or acquaintances who are upset with the family and use the child welfare

system for retaliation. It is important to note that some states have statutory penalties for knowingly making a false report. Over the years, HSLDA has represented thousands of families during CPS investigations. Our lawyers have also litigated and won a number of cases on behalf of homeschoolers (search active cases or our archives). Are CPS Investigations Legal? While social workers are required by law to investigate tips of abuse and neglect, they are still not free from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment—thus, there is

both a legal and an illegal way to conduct them. In his article, "The Fourth

Amendment’s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations," Michael

Farris explains the balance of the state’s responsibility with individual and family

rights, stating that in a 1999 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, "The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting

children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents."2 In general, unreasonable searches and seizures are banned under the Fourth Amendment, and all warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. There are, however, two recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement for child abuse investigation: 1) If the adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter

the home; or 2) If the social worker possesses evidence that meets two

standards: a) It satisfies the legal standard of establishing

probable cause; and b) The evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the

health of the children. In other words, if a parent gives a social worker permission for entry into the home, then the social worker is acting legally. If the parent denies permission, the

social worker can attempt to obtain a warrant, and the social worker can enter with that or with probable cause that exigent circumstances exist. What Should Homeschoolers Do? Make sure you know the specific statutes of your state. Child "abuse" and "neglect" are terms defined in and governed by state statutes. In the event of an investigation on your family, do not give the social worker permission to enter your home, and call HSLDA immediately. You may also find it helpful to review HSLDA’s article "The Social Worker At

Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints" (a members-only resource). What is HSLDA doing

to improve the situation? HSLDA is always seeking to

improve child welfare laws at both the state and federal levels. Some of the measures we would like to see enacted are:

1) CPS may only place founded reports on the state's central registry of child abuse and neglect. (In some states, unfounded reports are placed on the central registry, which not only

causes harm to innocent people but is also a violation of due process.) 2) Caseworkers must inform families if a report is anonymous. (There is a difference between anonymous and confidential—reporters’ names should be kept confidential, but anonymous reports are not as reliable as those made by known reporters.) 3) Parents must be allowed to select an unrelated adult to be present during interviews of their children. 4) Investigations must cease immediately upon discovery that the allegations are false. Continuing

the investigation process despite proof of innocence only traumatizes the

family and wastes state resources. 5) Parents must

have access to the records of their investigations. HSLDA also continues to assist with incorporating the following two federal CAPTA

requirements into state codes: 1) Requiring child protective services workers to be trained in their duty to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of those they are

investigating. 2) Requiring child protective services personnel to advise individuals subject to a child abuse and neglect investigation of the complaint or allegation made against them. Notes 1. Children’s Bureau. (2003). Child Maltreatment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/index.htm. 2. Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999). 　 Search Menu Refine Search Back Location : Orange County Register of ActionsCase No. 2002-DR-006249-OSHAW, SHEILA J vs. GONZALEZ, CARLOS A § § § § § § § Case Type: Paternity Date Filed: 04/24/2002 Location: Div 38 Judicial Officer: Kest, Sally D M Uniform Case Number: 482002DR006249A001OX Related Case Information Related Cases 2005-DR-014270-O (Paternity) Party Information

Lead Attorneys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA J BARBARA FANCHER (LIMITED)

JONES, Esquire

Retained 407-849-1133(W) Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS A RUSSELL SCOTT HERSHKOWITZ, Esquire Retained 407-786-2889(W) Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS 11/10/2004 Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 01/01/2007 Case Reassigned to Division Case Reassigned to Division|CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE 38 02/11/2005 Notice Notice|NOTICE OF CONCLUSION OF REPRESENTATION 11/10/2004 Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing|FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AFTER

HEARING RECORDED 09/24/2004 Affidavit Affidavit|AFFIDAVIT TO

TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS 09/24/2004 Court Minutes Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING

09/24/2004 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Smith, Maura T) 09/13/2004 Pluries Summons Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|8TH PLURIES SUMMONS

UNSERVED 07/28/2004 Pluries Summons Served Pluries Summons Served|7TH

PLURIES SUM SVD 6/22/2004 07/27/2004 Notice of Hearing Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING [09/24/2004] 09:00 A.M. 07/16/2004 Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss|MOTION TO DISMISS 07/14/2004 Notice Appearance of Counsel Notice Appearance of Counsel|NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (ATTY HERSHKOWITZ) 07/14/2004 Notice of Unavailability Notice of Unavailability|NOTICE OF NON-AVAILABILITY (ATTY HERSHKOWITZ) 07/01/2004 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|8TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 07/01/2004 Affidavit of

Lost/Destroyed Instrument Affidavit of Lost/Destroyed

Instrument|AFFIDAVIT OF LOST SUMMONS 04/16/2004 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons

Issued|7TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 01/06/2004 Returned Mail Returned Mail|RETURNED MAIL OF 12/26/2003 Notice of Action Issued Notice of Action Issued|NOTICE SUIT 1 PUB (1) MLD RET: 2/5/04 12/26/2003 Affidavit Affidavit|AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT

SEARCH & INQUIRY 12/26/2003 Certificate of Mailing Certificate

of Mailing|CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 10/13/2003 Pluries Summons Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|6TH PLURIES SUMMONS UNSERVED 09/12/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|6TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 09/03/2003 Motion for Default Motion for Default|MOTION FOR DEFAULT (NOT ENTERED/NO RETURN OF SERVICE) 09/03/2003 Motion Motion |MOTION TO AMEND MOTION FOR DEFAULT 09/03/2003 Affidavit Affidavit|AFFIDAVIT AND MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES FOR PETITION FO MOTION DEFAULT 09/03/2003 Motion for Default

Motion for Default|MOTION FOR DEFAULT (NOT ENTERED/NO RETURN

OF SERVICE) 09/03/2003 Motion Motion |AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT MOTION TO

ESTABLISH PATERNITY ETC 09/03/2003 Affidavit Affidavit|AFFIDAVIT AND MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES FOR PETITION FO MOTION DEFAULT 09/03/2003 Pluries Summons Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|5TH PLURIES SUMMONS UNSERVED 08/04/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries

Summons Issued|5TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 07/31/2003 Request

for Admissions Request for Admissions |AMENDED REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 06/09/2003 Pluries Summons Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|4TH PLURIES SUMMONS UNSERVED 05/21/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|4TH PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 05/01/2003 Third Party Summons Third Party Summons |3rd plurries SUMMONS RETURNED UNSERVED 02/11/2003 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|3RD PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 12/26/2002 Pluries Summons Served Pluries Summons Served|2ND PLURIES SUM SVD

11/21/2002 RET: 12/11/2002 11/08/2002 Pluries Summons Issued

Pluries Summons Issued|2ND PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 09/24/2002 Pluries Summons

Unserved Pluries Summons Unserved|PLURIES SUMMONS UNSERVED 08/30/2002 Pluries Summons Issued Pluries Summons Issued|PLURIES SUMMONS ISSUED 07/29/2002 Summons Returned Summons Returned|ALIAS SUMMONS RETURNED UNSERVED 07/03/2002 Alias Summons Issued Alias Summons

Issued|ALIAS SUMMONS ISSUED 05/15/2002 Summons Returned Summons

Returned|SUMMONS UNSERVED 04/24/2002 Initial Judge Assigned Initial Judge Assigned|INITIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED MACKINNON, C Z 30 04/24/2002 Petition Petition|PETITION FILED 04/24/2002 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet|CIVIL COVER SHEET FILED 04/24/2002 Financial Affidavit Financial Affidavit|FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 04/24/2002 Certificate of Compliance Certificate of Compliance|CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 04/24/2002 Affidavit of Need Affidavit of Need|AFFIDAVIT OF NEED 04/24/2002 Request for

Admissions Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 04/24/2002

Affidavit of Non Military Service Affidavit of Non Military

Service|AFFIDAVIT OF NON MILITARY SERVICE 04/24/2002 Summons Issued Summons Issued|SUMMONS ISSUED Search Menu Refine Search Back Location : Orange County Register of ActionsCase No. 2005-DR-014270-OSHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN vs. GONZALEZ, CARLOS ALBERTO § § § § § § § Case Type:

Paternity DOR Date Filed: 08/29/2005 Location: Div 42 Judicial

Officer: Evans, Robert M Uniform Case Number: 482005DR014270A001OX Related Case Information Related Cases 2002-DR-006249-O (Paternity) Party Information Lead Attorneys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN BARBARA FANCHER (LIMITED) JONES, Esquire Retained 407-849-1133(W) Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS ALBERTO Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS 05/15/2012 Order Denying (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Comment (Petitioner's Motion/Writ of Habeas Corpus Contesting Custody Order)

09/19/2011 Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer:

Evans, Robert M) Comment (Denying Petitioner's Writ of

Habeas Corpus/Contempt of Court Order) 03/30/2011 Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set Arrears) 02/17/2011 Final Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Comment (on motion withdrawal of motion to set reserved arrears)

10/22/2010 Report/Recommendation and Final Judgment

(Judicial Officer: Roche, Renee A) Comment (Petition for Support) 05/09/2006 Final Judgment OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 08/07/2012 Letter to Judge Evans (Faxed) w/attached Re: Child Support 05/07/2012 Civil Cover Sheet 05/07/2012 Motion for writ of Habeas Corpus contesting custody order/Modification of visitation w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12) 05/07/2012 Birth Certificate as to Male Child 04/02/2012 Motion for writ habeas corpus contesting custodu order w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12)

04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address 12/05/2011 Letter Amended Letter/Writ

of Habeas Corpus to Hearing Officer/Court

11/14/2011 Notice of Change of Address 09/14/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11) 09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11) 09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11) 04/06/2011 Returned Mail

03/28/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer

Winslow, George) Result: Report and Recommendation 03/28/2011 Court Minutes 03/28/2011 Supplemental Financial Statement 03/28/2011 Notice to Depository Request for Multiple Adjustments to Collections 03/28/2011 Certified Notice of Delinquent Support 03/28/2011 Child Support Information Sheet 03/22/2011 Returned Mail 03/11/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment and Notice of Hearing on 3/28/11 @ 8am in Rm 540 (Re-Closed 03/30/11) 02/24/2011 Copy/Copies of Child Support and

Federal Law 02/24/2011 Memorandum from Office of the Attorney General Re:

Prosecutive Guidelines & Procedures for

Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 02/24/2011 Notice of Change of Address 02/23/2011 Answer 02/18/2011 Alias Summons Returned Served 7/28/10 02/14/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: No Action 01/14/2011 Returned Mail 01/04/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment Reserved (reclosed 2/17/11) 01/04/2011 Notice of

Hearing 2/14/11 @ 8am 11/29/2010

Notice of Change of Address 10/22/2010 Order for Income Deduction 10/19/2010 Petition/Motion (1:00 PM) (Magistrate Winslow, George) Parties Present Result: Report and Recommendation 10/19/2010 Child Support Information Sheet 10/19/2010 Child Support Information Sheet 10/19/2010 Exhibit(s) Pet #2 (Support Guidelines Worksheet) 10/19/2010 Exhibit(s) Pet #1 (Supplemental Financial Statement) 10/19/2010 Court Minutes 10/08/2010 Returned Mail 09/20/2010 Order for Non

Jury Trial 10/19/10 @ 1pm. Rm.540 09/17/2010 Notice for Trial Non-Jury

08/12/2010 Response with Regards to Summons

Received Regarding Child Support 06/14/2010 Alias Summons Issued 04/09/2010 Summons Returned Unserved 12/17/2009 Request for Admissions (supplemental support) to 12/17/2009 Petition supplemental for support & other relief (Re-Closed 10/22/10) 12/17/2009 Financial Affidavit 12/17/2009 Certificate of Compliance 12/17/2009 Summons Issued re:

supplemental petition for support

11/01/2006 Notice of Change of Address Notice of Change of Address|NOTICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS 09/28/2006 HRS673 to Bureau HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU 07/19/2006 Letter Letter|LETTER FILED FROM JUDICIAL ASSISTANT 07/19/2006 Letter Letter|LETTER FILED TO JUDGE RE: CHILD SUPPORT 05/09/2006 Final Judgment Final Judgment|FINAL JUDGMENT PATERNITY RECORDED 05/09/2006 Disposed by Non-Jury Trial Disposed by Non-Jury Trial|DISPOSED BY NON JURY TRIAL 05/09/2006

Order for Income Deduction Order for Income Deduction|ORDER FOR INCOME

DEDUCTION 05/08/2006 HRS673 to Bureau HRS673

to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU 04/28/2006 Court Minutes Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING 04/28/2006 Affidavit Affidavit|STATE CASE REGISTRY INFORMATION 04/28/2006 Affidavit Affidavit|FINANCIAL STATEMENT 04/28/2006 Status Hearing (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A) 04/28/2006

Non-Jury Trial (8:00 AM)

(Judicial Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A) 03/29/2006 Request to Produce Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO 03/29/2006 Notice for Trial Notice for Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL 03/29/2006 Notice of Hearing Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 04/28/2006 08:00 A.M. 03/29/2006 Order for Non Jury Trial Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [04/28/2006] 08:00 A.M.

03/28/2006 Notice of Filing HLA Tissue Typing Notice of Filing HLA Tissue

Typing|NOTICE FILING HLA TISSUE TYPING

03/28/2006 Request for Admissions Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO 02/09/2006 Notice Notice|NTS OF PARENTAGE TESTING APPOINTMENT 03/01/06 @ 1:20 P.M. 01/10/2006 HRS673 to Bureau HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU 01/05/2006 Child Support Information Sheet Child Support Information Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET 01/05/2006 Child Support Information

Sheet Child Support

Information Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET 01/05/2006 Financial Affidavit Financial Affidavit|SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 01/05/2006 Court Minutes Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING 01/05/2006 Non-Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated) 01/05/2006 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated,

Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated) 12/06/2005 Notice for Trial Notice for

Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL

12/06/2005 Request to Produce Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO 12/06/2005 Order for Non Jury Trial Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [01/05/2006] 09:00 A.M. 12/06/2005 Notice of Hearing Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 01/05/2006 09:00 A.M. 12/05/2005 Answer Answer|ANSWER 10/31/2005 Summons Returned Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005] 10/31/2005

Summons Returned

Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005] 10/27/2005 Answer Denying Allegations Answer Denying Allegations|ANSWER DENYING ALLEGATIONS 08/29/2005 Initial Judge Assigned Initial Judge Assigned|INITIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED EVANS, ROBERT M 42 08/29/2005 Petition Petition|PETITION - DOR 08/29/2005 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet|CIVIL COVER SHEET FILED 08/29/2005 Notice of Social Security Notice of Social Security|NOTICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

08/29/2005 Financial Affidavit Financial Affidavit|FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 08/29/2005

Certificate of Compliance

Certificate of Compliance|CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 08/29/2005 Request for Admissions Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO 08/29/2005 Summons Issued Summons Issued|SUMMONS ISSUED Financial Information Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN Total Financial Assessment 50.00 Total Payments and Credits 0.00 Balance Due as of 11/14/2012 50.00 09/12/2011 Transaction Assessment 50.00 　　　　

　　　　　　　　　 Search Menu Refine Search Back Location : Orange County Register of ActionsCase No. 2010-DR-000170-OSHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN KARENA vs. WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN § § § § § § § Case Type: Child Support DOR Date Filed: 01/06/2010 Location: Div 42 Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M Uniform Case Number: 482010DR000170A001OX Related Case Information Related Cases 2011-DR-006367-O (Child Support) Party

Information Lead Attorneys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN KARENA ANA ELENA (LIMITED)

TANGELRODRIGUEZ, Esquire Retained 407-849-1133(W) Respondent WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS 03/24/2011 Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set Arrears) 01/12/2011 Final Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M) Comment (on Withdrawal of Motion to Set Reserved

Arrears) 04/06/2010 Final Judgment (Judicial Officer:

Roche,

Renee A) Comment (for Support Recorded) OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 08/02/2012 Answer w/att (Unsigned) 05/07/2012 Motion FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 05/07/2012 Birth Certificate as to Female Child 04/23/2012 Summons Returned Unserved 04/12/2012 Summons Issued 04/11/2012 Request for Admissions (Support) 04/11/2012 Petition/Motion for Modification 04/11/2012 Civil Cover Sheet 04/02/2012 Motion for writ of habeas corpus constesting

custody order w/att 04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address 11/14/2011 Notice of Change of

Address 03/21/2011 Motion (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: Report and Recommendation 03/21/2011 Court Minutes 03/15/2011 Returned Mail 03/02/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment and Notice of Hearing on 3/21/11 @ 1:30pm in Rm 540 (Re-Closed 03/24/11) 03/01/2011 Civil Cover Sheet 01/10/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: No

Action 12/02/2010 Notice of Hearing on 1/10/11 @ 8am 12/01/2010

Motion Set

Arrears/Repayment Reserved (Re-Closed 01/12/11) 12/01/2010 Civil Cover Sheet 11/29/2010 Notice of Change of Address 04/06/2010 Order for Income Deduction 03/31/2010 Petition/Motion (8:00 AM) () Parties Present Result: Report and Recommendation 03/31/2010 Supplemental Financial Statement 03/31/2010 Support Guidelines Worksheet 03/31/2010 Child Support Information Sheet 03/31/2010 Child Support Information Sheet

03/31/2010 Court Minutes 02/12/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial 3/31/10 @ 8am Rm.540 02/10/2010 Notice

for Trial Non Jury 02/04/2010 Summons Returned Served 1/16/10 01/28/2010 Answer w/att 01/06/2010 Summons Issued 01/06/2010 Civil Cover Sheet 01/06/2010 Petition FOR SUPPORT AND OTHER RELIEF 01/06/2010 Request for Admissions 01/06/2010 Financial Affidavit 01/06/2010 Certificate of Compliance Financial Information Respondent WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN Total Financial

Assessment 15.00 Total Payments and Credits 15.00 Balance Due as of

11/14/2012 0.00

05/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 15.00 05/20/2010 Counter Payment Receipt # DR-2010-15610 WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN (15.00)

Friday

9:30am

Sheila Shaw

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duty-to-report-misconduct/136147606416830

Duty to report misconduct

The duty to report misconduct is one

of the ethical duties imposed on attorneys in the United States by the rules governing

professional

responsibility. With certain exceptions, an attorney who becomes aware that either a fellow attorney or a judge has committed an act in violation of the rules of e...

Page: 3 like this

Sunday

4:08pm

Sheila Shaw

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded

message ----------

> From: Sheila Shaw

> Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2012

> Subject: DUTY OF CARE/"REASONABLE PERSONS ...Fwd: NEGLIGENCE BY THE CPI CONT/REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES TREATMENT ON 2/3/2011. Fwd: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT/HCH ORLANDO NONPROFIT MALPRACTICE, PERJURY, RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT Fwd: 1996 reforms ... & Fwd:

> To: federal inspector <donald.white@oig.hhs.gov>

> NO INQUIRY TO THE PRACTITIONERS REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES, PRESCRIPTIONS, EXISTING TREATMENT

> SUCH AS THAT ON THE DAY OF ALLEGED "RISK OF HARM"- PATIENTS

> MICHYL SHAW AND ISIS SHAW WERE SEEN ON THE DATE OF 02/03/2012

> NEGLIGENCE WHEREBY THE PATIENT'S INSURANCE RECORDS ARE INDICATIVE OF THE PATIENT CARE HISTORIES, "REASONABLE PERSONS WOULD HAVE

INQUIRED INTO ANY HEALTH

TREATEMENT, OR INJURIES REPORTED BY

PRACTITIONER OR LONG TERM PROBLEMS- AND WHO WAS THE INSURED PARTIES, PARENT OR LEGAL CUSTODIAN ARRANGING FOR CARE, TREATMENT, APPOINTMENTS-

> absent advance directives from practioners of which the child was a patient

> 9457320158 (RFA CASE NUMBER 1143172973)

> medicaid records neonatal to date were omitted from case proceedings,

> absent xrays

regarding claim

> FURTHER

MANIPULATION OF RECORDS EXISTED BY HANDLEY REGARDING ABSENT INQUIRES DIRECTED TO AUTHORITATIVE OR LICENSED STAFF REGARDING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HEARSAY.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM

> Subject: Fwd: NEGLIGENCE BY THE CPI CONT/REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES TREATMENT

2/3/2011. Fwd: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

SUIT/HCH ORLANDO NONPROFIT

MALPRACTICE, PERJURY, RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT Fwd: 1996 reforms ... & Fwd: WHAT IS DEFINED AS AN ACT OF HARM &

> To: RThomas007@mac.com

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From:

Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:48 PM

> Subject: NEGLIGENCE BY THE CPI CONT/REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES TREATMENT ON 2/3/2011. Fwd: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT/HCH ORLANDO NONPROFIT MALPRACTICE, PERJURY, RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT Fwd: 1996 reforms ... & Fwd: WHAT IS DEFINED AS AN ACT OF HARM & RACIA

> To: tampa.division@ic.fbi.gov, domestic coalition <llevine@jwi.org>, agreenberg@jwi.org,crisis@866uswomen.org, info@ontherise.org, hubbardhouse@hubbardhouse.org, info@courtclasses.com,arcarot@nsu.law.nova.edu, williams@ouhsc.edu, acs@pcadv.org, rturckes@fletc.treas.gov,admin@ncjfcj.unr.edu, fnatalie@wfstone.com, info@nationalcenterdvtraumamh.org, mmclauglin@nnedv.org,rtolman@umich.edu, jedleson@umn.edu, media@ndvh.org, publicpolicy@ncadv.org, mainoffice@ncadv.org,info@legalproject.org, info <info@veilofinnocence.org>, icadv@violenceresource.org,info@preventchildabusenc.org, info@safenest.org, marsham@dvsolutions.org

> Cc: compliance <compliance@report-it.com>, Administration@doh.state.fl.us, federal inspector <donald.white@oig.hhs.gov>, domestic <nationalsafeplace@ymcalouisville.org>, domestic <sportinsociety@neu.edu>, public policy <uspirg@pirg.org>, public policy <litigatio@citizen.org>, public policy <info@publicampaign.org>, Civil rights <Edwin.Woo@hhs.gov>, civilrightscomplaint@nilc.org, ETHICS <Gary.Lindbergh@hhs.gov>, DEADBEAT DADS <RAADVP@aol.com>, deadbeat dad <action@ncpforce.com>, deadbeat dad <agency@ncpforce.com>, deadbeat dads <LizGoal@aol.com>, deadbeat dad <judges@ncpforce.com>, conlaw@hsdla.org, legalabuse@gmail.com

> OVERVIEW OF NEGLIGENCE

> FOR THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR

> By Ralph D. Thomas

> Negligence is the largest area of tort litigation found today. The basic

concept

in negligence is that the defendant acted with less care than is expected from a reasonable person. This reasonable person is an imaginary

person

used as a model in the negligence concept. Neg gence does not assume that the defendant's action that caused this liability imposed upon him was some thing he did on purpose. How ever, this general legal principle implies that the defendant failed to act or provide due care. Negligence then, is the unintentional failure of a defendant to

act as a reasonable man would causing harm to the plaintiff.

> There is not another area within the

legal/investigative science that needs to be understood more than in the area of negligence. The legal investigator needs a basic understanding of this legal principle to investigate such a case. The volume of case assignments is high, more so than in any other area. This chapter will deal with those concepts most needed when it comes to the

investigation

of a negligence case.

> UNDERSTANDING TORT LAW: A tort is a civil wrong resulting from a violation of a legal right not created by contract for which monetary redress is provided. This may be (a) an act or (b) an omission. More formally, a tort may be defined as a wrongful act or omission arising in the course of social re ships other than contracts which violates a person's legally protected rights for which the law provides a remedy in the form of an action for

damages.

> There are two basic classifications of torts: (a) negligence which is the result of an unintentional

act (b) intentional acts or omissions which results in a breach of someone's rights. There is a third group in this area that should be explained. It is referred to as strict liability.

> UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND REALATING TOPICS: This description and any description of various legal principles as they relate

to legal

investigation found in this manual covers various points in general terms. Some states will apply one principle and another state another. It is up to the investigator to learn and understand which principles apply.

> UNDERSTANDING NEGLIGENCE: Negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of which the law requires to protect others from unreasonable risk or harm. It will measure a person's act or omission against that of "a reasonably prudent man". This

measurement is against an unreal person who is used as a standard of conduct. It denotes the failure to act as a reasonably prudent man would

have acted under similar circum stances.

> DEGREE OF CARE: All that needs to be proven is that the defendant did not act as a reasonable prudent person would under like circum stances. The law of our land has imposed certain degrees of care that become issues under certain conditions. Some of these circumstances can

come out in

the actual investigation of the facts.

> ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: Under some conditions, no neg gence need be shown because the defendant was involved in activity that imposes strict or absolute liability upon him. Under conditions which are dangerous in nature strict liability is generally imposed. To apply strict liability, one needs to consider the activity the defendant is involved in. The strict liability principle can be compared to the accidental

shooting in an armed robbery. Under such a condition, the criminal can be charged with murder and the mere fact that the shooting was an accident is

immaterial. Under certain conditions, you can see absolute liability can be imposed even in the absence of neg gence.

> In most cases, anyone who possesses, stores, maintains, or transports a dangerous instrumentality is absolutely or strictly liable for any injury or damage caused by the instrumentality, regardless

of the presence

or absence of due care.

> CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: see above

> LAST CLEAR CHANCE: In this principle you might show that the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. In such a case, the defendant's liability could be diminished or omitted all together.

> ASSUMPTION OF RISK: Under certain conditions it could be held that the plaintiff assumed the risk involved. In such a case, there

would be no liability. What this principle means is that, in advance, the plaintiff gave his consent to assume certain risks. What this really does is transfer

certain duties from the defendant to the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff is then responsible for himself. A good example of this would be owners of certain sinkholes in Florida used by scuba divers. The divers are almost always required to sign a statement that they are assuming all risks before they dive. However,

the as tion of

risks does not have to be in writing and can be implied.

> PROXIMATE CAUSE: This has to do with the relationship between the failed duty of the defendant and the damage suffered by the plaintiff. There are thousands of cases each year where the plaintiff claims damages that were not the result of the actions or accident. In such a case, the defendant needs to show that certain of the plaintiff's damages were not the proximate cause of the

accident.

> STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: This has to do with the time limitation imposed upon the plaintiff to seek damages from the defendant. It often can

become an issue in any negligence case. Dates and times are important. You will want to know the time limitations in your area.

> UNDERSTANDING THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE

> The law imposes a duty of "last clear chance" or requires each and every party to use due care for the safety of

themselves and others.

This is related to comparative and contributory neg gence. Under this doctrine, any party will have a legal duty to avoid an accident and failure to do so will create a liability. Such a doctrine is set up to avoid a situation where (for example) a person saw the opportunity for an accident to take place and he or she let it happen so damages could be collected.

> UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LO QUTUR

Negligence can be proven with circumstantial evidence and one type is res ipsa loquitur. This is a latin term which means, "the thing (act) speaks for itself. There must be four

elements present to prove or show negligence with this doctrine. They are:

> a) The accident could not have ordinarily occurred without someone being negligent.

> b) The accident is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the

defendant.

> c) The injured party

(plaintiff) did not contribute to the negligence.d) The evidence as to the explanation of the accident is more available to the defendant than to the plaintiff.

> UNDERSTANDING DAMAGES

> Damages have to have resulted in order for the plaintiff to collect anything from the defendant. In relationship to legal principles, there are two types of damages:

> (a)

SPECIAL DAMAGES: These damages are direct dam ages. For example, in an auto accident they might be: damaged clothing, hospital bills, doctor's office bills, bills for drugs, repair of auto,

rental of another vehicle, etc.

> (b) PUNITIVE DAMAGES: These damages are not direct but have more to do with pain and suffering. Harder to measure, they can often times be higher than special damages.Punitive damages are more of a punishment of the

defendant.

> UNDERSTANDING

SUBROGATION

> As stated a person can be held liable for his or her acts or omissions and be charged with negligence. If the injured party chooses to recover from his own insurance company in part or in whole, then the insurance company in effect purchases the right to seek damages from the defendant. This is commonly referred to as subrogation. From an investigator's point of view, the insurance company will often times order an

assets investigation before seeking legal action to determine if the third party has any attachable assets for subrogation.

> Since negligence depends upon certain degrees of care

imposed upon the tortfeasor, the degree of care required can and often does depend upon the relationship between the two parties involved. In other words, different yardsticks of measurement can be used against the tortfeasor depending upon the re ship between

the two parties. Facts concerning the relationship between

parties involved need to be established to determine the "yardstick of measurement". Such facts will establish the relationship into one of three classifications.

> (A. invitee B. licensee C. trespasser).

> INVITEE: An invitee is either a public invitee or a business visitor. A public invitee is one whom enters upon the defendant's land being a member of the general population. He enters upon the defendant's land

as the land is opened to the general public. A business visitor is one who enters upon the land for some kind of direct or indirect business dealing with the owner. An invitee is given the greatest

degree of protection by the courts as far an negligence is concerned. Moreover, a business visitor is given the greatest degree of protection within the invitee concept. In other words, the degree of care might be different when a person is given a ride in a

vehicle if he compensated the owner for the ride than if he

was given a ride for free. Such hair-line cases come up daily in the field of negligence.

> LICENSEE: A licensee is a person whom enters upon property with an implied or express consent. An example of a licensee would be a social quest. Under most circumstances a licensee is expected to accept the property as he finds it and to look out for his own welfare. Under such circumstances, the knowledge of any danger known by the

licensee will preclude the licensee from any type of recovery. However, the owner will be required to inform and give warning to the licensee of any danger. Thus, the defendant would have a legal duty to

inform the licensee of any dangers.

> TRESPASSER: A trespasser is one who enters upon property without the implied or express consent of the owner. The owner or possessor of the land can not be held liable for any harm done by a trespasser

and owes no duty to act as the reasonably prudent man

would.

> --

> Dr. Sheila Jocelyn Shaw

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: Sheila Shaw

> Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2012

> Subject: DUTY OF CARE/"REASONABLE

PERSONS ...Fwd: NEGLIGENCE BY THE CPI CONT/REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES

TREATMENT ON 2/3/2011. Fwd: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT/HCH ORLANDO NONPROFIT MALPRACTICE, PERJURY, RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT Fwd: 1996

reforms ... & Fwd:

> To:

federal inspector <donald.white@oig.hhs.gov>

> NO INQUIRY TO THE PRACTITIONERS REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES, PRESCRIPTIONS,

EXISTING TREATMENT

> SUCH AS THAT ON THE DAY OF ALLEGED

"RISK OF HARM"- PATIENTS

> MICHYL SHAW AND ISIS SHAW WERE SEEN ON THE DATE OF 02/03/2012

> NEGLIGENCE WHEREBY THE PATIENT'S INSURANCE RECORDS ARE INDICATIVE OF THE PATIENT CARE HISTORIES, "REASONABLE PERSONS WOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO ANY HEALTH TREATEMENT, OR INJURIES REPORTED BY A PRACTITIONER OR LONG TERM PROBLEMS- AND WHO WAS THE INSURED PARTIES, PARENT OR LEGAL CUSTODIAN ARRANGING FOR CARE, TREATMENT, APPOINTMENTS-

> absent advance directives from practioners of which the child was

a patient

> 9457320158 (RFA CASE NUMBER 1143172973)

> medicaid records neonatal to date were

omitted from case

proceedings,

> absent xrays regarding claim

> FURTHER MANIPULATION OF RECORDS EXISTED BY HANDLEY REGARDING ABSENT INQUIRES DIRECTED TO AUTHORITATIVE OR LICENSED STAFF REGARDING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HEARSAY.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM

> Subject: Fwd: NEGLIGENCE BY THE CPI CONT/REGARDING ADVANCE DIRECTIVES TREATMENT ON 2/3/2011. Fwd: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT/HCH ORLANDO NONPROFIT MALPRACTICE, PERJURY, RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT Fwd: 1996 reforms ... & Fwd: WHAT IS DEFINED AS AN ACT OF HARM &

> To: RThomas007@mac.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From:

Sheila Shaw <sdynastysheila@gmail.com>

> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:48 PM

> Subject: NEGLIGENCE BY THE CPI

CONT/REGARDING

ADVANCE DIRECTIVES TREATMENT ON 2/3/2011. Fwd: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT/HCH

ORLANDO NONPROFIT MALPRACTICE, PERJURY, RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT Fwd: 1996 reforms ... & Fwd: WHAT IS DEFINED AS AN ACT OF HARM & RACIA

> OVERVIEW OF

NEGLIGENCE

> FOR

THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR

> By Ralph D. Thomas

> Negligence is the largest area of tort litigation found today. The basic concept

in negligence is that the defendant acted with less care than is expected from a reasonable person. This reasonable person is an imaginary person used as a model in the negligence concept. Neg gence does not assume that the defendant's action that caused this

liability imposed upon him was some thing he did on purpose. How ever, this general legal principle implies that the

defendant failed to act or provide due care. Negligence then, is the unintentional failure of a defendant to act as a reasonable man would causing harm to the plaintiff.

> There is not another area within the legal/investigative science that needs to be understood more than in the area of negligence. The legal investigator needs a basic understanding of this legal principle to investigate

such a case. The volume of case assignments is high, more so than in any other area. This chapter will deal with those concepts most needed when it comes to the investigation of a

negligence case.

be defined as a wrongful act or omission arising in the course of social re ships other than contracts which violates a

person's legally protected rights for which the law provides a remedy in the form of an action for damages.

> There are two basic classifications of torts: (a) negligence which is the result of an unintentional act (b) intentional acts or omissions which results in a breach of someone's rights. There is a third group in this area that should be explained. It is referred to as strict

liability.

> UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND REALATING TOPICS: This description and any description of various legal principles as they relate to legal investigation

found in this manual covers various points in general terms. Some states will apply one principle and another state another. It is up to the investigator to learn and understand which principles apply.

> UNDERSTANDING NEGLIGENCE: Negligence

is the failure to exercise that degree of which the law requires to protect others from unreasonable risk or harm. It will

measure a person's act or omission against that of "a reasonably prudent man". This measurement is against an unreal person who is used as a standard of conduct. It denotes the failure to act as a reasonably prudent man would have acted under similar circum stances.

> DEGREE OF CARE: All that needs to be proven is that the defendant did not act as a reasonable prudent person

would under like circum stances. The law of our land has imposed certain degrees of care that become issues under certain conditions. Some of these circumstances can come out in the actual

investigation of the facts.

nature strict liability is generally imposed. To apply strict liability, one needs to consider the activity the defendant is

involved in. The strict liability principle can be compared to the accidental shooting in an armed robbery. Under such a condition, the criminal can be charged with murder and the mere fact that the shooting was an accident is immaterial. Under certain conditions, you can see absolute liability can be imposed even in the absence of neg gence.

> In most cases, anyone who

possesses, stores, maintains, or transports a dangerous instrumentality is absolutely or strictly liable for any injury or damage caused by the instrumentality, regardless of the presence or absence of

due care.

> CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: see above

> LAST CLEAR CHANCE: In this principle you might show that the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. In such a case, the defendant's

liability could be diminished or omitted all together.

> ASSUMPTION OF RISK: Under certain conditions it could be

held that the plaintiff assumed the risk involved. In such a case, there would be no liability. What this principle means is that, in advance, the plaintiff gave his consent to assume certain risks. What this really does is transfer certain duties from the defendant to the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff is then responsible for himself. A good example of this would be

owners of certain sinkholes in Florida used by scuba divers. The divers are almost always required to sign a statement that they are assuming all risks before they dive. However, the as tion of risks does not have

to be in writing and can be implied.

> PROXIMATE CAUSE: This has to do with the relationship between the failed duty of the defendant and the damage suffered by the plaintiff. There are thousands of cases each year where the

plaintiff claims damages that were not the result of the actions or accident. In such a case, the defendant needs to show that

certain of the plaintiff's damages were not the proximate cause of the accident.

> STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: This has to do with the time limitation imposed upon the plaintiff to seek damages from the defendant. It often can become an issue in any negligence case. Dates and times are important. You will want to know the time limitations in your

area.

> UNDERSTANDING THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE

> The law imposes a duty of "last clear chance" or requires each and every party to use due care for the safety of themselves and others. This is related to

comparative and contributory neg gence. Under this doctrine, any party will have a legal duty to avoid an accident and failure to do so will create a liability. Such a doctrine is set up to avoid a situation where (for example) a person

saw the opportunity for an accident to take place and he or she let it happen so damages could be collected.

UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LO QUTUR

> Negligence can be proven with circumstantial evidence and one type is res ipsa loquitur. This is a latin term which means, "the thing (act) speaks for itself. There must be four elements present to prove or show negligence with this doctrine. They are:

> a) The

accident could not have ordinarily occurred without someone being negligent.

> b) The accident is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.

> c) The injured party (plaintiff) did not

contribute to the negligence.d) The evidence as to the explanation of the accident is more available to the defendant than to the plaintiff.

> --

> Dr. Sheila Jocelyn

Shaw

Case Type: Paternity DOR

Date Filed: 08/29/2005

Location: Div 42

Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482005DR014270A001OX

Related Case Information Related

Cases

2002-DR-006249-O (Paternity)

Party Information

Lead Attorneys

Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN BARBARA FANCHER

(LIMITED) JONES, Esquire

Retained

407-849-1133(W)

Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS ALBERTO

Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS

05/15/2012

Order Denying

(Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Petitioner's Motion/Writ of Habeas Corpus Contesting Custody Order)

09/19/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Denying Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus/Contempt of Court Order)

03/30/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set Arrears)

02/17/2011

Final

Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (on motion withdrawal of motion to set reserved arrears)

10/22/2010

Report/Recommendation and Final Judgment (Judicial Officer: Roche,

Renee A)

Comment (Petition for Support)

05/09/2006

Final Judgment

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

08/07/2012 Letter

Judge Evans (Faxed) w/attached Re: Child Support

05/07/2012 Civil Cover Sheet

05/07/2012 Motion

for writ of Habeas Corpus contesting custody order/Modification of

visitation w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12)

05/07/2012 Birth Certificate

as to Male Child

04/02/2012 Motion

for writ habeas corpus contesting custodu order w/att (Re-Closed 5/15/12)

04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address

12/05/2011 Letter

Amended Letter/Writ of Habeas Corpus to Hearing Officer/Court

11/14/2011 Notice of Change of Address

09/14/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus

contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11)

09/12/2011 Writ

of Habeas Corpus

contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11)

09/12/2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus

contempt of court order w/att (Re-Closed 09/19/11)

04/06/2011 Returned

Mail

03/28/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: Report and Recommendation

03/28/2011 Court Minutes

03/28/2011 Supplemental Financial Statement

03/28/2011 Notice to Depository

Request for Multiple Adjustments to Collections

03/28/2011 Certified Notice of

Delinquent Support

03/28/2011 Child Support Information Sheet

03/22/2011 Returned Mail

03/11/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

and Notice of Hearing on 3/28/11 @ 8am in Rm 540 (Re-Closed 03/30/11)

02/24/2011 Copy/Copies

of Child Support and Federal Law

02/24/2011 Memorandum

from Office of the Attorney General Re: Prosecutive Guidelines & Procedures for Child Support Recovery Act of 1992

02/24/2011 Notice of Change of Address

02/23/2011

Answer

02/18/2011 Alias Summons Returned Served

7/28/10

02/14/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: No Action

01/14/2011 Returned

Mail

01/04/2011 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

Reserved (reclosed 2/17/11)

01/04/2011 Notice of Hearing

2/14/11 @ 8am

11/29/2010

Notice of Change of Address

10/22/2010 Order for Income Deduction

10/19/2010 Petition/Motion (1:00 PM) (Magistrate Winslow, George) Parties Present

Result:

Report and Recommendation

10/19/2010 Child Support Information Sheet

10/19/2010 Exhibit(s)

Pet #2 (Support Guidelines Worksheet)

10/19/2010 Exhibit(s)

Pet #1 (Supplemental Financial Statement)

10/19/2010 Court Minutes

10/08/2010 Returned Mail

09/20/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial

10/19/10 @ 1pm

Rm.540

09/17/2010 Notice for Trial

Non-Jury

08/12/2010 Response

with Regards to Summons Received

Regarding Child Support

06/14/2010 Alias Summons Issued

04/09/2010 Summons Returned Unserved

12/17/2009 Request for Admissions

(supplemental support)

12/17/2009 Petition

supplemental for support & other relief (Re-Closed 10/22/10)

12/17/2009 Financial Affidavit

12/17/2009

Certificate of Compliance

12/17/2009 Summons Issued

re: supplemental petition for support

11/01/2006 Notice of Change of Address

Notice of Change of

Address|NOTICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS

09/28/2006 HRS673 to Bureau

HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU

Letter|LETTER FILED FROM JUDICIAL ASSISTANT

07/19/2006 Letter

Letter|LETTER FILED TO JUDGE RE: CHILD SUPPORT

05/09/2006 Final Judgment

Final Judgment|FINAL JUDGMENT PATERNITY RECORDED

05/09/2006 Disposed by Non-Jury Trial

Disposed by Non-Jury Trial|DISPOSED BY NON JURY TRIAL

05/09/2006 Order for Income Deduction

Order for Income Deduction|ORDER FOR INCOME DEDUCTION

05/08/2006 HRS673 to Bureau

HRS673 to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU

04/28/2006 Court Minutes

Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING

04/28/2006

Affidavit

Affidavit|STATE CASE REGISTRY INFORMATION

04/28/2006 Affidavit

Affidavit|FINANCIAL STATEMENT

04/28/2006 Status Hearing (8:00 AM) (Judicial

Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A)

04/28/2006 Non-Jury Trial (8:00 AM) (Judicial

Officers Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Roche, Renee A)

03/29/2006 Request to Produce

Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO

03/29/2006 Notice for Trial

Notice for Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY TRIAL

03/29/2006 Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 04/28/2006 08:00 A.M.

03/29/2006 Order for Non Jury Trial

Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL [04/28/2006] 08:00 A.M.

03/28/2006 Notice of Filing HLA

Tissue Typing

Notice of Filing HLA Tissue Typing|NOTICE FILING HLA TISSUE TYPING

03/28/2006 Request for Admissions

Request for

Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO

02/09/2006 Notice

Notice|NTS OF PARENTAGE TESTING APPOINTMENT 03/01/06 @ 1:20 P.M.

01/10/2006 HRS673 to Bureau

HRS673

to Bureau|HRS673 TO BUREAU

01/05/2006 Child Support Information Sheet

Child Support Information Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET

01/05/2006 Child Support Information Sheet

Child Support Information Sheet|CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION SHEET

01/05/2006 Financial Affidavit

Financial Affidavit|SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT

01/05/2006 Court Minutes

Court Minutes|MINUTES HEARING

01/05/2006 Non-Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated)

01/05/2006 Status Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officers Roche, Renee A, Deactivated, Deactivated,

Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated, Deactivated)

12/06/2005 Notice for Trial

Notice for Trial|NOTICE FOR NON JURY

TRIAL

12/06/2005 Request to Produce

Request to Produce|REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO

12/06/2005 Order for Non Jury Trial

Order for Non Jury Trial|ORDER FOR NON JURY TRIAL

[01/05/2006] 09:00 A.M.

12/06/2005 Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing|NOTICE OF HEARING * 01/05/2006 09:00 A.M.

12/05/2005

Answer

Answer|ANSWER

10/31/2005 Summons Returned

Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005]

10/31/2005 Summons Returned

Summons Returned|SUMMONS SERVED [10/10/2005]

10/27/2005 Answer Denying Allegations

Answer Denying Allegations|ANSWER DENYING ALLEGATIONS

08/29/2005 Initial Judge Assigned

Initial Judge Assigned|INITIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED EVANS, ROBERT M 42

08/29/2005 Petition

Petition|PETITION - DOR

08/29/2005 Civil Cover Sheet

Civil Cover Sheet|CIVIL COVER SHEET FILED

08/29/2005

Notice of Social Security

Notice of Social Security|NOTICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

08/29/2005 Financial

Affidavit

Financial Affidavit|FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT

08/29/2005 Certificate of Compliance

Certificate of Compliance|CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

08/29/2005 Request for

Admissions

Request for Admissions |REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO

08/29/2005 Summons Issued

Summons Issued|SUMMONS ISSUED

Financial

Information

Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN

Total Financial Assessment 50.00

Total Payments and Credits 0.00

Balance Due as of 11/14/2012 50.00

Case Type: Child Support DOR

Date Filed: 01/06/2010

Location: Div 42

Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482010DR000170A001OX

Related Case Information Related Cases

2011-DR-006367-O (Child

Support)

Party Information Lead Attorneys

Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN KARENA ANA ELENA

(LIMITED) TANGELRODRIGUEZ, Esquire

Retained

407-849-1133(W)

Respondent WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN

Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS

03/24/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set

Arrears)

01/12/2011

Final Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (on Withdrawal of Motion to Set Reserved Arrears)

04/06/2010

Final Judgment (Judicial Officer: Roche, Renee A)

Comment (for Support Recorded)

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

08/02/2012 Answer

w/att (Unsigned)

05/07/2012 Motion

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

05/07/2012 Birth Certificate

as to Female Child

04/23/2012 Summons Returned Unserved

04/12/2012 Summons Issued

04/11/2012 Request for Admissions

(Support)

04/11/2012 Petition/Motion for

Modification

04/11/2012 Civil Cover Sheet

04/02/2012 Motion

for writ of habeas corpus constesting

custody order w/att

04/02/2012 Notice of Change of Address

11/14/2011 Notice of Change of Address

03/21/2011 Motion (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer

Winslow, George) Result: Report and Recommendation

03/21/2011 Court Minutes

03/15/2011 Returned Mail

03/02/2011 Motion Set

Arrears/Repayment

and Notice of Hearing on 3/21/11 @ 1:30pm in Rm 540 (Re-Closed 03/24/11)

03/01/2011 Civil Cover Sheet

01/10/2011 Motion (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Winslow, George) Result: No Action

12/02/2010 Notice of Hearing

on 1/10/11 @ 8am

12/01/2010 Motion Set Arrears/Repayment

Reserved (Re-Closed 01/12/11)

12/01/2010 Civil Cover Sheet

11/29/2010 Notice of Change of Address

04/06/2010 Order for Income Deduction

03/31/2010 Petition/Motion (8:00 AM) () Parties Present

Result: Report and Recommendation

03/31/2010

Supplemental Financial Statement

03/31/2010 Support Guidelines Worksheet

03/31/2010 Child

Support Information Sheet

03/31/2010 Child Support Information Sheet

03/31/2010 Court Minutes

02/12/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial

3/31/10 @ 8am

Rm.540

02/12/2010 Order for Non Jury Trial

3/31/10 @ 8am Rm.540

02/10/2010 Notice for Trial

Non Jury

02/04/2010

Summons Returned Served

1/16/10

01/28/2010 Answer

w/att

01/06/2010 Summons Issued

01/06/2010 Civil Cover Sheet

01/06/2010 Petition

FOR SUPPORT AND OTHER RELIEF

01/06/2010 Request for Admissions

01/06/2010 Financial Affidavit

01/06/2010 Certificate of Compliance

Financial Information

Respondent WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN

Total Financial Assessment 15.00

Total Payments and Credits 15.00

Balance Due as of 11/14/2012 0.00

05/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 15.00

05/20/2010 Counter Payment Receipt # DR-2010-15610 WILLIAMS, JARRID

DESHAUN (15.00)

Duty to report misconduct

The duty to report misconduct is one

of the ethical duties imposed on attorneys in the United States by the rules governing professional responsibility. With certain exceptions, an attorney who

becomes aware that either a fellow attorney or a judge has committed an act in violation of the rules of e...

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Sheila Shaw

Date: Monday, August 20, 2012

Subject: Fwd: MISUSE OF OFFICE (Williams register of actions)-Fwd: 666.US Code violations complaint cont.civil rights violations/colr of law/racial profili/misuse of officeFwd: REGARDING CASE NUMBER 05-DR-1470-O, CHANGE IN CASE NUMBER FROM 2002-DR-006249-OFwd

To: Ombudsman@dos.state.fl.us

Actions

Case No. 2010-DR-000170-O

SHAW, SHEILA

JOCELYN KARENA vs. WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN §

Case Type: Child Support DOR

Date Filed: 01/06/2010

Location: Div 42

Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M

Uniform Case Number: 482010DR000170A001OX

Related Case Information

Related Cases

2011-DR-006367-O (Child Support)

Party Information

Lead Attorneys

Petitioner

SHAW, SHEILA JOCELYN KARENA

ANA ELENA (LIMITED) TANGELRODRIGUEZ, Esquire

Retained

407-849-1133(W)

Respondent

WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN

Events & Orders of the Court

DISPOSITIONS

03/24/2011

Report/Recommendation/Hearing & Order (Judicial Officer: Evans, Robert M)

Comment (Final Order on Motion to Set

Arrears)

01/12/2011

IMPROPER PURPOSE

Criminal Justice Section Standards

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations (Table of Contents)

Prosecutorial Investigations is the subject of a new set of ABA Criminal Justice Standards approved by the ABA House of Delegates in February 2008. To go directly to individual "black letter" standards, click on the applicable link in the Table of Contents, below. The “black letter” Standards and accompanying commentary have been published in “ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecutorial Investigations,” Third Edition © 2014, American Bar Association. For a pdf version of the publication, Click Here.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE

PART 1: GENERAL STANDARDS

STANDARD 1.1 The Function of These Standards

STANDARD 1.2 General Principles

STANDARD 1.3 Working With Police and Other Law Enforcement Agents

STANDARD 1.4 Victims, Potential Witnesses, and Targets During the Investigative Process

STANDARD 1.5 Contacts with the Public During the Investigative Process

PART 2: Standards for Specific Investigative Functions of the Prosecutor

STANDARD 2.1 The Decision to Initiate or to Continue an Investigation

STANDARD 2.2 Selecting Investigative Techniques

STANDARD 2.3 Use of Undercover Law Enforcement Agents and Undercover Operations

STANDARD 2.4 Use of Confidential Informants

STANDARD 2.5 Cooperation Agreements and Cooperating Individuals and Organizational Witnesses

STANDARD 2.6 The Decision to Arrest During a Continuing Criminal Investigation

STANDARD 2.7 Use of Subpoenas

STANDARD 2.8 Search Warrants

STANDARD 2.9 Use of the Investigative Powers of the Grand Jury

STANDARD 2.10 Technologically-Assisted Physical Surveillance

STANDARD 2.11 Consensual Interception, Transmission and Recording of Communications

STANDARD 2.12 Non-Consensual Electronic Surveillance

STANDARD 2.13 Conducting Parallel Civil and Criminal Investigations

STANDARD 2.14 Terminating the Investigation, Retention of Evidence and Post- Investigation Analysis

STANDARD 2.15 Guidance and Training for Line Prosecutors

STANDARD 2.16 Special Prosecutors, Independent Counsel and Special Prosecution Units

STANDARD 2.17 Use of Information, Money, or Resources Provided by Non- Governmental Sources

STANDARD 2.18 Use of Sensitive, Classified or Other Information Implicating Investigative Privileges

PART 3: PROSECUTOR’S ROLE IN RESOLVING INVESTIGATION PROBLEMS

STANDARD 3.1 Prosecutor’s Role in Addressing Suspected Law Enforcement Misconduct

STANDARD 3.2 Prosecutor’s Role in Addressing Suspected Judicial Misconduct

STANDARD 3.3 Prosecutor’s Role in Addressing Suspected Misconduct by Defense Counsel

STANDARD 3.4 Prosecutor’s Role in Addressing Suspected Misconduct by Witnesses, Informants or Jurors

STANDARD 3.5 Illegally Obtained Evidence

STANDARD 3.6Responding to Political Pressure and Consideration of the Impact of Criminal Investigations on the Political Process

STANDARD 3.7 Review and Oversight of Criminal Investigations by Government Agencies and Officials

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations (Text)

ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecutorial Investigations
Approved February 2008

Preamble

A prosecutor's investigative role, responsibilities and potential liability are different from the prosecutor's role and responsibilities as a courtroom advocate. These Standards are intended as a guide to conduct for a prosecutor actively engaged in a criminal investigation or performing a legally mandated investigative responsibility, e.g., serving as legal advisor to an investigative grand jury or as an applicant for a warrant to intercept communications. These Standards are intended to supplement the Prosecution Function Standards, not to supplant them. These Standards may not be applicable to a prosecutor serving in a minor supporting role to an investigation undertaken and directed by law enforcement agents.

PART 1:
GENERAL STANDARDS

STANDARD 1.1 THE FUNCTION OF THESE STANDARDS

(a) These Standards address the investigative stage of the criminal justice process. They address the charge or post-charge stages of the criminal justice process only when those stages overlap with the investigative stage.

(b) Standards are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional discipline, nor to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons. These Standards do not modify a prosecutor’s ethical obligations under applicable rule of professional conduct. These Standards are not intended to create a standard of care for civil liability, nor to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge.

(c) The use of the term “prosecutor” in these Standards applies to any prosecutor or other attorney, regardless of agency or title, who serves as an attorney in a governmental criminal investigation.

STANDARD 1.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

(a) An individual prosecutor is not an independent agent but is a member of an independent institution the primary duty of which is to seek justice.

(b) The prosecutor’s client is the public, not particular government agencies or victims.

(i) develop sufficient factual information to enable the prosecutor to make a fair and objective determination of whether and what charges should be brought and to guard against prosecution of the innocent, and

(ii) develop legally admissible evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of those who are guilty and warrant prosecution.

(d) The prosecutor should:

(i) ensure that criminal investigations are not based upon premature beliefs or conclusions as to guilt or innocence but are guided by the facts;

(ii) ensure that criminal investigations are not based upon partisan or other improper political or personal considerations and do not invidiously discriminate against, nor wrongly favor, persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs, age, or social or economic status;

(iii) consider whether an investigation would be in the public interest and what the potential impacts of a criminal investigation might be on subjects, targets and witnesses; and

(iv) seek in most circumstances to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of criminal investigations.

(e) Generally, the prosecutor engaged in an investigation should not be the sole decision-maker regarding the decision to prosecute matters arising out of that investigation.

(f) The prosecutor should be aware of and comply with the ethical rules and other legal standards applicable to the prosecutor’s conduct during an investigation.

(g) The prosecutor should cooperate with other governmental authorities regarding matters that are of legitimate concern to such authorities when doing so is permitted by law and would not compromise an investigation or other criminal justice goals.

(h) The prosecutor’s office should provide organizational structure to guide its members’ investigative work.

STANDARD 1.3 WORKING WITH POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS

(a) The prosecutor should respect the investigative role of police and other law enforcement agents by:

(i) working cooperatively with them to develop investigative policies; and

(ii) providing independent legal advice regarding their investigative decisions.

(b) The prosecutor should take steps to promote compliance by law enforcement agents with relevant legal rules.

(c) The prosecutor should be aware of the experience, skills and professional abilities of police and other law enforcement agents assigned to an investigation.

(d) The prosecutor’s office should assist in providing training to police and other law enforcement agents concerning potential legal issues and best practices in criminal investigations.

(e) Before and throughout the course of complex or non-routine investigations, the prosecutor should work with the police and other participating agencies and experts to develop an investigative plan that analyzes:

(i) the investigative predicate or information concerning the matter that is then known;

(ii) the goals of the investigation;

(iii) the potential investigative techniques and the advantages of each, singularly and in combination, in producing relevant information and admissible evidence; and

(iv) the legal issues likely to arise during the investigation.

(f) The prosecutor should promote timely communications with police and other law enforcement agents about material developments in the investigation.

(g) The prosecutor should not seek to circumvent ethical rules by instructing or recommending that others use means that the prosecutor is ethically prohibited from using. The prosecutor may provide legal advice to law enforcement agents regarding the use of investigative techniques that law enforcement agents are authorized to use.

STANDARD 1.4 VICTIMS, POTENTIAL WITNESSES, AND TARGETS DURING THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

(a) Throughout the course of the investigation as new information emerges, the prosecutor should reevaluate:

(i) judgments or beliefs as to the culpability or status of persons or entities identified as “witnesses,” “victims,” “subjects” and “targets,” and recognize that the status of such persons or entities may change; and

(ii) the veracity of witnesses and confidential informants and assess the accuracy and completeness of the information that each provides.

(b) Upon request and if known, the prosecutor should inform a person or the person’s counsel, whether the person is considered to be a target, subject, witness or victim, including whether their status has changed, unless doing so would compromise a continuing investigation.

(c) The prosecutor should know the law of the jurisdiction regarding the rights of victims and witnesses and should respect those rights.

(d) Absent a law or court order to the contrary, the prosecutor should not imply or state that it is unlawful for potential witnesses to disclose information related to or discovered during an investigation. The prosecutor may ask potential witnesses not to disclose information, and in doing so, the prosecutor may explain to them the adverse consequences that might result from disclosure (such as compromising the investigation or endangering others). The prosecutor also may alert an individual who has entered into a cooperation agreement that certain disclosures might result in violation of the agreement.

(e) The prosecutor should not imply the existence of legal authority to interview an individual or compel the attendance of a witness if the prosecutor does not have such authority.

(f) The prosecutor should comply with applicable rules and case law that may restrict communications with persons represented by counsel.

(g) The prosecutor should not take into consideration any of the following factors in making a determination of whether an organization has been cooperative in the context of a government investigation unless the specified conduct of the organization would constitute a violation of law or court order:

(i) that the organization has provided, or agreed to provide counsel to, or advanced, reimbursed or indemnified the legal fees and expenses of, an employee;

(ii) that the organization entered into or continues to operate under a joint defense or information sharing and common interest agreement with regard to the investigation;

(iii) that the organization shared its records or other historical information relating to the matter under investigation with an employee; or

(iv) that the organization did not sanction or discharge an employee who invoked his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to government questioning of the employee.

(h) The prosecutor should not interfere with, threaten, or seek to punish persons or entities seeking counsel in connection with an investigation, nor should the prosecutor interfere with, threaten or seek to punish those who provide such counsel unless by doing so such conduct would constitute a violation of law or court order. A good faith basis for raising a conflict of interest, or for investigating possible criminal conduct by the defense attorney, is not “interference” within the meaning of this Standard.

STANDARD 1.5 CONTACTS WITH THE PUBLIC DURING THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

(a) The prosecutor should neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, or reveal the status of the investigation, nor release information concerning the investigation, with the following exceptions:

(i) releasing information reasonably necessary to obtain public assistance in solving a crime, apprehending a suspect, or calming public fears;

(ii) responding to a widely disseminated public call for an investigation by stating that the prosecutor will investigate, or decline to investigate the matter;

(iii) responding to a law enforcement or regulatory matter of significant public safety concern, by stating that the prosecutor will begin an investigation or begin a special initiative to address the issue, or by releasing information reasonably necessary to protect public safety, subject to restrictions in the law of the jurisdiction;

(iv) announcing future investigative plans in order to deter criminal activity;

(v) stating in an already publicized matter and where justice so requires, that the prosecutor will not initiate, will not continue, or has concluded an investigation of a person, entity, or matter and, if applicable, has informed the subject or potential subject of the decision not to file charges;

(vi) responding to widely disseminated false statements that the prosecutor is, or is not, investigating a person, entity, or matter;

(vii) stating whether and when, if court rules so permit, an event open to the public is scheduled to occur;

(viii) offering limited comment when public attention is generated by an event in the investigation (e.g., arrests, the execution of search warrants, the filing of charges, or convictions), subject to governing legal standards and court rules; and

(ix) making reasonable and fair responses to comments of defense counsel or others.

(b) Except as a proper part of a court proceeding and in accordance with applicable rules, the prosecutor should not publicly make the following types of statements or publicly disclose the following information about an investigation:

(i) statements of belief about the guilt or innocence, character or reputation of subjects or targets of the investigation;

(ii) statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury or jury panel;

(iii) information about the character or reputation of a person or entity under investigation, a prospective witness, or victim;

(iv) admissions, confessions, or the contents of a statement or alibi attributable to a person or entity under investigation;

(v) the performance or results of tests or the refusal or agreement of a suspect to take a test;

(vi) statements concerning the credibility or anticipated testimony of prospective witnesses; and

(vii) the possibility or likelihood of a plea of guilty or other disposition.

(c) The prosecutor should endeavor to dissuade police and other law enforcement agents and law enforcement personnel from making public information that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making public, or that may have an adverse impact on the investigation or any potential prosecution.

PART 2:

STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS
OF THE PROSECUTOR

STANDARD 2.1 THE DECISION TO INITIATE OR TO CONTINUE AN INVESTIGATION

(a) The prosecutor should have wide discretion to select matters for investigation. Thus, unless required by statute or policy:

(i) the prosecutor should have no absolute duty to investigate any particular matter; and

(ii) a particularized suspicion or predicate is not required prior to initiating a criminal investigation.

(b) In deciding whether an investigation would be in the public interest, the prosecutor should consider, but not necessarily be dissuaded by, the following:

(i) a lack of police interest;

(ii) a lack of public or political support;

(iii) a lack of identifiable victims;

(iv) fear or reluctance by potential or actual witnesses; or

(v) unusually complex factual or legal issues.

(i) whether there is evidence of the existence of criminal conduct;

(ii) the nature and seriousness of the problem or alleged offense, including the risk or degree of harm from ongoing criminal conduct;

(iii) a history of prior violations of the same or similar laws and whether those violations have previously been addressed through law enforcement or other means;

(iv) the motive, interest, bias or other improper factors that may influence those seeking to initiate or cause the initiation of a criminal investigation;

(v) the need for, and expected impact of, criminal enforcement to:

(A) punish blameworthy behavior;

(B) provide specific andor general deterrence;

(D) reinforce norms embodied in the criminal law;

(E) prevent unauthorized private action to enforce the law;

(F) preserve the credibility of the criminal justice system; and

(G) other legitimate public interests.

(vi) whether the costs and benefits of the investigation and of particular investigative tools and techniques are justified in consideration of, among other things, the nature of the criminal activity as well as the impact of conducting the investigation on other enforcement priorities and resources

(vii) the collateral effects of the investigation on witnesses, subjects, targets and non-culpable third parties, including financial damage and harm to reputation

(viii) the probability of obtaining sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution of the matter in question, including, if there is a trial, the probability of obtaining a conviction and having the conviction upheld upon appellate review; and

(ix) whether society’s interest in the matter might be better or equally vindicated by available civil, regulatory, administrative, or private remedies.

(d) When deciding whether to initiate or continue an investigation, the prosecutor should not be influenced by:

(i) partisan or other improper political or personal considerations, or by the race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs or affiliations, age, or social or economic status of the potential subject or victim, unless they are elements of the crime or are relevant to the motive of the perpetrator; or

(ii) hostility or personal animus towards a potential subject, or any other improper motive of the prosecutor.

(e) The prosecutor’s office should have an internal procedure to document the reason(s) for declining to pursue prosecution following a criminal investigation.

STANDARD 2.2 SELECTING INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES

(a) The prosecutor should be familiar with routine investigative techniques and the best practices to be employed in using them.

(b) The prosecutor should consider the use of costlier, riskier, or more intrusive means of investigation only if routine investigative techniques would be inappropriate, ineffective, or dangerous, or if their use would impair the ability to take other desirable investigative steps. If non-routine techniques are used, the prosecutor should regularly reevaluate the need for them and whether the use of routine investigative techniques will suffice.

(c) The prosecutor should consider, in consultation with police and other law enforcement agents involved in the investigation, the following factors:

(i) the likely effectiveness of a particular technique;

(ii) whether the investigative means and resources to be utilized are appropriate to the seriousness of the offense;

(iii) the risk of physical danger to law enforcement officers and others;

(iv) the costs involved with various investigative techniques and the impact such costs may have on other efforts within the prosecutor’s office;

(v) the possibility of lost opportunity if an investigative technique is detected and reveals the investigation;

(vi) means of avoiding unnecessary intrusions or invasions into personal privacy;

(vii) the potential entrapment of otherwise innocent persons;

(viii) the risk of property damage, financial loss to persons or businesses, damage to reputation or other harm to persons;

(ix) interference with privileged or confidential communication;

(x) interference with or intrusion upon constitutionally protected rights; and

(xi) the risk of civil liability or other loss to the government.

(d) The prosecutor should consider the views of experienced police and other law enforcement agents about safety and technical and strategic considerations in the use of investigative techniques.

(e) The prosecutor may consider that the use of certain investigative techniques could cause the subject of the investigation to retain legal counsel and thereby limit the use of some otherwise permissible investigative techniques.

(f) The prosecutor should avoid being the sole interviewer of a witness, being alone with a witness, or otherwise becoming an essential witness to any aspect of the investigation.

(g) While the prosecutor may, and sometimes should, seek changes in law and policy, the prosecutor should abide by existing legal restraints, even if the prosecutor believes that they unjustifiably inhibit the effective investigation of criminal conduct.

STANDARD 2.3 USE OF UNDERCOVER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS AND UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS

(a) For the purpose of these Standards, an “undercover law enforcement agent” is an employee of a government agency working under the direction and control of a government agency in a criminal investigation, whose true identity as a law enforcement agent involved in the investigation is concealed from third parties.

(b) For the purpose of these Standards, an “undercover operation” means an investigation in which undercover law enforcement agents or other persons working with law enforcement conceal their purpose of detecting crime or obtaining evidence to prosecute those engaged in illegal activities.

(c) In deciding whether to use or to advise the use of undercover law enforcement agents or undercover operations, the prosecutor should consider potential benefits, including:

(i) the character and quality of evidence likely to be obtained; and

(ii) the ability to prevent or solve crimes where obtaining reliable and admissible evidence to do so would otherwise be difficult or impossible to obtain.

(d) In deciding whether to use or to advise the use of undercover law enforcement agents or undercover operations, the prosecutor should consider potential risks, including:

(i) physical injury to law enforcement agents and others;

(ii) lost opportunity if the operation is revealed;

(iii) unnecessary intrusions or invasions into personal privacy;

(iv) entrapment of otherwise innocent persons;

(v) property damage, financial loss to persons or businesses, damage to reputation or other harm to persons;

(vi) interference with privileged or confidential communications;

(vii) interference with or intrusion upon constitutionally protected rights;

(viii) civil liability or other adverse impact on the government;

(ix) personal liability of the law enforcement agents;

(x) involvement in illegal conduct by undercover law enforcement agents or government participation in activity that would be considered unsuitable and highly offensive to public values and that may adversely impact a jury’s view of a case; and

(xi) the possibility that the undercover operation will unintentionally cause an increase in criminal activity.

(e) The prosecutor advising an undercover investigation should:

(i) consult with appropriate police or law enforcement agents on a regular basis about the continued propriety of the operation and the legal sufficiency and quality of the evidence that is being produced by the operation;

(ii) seek periodic internal review of the investigation to determine whether the operation’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks and costs, including the extent to which:

(A) the goals of the investigation have been accomplished;

(B) there is potential for the acquisition of additional useful and non- duplicative information;

(iii) the investigation can continue without exposing the undercover operation; and

(iv) continuation of the investigation may cause financial or other injury to innocent parties.

(f) The prosecutor should seek to avoid or minimize the risks involved in the active participation of undercover police or law enforcement agents in illegal activity, and provide such agents guidance about authorized participation in otherwise criminal conduct.

(g) Records of funds expended and generated by undercover activity should be retained and accounted for in a manner that facilitates a comprehensive and accurate audit.

STANDARD 2.4 USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS

(a) As used in these Standards, a “confidential informant” is a person who supplies information to police or law enforcement agents pursuant to an agreement that the police or investigative agency will seek not to disclose the person’s identity. The identity of a confidential informant may also be unknown to the prosecutor. A confidential informant may in some instances become a cooperator, and in such circumstances reference should be made to Standard 2.5.

(b) The prosecutor should consider possible benefits from the use of a confidential informant, including whether the confidential informant might enable the government to obtain:

(i) first-hand, eyewitness accounts of criminal activity;

(ii) critical background information about the criminal activity or criminal organization under investigation;

(iii) information necessary to provide a basis for additional investigative techniques or court-ordered means of investigation such as a search warrant; and

(iv) identification of witnesses or leads to witnesses who can provide direction to further the investigation or valuable testimony to a grand jury or at trial.

(c) The prosecutor should consider possible risks from the use of a confidential informant. These include risks that the confidential informant will:

(i) be untruthful, or provide misleading or incomplete information;

(ii) compromise the criminal investigation by revealing information to others, including the subjects or targets of the investigation;

(iii) engage in behavior constituting entrapment;

(iv) commit or continue to commit crimes;

(v) be subject, or subject others, to serious risk of physical harm as a result of cooperating with law enforcement; and

(vi) interfere with privileged or confidential relationships or communications or violate the rights of the investigation’s subject.

(d) The prosecutor should avoid being alone with a confidential informant, even for a brief period of time.

(e) Before deciding to rely upon the information provided by a confidential informant for significant investigative steps, the prosecutor should review the following with the police or law enforcement agents:

(i) the ability of the confidential informant to provide or obtain information relevant to the criminal investigation;

(ii) means of corroborating information received from the confidential informant;

(iii) the possible motives or biases of the confidential informant, including the motive to gain a competitive advantage over others in either criminal or legitimate enterprises;

(iv) the nature of any and all promises made to the prospective confidential informant by other prosecutors, police or law enforcement agents, including promises related to the treatment of associates or relatives of the confidential informant;

(v) the prior history of the confidential informant , including prior criminal activity and other information, including the informant’s true identity if necessary for the prosecutor’s review;

(vi) whether the prospective confidential informant is represented by an attorney or is party to a joint defense agreement with other targets of the investigation and, if so, how best to address potential legal or ethical issues related to the representation or agreement;

(vii) if reasonably available, the experience other prosecutors and law enforcement agents have had with the confidential informant;

(viii) whether the proposed compensation or benefits to be received by the confidential informant are reasonable under the circumstances;

(ix) the risk that the prospective confidential informant may be an agent of the subjects of the investigation or of other criminal groups and individuals, or may reveal investigative information to them; and

(x) the risk that the prospective confidential informant will engage in criminal activity not authorized by the prosecutor, and the seriousness of that unauthorized criminal activity.

(f) The prosecutor’s office should work with police and law enforcement agents to develop best practices and policies for the use of confidential informants that include:

(i) a rule that investigative information obtained from other sources should not be provided to the confidential informant unless doing so would materially advance the investigation;

(ii) prohibitions on making promises of compensation or other benefits that would shock the conscience of a moral society or would risk compromising the credibility of the informant in any proceeding in which the informant’s testimony may be important;

(iii) prohibitions on making promises that the police or law enforcement agents are unlikely to be able to keep;

(iv) routine instructions to confidential informants to refrain from criminal conduct other than as directed by law enforcement; and

(v) the routine use of standard form agreements when such agreements are entered into by law enforcement officers without the involvement of the prosecutor.

STANDARD 2.5 COOPERATION AGREEMENTS AND COOPERATING INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONAL WITNESSES

(a) As used in these Standards, “cooperation agreements” are agreements between the prosecutor and otherwise culpable individuals or entities (“cooperators”) who provide the government with assistance useful to an investigation in exchange for benefits. A cooperator may have been a confidential informant earlier in the investigation.

(b) The prosecutor should ordinarily seek to have the cooperator plead guilty to an appropriate criminal charge rather than provide the cooperator immunity for culpable conduct.

(c) In deciding whether to offer a cooperator significant benefits, including a limit on criminal liability, immunity, or a recommendation for reduction of sentence, the prosecutor should consider whether:

(i) the cooperator is able and willing to provide valuable assistance to the investigation;

(ii) the cooperator will maintain the confidentiality or secrecy of the investigation;

(iii) the cooperator has biases or personal motives that might result in false, incomplete, or misleading information;

(iv) leniency or immunity for the criminal activity of the cooperator is warranted by the goals of the investigation and the public interest , including appropriate consideration for victim(s) interests;

(v) providing leniency, immunity or other benefits would be seen as offensive by the public or cause a reasonable juror to doubt the veracity of the cooperator’s testimony;

(vi) information that has been provided (such as through an attorney proffer or by a debriefing of the cooperator) has been corroborated or can otherwise shown to be accurate;

(vii) the culpability of other participants in the criminal activity relative to the cooperator’s culpability has been determined as accurately as possible;

(viii) there is a likelihood that the cooperator will provide useful information only if given leniency or immunity;

(ix) the case could be successfully prosecuted without the cooperator’s assistance; and

(x) the cooperator could be successfully prosecuted without the admissions of the cooperator made pursuant to the agreement.

(d) The cooperation agreement should not:

(i) promise to forego prosecution for future criminal activity, except where such activity is necessary as part of an officially supervised investigative and enforcement program; or

(ii) adversely affect third parties’ legal rights.

(e) The prosecutor should:

(i) be aware that anything said to the cooperator might be repeated to the cooperator’s criminal associates or in open court; and

(ii) be aware of the disclosure requirements under relevant law if a cooperator ultimately testifies at trial, including disclosure of any and all agreements and promises made to the cooperator and evidence which could impact the cooperator’s credibility, including the complete criminal history of the cooperator. The prosecutor should take steps to assure the preservation of such evidence.

(f) The prosecutor should recognize and respect the role of the cooperator’s attorney in the decision to cooperate and in the disposition of significant legal rights.

(g) Ordinarily, a prosecutor who offers leniency in exchange for cooperation should not withdraw or threaten to withdraw the offer because of the potential cooperator’s request to consult with counsel prior to deciding whether to accept it. However, if the time required for the potential cooperator to consult with counsel would render the agreement ineffective, the prosecutor may withdraw or threaten to withdraw the offer before there is opportunity for such consultation. In that event, the prosecutor may condition cooperation on an immediate and uncounseled decision to proceed.

(h) The prosecutor should reduce a cooperation agreement to writing as soon as practicable. An agreement should only cover those crimes known to the government at the time it is made, and should specify:

(i) the specific details of all benefits and obligations agreed upon;

(ii) the specific activities to be performed by the cooperator;

(iii) the requirement that the cooperator be truthful in dealing with the government and in all legal proceedings;

(iv) the prohibition against the cooperator’s engaging in any criminal conduct other than as directed by law enforcement;

(v) the extent of the disposition of the potential criminal and civil claims against the cooperator;

(vi) a complete list of any other promises, financial benefits or understandings;

(vii) the limitations of the agreement with respect to the terms it contains and to the identified jurisdiction or jurisdictions; and

(viii) the remedy in the event the cooperator breaches the agreement.

(i) The prosecutor should avoid being alone with a cooperator even for a brief period of time.

(j) The prosecutor should guard against the cooperator obtaining information from others that invades the attorney-client or work product privileges or violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

(k) Prior to relying on the cooperator’s information in undertaking an investigative step that could cause adverse consequences to the investigation or to a third party, the prosecutor should be satisfied as to the truthfulness of the cooperator.

(l) If an investigative step involves an application to a court or other official body, the prosecutor should make appropriate and required disclosures about the cooperator to the court or other body.

(m) If the prosecutor suspects that the cooperator is not being truthful, the prosecutor should take reasonable steps to address such concerns and seek further corroboration of the cooperator’s information.

(n) If the prosecutor determines that a cooperator has knowingly provided false information or otherwise breached the cooperation agreement, the prosecutor should:

(i) seek guidance from a supervisor;

(ii) undertake or request the initiation of an investigation into the circumstances;

(iii) consider the possible prosecution of the cooperator, and;

(iv) carefully reevaluate the investigation.

STANDARD 2.6 THE DECISION TO ARREST DURING A CONTINUING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

(a) In making a tactical decision whether, when or where to arrest a subject during a continuing investigation, the prosecutor should consider the potential benefits of the arrest, including:

(i) protecting the public from a person known to present an imminent danger;

(ii) reducing the likelihood of flight;

(iii) preventing the destruction of evidence and providing an opportunity to obtain evidence of a crime pursuant to a search incident to arrest;

(iv) stopping or deterring the harassment or coercion of witnesses or other acts of obstruction of justice;

(v) creating an opportunity to ask questions about an unrelated crime;

(vi) encouraging other culpable individuals or witnesses to surrender to law enforcement and to cooperate with the investigation;

(vii) inducing relevant conversation or other communication likely to be intercepted by law enforcement; and

(viii) protecting the existence of an undercover agent or confidential informant, a cooperator or an undercover operation.

(b) In deciding whether, when or where to arrest a subject during a continuing investigation, the prosecutor should consider the potential risks of the arrest, including:

(i) limiting the continued conduct of a criminal investigation by alerting others involved in continuing criminal activity;

(ii) restricting the use of some investigative techniques;

(iii) triggering speedy charge and speedy trial rules;

(iv) triggering disclosure obligations that have been subject to delayed notice;

(v) appearing to be illegitimate or pre-textual and thus adversely affecting community support for police and prosecution efforts; and

(vi) causing significant shame, embarrassment or prejudice to the arrestee or innocent third parties and unintended and unfair financial impacts.

(c) The prosecutor should be aware that Sixth Amendment right to counsel issues raised by the filing of criminal charges may limit the availability of some investigative options, including:

(i) use of the grand jury as an investigative technique;

(ii) soliciting incriminating information from a charged individual; and

(iii) contacts with the individuals or entities who have been charged.

STANDARD 2.7 USE OF SUBPOENAS

(a) As used in these Standards, a “subpoena,” however named or designated, is a written command for a person or entity to provide physical evidence, testimony or documents. A subpoena may be issued by a prosecutor, a court, a grand jury or a law enforcement agency, as provided by the law of the jurisdiction.

(b) In deciding whether to use a subpoena, the prosecutor should consider potential benefits including:

(i) the conservation of law enforcement resources by requiring others to search for and provide factual information and physical evidence needed for an investigation;

(ii) the imposition of an obligation on the subject of the subpoena to provide factual information or physical evidence;

(iii) the fact that no predicate or less of a showing is required to issue a subpoena, as compared to a search warrant;

(iv) the ability to delay or prevent a third party from voluntarily or compulsorily disclosing information about the subpoena (including the disclosure of either the fact of the subpoena itself or of any information provided in response) as a means to preserve the secrecy of the investigation if authorized by law; and

(v) voluntary disclosures or cooperation by witnesses and subjects prompted by receipt of the subpoena.

(c) In deciding whether to use a subpoena, the prosecutor should consider the following potential risks and ways to mitigate them:

(i) that evidence will be destroyed or altered in between receipt and production;

(ii) that information responsive to the subpoena will be improperly withheld or that the request will be interpreted narrowly; and

(iii) that knowledge of the subpoena will cause the subjects of the investigation to disguise criminal activity, or take actions to impede or obstruct the investigation.

(d) The prosecutor using a subpoena should:

(i) seek to limit the scope of the subpoena to the needs of the investigation, avoid overbroad requests, and avoid seeking the production of attorney-client privileged material; and

(ii) provide reasonable accommodations based on factors such as the size or nature of the request, the impact of the request on legitimate business operations, or the time reasonably needed to perform a review for privileged or other legally protected fact information, unless doing so would be outweighed by the government’s interest in avoiding delay.

(e) The prosecutor should ensure that materials received pursuant to a subpoena are properly stored, logged or indexed, and are readily retrievable.

(f) The prosecutor should accept copies of documents subject to a subpoena unless there is a specific need for original documents that outweighs the producing party’s need and right to retain its original materials.

(g) The prosecutor should provide copies, or if necessary, reasonable access to copies or original documents to the person or entity who has produced the copies or originals.

(h) The prosecutor should seek to minimize the cost and dislocation suffered by a person or entity to whom a subpoena is issued and, where applicable, should inform the person or entity of any right to compensation allowed by law.

(i) The prosecutor should arrange for the return of subpoenaed documents and materials when the purpose for which they were subpoenaed has ended.

(j) The prosecutor involved in an investigation where police or law enforcement agents have legal authority to issue written requests for various records and data without probable cause or judicial oversight, should provide advice as to whether the proposed use of such authority is consistent with the limits of the applicable law, the Constitution, and the circumstances of the investigation.

STANDARD 2.8 SEARCH WARRANTS

(a) As used in these Standards a “search warrant” is a written command issued by a judge or magistrate that permits law enforcement agents to search specified persons or premises and seize specified effects and information.

(b) The prosecutor should consider the following potential benefits associated with using a search warrant:

(i) securing evidence that might otherwise be removed, hidden, altered or destroyed;

(ii) removing contraband from commerce before it is transferred or used;

(iii) seeing and documenting the precise location of the items to be seized in their natural or unaltered state or location;

(iv) obtaining statements by individuals at the scene of the search that might further the investigation;

(v) observing and recording the presence of individuals found together at the scene of the search as evidence of their coordination; and

(vi) encouraging other culpable individuals or witnesses to come forward and provide information to the investigation.

(i) the extensive utilization of limited government resources during the preparation and execution of a search warrant, as compared with other means of gathering information, such as a subpoena;

(ii) the intrusive nature of the execution of the warrant and its impact on personal privacy or on legitimate business operations;

(iii) the impact of execution of the warrant on innocent third parties who may be on the premises at the time the warrant is executed; and

(iv) the potential danger or harm to third parties.

(d) When the prosecutor is involved in an investigation, the prosecutor should review search warrant applications prior to their submission to a judicial officer. In all other cases, the prosecutor should encourage police and law enforcement agents to seek prosecutorial review and approval of search warrants prior to their submission to a judicial officer.

(e) In jurisdictions that authorize telephonic warrants, the prosecutor should be familiar with the rules governing the use of such warrants and should be available to confer with law enforcement agents about them.

(f) In reviewing a search warrant application, the prosecutor should:

(i) seek to assure the affidavit is complete, accurate and legally sufficient;

(ii) seek to determine the veracity of the affiant and the accuracy of the information, especially when the application is based on information from a confidential informant; and

(iii) seek to ensure that the affidavit is not misleading and does not omit material information which has a significant bearing on probable cause.

(g) The prosecutor involved in the investigation should:

(i) generally, if time permits, meet in advance with all law enforcement and other personnel who will participate in the execution of the warrant to explain the scope of the warrant, including the area(s) to be searched and the items to be seized;

(ii) consistent with the goals of the investigation, provide legitimate business operations and third parties reasonable access to seized records;

(iii) avoid becoming a necessary percipient witness at the scene of the execution of the warrant but be readily available and accessible to respond to immediate questions or to assist in the preparation of additional warrant applications;

(iv) seek to ensure that an inventory is filed as required by relevant rules; and

(v) seek to preserve exculpatory evidence obtained during a search and consider the impact of such evidence on the criminal investigation.

(h) When searching an attorney’s office, or any place where attorney-client or other privileged material is likely to be located or is discovered, the prosecutor should arrange for evidence to be recovered in such manner as to prevent or minimize any unauthorized intrusion into confidential relationships or information privileged under law.

(i) The prosecutor should seek to prevent or minimize the disclosure of information to the public which a person or entity may consider private or proprietary.

(j) The prosecutor should consider seeking to delay notice about the execution of a search warrant if such delay is authorized by law and if prompt disclosure of the execution of the warrant could reasonably be expected to result in:

(i) the endangerment of life or physical safety of an individual;

(ii) the intimidation of potential witnesses;

(iii) the flight from prosecution by a target of any investigation;

(iv) the destruction of or tampering with evidence in any investigation; or

(v) any other serious jeopardy to an investigation.

(k) The prosecutor should not notify media representatives of a search before it occurs and should advise law enforcement agents acting with the prosecutor in the investigation not to do so.

(l) The prosecutor should consider whether the papers supporting the search warrant should be sealed after the warrant is executed and should make application to do so only when the prosecutor believes that the public’s interest in knowing of the warrant is outweighed by the need to maintain secrecy of the investigation or to prevent unfair publicity to the persons or organizations whose premises were searched.

STANDARD 2.9 USE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF THE GRAND JURY

(a) In deciding whether to use a grand jury, the prosecutor should consider the potential benefits of the power of the grand jury to compel testimony or elicit other evidence by:

(i) conferring immunity upon witnesses;

(ii) obtaining evidence in a confidential forum;

(iii) obtaining evidence from a witness who elects not to speak voluntarily to the police or prosecutor;

(iv) obtaining documentary or testimonial evidence with the added reliability provided by the oath and the secrecy requirements of the grand jury;

(v) obtaining documentary evidence from a third party that may be difficult to obtain from a target; and

(vi) preserving witnesses’ accounts in the form of sworn testimony where the jurisdiction provides for recording or transcription of the proceedings.

(b) In deciding whether to use a grand jury, the prosecutor should consider the potential risks including:

(i) revealing the existence or direction of an investigation;

(ii) obtaining evasive or untruthful testimony from witnesses who are loyal to targets or fearful of them;

(iii) relying on witnesses to obey the commands of subpoenas directing them to produce documents or physical evidence;

(iv) granting immunity to witnesses:

(A) who are not believed culpable at the time of the grant but are later found to be culpable; or

(B) who are later found to be more culpable than the prosecutor believed at the time of the grant;

(v) exposing grand jury witnesses to reputational, economic or physical reprisal; and

(vi) exposing grand jury witnesses to collateral consequences such as lost time from employment or family obligations, financial costs of compliance, and potential damage to their reputation from association with a criminal investigation.

(i) only bring a matter before the grand jury with the primary purpose of seeking justice and to be mindful of the ex parte nature of proceedings;

(ii) prepare adequately before conducting grand jury examinations;

(iii) know and follow the laws of the jurisdiction and the rules, practices, and policies of the prosecutor’s office;

(iv) pose only legal and proper questions and, if within the knowledge of the prosecutor questioning may elicit a privileged or self-incriminating response, advise the witness of the existence of the applicable privilege; and

(v) unless prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction, ensure that grand jury proceedings are recorded.

(d) The prosecutor should use grand jury processes fairly and should:

(i) treat grand jurors with courtesy and give them the opportunity to have appropriate questions answered; however, the prosecutor should not allow questions that:

(A) elicit facts about the investigation that should not become known to the witness; or

(B) call for privileged, prejudicial, misleading or irrelevant evidence;

(ii) issue a subpoena ad testificandum only if the prosecutor intends to bring the witness before the grand jury;

(iii) refrain from issuing a subpoena that is excessively broad or immaterial to the legitimate scope of the grand jury’s inquiry;

(iv) make reasonable efforts before a witness appears at the grand jury to determine that the testimony is needed, including offering the witness or witness’ counsel a voluntary pre-appearance conference;

(v) grant reasonable requests for extensions of dates for appearance and production of documents when doing so does not impede the grand jury’s investigation; and

(vi) resist dilatory tactics by witnesses that undermine the grand jury’s investigation, authority, or credibility.

(e) The prosecutor should examine witnesses with courtesy and in a manner designed to elicit truthful testimony, and should:

(i) consider warning a witness suspected of perjury of the obligations to tell the truth;

(ii) insist upon definite answers that will:

(A) fully inform the members of grand jury; and

(B) establish a clear record so that a witness committing perjury or contempt can be held responsible for such actions;

(iii) inform grand jury witnesses of their right to consult with their attorneys to the extent provided by the policy, procedure or law of the jurisdiction; and

(iv) seek a compulsion order only when the testimony sought is in the public interest, there is no other reasonable way to elicit such testimony, and the witness has refused to testify or has indicated an intent to invoke the privilege against self- incrimination.

(f) In determining whether obtaining testimony from a culpable witness will outweigh the cost of granting immunity, a prosecutor should consider the following factors:

(i) the relative culpability of the witness to be immunized as compared with the person against whom the testimony will be offered;

(ii) the gravity of the crime(s) being investigated;

(iii) the probability that the testimony would advance the investigation or an eventual prosecution;

(iv) the gravity of the crime(s) for which the witness would be granted immunity;

(v) the character and history of the witness being considered for immunity, including how these factors might affect the witness’s credibility;

(vi) the scope of the immunity that the witness would receive;

(vii) the risk that the immunized witness would lie or feign lack of memory;

(viii) the risk that the immunized witness would falsely claim responsibility for criminal acts committed by another; and

(ix) the potential for the grand jury testimony to enhance truthful testimony by hostile or reluctant witnesses at trial or provide evidence to prove perjury if a witness lies at trial.

(g) Ordinarily, the prosecutor should not seek to compel testimony from a close relative of a target of an investigation by threatening prosecution or offering immunity, unless:

(i) the relative participated criminally in an offense or criminal enterprise with the target and the testimony sought would relate to that enterprise’s activities;

(ii) the testimony sought relates to a crime involving overriding prosecutorial concerns; or

(iii) comparable testimony is not readily available from other sources.

(h) Ordinarily, the prosecutor should give notice to a target of a grand jury investigation and offer the opportunity for the target to testify without immunity before the grand jury. However, notice need not be provided if there is a reasonable possibility it will result in flight of the target, endanger other persons, or obstruct justice. Prior to taking a target’s testimony, the prosecutor should advise the target of the privilege against self-incrimination and obtain a waiver of that right.

(i) A prosecutor with personal knowledge of non-frivolous evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation should present or otherwise disclose that evidence to the grand jury. If evidence is provided to the prosecutor by the subject or target of the investigation and the prosecutor decides not to provide the evidence to the grand jury, the prosecutor should notify the subject, target or their counsel of that decision without delay, so long as doing so would not jeopardize the investigation or prosecution or endanger others.

STANDARD 2.10 TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED PHYSICAL SURVEILLANCE

(a) As used in these Standards, “technologically-assisted physical surveillance” includes: video surveillance, tracking devices, illumination devices, telescopic devices, and detection devices.

(b) In deciding whether to use technologically-assisted physical surveillance, the prosecutor should consider the potential benefits, including:

(i) detecting the criminal possession of objects that are dangerous or difficult to locate; and

(ii) seeing or tracing criminal activity by means that are minimally intrusive and limiting the risks posed to the public and law enforcement personnel.

(c) In deciding whether to use technologically-assisted physical surveillance, the prosecutor should consider the legal and privacy implications for subjects, victims and third parties. The prosecutor should seek to use such surveillance techniques in proportion to the seriousness of the criminal activity being investigated and the needs of the particular investigation and in a manner designed to be minimally intrusive.

(d) In deciding whether to use technologically-assisted physical surveillance, the prosecutor should consider the legal requirements applicable to the technique under consideration, and whether those requirements have been met.

STANDARD 2.11 CONSENSUAL INTERCEPTION, TRANSMISSION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS

(a) As used in these Standards “consensual interception” is an electronic, digital, audio or video interception and recording of communications to which one or more but not all participants in the communications has consented.

(b) In deciding whether to use consensual interception, the prosecutor should consider the potential benefits, including obtaining direct, incriminating, and credible evidence that can be used alone or to corroborate other information.

(i) problems of audibility and admissibility;

(ii) the danger of detection, including physical risk to those participating, and the risk of disclosure of the investigation;

(iii) selective recording of communications by the cooperating party;

(iv) the danger of obtaining false, misleading or self-serving statements by a party to the conversation who is aware or suspects that the conversation is being recorded;

(v) the risk that the consenting individual will conspire with the subject of the investigation to create false or misleading statements; and

(vi) the risk that the import of a conversation will be distorted by the cooperating party.

(d) To maximize the benefits and to minimize the risks of using consensual interception, the prosecutor should:

(i) obtain written or recorded consent from the consenting individual; and minimize to the extent practicable recording outside the presence of law enforcement agents and, if such a recording occurs or will occur:

(A) have law enforcement agents test and activate the recording equipment before the cooperating party meets with the subject; and

(B) minimize the necessity for the cooperating party to operate the recording equipment and, if it is necessary for the cooperating party to operate the equipment, provide that individual specific directions on how to operate the equipment and strict instruction to be present with it during such operation.

(e) The prosecutor, in consultation with the law enforcement agents, should regularly review all or selected recordings obtained during consensual interceptions.

(f) The prosecutor should take steps to ensure law enforcement agents comply with procedures relating to the acquisition of, custody of, and access to electronic equipment and recording media and to the secure preservation of any recordings produced whether they are obtained by consenting individuals or by law enforcement agents.

STANDARD 2.12 NON-CONSENSUAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

(a) As used in these Standards “non-consensual electronic surveillance” is the court-ordered interception of communications, actions, or events.

(b) In deciding whether to request a court order for non-consensual electronic surveillance, the prosecutor should consider the potential benefit of obtaining direct, incriminating, and credible evidence that can be used alone or to corroborate other information.

(c) In deciding whether to request a court order for non-consensual electronic surveillance, the prosecutor should consider the potential costs and risks, including:

(i) whether the suspected criminal activity being investigated is sufficiently serious and persistent to justify:

(A) the significant intrusion on the privacy interests of targets and innocent third parties;

(B) the need to obtain periodic reauthorization for electronic surveillance; and

(ii) whether all requirements of the law are met.

(d) The prosecutor, including an applicant, should be aware of the reporting requirements under federal and state law and heightened obligations and accountability to the court in connection with the application and use of non-consensual electronic surveillance.

(e) Prior to the initiation of non-consensual electronic surveillance, the prosecutor should review the following with the law enforcement agents and contract personnel such as interpreters who will assist in the execution of the order:

(i) the scope of the order;

(ii) obligations of the monitoring law enforcement agents and monitoring personnel to minimize the interception of privileged conversations and other conversations outside the scope of the order and to alert the prosecutor promptly when recording evidence of new crimes;

(iii) the prohibition on listening without recording;

(v) instructions to contact the prosecutor whenever a noteworthy event occurs, or there is a question regarding the execution of the order; and

(vi) the need to adhere to non-disclosure requirements.

(f) The prosecutor should stay informed of actions of law enforcement agents and contract personnel throughout the use of non-consensual electronic surveillance and should take appropriate steps to determine whether the required procedures are being followed by those carrying out the surveillance.

STANDARD 2.13 CONDUCTING PARALLEL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

(a) In deciding whether to conduct a criminal investigation and throughout any such investigation that is undertaken, the prosecutor should consider whether society’s interest in the matter might be better or equally vindicated by available civil, regulatory, administrative, or private remedies.

(b) When doing so would not compromise a proper prosecutorial interest, and to the degree permitted by law, the prosecutor should cooperate with other governmental authorities regarding their investigations for the purpose of instituting remedial actions that are of legitimate concern to such entities. In the course of such cooperation, the prosecutor:

(i) should retain sole control of the criminal investigation and maintain independent judgment at all times;

(ii) should be aware of rules that prohibit or restrict the sharing or disclosure of information or material gathered through certain criminal investigative techniques;

(iii) should not be a party to nor allow the continuation of efforts by civil investigative agencies or attorneys to use the criminal process for the purpose of obtaining a civil settlement; and

(iv) may, in order to preserve the integrity of a criminal investigation or prosecution, ask a civil investigative agency to refrain from taking an investigative step or bringing an action but, in considering whether to do so, should consider the detriment to the public that may result from such forbearance.

(c) A prosecutor should consider the appropriateness of non-criminal or global (civil and criminal resolutions) dispositions suggested by subjects or targets, whether or not they choose to cooperate, and may consider proposals by them to include civil or regulatory sanctions as part of a disposition or cooperation agreement.

STANDARD 2.14 TERMINATING THE INVESTIGATION, RETENTION OF EVIDENCE AND POST-INVESTIGATION ANALYSIS

(a) The prosecutor should diligently pursue the timely conclusion of criminal investigations.

(b) The prosecutor’s office should periodically review matters under investigation in the office and determine whether the interests of justice would be served by terminating the investigation.

(c) The prosecutor should determine whether information obtained in investigations should be made available for civil enforcement purposes, administrative remedies, or for other purposes consistent with law and the public interest.

(d) To the extent feasible, the prosecutor and members of the investigative agencies should analyze investigations retrospectively, to evaluate techniques and steps that worked well or that proved to be deficient.

(e) Post-investigation analysis by the prosecutor’s office should include seeking to identify ways other than prosecution to prevent, minimize or deter similar crimes from occurring in the future.

(f) Prosecutors should be aware of the requirements and office practices regarding the preservation of investigative records and of their compliance obligations with regard to information access and privacy law provisions.

(g) To the extent practicable, the prosecutor should, upon request, provide notice of termination of the investigation to subjects who became aware of the investigation.

(h) Upon termination of the investigation and related proceedings, physical evidence other than contraband should be returned promptly to the person from whom it was obtained, absent an agreement , court order or requirement of law to the contrary.

STANDARD 2.15 GUIDANCE AND TRAINING FOR LINE PROSECUTORS

(a) A prosecutor’s office should be organized in a manner to provide line prosecutors guidance consistent with these Standards.

(b) To guide the exercise of discretion, a prosecutor’s office should:

(i) encourage consultation and collaboration among prosecutors;

(ii) appoint supervisors with appropriate experience, strong skills and a commitment to justice and ethical behavior;

(iii) require consultation and approval at appropriate supervisory levels for investigative methods of different levels of intrusiveness, risk and costs;

(iv) provide regular supervisory review throughout the course of investigations;

(v) regularly review investigative techniques and promote best practices to reflect changes in law and policy;

(vi) create and implement internal policies, procedures, and standard practices that teach and reinforce standards of excellence in performance, professionalism, and ethics;

(vii) create and implement policies and procedures that protect against practices that could result in unfair hardships, the pursuit of baseless investigations, and the bringing of charges against the innocent;

(viii) develop and support practices designed to prevent and to rectify conviction of the innocent.

(ix) determine what types of investigative steps require formal supervisory approval, and at what supervisory level, and

(x) require line attorneys to consult with supervisors or experienced colleagues when making significant investigative decisions absent exigent circumstances.

(i) strongly encouraging consultation and collaboration among line assistants;

(ii) appointing supervisors with appropriate experience and strong commitments to justice, and fostering close working relationships between supervisors and those they supervise;

(iii) providing formal training programs on investigative techniques and the ethical choices implicated in using them; and

(iv) creating internal policies and standard practices regarding investigations that memorialize and reinforce standards of excellence, professionalism, and ethics. In doing so:

(A) policy and practice materials should be regularly reviewed and updated and should allow flexibility for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and

(B) written policies and procedures should not be a substitute for regular training for all office members and a commitment to mentoring less-experienced attorneys.

(d) When a line prosecutor believes the needs of an investigation or some extraordinary circumstance require actions that are contrary to or outside of existing policies, the prosecutor should seek prior approval before taking such actions.

(e) A prosecutor’s office should develop policies and procedures that address the initiation and implementation of the investigative tools discussed in these Standards in advance of the specific needs of an investigation.

STANDARD 2.16 SPECIAL PROSECUTORS, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNITS

(a) As used in these Standards, a “special prosecutor” or an “independent counsel” is a prosecutor serving independently from the general prosecution office under a particularized appointment and whose service in that role typically ends after the purpose of the appointment is completed. A “special prosecution unit” is typically a unit that focuses on a particular type of crime, criminal activity, or victim.

(b) Although the special prosecutor and the special prosecution unit are removed from the responsibilities of a general prosecution office, a prosecutor in this role should:

(i) be bound by the same policies and procedures as regular prosecutors in their jurisdiction, unless to do so would be incompatible with their duties;

(ii) base judgments about the merits of pursuing a particular investigation upon the same factors that should guide a regular prosecutor, including the seriousness of the offense, the harm to the public, and the expenditure of public resources; and

(iii) in choosing matters to investigate, consider the danger that the narrow focus or limited jurisdiction of the prosecutor or the unit will lead to the pursuit of what would, in a general prosecution office, be considered an insubstantial violation, or one more appropriately resolved by civil or administrative actions.

STANDARD 2.17 USE OF INFORMATION, MONEY, OR RESOURCES PROVIDED BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES

(a) The prosecutor may use information provided by non-governmental sources that is pertinent to a potential or existing criminal investigation. However, consistent with the principles in Standard 2.1, the prosecutor should make an independent evaluation of the information and make an independent decision as to whether to allocate or continue to allocate resources to investigating the matter.

(b) If the law of the jurisdiction permits the acceptance of financial or resource assistance from non-governmental sources, the decision to accept such assistance should be made with caution by the chief public prosecutor or an accountable designee after careful consideration of:

(i) the extent to which the law of the jurisdiction permits the acceptance of financial or resource assistance;

(ii) the extent to which the offer is in the public interest, as opposed to an effort to achieve the limited private interests of the non-governmental sources;

(iii) the extent to which acceptance may result in foregoing other cases;

(iv) the potential adverse impact on the equal administration of the criminal law;

(v) the extent to which the character and magnitude of the assistance might unduly influence the prosecutor’s subsequent exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion;

(vi) the likelihood that the community may view accepting the assistance as inconsistent with the fair and equal administration of criminal justice;

(vii) the likelihood that accepting assistance from private sources may create an appearance of undue influence over law enforcement; and

(viii) the extent to which financial or resource assistance would enhance or enable the investigation of criminal activity;

(c) The prosecutor should consider the risk that encouraging information gathering from non-governmental sources may lead to abusive, dangerous or even criminal actions by private parties.

(d) The office of the prosecutor should have procedures designed to protect the independent exercise of investigative discretion from being influenced by the receipt of outside financial or resource assistance, including careful accounting and recordkeeping of the amounts and terms of such assistance and clear disclosure that providing assistance will not guide the exercise of investigative or prosecutorial discretion.

(e) The prosecutor , consistent with the law of the jurisdiction, should disclose significant non-governmental assistance to relevant legislative or public bodies having oversight over the prosecutor’s office and, when appropriate, the public.

(f) Non-governmental assistance should be disclosed to affected parties as part of the discovery process.

STANDARD 2.18 USE OF SENSITIVE, CLASSIFIED OR OTHER INFORMATION IMPLICATING INVESTIGATIVE PRIVILEGES

(a) The prosecutor should be alert to the need to balance the government’s legitimate interests in protecting certain information from disclosure, and the legitimate interests and Constitutional rights of the public and of defendants favoring disclosure.

(b) When appropriate, the prosecutor should request court orders designed to protect the disclosure of law enforcement means and methods, informant identities, observation posts, and such other information that might jeopardize future investigations or the safety or reputation of persons directly or indirectly involved in an investigation.

(c) In investigations believed to have the potential to include classified or sensitive information, prosecutors should seek to obtain the relevant information and consult laws, regulations and other requirements for handling such information before making any charging decisions.

PART 3:

PROSECUTOR’S ROLE IN RESOLVING INVESTIGATION PROBLEMS

STANDARD 3.1 PROSECUTOR’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING SUSPECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT

(a) If the prosecutor has reason to suspect misconduct or unauthorized illegal activity at any level of the prosecutor’s office or in any agency or department engaged in a criminal investigation, the prosecutor should promptly report the suspicion and the reason for it to appropriate supervisory personnel in the prosecutor’s office who have authority to address the problem, or to the appropriate inspector general’s office, or similar agency, if reporting within the prosecutor’s own office is problematic. Reporting may also be required to comply with requirements of the applicable rules of professional conduct, the Model Rules and the law of the jurisdiction.

(b) If the prosecutor has reason to believe that a criminal investigation or prosecution is, or is likely to be, adversely affected by incompetence, lack of skilled personnel or inadequate resources in the prosecutor’s office or in any other relevant agency or department, the prosecutor should promptly report that belief and the reason for it to supervisory personnel in the prosecutor’s office.

(c) A supervisory prosecutor who receives an allegation of misconduct, unauthorized illegal conduct, or who receives an allegation of incompetence, inadequate resources, or lack of skilled personnel that is, or is likely to, adversely affect a criminal investigation, should undertake a prompt and objective review of the facts and circumstances or refer the matter to an appropriate agency or component responsible for addressing such allegations. When practicable, the line prosecutor making any such allegations should not be involved in subsequent investigation(s) relating to the allegation(s).