We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Apart from the buildings themselves, what items of particular historical value were lost during Henry VIII's reign? Wikipedia's 'Dissolution of the Monasteries' makes some mention of libraries but does not say which documents of particular value were lost forever (other than manuscripts of church music). For example, were any chronicles destroyed? What can we tell from documents that are referenced in surviving manuscripts?
Also, I know that some tombs were destroyed (e.g. Thomas Becket) and some burial locations lost (e.g. at Blackfriars, those of Henry and Alphonso, children of Edward I). Were any other royal/noble burial sites destroyed or lost, especially from early Anglo-Saxon times up to the reign of Edward I?
I'm not looking for a list, more of an overview. I'm trying to get an idea of how much knowledge was lost.
It is difficult to say exactly how much was lost. We have some sources that enable us to say what manuscripts were held by some monasteries, for example the library at Peterborough, or that at Syon Abbey.
Many of the manuscripts ended up in private libraries, with the best often ending up in the Royal Library manuscript holding.
Wikipedia provides an incomplete list of the monasteries dissolved by Henry VIII. In many cases, a quick Google search for a particular abbey or monastery will provide a list of notable individuals known to have been buried there. A few examples would be King Edmund I and King Edmund II (Ironside) who were both interred at Glastonbury Abbey, and Richard III, whose place of burial at Grey Friars, Leicester was famously lost after the Dissolution and found again in 2012.
The Great Irish Famine was GenocideCatchfire
Well, that's that matter settled. The British were shit to the Irish. Who knew?
They starved to death while pork and corn were exported to "the market" from about a dozen Irish sea ports, British Whigs and Tories at their finest.
What's the diff? A merciless free market god still demands food exports from chronically hungry nations today. Millions die agonizing deaths every year like clockwork.remind
well. you know what catchfire, genocide is a lot bigger something, or something, than just the British treating the Irish like shit, way to minimize genocide.
IMV, the belittling of genocide should not happen ever.Frustrated Mess
Fidel is correct in both his assertions. Food was being exported even as the Irish starved and it was the same ideology that holds sway today that justified the result: The market is more sacred than human life. And, yet, many Christians embrace an ideology that presents such an affront to their own beliefs and their own God.Catchfire
British colonization of the Irish has gone on for 500 years or more. It included mass murder, famine, rape, forced labour and bond. Some twit writing a paragraph or two "proving" the Irish were victims of genocide does far more to "minimize" their plight than my harmless quip.
Fidel is correct in both his assertions. Food was being exported even as the Irish starved and it was the same ideology that holds sway today that justified the result: The market is more sacred than human life. And, yet, many Christians embrace an ideology that presents such an affront to their own beliefs and their own God.
Yes many Christians do. But it says nothing in the bible about socialism for money changers. Nothing about British enclosure r starving English peasants as a result. Nothing about exclusive private property rights for corporations. The bible says nothing about genocide by free market diktats.
Before the end of WW II and FDR's death, he introduced a second bill of rights to US Congress that included health care, the right to a full education, the right to decent housing and many more rights. And the majority of Europeans and Japanese gained every one of FDR's citizens rights since the end of WW II. Not Americans though.
It still says nothing of capitalism in the US constitution. And it definitely says nothing about socialism for the rich. The USA stopped being that type of free market country many years ago and which was never mentioned in the US constitution and still isn't today. The words that stand out for most Americans have always been, "We the people. " And when the other 95% of Americans realize that they outnumber the few percent possessing all the power and more financial wealth than all other Americans combined, there will be a second American revolution.Le T
Which of course makes St. Patrick's Day especially insulting celebrating the guy who "brought christianity" (i.e. helped destroy indigenous beleif systems) to Ireland by indulging in Irish stereotypes and drinking the alcohol that was another gift from the Brits. No wonder that around these parts it is mostly celebrated by WASPs and bar owners.
To be honest the Celts drunk before Christianity arrived in Ireland but facts are never important around here.Le T
I was more drawing attentiont to the fact that while the Irish starved there was alway plenty of drink.
Wow Le T, what a shot gun approach, and still you miss the target.
I think you will find that pre-existing cultural patterns in Ireland survived the introduction of Christianity quite nicely, thank you very much. Indeed, the traditional Irish culture was sufficiently strong to essentially assimilate both the Viking invaders (starting in the late 8th century) and the Norman conquerors of the 12th century (especially outside of the Pale) -- arguably more successful than the English were in dealing with the same two groups.
No small part of their ability to assimilate both Viking and Norman was the contininuity in law, language and culture which was actually contributed to by the codification of the traditional Fenechas (laws of the Feni. the freeman of Ireland) (this codification is usually attributed to Patrick himself, who interefered only when Fenechas was directly in conflict with exisiting Canon law). Commonly referred to as Brehon law"*, it successfully maintained its position as the secular law of the land well into the 17th century -- it is only with the Tudor invasion and the Protestant Ascendancy that Irish culture was truly threatened.
As to the Brits "gifting" the Irish with alcohol, that is just plain silly. Ale and mead were brewed in Ireland well before the introduction of Christianity, and it is generally thought that distilled grain spirits uisce beatha (water of life) are an Irish invention (admittedly post- conversion to Christianity) -- indeed, the English word whiskey is based on a mispronounciation of the gaelic uisce. If anything, the Irish gifted the English with strong drink.
The real threat to Irish culture only really came about with the establishment of Tudor rule and the beginnings of the Protestant Ascendancy and its conscious efforts to destroy Irish law, language and custom. Blaming this on poor old Patrick in 400 A.D. really does a disservice to the 1200 or so years that follow when Gaelic culture flourished. Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that the Irish actually assimilated and transformed both Patrick and the Christianity he espoused. which may go a long way to explain why the Popes of the Dark Ages routinely considered Ireland as a hotbed of heresy. Then again, I may be overstating the case, but I will excuse that as the result of raising a few. sláinte
*Brehon law is actually quite fascinating and has some great lessons for "progressives" in that it is primarily concerned with compensation and reconciliation rather than punishment and retribution. indeed, in comparison to the "eye for an eye" attitude that was typical of the rest of Christian Europe Brehon law stands up quite nicely as a model for progressives to study. It has its drawbacks, but is definitely worth the effort of exploring.
NEW JERSEY BOARD of BAR EXAMINERS
© 2018 by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. All rights reserved.
State of Franklin v. Clegane
Guidelines for persuasive briefs
Newspaper article from The Franklin City Post
Excerpt from transcript of client interview
Defendant&rsquos motion to exclude victim statements and deny restitution
Excerpts from the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act
State v. Jones, Franklin Court of Appeal (2006)
State v. Berg, Franklin Court of Appeal (2012)
State v. Humphrey, Franklin Court of Appeal (2008)
Selmer & Pierce LLP
Franklin City, Franklin 33703
From: Anna Pierce
Date: February 27, 2018
Re: State of Franklin v. Clegane
We represent Sarah Karth. Sarah Karth&rsquos sister, Valerie Karth, was physically injured and
incapacitated last summer when an unsupervised teenager set off fireworks at a neighborhood
Fourth of July party. The teenager, a minor, was also injured. Valerie Karth was struck by the
fireworks and also suffered economic injury because sparks from the fireworks started a fire that
burned her garage to the ground.
The man who sold the fireworks to the teenager, Greg Clegane, was convicted of the felony of
unlawful sale of fireworks to a minor. Clegane&rsquos sentencing hearing is in two weeks. Sarah Karth
wishes to read victim-impact statements at the sentencing hearing both on her own behalf and on
Valerie&rsquos behalf. She has also submitted a request that Clegane pay restitution for the losses she
and her sister have sustained because of his actions.
Last week the prosecution notified Sarah that Clegane&rsquos counsel has filed a motion to (1) exclude
the proposed victim-impact statements at the sentencing hearing, arguing that Sarah and Valerie
are not victims within the meaning of the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act (FCVRA) and (2)
deny their restitution requests. A copy of Clegane&rsquos motion is attached.
I intend to file a brief in opposition to this motion on behalf of Sarah asking that the court
include Sarah&rsquos and Valerie&rsquos victim-impact statements and order Clegane to pay restitution to
both of them. Please draft the argument section of our brief. In drafting your argument, be sure to
follow the attached guidelines. Make the most persuasive argument possible under the FCVRA
Selmer & Pierce LLP
From: Managing Partner
Date: July 8, 2012
Re: Guidelines for Persuasive Briefs in Trial Courts
The following guidelines apply to persuasive briefs filed in support of motions in trial courts.
II. Statement of Facts
III. Legal Argument
Your legal argument should make your points clearly and succinctly, citing relevant
authority for each legal proposition. Do not restate the facts as a whole at the beginning of your
legal argument. Instead, integrate the facts into your legal argument in a way that makes the
strongest case for our client.
Use headings to separate the sections of your argument. Your headings should not state
abstract conclusions, but rather integrate factual detail into legal propositions to make them more
persuasive. An ineffective heading states only: &ldquoThe court should not admit evidence of the
victim&rsquos character.&rdquo An effective heading states: &ldquoThe court should refuse to admit evidence of
the defendant&rsquos character for violence because the defendant has not raised a claim of selfdefense.&rdquo
In the body of your argument, analyze applicable legal authority and persuasively argue
how both the facts and the law support our client&rsquos position. Supporting authority should be
emphasized, but contrary authority should also be cited, addressed in the argument, and
explained or distinguished.
Finally, anticipate and accommodate any weaknesses in your case in the body of your
argument. If possible, structure your argument in such a way as to highlight your argument&rsquos
strengths and minimize its weaknesses. Make concessions if necessary, but only on points that do
not involve essential elements of your claim or defense.
The Franklin City Post
Illegal Fireworks Injure Two and Destroy Garage
FRANKLIN CITY, Franklin&mdashThe quiet neighborhood of Fair Oaks became a nightmare of
exploding shells after a 17-year-old set off illegal, professional-grade fireworks during a Fourth
of July celebration in a friend&rsquos backyard. The fireworks, called Little Devil Shards, sent
exploding shells spraying through the yard, striking and injuring a bystander and setting a nearby
garage on fire. The minor was also seriously injured.
The minor set off the fireworks to surprise his friends, Franklin City Detective Ralph Guerra said
early this morning. It appears that the minor obtained the fireworks the day before the party from
Greg Clegane, the proprietor of Starburst Fireworks, which sells fireworks and other party
supplies from a storefront in the Third Ward of Franklin City. Clegane has three similar retail
operations spread throughout the eastern part of the state. The sale of such powerful fireworks to
a minor is a felony in Franklin, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine. The
minor&rsquos name has not been released. He is a Franklin City resident.
Lena Harley, a local resident, saw the minor igniting the fireworks in the middle of a crowd of
guests at the party. She watched as a spray of sparks and exploding shells flew through the air.
&ldquoIt was like a war zone,&rdquo said Harley.
The victims were transported to an area hospital. Several shells also struck a neighbor&rsquos garage,
setting it afire. The garage was totally destroyed before firefighters could control the blaze.
Franklin City police are encouraging anyone with information about the incident to contact them.
(Franklin City Associated Press contributed to this report.)
Excerpt from Transcript of Client Interview with Sarah Karth
February 26, 2018
Att&rsquoy Pierce: Good afternoon, Ms. Karth.
Sarah Karth: Good afternoon.
Pierce: Can you describe what brings you to the office today?
Karth: Yes. Are you familiar with the fireworks incident over in Fair Oaks last summer?
Pierce: I remember hearing about it on the news right after it happened.
Karth: My sister, Valerie Karth, was one of the people injured that day. Her house is next
door to the yard where the fireworks went off, and she was attending the party.
Sparks from the fireworks caused her garage to burn down.
I was at the criminal trial of Greg Clegane, who was convicted of the felony of
selling dangerous fireworks to a minor. During the trial, the arresting officer testified
that Clegane admitted selling the fireworks and that the boy had told him, &ldquoI can&rsquot
wait to show these to my friends&mdashI&rsquom going to give everyone a big surprise.&rdquo
Clegane told the officer that the minor &ldquolooked like he was at least in his twenties&rdquo
and that the boy&rsquos statements &ldquodidn&rsquot raise any red flags.&rdquo
I want to read victim-impact statements at Clegane&rsquos sentencing hearing, one on
my own behalf and one on my sister Valerie&rsquos. I also want restitution on behalf of
both Valerie and myself. Last week, I heard from the prosecutor&rsquos office that
Clegane&rsquos lawyer had filed a motion asking the court to keep me from making the
statements and seeking restitution.
Pierce: What do you want to say? What are you asking for?
Karth: I want to make it clear to the judge, and to Clegane, that his illegal sale of dangerous
fireworks to a 17-year-old had very personal and life-altering consequences for me
Pierce: Tell me more.
Karth: Clegane needs to understand that his actions have irrevocably affected our lives and
that I am also a victim of his crime. I want to look him in the eyes and tell him that. I
want the court to understand how Clegane&rsquos actions have ruined my sister&rsquos life.
Valerie was attending the party when the fireworks went off. She was hit by
fireworks and was rushed to the hospital for emergency care. Valerie was seriously
injured and was in a coma for several months. She has just come out of the coma and
is still incapacitated. She remains in stable condition in the hospital but cannot come
Pierce: What else do you want to tell the court about Valerie?
Karth: Valerie has always loved life and lived it to the fullest. She is bright, athletic,
independent, and strong. She was the first person in our family to graduate from
college. She is a rock. She is someone whom you can count on and trust. My father
died five years ago, and my mother has been so traumatized by Valerie&rsquos injuries that
she is too frail to participate in any court proceedings.
Pierce: And what about restitution for Valerie?
Karth: Valerie&rsquos out-of-pocket medical expenses so far total $22,000&mdashwe&rsquove got the bills
and receipts to prove it. Her medical providers have concluded that she will incur at
least an additional $40,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses. By the time she is able
to return to work, she will have lost $120,000 in salary. The fireworks also destroyed
her garage rebuilding it has cost $17,000.
Pierce: And you want to make a victim-impact statement on your own behalf?
Karth: Yes, I truly believe that I am also a victim of Clegane&rsquos crime. Valerie and I are very
close and always have been. I&rsquom 35 and she is two years older. The day she was
injured was the worst and most shocking day of my life. I spent endless days in the
hospital waiting for her to come out of the coma. If not for Clegane, that teenager
could not have caused me the trauma that he did. I want the court to give Clegane the
maximum sentence possible&mdashfive years&mdashso that he knows how many people his
actions have harmed and will be held accountable. People think that fireworks are no
big deal, but this reckless sale of fireworks has really devastated my family.
Pierce: And are you requesting restitution on your own behalf?
Karth: Yes, I have incurred $1,500 in out-of-pocket medical bills myself as a result of
Clegane&rsquos criminal behavior. I&rsquove been so depressed and distraught about Valerie&rsquos
future and how she will be taken care of that I&rsquove been seeing a therapist twice a
month for the past six months. My insurance has a high deductible, so I&rsquove had to
bear the cost of the therapist myself. I think Clegane should pay that cost, not me.
STATE OF FRANKLIN
DISTRICT COURT OF GLENN COUNTY
STATE of FRANKLIN,
Case No. 2017-CR-238
DEFENDANT&rsquoS MOTION TO EXCLUDE VICTIM STATEMENTS
AND DENY RESTITUTION
Defendant Greg Clegane hereby moves the Court to deny the request of Sarah Karth (acting
on behalf of Valerie Karth and in her own capacity) to make victim-impact statements at
Defendant&rsquos sentencing hearing in this case. In addition, Defendant requests that the Court deny
the Karths&rsquo requests for restitution. In support of this motion, Defendant states:
1. After a jury trial on February 2, 2018, Defendant was convicted of the felony crime of
unlawful sale of fireworks to a minor, Franklin Criminal Code § 305. Sentencing is scheduled for
2. Pursuant to the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act (FCVRA) §§ 55 and 56, Ms. Karth
has submitted proposed victim-impact statements regarding injuries she and Valerie Karth
suffered as a result of fireworks that were set off at a party in Franklin City on July 4, 2017.
3. It is undisputed that Defendant was not present on that occasion and had no part in the
decision to ignite fireworks in an unsafe manner.
4. The fireworks were ignited by a 17-year-old male, who was using them contrary to the
instructions on the fireworks&rsquo packaging.
5. At the time Defendant sold said fireworks, he had no reason to believe that the 17-yearold
was not an adult, or that the fireworks would be ignited under unsafe conditions.
6. Defendant&rsquos only connection to the injuries suffered by the Karths is that the minor who
set off the fireworks had bought them from Defendant. The Karths do not qualify as crime
victims under the FCVRA because they were not &ldquodirectly and proximately harmed as a result of
the commission&rdquo of the offense of which Defendant stands convicted: the sale of fireworks to a
7. In addition, because the Karths cannot be deemed crime victims under FCVRA § 55(b),
the Court must deny their restitution requests. See FCVRA § 56.
8. Even assuming that the Karths could be considered crime victims under the statute, the
restitution they seek is not supported by the evidence and is excessive, and Defendant does not
have the resources to pay the amounts requested. FCVRA § 56(d).
WHEREFORE Defendant asks the Court to deny the victim-impact statements and restitution
requests made by the Karths and to grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Filed: February 19, 2018 Karen Pine
LAW OFFICES OF PINE, BRYCE & DIAL, LLP
Attorney for Defendant Greg Clegane
Excerpts from the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act
§ 55. Rights of Crime Victims
(a) A crime victim has the following rights:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or
any parole proceeding, involving the crime, or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court,
after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim
would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing, or at any parole proceeding.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the prosecution in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution under section 56 of this Act.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim&rsquos dignity and
(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred
(b) Definitions&mdashCrime Victim
(1) In general&mdashAs used in this Act, the term &ldquocrime victim&rdquo means a person directly and
proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Franklin criminal offense.
(2) Minors and certain other victims&mdashIn the case of a crime victim who is under 18 years
of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim or
the representatives of the crime victim&rsquos estate, family members, or any other persons
appointed as suitable by the court may assume the crime victim&rsquos rights under this Act,
but in no event shall the defendant be named as such guardian or representative.
§ 56. Restitution
(a) The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense, shall order that the
defendant make restitution to any victim of such offense.
(b) The order may require that such defendant
(1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a
(A) return the property to its owner or someone designated by the owner or
(B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impractical, or
inadequate, pay an amount equal to the repair or replacement cost of the property.
(2) in the case of an offense resulting in physical, psychiatric, or psychological injury to a
(A) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional
services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care,
including nonmedical care and treatment
(B) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational
therapy and rehabilitation and
(C) reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such
(c) A defendant is presumed to have the ability to pay restitution unless the defendant establishes
the inability to pay by a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) In determining the amount of restitution, the court shall consider (1) public policy that favors
requiring criminals to compensate for damage and injury to their victims (2) the financial burden
placed on the victim and those who provide services to the victim as a result of the criminal
conduct of the defendant and (3) the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the
burden the payment of restitution will impose on dependents of the defendant.
State v. Jones
Franklin Court of Appeal (2006)
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it held that the girlfriend of
the defendant&rsquos cocaine customer was not a &ldquovictim&rdquo entitled to provide a victim-impact
statement at sentencing pursuant to the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act (FCVRA). We
For approximately two years between 2004 and 2006, defendant Iggy Jones was engaged
in a conspiracy with others to manufacture and distribute cocaine. Based on information
conveyed to an undercover law enforcement officer, the police executed a search warrant of the
defendant&rsquos home, discovering the remnants of a cocaine manufacturing operation and related
paraphernalia. Jones was arrested and subsequently pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine
with intent to distribute in violation of the Franklin Criminal Code.
After Jones pled guilty, Gina Nocona, the former girlfriend of one of the defendant&rsquos
regular cocaine customers, filed a motion claiming that she was a &ldquovictim&rdquo under the FCVRA
and therefore entitled to make a victim-impact statement at Jones&rsquos sentencing hearing. She
claimed that her former boyfriend, a cocaine user who regularly bought drugs from Jones,
&ldquophysically, mentally, and emotionally abused&rdquo her and that her former boyfriend&rsquos &ldquopoor
judgment was in large part attributable to the drugs Jones had illegally sold him.&rdquo Nocona
asserted that her boyfriend&rsquos behavior typically became abusive only when he was under the
influence of cocaine. The trial court denied Nocona&rsquos motion, ruling that Nocona did not have
standing as a &ldquovictim&rdquo under the FCVRA. Nocona appealed.
Often crime victims do not feel that their voices are heard or that their concerns are
properly considered in the judicial process. The Franklin legislature attempted to address these
concerns when it passed the FCVRA in 2004. Among the rights this statute specifically gives
victims is the right to &ldquobe reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving . . . sentencing.&rdquo FCVRA § 55(a)(4). Only a &ldquocrime victim&rdquo is afforded these rights.
The FCVRA defines &ldquocrime victim&rdquo as &ldquoa person directly and proximately harmed as a result of
the commission of a Franklin criminal offense.&rdquo Id. § 55(b)(1).
In applying this definition, Franklin courts have held that a purported &ldquocrime victim&rdquo
under the FCVRA must demonstrate (1) that the defendant&rsquos conduct was a cause in fact of the
victim&rsquos injuries and (2) that the purported victim was proximately harmed by that conduct.
In State v. Hackett (Fr. Ct. App. 2003), the Franklin Court of Appeal interpreted &ldquocause in
fact&rdquo and affirmed the trial court&rsquos order that defendant George Hackett, who pled guilty to
aiding and abetting methamphetamine manufacture, pay restitution to an insurance company for
property damage. The damage had been caused when one of Hackett&rsquos codefendants started a
fire by placing a jar of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine on a hot plate. The
court found that Hackett had procured the supplies his codefendants used to manufacture
methamphetamine, and that he had &ldquoknowledge and understanding of the scope and structure of
the enterprise and of the activities of his codefendants.&rdquo The court held that even though there
were &ldquomultiple links in the causal chain,&rdquo Hackett&rsquos conduct was a cause in fact of the resulting
In the current case, the facts do not support the same conclusion. Nocona asserts that her
former boyfriend was abusive only when he was under the influence of cocaine. If true, such a
statement might meet the cause-in-fact prong of the standard, although the court acknowledges
that the contention raises complex questions relating to the causes of domestic violence. Nocona
offered no expert testimony to support her assertion regarding causation.
Nocona&rsquos motion also fails the second prong of the definition of a crime victim under the
FCVRA, which requires that this court determine whether the defendant&rsquos criminal act
proximately harmed Nocona. The concept of foreseeability is at the heart of &ldquoproximate harm.&rdquo
The closer the relationship between the actions of the defendant and the harm sustained, the more
likely that a court will find that proximate harm exists. See State v. Thomas (Fr. Ct. App. 2002).
Nocona is unable to demonstrate that her alleged injuries were a foreseeable consequence
of the defendant&rsquos drug conspiracy. She has not provided the court with evidence that the drug
conspiracy led to her injuries or that the defendant knew about the impact of the drugs on
Nocona&rsquos former boyfriend. Moreover, while we deplore the many undesirable social effects of
drug trafficking, we do not think that the asserted abusive conduct of Nocona&rsquos boyfriend toward
Nocona falls within the range of reasonably foreseeable harms resulting from the defendant&rsquos
conspiracy. Nocona is not a &ldquovictim&rdquo under the FCVRA because she is not a person &ldquodirectly and
proximately harmed&rdquo by the criminal act committed by the defendant.
State v. Berg
Franklin Court of Appeal (2012)
The defendant, Leon Berg, contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights
and the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act (FCVRA) in allowing the parents of Carly Appleton
to make victim-impact statements at his sentencing hearing. We find that the trial court did not
The defendant&rsquos girlfriend, Sheila Greene, was driving herself and Berg back from
Franklin Beach to Franklin State College (FSC) in Berg&rsquos car. They offered a ride to Carly
Appleton, another FSC student. Greene and Appleton were 19 years old Berg was 22. The
drinking age in Franklin is 21. They stopped at a gas station, where Berg bought a quart of vodka
and a six-pack of beer. Berg and Greene drank some of the vodka and then got back into the car.
Appleton did not drink anything. Berg knew that Greene had been previously arrested and fined
for driving under the influence, but he allowed her to drive anyway. In fact, Berg admitted that
he handed Greene a beer while she was driving. Not long after, Greene, driving considerably
over the speed limit, crashed the car into a tree. Berg sustained minor injuries Greene was killed
instantly Appleton died at the hospital four hours later. Greene&rsquos postmortem blood alcohol level
was well over the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle in Franklin.
Berg pleaded guilty to the felony crime of providing alcohol to a minor resulting in death.
Berg was sentenced to six months in prison followed by two years of extended supervision.
Appleton&rsquos parents each petitioned the court to make victim-impact statements at Berg&rsquos
sentencing hearing as representatives of their daughter, who they claimed was a victim of the
We begin with an analysis of who constitutes a &ldquovictim&rdquo within the meaning of the
FCVRA, which defines a &ldquovictim&rdquo as one who has been &ldquodirectly and proximately harmed&rdquo by a
Franklin criminal offense. § 55(b)(1). The FCVRA provides a victim with the right to &ldquobe
reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . sentencing.&rdquo
§ 55(a)(4). The legislative history of the statute indicates that the term &ldquocrime victim&rdquo should be
interpreted &ldquobroadly.&rdquo (Citation omitted.)
Carly Appleton&rsquos life was tragically cut short as a result of the drunk driving and the car
crash that occurred. It seems obvious to this court that the defendant&rsquos actions caused Greene&rsquos
intoxication, which affected her ability to handle the car in the conditions leading to the crash.
But for the defendant&rsquos buying alcohol and furnishing it to Greene, the Appletons&rsquo daughter
would still be alive. Thus, there is a direct causal connection between Berg&rsquos conduct and
Appleton&rsquos death. This satisfies the condition that the defendant&rsquos action be a cause in fact of the
person&rsquos injury. See State v. Jones (Fr. Ct. App. 2006).
This court must also decide whether Berg&rsquos crime proximately harmed Carly Appleton
for purposes of the FCVRA. The concept of &ldquoproximate harm&rdquo is a limitation that courts place
upon an actor&rsquos responsibility for the consequences of the actor&rsquos conduct it is a means by which
courts limit the scope of the actor&rsquos liability. The concept reflects ideas of what justice demands
or what a court finds administratively possible and convenient. Foreseeability is at the heart of
determining if an actor&rsquos conduct proximately harmed a victim. See Jones. In determining
whether the harm was foreseeable, the court looks to whether the resulting harm was within the
zone of risks resulting from the defendant&rsquos conduct for which the defendant should be found
We conclude that, on these facts, it was reasonably foreseeable to Berg that if he bought
alcohol and distributed it to his girlfriend, who he was aware had a history of driving drunk, then
his girlfriend might drive drunk, and that her drunk driving might lead to a car crash. There is a
natural and continuous sequence of events without which Appleton&rsquos death would not have
occurred. In other words, there is an intuitive relationship between Berg&rsquos conduct and the
resulting harm. Berg could reasonably have foreseen that he, Greene, or Carly Appleton could be
seriously injured or killed as a result of Greene&rsquos drunk driving. Thus, the harm to Appleton that
resulted was within the risk of Berg&rsquos actions. The loss suffered by Appleton clearly falls within
the scope of Berg&rsquos conduct. Accordingly, we find that Carly Appleton was a crime victim under
The trial court correctly allowed Appleton&rsquos parents to make victim-impact statements at
the defendant&rsquos sentencing hearing, as they were the approved representatives of their daughter,
see § 55(b)(2), who the trial court found was a &ldquocrime victim&rdquo under the FCVRA.
State v. Humphrey
Franklin Court of Appeal (2008)
Two issues are raised in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding that a
mother, acting as the representative for her two sons, whose father had been killed, was qualified
to seek restitution on behalf of her sons under the Franklin Crime Victims&rsquo Rights Act (FCVRA)
and (2) whether the court erred in ordering the defendant to pay restitution under FCVRA § 56.
The trial court held that the mother was an appropriate representative for the sons, who were
&ldquovictims&rdquo entitled to restitution from the defendant for the loss of child-support income. We
affirm with respect to the first issue and remand for further proceedings on the second.
On April 12, 2006, defendant Ted Humphrey was driving home from a party. He was
texting while driving and lost control of his car. The car then skidded into the adjacent bicycle
lane and hit Connor Benton, who was riding his bike home from work. Although Humphrey was
able to stop his car and call 911, the first responders were unable to revive Benton, who had
suffered a traumatic head injury. Humphrey was unharmed.
Humphrey was charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter, to which he pled
guilty on October 30, 2006. Connor Benton&rsquos ex-wife, Kate Gove, sought restitution from
Humphrey for the loss of child-support income on behalf of her two minor sons, then ages 6 and
10. Gove appeared at the defendant&rsquos sentencing hearing and testified that Connor Benton had
provided critical financial support to her family before his death. The court sentenced Humphrey
to 18 months in prison and ordered restitution for the lost child support provided by Connor
Benton, citing the FCVRA. The defendant appeals from that decision.
One purpose of the FCVRA is to force offenders to pay full restitution to the identifiable
victims of their crimes. The act applies to any &ldquocrime victim&rdquo and defines that term as &ldquoa person
directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Franklin criminal offense.&rdquo
FCVRA § 55(b)(1). The act goes on to provide that &ldquo[i]n the case of a crime victim who is under
18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim
or the representatives of the crime victim&rsquos estate, family members, or any other persons
appointed as suitable by the court may assume the crime victim&rsquos rights . . . . &rdquo Id. § 55(b)(2). It
is undisputed that Gove, as the mother of Benton&rsquos minor children, is their appropriate
representative under the Act.
We find that Benton&rsquos two young sons are &ldquocrime victims&rdquo in part because of the loss of
financial support from their father. The FCVRA requires only that a person be &ldquodirectly and
proximately harmed&rdquo by an offense. The term &ldquoharm&rdquo embraces physical, financial, and
psychological damage. See FCVRA § 56(b)(2).
We now turn to whether the court properly ordered the defendant to pay restitution in
the amount of $15,200. Section 56(c) of the FCVRA creates a rebuttable presumption that the
defendant is financially capable of paying restitution and places the burden of rebutting the
presumption on the defendant.
The defendant did not present any evidence to establish that he was incapable of paying
restitution. Apparently relying on § 56, the court ordered $15,200 in restitution for the value of
lost child support without any inquiry into the defendant&rsquos financial situation and without any
findings to justify the restitution order. On appeal, the defendant argues that the restitution statute
requires the court to make express findings justifying a restitution order. The defendant&rsquos reading
of the statute is correct. Section 56(d) identifies three factors that the court must take into
account in determining the amount of restitution: (1) public policy that favors requiring criminals
to compensate for damage and injury to their victims (2) the financial burden placed on the
victim and those who provide services to the victim as a result of the criminal conduct of the
defendant and (3) the financial resources of the defendant.
Before imposing restitution, the sentencing judge must make a &ldquoserious inquiry&rdquo into all
three factors. See State v. Schmidt (Fr. Sup. Ct. 2003). While the statute places the burden of
proof on the defendant to show inability to pay, the court should inquire into the additional
factors. This case will be remanded with instructions to the trial court to conduct that inquiry.
Affirmed in part and remanded for further findings consistent with this opinion.
III. Legal Argument
A. Sarah Karth is entitled to make victim-impact statements on her and Valerie Karth's behalf because they are both victims of Defendant Greg Clegane's crime, and Sarah Karth is a suitable representative for her incapacitated sister.
Under the Franklin Crime Victims' Rights Act ("FCVRA"), "[a] crime victim has the following rights . [t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . sentencing." FCVRA § 55(a)(4). This includes the right to make a victim-impact statement. See State v. Berg (Fr. Ct. App. 2012). The legislative purpose of this part of the Act is to address the concerns of "crime victims [who] do not feel that their voices are heard or that their concerns are properly considered in the judicial process." State v. Jones (Fr. Ct. App. 2006).
"In the case of a crime victim who is . incapacitated, . any other persons appointed as suitable by the court may assume the crime victim's rights under [the FCVRA]." FCVRA § 55(b). Despite Defendant Greg Clegane's ("Clegane") contention to the contrary, because the Karths are both victims of his crime, and Sarah Karth is a suitable representative for Valerie, Sarah Karth is entitled to make the at-issue victim-impact statements. The Karths deserve to exercise their right to have their voices heard and properly considered in the judicial process of Clegane's sentencing.
1. Sarah and Valerie Karth are victims of Clegane's felony.
Under the FCVRA, "crime victim" is "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Franklin criminal offense." Id. § 55(b). This requires a purported crime victim to "demonstrate (1) that the defendant's conduct was a cause in fact of the victim's injuries and (2) that the purported victim was proximately harmed by that conduct." State v. Jones (Fr. Ct. App. 2006). Clegane's criminal conduct is the cause in fact and proximate cause of the Karth's injuries.
A. Clegane's felonious conduct is the cause in fact of Valerie Karth's injuries.
"Cause in fact" requires merely a direct causal connection bewteen the defendant's conduct and the victim's injuries. Even where there are "multiple links in the causal chain," cause in fact may be found. See State v. Jones (Fr. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting State v. Hackett (Fr. Ct. App. 2003)). As such, Franklin Appellate Courts have held that cause in fact is statisfied where:
- An insurance company had to pay for property damage as a result a defendant procuring the supplies his codefendants used to manufacture methamphetamine, and having "knowledge and understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and the activities of his codefendants," State v. Hackett (Fr. Ct. App. 2003) and
- A passenger of a vehicle was killed as a result of another passenger providing alcohol to the underage driver. State v. Berg (Fr. Ct. App. 2012).
The Franklin Appellate Court's even held that cause in fact may be satisfied where the defendant is a drug dealer and the purporter victim is the former girlfriend of a user of the defendant's drugs who suffered domestic violence when the user used his drugs, if the purported victim offered evidence that the drugs caused her ex-boyfriend to be abusive. State v. Jones (Fr. Ct. App. 2006).
Here, Clegane's conduct is clearly the cause in fact of Valerie's njuries. Like in State v. Berg, Clegane's criminal conduct involved providing a dangerous product (in this case, fireworks) to a minor. Although the minor's use of the fireworks may be viewed as an additional link in the causal chain, the same could be said of the driver in Berg drinking the alcohol that was provided to her. Moreover, like in Hackett, Clegane had "knowledge and understanding of the scope and structure" of the minor's plans with the fireworks. As an initial matter, there was only reasonable conclusion that Clegane could have reached concerning the minor's plans for fireworks purchased near the Fourth of July. Moreover, the minor told Clegane as he purchased the fireworks, "I can't wait to show these to my friends--I'm going to give everyone a big surprise." Excerpts from Transcript of Client Interview with Sarah Karth. As such, Clegane knew that the minor's plans for the fireworks he illegally sold to the minor was to set them off around other people. Thus, his actions are clearly a cause in fact of Valerie's injuries.
B. The Karths were proximately harmed by Clegane's criminal conduct.
Proximate harm "reflects ideas of what justice demands or what a court finds administratively possible and convenient. Foreseeability is at the heart of determining if an actor's conduct proximately harmed a victim. See Jones. In determining whether the harm was foreseeable, the court looks to whether the resulting harm was within the zone of risks resulting from the defendant's conduct for which the defendant should be found liable." State v. Berg (Fr. Ct. App. 2012). In State v. Berg, the appellate court found that "it was reasonably foreseeable to [defendant] Berg that is he bought alcohol and distributed to his girlfriend, who he was aware had a history of driving drunk, then his girlfriend might drive drunk, and that her drunk driving might lead to a car crash. There is a natural and contiuous sequence of events without which [the victim]'s death would not have occurred. In other words, there is an intuitive relationship between Berg's conduct and the resulting harm." Id.
Likewise, here, by selling a minor dangerous fireworks near the Fourth of July, it was reasonably foreseeable that the minor may set off those dangerous fireworks near people. It was within the zone of risks resulting from Clegane's conduct for which he should be liable. Clegane's actions set off a natural and contiuous sequence of events without which Valerie's injury would not have occurred. Although Clegane was not aware of the minor having a history of reckless fireworks use like Berg had of his girlfriend, Clegane did know that the minor was going to set off the fireworks near people, as evidenced by the minor telling Clegane, "I can't wait to show these to my friends--I'm going to give everyone a big surprise" and the fact that the minor purchased them shortly before the Fourth of July. Excerpts from Transcript of Client Interview with Sarah Karth. Thus, because Clegane's conduct directly and proximately harmed Valerie, she is a victim within the FCVRA.
C. Clegane's conduct is the direct and proximate cause of Sarah Karth's injuries.
Clegane's actions are also the cause in fact of Sarah's injuries. As a direct result of Valerie's injuries, Sarah has suffered from depression and has been so distraught that she has needed to see a therapist twice a month for the past six months. The Franklin Appellate Court considered similar injuries in State v. Humphrey. There, the court considered whether two sons of a father who was killed by the defendant's criminal conduct were victims under the FCVRA. In affirming the trial court's conclusion that they were, the court stated, "[w]e find that [the father]'s two young sons are 'crime victims' in part because of the loss of financial support from their father. The FCVRA requires only that a person be 'directly and proximately harmed' by an offense. The term 'harm' embraces physical, financial and psychological damage." State v. Humphrey (Fr. Ct. App. 2008) (citing FCVRA § 56(b)(2)).
Here, Sarah's harm is purely psychological, which falls under the FCVRA. Like in Humphrey, it stems from the injuries the defendant caused to a close loved one (in this case, her sister). Thus, because Clegane's conduct is the direct and proximate harm of Sarah's injuries, she is a victim within the FCVRA.
2. Sarah is a suitable representative for Valerie.
As explained above, the court may appoint any suitable person to assume an incapacitated crime victim's rights unde the FCVRA. See FCVRA § 55(b). In State v. Humphrey, it was undisputed that the mother of two minor children was an appropriate representative for them. Here, Valerie remains incapacitated. Sarah is Valerie's loving sister who has been depressed and distraught by the injuries that befell Valerie as a result of Clegane's actions. Sarah would undoubtedly represent Valerie'e interests to the best of her abilities. Thus, she is a suitable representative for Valerie.
B. The Karths are entitled to restitution.
"The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense, shall order that the defendant make restitution to any victim of the offense." FCVRA § 56(a). In the case of damaged, lost or destroyed property, this includes paying "an amount equal to the repair or replacement cost of the property" Id. § 56(b)(1). In the case of phsyical, psychiatric or psychological injury, this includes requring the defendant to "pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment pay an amount equal the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation and reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense." Id. § 56(b)(2). Here, Valerie has incurred $22,000 in medical bills, which Sarah expected will reach $40,000 lost $120,000 in salary and will have to spend $17,000 to rebuild her garage, which was destroyed by the fireworks. See Excerpts from Transcript of Client Interview with Sarah Karth. Likewise, Sarah has incurred $1,500 in medical bills for her therapist. Id. Because they are both crime victims of Clegane's conduct, they are entitled to a total of $178,500 as restitution under this portion of the statute.
However, "[a] defendant is presumed to have the ability to pay restitution unless the defendant established the inability to pay by a preponderance the evidence," FCVRA § 56(c), "[i] determining the amount of restitution, the court shall consider (1) public policy that favors requiring criminals to compensate for damage and injury to their victims (2) the financial burden placed on the victim and those who provide services to the victim as a result of the criminal conduct of the defendant and (3) the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden the payment of restitution will impose on dependents of the defendant." Id. § 56(d).
Clegane has merely stated that he "does not have the resources to pay the amounts requested." Motion, at ¶ 8. He has offered no evidence to overcome the presumption against him. Nevertheless, "the sentencing judge must make a 'serious inquiry' into all three factors." See State v. Humphrey (Fr. Ct. App. 2008) (citing State v. Schmidt (Fr. Sup. Ct. 2003)). In Humphrey, the court remanded because of the trial court's failure to make such an inquiry. Here, the public policy clearly favors payment to the Karths. In addition, the Karths have experienced signifcant financial hardship, to the tune of $178,500, purely as a result of Clegane's criminal conduct. Finally, although Clegane has stated he does not have the resources to pay this restitution, Clegane is a successful business owner who operates four fireworks stores throughout the eastern part of Franklin. See Illegal Fireworks Injure Two and Destroy Garage, The Franklin City Post (July 5, 2017). He has offered no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the serious inquiry in these factors that is required by Humphrey reveals that Clegane should be required to pay the Karths the entire $178,500 in restitution.
III. Legal Argument
i. Valerie Karth and Sarah Karth are victims of a criminal offense under the FCVRA because they were directy and proximately harmed as a reult of the Commission of the unlawful sale of fireworks to a minor perpetrated by Greg Clegane.
The Franklin Crime Vitims' Right Act, hereinafter FCVRA, defines a crime victim as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Franklin criminal offense", FCVRA § 55(b). Both Valerie and Sarah Karth are victims of crime under this statute because they were directly and proximately harmed by Defendant Greg Clegane's unlawful sale of firework's to a minor.
The actions of Defendant caused the minor in this instance to have possession of professional grade fireworks. If Defendant had not supplied the fireworks to the minor, Valerie and Sarah's injuries would not have happened. The Franklin Court of Appeal has stated that a direct causal connection between Defendant's conduct and the victim's injuries satisfy the condition that a defendant's action are a cause in fact of a victim's injury, thereby making a victim's injury a direct harm of a defendant's conduct. State v. Jones (Fr. Ct. App. 2003). Valerie was directly harmed when the fireworks sold illegaly by the Defendant were set off in an unsafe manner, striking and injuring Valerie and also setting her garage on fire. In State v. Berg, (Fr. Ct. App. 2012), defendant illegally supplied alcohol to a friend under the legal drinking age, who then drove under the influence and crashed, killing herself and another passenger. In Berg Defendant was found to be a direct cause of the passenger victim's harm because he supplied alcohol to the driver who then drove intoxicated. Had the driver been able to obtain alcohol legally this case may have had a different outcome. Here, as in Berg, but for Defendant's conduct, Valerie's injuries would not have happened. If not for Defendant's action supplying the professional grade fireworks illegally to a minor, the minor would not have had access to the fireworks and without the fireworks being set off Valerie would not have been injured.
Sarah Karth's injuries are directly attributable to Defendant as well. The FCVRA allows for restitution "in a case of an offense resulting in physical, psychiatric, or psychological injury to a victim". FCVRA § 56(b)(2). Sarah Karth's injuries are psychological and she is capable of recovering under the FCVRA. Defendant's actions were a direct cause of Valerie's injuries, and Valerie's injuries were a direct cause of Sarah's psychological injuries. But for Defendant's actions, Valerie would not have been hurt. But for Valerie's serious injuries, Sarah would not have been depressed and distraught and have a need to seek help from a therapist. The Franklin Court of Appeals in State v. Hackett (Fr. Ct. App. 2003) found that despite "multiple links in the causal chain", Hackett's conduct resulted in property damage and was a cause in fact to the injury in that case. In Hackett the Defendant procured supplies to codefendants to use in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Defendant has knowledge of what the codefendants' plans to use the supplies were, and even though Defendant did not start the fire causing injury to a victim, but for his supplying the products the fire would not have happened. The Court has found that even though there were multiple acts leading up to the fire, the Defendant's conduct was a cause in fact of the property damage. Here, as in Hackett, there were multiple links in the causal chain, but they lead back to Defendant. The Defendant supplied the fireworks, the fireworks injured Valerie, Valerie's injuries are serious and cause stress to her family, causing her sister Sarah to be injured psychologically and to seek medical help. Defendant is a direct cause of Sarah's unjuries, and Sarah should be classified as a victim per the FCVRA.
The second part of the causal analysis here is whether Defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of the victim's injuries. Proximate cause deals with the idea of equity and fairness, whether it would be equitable and fair to find Defendant's actions a proximate cause of victims' injuries. The Court finds that foreseeability is at the heart of proximate cause. Jones. In Berg, the court states that a harm is foreseeable then is is "within the zone of risks resulting from the defendant's conduct for which the defendant should be found liable." In this case, Defendant could have reasonably foreseen that sale of professional grade fireworks to a minor could result in physical injury to others and also to injury to members of that victims family. Valerie's harm was foreseeable. Sarah's harm was foreseeable. Defendant is in a business that sets standards for sale of his goods. Fireworks are dangerous, and anyone in that business should know of the dangers. Defendant runs three (3) other firework retailers, a reasonable person running four fireworks stores will have knowledge of the dangers, and also will comply with laws regarding the sale of said fireworks. Defendant should have known to check the customer's identification to ensure proper sale of his product. Defendant should have known of the foreseeable risks when the minor told him he was going to show his friends, and also that the fireworks would be a surprise. Even if Defendant did not know that the customer was a minor, he should have checked identification as any reasonable person dealing in goods of this manner would. Fairness and equity require the Court to hold Defendant responsilbe for his felony, and also responsible to the victim's of the felony. What is also foreseeable is a family members anguish when dealing with a traumatic injury. Sara Karth must helop with the care of her incapacitated sister. This is a sister who was independant up until her injuries. This is a sister who was in a coma for months, and is still incapacitated in the hospital. The stress and anxiety caused to Sarah by her sister's injuries are a foreseeable injury in this situation. Both Karth sisters deserve justice, and both Karth sisters were proximately harmed by Defendant's felonous sale of fireworks.
II. The Court must allow Sarah Karth to read both Valerie Karth's and her own victim impact statement at Defendant's sentencing because the FCVRA Act extends that right to victims of criminal offenses.
Sarah Karth should be allowed to read her own victim impact statement at Defendant's sentencing because she is considered a victim of Defendant's crime. The FCVRA gives crime victim's rights to be reasonably heard at proceedings in disctrict court involving sentencing. FCVRA § 55(a)(4). Sarah Karth has the right as a victim to read her impact statement, one that she has submitted to the Court ahead of time. Her request is reasonable and should be allowed.
Even if the Court finds that Sarah is not a victim under the FCVRA, her sister Valerie is. Valerie is incapacitated in a hospital at this point and is unable to read her own victim impact statement. The FCVRA allows for incapacitated victims to be represented in Court by family members. FCVRA § 55(b)(2). Sarah is the proper representative to read Valerie's impact statement because she is a family member, and Valerie's father has passed away and her mother is too frail to perform this function. Public policy favors allowing victims of criminal offenses to be heard.
III. The Court must require Defendant to pay restitution to the victims because they are victims of the felony committed by Defendant, and Defendant has the ability to pay.
The FCVRA finds that a court "shall order that the defendant make restitution to any victim of such offense." FCVRA § 56(a). State v. Humphrey, (Fr. Ct. App. 2008) interprets this statute as applying to any "crime victim" and a purpose of the statute is forcing Defendant to pay restitution. In this case the victims have suffered physical and psychological injury, as well at property damage. These are all categories the FCVRA requires an able Defendant to make restitution on. The act further qualifies medical and related professional services as well as loss of income under reasonable costs to be repaid. The FCVRA sets forth a rebuttable presumption that Defendant cannot pay, as well as considerations of the Court. The Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he cannot pay. The total damages set forth by the victims are $200,500.00. These damages include medical bills, therapist's bills, and loss of income to the victims. Defendant has not shown that he cannot afford to pay, as required by the statute. As per Humphrey the Court must make a serious inquiry into the factors set forth by the FCVRA. The first of these is the public policy favoring restitution to victims. The public policy does favor restitution and the Court should consider the victim's damages. The second factory is financial burden placed on the victim and those providing services. There has been a great financial burden placed on Valerie, from thousands of dollars of out of pocket medical expenses to loss of income. There has also been a financial burden placed on Sarah due to her care of Valerie, and her psychologist expenses should be considered as well. The third and dinal factor is financial resources of the Defendant. The Defendant has not shown that he is unable to make restitution. Defendant owns four (4) different fireworks retailers. Defendant cannot claim that he is insolvent and unable to pay. The Court must order Defendant to pay restitution. The victims should not be forced to suffer further because of his actions.
Gajendra’s Prayers of Surrender
In this chapter, the prayers by Gajendra, the King of the elephants, are described. It appears that the King of the elephants was formerly a human being known as Indradyumna and that he learned a prayer to the Supreme Lord. Fortunately he remembered that prayer and began to chant it to himself. First he offered his respectful obeisances to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and because of his awkward position in having been attacked by the crocodile, he expressed his inability to recite prayers nicely. Nonetheless, he tried to chant the mantra and expressed himself in appropriate words as follows.
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the cause of all causes, the original person from whom everything has emanated. He is the root cause of this cosmic manifestation, and the entire cosmos rests in Him, yet He is transcendental, for He does everything in relation to the material world through His external energy. He is eternally situated in the spiritual world — in Vaikuṇṭha or Goloka Vṛndāvana — where He engages in His eternal pastimes. The material world is a product of His external energy, or material nature, which works under His direction. It is thus that creation, maintenance and annihilation take place. The Lord exists at all times. This is extremely difficult for a nondevotee to understand. Although the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead is perceivable by everyone, only the pure devotees perceive His presence and activities. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely free from material birth, death, old age and disease. Indeed, if anyone in this material world takes shelter of Him, he also becomes situated in that transcendental position. For the satisfaction of the devotee (paritrāṇāya sādhūnām), the Lord appears and exhibits His activities. His appearance, disappearance and other pastimes are not at all material. One who knows this secret can enter the kingdom of God. In the Lord, all opposing elements are adjusted. The Lord is situated in everyone’s heart. He is the controller of everything, He is the witness of all activities, and He is the original source of all living entities. Indeed, all living entities are parts of Him, for He is the origin of Mahā-Viṣṇu, who is the source of the living entities within this material world. The Lord can observe the activities of our senses, which can work and achieve material results because of His mercy. Although He is the original source of everything, He is untouched by any of His by-products. In this way He is like a gold mine, which is the source of gold in ornaments and yet is different from the ornaments themselves. The Lord is worshiped by the method prescribed in the Pañcarātras. He is the source of our knowledge, and He can give us liberation. Therefore it is our duty to understand Him according to the instructions of devotees, in particular the spiritual master. Although for us the mode of goodness is covered, by following the instructions of saintly persons and the spiritual master we can be freed from material clutches.
“The self-effulgent material form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is adored by nondevotees, His impersonal form is adored by those advanced in spiritual knowledge, and His feature as the localized Supersoul is appreciated by yogīs. But His original form as a person is understood only by devotees. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is competent to dissipate the darkness of the conditioned soul through His instructions in Bhagavad-gītā. He is the ocean of transcendental qualities and can be understood only by liberated persons freed from the bodily concept of life. By His causeless mercy, the Lord can rescue the conditioned soul from the material clutches and enable him to return home, back to Godhead, to become His personal associate. Nonetheless, a pure devotee does not aspire to go back to Godhead he is simply satisfied with executing his service in this material world. A pure devotee does not ask anything from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His only prayer is to be freed from the material conception of life and to be engaged in the Lord’s transcendental loving service.”
In this way the King of the elephants, Gajendra, offered prayers directly to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without mistaking Him for one of the demigods. None of the demigods came to see him, not even Brahmā or Śiva. Rather, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, seated on Garuḍa, personally appeared before him. Gajendra, by lifting his trunk, offered obeisances to the Lord, and the Lord immediately pulled him from the water along with the crocodile who had captured his leg. Then the Lord killed the crocodile and thus rescued Gajendra.
Shiv Ling Kya Hai?
The Meaning of Shiv Lingam
Click on the image for an enlarged view
Meaning of Snake, Trishul, Rudraksha and Moon Donned By Shiv
The Energy That Powers All Beings, Planets and Universes…Everything
Red Flags for Financial Fraud and Divorce
Evaluating changes in secrecy, lifestyle, and income can lead to important circumstantial clues that may lead one spouse to believe that fraud may be taking place. The most difficult element to prove in fraud cases – fraudulent intent – is usually proved circumstantially. It can be that “aha!” moment when faced with evidence that cannot be ignored any longer. Typical red flags include items such as:
- Change in the level of confidentiality between spouses.
- Mail being rerouted to an office or new mail being received.
- Unexplained changes in habitual behavior.
- Pattern changes due to addictions.
- Spending more time on the computer, closing the screen when the spouse walks in.
- Getting caught in lying or deceptive behavior.
- Concealing details of transactions from the spouse.
- Unusual and repeated cash withdrawals from bank accounts.
- Loaning or giving money to family and friends without spouse’s knowledge or consent.
The greater the number of red flags, the more likely that there is something fishy about the family’s finances. The longer a spouse has access to perpetrating a fraud, the easier it is to get away with it the more time that passes, the more difficult it can be to access certain records or trace funds.
The Fraud Triangle
During the 1940s at Indiana University, Dr. Donald Cressey created the “Fraud Triangle” hypothesis to describe a new type of criminal: the white-collar fraudster. Similar to the idea of a three-legged stool (which cannot stand without all three legs), Dr. Cressey theorized that there are three elements that must be present for a person with no criminal history to commit fraud:
- Perceived Opportunity. The person believes he/she can commit the indiscretion without being caught.
- Pressure. This is the motive, usually of a social or financial nature. This is a problem the perpetrator believes he/she cannot share with anyone.
- Rationalization. This takes place before the indiscretion. The rationalization is necessary so the individual can maintain his/her self-concept as an honest person caught in a bad set of circumstances.
Trusted persons can become trust violators at any point during the marriage. Some start lying and cheating soon after the wedding, others don’t start until decades into the marriage, and others never go down this road. However, when someone sees him/herself as having a problem that he/she can’t share, then applies a rationalization to the thought of committing a dishonest act to secretly resolve the issue, he/she is on the path to immoral or illegal behavior.
Financial Fraud and Divorce: Dissipation Issues
A type of financial fraud specific to divorce is dissipation. Dissipation occurs when one spouse, essentially, wastes property or money without the knowledge or consent of the other spouse. There are many legal definitions of what constitutes dissipation, but they all involve minimizing marital assets by hiding, depleting, or diverting them. Some examples include:
- Money spent on extramarital relationships (hotels, trips, gifts, etc.).
- Gambling losses.
- Transferring or “loaning” cash or property to others.
- Selling expensive assets for much less than they’re worth.
- Spending down business cash account.
- Excessive spending, including hobbies.
- Residence falling into foreclosure
- Ruining personal items.
- Work tools left out to rust.
- Destroying or failing to maintain marital property.
If there has been an intentional dissipation of marital assets, the innocent spouse may be entitled to a larger share of the remaining marital property this is something to discuss with an experienced lawyer.
Other Financial Fraud Issues
Aside from dissipation, other types of fraud can be discovered during divorce by investigating the family finances. There are cases of forgeries and questionable documents, tax fraud, loan fraud, and insurance fraud – but the majority of divorce fraud is centered within the framework of misappropriation of assets. Before launching an investigation, ask yourself whether there has been transparency and truthfulness about finances during your marriage and divorce. Did both of you take an active role in managing the money and taxes together, or did you allow your spouse to handle the finances during your marriage?
One of the easiest ways to prevent fraud in a marriage is to treat finances like businesses do: using a checks-and-balances system where both spouses see, understand, and review the finances. Holding family members accountable for missing assets eliminates the perceived opportunity and takes away the ability to commit fraud. Although this advice may come too late for you, deterrence and vigilance is the best way to stop financial fraud from starting in the first place.
Why Hindus worship tree, snake,cow as God. Isn’t it funny?
Vibhuti yoga of Bhagavad Gita answers this. By declaring that His glory present in some of the selected things, beings and living beings, God is declaring His ubiquity in this chapter. It explains where exactly the God’s glory is found in this material world. Even the angels (devathas) use the same energy or power of God. Check these verses from Bhagavad Gita Vibhuti yoga:
Of the Vedas (my glory is present in) I am the Sama Veda of the demigods (my glory is present in)I am Indra, the king of heaven (which is not exactly the ultimate eternal heaven of Islam) of the senses I am the mind and in living beings I am the living force [consciousness].
Of all the Rudras I am (my glory is present in) Lord Shiva, of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera], of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.
Of priests, O Arjuna, know Me to be the chief, Brhaspati. Of generals I am Kartikeya (Tamilians worship as Murugan), and of bodies of water I am the ocean.
Of the great sages I am Bhrgu of vibrations I am the transcendental om. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himalayas.
Of all trees (my glory is present in) I am the banyan tree (this is the reason why we worship it as glory is present and can be used as interface to worship. Most religious use some interface to worship God. Muslims use the direction as interface. That is the difference. Why don’t they worship in other direction?), and of the sages among the demigods I am Narada. Of the Gandharvas I am Citraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila.
Of horses know Me to be Uccaihsrava, produced during the churning of the ocean for nectar. Of lordly elephants I am Airavata, and among men I am the monarch.
Of weapons I am the thunderbolt among cows I am the surabhi (a heavenly cow and the earthly cows are its descendants). Of causes for procreation I am Kandarpa, the god of love, and of serpents I am Vasuki (this is why we worship Vasuki the serpent angel in some parts of India).
Of the many-hooded Nagas I am Ananta, and among the aquatics I am the demigod Varuna. Of departed ancestors I am Aryama, and among the dispensers of law I am Yama, the demigod of death.
Have you see any Vegetarian Crocodile Which Only Eat vegetarian food like rice which is offered to God (next level of halal in vegetarian food also) and do not eat even a fish in the pond it lives? By nature, a Crocodile is a carnivorous animal. Do you agree that natural law can be reversed only by one and only God? In the temple shown in the video below you can see this crocodile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWUHG3dIMIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlMOCng3YDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb0J44gBbEU In islam there is a concept of Baraka (Arabic: بركة “blessing of God”). It is an invisible attachment of Divine goodness to a thing, even if the divinity occurs in small quality. In Hinduism, we worship even tree if we find divinity in that. There is scriptural support for this also.
For more info check for authentic reference at https://asitis.com/10/23.html
Mineral wool products, composed of stone wool fibers and organic binder, are used in many construction applications. Among all their beneficial properties, the most important requirement is safety for human health, such as when fibers are inhaled. For determining long-term toxicity, biosolubility and biopersistence studies in vitro and in vivo are essential. In vitro fiber dissolution rate, which depends on the medium, fiber composition, and the surface available for dissolution, is a key parameter in determining biopersistence of the material in vivo. We investigated how organic binder (phenol-urea-formaldehyde), which can partially shield fiber surfaces from the solution, influences fiber dissolution kinetics in synthetic lung fluid (modified Gamble’s solution) at pH 4.5 and temperature 37 °C, in vitro. Dissolution experiments were made in batch and continuous flow using stone wool fibers with typical insulation product binder amounts (0–6 wt %), applied by the standard industrial process. Dissolution rates were determined from element concentrations in the reacted solution, and changes in fiber surface composition and morphology were monitored. Stone wool fiber dissolution was close to stoichiometric and was similar, whether or not the material contained binder. The high dissolution rate (508 ng of fiber/cm 2 /h) is explained by Al and Fe complexing agents, that is, citrate and tartrate, in the synthetic lung fluid. The organic binder mainly forms micrometer-sized discrete droplets on the fiber surfaces rather than a homogeneous thick coating. During in vitro tests, fibers with organic binder preferentially dissolved in the areas free of binder, forming cavities, whereas the untreated fibers dissolved homogeneously. Propagation of cavities undermined the binder droplets, leading to complete fiber dissolution. Thus, presence of organic binder on stone wool fibers, produced by the standard industrial process, had no measurable effect on dissolution rate in synthetic lung fluid containing Al and Fe complexing agents.
This is Hell, and We are the Fallen Angels
Agree. People will believe what make them confortable. You just have to read the reply before yours to understand.
What about this viewpoint:
The physical creation where we are in physical bodies was created by the true God as an act of mercy to give us a chance to repent and return to our pristine spiritual status in the pure spiritual realms.
This repentance is not possible in the astral world or in the causal world or in any of the sub planes within them.
It is only possible in the material world while in a human body.
A "fall" occurred while we were still spirit beings before the material universe was even created.
In various mystical teachings you read about how rare it is to get a human body, and that it is a unique opportunity where we can choose to return to our true spiritual home.
Being limited to a human body greatly limits the damage we can do which we started doing when we had more power in a superior body.
There is still damage people can do to themselves and those who are receptive by the abuse of mental power. and of course many abuse physical power, and also manipulate and control others emotionally and psychologically.
But if they are still in a human body there is still hope if they choose to repent and return to the true God.
According to some mystical teachings the true spiritual creation is pure and eternal.
But outside the true spiritual creation (at lower and lower vibrations) are various subtle levels such as the causal realm, etheric realm, astral realm. and eventually the physical realm.
Separating the spiritual creation from all these lower places is a great dark void.
As you enter each level there is a god in that domain that is sort of like a transformer that filters the energy coming down from above.
Within all these planes are many sub planes, and the astral plane consists of heaven worlds and hell worlds. but it is all still not the true spiritual world.
Many psychics and many drug users etc. only experience parts of the astral world heaven or hell worlds, not the true spiritual world. The astral is only temporal as is the causal and physical etc. Ones stay there is brief compared to the eternity of the eternal spiritual creation.
And just as the physical creation is subject to eternal recurrence experiencing dissolution and then starts over etc. so the astral and causal worlds experience dissolution and start over (at longer intervals then physical dissolution).
And souls who have not repented are in a unconscious state during dissolution and grand dissolution until everything is created once again, and their opportunity comes again to be born as a human with a chance to repent.
Whether there is a limit to repentance and one is eventually cut off with no more chance to be born as a human, I don't know.
While it is today and you are in a human body you still have a chance to return to God and the true spiritual creation depending on how you use your allotted energy in thought, speech, action etc.
Once we are safe in the spiritual creation after repentance there is no danger in every falling again.
So, human life is a unique opportunity where our power is limited and we experience suffering and affliction at times all for the purpose of waking us up.
These things can be avoided as we live life from the higher aspect of our consciousness (heart chakra and higher) instead of living a sensual life alone (lower chakras below the heart chakra).
Turn your attention and love and repentance to the true God through Christ (through your Christ Consciousness), and then follow God's guidance out of all the traps created by lower powers for the purpose of dragging you into deeper darkness with themselves by causing you to waste your life away in useless and meaningless pursuits that keep you to busy and too mentally and emotionally involved to get serious about repentance and seeking God.
Why do think there is such emphasis on the next new invention, media, drugs, sex, alcohol, emotional relationships, stuff that causes you to fluctuate between happiness and sadness and so on?
It is all to keep you in the lower chakras instead of developing your communion with God through the spark of Christ consciousness which is the only door that leads to the true spiritual creation and realization of our oneness with the true God.. (I need to hear all this and then some. ).
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
Hmmm in a strange way you are right.
I have wondered if we are the fallen angels too, and that the original sin, eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was actually our decision to fall to Earth, to incarnate into this physical realm-- a choice each of us made, out of a desire to experience this existence. We ate from the tree, the human family tree, when we took over a developing embryo en utero. We entered this earthly plane with a blank slate for a brain, and limited senses, so we do not remember what/where we came from. Hence, we start off completely separated from knowledge of the Divine, and unable to fully perceive its existence. We are at the mercy of our environment and experiences and insights in order to find the Truth. Along the way, we are exposed to good and evil (we knew we would be, and the sin may have been our pride in our own ability to be untouched by the evil) but this is the choice we made to have the experience.
I do not believe God wants us to suffer. I believe He mourns the separation and longs for our return to the fold. He has 'gotten through' to some of us (prophets/mystics who teach The Way back to the Divine.)
These are thoughts that have come to me, and I do not intend to push them on anyone. For me, it solves the issue of Adam and Eve eating fruit from a forbidden tree, and all of humanity sharing the blame for what they chose. In this way, each one of us on this Earth ate from the tree. Theirs was the original sin. but that just means they were the first to do it.
originally posted by: CaticusMaximus
I believe this to be the truth of who we really are, and where we really are. Its not taught to people this way because it would demand personal responsibility be taken, and when one is out of the victim mentality, they stop looking for an external hero, and realize that their salvation is their own to manifest.
And that leads to a lot of hurt egos in religious hierarchies when church numbers (and subsequently cash donations) drop, not to mention a lot of souls free from the illusion of this reality, trapped no more, free to go home.
Before the physical plane came into existence, there was only what we would call now the spiritual realm. It was (and is) infinite and eternal, with no beginning nor end. It was a place of substance, connection, and Truth. The Light of God was there, and we were in it, and of it.
At some point, Pride manifested, and the roots of evil began to grow. Pride and separation are inexorably linked, and being separated from the spiritual plane, a new place was formed that we call the physical. It was and is the inverse of the spiritual it is a place of insubstantiality, disconnection, and illusion.
Im reminded of the core of Hell in Dantes Inferno a very, very cold place, where the Light of God does not shine, and the souls there are frozen in darkness. Our universe is a little different, of course. We have artificial lights that mimic the Light that was once everywhere doting spots throughout the universe, shedding a dim, doomed light, separated from one another by incredible distances.
But most of this plane is quite similar. Unless you are very close to a star, it is exceedingly dark in the universe, it is extraordinarily cold, and no matter where you go, it is almost completely empty, with only the illusion of substance.
There is nothing really here intrinsic to this plane except Pride. It is hollow, with nothing underneath, and when we arrived, it was complete darkness. What is seen now is a projection of the collective that occupies this nothingness. A projection that attempts to simulate what was lost so long ago substance, interconnection, Truth, in an attempt to remake what was, is, and ever will be, into something better and prove superiority, as is Prides only desire to do. Essentially we are still in that complete darkness, with only the illusion, really the de lusion, that we are in the light.
Getting a little more "down to Earth" (but I promise not for long), it only takes a passing glance at the civilization we have manifested to see Pride as the self-evident underlying root factor in all the innate evils of the world, and the evils that we inflict on one another as a matter of course.
Pride is the root system of the tree of evil. It is mostly below the surface, with Greed being a most visible massive trunk, with a myriad of branches and leaves that can take nearly any form. But it all stems from Pride, and is all given existence through Pride.
Thats why it doesnt matter how many times, or how outstandingly you tear down a system of corruption. Tearing down a system of corruption is just like cutting down a resilient tree that only needs its roots to survive. No matter how many times you cut down that tree of greed, corruption, oppression, lies, deceit, treason, etc, as long as the roots still exist, it WILL regrow, and manifest again, albeit in a different form than it did last time. You need to remove the roots if ever those manifestations of Pride will cease coming into being.
No evil could be perpetrated if the fundamental assumption of "I am better than you" did not exist at that evils very core.
The tricky part is that core the roots of Pride, reside in your Heart. If given fertile soil and water, the roots will remain alive, and begin to regrow what was torn down.
This is reflected at all levels of humanity (and really in all of nature itself, as nature is really nothing but a black, empty mirror that casts back the image we collectively project out to it). Throughout history, whenever a wicked society or civilization is risen up against, and overthrown/destroyed, or broken away from. that wickedness never seems to stay gone, does it? The visible structure was removed, but then another structure replaces it, gradually (or quickly) taking on its predecessors attributes as it grows again, in a new time, in a new place, in a new form. Pride defines this vacuous reality at all levels, which should tell us something about the nature of Pride itself, and the fruits that it is able to bear.
I could not think of a better manifestation of Hell than the one we have created for ourselves. An infinite void of perpetual and unending darkness, with naught but our own madness casting shared hallucinations into the nothing. A self-imposed exile from the greater Light of God the unending and eternal fount of everything, from which all things come, even the idea of Pride and separation.
We are all Fallen Angels that at some point chose to embrace this idea of Pride. You simply cannot end up in Hell any other way, unless you willingly cut yourself off from Heaven.
Every great spiritual teacher all give us the same key to Heaven, to use, or to cast aside at our own discretion. Everyone of them worth their salt is telling us the same thing, in different ways: Pride is our anchor here, and it is up to us and us alone on an individual basis, to release that anchor we grip so tightly, as if "hanging on for dear life".
Ironically, its "life" that is holding you in Hell.
And it is the gazing into the void outside yourself in "life" that is leading you to, aptly put, 'dead' ends looking for your salvation inside the emptiness of Hell in corrupted books, in dead people, in alive people, in not-ever-real-people, in materialism, in technology, in ETs, etc.
The Kingdom of God is within you. You were born of The Light, and ARE The Light. Seeking that Light within is where youll find God, and is where youll come to know yourself once again, and when you come to know yourself, you will come to know all others as well. Youll see we are all children of God, and your Heart will no longer be fertile ground for the roots of Pride to grow into, and the next time Death calls to you, it will be not another death, but your resurrection that will be at hand.
Even though we are the Fallen, it is not forever. Ultimate redemption is your destiny, and the doors to Heaven are never shut. Indeed, Heaven would not be complete without you.
A critical review of manufacturing processes used in regenerated cellulosic fibres: viscose, cellulose acetate, cuprammonium, LiCl/DMAc, ionic liquids, and NMMO based lyocell
It is essential for textile manufacturing industries to invent new resources, composites and industrial technologies, which are environmentally acceptable and can fulfill the consumer necessities. Therefore, in the recent years, large number of research is focused on optimizing and modifying the fibre manufacturing processes. The recent advances in technology have allowed modifying these processes through various techniques and novel raw materials/additives to manufacture the fibres. Among the various fibre regeneration processes, the NMMO based lyocell process has numerous advantages over conventional rayon fibres and it has great potential to fulfil the environmental and customer requirements. The present review delivers a complete account of all the six types of cellulose regeneration processes namely viscose, cellulose acetate, cuprammonium, LiCl/DMAc as well as lyocell processes based on ionic liquid or NMMO. Additionally, the review considers latest developments with process technology, cellulose swelling and dissolution phenomena, factors affecting the lyocell process and future prospects of the lyocell fibres.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.