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.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)