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."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)