California Statutory Power Of Attorney Form Witnesses: Fill & Download for Free

This question is probably impossible to answer responsibly because even someone who knows everything about every online will service doesn’t know enough about your situation. Some services will be more helpful than others, some more comprehensive in certain areas than others, some will cost more than others and so on.However, the question of what web site to use may be putting the cart before the horse.For one thing, it’s often not as much about the assets as to what you want to DO with the assets in the event of your death, your spouse’s death, or your “simultaneous” deaths (in most states, this means death within 120 hours of each other unless that would cause the estate to escheat to the state due to how the will is worded). Do you know this with high degree of certainty?Have you identified individual(s) who are willing to serve as executor and whom you trust to do so? The older they are, the more contingent executors you probably want to recruit — people tend not to think to update their wills when an executor named therein dies or becomes permanently incapacitated which potentially leaves no remaining capable named executor leaving it up to the probate court to assign someone (whom the estate may end up paying for). If it’s possible in your state in your situation, you likely want to avoid having to involve the courts - esp. if it’s only required because there was no viable executor named in your will at the time of your death(s). Also, remember that someone who is willing and able to serve as executor today may decline to do so ten years from now due to declining health or other changed circumstances even though they are still “capable” of doing so, therefore it’s worth checking in on your proposed executors every so often to verify they are still willing and able to serve.Do you have any living children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren? Are those children all direct/indirect offspring from both spouses or are some of them stepchildren to one of you? Are any of them disabled (which might lead to an interest in special needs trust(s) which is definitely “lawyer time” IMHO)?What is the nature of your assets other than “main assets”?If you live in California, perhaps the answer is “No online site needed - just fill out a California Statutory Will [1] for each of you and carefully follow instructions on getting the signing of each will witnessed”. On the other hand, perhaps the answer is “Its actually a bit complicated and likely beyond your area of competency and interest so it may be best to hire a lawyer to write a will and possibly a trust (which likely should include a pour-over will)”.In general, I would suggest that you may want to check a Nolo Press[2] book on the subject. You can buy these or they may be available at your local municipal library or your local law library. In some cases they are available online at law libraries. For example, denizens of Sacramento County in California can access a number of these books online for free using the instructions here - note that if you don’t live in Sacramento County, CA you are probably not eligible to access them and you should definitely not type in “CA” for the state and “Sacramento” for the password as that would likely be violating the terms of use.Also, don’t forget to consider the possible need for a Living Will or other form of Advance Directive, and/or Durable Power of Attorney (if you use a lawyer, they should present all such appropriate options to you).(Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and never will be. I don’t play one on TV or the internet. This is not legal advice. Even if I were a lawyer, I wouldn’t be your lawyer in this context.)Footnotes[1] https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/publications/Will-Form.pdf[2] Estate Planning Books - Nolo

fr Cali attny Michael Cohen 2014Who can legally practice neurofeedback—only licensed professionals—and what laws govern neurofeedback practice?Neurofeedback Law Case Studies—Sneak Preview1. Paul the Psychologist writes: “I had begun to mentor an individual with a Ph.D. in psychology, but someone who was/is not licensed in any mental health or health profession. They maintain their own office and had been operating a private practice solely doing educational evaluations. They have begun to do neurofeedback with children and adults with a wide variety of issues (ADHD, anger, oppositional behavior, sleep issues, anxiety, RAD). I became concerned that I had liability exposure for their activities and discontinued the consultation. Were my concerns well founded? How is liability for mentoring or consultation determined?”2. Phyllis the Psychiatrist writes: “Thanks for this opportunity. As a psychiatrist, I wonder if my offering neurofeedback (NF) to clients increases the risk of being sued. For example, if someone comes in with an anxiety disorder, and I suggest a trial of NF instead of medication, then what is my risk? If the patient does not respond well, and in fact his condition deteriorates, I'm left very exposed -- this is outside standard psychiatric guidelines. In fact most psychiatrists have never heard of NF. So my question is, how can I best protect myself?”3. Chris the Chiropractor has studied neurofeedback and wants to advertise on his website a spectrum of conditions that he can treat through neurofeedback, including not only stress, reduction and peak performance, but also: chronic pain, headaches, insomnia, mental fogginess, ADD/ADHD, autism, bruxism, chronic fatigue, cerebral palsy, fibromyalgia, IBS, Parkinson’s, PMS, TBI- Traumatic Brain Injury, stroke, tics, Tourette Syndrome, addictions, anxiety, anger, depression, irritability, mood swings, fear, phobias, PTSD, mental disorders. What legal issues does Chris face?The $64,000 QuestionThere is a lot of Internet chat about neurofeedback being used by various practitioners, licensed and unlicensed, with questions rolling back and forth about what’s permissible or not.One comment asks:Would someone please state the actual law in regards to using neurofeedback and licensing???This is the proverbial “$64,000 question.”I often liken healthcare regulation to a Rubik’s Cube. Just when you line up a row of colors, something else pops out of place, and you have to reconfigure the cube.Or, it’s like going to a casino where all the horizontal and vertical lines have to line up.A diagonal “bingo” is not sufficient.In lawyer terms: big caveat and disclaimer. You have an emerging area of healthcare practice where the legal rules can be ambiguous, archaic, or simply anarchic. Controversy surrounds the practice, and different professional societies and groups each have different answers. Any time anyone puts forth information on the Web, a hundred comments spring up ready to attack, and defend an antithetical position.Caution: this discussion may create unusual and interesting brainwave patterns.The Ideal Future and the Likely RealityLet’s frame the discussion of licensure with this quote:There are two fundamental issues that need to be discussed. One is the ideal future toward which we should strive. The other is the likely reality to which we must accommodate.Neurofeedback cannot succeed as a fringe discipline, or even as a subset of alternative and complementary medicine. Feedback and stimulation techniques will inevitably move to become the central organizing principle of psychology, of psychiatry, and of neurology. The core of these disciplines will be the increasing understanding of network relations within the cerebrum, and that will quite simply become the headline story for the decades to come.I will even acknowledge that up to now we have not been able to hasten the day of mainstream acceptance. One can make just as good a case that we have induced mainstream professionals to take an adverse position prematurely, so that now there is a degree of hostility to neurofeedback that is unmatched among the related technologies such as deep brain stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagal stimulators, etc. But who could have foreseen such mindless opposition by intelligent people?Siegfried Othmer, The Unlicensed Practitioner AgainIntroduction to Licensing Issues: “Unlicensed Practice of Neurofeedback”A recent article online mentioned the “unlicensed practice of neurofeedback.”This is actually a misnomer. There is no unlicensed practice of neurofeedback, which is a modality. States license practitioners—physicians, chiropractors, acupuncturists, dentists, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, physical therapists, and others. Unlicensed practice of one of these professional practices (for example, the unlicensed practice of medicine or of psychology) is prohibited by law.There are really two fundamental legal questions:• Is the practice of neurofeedback by a given individual who does not have any professional healthcare license, the unlicensed practice of medicine, psychology, or another licensed profession?• Is the practice of neurofeedback by a licensed healthcare provider, such as a psychologist, within the legally authorized scope of practice for that licensed profession, according to state law?These questions are related, in that a practitioner (say, a physical therapist where state law would not authorize the PT to practice neurofeedback) who goes beyond the authorized scope of practice, can be said to be practicing a licensed practice (for example, medicine or psychology).What Is NeurofeedbackISNR states:Like other forms of biofeedback, NFT uses monitoring devices to provide moment-to-moment information to an individual on the state of their physiological functioning. The characteristic that distinguishes NFT from other biofeedback is a focus on the central nervous system and the brain. Neurofeedback training (NFT) has its foundations in basic and applied neuroscience as well as data-based clinical practice. It takes into account behavioral, cognitive, and subjective aspects as well as brain activity.NFT is preceded by an objective assessment of brain activity and psychological status. During training, sensors are placed on the scalp and then connected to sensitive electronics and computer software that detect, amplify, and record specific brain activity. Resulting information is fed back to the trainee virtually instantaneously with the conceptual understanding that changes in the feedback signal indicate whether or not the trainee's brain activity is within the designated range. Based on this feedback, various principles of learning, and practitioner guidance, changes in brain patterns occur and are associated with positive changes in physical, emotional, and cognitive states. Often the trainee is not consciously aware of the mechanisms by which such changes are accomplished although people routinely acquire a "felt sense" of these positive changes and often are able to access these states outside the feedback session.NFT does not involve either surgery or medication and is neither painful nor embarrassing. When provided by a licensedprofessional with appropriate training, generally trainees do not experience negative side-effects. Typically trainees find NFT to be an interesting experience. Neurofeedback operates at a brain functional level and transcends the need to classify using existing diagnostic categories. It modulates the brain activity at the level of the neuronal dynamics of excitation and inhibition which underlie the characteristic effects that are reported.Research demonstrates that neurofeedback is an effective intervention for ADHD and Epilepsy. Ongoing research is investigating the effectiveness of neurofeedback for other disorders such as Autism, headaches, insomnia, anxiety, substance abuse, TBI and other pain disorders, and is promising.(emphasis added)In general, when a practitioner makes claims that a given modality (e.g., neurofeedback) treats disease—or a mental health condition—then that practice is considered practice of medicine (or possibly psychology).So to the extent neurofeedback is used as “an effective intervention” for conditions, of ADHD, then neurofeedback is within the province of physicians (including psychiatrists) or clinical psychologist, or other mental healthcare practitioners (depending on their scope of practice.Unlicensed Medical PracticeAll states require a license to practice “medicine” and make it a crime to violate this requirement. State licensing laws typically define medicine in terms of diagnosis, operation, prescription, and treatment for any illness, disease or injury. Corporations cannot practice medicine and hence medical licensing laws are also said to prohibit the “corporate practice of medicine.”Here is a typical statutory definition of medical practice:'Practice of Medicine,' which shall include the practice of medicine alone, the practice of surgery alone, or both, means the diagnosis, treatment or correction of, or the attempt to, or the holding of oneself out as being able to diagnose, treat or correct any and all human diseases, injuries, ailments or infirmities, whether physical or mental, organic or emotional, by any means, methods, devices or instrumentalities, except as the same may be among the acts or persons not affected by this chapter.This one is from Florida:"Practice of medicine:" the "diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition."Where did this come from?As I’ve written elsewhere (see also the AMA Virtual Mentor piece):For over 120 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that states may regulate the practice of medicine and determine what is and is not lawful [1]. In Dent v. West Virginia, the State of West Virginia refused a license to Frank Dent, a member of the “eclectic” sect of physicians who incorporated botanical remedies into medicine. Dent had graduated from the American Medical Eclectic College of Cincinnati, but could not establish that he had attended a medical college recognized by West Virginia, passed a designated examination, or practiced in West Virginia for 10 years.Dent argued that, by refusing him a license, West Virginia deprived him of due process of law. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “the power of the State to provide for the general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity, as well as of deception and fraud” [2].Around the time of Dent, the states began enacting medical licensing statutes. Today, all states define the “practice of medicine,” in part, by using such words as diagnosis, treatment, prevention, cure, and prescribe, in connection with disease, injury, and mental or physical condition [3]. State law came to designate the practice of medicine without a license as a crime.Subsequent cases relied on the Dent holding to interpret the medical licensing statutes and uphold prosecutions against a variety of complementary and alternative medicine (“CAM”) practitioners. For example, in People v. Amber, an acupuncturist argued that the statutory prohibition on unlicensed “practice of medicine” referred only to “Western allopathic medicine” and did not encompass systems such as Chinese acupuncture, which differs in its “philosophy, practice and technique” [4]. The court disagreed, holding that any “‘sizing up’ or a comprehending of the physical or mental status of a patient” constitutes diagnosis, which is part of the practice of medicine [5]. Similarly, other cases involved prosecutions of practitioners of modalities such as hands-on healing [6], iridology [7], and homeopathy [8]. In each case, courts interpreted statutory terms such as “diagnosis” and “treatment” broadly. Courts have also resisted constitutional challenges to health care licensure on a variety of fronts, including challenges based on free exercise and due process limitations [3].[Citations omitted.]The courts, and state attorneys general, interpret the practice of “medicine” very broadly. Even the “Caveman Blogger” has gotten in trouble with the state medical board for making nutritional and dietary recommendations to his followers in North Carolina.See also, Legal lines blur between coaching, hypnotherapy, and psychology (unlicensed practice).California Law for Non-Licensed PractitionersIn California, SB 577 (codified into the Business & Professions Code) allows non-licensed practitioners of the healing arts to engage in certain practices, so long as they provider a disclosure document and meet other statutory criteria. This statute gives non-licensed healers and other practitioners a legal foothold.However, one of the criteria is that the practitioner must not practice medicine.And, medical and psychological licensing laws exist side by side with the statute allowing non-licensed practice.Other states, such as Minnesota, have similar statutes for non-licensed practice—again, coexisting with medical and psychological licensing statutes.(If you need help structuring a non-licensed healthcare practice, contact our law firm.)Neurofeedback, Life Coaches, Nutritionists: Enforcement Priorities & DiscretionMany “life coaches” skirt the legal and regulatory edges of the practice of psychology, and attempt to carve out a space in which they focus on setting and achieving goals.The practice of psychology is defined so broadly in most states that it sweeps in a great deal of activity.In part, life coaches exist at the legal periphery because enforcement priorities vary by state and by agency and prosecutor. Broad statutory and administrative definitions of professional practice, however, leave life coaches at legal risk.Witness again, for example, the case of the Caveman Blogger—whose area of coverage, nutrition, was slightly different, but who found himself embroiled in an investigatory process for unlicensed practice, for counseling clients about the Paleolithic diet.Boards of nutrition, like boards of psychology and medicine, have investigatory discretion to pursue unlicensed activity.Many of our clients have found themselves targets of investigation and enforcement, and contacted our firm to deal with unexpected and unwanted regulatory attention for activities the clients’ previously considered not only legally safe, but beneficial for their own clients.Does Working Under Physician Supervision Mitigate Unlicensed Practice IssuesSome people believe that working “under the supervision” (or “under the license”) of a doctor or psychologist, mitigates unlicensed professional practice issues.This is a myth. There is no such thing as physician or psychologist supervision of an unlicensed person.We have licensed physician assistants, psychological assistants, nursing assistants, chiropractic assistants, medical assistants, and other licensed adjunctive providers. And we have providers that practice dependently under the supervision of another provider (for example, an RN under an MD). These categories are all defined by law, and their legal parameters must be met for practice.But you could not walk into my law office, for example, and ask me to adjust your spine “under the supervision” or “under the license” of a chiropractor.A lawyer doesn’t have the legal authority to perform spinal manipulation. Nor does your grocer, even under the chiropractor’s supervision.Here’s what New York State says about working “under” a psychologist:May psychologists use unlicensed individuals to perform any practices defined as the "practice of psychology" in Article 153?No. The use of unlicensed persons, persons without a limited permit, or persons who do not meet the exemption requirements, by licensed psychologists to perform any services or activities that fall within the statutory definition of psychology could result in professional misconduct charges or in the criminal charge of aiding and abetting illegal practice.The same principle applies with respect to what may be considered medical practice.Now, it may be that there is a role for technicians with respect to biofeedback—but this would exclude anything considered diagnosis and treatment. Here is a statement to contemplate from the ISNR Standards of Practice:Those providing neurofeedback services to individuals with diagnostic conditions as defined in ICD or DSM manuals and who are not licensed to work with such conditions should be evaluated and supervised by a professional who is licensed to treat such condition(s) and is on-site providing full time face-to-face supervision with the person providing the direct service. They should provide supervised services only after the licensed professional has evaluated the patient and set a treatment plan. The tasks assigned to such unlicensed individuals should be in keeping with their demonstrated level of competence and training and with applicable state law governing the health professions and the statute under which the supervisor is licensed. It is recognized that the level of supervision may vary depending on the complexity of the condition and individual being treated. The ultimate ethical responsibility and accountability for services performed by unlicensed persons to persons with diagnostic conditions rests with the licensed supervisor who reviews the assessment, treatment plans, course of treatment, and outcomes. Thus the nature of the supervisory relationship should be explicitly communicated in writing and written agreements with the unlicensed technician. Such a document should detail their duties, range of responsibilities, types of services, limits of independent actions, and responsibilities for reporting side effects or adverse reactions to their supervisor.This is one attempt to delineate what the licensed vs. unlicensed person does, although it does not provide any detail on what tasks are contemplated for the non-licensed person.Unlicensed Medical Practice: A Continuing SagaThere are many older cases of iridologists, energy healers, hypnotherapists, and others hoisted on the petard of unlicensed medical practice. Before chiropractic was licensed, the profession’s slogan was, “go to jail for chiropractic!”Unlicensed practice of medicine investigations and prosecutions continue. In more recent times, an acupuncturist dispensed pills and advertised curing cancer. In appeal from a Department of Health determination, the court stated:As to the severity of the penalty, the Court finds that the DOH had overwhelming evidence to conclude that the Appellant preyed upon vulnerable individuals in times of personal crisis. He made numerous empty promises to extort disproportionate sums of money for the services he provided. To add insult to injury, he published advertisements that contained reproductions of his State-issued license to practice acupuncture to lend credence to this disgusting operation. As such the record evidence demonstrates the necessity of the penalty to protect the public from potential harm at the hands of Dr. Mai. Therefore, the Court not only refuses to disturb the decisions and orders of the DOH but, rather, wholly endorses the penalty imposed on Dr. Mai.See Unlicensed health care provider statute interpreted in RI.In Colorado, a hypnotherapist received a cease and desist for practicing hypnotherapy.Medical and psychological licensing statutes define the scope of their licensed professions very broadly, so that unlicensed practitioners can easily run afoul of regulatory tripwires.

Easy to answer if you would take the timeFAQFifth AmendmentFifth Amendment: An OverviewThe Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: 1) right to indictment by the grand jury before any criminal charges for felonious crimes, 2) a prohibition on double jeopardy, 3) a right against forced self-incrimination, 4) a guarantee that all criminal defendants have a fair trial, and 5) a guarantee that government cannot seize private property without making a due compensation at the market value of the property.While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has partially incorporatedthe 5thamendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to indictment by the Grand Jury has not been incorporated, while the right against double jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination, and the protection against arbitrary taking of a private property without due compensation have all been incorporated to the states.Grand JuriesGrand juries are a holdover from the early British common law dating back hundreds of years. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury was originally intended to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy. In the early phases of the development of the U.S. Constituion, the Founding Fathers have decided to retain the Grand Jury system as a protection against over-zealous prosecution by the central government. Although the Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California in 1884 has refused to incorporate the Grand Jury system to all of the states, most states have independently decided to retain a similar form of Grand Jury, and currently, all but two states (Connecticut and Pennsylvania) have the grand jury.Congressional statutes outline the means by which a federal grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12 and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment, informing the court of their decision to indict or not indict the suspect. If they indict the suspect, it means they have decided that there is a probable cause to believe that the charged crime has indeed been committed and by the suspectDouble JeopardyThe Double Jeopardy Clause aims to protect against the harassment of an individual through successive prosecutions of the same alleged act, to ensure the significance of an acquittal, and to prevent the state from putting the defendant through the emotional, psychological, physical, and financial troubles that would accompany multiple trials for the same alleged offense. Courts have interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as accomplishing these goals by providing the following three distinct rights: a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after an acquittal, a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after a conviction, and a guarantee that a defendant will not receive multiple punishments for the same offense. Courts, however, have not interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as either prohibiting the state from seeking review of a sentence or restricting a sentence's length on rehearing after a defendant's successful appeal.Jeopardy refers to the danger of conviction. Thus, jeopardy does not attach unless a risk of the determination of guilt exists. If some event or circumstance prompts the trial court to declare a mistrial, jeopardy has not attached if the mistrial only results in minimal delay and the government does not receive added opportunity to strengthen its case.Self-IncriminationThe Fifth Amendment also protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.However, courts have since then slightly narrowed the Miranda rights, holding that police interrogations or questioning that occur prior to taking the suspect into custody does not fall within the Miranda requirements, and the police are not required to give the Miranda warnings to the suspects prior to taking them into custody, and their silence in some instances can be deemed to be implicit admission of guilt.If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violating the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. To determine if a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver has occurred, a court will examine the totality of the circumstances, which considers all pertinent circumstances and events. If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement while in custody prior to being made aware of the Miranda rights, law enforcement can use the statement against the suspect, provided that police interrogation did not prompt the statement. The Fifth Amendment right does not extend to an individual's voluntarily prepared business papers because the element of compulsion is lacking. Similarly, the right does not extend to potentially incriminating evidence derived from obligatory reports or tax returns.To be self-incriminating, the compelled answers must pose a “substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely a “trifling or imaginary hazard” of criminal prosecutionAfter Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, some felt that the statute by implication overruled the requirements of Miranda. Some scholars also felt that Congress constitutionally exercised its power in passing this law because they felt that Miranda represented a matter of judicial policy rather than an actual manifestation of Fifth Amendment protections. In Dickerson v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that the Warren Court had directly derived Miranda from the Fifth Amendment.Due Process ClauseThe guarantee of due process for all persons requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes before the government can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Due process essentially guarantees that a party will receive a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding. While the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, the identical text in the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies this due process requirement to the states as well.Courts have come to recognize that two aspects of due process exist: procedural due process and substantive due process. The procedural dueprocess aims to ensure fundamental fairness by guaranteeing a party the right to be heard, ensuring that the parties receive proper notification throughout the litigation, and ensures that the adjudicating court has the appropriate jurisdiction to render a judgment. Meanwhile, substantive due process has developed during the 20th century as protecting those substantive rights so fundamental as to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."Just Compensation ClauseWhile the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property, valued at the time of the takings. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owner's attorney's fees, however, unless a statute so provides.In 2005, in Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court had rendered a controversial opinion in which they held that a city could constitutionally seize private property for private commercial development, where the redevelopment would economically benefit an area that was “sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation. 545 U.S. 469 (2005). However, after the Kelo decision, some state legislatures passed statutory amendments to counteract Kelo and expand protection for the condemnees. See e.g., Condemnation by Redevelopment Auth. of Fayette Certain Land in Brownsville Borough v. Redevelopment Auth., 152 A.3d 375, 376 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). Nevertheless, Kelo remains a valid law under the federal context, and its broad interpretation of "public use" still holds true under the federal protection for the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation.Last Edited by Jonathan Kim, June 2017menu of sourcesFederal MaterialU.S. Constitution and Federal StatuteU.S. Constitution:Amendment VCRS Annotated Constitution:Fifth Amendment: Rights of Persons and Self-IncriminationSixth Amendment: Right to Trial by Impartial JuryEighth Amendment: Further Guarantees in Criminal CasesFourteenth Amendment: Criminal ProcedureU.S. Code: 18 U.S.C., Part I - CrimesFederal Agency RegulationsCode of Federal Regulations: 28 C.F.R., Chapt. I - Dept. of JusticeFederal Judicial DecisionsU.S. Supreme Court:Recent Supreme Court Criminal Law Decisionsliibulletin Oral Argument PreviewsU.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: Recent Criminal Law DecisionsState MaterialState StatutesState Criminal CodesConventions and TreatiesDealing with Human Rights (Including in the Criminal Justice Context)Other ReferencesKey Internet SourcesFederal Agencies:Federal Bureau of InvestigationDrug Enforcement AdministrationFederal Bureau of PrisonsUnites States Marshals ServiceBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and FirearmsU.S. Department of JusticeHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic PolicyHouse Judiciary Committee (includes information from Subcommittee on Crime)Senate Judiciary CommitteeBuffalo Criminal Law CenterVera Institute of JusticeUnited Nations Office on Drugs & CrimeCopNet - Police Departments Around the Country and WorldNational Criminal Justice Reference ServiceBureau of Justice StatisticsNational Archive of Criminal Justice DataRights of Suspects and Defendants(Nolo)ABA Criminal Justice SectionNational Criminal Justice AssociationCentre for Criminology Library, University of Torontoother topicsCriminal LawDue process