Ricardo L. Rodriguez, 33, threatened a Lubbock police officer who was investigating his involvement in a June 5 hit-and-run car accident on the 1500 block of 42nd Street., according to the documents.

He told the officer he would "put a hit" on him through his gang, the Mexican Mafia, a police complaint reads. He also reportedly told the officer he would "wipe out" his wife and "----" him up when he got out of jail.

Texas prosecutors have claimed Hispanic inmates created the gang - also known as the Texas Mexican Mafia or Mexikanemi or La Eme - in the state prison system in the mid-1980s to protect themselves from other inmates.

Rodriguez was arrested earlier this month for failing to report the damage to the car on 42nd Street. A Lubbock County district attorney filed retaliation charges against him on Monday.

Retaliation is a third degree felony and carries a possible punishment of two to 10 years, said Capt. Greg Stevens, a spokesperson with the Lubbock Police Department.

A person can be convicted for making retaliatory threats to public servants, witnesses and informants under the Texas Penal Code.

Rodriguez is being held at the Lubbock County Jail on an $18,500 bond for his alleged crimes.

The requirements of state anti-stalking statutes generally require proof of a "course of conduct" and distinct threats by the offender that cause an actual fear of death or injury on the part of the victim. The former requires that the offender must have engaged in a persistent course of purposeful action amounting to a pattern of behavior. This may consist of nonconsensual communication, for example, obsessive surveillance, lying in wait, or physical harassment. A majority of states specify the number of incidents required to constitute a pattern of behavior or course of conduct.

2) surveillance

3) always seeking physical touches ( kisses, hugs, or asking or hinting for sex)
4) cyberstalking ( harrassing or unwanted emails, text or instant messages )
5) If they chose to hide behind God but everything else in their life speaks otherwise
6) They think they need to rescue you from "everyone else"
7) false rumors are being spreaded about you
8) threats to harm the alleged victim, someone the victim loves, family or themselves
9) damage to your personal property
10) Sending someone else to feel you out and speak on their behalf ( he's a great guy!)

Stalking Behavior

There are anti-stalking laws in place, both federal and state, designed to protect those being stalked. Under these laws, perpetrators can be charged with stalking for repeatedly:

• Following or appearing within the sight of another.
• Approaching or confronting another individual in a public or private place.
• Appearing at the work place or residence of another.
• Entering or remaining on an individual's property.
• Contacting a person by telephone.
• Sending postal mail or e-mail to another.

Civil protection orders. The first line of defense for victims is a civil protection or restraining order that has the effect of enjoining the stalking behavior. These orders are designed to restrict an offender from making contact with the victim, or from appearing at a particular place, such as a victim's home or work. Sanctions include contempt of court, fines, and jail time or prison sentences. In a number of states, including California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia, anti-stalking legislation has prompted more serious sanctions for violations of protection orders.

Eligibility restrictions for restraining orders in many states, however, severely limit their protective value. For example, some states require a legally recognizable relationship between the victim and offender (e.g., marriage) for a restraining order to be issued. Others will not issue an order unless there is a finding of actual physical abuse (Bradfield). Beyond such restrictions, restraining orders are far less than a guarantee of protection. Commentators note that: (1) approximately four out of every five orders are violated; (2) less than 20 percent of these violations result in an arrest; (3) there is an insufficient law enforcement commitment to protective orders; and (4) taking out a protective order, at best, does little to protect against future victimization and, at worst, may incite a stalker to retaliate against his victim (Walker, 1993; Patton).

Extending the application of related statutes. Until recently, the discretionary use of criminal statutes provided a remedy for the deficiencies of protective orders, as well as for the absence of carefully drafted antistalking laws. Over time, prosecutors have come to rely on various offenses found in most state penal statutes—statutes prohibiting harassment; terrorist threats; threatening or intimidating behavior; and telephone threats or harassment, letter threats, and threats using electronic technologies such as e-mail or facsimile. Critics have called these statutes inadequate given their failure to: (1) account for the repetitive nature of stalking, which is a primary feature of the offense; (2) consider the full range of bizarre behaviors found within stalking activity; and (3) recognize anything less than an explicit threat as a crime. Moreover, most of these statutes have narrowly drawn intentionality requirements that further limit their application to stalking cases. Finally, the sanctions associated with these statutes are often insignificant and, when applied, can have the effect of trivializing the serious crime of stalking (Bradfield).

State anti-stalking statutes. Antistalking statutes, prompted by the brutal murder of actress Rebecca Schaffer in California in 1989, attempt to address some of the limitations found with civil protection orders and related statutes. Many are drafted with an explicit consideration of the behavioral idiosyncrasies that characterize stalking offenses; without a requirement that the stalker has committed a violent act; with less significant mens rea or intentionality provisions; and with increased sanctions. In a majority of jurisdictions, a first-time offender may be indicted on either felony or misdemeanor charges; repeat stalking is most often prosecuted as a felony.

The requirements of state anti-stalking statutes generally require proof of a "course of conduct" and distinct threats by the offender that cause an actual fear of death or injury on the part of the victim. The former requires that the offender must have engaged in a persistent course of purposeful action amounting to a pattern of behavior. This may consist of nonconsensual communication, for example, obsessive surveillance, lying in wait, or physical harassment. A majority of states specify the number of incidents required to constitute a pattern of behavior or course of conduct.

Referral     &    Fax Number    

http://www.waynefoc.com/faq

FOC Contact Number - (313) 224-5300

FOC-HELP@3rdcc.org

FOC Main Fax (313) 237-9290           Mail FOC e-mail address and fax number.

E-mails and faxes received will be directed to the appropriate department within the FOC for processing.

Interactive Voice Response System

Or by mail:

645 Griswold

Detroit, MI 48226        (313) 224-5300          

Non-custodial Parent Program  (313) 237-9231           Referrals to the NCP program.

Order Data Entry          (313) 237-9273           Fax Court Orders for data

entry in MiCSES.

Felony Non-support     (313) 237-9305           Felony non-support program

referrals.

FOC Executive Office  (313) 237-9218           Fax communications with the Executive Office, legislative contacts, FOC grievances, and inquiries from the State Court Administrative Office.

Enforcement     (313) 237-9243           Enforcement requests, new employment information.

Interstate Support         (313) 237-9230           Interstate support referrals post judgment.

Case Establishment       (313) 237-9303           Prejudgment matters for Paternity, Family Support and Interstate cases.

Legal Division   (313) 237-9225           Faxes for FOC Attorneys.

FOCAttorneyLine@3rdcc.org

Or by phone: (313) 224-5295              E-mail or telephone for use by the private bar with case related inquiries.

Modification Review     (313) 967-2284           Fax information regarding modification review notices and pending divorce investigations.

Case Closure    (313) 237-9286           Fax documentation in response to a case closure notice.

Jim Brown and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 4/20/2009 6:00:00 AM

A vote is looming this week in Congress on a bill that one conservative activist warns would not only silence Christian opposition to homosexuality, but also would legitimize deviant forms of "sexual orientation."

A markup vote is expected Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee on the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.  House Democrats only have to give 24 hours' notice before the vote.  The measure (H.R. 1913) sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) would add homosexuals and transgender people to the list of classes federally protected from so-called "hate crimes."

Story continues below ...

What do you think is the primary motive of those who

push for 'hate crimes' laws?

Vote in our poll

 
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, says the bill is a serious threat to religious freedom.
 
"Your pastor could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a hate crime if it passes and become law," she warns. "This so-called 'hate crimes' bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute, and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth pastors -- you name it -- or anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truth found in the Bible."
 
TVC says H.R. 1913 broadly defines "intimidation" -- and offers up this example: "A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.'" Under those circumstances, says the group, the pastor could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime."
 
The legislation has another "serious problem," the pro-family group says, because Congress has failed to define the term "sexual orientation." Consequently, says TVC, 30 sexual orientations (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association) will "arguably be protected" under the legislation. "Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states or can result in death," notes the group's website.
 
In addition, TVC argues the bill is based on a fraudulent premise: that there is an epidemic of so-called "hate crimes" against "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" persons that needs federal involvement for local law enforcement officials.
 
Lafferty says unless Christians in America act, the hate crimes bill could be on President Obama's desk in three to four weeks at the most.

After Tuesday’s shocking “Not Guilty Plea” in the Los Angeles courtroom Chris Brown remains relatively calm. However the bright spotlights of the “Victim” Rhianna remain shadowed. She returned home to the LAX airport after her trip to Barbados to more spotlight and gave a thumbs up in the anxiety filled moment. As paparazzi gathered around for a photo opp.

Rhianna continues to state her intentions are not to enter the court room however she will if called. Rhianna’s father on the other hand is upset with the plea and offered a loud opinion of the young superstar stating Brown “Needs to stop being in denial” the concerned father continues to stand by his daughter. Continuing to say “I just want to see justice going in the right direction.” Ronald Fenty has shown his support to Rhianna thought this ordeal and is a concerned parent looking for closure.

Brown continues to deny charges even after the Rhianna stated he was the alleged assailant all along. The attorneys will return to court on April 29^th to set a date for the pre-liminary hearing – will Chris Brown attend.

The judge stated his presence is not needed. No one is sure what the hearing will bring or what the young singer plans to do if convicted of the two felonies; but Rhianna is waiting to get her life back. According to Donald Etra Rhianna’s attorney who stated:

“She would be pleased if it was over quickly.”

As for the Chris Brown only time will tell.

go to http://www.venusmodelsonline.com for all your event staffing needs!

 go to http://www.dirget.com to post free classified ad sites

Driving through Tenaha, Texas, doesn't pay for some

Email Picture

Howard Witt / Chicago Tribune

The Tenaha, Texas welcome sign on March 3. The tiny east Texas town is making money by pulling over black motorists and seizing their cash and property without charging them with any crime.

On February 3rd, Venice Brown accepted a plea bargain of Attempted Gang Assault with 26 months -time served, plus two years probation. Unfortunately, this means Venice is still stuck with a felony, however she is no longer at risk for any more prison time.

Renata, was not given a plea. Her next court date is March 4th. It is still very important to send letters to the District Attorney's office, urging him to stop the further prosecution of Renata Hill.

However, Venice is still in need of a civil attorney. Dwayne Buckle's civil law suit of $5M against the seven women, is moving forward. Currently, Venice is the only one without legal representation. If you or anyone you know would be interested, please email us HERE with your information.