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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)