National Crime Victim Law Institute

Founded in 1997 by Professor Doug Beloof at Lewis & Clark Law School, the NCVLI is a resource for crime victim lawyers and victims to support the enforcement of victims’ rights law.

National Organization for Victim Assistance

NOVA is a private non-profit organization of victim and witness assistance professionals. In addition to training and supporting courtroom advocates, they work closely with the Federal Office for Victims of Crime and provide Crisis Response Teams to disaster sites. They have a useful glossary of legal terms for crime victims and others unfamiliar with the courts.

DNA Saves

DNA Saves is committed to working with every state to pass laws allowing DNA to be taken upon arrest, and to provide meaningful funding for DNA programs.  They offer assistance with state lobbying and seek assistance with their efforts to increase the reach of DNA databasing and fund existing programs.


2 thoughts on “Links to Other Resources”

  1. Tina—You spoke at Tea Party Manatee 7/31/12 .You mentioned that there are over 500 organizations that Sorros funds. I am interested in finding out if Florida Confrence of Catholic Bishops receives any funding from any organozation linked to Sorros? If you could respond asap I would be greatful.

  2. But beyond the “issue” of Obama kniowng Ayers is the shoddy bait-and-switch methodology of a law professor who should know better. These arguments simply wouldn’t hold up in court. To wit, taking just a couple examples from our host:> If you don’t believe me, imagine Northwestern or the University of Illinois hiring an unrepentant bomber of abortion clinics. Since Ayers is neither unrepentant, or a bomber, or a bomber of abortion clinics, that’s pretty much pure chub.> Would Barack Obama sit on a board with someone who called for – and appears to have engaged in – lynchings and now refuses to apologize?Ah, the race card once again. And again, the assumption is that Ayers refused to apologize for something it’s only assumed (and not proved) that he did — two wrong assumptions in one simple phrase. But let’s dig hard and find Ayers stating his youthful belief to the effect that violence is as American as cherry pie. That might be a fiery observation, but it’s still just an observation, arguably not even rising to the level of fighting words. I mean, just the other day Rush Limbaugh was openly calling on national radio for violence in Denver when the Democrats convene there. Should we quick round him up? Beyond that, note the bait and switch here. Even stipulating that Ayers not only advocated violence but actually was once a bomber, did he ever blow up someone, or even some thing? And did he really not find fault with some of his more aggressive fellows in the underground? Ah, so many layers of nuance, so little time. So let’s just cut to the chase: Obama consorts with known criminals and people who want to blow up the country or have God do it for them? That about cover it?The part that gets me is that in the very worst case, either Obama is a closet Muslim or he’s up to his neck in Christian fundamentalism, but the neocons seem to have no trouble believing he’s both at once. Which makes the guy a U.S. senator who’s a Christian Muslim fundamentalist Unabomber smoker with a vaguely threatening name who occasionally has dealt with possible unsavory people — you know, in the very sort of the way the Bush family used to hang out with the bin Laden family. > If you follow me, then accepting Ayers and Dohrn as something other than the pariahs that they ought to be suggests something about those who are willing to do so. Rick’s powers of suggestion are mighty, indeed. Who is he speaking of? People like Mayor Daley and the editorial board of the Chicago Trib, among others.Recall that infamous line: “He’s an S.O.B., but he’s OUR S.O.B.” And for better or worse that’s S.O.P. in these United States, not only in politics but in business and community life as well.In the very same state where Daley, Obama, and Ayers matriculated, the late Rep. Henry Hyde — so rampantly offended by Bill Clinton’s pecadilloes, excused his own sexual affairs by terming them “youthful indiscretions.” If Hyde’s point was legitimate, then the millions of outraged young adults who flooded our streets in the late ’60s and early ’70s had a far bigger point to make, especially after the Chicago police riot and the Kent State massacre. You don’t have to be in favor of violence or radical political rhetoric to respect that many Americans were outraged at this country’s behavior in the Vietnam era, and that a few of them sometimes took that outrage to excess. Understanding it is not the same as endorsing it. Nor is letting go forty years later a huge leap. Some protesters of that hoary era paid a price for their outrage, going to jail or indeed becoming pariahs. Others overcame, made something of themselves, and contributed to their communities — just like Menahem Begin became a great leader years after himself committing atrocious acts. War is hell.Ah, but once a fervent rager, always one. So implies our host. In which case, while we’re at it, why not permanently take away voting rights for anyone convicted of a felony? Sure, they did their time, but their punishment should be unending, because, hey, they’re just no damn good! And they’ll always be no damn good. And since there isn’t a politician on this planet who hasn’t at one time or another done business with someone unsavory, maybe we should ostracize them all, as well. > It isn’t that those who accept Ayers and Dohrn are themselves terrorists or radicals, but that they hold a view of the world (and, in particular, of the United States) in which certain types of terror, while not justified, are substantially less repugnant than others.Reasonable on its face, perhaps, but implicitly hypocritical. Otherwise, how are we to classify (much less, justify) Bush terror and torture policies? Policies, by the way, explicitly now accepted by Sen. McCain. These Republicans aren’t themselves terrorists are radicals, are they? Because that would be very bad!> That world view, if it is held by Obama, is relevant to whether he ought to be President of the United States.”If it is held”: More like, it is to laugh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *