[x] ปิดหน้าต่างนี้
ยินดีต้อนรับคุณ บุคคลทั่วไป   
ค้นหา   
เมนูหลัก
สถิติผู้เยี่ยมชม

 เริ่มนับ 24/มี.ค./2564
ผู้ใช้งานขณะนี้ 21 IP
ขณะนี้
21 คน
สถิติวันนี้
1556 คน
สถิติเมื่อวานนี้ี้
2612 คน
สถิติเดือนนี้
46449 คน
สถิติปีนี้
46449 คน
สถิติทั้งหมด
163660 คน
IP ของท่านคือ 54.224.117.125
(Show/hide IP)

  

   เว็บบอร์ด >> สอบถาม พูดคุยเกี่ยวกับ ITA พส. >>
You Do Not Should Be An Enormous Corporation To Have A Terrific Bail Bond  VIEW : 243    
โดย Brittany

UID : ไม่มีข้อมูล
โพสแล้ว : 18
ตอบแล้ว :
เพศ :
ระดับ : 3
Exp : 45%
เข้าระบบ :
ออฟไลน์ :
IP : 107.175.132.xxx

 
เมื่อ : เสาร์ ที่ 20 เดือน พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ.2564 เวลา 01:22:03   

A 37-12 months-outdated Hempfield man is in the county prison without bail bondoufle after state police charged him with assaulting a girl and two youngsters during a home altercation early Thursday. 137 In support, Moving Defendants cite Louisiana Revised Statute § 16:1, which states that "The district attorneys all through the state of their designated assistants, the parish of Orleans excepted, shall characterize the state in all civil actions, and shall have charge of every criminal prosecution by the state in his district, be the consultant of the state earlier than the grand juries in his district and be the authorized advisor to the grand juries." 138 In Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, a case cited by Moving Defendants, the Fifth Circuit decided that pursuant to Louisiana constitutional and statutory provisions, a district attorney is the impartial and final official policymaker for all of the administrative and prosecutorial capabilities of his workplace. 128 B. Analysis Moving Defendants search summary judgment on the Monell claims towards Reed, in his official capability, and the malicious prosecution and abuse of course of claims introduced towards both Moving Defendants. 130 These documents include "Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint (Scott Seals)," "Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint (Chad Cassard)," "Call Docket," and "Answer filed by City of Bogalusa and so on. et al." 131 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court could judicially discover a truth that is not topic to cheap dispute either by itself, or if a celebration requests it and the court is equipped with the necessary information.132 Dendinger has attached the paperwork he requests that the Court take judicial discover of, which include notations that indicate that they're in fact records in No. 12-cv-991, Logan N. Mills v. 128 Martin v. John W. Stone Oil Distrib., Inc., 819 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.



While the Arizona bail bond industry is often a commercial and monetary based one, it may at instances involve a law enforcement facet. The cruise ship was carrying mostly celebrities from Bollywood and the vogue industry. 143 However, Dendinger doesn't clarify how Reed ratified any of his subordinate’s allegedly unconstitutional selections. 147 However, even had Reed signed the Bill of data, Dendinger has presented no evidence to demonstrate that Reed, at any time, knew the particulars of this case or accepted any decisions made during the course of the case. 144 Knight additionally stated in her affidavit that she never contacted Reed relating to the incident involving Dendinger or her written witness statement. 109 at 24. 144 Rec. 135 Rec. Doc. 109 at 23. 136 City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 2012) (citing Anderson v. Liberty, 477 U.S. Doc. 109 at 24. 141 City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S.



Doc. 109-1 at 23. 145 Rec. Doc. 109 at 23-25. 134 Rec. Doc. 104 130 Rec. Screening Dendinger’s first claim for Monell legal responsibility is that Murray is a final policymaking official for the particular act of screening circumstances, and since a plaintiff can establish a customized or coverage based mostly on a single resolution when the decision was made by an authorized policymaker with ultimate 133 Rec. 133 Moving Defendants argue: (1) Murray just isn't the ultimate policymaker for the 22nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office; (2) Dendinger has failed to determine that Reed had actual information of any constitutional violations by any assistant district attorneys; and (3) Dendinger has did not present proof regarding a failure to practice as a result of attorneys within the 22nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office received regular training, there is no evidence of a persistent pattern or practice of violations, and Dendinger has failed to provide evidence of precise harm attributable to the allegedly inadequate training policy.



1. Monell Liability Dendinger seems to make three claims for municipal legal responsibility pursuant to Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services: (1) Murray is the final policymaking official for the particular activity of screening and despite "obvious moral issues with conflicts of interest," the screening course of allowed Dendinger’s prosecution to go forward; (2) Reed ratified the constitutional violations of Wall and Knight; and (3) Reed did not train the assistant district attorneys. Dendinger, citing a Southern District of Texas case, Santibanes v. City of Tomball, Texas, asserts that "the lack of a significant screening process evidences ratification." 148 In Santibanes, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence of a municipal policy the place a chief of police performed a evaluation of a sergeant’s use of drive and concluded that there was no credible proof that the sergeant had fired his weapon intentionally, as a result of the chief of police selected to not view proof which placed the plausibility of the sergeant’s model of occasions into question.149 Dendinger’s argument regarding the screening process seems to be based mostly upon his contention that Murray was the ultimate policymaker for screening.