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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)