Our need to believe in Protect-and-Serve runs deep in our dna. In fact, it goes back thousands of years. This could be why government and its agents fail to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine.
Protect and Serve grew out of Old-World storytelling (as you'll see by the links). In the Old World (Greek), if the hero was about to be killed, a machine-like god would descend and save the hero from certain death. The audience, us, had no problem in believing that we would be saved by some divine being. There was no disgrace in being saved. The gods were always watching and taking sides.
New-World storytelling, however, tells a different tale. In order to be truly victorious, the hero absolutely must resolve his/her complication alone, without the deus ex machina.
These two storytelling methods have been at odds with one another, similar to what I've been talking about with The Public Duty Doctrine versus Protect-and-Serve.
Most of the U.S. population still believes in the Deus ex machina, regarding personal and public safety. They do not want to be told otherwise. However, today's movie audiences want to see the New World hero, not the Old.
Government and its agents are in a pickle. They go along with the charade until they have no choice but to disclose, usually as a result of being sued for failure to protect.
Here's the clincher: Law enforcement wants you to stay in that Old-World frame of mind, wants you to believe in the deus ex machina, and do not want you to aspire to Hollywood's idea of hero problem-solving. If, unfortunately, the deus ex machina fails to snatch you from the jaws of death, how much is an American life worth anyway (See June 18, 2009 posting)?
Welcome to the Old World -- Wanesville.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deus%20ex%20machina
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.56: Rapport
One source defines rapport as "close relationship; harmony."
Given the Public Duty Doctrine, law enforcement must rely on the victim-witness-suspect cooperation.
Absent a law enforcement promise to provide Witness Protection, absent a Material Witness Order, cooperation is the only tool left.
The way you get to cooperation, according to law enforcement texts, is: Establish rapport (a close relationship, harmony) with the victim-witness-suspect.
When law enforcement establishes a rapport, say with a victim, it merely reinforces the protect-and-serve propaganda that has been disseminated for so many years.
One of the ways law enforcement gets to rapport is by Mirroring the victim-witness-suspect.
Quoting from "Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation," by David E. Zulawski and Douglas E. Wicklander, CRC Press, Inc., 1993, page 143, Mirroring is defined as follows:
"The interviewer who uses only words to build rapport has failed to use all the avenues of communication available. The words spoken between two people account for less than 10% of the communication between individuals. The vast majority of communication takes place using the tone of voice and emphasis on words. In addition, almost half of the communication between individuals is based on physical behavior, posture, and gestures of the participants. Understanding other levels of communication enables the interviewer to incorporate the tone of voice, word emphasis, and physical behavior in his attempt to generate rapport.
"By recognizing the fact that people like people who look, talk, and act similar to themselves, the interviewer can consciously begin to model the speech patterns, speed of delivery, breathing, posture, and the gestures of the individual he is speaking to. This is called mirroring."
Again, when law enforcement establishes a rapport by mirroring, say with a victim-witness, it merely reinforces, in the victim-witness' mind, the protect-and-serve propaganda that is currently in use.
Failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine in a timely manner to victim-witnesses is equivalent to a Confidence Game.
I can hear it now. "But, Dave, this is the best system we've got. Nobody's perfect. What you're proposing is so out of touch with the Real World." When I've told people about this, their comeback ( 9 out of 10 times) is: "That would make this place the Wild-Wild West."
When I was little, I believed in Superman, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus. As I grew into adulthood, I thought most, if not all, of the fairytales were gone. For the past 20 years, I have been battling the fairytale of Protect-and-Serve.
If you're comfortable in believing in it, Swim at your own risk.
Given the Public Duty Doctrine, law enforcement must rely on the victim-witness-suspect cooperation.
Absent a law enforcement promise to provide Witness Protection, absent a Material Witness Order, cooperation is the only tool left.
The way you get to cooperation, according to law enforcement texts, is: Establish rapport (a close relationship, harmony) with the victim-witness-suspect.
When law enforcement establishes a rapport, say with a victim, it merely reinforces the protect-and-serve propaganda that has been disseminated for so many years.
One of the ways law enforcement gets to rapport is by Mirroring the victim-witness-suspect.
Quoting from "Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation," by David E. Zulawski and Douglas E. Wicklander, CRC Press, Inc., 1993, page 143, Mirroring is defined as follows:
"The interviewer who uses only words to build rapport has failed to use all the avenues of communication available. The words spoken between two people account for less than 10% of the communication between individuals. The vast majority of communication takes place using the tone of voice and emphasis on words. In addition, almost half of the communication between individuals is based on physical behavior, posture, and gestures of the participants. Understanding other levels of communication enables the interviewer to incorporate the tone of voice, word emphasis, and physical behavior in his attempt to generate rapport.
"By recognizing the fact that people like people who look, talk, and act similar to themselves, the interviewer can consciously begin to model the speech patterns, speed of delivery, breathing, posture, and the gestures of the individual he is speaking to. This is called mirroring."
Again, when law enforcement establishes a rapport by mirroring, say with a victim-witness, it merely reinforces, in the victim-witness' mind, the protect-and-serve propaganda that is currently in use.
Failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine in a timely manner to victim-witnesses is equivalent to a Confidence Game.
I can hear it now. "But, Dave, this is the best system we've got. Nobody's perfect. What you're proposing is so out of touch with the Real World." When I've told people about this, their comeback ( 9 out of 10 times) is: "That would make this place the Wild-Wild West."
When I was little, I believed in Superman, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus. As I grew into adulthood, I thought most, if not all, of the fairytales were gone. For the past 20 years, I have been battling the fairytale of Protect-and-Serve.
If you're comfortable in believing in it, Swim at your own risk.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.55: Define Doctrine
As per Wikipedia, the definition of "Doctrine" is as follows: Doctrine (latin doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions," taught principles or positions, as a body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.
Taught? To whom?
I could stand outside of any Wal-Mart in the U.S. and ask each person I meet if they know of The Public Duty Doctrine. I could ask a thousand people. Do you have any idea how many of that thousand would know? This doctrine has to do with the "public." This is the most important law concerning the public.
And that's all I have to say about that -- at least, for now.
Taught? To whom?
I could stand outside of any Wal-Mart in the U.S. and ask each person I meet if they know of The Public Duty Doctrine. I could ask a thousand people. Do you have any idea how many of that thousand would know? This doctrine has to do with the "public." This is the most important law concerning the public.
And that's all I have to say about that -- at least, for now.
Monday, December 14, 2009
PDD.53: Prosecutorial Discretion
Here again, like police officers, prosecutors have extraordinary powers. Should your case rest solely on how the prosecutor slept last night?
The upside of this is: You now know you're on your own, at the mercy of so many subjective elements.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html
The upside of this is: You now know you're on your own, at the mercy of so many subjective elements.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html
The Public Duty Doctrine.52: Police Discretion
The linked article states that police discretion is the "cornerstone of our judicial system."
http://nems360.com/pages/full_story/push?article-police+discretion+called+%E2%80%98cornerstone+of+justice+system%E2%80%99%20&id=3662000-Police+di
So......if government and its agents (police) have no legal duty to protect (The Public Duty Doctrine); they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, then the officer decides (discretion) whether your case/call (9-1-1) has merit or not. This is an extraordinary power. The public must understand their relationship with the criminal justice system.
A 2003, college textbook, entitled "Criminology," authored by Larry J. Siegel, page 499, states, "Police discretion involves the selective enforcement of the law by duly authorized police agents. However, unlike members of almost every other criminal justice agency, police officers are neither regulated in their daily procedures by administrative scrutiny nor subjected to judicial review (except when their behavior clearly violates an offender's constitutional rights). As a result, the exercise of discretion by police may sometimes deteriorate into discrimination, violence, and other abusive practices."
If it all boils down to how that officer (responding to your call) feels, we're in trouble.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!!!!
http://nems360.com/pages/full_story/push?article-police+discretion+called+%E2%80%98cornerstone+of+justice+system%E2%80%99%20&id=3662000-Police+di
So......if government and its agents (police) have no legal duty to protect (The Public Duty Doctrine); they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, then the officer decides (discretion) whether your case/call (9-1-1) has merit or not. This is an extraordinary power. The public must understand their relationship with the criminal justice system.
A 2003, college textbook, entitled "Criminology," authored by Larry J. Siegel, page 499, states, "Police discretion involves the selective enforcement of the law by duly authorized police agents. However, unlike members of almost every other criminal justice agency, police officers are neither regulated in their daily procedures by administrative scrutiny nor subjected to judicial review (except when their behavior clearly violates an offender's constitutional rights). As a result, the exercise of discretion by police may sometimes deteriorate into discrimination, violence, and other abusive practices."
If it all boils down to how that officer (responding to your call) feels, we're in trouble.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!!!!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.51: Fire Department
The author of this article, Vincent Brannigan, writes, in paragraph five, "Given the supposed litigious nature of American society...."
The reason they are litigious is because they have no idea of the Public Duty Doctrine. The bought into the idea of "Protect and Serve."
http://firechief.com/leadership/management-administration/firefighting_duty_debate_marches/
The reason they are litigious is because they have no idea of the Public Duty Doctrine. The bought into the idea of "Protect and Serve."
http://firechief.com/leadership/management-administration/firefighting_duty_debate_marches/
PDD.50: Rental/Bldg Inspections
Focus in on section IV, then V, then VIII, then IX
Keep in mind, Sovereign Immunity is similar to The Public Duty Doctrine.
http://www.countyofamherst.com/egov/docs/1238777218_299072.pdf
Keep in mind, Sovereign Immunity is similar to The Public Duty Doctrine.
http://www.countyofamherst.com/egov/docs/1238777218_299072.pdf
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.49: Airport Authorities
There was a crash. People died. Short summary in link attached.
http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases/torts/1109_torts_03.html
http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases/torts/1109_torts_03.html
The Public Duty Doctrine.48: Children's Textbooks
Your children's state-approved textbooks do not mention, specifically or generally, the concept of The Public Duty Doctrine. That's equivalent to not teaching your children to look both ways crossing a street.
Most states in the U.S. have similar methods in choosing textbooks. The following link is a short summary of North Carolina's procedure of selecting texts, texts which will end up in your children's hands.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/textbook/process/
Most states in the U.S. have similar methods in choosing textbooks. The following link is a short summary of North Carolina's procedure of selecting texts, texts which will end up in your children's hands.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/textbook/process/
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.47: Informed Consent
By now you're probably concerned that I have flipped my lid on this subject. I trust, however, you're being informed about a serious matter, one that may knock on your door in the future.
So far, I have evidence to prove that the elites in our society are talking about this issue, struggling with how to balance public trust with law and order. I have no evidence of public discussion on the issue, nor that it is being taught in our schools. Therefore, I have to conclude that there is an elite conspiracy of silence involved in failing to disclose this most vital of information concerning our public safety.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Phrase and Fable states that a conspiracy of silence is "an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known."
To prove there is an conspiracy, I must obtain internal documents from governmental agencies that explicitly exposes this agreement.
It is obvious that someone might say to me: "Dave, it's on the internet. You've proved it by linking documents to your daily blog. It may be simply a matter of the public not caring about it."
My reply is: The Public Duty Doctrine is not taught in schools. There is no evidence that the public knows about it. The public routinely does not read legal journals or case law.
* * * * * * * * * * *
One of my primary concerns is: This failure to disclose goes to the issue of informed consent. You mostly hear of Informed Consent in hospital settings, but it also relates to Tort Law.
Wikipedia's Informed Consent states, among other things: "In cases where an individual is provided insufficient information to form a reasoned decision, ethical issues arise."
If the victim of a crime or witness to a crime believes that law enforcement "protects and serves" and, as such, makes that 9-1-1 call based on that belief, we have an ethical problem.
But law enforcement may say that "We have no idea what's in the victim/witnesses' mind."
That would be a farfetched argument, in that there's nothing to prove that the public knows.
Wikipedia's Informed Consent continues: "In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given." That is, consent to cooperate with police. That's what they want, for you to cooperate. But they don't want you to know that there is no legal duty to protect them.
Wikipedia article continues: "Impairments to reasoning and judgment which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma." However, it fails to mention ignorance/lack of education as an impairment.
Where we stand right now is: Law enforcement, and other governmental agents, are involved in a conspiracy of silence. When you call 9-1-1, they choose to believe that you are consenting to cooperate fully, and that you have adequate reasoning faculties, and are "in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given." Why do they assume this? It works. At least they believe it does. Unless you're one of the thousands, as evidenced by my blog, where it didn't work. For law enforcement, Ignorance is Bliss; it's less messier, more efficient, you're merely a number, a case file.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!!
So far, I have evidence to prove that the elites in our society are talking about this issue, struggling with how to balance public trust with law and order. I have no evidence of public discussion on the issue, nor that it is being taught in our schools. Therefore, I have to conclude that there is an elite conspiracy of silence involved in failing to disclose this most vital of information concerning our public safety.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Phrase and Fable states that a conspiracy of silence is "an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known."
To prove there is an conspiracy, I must obtain internal documents from governmental agencies that explicitly exposes this agreement.
It is obvious that someone might say to me: "Dave, it's on the internet. You've proved it by linking documents to your daily blog. It may be simply a matter of the public not caring about it."
My reply is: The Public Duty Doctrine is not taught in schools. There is no evidence that the public knows about it. The public routinely does not read legal journals or case law.
* * * * * * * * * * *
One of my primary concerns is: This failure to disclose goes to the issue of informed consent. You mostly hear of Informed Consent in hospital settings, but it also relates to Tort Law.
Wikipedia's Informed Consent states, among other things: "In cases where an individual is provided insufficient information to form a reasoned decision, ethical issues arise."
If the victim of a crime or witness to a crime believes that law enforcement "protects and serves" and, as such, makes that 9-1-1 call based on that belief, we have an ethical problem.
But law enforcement may say that "We have no idea what's in the victim/witnesses' mind."
That would be a farfetched argument, in that there's nothing to prove that the public knows.
Wikipedia's Informed Consent continues: "In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given." That is, consent to cooperate with police. That's what they want, for you to cooperate. But they don't want you to know that there is no legal duty to protect them.
Wikipedia article continues: "Impairments to reasoning and judgment which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma." However, it fails to mention ignorance/lack of education as an impairment.
Where we stand right now is: Law enforcement, and other governmental agents, are involved in a conspiracy of silence. When you call 9-1-1, they choose to believe that you are consenting to cooperate fully, and that you have adequate reasoning faculties, and are "in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given." Why do they assume this? It works. At least they believe it does. Unless you're one of the thousands, as evidenced by my blog, where it didn't work. For law enforcement, Ignorance is Bliss; it's less messier, more efficient, you're merely a number, a case file.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
PDD.46: Sophisticated User Doctrine
Could this be one of the government's defenses concerning failure to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine? Among other things, one of the authors, Ms. Sungaila, specializes in tort law.
This deserves looking into further. I understand it has to do with product liability, but "public safety" is sold like a product.
http://www.linerlaw.com/data/1241807090.pdf
This deserves looking into further. I understand it has to do with product liability, but "public safety" is sold like a product.
http://www.linerlaw.com/data/1241807090.pdf
PDD.45: School Crossing Guards
If you have children, consided this:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals98/appeals0602/&invol=isenhour
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals98/appeals0602/&invol=isenhour
The Public Duty Doctrine.44: Being Neighborly
Imagine you're home one evening. You hear next door the breaking of glass, yelling, screams. You're familiar enough with your neighbors to know that calling 9-1-1 is in order. You call.
Now, read the following case and understand the broad implications here.
http://www.mml.org/legal/ldf_top25/ldf_23.htm
Now, read the following case and understand the broad implications here.
http://www.mml.org/legal/ldf_top25/ldf_23.htm
The Public Duty Doctrine.43: Our Military
Civilians are to the Public Duty Doctrine as military personnel are to the Feres Doctrine.
Bottomline: Whether you're a civilian or a soldier, you don't have a clue. I bet recruiters fail to disclose this most vital of information to new recruits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feres_v._United_States
Bottomline: Whether you're a civilian or a soldier, you don't have a clue. I bet recruiters fail to disclose this most vital of information to new recruits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feres_v._United_States
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.42: Restraining Orders
The Public Duty Doctrine is specifically mentioned under section entitled "A public duty." This is a classic case where the public underestimates their degree of personal safety by having such an order.
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/29/2004-lawsuit-against-jonesville-police-goes-to-cou/news/
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/29/2004-lawsuit-against-jonesville-police-goes-to-cou/news/
The Public Duty Doctrine.41: Workplace Safety
Many people died in this case, Stone et al. vs. NC Department of Labor and NC Department of Labor (Occupational Safety Health Division). See attached.
http://www.ic.nc.gov/ncic/pages/court/ta-12975.htm
http://www.ic.nc.gov/ncic/pages/court/ta-12975.htm
PDD.40: Department of Social Services
Read this classic case of DeShaney vs. Winnebago County that went before the Supreme Court of the United States. Further down in the majority court opinion, you will find the sentence, "Since Joshua Deshaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm."
To this day, does DSS offices across America disclose this most fundamental relationship between citizens and their government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
To this day, does DSS offices across America disclose this most fundamental relationship between citizens and their government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
The Public Duty Doctrine.39: Building Inspections
You have no idea how deep The Public Duty Doctrine permeates the fabric of our society. And no one knows. Consider buying a home, with the mortgage company's requirement for a building inspection. See attached (especially the 20th paragraph). A similar case happened in Asheville, N.C. back in the 90s.
http://www.moldinspector.com/building-inspector-liability.htm
http://www.moldinspector.com/building-inspector-liability.htm
PDD.38: From Insurance Perspective
The following is an informational bulletin, dated September, 2007, prepared by The Makholm Law Group for the Wisconsin Municipal Mutual Insurance Company, discussing, among other things, The Public Duty Doctrine.
At the end of the third paragraph, page 2, I quote: "...this is an important concept for those in Law Enforcement to understand." This bulletin mentions nothing about whether this concept is important for the public to understand.
Article attached.
http://www.wmmic.com/infodocs/plb092007.pdf
At the end of the third paragraph, page 2, I quote: "...this is an important concept for those in Law Enforcement to understand." This bulletin mentions nothing about whether this concept is important for the public to understand.
Article attached.
http://www.wmmic.com/infodocs/plb092007.pdf
Monday, December 7, 2009
PDD.37: A Journalistic Trend?
The New York Times' Business Section, Friday, December 4, 2009, page B4, an article written by Richard Perez-Pena, entitled: Some Dallas Editors Will Report to Ad Sales.
First paragraph reads, "Some editors at The Dallas Morning News have started reporting directly to executives outside the newsroom who oversee advertising sales, under a restructuring that overturns longstanding traditions in American newspapers aimed at shielding news judgments from business concerns."
Citizen participation in the affairs of state relies on being informed. The Fourth Estate ( journalists as a whole) work 24-7 keeping an eye on government and corporate America, which are inherently secretive organizations. Obtaining the truth takes some doing. Americans need a free press to keep these two honest.
Journalism, as a whole, has done a miserable job in disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine. Inspite of that, we, the people, still need the free press -- free from the corrupting influences of corporate America. The price of freedom is, and always will be, eternal vigilance.
Keep an eye out for other newspapers doing the same. In the end, if this trend keeps up, we may be thanking our lucky stars for bloggers.
View NY Times article below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04paper.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=December%204,%202009%20Dallas%20News&st=cse
First paragraph reads, "Some editors at The Dallas Morning News have started reporting directly to executives outside the newsroom who oversee advertising sales, under a restructuring that overturns longstanding traditions in American newspapers aimed at shielding news judgments from business concerns."
Citizen participation in the affairs of state relies on being informed. The Fourth Estate ( journalists as a whole) work 24-7 keeping an eye on government and corporate America, which are inherently secretive organizations. Obtaining the truth takes some doing. Americans need a free press to keep these two honest.
Journalism, as a whole, has done a miserable job in disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine. Inspite of that, we, the people, still need the free press -- free from the corrupting influences of corporate America. The price of freedom is, and always will be, eternal vigilance.
Keep an eye out for other newspapers doing the same. In the end, if this trend keeps up, we may be thanking our lucky stars for bloggers.
View NY Times article below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04paper.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=December%204,%202009%20Dallas%20News&st=cse
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.36: Just Call 911?
This time a lawyer speaks the truth. See attached.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.35: Contempt For Public
Read the attached. Can you hear the contempt for the public in Mickey's memorandum?
http://www.ncaemsa.org/public_duty_doctrine.htm
The key issue here, besides the contempt, involves the words, "...personnel actions that do not meet expectations..."
If the public does not know about The Public Duty Doctrine, and they bought into the idea of "Protect and Serve" written on the sides of patrol cars, then the public (sold a bill of goods) and public servants are not on the same page, out of sync.
Like two ships passing in the night, the public believes (wrongfully) that government protects and serves; government and its agents believe their sole role is law and order. There is a difference.
Mickey's contempt for the public is unwarranted. The public simply does not know the truth. If Mickey is angry about the public's "expectations," look to the schools, public officials, law enforcement -- not the public. His contempt is misplaced.
http://www.ncaemsa.org/public_duty_doctrine.htm
The key issue here, besides the contempt, involves the words, "...personnel actions that do not meet expectations..."
If the public does not know about The Public Duty Doctrine, and they bought into the idea of "Protect and Serve" written on the sides of patrol cars, then the public (sold a bill of goods) and public servants are not on the same page, out of sync.
Like two ships passing in the night, the public believes (wrongfully) that government protects and serves; government and its agents believe their sole role is law and order. There is a difference.
Mickey's contempt for the public is unwarranted. The public simply does not know the truth. If Mickey is angry about the public's "expectations," look to the schools, public officials, law enforcement -- not the public. His contempt is misplaced.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.34: What Was Not Said
There are three reasons for this posting, regarding the link below. No. 1 -- The link is recent. Posted today.
No. 2. The problem with encountering government and its agents is not so much what is said, but rather what is not said, as in the case below of the probation officer failing to mention to the family (with children) that the probationer, who was going to stay with the family, was a sexual offender.
No. 3. Each time the average civilian deals with government and its agents without the advice of counsel, the civilian puts himself/herself in jeopardy.
http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?tag=public-duty-doctrine
No. 2. The problem with encountering government and its agents is not so much what is said, but rather what is not said, as in the case below of the probation officer failing to mention to the family (with children) that the probationer, who was going to stay with the family, was a sexual offender.
No. 3. Each time the average civilian deals with government and its agents without the advice of counsel, the civilian puts himself/herself in jeopardy.
http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?tag=public-duty-doctrine
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.33: Got Your Back
Assuming the reader by now knows the basic concept of The Public Duty Doctrine, allow me to expand on this concept a little further.
When your son or daughter, your father or uncle, goes into the military and then off to war, something happens in their psyche. They see themselves in a different light, one tied to and responsible for others. They think in terms of their unit: You're only as good as the guy standing next to you. In time, each member pledges to their comrades, "Don't worry. I've got your back!" It means that while, say, I'm pursuing my mission, concentrating, and focusing on the particulars, one of my buds is watching over me, prepared at any moment to risk his or her life to protect mine. It is truly a matter of life and death.
Police officers know this. They think of themselves in these terms, like "We take care of our own. We've got each other's back." Police officers tend to make law enforcement a career, so they maintain this philosophy throughout much of their lives. They cannot relate to the general public (dah!), which is viewed often as self-centered, lacks character, a sense of loyalty and responsibility.
However, the soldier, more times than not, comes home to an economic and social system where "I've got your back" does not exist. The culture shock is staggering. They sense something is wrong with our system. They come home to a system where the majority of rape victims fail to report their victimization because they fear the system, to a system ignored by the Federal Trade Commission and FBI concerning the looting of our financial system, to a system where OSHA is supposed to routinely check safety at the plant where his wife works, but doesn't, until you have one dead body or three in a hospital. And that's just for starters. They sense something isn't right, and they can't put their finger on it.
What if American soldiers knew of The Public Duty Doctrine, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect (the families they've left behind); that they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place? These soldiers were never taught this in school. They bought into the message written on the side of the patrol car "Protect & Serve." They left to go fight, thinking that government and its agents had their back, that is, to protect their families.
I understand that The Public Duty Doctrine simply states that government and its agents have a duty to protect society as a whole, not the individual, unless a specific promise has been made, like Witness Protection. But, considering that, government and its agents have done a miserable job, have failed to protect America as a whole. For instance, Border Patrol, protecting America from an invasion of cheap, illegal labor. And that's just for starters. How are American soldiers going to react when they get home and can find no jobs? Or jobs, at least, that can support their families?
Are they going to feel a sense of betrayal? Do you want to be around when they find out the truth about our glorious system?
I understand that law enforcement cannot be everywhere, that they cannot pre-emptively strike before a citizen is victimized. However, failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine and allowing people to have a false sense of security, is both reckless and criminal. And I wouldn't want to be those who are failing to disclose this most vital information. Because someday they will be, themselves, looking over their shoulder, seeing if someone's got their back. And all they'll find is thin air.
Refer back to my post, The Public Duty Doctrine.32, to see what must be done. There will be short-term chaos. But the long-term benefits should be eye-opening, a dawning on a new America.
When your son or daughter, your father or uncle, goes into the military and then off to war, something happens in their psyche. They see themselves in a different light, one tied to and responsible for others. They think in terms of their unit: You're only as good as the guy standing next to you. In time, each member pledges to their comrades, "Don't worry. I've got your back!" It means that while, say, I'm pursuing my mission, concentrating, and focusing on the particulars, one of my buds is watching over me, prepared at any moment to risk his or her life to protect mine. It is truly a matter of life and death.
Police officers know this. They think of themselves in these terms, like "We take care of our own. We've got each other's back." Police officers tend to make law enforcement a career, so they maintain this philosophy throughout much of their lives. They cannot relate to the general public (dah!), which is viewed often as self-centered, lacks character, a sense of loyalty and responsibility.
However, the soldier, more times than not, comes home to an economic and social system where "I've got your back" does not exist. The culture shock is staggering. They sense something is wrong with our system. They come home to a system where the majority of rape victims fail to report their victimization because they fear the system, to a system ignored by the Federal Trade Commission and FBI concerning the looting of our financial system, to a system where OSHA is supposed to routinely check safety at the plant where his wife works, but doesn't, until you have one dead body or three in a hospital. And that's just for starters. They sense something isn't right, and they can't put their finger on it.
What if American soldiers knew of The Public Duty Doctrine, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect (the families they've left behind); that they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place? These soldiers were never taught this in school. They bought into the message written on the side of the patrol car "Protect & Serve." They left to go fight, thinking that government and its agents had their back, that is, to protect their families.
I understand that The Public Duty Doctrine simply states that government and its agents have a duty to protect society as a whole, not the individual, unless a specific promise has been made, like Witness Protection. But, considering that, government and its agents have done a miserable job, have failed to protect America as a whole. For instance, Border Patrol, protecting America from an invasion of cheap, illegal labor. And that's just for starters. How are American soldiers going to react when they get home and can find no jobs? Or jobs, at least, that can support their families?
Are they going to feel a sense of betrayal? Do you want to be around when they find out the truth about our glorious system?
I understand that law enforcement cannot be everywhere, that they cannot pre-emptively strike before a citizen is victimized. However, failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine and allowing people to have a false sense of security, is both reckless and criminal. And I wouldn't want to be those who are failing to disclose this most vital information. Because someday they will be, themselves, looking over their shoulder, seeing if someone's got their back. And all they'll find is thin air.
Refer back to my post, The Public Duty Doctrine.32, to see what must be done. There will be short-term chaos. But the long-term benefits should be eye-opening, a dawning on a new America.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.32: Areas of Interest
In June, I mentioned some items we should be focusing on which could make a significant difference in our relationship with government and its agents:
1. Cultivating better Refs on the field (local police, FBI, DEA, FTC, etc............)
2. Citizen Review Boards. Citizen oversight of law enforcement agencies. If citizen involvement continues to be stymied by law enforcement, I see the rise of Star Chambers in the foreseeable future.
3. A new type of grand jury system, implemented by Citizen Review Boards.
4. A new Miranda-type warning for victim/witnesses (disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine).
5. Class-Action lawsuits brought against the American Bar Association, State Bar Associations, State University/College Systems, and the 50 state Departments of Instruction for failing to disclose this most vital information to its clients/students in a timely manner.
6. High school dropouts and graduates (home-schooled, as well) shall spend at least one day discussing The Public Duty Doctrine prior to leaving school. A police officer, a lawyer, a social worker, and victim-rights' advocate shall conduct the class. The students shall sign a form acknowledging they understand the Doctrine. If these students are minors, their parents shall be required to sign off on this form likewise.
7. Keep an eye on U.S. Government's statistical value placed on an American life (see June 18, 2009 posting)
8. New Idea. Promoting "Citizens on Patrol" nationwide. Volunteers donating so many hours a month to patrol their neighborhoods. This goes beyond Neighborhood Watch, which is passive. Citizens on Patrol is an active enterprise. For further information, pull up National Association Citizens on Patrol, founded July, 1999. I have some reservations, though, about "how close" these volunteers work with law enforcement.
1. Cultivating better Refs on the field (local police, FBI, DEA, FTC, etc............)
2. Citizen Review Boards. Citizen oversight of law enforcement agencies. If citizen involvement continues to be stymied by law enforcement, I see the rise of Star Chambers in the foreseeable future.
3. A new type of grand jury system, implemented by Citizen Review Boards.
4. A new Miranda-type warning for victim/witnesses (disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine).
5. Class-Action lawsuits brought against the American Bar Association, State Bar Associations, State University/College Systems, and the 50 state Departments of Instruction for failing to disclose this most vital information to its clients/students in a timely manner.
6. High school dropouts and graduates (home-schooled, as well) shall spend at least one day discussing The Public Duty Doctrine prior to leaving school. A police officer, a lawyer, a social worker, and victim-rights' advocate shall conduct the class. The students shall sign a form acknowledging they understand the Doctrine. If these students are minors, their parents shall be required to sign off on this form likewise.
7. Keep an eye on U.S. Government's statistical value placed on an American life (see June 18, 2009 posting)
8. New Idea. Promoting "Citizens on Patrol" nationwide. Volunteers donating so many hours a month to patrol their neighborhoods. This goes beyond Neighborhood Watch, which is passive. Citizens on Patrol is an active enterprise. For further information, pull up National Association Citizens on Patrol, founded July, 1999. I have some reservations, though, about "how close" these volunteers work with law enforcement.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.31: Cattle?
If we accept the Evolutionary notion that we're animals, what difference is there between humans and cattle?
I thought about this while standing on my porch this chilly morning, watching the cows graze across the way, penned into their little section of pasture. They are cordoned by barbwire into one section, and then rotated into another, and then another, so they don't over-graze any one section.
It's kind of like when countries created borders, then passports, then immigration policies and quotas. There was apparently a need to restrict mass population movements, restricting the nomadic lifestyle. Probably for personal income tax purposes. I think most illegal immigrants in this country never got the memo. Maybe they're resorting to the old nomadic ways and the hell with local laws.
I digressed here. Sorry about that.
What is the relationship between civilized humans and domesticated cattle, especially having to do with the Public Duty Doctrine? Government and its agents fail to disclose they have no legal duty to protect individual humans (although they have every right to control same), just as cattle (a commodity) are unaware they're going to be slaughtered. "Keep eating! Keep buying!"
Our economy rewards passive-submissive behavior.
As I've said before, the history of mankind is all about slavery and/or cheap labor. Cows labor by grazing. Humans labor by buying stuff.
Humans and cattle are fenced in, movements are restricted. If either breaks out, they are apprehended and incarcerated. They're considered socially adjusted as long as they keep grazing and don't make waves. Government and its agents, and ranchers, fear civil unrest/stampedes; humans and cattle should never be spooked. American citizens (cheap labor) and cattle (cheap food) should be kept in the dark, on a need to know basis, regarding the role they play in our? system.
Maybe that's why The Public Duty Doctrine is not disclosed in schools, by the police or district attorneys, corporate media, social workers, politicians -- because they're afraid of a stampede.
Tea Parties anyone?
I have no doubt that managers/experts world-wide, on the whole, view their subordinates as cattle, unruly, unpredictable, prone to being spooked ("Refrain from gossip on the shop floor!), easily motivated by monetary-carrot rewards.
You're either the managed or the manager.
Lately, managers have been getting away with murder. Remember Wall Street and the looting of our treasury? They operate under a different system from the managed. They have no fences, no moral foundation, except "Do whatever it takes, but don't get caught," no flag they pledge their allegiance to, no home, except a Swiss bank account.
So, what is the difference between humans and cattle in a "managed economy"? Nothing.
Welcome to Wanesville, home of the grazed and slaughtered.
I thought about this while standing on my porch this chilly morning, watching the cows graze across the way, penned into their little section of pasture. They are cordoned by barbwire into one section, and then rotated into another, and then another, so they don't over-graze any one section.
It's kind of like when countries created borders, then passports, then immigration policies and quotas. There was apparently a need to restrict mass population movements, restricting the nomadic lifestyle. Probably for personal income tax purposes. I think most illegal immigrants in this country never got the memo. Maybe they're resorting to the old nomadic ways and the hell with local laws.
I digressed here. Sorry about that.
What is the relationship between civilized humans and domesticated cattle, especially having to do with the Public Duty Doctrine? Government and its agents fail to disclose they have no legal duty to protect individual humans (although they have every right to control same), just as cattle (a commodity) are unaware they're going to be slaughtered. "Keep eating! Keep buying!"
Our economy rewards passive-submissive behavior.
As I've said before, the history of mankind is all about slavery and/or cheap labor. Cows labor by grazing. Humans labor by buying stuff.
Humans and cattle are fenced in, movements are restricted. If either breaks out, they are apprehended and incarcerated. They're considered socially adjusted as long as they keep grazing and don't make waves. Government and its agents, and ranchers, fear civil unrest/stampedes; humans and cattle should never be spooked. American citizens (cheap labor) and cattle (cheap food) should be kept in the dark, on a need to know basis, regarding the role they play in our? system.
Maybe that's why The Public Duty Doctrine is not disclosed in schools, by the police or district attorneys, corporate media, social workers, politicians -- because they're afraid of a stampede.
Tea Parties anyone?
I have no doubt that managers/experts world-wide, on the whole, view their subordinates as cattle, unruly, unpredictable, prone to being spooked ("Refrain from gossip on the shop floor!), easily motivated by monetary-carrot rewards.
You're either the managed or the manager.
Lately, managers have been getting away with murder. Remember Wall Street and the looting of our treasury? They operate under a different system from the managed. They have no fences, no moral foundation, except "Do whatever it takes, but don't get caught," no flag they pledge their allegiance to, no home, except a Swiss bank account.
So, what is the difference between humans and cattle in a "managed economy"? Nothing.
Welcome to Wanesville, home of the grazed and slaughtered.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
PDD.30: Grisham's "The Client"
John Grisham's "The Client" was published in 1993, and subsequently made into a movie.
An eleven year old (going on thirty), Mark Sway, and his younger brother, Ricky, sneak away from their Memphis mobile home park to smoke cigarettes in the woods. They come upon a car, idling, with one end of a hose inserted in the tailpipe and the other end stuffed into one of the windows. The driver, Jerome Clifford, the sole occupant, is a lawyer for the mob. He's drunk and wants to die.
Mark figures out the driver's intentions and sneaks up and removes the hose. Clifford gets out, sees the hose dislodged from the tailpipe, looks around, re-inserts it, and gets back in the car. Mark pulls it out again. Clifford gets out and re-inserts it again. Finally, Clifford catches Mark and forces him into the car, while Ricky watches in terror from the reeds.
Jerome Clifford, Attorney at Law, slaps Mark around, offers him some whiskey, and figures, in his drunken state, he won't die alone. Mark is one of those kids that questions everything. So, a conversation ensues. Mark learns that Clifford represents a mob hit-man. This hit-man killed a United States Senator, for which the FBI has not yet found the body. Clifford discloses to Mark where the body is buried. He doesn't mind telling the kid because the kid's going to la-la land too.
Mark escapes and watches from the reeds while Clifford staggers out of the car, looks around, puts a gun to his head, and takes his own life. Little Ricky goes into shock.
At home, Marks calls 911, trying to disguise his voice. He returns to the scene to watch the police, and accidently gets caught by an officer.
To make a long story short (although I will not reveal the ending), Ricky goes to the hospital. Mark's mother (divorced and single) stays glued to Ricky. Mark sneaks out of the hospital and hires a lawyer. The mob and the U.S. Attorney figure out that Mark knows more than he's telling; they found Mark's fingerprints inside the car. A local newspaper man breaks the story with Mark's picture on the front page.
The problem is, Mark won't disclose what was said to him inside the car. He fears for his life and that of his family.
Mark is taken into custody and placed in a juvenile detention center. On the way to the center, Mark asks the cops why they didn't read him his rights. No response. So, Mark yells out, "I have a right to remain silent."
Up to this point, the Feds have not officially offered the Witness Protection Program to Mark and his family. Remember: Government and its agents have no legal duty to protect unless government and its agents promise to do so; then, and only then, do they become liable.
Mark is hauled in Juvenile Court under the pretext that he's obstructing justice by not disclosing the contents of his conversation with Clifford in the car; that it is a citizen's duty and obligation to cooperate in a criminal investigation, even if the witness fears for his or her life by doing so.
In Chapter 25, upon questioning by the judge, Mark pleads the Fifth, which is not applicable here. What we have here is a collision between the witnesses' Right to Remain Silent versus the Fed's charge of Obstruction of Justice. What the Fed wants is for the witness to disclose the information without any promise by the Fed to protect him and his family.
The Public Duty Doctrine has been around since 1850 or so. In Grisham's Chapter 25, Grisham does not mention, through the character of the Judge, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; that they can't be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, except if an offer to do so was granted and accepted.
Grisham is a lawyer and one of the most popular writers of our time. I know this is a work of fiction. Fiction or not, this most fundamental concept, The Public Duty Doctrine, should have been included into the storyline.
An eleven year old (going on thirty), Mark Sway, and his younger brother, Ricky, sneak away from their Memphis mobile home park to smoke cigarettes in the woods. They come upon a car, idling, with one end of a hose inserted in the tailpipe and the other end stuffed into one of the windows. The driver, Jerome Clifford, the sole occupant, is a lawyer for the mob. He's drunk and wants to die.
Mark figures out the driver's intentions and sneaks up and removes the hose. Clifford gets out, sees the hose dislodged from the tailpipe, looks around, re-inserts it, and gets back in the car. Mark pulls it out again. Clifford gets out and re-inserts it again. Finally, Clifford catches Mark and forces him into the car, while Ricky watches in terror from the reeds.
Jerome Clifford, Attorney at Law, slaps Mark around, offers him some whiskey, and figures, in his drunken state, he won't die alone. Mark is one of those kids that questions everything. So, a conversation ensues. Mark learns that Clifford represents a mob hit-man. This hit-man killed a United States Senator, for which the FBI has not yet found the body. Clifford discloses to Mark where the body is buried. He doesn't mind telling the kid because the kid's going to la-la land too.
Mark escapes and watches from the reeds while Clifford staggers out of the car, looks around, puts a gun to his head, and takes his own life. Little Ricky goes into shock.
At home, Marks calls 911, trying to disguise his voice. He returns to the scene to watch the police, and accidently gets caught by an officer.
To make a long story short (although I will not reveal the ending), Ricky goes to the hospital. Mark's mother (divorced and single) stays glued to Ricky. Mark sneaks out of the hospital and hires a lawyer. The mob and the U.S. Attorney figure out that Mark knows more than he's telling; they found Mark's fingerprints inside the car. A local newspaper man breaks the story with Mark's picture on the front page.
The problem is, Mark won't disclose what was said to him inside the car. He fears for his life and that of his family.
Mark is taken into custody and placed in a juvenile detention center. On the way to the center, Mark asks the cops why they didn't read him his rights. No response. So, Mark yells out, "I have a right to remain silent."
Up to this point, the Feds have not officially offered the Witness Protection Program to Mark and his family. Remember: Government and its agents have no legal duty to protect unless government and its agents promise to do so; then, and only then, do they become liable.
Mark is hauled in Juvenile Court under the pretext that he's obstructing justice by not disclosing the contents of his conversation with Clifford in the car; that it is a citizen's duty and obligation to cooperate in a criminal investigation, even if the witness fears for his or her life by doing so.
In Chapter 25, upon questioning by the judge, Mark pleads the Fifth, which is not applicable here. What we have here is a collision between the witnesses' Right to Remain Silent versus the Fed's charge of Obstruction of Justice. What the Fed wants is for the witness to disclose the information without any promise by the Fed to protect him and his family.
The Public Duty Doctrine has been around since 1850 or so. In Grisham's Chapter 25, Grisham does not mention, through the character of the Judge, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; that they can't be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, except if an offer to do so was granted and accepted.
Grisham is a lawyer and one of the most popular writers of our time. I know this is a work of fiction. Fiction or not, this most fundamental concept, The Public Duty Doctrine, should have been included into the storyline.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.29: The Public Trust
The reason government and its agents fail to disclose the Public Duty Doctrine in more public ways is, they don't trust the public with this information. They are afraid our country will turn into the wild west. I thought it was the wild west. Just watch the news. Agents of power have lost trust in us?
When was the last time your government asked you to vote on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, War(s), Nafta ? Nuclear power? Where's the love?
The police and district attorneys find witness testimony iffy. Witnesses lie or get it wrong. Ergo: forensics or, like the FBI, behavioral science sections.
Cameras are mounted everywhere you go: banks, convenience stores, street corners, outer space, monitoring the baby sitter, camera phones catching the riske, on and on and on.....
Employment: urine and psychological testing, criminal and financial background.
Gated Communities: private police, security dogs, on and on and on.
Dating: Some women are checking the new guys out -- criminal/financial background, Face Book, just to name a few.
Television programming is interesting. The weekly series "House" simply makes a doctor and his staff into something close to criminal investigators. House, M.D. makes no bones about patients lying. We, as viewers, start to sympathize with the doctor's plight. The show "Mental" illustrates that there are ways to trick victims and criminals into telling the truth. "Lie To Me" involves a behavioral science company which is called in to verify the veracity of whoever for a fee.
Politically speaking, our country is terribly divided; it's approaching the level of dividedness similar to the period before the Civil War. But, more importantly, our people are divided, shattered like a broken mirror. It's hard to get a clear picture of who we are, who we want to be, when the old saying, "Divided We Fall" is so clearly evident.
Welcome to Wanesville.
When was the last time your government asked you to vote on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, War(s), Nafta ? Nuclear power? Where's the love?
The police and district attorneys find witness testimony iffy. Witnesses lie or get it wrong. Ergo: forensics or, like the FBI, behavioral science sections.
Cameras are mounted everywhere you go: banks, convenience stores, street corners, outer space, monitoring the baby sitter, camera phones catching the riske, on and on and on.....
Employment: urine and psychological testing, criminal and financial background.
Gated Communities: private police, security dogs, on and on and on.
Dating: Some women are checking the new guys out -- criminal/financial background, Face Book, just to name a few.
Television programming is interesting. The weekly series "House" simply makes a doctor and his staff into something close to criminal investigators. House, M.D. makes no bones about patients lying. We, as viewers, start to sympathize with the doctor's plight. The show "Mental" illustrates that there are ways to trick victims and criminals into telling the truth. "Lie To Me" involves a behavioral science company which is called in to verify the veracity of whoever for a fee.
Politically speaking, our country is terribly divided; it's approaching the level of dividedness similar to the period before the Civil War. But, more importantly, our people are divided, shattered like a broken mirror. It's hard to get a clear picture of who we are, who we want to be, when the old saying, "Divided We Fall" is so clearly evident.
Welcome to Wanesville.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.28: Reckless Cowboys
Looking at the big picture, our economy has been ransacked by reckless cowboys. However, yesterday I saw the same behavior from a truck driver in little ole Waynesville.
I'm in my truck, stopped at a stop light. There's a car in front of me. Railroad tracks are running parallel to my truck, passenger side. On the opposite side of the tracks, there's a tractor-trailer truck, facing me.
The lights and bells go off. A train is coming.
The truck driver pulls out, making a right turn. As the tractor crosses the tracks, he guns it. The junction arms come down and just miss touching his trailer. If he had stalled on the tracks, it wouldn't have been a pretty picture, to himself or anyone around, including myself.
I notified the Waynesville Police, gave "her" the tag number and the name of the company. The police person said, "He's probably out of the county by now." It was a casual, indifferent response. I told her that I was calling the company this driver worked for and make a complaint. She couldn't have cared less.
The police, Osha, EEOC, on and on and on, generally don't do anything unless there's a dead body or at least three in the hospital.
I called the company and reported their driver. I called again today and told the manager I'd be following up the end of the week.
Apparently, each of us must get involved locally and nationally to keep these reckless cowboys in line. If we don't, we're doomed. Cutting corners, like dodging an oncoming train, is unacceptable.
I'm in my truck, stopped at a stop light. There's a car in front of me. Railroad tracks are running parallel to my truck, passenger side. On the opposite side of the tracks, there's a tractor-trailer truck, facing me.
The lights and bells go off. A train is coming.
The truck driver pulls out, making a right turn. As the tractor crosses the tracks, he guns it. The junction arms come down and just miss touching his trailer. If he had stalled on the tracks, it wouldn't have been a pretty picture, to himself or anyone around, including myself.
I notified the Waynesville Police, gave "her" the tag number and the name of the company. The police person said, "He's probably out of the county by now." It was a casual, indifferent response. I told her that I was calling the company this driver worked for and make a complaint. She couldn't have cared less.
The police, Osha, EEOC, on and on and on, generally don't do anything unless there's a dead body or at least three in the hospital.
I called the company and reported their driver. I called again today and told the manager I'd be following up the end of the week.
Apparently, each of us must get involved locally and nationally to keep these reckless cowboys in line. If we don't, we're doomed. Cutting corners, like dodging an oncoming train, is unacceptable.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.27: (100 : 1.5)
I've got a couple of hundred more pages to read in Derrick Jensen's Volume 2 of Endgame: Resistance (2006). I wish to share the following from pages 734 and 735. Quoting:
Study after study has shown that nearly all crimes go unpunished. Jessica Mitford, in her book The American Prison Business, writes, "The President's Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence says that for an estimated nine million crimes commited in the United States in a recent year [this was forty years ago, but the statistics still generally hold], only 1 percent of the perpetrators were imprisoned. Carl Rauh, advisor to the deputy attorney general of Washington, D.C., describes the process: 'Of 100 major crimes {felonies}, 50 are reported to the police. For fifty incidents reported, 12 people are arrested. Of the 12 arrested, 6 are convicted of anything -- not necessarily of the offense reported. Of the 6 who are convicted, 1.5 go to prison or jail."
Given the above, that 1.5 felons out of 100 will go to prison or jail, how important is it that people understand The Public Duty Doctrine, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place ????
Study after study has shown that nearly all crimes go unpunished. Jessica Mitford, in her book The American Prison Business, writes, "The President's Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence says that for an estimated nine million crimes commited in the United States in a recent year [this was forty years ago, but the statistics still generally hold], only 1 percent of the perpetrators were imprisoned. Carl Rauh, advisor to the deputy attorney general of Washington, D.C., describes the process: 'Of 100 major crimes {felonies}, 50 are reported to the police. For fifty incidents reported, 12 people are arrested. Of the 12 arrested, 6 are convicted of anything -- not necessarily of the offense reported. Of the 6 who are convicted, 1.5 go to prison or jail."
Given the above, that 1.5 felons out of 100 will go to prison or jail, how important is it that people understand The Public Duty Doctrine, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place ????
The Public Duty Doctrine.26: Needle in Haystack
The problem with gun advocates is, they only tell half the truth. In the following case, you read down through so much mumbo-jumbo and finally get to the heart of the issue (Section 41 and 42); the author (and Cato) fails to call this legal principle by name (The Public Duty Doctrine). This makes it next to impossible for average folks to research it. Therefore, the advocates of gun ownership are just as bad as the opponents of gun ownership. Here is just one example of the Needle in the haystack:
Quoting from this article, "Cato Policy Analysis, No. 284, October 22, 1997," entitled "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," by Jeffrey R. Snyder, Attorney at Law:
"To make matters worse, while laws deprive citizens of the ability to effectively defend themselves outside the home, thereby placing citizens in the position of having to rely on the police for their protection in extremis, it is a settled law throughout the United States that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime. That may come as a surprise to many people, but the principle holds even in cases where the police have been grossly negligent in failing to protect a crime victim (41)."
Read the next paragraph (42) in the attached link.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1
Quoting from this article, "Cato Policy Analysis, No. 284, October 22, 1997," entitled "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," by Jeffrey R. Snyder, Attorney at Law:
"To make matters worse, while laws deprive citizens of the ability to effectively defend themselves outside the home, thereby placing citizens in the position of having to rely on the police for their protection in extremis, it is a settled law throughout the United States that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime. That may come as a surprise to many people, but the principle holds even in cases where the police have been grossly negligent in failing to protect a crime victim (41)."
Read the next paragraph (42) in the attached link.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.24: Stolen
What if the government created a law and didn't tell anyone about it? What if you were harmed by not knowing this law? What if you tried to warn people about it and no one listened? What if in time everyone around you thought this issue had stolen your life?
Every one of us is prone to being stolen. The oldest child's life is often stolen. Drugs, sex, love, hate, beauty, ugliness, pride steals lives. Being too agreeable, being too rebellious, believing there is a God, believing there is not a God can cause a life to be stolen.
You might say that extreme personalities are prone to being stolen. However, don't most of us live on the edge? You wake up one morning wanting to know how I got here.
I remember, though, the day I learned about The Public Duty Doctrine, like the day my father was killed, J.F.K , Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, the day my captain mounted a .50 caliber on our bridge wing and shot at whales, the day my child was sexually assaulted, the day another child succumbed to MS, the day the second tower fell while my phone was pressed to my ear, talking with my oldest daughter. I remember when my life was stolen.
Quoting from Tess Gallagher's short-story "The Lover of Horses":
"Ever since my great-grandfather's outbreaks of gypsy-necessity, members of my family have been stolen by things -- by mad ambitions, by musical instruments, by otherwise harmless pursuits from mushroom hunting to childbearing or, as was my father's case, by the more easily recognized and popular obsession with card playing. To some extent, I still think it was failure of imagination in this respect that brought about his diminished prospects in the life of our family.
"But even my mother had been powerless against the attraction of a man so convincingly driven. When she met him at a birthday dance held at the country house of one of her young friends, she asked him what he did for a living. My father pointed to a deck of cards in his shirt pocket and said, 'I play cards.' But love is such as it is, and although my mother was otherwise a deadly practical woman, it seemed she could fall in love with no man but my father.
"So it is possible that the propensity to be stolen is somewhat contagious when ordinary people come into contact with people such as my father. Though my mother loved him at the time of the marriage, she soon began to behave as if she had been stolen from a more fruitful and upright life which she was always imagining might have been hers."
Every one of us is prone to being stolen. The oldest child's life is often stolen. Drugs, sex, love, hate, beauty, ugliness, pride steals lives. Being too agreeable, being too rebellious, believing there is a God, believing there is not a God can cause a life to be stolen.
You might say that extreme personalities are prone to being stolen. However, don't most of us live on the edge? You wake up one morning wanting to know how I got here.
I remember, though, the day I learned about The Public Duty Doctrine, like the day my father was killed, J.F.K , Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, the day my captain mounted a .50 caliber on our bridge wing and shot at whales, the day my child was sexually assaulted, the day another child succumbed to MS, the day the second tower fell while my phone was pressed to my ear, talking with my oldest daughter. I remember when my life was stolen.
Quoting from Tess Gallagher's short-story "The Lover of Horses":
"Ever since my great-grandfather's outbreaks of gypsy-necessity, members of my family have been stolen by things -- by mad ambitions, by musical instruments, by otherwise harmless pursuits from mushroom hunting to childbearing or, as was my father's case, by the more easily recognized and popular obsession with card playing. To some extent, I still think it was failure of imagination in this respect that brought about his diminished prospects in the life of our family.
"But even my mother had been powerless against the attraction of a man so convincingly driven. When she met him at a birthday dance held at the country house of one of her young friends, she asked him what he did for a living. My father pointed to a deck of cards in his shirt pocket and said, 'I play cards.' But love is such as it is, and although my mother was otherwise a deadly practical woman, it seemed she could fall in love with no man but my father.
"So it is possible that the propensity to be stolen is somewhat contagious when ordinary people come into contact with people such as my father. Though my mother loved him at the time of the marriage, she soon began to behave as if she had been stolen from a more fruitful and upright life which she was always imagining might have been hers."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.23: Fear
Disclosure of The Public Duty Doctrine is frightening for some. They fear that society will breakdown, so, it is better that society remain in a state of ignorance: Ignorance Is Bliss. I disagree. I believe initially it will provoke widespread debate, arguments, some will be hurt, yes, and allegations that my behavior -- disclosing this law -- was irresponsible, reckless. These people are shortsighted. They are not thinking down the road. They see a tree. I see a forest.
I am midway through Derrick Jensen's book, "Endgame Vol. II, Resistance." On page 660, Jensen states: "What was a primary reason my mother stayed so long with my father? The fear of short term loss outweighed the prospect of long term gain. Why does anyone stay in any abusive relationship? Chances are good it comes down to a fear of the short term loss being greater than the perceived possibility of long term gain. Why do people stay in any self-destructive relationships? Why do people stay at jobs they hate? Why do addicts stay addicted?... Short term loss, long term gain."
Our system must be very fragile in the eyes of those in charge (I thought we were in charge). The powers-at-be are not willing to disclose this law to the public at large because they fear the system will break down, chaos. Yet, this law is real; it is buried in case law, not statutes; it is buried in administrative memoranda in your local police department and district attorney's offices. The individual (victim) usually finds out about it too late, after the damage has been done. I can testify to this fact from personal experience.
There is a long-term gain to disclosure: Societal Maturity.
I am midway through Derrick Jensen's book, "Endgame Vol. II, Resistance." On page 660, Jensen states: "What was a primary reason my mother stayed so long with my father? The fear of short term loss outweighed the prospect of long term gain. Why does anyone stay in any abusive relationship? Chances are good it comes down to a fear of the short term loss being greater than the perceived possibility of long term gain. Why do people stay in any self-destructive relationships? Why do people stay at jobs they hate? Why do addicts stay addicted?... Short term loss, long term gain."
Our system must be very fragile in the eyes of those in charge (I thought we were in charge). The powers-at-be are not willing to disclose this law to the public at large because they fear the system will break down, chaos. Yet, this law is real; it is buried in case law, not statutes; it is buried in administrative memoranda in your local police department and district attorney's offices. The individual (victim) usually finds out about it too late, after the damage has been done. I can testify to this fact from personal experience.
There is a long-term gain to disclosure: Societal Maturity.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.22: What I Want.
I want Full Disclosure of The Public Duty Doctrine. I believe every student in America needs to devote at least one day out of his/her life to study, question, and debate the most fundamental, legal relationship average citizens have with their government, be it federal, state, or local.
If students quit school, say in the 10th or 11th grade, they must, by law, be "informed" of this law before they leave. Every senior in high school must be "informed" before they graduate. Both senior and/or drop-out must sign off that they understand what The Public Duty Doctrine means.
The result of this would mean fewer lawsuits against law enforcement for failure to protect, number one. Number two, citizens would take more responsibility in protecting themselves, not relying solely on the 9-1-1 call.
Until The Public Duty Doctrine is fully disclosed to the public at large, our nation remains in an adolescent state. Law enforcement is paying the price of our immaturity. However, law enforcement is equally at fault for not demanding that the Public Duty Doctrine be taught in schools, or disclosed in other ways (think Miranda Warning).
The Public: Police protect and serve.
Government and its agents: Police maintain law and order.
Two ships passing in the night.
Both sides abuse each other with unrealistic expectations. Abusers generally don't change unless they have no choice but to. Lawsuits are wasteful; justice very rarely happens. I am thinking, studying on this: What situation, other than a lawsuit, would government and its agents have no other choice but to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine?
If students quit school, say in the 10th or 11th grade, they must, by law, be "informed" of this law before they leave. Every senior in high school must be "informed" before they graduate. Both senior and/or drop-out must sign off that they understand what The Public Duty Doctrine means.
The result of this would mean fewer lawsuits against law enforcement for failure to protect, number one. Number two, citizens would take more responsibility in protecting themselves, not relying solely on the 9-1-1 call.
Until The Public Duty Doctrine is fully disclosed to the public at large, our nation remains in an adolescent state. Law enforcement is paying the price of our immaturity. However, law enforcement is equally at fault for not demanding that the Public Duty Doctrine be taught in schools, or disclosed in other ways (think Miranda Warning).
The Public: Police protect and serve.
Government and its agents: Police maintain law and order.
Two ships passing in the night.
Both sides abuse each other with unrealistic expectations. Abusers generally don't change unless they have no choice but to. Lawsuits are wasteful; justice very rarely happens. I am thinking, studying on this: What situation, other than a lawsuit, would government and its agents have no other choice but to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.21: Women
As I've said before, in early blogs, the history of civilization is all about slavery and cheap labor. In fact, slavery and cheap labor started with subordinating women. Can you relate? American industry is leaving our shores to exploit women in other lands. The remaining service jobs are unsustainable. Corporate America is seeking to find out how little you'll work for, and under what conditions.
I was blessed with six daughters. I care about their futures. Therefore, harping about The Public Duty Doctrine, as I have been, is mainly geared to the needs of the fairer sex.
As it stands right now, American women, when abused, beaten, or threatened, either at home or work, rely on two fallbacks: restraining orders and calling 9-1-1. These two are merely mind games, impostors, which create a false sense of security. Relying on these puts you at great risk, possibly lethal. Remember: restraining orders and 9-1-1 responses are not implied promises to protect. So, if law enforcement or governmental agencies, such as OSHA, fail to protect, and you are hurt or killed on the job, hurt or killed waiting for the police to show up, you or your family can't sue for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
Bottomline: You girls need to find other ways of protecting yourselves beyond restraining orders and calling 9-1-1.
I have a deep respect for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. They're fearless. Or, at least, they were. They changed the face of America. Sometimes I wish they'd expand their role outward. For years Wall Street and corporate America have been driving recklessly drunk. They crashed our economy. Lives lost. Retirements lost. Trust in the system lost. What if.... Mothers Against Drunk drivers unleashed against a system drunk or asleep at the wheel?
And, by the way, it wouldn't be a bad idea to learn how to use a gun.
I was blessed with six daughters. I care about their futures. Therefore, harping about The Public Duty Doctrine, as I have been, is mainly geared to the needs of the fairer sex.
As it stands right now, American women, when abused, beaten, or threatened, either at home or work, rely on two fallbacks: restraining orders and calling 9-1-1. These two are merely mind games, impostors, which create a false sense of security. Relying on these puts you at great risk, possibly lethal. Remember: restraining orders and 9-1-1 responses are not implied promises to protect. So, if law enforcement or governmental agencies, such as OSHA, fail to protect, and you are hurt or killed on the job, hurt or killed waiting for the police to show up, you or your family can't sue for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
Bottomline: You girls need to find other ways of protecting yourselves beyond restraining orders and calling 9-1-1.
I have a deep respect for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. They're fearless. Or, at least, they were. They changed the face of America. Sometimes I wish they'd expand their role outward. For years Wall Street and corporate America have been driving recklessly drunk. They crashed our economy. Lives lost. Retirements lost. Trust in the system lost. What if.... Mothers Against Drunk drivers unleashed against a system drunk or asleep at the wheel?
And, by the way, it wouldn't be a bad idea to learn how to use a gun.
Monday, October 19, 2009
PDD.20: Dear John...
...Dick and Jerry (aka John Grisham, writer; Dick Wolf, television producer; Jerry Bruckheimer, television producer):
If I had a nickel every time you guys failed to disclose the Public Duty Doctrine in fictional writing/programming, I would be a rich man........kind of like you guys are.
I'm not suggesting that you're being paid off to steer away from this subject. But, I find it outrageous that not one of you even comes close to it.
Mentioning "sovereign immunity" will not cut it either. So, get with the program. And do the right thing.
Victor Hugo once wrote: "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." Better late than never, I say.
If I had a nickel every time you guys failed to disclose the Public Duty Doctrine in fictional writing/programming, I would be a rich man........kind of like you guys are.
I'm not suggesting that you're being paid off to steer away from this subject. But, I find it outrageous that not one of you even comes close to it.
Mentioning "sovereign immunity" will not cut it either. So, get with the program. And do the right thing.
Victor Hugo once wrote: "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." Better late than never, I say.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.19: Propaganda
Often the truth can only be found in what is not said. The silence screams to me.
I've got an axe to grind with a particular writer and two television producers.
First, John Grisham. I need not outline his accomplishments.
Second, Jerry Bruckheimer, television producer of such shows as CSI:Miami, CSI: NY, and Cold Case.
Third, Dick Wolf, television producer of such shows as Law & Order: SVU and Criminal Intent.
All three never mention The Public Duty Doctrine in their programming. How can that be? This, the most fundamental relationship that citizens have with their government, be it federal, state, or local.
Consider this:
"Government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection to any particular citizen, but, rather duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent special relationship between police and individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Warren v. District of Columbia 44A. 2d 1 (DC Appeals) 1981
I passed a sheriff's patrol car today with the words, "Protect and Serve" printed on the side. Do you think that over time people could get the wrong impression as to what is owed them by law enforcement, considering the above?
I've got an axe to grind with a particular writer and two television producers.
First, John Grisham. I need not outline his accomplishments.
Second, Jerry Bruckheimer, television producer of such shows as CSI:Miami, CSI: NY, and Cold Case.
Third, Dick Wolf, television producer of such shows as Law & Order: SVU and Criminal Intent.
All three never mention The Public Duty Doctrine in their programming. How can that be? This, the most fundamental relationship that citizens have with their government, be it federal, state, or local.
Consider this:
"Government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection to any particular citizen, but, rather duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent special relationship between police and individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Warren v. District of Columbia 44A. 2d 1 (DC Appeals) 1981
I passed a sheriff's patrol car today with the words, "Protect and Serve" printed on the side. Do you think that over time people could get the wrong impression as to what is owed them by law enforcement, considering the above?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.18: Rape
Remember: Government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
I swear. It appears that every child, born American, needs to be equipped with an attorney and accountant from cradle to grave. Unfortunately, the contract you're about to find out was more than likely written by a lawyer and reviewed by a risk management, accountant-type.
Consider the attached link regarding the perils of fine print.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/9610
And the senators who voted against this legislation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
I swear. It appears that every child, born American, needs to be equipped with an attorney and accountant from cradle to grave. Unfortunately, the contract you're about to find out was more than likely written by a lawyer and reviewed by a risk management, accountant-type.
Consider the attached link regarding the perils of fine print.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/9610
And the senators who voted against this legislation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
PDD.17: McDonald vs. Chicago
The United States Supreme Court, on August 30, 2009, announced that it will hear the above case, involving whether the 2nd Amendment grants average U.S. citizens the right to purchase and possess firearms. The District of Columbia's right has been extended to citizens (District of Columbia vs. Heller), but the rest of the country's ability hangs in the balance.
The case should be heard before the Court in early 2010.
The Cato Institute is involved again, supporting the right to own and bear arms. I support the right. However, Cato clings solely to the Second Amendment supporting gun rights. I will be watching very close to see if Cato tells the truth, in their friends-of-the-court brief, in mentioning the Public Duty Doctrine, if they mention it at all. So far they haven't.
The case should be heard before the Court in early 2010.
The Cato Institute is involved again, supporting the right to own and bear arms. I support the right. However, Cato clings solely to the Second Amendment supporting gun rights. I will be watching very close to see if Cato tells the truth, in their friends-of-the-court brief, in mentioning the Public Duty Doctrine, if they mention it at all. So far they haven't.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.16: An Assignment
Want to see how honest American educators are?
Using my "The Public Duty Doctrine.1" (June 2009) as a starting point, pass the word on to those in your family and friends. If you have a high-school or college-age brother, sister, cousin, nephew, niece or friend of a friend, and if they are taking or, at some future point, required to take a government, American History, or politics class, tell them about this.
Their professors or teachers would be alarmed by a term paper or extra-credit assignment on this subject. Their educators more than likely don't know about this, although they should. Actually, they have a moral and legal duty to disclose this most fundamental relationship between government and its citizens.
If you like watching train-wrecks (just kidding), put this into motion and then watch the fireworks. Your friend or family member just might end up on the 6 o'clock news, or their newspaper's front page.
Believe me: There will be an effort to sweep this under the carpet. It will be your love-one's assignment to make sure this doesn't happen. Good luck discovering the truth!
Using my "The Public Duty Doctrine.1" (June 2009) as a starting point, pass the word on to those in your family and friends. If you have a high-school or college-age brother, sister, cousin, nephew, niece or friend of a friend, and if they are taking or, at some future point, required to take a government, American History, or politics class, tell them about this.
Their professors or teachers would be alarmed by a term paper or extra-credit assignment on this subject. Their educators more than likely don't know about this, although they should. Actually, they have a moral and legal duty to disclose this most fundamental relationship between government and its citizens.
If you like watching train-wrecks (just kidding), put this into motion and then watch the fireworks. Your friend or family member just might end up on the 6 o'clock news, or their newspaper's front page.
Believe me: There will be an effort to sweep this under the carpet. It will be your love-one's assignment to make sure this doesn't happen. Good luck discovering the truth!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.15: CVRA
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime met today in Washington, D.C. This hearing involved the (CVRA) Crime Victims Rights Amendment; the updating, fine-tuning, funding, and providing enforcement powers for such.
One of the panelists that spoke to the committee was Susan Howley, Public Policy Director, for the National Center for Victims of Crime. At no time did she, or the others, mention the Public Duty Doctrine, or anything close to this concept.
The veil of secrecy continues. And one day these experts will burn in hell for not doing the right thing.
One of the panelists that spoke to the committee was Susan Howley, Public Policy Director, for the National Center for Victims of Crime. At no time did she, or the others, mention the Public Duty Doctrine, or anything close to this concept.
The veil of secrecy continues. And one day these experts will burn in hell for not doing the right thing.
Monday, September 14, 2009
PDD.14: Sexual Assaults in Prison
The bottom line, regarding The Public Duty Doctrine, is that every citizen is on their own; they must swim at their own risk; they have a natural right to self-protection; the government, be it federal, state, or local, cannot be held legally liable to protect, because there was no duty to protect in the first place.
What if your brother or sister or father or mother was in jail, either rightfully or wrongfully accused, and they were sexually assaulted, and could not protect themselves because the overwhelming nature of being confined with the worst of our society?
TV cop shows constantly bring the subject up: Talk, or you'll end up in prison with a boyfriend, named Bubba, and he thinks you're cute. People laugh at this, but this is not a laughing matter.
Consider a new report just released by The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, entitled The Department of Justice's Efforts to Prevent Staff Sexual Abuse of Federal Inmates, September, 2009:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm. Under September 10, click "PDF" and that will bring up the report.
This report talks about federal prison staff and private prison staff sexually abusing inmates. It does not talk about state, local, and municipal prison/jail staff sexually abusing inmates. It does not talk about inmate to inmate sexual assaults, be it federal, state, or local.
And here's my point: If you had a family member in prison, who had been sexually assaulted while in custody, be it from staff or a fellow inmate, do you think you'd have legal recourse (sue the fed, state, or local government for failure to protect)?
Look it up!!!
What if your brother or sister or father or mother was in jail, either rightfully or wrongfully accused, and they were sexually assaulted, and could not protect themselves because the overwhelming nature of being confined with the worst of our society?
TV cop shows constantly bring the subject up: Talk, or you'll end up in prison with a boyfriend, named Bubba, and he thinks you're cute. People laugh at this, but this is not a laughing matter.
Consider a new report just released by The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, entitled The Department of Justice's Efforts to Prevent Staff Sexual Abuse of Federal Inmates, September, 2009:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm. Under September 10, click "PDF" and that will bring up the report.
This report talks about federal prison staff and private prison staff sexually abusing inmates. It does not talk about state, local, and municipal prison/jail staff sexually abusing inmates. It does not talk about inmate to inmate sexual assaults, be it federal, state, or local.
And here's my point: If you had a family member in prison, who had been sexually assaulted while in custody, be it from staff or a fellow inmate, do you think you'd have legal recourse (sue the fed, state, or local government for failure to protect)?
Look it up!!!
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.13: Madoff & SEC
I love C-Span and the New York Times. Life without these two would be a big, black hole, filled with cable-fluff and mindnumbing commercials. They may not be "fair and balanced" all the time, but they sure are far reaching in their depth and scope. Both provide an excellent starting point if you feel the need to investigate further.
Yesterday, C-Span covered the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, chaired by Senator Dodd. The topic was "SEC Investigation into Madoff Ponzi Scheme." And the witness before the committee was Security and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, Esquire (Esquire means lawyer). He's the top cop in American finance. He inherited our current financial woes. And yesterday, he presented a summary of his agency's failure, over 16 years, to identify a problem -- and act upon it -- with Bernie Madoff and his $50 billion dollar ponzi scheme.
Kotz's report was disturbing: Two SEC offices, unbeknownst to each other, investigated Madoff at the same time; the investigators were novices, and had little or no support from supervisors; over 16 years, whistleblower reports never made it to the top dog of the SEC (most were ignored); investigators were outmanned, outgunned, grossly untrained, lazy, incompetent, and negligent.
Senator Menendez asked Kotz who should be held accountable. Kotz replied that the SEC should be held responsible, particularly the heads of the enforcement divisions. The Senator also asked whether any SEC employee involved in this case has been fired; Kotz replied that no one has been fired (from this or the prior administration).
When Kotz was asked about compensation for the Madoff's victims, he responded with, "We must do better."
One Senator said, "The Federal Government blew it!"
But, here's one clincher, relating to The Public Duty Doctrine: Senator Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, made the statement, "The SEC's role is to protect the public." This fast and loose comment is pure doublespeak. The average citizen hears this and thinks one way, when, the truth of the matter is, the government is thinking the exact opposite.
What do you think would happen if an individual or group of individuals, harmed by the SEC's negligence in this case, sued the agency? The courts would say that given the Public Duty Doctrine, government has a duty to only protect society as a whole, not the individual. Given recent events, all across the span of governmental services, they can't even do that.
Just prior to turning himself in, many of Madoff's investors chose to stay with the program based on a "clean bill of health" issued by the SEC. Trying to reconcile the agency's credibility in the marketplace with consumer's decisionmaking, Kotz said (paraphrasing) that the public should not act favorably based on the fact that a company has been investigated and gotten a clean bill of health. He said that the SEC might have missed something and, therefore, should not be totally relied on.
In summary, what I came away with is this: No one was fired. A U.S. Senator, through omission, misstated government's duty to the public. And, with regard to government inspections, U.S. Grade A means nothing.
Yesterday, C-Span covered the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, chaired by Senator Dodd. The topic was "SEC Investigation into Madoff Ponzi Scheme." And the witness before the committee was Security and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, Esquire (Esquire means lawyer). He's the top cop in American finance. He inherited our current financial woes. And yesterday, he presented a summary of his agency's failure, over 16 years, to identify a problem -- and act upon it -- with Bernie Madoff and his $50 billion dollar ponzi scheme.
Kotz's report was disturbing: Two SEC offices, unbeknownst to each other, investigated Madoff at the same time; the investigators were novices, and had little or no support from supervisors; over 16 years, whistleblower reports never made it to the top dog of the SEC (most were ignored); investigators were outmanned, outgunned, grossly untrained, lazy, incompetent, and negligent.
Senator Menendez asked Kotz who should be held accountable. Kotz replied that the SEC should be held responsible, particularly the heads of the enforcement divisions. The Senator also asked whether any SEC employee involved in this case has been fired; Kotz replied that no one has been fired (from this or the prior administration).
When Kotz was asked about compensation for the Madoff's victims, he responded with, "We must do better."
One Senator said, "The Federal Government blew it!"
But, here's one clincher, relating to The Public Duty Doctrine: Senator Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, made the statement, "The SEC's role is to protect the public." This fast and loose comment is pure doublespeak. The average citizen hears this and thinks one way, when, the truth of the matter is, the government is thinking the exact opposite.
What do you think would happen if an individual or group of individuals, harmed by the SEC's negligence in this case, sued the agency? The courts would say that given the Public Duty Doctrine, government has a duty to only protect society as a whole, not the individual. Given recent events, all across the span of governmental services, they can't even do that.
Just prior to turning himself in, many of Madoff's investors chose to stay with the program based on a "clean bill of health" issued by the SEC. Trying to reconcile the agency's credibility in the marketplace with consumer's decisionmaking, Kotz said (paraphrasing) that the public should not act favorably based on the fact that a company has been investigated and gotten a clean bill of health. He said that the SEC might have missed something and, therefore, should not be totally relied on.
In summary, what I came away with is this: No one was fired. A U.S. Senator, through omission, misstated government's duty to the public. And, with regard to government inspections, U.S. Grade A means nothing.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.12: Tort Reform
Government and its agents (police, district attorneys, the courts) have no legal duty to protect the individual [Public Duty Doctrine]; they cannot be held liable for failure to protect [Sovereign Immunity], because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place. See The Public Duty Doctrine.1 for indepth analysis.
Now, the medical community wants immunity from litigation in the form of Tort Reform. Obama is now considering it in health care reform. The allegation is that too many frivolous lawsuits are being filed, and doctors have to pay for expensive malpractice insurance in order to stay in business. In fact, they are claiming that the cost of this insurance is driving them out of business.
This is an interesting development in that there has been no evidence presented regarding what percentage of frivolous lawsuits there are. Since approximately 90 percent of civil lawsuits are settled out of court, and these usually contain gag clauses preventing the participants from disclosing the monetary settlement amount, how do we know that there are a significant amount of frivolous lawsuits? Neither Republicans or Democrats, not even the American Bar Association, mention the percentage!!!!! Why is that?
To my main point: in a civil society, it is a given that people will be harmed by others. And we have developed over time the ways and the means to redress our grievances or seek recourse when harmed.
American Heritage dictionary gives examples, like, "To seek recourse from the courts or police."
Well, we know, from the Public Duty Doctrine (the best-kept secret in America, from law enforcement's point of view) that if we seek recourse from police, we do it at our own risk. And now we are being asked to either limit the monetary damages against the medical community in our courts, or possibly sign a waiver, saying we will not sue if something happens, say, to our mother in a nursing home, but will agree to arbitration. This actually happened to me, as power of attorney for my mother, in a local nursing home. I did not sign the waiver.
Our ability to seek justice, to seek recourse in our courts, is being chipped away yet again. Are we gradually moving toward a no-fault civil system where we don't sue anyone for anything -- forgive and forget? Not in my lifetime.
The Indo-European root for the word recourse is kers-, meaning "to run." It either means to run to or to run back to. If this proposal manifests itself, like The Public Duty Doctrine, you will have no place to run to. Therefore, we need to stand our ground and ask questions and demand answers, for example, from the American Bar Association for more information, facts, on what basis Tort Reform should be passed.
Now, the medical community wants immunity from litigation in the form of Tort Reform. Obama is now considering it in health care reform. The allegation is that too many frivolous lawsuits are being filed, and doctors have to pay for expensive malpractice insurance in order to stay in business. In fact, they are claiming that the cost of this insurance is driving them out of business.
This is an interesting development in that there has been no evidence presented regarding what percentage of frivolous lawsuits there are. Since approximately 90 percent of civil lawsuits are settled out of court, and these usually contain gag clauses preventing the participants from disclosing the monetary settlement amount, how do we know that there are a significant amount of frivolous lawsuits? Neither Republicans or Democrats, not even the American Bar Association, mention the percentage!!!!! Why is that?
To my main point: in a civil society, it is a given that people will be harmed by others. And we have developed over time the ways and the means to redress our grievances or seek recourse when harmed.
American Heritage dictionary gives examples, like, "To seek recourse from the courts or police."
Well, we know, from the Public Duty Doctrine (the best-kept secret in America, from law enforcement's point of view) that if we seek recourse from police, we do it at our own risk. And now we are being asked to either limit the monetary damages against the medical community in our courts, or possibly sign a waiver, saying we will not sue if something happens, say, to our mother in a nursing home, but will agree to arbitration. This actually happened to me, as power of attorney for my mother, in a local nursing home. I did not sign the waiver.
Our ability to seek justice, to seek recourse in our courts, is being chipped away yet again. Are we gradually moving toward a no-fault civil system where we don't sue anyone for anything -- forgive and forget? Not in my lifetime.
The Indo-European root for the word recourse is kers-, meaning "to run." It either means to run to or to run back to. If this proposal manifests itself, like The Public Duty Doctrine, you will have no place to run to. Therefore, we need to stand our ground and ask questions and demand answers, for example, from the American Bar Association for more information, facts, on what basis Tort Reform should be passed.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.11: Castle Rock
Castle Rock versus Gonzales 545 US 748 (2005) is the most recent case involving The Public Duty Doctrine. For your convenience, I'm attaching Wikipedia's version of what happened. If you're a woman reading this, make an effort to really understand what is being said here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.10: Rome lives!!!
The Fall of the Roman Empire is a convenient myth, espoused by those who promote the idea of progress (Time Marches On): We, in the 21st century, are more sophisticated, they say, literate, educated, just; our colliseums (stadiums) have referees on the field; we don't conquer other lands, enslave (illegal immigrants), crucify or torture.
I'm here to tell you that nothing has changed regarding Alpha-male empires. Since the dawn of man, rulers, deep in the inner sanctums of their fortresses, have had to deal with two internal issues: one, Circus Maximus (entertainment pacifies the masses) and, two, what to do with the mob. And every step along the way, the law-man/soldier, was standing by. Rome, by any other name, whether 2,000 years ago or just yesterday, is still Rome, to me.
Back in college, I was taught that at times Roman magistrates would post laws so high up on columns that no one could read them. Ignorance of the law, even if illiterate, was no excuse then, as it is today. The Public Duty Doctrine is one of those laws; it's not high up, but, rather disguised and buried so deep in case law that you'd have to be an olympic gymnast, mentally, to figure it out. (Example: The Public Duty Doctrine does not state what the public's duty is, but rather what government's duty is not. This doctrine is interpreted from government's point of view).
There is a pyschological condition, which develops within the mind of the citizenry, which I like to call "Abuse Bonds," in which the victim starts to identify with the abuser, jailer, guard. Researchers have studied survivors of Nazi concentration camps, and found that prisoners knew the history of their guards: wive's and children's names, news from back home, etc, etc, etc. Today, police shows on television serve as a surrogate for this condition. I will talk about this later on in future issues.
Rome's ability to enforce its laws and policies rested with its military. Nothing has changed, here in the 21st century, except we have more specialized subdivisions of expertise in "managing the herd."
The soldier of Rome is not so much different from the police officer of today. They were young, more than likely unemployed, naive, adventurous, "bullet-proof", wanting to "be" someone of consequence, to belong. Wearing the uniform meant you arrived. Nothing has changed.
I have every reason to believe that most young people join law enforcement/government with the best of intentions -- that is, to help, to guard, to protect, to hunt down perpetrators, to keep predators in check. I also believe that the luster fades quickly, as they (new recruits: fresh meat) learn that their role is not to protect & serve, but to maintain law & order.
Realizing too late, as he has already committed himself to the program, with parents watching from the sidelines, this new revelation creates a "We versus They" mentality: the public cannot be trusted and/or "We represent the state, not the victim. The victim is merely a witness, more times than not unreliable."
I believe, as the law-man matures, he acquires a dislike for the general public. He puts his life on the line every day, and the general public marches on, in a dreamlike, uneducated state, taking it all for granted, demanding of law enforcement that which they cannot legally provide.
Disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine, systemically, will actually change this situation. I believe "government and its agents" and the general public will develop a mutual respect and a mutually-inclusive mission. We need to move on from an adolescent status quo to the next step of our civil evolution.
Until then, Rome lives and, sadly, abuse bonds!
And with that, I rest my case, for a while.
I'm here to tell you that nothing has changed regarding Alpha-male empires. Since the dawn of man, rulers, deep in the inner sanctums of their fortresses, have had to deal with two internal issues: one, Circus Maximus (entertainment pacifies the masses) and, two, what to do with the mob. And every step along the way, the law-man/soldier, was standing by. Rome, by any other name, whether 2,000 years ago or just yesterday, is still Rome, to me.
Back in college, I was taught that at times Roman magistrates would post laws so high up on columns that no one could read them. Ignorance of the law, even if illiterate, was no excuse then, as it is today. The Public Duty Doctrine is one of those laws; it's not high up, but, rather disguised and buried so deep in case law that you'd have to be an olympic gymnast, mentally, to figure it out. (Example: The Public Duty Doctrine does not state what the public's duty is, but rather what government's duty is not. This doctrine is interpreted from government's point of view).
There is a pyschological condition, which develops within the mind of the citizenry, which I like to call "Abuse Bonds," in which the victim starts to identify with the abuser, jailer, guard. Researchers have studied survivors of Nazi concentration camps, and found that prisoners knew the history of their guards: wive's and children's names, news from back home, etc, etc, etc. Today, police shows on television serve as a surrogate for this condition. I will talk about this later on in future issues.
Rome's ability to enforce its laws and policies rested with its military. Nothing has changed, here in the 21st century, except we have more specialized subdivisions of expertise in "managing the herd."
The soldier of Rome is not so much different from the police officer of today. They were young, more than likely unemployed, naive, adventurous, "bullet-proof", wanting to "be" someone of consequence, to belong. Wearing the uniform meant you arrived. Nothing has changed.
I have every reason to believe that most young people join law enforcement/government with the best of intentions -- that is, to help, to guard, to protect, to hunt down perpetrators, to keep predators in check. I also believe that the luster fades quickly, as they (new recruits: fresh meat) learn that their role is not to protect & serve, but to maintain law & order.
Realizing too late, as he has already committed himself to the program, with parents watching from the sidelines, this new revelation creates a "We versus They" mentality: the public cannot be trusted and/or "We represent the state, not the victim. The victim is merely a witness, more times than not unreliable."
I believe, as the law-man matures, he acquires a dislike for the general public. He puts his life on the line every day, and the general public marches on, in a dreamlike, uneducated state, taking it all for granted, demanding of law enforcement that which they cannot legally provide.
Disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine, systemically, will actually change this situation. I believe "government and its agents" and the general public will develop a mutual respect and a mutually-inclusive mission. We need to move on from an adolescent status quo to the next step of our civil evolution.
Until then, Rome lives and, sadly, abuse bonds!
And with that, I rest my case, for a while.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.9: The Smoking Gun
This exercise may be just for my benefit: organizing my thoughts and records for some future forum. I trust, though, it will spread throughout cyberspace and start people thinking about The Public Duty Doctrine, especially during these times of diminishing returns (governmental services).
"The Smoking Gun" is a metaphor; I just want to put that to rest.
If you are a former government worker or presently employed by government, whether federal, state or local, I am in need of information regarding your employer's past and current policy on either disclosing or not disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine to its citizens.
I'm particularly interested in U.S. policies. However, I would also be interested in foreign policies concerning the same, particularly Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.
This information, hopefully, would come in the form of memoranda for public consumption. I don't want anyone to break the law by violating non-disclosure policies and/or laws. If you should find such and are unable to forward me a copy, I would appreciate your citing the regulation, what department it is located in, the volume, custodian of the record, and whether it is past or current policy. If you can send me a copy of such, again, without violating any policy or law, I would appreciate your sending it to:
David McMillan, 103 Hughes Road, Waynesville, N.C. 28786
If you feel uncomfortable sending it through the mail, you might send it by UPS or FedEx, or certified mail so I can pick it up at the post office. You can either identify yourself or not; you are not the issue.
"The Smoking Gun" is a metaphor; I just want to put that to rest.
If you are a former government worker or presently employed by government, whether federal, state or local, I am in need of information regarding your employer's past and current policy on either disclosing or not disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine to its citizens.
I'm particularly interested in U.S. policies. However, I would also be interested in foreign policies concerning the same, particularly Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.
This information, hopefully, would come in the form of memoranda for public consumption. I don't want anyone to break the law by violating non-disclosure policies and/or laws. If you should find such and are unable to forward me a copy, I would appreciate your citing the regulation, what department it is located in, the volume, custodian of the record, and whether it is past or current policy. If you can send me a copy of such, again, without violating any policy or law, I would appreciate your sending it to:
David McMillan, 103 Hughes Road, Waynesville, N.C. 28786
If you feel uncomfortable sending it through the mail, you might send it by UPS or FedEx, or certified mail so I can pick it up at the post office. You can either identify yourself or not; you are not the issue.
The Public Duty Doctrine.8: 9-0 vs 5-4
I've decided to only go to The Public Duty Doctrine.10 -- for now. I need some distance, a break. The topic is depressing.
The weapon-of-choice in America is the handgun. Police have their "standard issue" revolvers and criminals prefer them because of their ability to purchase and conceal. Law-abiding citizens need to remain on par with the other two.
In June of 2008, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision (5-4) in the case of District of Columbia versus Heller, siding with Heller's right to own and bear arms (in the District), as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
In September, one of Heller's attorneys, Robert A. Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, came to the University of North Carolina at Asheville and spoke to a gathering of interested people. I was present. It was videotaped. I have a copy.
When Levy finished his speech -- regarding how the case originated; the history of bearing arms, going all the way back to England; the oral arguments before the Court; does the 2nd Amendment speak only to "militias"; and the outcome -- I asked him if he and his colleagues specifically mentioned The Public Duty Doctrine to the justices as a defense of Heller's right to own and bear arms, that government has no legal duty to protect. He said they did. He was very emphatic on the matter.
I later pulled up the actual oral arguments before the Court on the internet, and nowhere was "it" mentioned specifically. I thought it might have been mentioned in the friends-of-the-court briefs; there again, it was not mentioned, specifically. There was one that mentioned it, but only in generalities, not by name. In other words, the words "The Public Duty Doctrine" was never mentioned, to my knowledge.
Without knowing the key words, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
Again, I'm no lawyer. But if I had been able to present the case before the Court, as opposed to these "public-interest" lawyers, I would have saved everybody alot of time and money by simply stating this:
The right to own and bear arms is not solely embedded in the Second Amendment. The right to own and bear arms must be viewed in the context of The Public Duty Doctrine. That is, government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect (PDD); they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect (sovereign immunity), because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place. Government must recognize this dilemma: the "natural right" of self-defense is not the same as saying government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect........ They are two different issues, although, consequentially connected. Based on this reality, I expect the Court to rule, unanimously, 9-0, in favor of Heller. To do otherwise, smacks of totaliarianism; it would be turning a blind-eye to the one-and-only-public-safety issue of our time. I rest my case.
(Time and cost involved: 2 minutes and airplane tickets)
The weapon-of-choice in America is the handgun. Police have their "standard issue" revolvers and criminals prefer them because of their ability to purchase and conceal. Law-abiding citizens need to remain on par with the other two.
In June of 2008, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision (5-4) in the case of District of Columbia versus Heller, siding with Heller's right to own and bear arms (in the District), as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
In September, one of Heller's attorneys, Robert A. Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, came to the University of North Carolina at Asheville and spoke to a gathering of interested people. I was present. It was videotaped. I have a copy.
When Levy finished his speech -- regarding how the case originated; the history of bearing arms, going all the way back to England; the oral arguments before the Court; does the 2nd Amendment speak only to "militias"; and the outcome -- I asked him if he and his colleagues specifically mentioned The Public Duty Doctrine to the justices as a defense of Heller's right to own and bear arms, that government has no legal duty to protect. He said they did. He was very emphatic on the matter.
I later pulled up the actual oral arguments before the Court on the internet, and nowhere was "it" mentioned specifically. I thought it might have been mentioned in the friends-of-the-court briefs; there again, it was not mentioned, specifically. There was one that mentioned it, but only in generalities, not by name. In other words, the words "The Public Duty Doctrine" was never mentioned, to my knowledge.
Without knowing the key words, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
Again, I'm no lawyer. But if I had been able to present the case before the Court, as opposed to these "public-interest" lawyers, I would have saved everybody alot of time and money by simply stating this:
The right to own and bear arms is not solely embedded in the Second Amendment. The right to own and bear arms must be viewed in the context of The Public Duty Doctrine. That is, government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect (PDD); they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect (sovereign immunity), because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place. Government must recognize this dilemma: the "natural right" of self-defense is not the same as saying government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect........ They are two different issues, although, consequentially connected. Based on this reality, I expect the Court to rule, unanimously, 9-0, in favor of Heller. To do otherwise, smacks of totaliarianism; it would be turning a blind-eye to the one-and-only-public-safety issue of our time. I rest my case.
(Time and cost involved: 2 minutes and airplane tickets)
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.7: Hollywood
So, what has fed, sustained, and reinforced the myth and legacy of American Law Enforcement -- that is, to "Protect & Serve"? You know, those words printed on patrol cars? The answer, I believe, is Hollywood.
I have pulled a random sampling of American police television dramas from Wikipedia for your convenience and consideration:
Adam 12 (1968-1975)
America's Most Wanted (1988-present)
Banacek (1972-1974)
Baretta (1975-1978)
Barnaby Jones (1973-1980)
Cagney & Lacey (1982-1988)
Cops (1989 - present)
CSI: Crime Scene Investigations (2000-present)
CSI: Miami (2002-present)
CSI: N.Y. (2004-present)
Dragnet
Hawaii Five-O (1968-1980)
Hill Street Blues (1981-1987)
In the Heat of the Night (1988-1994)
Kojak (1973-1978)
Law & Order (1990-present)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (2001-present)
Law & Order: SVU (1999-present)
Miami Vice (1984-1990)
NCIS (2003-present)
What these shows have in common is their failure to mention, either generally or specifically, The Public Duty Doctrine. How can that be? The Public Duty Doctrine draws into question the most basic, fundamental relationship between government and its citizens, and it's not mentioned?????? The absence of such makes me conclude that Hollywood is in cahoots with government, and the work-product of these producers and directors is pure propaganda. They are more than suspect; they are a consortium of con-men.
If the argument by "government and its agents" is that The Public Duty Doctrine is so obvious to the public-at-large and does not need to be aired, then why not, say, stop teaching the First Ten Amendments, Social Studies, and refrain from administering Miranda Rights to criminal suspects? Let's just completely stop, cold-turkey, from being reasonable, fair, and just.
In addition, if "government and its agents" argue that these shows are just entertainment, fiction, my response is, so was Uncle Tom's Cabin.
A personal note to "one of the most successful movie (and television) producers of all time": Mr. Bruckheimer: Mend your ways. Do the right thing.
I have pulled a random sampling of American police television dramas from Wikipedia for your convenience and consideration:
Adam 12 (1968-1975)
America's Most Wanted (1988-present)
Banacek (1972-1974)
Baretta (1975-1978)
Barnaby Jones (1973-1980)
Cagney & Lacey (1982-1988)
Cops (1989 - present)
CSI: Crime Scene Investigations (2000-present)
CSI: Miami (2002-present)
CSI: N.Y. (2004-present)
Dragnet
Hawaii Five-O (1968-1980)
Hill Street Blues (1981-1987)
In the Heat of the Night (1988-1994)
Kojak (1973-1978)
Law & Order (1990-present)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (2001-present)
Law & Order: SVU (1999-present)
Miami Vice (1984-1990)
NCIS (2003-present)
What these shows have in common is their failure to mention, either generally or specifically, The Public Duty Doctrine. How can that be? The Public Duty Doctrine draws into question the most basic, fundamental relationship between government and its citizens, and it's not mentioned?????? The absence of such makes me conclude that Hollywood is in cahoots with government, and the work-product of these producers and directors is pure propaganda. They are more than suspect; they are a consortium of con-men.
If the argument by "government and its agents" is that The Public Duty Doctrine is so obvious to the public-at-large and does not need to be aired, then why not, say, stop teaching the First Ten Amendments, Social Studies, and refrain from administering Miranda Rights to criminal suspects? Let's just completely stop, cold-turkey, from being reasonable, fair, and just.
In addition, if "government and its agents" argue that these shows are just entertainment, fiction, my response is, so was Uncle Tom's Cabin.
A personal note to "one of the most successful movie (and television) producers of all time": Mr. Bruckheimer: Mend your ways. Do the right thing.
The Public Duty Doctrine.6 (Cont'd)
This was the Governor's response to my October 31, 1991 letter:
"State of North Carolina
Office of the Governor
Raleigh 27603-8001
"James G. Martin
Governor
"December 2, 1991
"Mr. David McMillan
Route 2, Box 434
Asheville, North Carolina 28805
"Dear Mr. McMillan:
"I am writing in response to your October 31, 1991 letter to Governor Martin. The circumstances you describe, although they are matters of great concern, do not create a state of emergency under our statutes.
"Sincerely,
"Barbara A. Jackson
Assistant Legal Counsel to the Governor
"BAJ/SL"
Postscript: Apparently, George Orwell's novel "1984" is as relevant today in 2009, as it was in 1991, as it was in 1949.
"State of North Carolina
Office of the Governor
Raleigh 27603-8001
"James G. Martin
Governor
"December 2, 1991
"Mr. David McMillan
Route 2, Box 434
Asheville, North Carolina 28805
"Dear Mr. McMillan:
"I am writing in response to your October 31, 1991 letter to Governor Martin. The circumstances you describe, although they are matters of great concern, do not create a state of emergency under our statutes.
"Sincerely,
"Barbara A. Jackson
Assistant Legal Counsel to the Governor
"BAJ/SL"
Postscript: Apparently, George Orwell's novel "1984" is as relevant today in 2009, as it was in 1991, as it was in 1949.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.6: State of Emergency 1
Walking through memory lane, I will share one of my documents (think Katrina, think Border security):
"October 31, 1991
"Honorable James Martin
Governor
State of North Carolina
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27603
"Governor Martin:
"As per your staff's request, the following represents my formal complaint and relief sought.
"I'm no attorney. I'm just a father whose daughter (14) was raped in Asheville, August of 1988. Since then I have learned how costly blind faith and ignorance of the law is. Hopefully my efforts here will help future crime victims.
"The public duty doctrine appears to be settled law in this State. However, if governmental agencies and their agents, operating within, or on behalf of, Buncome County, fail to disclose or reaffirm by ordinance the public duty doctrine to its citizens; and if overwhelming evidence exists that Buncombe County citizens are unaware of this general principle of governmental responsibility, and, therefore, do not exercise reasonable care, say, as crime victims in criminal investigations; and if overwhelming evidence exists that Buncombe County citizens have been and are now being told the opposite of the public duty doctrine, to their detriment, does a state of emergency exist, constituting a public safety crisis, which would authorize you, as Governor, to intervene, as set out in Article 36A, Chapters 14-288.15, 14-288.16, and Article 4, Chapter 159-48 (1) (3) of the North Carolina General Statutes? If so, I respectfully call upon you to do so.
"This, undoubtedly, will be the toughest political decision of your career. There are powerful ideological forces at play here, and innocent victims are being caught in the crossfire.
"I have attached some additional materials and references for your convenience. Please don't hesitate to call if you and/or your staff have any questions.
"Sincerely,
"David McMillan
Rt. 2, Box 434
Asheville, N.C. 28805
704-299-4512"
Postscript: The Governor's reply will be posted 7-2-09
"October 31, 1991
"Honorable James Martin
Governor
State of North Carolina
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27603
"Governor Martin:
"As per your staff's request, the following represents my formal complaint and relief sought.
"I'm no attorney. I'm just a father whose daughter (14) was raped in Asheville, August of 1988. Since then I have learned how costly blind faith and ignorance of the law is. Hopefully my efforts here will help future crime victims.
"The public duty doctrine appears to be settled law in this State. However, if governmental agencies and their agents, operating within, or on behalf of, Buncome County, fail to disclose or reaffirm by ordinance the public duty doctrine to its citizens; and if overwhelming evidence exists that Buncombe County citizens are unaware of this general principle of governmental responsibility, and, therefore, do not exercise reasonable care, say, as crime victims in criminal investigations; and if overwhelming evidence exists that Buncombe County citizens have been and are now being told the opposite of the public duty doctrine, to their detriment, does a state of emergency exist, constituting a public safety crisis, which would authorize you, as Governor, to intervene, as set out in Article 36A, Chapters 14-288.15, 14-288.16, and Article 4, Chapter 159-48 (1) (3) of the North Carolina General Statutes? If so, I respectfully call upon you to do so.
"This, undoubtedly, will be the toughest political decision of your career. There are powerful ideological forces at play here, and innocent victims are being caught in the crossfire.
"I have attached some additional materials and references for your convenience. Please don't hesitate to call if you and/or your staff have any questions.
"Sincerely,
"David McMillan
Rt. 2, Box 434
Asheville, N.C. 28805
704-299-4512"
Postscript: The Governor's reply will be posted 7-2-09
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.5: Whistleblowing
I'm not totally cynical about the human condition: Man's inhumanity to man. It might come as a surprise to you that there is a guiding light at the end of my tunnel, and his name is Frank Serpico, a retired New York City cop. He blew the whistle on corruption in the New York City Police Department in the early 70's, and almost paid the ultimate price (see Knapp Commission). I'm sure if he had been a trader on Wall Street in, say, 2005, he would have been testifying in front of Congress. He's just that kind of guy.
Hollywood made a movie about him: Serpico, played by Al Pacino (1973).
According to Wikipedia (see "Frank Serpico"), before the filming, Al Pacino invited Serpico to a house out on Long Island, NY. Pacino "...asked him why he did it. Serpico replied: 'Well, Al, I don't know. I guess I would have to say it would be because...if I didn't, who would I be when I listened to a piece of music.' "
Ditto.
Hollywood made a movie about him: Serpico, played by Al Pacino (1973).
According to Wikipedia (see "Frank Serpico"), before the filming, Al Pacino invited Serpico to a house out on Long Island, NY. Pacino "...asked him why he did it. Serpico replied: 'Well, Al, I don't know. I guess I would have to say it would be because...if I didn't, who would I be when I listened to a piece of music.' "
Ditto.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.4: The Wall of Shame
"Government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen, but, rather, duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent special relationship between police and individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Warren v. District of Columbia
444A. 2d 1 (D.C. Appeals) 1981
Since 1989, I have written and spoken with "collateral agents" and "governmental agents" at all levels concerning pre-victimization and post-victimization needs of American citizens. The citizenry needs to be educated at the earliest possible time about their legal relationship with their government, and they need to be reminded, after the fact (such as a crime), what that relationship is. Early on, my concern was mainly with crime victims and revictimization caused by the criminal justice system. As time went on, I realized that this failure of our government to disclose the truth ran deeper.
This is a representative sampling of either those I have communicated with or items of special attention:
The North Carolina Victim Bill of Rights (Article 45 - 15A-824 thru -825), Rape Crisis Center (Buncombe County), Gene Rainey-then Chairman Buncombe County Board of Commissioners, Department of Justice - State of North Carolina (then Attorney General, Lacy Thornburg), Police Chief Beavers of the Asheville Police Department, then N.C. Governor Jim Martin, National Victim Center, N.C. Council on the Status of Women, Asheville Citizens for Responsive Government, Courtwatch, People Assisting Victims of N.C., National Organization of Women (NOW), Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOW), NC State Representatives and Senators, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Victim Center, Bob Etheridge - then NC Superintendant of Public Instruction, 60 Minutes, Gerry L. Spence, Esq. (his office), MADD, The Asheville Citizen-Times (editorial staff), WLOS-TV Asheville, the present Mayor of Asheville NC, a present-serving Asheville City Councilman, the National Rifle Association, Presidential candidate, then-Senator Obama (2008), and then-Senator Joe Biden (Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, letter from him dated August 17, 1990).
Get the picture?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.3
Stepping outside the box of what is commonly known as American Law Enforcement, you find two interesting groups: Eric Prince's Blackwater and Jim Gilchrist's The Minutemen Project.
Unbeknownst to the American public, I believe both groups consciously know of and operate under The Public Duty Doctrine premise: If government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect (PDD), and cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect (sovereign immunity), then private citizens can ban together and intervene when the agents of government are unable to do their job, as in the case of Hurricane Katrina, or fail to do their job, as in border security -- that is, protect society as a whole, but not the individual, unless promises are made to the contrary.
Blackwater is a corporation located in North Carolina, which provides security personnel --hired-guns and techno-warriors -- for hire, for profit, worldwide. Mainly for elites: corporate and government. They were thought of by conservatives to be corporate patriots that should be honored alongside our servicemen. See Jeremy Scahill's book: Blackwater -- The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" and see how these "patriots" operated in and around New Orleans post-Katrina.
The Minutemen Project, however, arose in response to illegal immigration and the ineffectiveness of border security, among other issues. It is my understanding that military veterans are mostly affiliated with this organization -- volunteers, as opposed to paid mercenaries. They would go down to the border, with their binoculars and walkie-talkies, and assist the border patrol. Their efforts were not to protect elites, but to assist America as a whole. The President (Bush), however, did not see them as patriots, but called them "vigilantes." Not-for-profit-vigilantes?
I think that these two organizations provide an interesting contrast when thinking outside the box of American Law Enforcement. I trust you find this interesting, as well.
Unbeknownst to the American public, I believe both groups consciously know of and operate under The Public Duty Doctrine premise: If government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect (PDD), and cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect (sovereign immunity), then private citizens can ban together and intervene when the agents of government are unable to do their job, as in the case of Hurricane Katrina, or fail to do their job, as in border security -- that is, protect society as a whole, but not the individual, unless promises are made to the contrary.
Blackwater is a corporation located in North Carolina, which provides security personnel --hired-guns and techno-warriors -- for hire, for profit, worldwide. Mainly for elites: corporate and government. They were thought of by conservatives to be corporate patriots that should be honored alongside our servicemen. See Jeremy Scahill's book: Blackwater -- The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" and see how these "patriots" operated in and around New Orleans post-Katrina.
The Minutemen Project, however, arose in response to illegal immigration and the ineffectiveness of border security, among other issues. It is my understanding that military veterans are mostly affiliated with this organization -- volunteers, as opposed to paid mercenaries. They would go down to the border, with their binoculars and walkie-talkies, and assist the border patrol. Their efforts were not to protect elites, but to assist America as a whole. The President (Bush), however, did not see them as patriots, but called them "vigilantes." Not-for-profit-vigilantes?
I think that these two organizations provide an interesting contrast when thinking outside the box of American Law Enforcement. I trust you find this interesting, as well.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.2
Reviewing: Government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect (Public Duty Doctrine); they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect (sovereign immunity), because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
Now, do you think this -- the most fundamental relationship between government and its citizens -- is taught in schools, either specifically or generally? No, it is not taught in schools. Go anywhere in this country, where there is a teaching university, and review state-approved textbooks used in our public school systems, and you will find zip, nada, nothing.
What about colleges? Universities? The same.
However, it is taught to 300-level criminal justice students, generally those going into law enforcement. And who are law enforcement? Consider this:
Homeland Security, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Justice, U.S. Marshall's Service, U.S. Customs and Border, DEA, Diplomatic Security Service, ATF, military police, State Bureau of Investigations, State Highway Patrols, sheriffs/deputies, corrections, probation, police, fish & game, transit police, campus police, airport police, port authority, and welfare fraud invesigators hired by DSS in California, just to name a few.
Get the picture? The Public Duty Doctrine is the best-kept secret in America, from law-enforcement's point of view. And what are the implications of this? The general public stays calm (a false sense of security, ignorant) and submissive (manageable). And the consequences can be devastating (specifics will be provided in a upcoming post).
Now, do you think this -- the most fundamental relationship between government and its citizens -- is taught in schools, either specifically or generally? No, it is not taught in schools. Go anywhere in this country, where there is a teaching university, and review state-approved textbooks used in our public school systems, and you will find zip, nada, nothing.
What about colleges? Universities? The same.
However, it is taught to 300-level criminal justice students, generally those going into law enforcement. And who are law enforcement? Consider this:
Homeland Security, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Justice, U.S. Marshall's Service, U.S. Customs and Border, DEA, Diplomatic Security Service, ATF, military police, State Bureau of Investigations, State Highway Patrols, sheriffs/deputies, corrections, probation, police, fish & game, transit police, campus police, airport police, port authority, and welfare fraud invesigators hired by DSS in California, just to name a few.
Get the picture? The Public Duty Doctrine is the best-kept secret in America, from law-enforcement's point of view. And what are the implications of this? The general public stays calm (a false sense of security, ignorant) and submissive (manageable). And the consequences can be devastating (specifics will be provided in a upcoming post).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Public Duty Doctrine.1
I am no attorney. So, to start with, I want you to refer to a website: May, 2007 issue of The Police Chief: The Professional Voice of Law Enforcement , an article entitled, "Duty to All -- Duty to No One: Examining the Public Duty Doctrine and its Exceptions," by Karen J. Kruger, Senior Assistant County Attorney and Counsel to the Sheriff, Harford County, Maryland. (Go to "policechiefmagazine.org," then "Archive Past Issues," then "May 2007," then "Chief Counsel"....... or .........
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007
Now, remember, this doctrine applies nationwide -- local, state, and federal. Each state interprets it differently, but the end results are usually the same. And notice in the citations the DeShaney case [#6 - 489 US 189 1989] and pull that up. A Georgia lawyer told me recently to look at Castle Rock v. Gonzalez 545 US 748 (2005).
You need to understand that this little-known law of the land can bite you on the butt if you're not careful. And the above article is a good place to start. If you have any comments, do not hesitate to respond.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007
Now, remember, this doctrine applies nationwide -- local, state, and federal. Each state interprets it differently, but the end results are usually the same. And notice in the citations the DeShaney case [#6 - 489 US 189 1989] and pull that up. A Georgia lawyer told me recently to look at Castle Rock v. Gonzalez 545 US 748 (2005).
You need to understand that this little-known law of the land can bite you on the butt if you're not careful. And the above article is a good place to start. If you have any comments, do not hesitate to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)