PDD.148: NY Times' "To Serve and Protect"?

Consider the headline "To Serve and Protect, Perched on 3 Wheels," an article written by Ariel Kaminer, in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/nyregion/24critic.html

PDD.147: Law & Order SVU

Does Art imitate Life?

Law & Order SVU (Special Victims Unit), Season 12, Episode 2, entitled "Behave," aired last night. Detectives Benson and Stabler investigated the rape of a young woman, played by Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Twice, during the program, Benson promised the rape victim that nothing would happen to her if she cooperated. The victim was reluctant. Benson promised that the "perp" would never rape her again. The victim cooperated.

In real life, law enforcement never makes such promises because promises can open the department up to liability. There was never any mention, either generally or specifically, of the Public Duty Doctrine.

This show was a travesty of justice, a fraud perpetrated upon future rape victims. The D.A. represents the State, not the victim.

PDD.146: Senate Judiciary Hearing on Rape

The following took place on September 14, 2010, before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295455-1

At no time was the Public Duty Doctrine mentioned, either specifically or in general terms. Consider this, then, propaganda from elite bureaucrats.

PDD.145: A New View of Organized Crime...

...and law enforcement asleep (or indifferent) at the wheel: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/opinion/13mazur.html?pagewanted=all

PDD.144: I could wallpaper my house with these

I recently contacted the great "Gerry Spence, Attorney at Law," in an effort to file lawsuits against those who mislead the public regarding The Public Duty Doctrine. Here was their reply:


"August 30, 2010

"Dear Mr. McMillan:

"Our firm is very pleased that you contacted us regarding your situation. Unfortunately, one of the things that makes Mr. Spence and the rest of us feel badly is that it is impossible to help everybody. Sometimes we feel guilty about that.

"We want you to know that if we could help you we would, but we can't give you any advice. We wish we could refer you to an attorney in your area, but we haven't anyone in mind.

"Be sure to contact a local attorney right away about the Statute of Limitations. There are specific times periods that govern how long you have to file a case or make a claim. You can lose your right to sue if you are not careful. Do not delay in this regard.

"We also want you to know how complimented we are that you cared enough to contact us. Our wishes go out to you for good success in your endeavor to get justice. It's hard. Don't give up.

"Sincerely,


"R. Daniel Fleck
Of the Spence Law Firm, LLC"

PDD.143: Half-truths are still half-truths

Consider these news articles in which the Public Duty Doctrine is not disclosed to the public: http://wbztv.com/local/norton.police.response.2.1793057.html and http://www.truth-out.org/connie-schultz-cut-budget-then-arm-citizens-judge-says58773

PDD.142: Restraining Orders

Yesterday, 8-25-2010, in the Asheville Citizens-Times newspaper (print), page A2, under the title of "Police response cut with budgets: Areas place focus on violent crimes," by Kevin Johnson of USA TODAY, a remarkable thing happened.

First, read the on-line version. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-25-1Anresponsecops25_ST_N.htm

So, I first read the actual print paper. And then I compared it with the on-line USA TODAY version, and, lo and behold, there was a paragraph missing. And then I checked the Asheville Citizen-Times on-line version, which is a link back to USA TODAY, and, again, the paragraph was missing from it too!!! With no reference to the article being edited. In other words, the on-line version from both news medias are being represented as being the original, with no edits.

Now, here is the missing paragraph (It goes between "The chiefs are putting the best face ....." and "In Tulsa, which lost 110 officers to layoffs..."): "Oakland police say they don't have enough resources to dispatch officers to theft, vandalism and car burglaries. Residents instead are being asked to report the incidents via computer. Violations of restraining orders are among the offenses on the no-dispatch list."

Focus on the last sentence: "Violations of restraining orders are among the offenses on the no-dispatch list."

No. 1: Of course, there was no mention made of The Public Duty Doctrine. No. 2: This is a classic example of American journalism as being suspect, and the reason for the need of blogs to get the truth out.

PDD.141: What a "Justice Index" Must Include

Such an index must include whether or not the general public knows of the Public Duty Doctrine http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/opinion/11bach.html

PDD.140: "Tribal Law and Order"

New York Times, August 2, 2010, opinion section: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/opinion/02mon3.html

PDD.139: OSHA too little, too late, as usual

Key words: "...371 violations, including 225 considered 'willful,' found after the Feb. 7 blast..."

Consider this Connecticut case: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/nyregion/06middletown.html

PDD.138: Eating Gulf Coast Fish

Before you eat any fish from the Gulf Coast, you might want to look at my blog posting .102, which specifically draws your attention to paragraph [75] of the following article http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/food/winstead.htm

PDD.137: State of Am. Legal Profession

If the police and district attorneys have no legal duty to protect, and they cannot be held liable for failing to protect, individual Americans have had to turn to lawyers to seek justice. American lawyers over the past 50 years have done a lot of good and a lot of harm. But, now, the average American may not have a choice if the following trend continues. Consider this: http://classic.cnbc.com/id/38572210

PDD.136: A Scientific Poll (Survey)

What needs to be done, before any legal action, is a scientific poll. A representative sampling of the U.S. population needs to be asked the question: Have you ever heard of the Public Duty Doctrine, either specifically or generally?

PDD.135: Government Secrecy & Wikileaks

Consider the case of U.S. vs. Reynolds (1953) involving the "state secrets privilege" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds. In this case, the government lied; the classified material contained no secret information. But, oh, how this decision changed our democracy!

I am a child of the 60's. I remember books, like The Pentagon Papers and The CIA Cult of Intelligence. The contents of both embarrassed the U.S. Government.

Secrecy, the classifying of information, undermines our democracy (actually our representative democracy). For the most part, our government operates under a cloak of secrecy. Elites in Congress are privvy to this information. We, the People, are supposed to trust our leaders. That train has left the station a long time ago.

Consider the secrecy surrounding the failure to disclose the Public Duty Doctrine. Crime victims are not warned of this, nor does state-approved textbooks include this information, either specifically or generally.

So, is it any wonder that, according to AP, "WikiLeaks.org, a self-described whistle-blower organization, posted 76,000 of the reports [battlefield reports] to its website Sunday night"? It was just a matter of time.

Whistleblowers, like me, are fed up with the U.S. Government's behavior. The day of disclosure is at hand. So, buckle-up.

PDD.134: A Lawsuit is the Remedy

To force governmental agents to disclose the Public Duty Doctrine, something like a Miranda warning, a lawsuit is necessary.

In order to sue, I believe two criteria have to be met: one, you have to show harm; and, two, you have to prove standing to sue.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, harm is defined as "The existence of loss or detriment in fact of any kind to a person resulting from any cause. See also Damages; injury; physical injury."

Regarding the above, see Tort.

And, lastly, according to Black's, standing (see Standing to sue doctrine) is defined, as follows: "Standing to sue" means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Standing is a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court. The requirement of "standing" is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Standing is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by governmental action complained of, and focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. See also Case (Cases and controversies); Justiciable controversy; Ripeness doctrine.

Continuing: "Administrative Procedure Act. Such Act authorizes actions against federal officers by 'any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.' 5 U.S.C.A. 702"

As an aside, I believe statutes of limitations factor in.

PDD:134: Aftermath of Trauma

Given the failure of federal, state, and local governments to properly disclose the Public Duty Doctrine to crime victims upfront, victims of crime jump through many hoops in their recovery. One symptom may be to internalize their victimization: "It was my fault," or "Why me?"

Trauma can cause PTSD. According to the following article, PTSD can cause sleep disorders.

The method employed in this article reminds me of Guided Imagery, a form of hypnosis. It is worth reading http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/health/27night.html

PDD.133: HR 5281

The U.S. Government is circling its wagons, expecting legal confrontations from the States.

Consider the following: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05281:@@@D&summ2=m&

It has passed the House. Next: the Senate.

PDD.132: The U.S. Military Version

It's called the Feres Doctrine: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march102010/feres-doctrine-jm.php

If you have a family member in the U.S. military, ask if they know about this. Most would say they've never heard of it.

PDD.131: Rape Revisited

I've almost completed reading Jessica Stern's "Denial: A Memoir of Terror," about the aftermath of her rape.

I'm up to chapter 12, and still no mention of the Public Duty Doctrine, not generally or specifically. Only.... a chief of police at Harvard saying that "... it was just a different time. People saw rape differently back then. And for the police -- it was soon after the protests. They had different priorities," page 221.

"... different priorities ..." How about no legal duty to protect by warning the public that a serial-rapist was in the neighborhood?

I'd like to share with you footnote number 2, in the notes section of the book:

The "walking corpses" is Bruno Bettelheim's term in The Informed Heart (New York: Free Press, 1960), p. 151. Psychiatrist and author Henry Krystal "affirms that psychogenic death can occur if the victim of catastrophic trauma completely surrenders to the situation in which no action is perceived as possible. If this surrender occurs, he/she falls into a state of immobility (catatonia), and abandons all life-preserving activity. He calls this a 'potential psychological "self-destruct" mechanism' and affirms that, once the process of total surrender starts it is no longer voluntarily terminable but may only be stopped by the intervention of an outside caretaker, and that, if this does not happen, the victim will die."

For those of you who have been traumatized like this, I want you to live. I want you to understand your legal standing with police and district attorneys. I want you to change your behavior by taking additional steps to protect yourselves, additional steps other than relying completely on 9-1-1.

Postscript: I finished Ms. Stern's book, "Denial." Because she made no mention of the Public Duty Doctrine, either specifically or generally, I would not recommend buying it nor reading it.

PDD.130: Is New York Times Trustworthy?

When it comes to disclosing the Public Duty Doctrine as the law of the land, the answer is NO.

Here are two prime editorial examples where the Doctrine should have been mentioned but was not: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun1.html?_r=1&ref=editorials and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/opinion/08thu1.html?ref=editorials

Considering the New York Times' position on illegal immigrants in the U.S., let's turn it around and consider what it would take for an American citizen to renounce his/her citizenship, what hoops they've got to jump through, and then consider if the illegals in this country has had to do the same. Like....would illegals, if given an opportunity to stay, renounce their Mexican citizenship? Consider the following articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html and http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/28201/renounce_us_citizenship_process_and.html?cat=37

PDD.129: Justice Sues Arizona

Ironic, that I would be supporting the Public Duty Doctrine, as a defense!!!!!

The Public Duty Doctrine claims that government and its agents (primarily police officers and district attorneys) have a duty only to society as a whole, not the individual. Local, state, and federal law, all across this land, recognize this doctrine.

The doctrine only surfaces, generally, as a defense by government and their agents when they are sued by individuals; these individuals were generally harmed by agents' failure to protect his or her interest.

So, what if....the federal government refuses to protect society as a whole, like defending our borders? What if....a state chooses to exercise its duty, under their Public Duty Doctrine, and defend their state from illegal immigration?

The question is: What if Arizona whips out the Public Duty Doctrine in defense of their law that's going into effect on the 29th?

Here is the New York Times' account of what is happening and the "alleged" issues involved: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07immig.html

PDD.128: Domestic Violence Shelter Immunity

North Carolina Senate Bill 144 does not require domestic violence shelter personnel to warn victims seeking shelter of the Public Duty Doctrine (or the immunity they seek to obtain). Consider recent coverage: http://wlos.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wlos_vid_2513.shtml and the bill http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S144v2.pdf

These elites are a disgrace to their profession.

PDD.126: "...a feminist avenging angel..."

Could Gloria Allred be the lawyer that brings the Public Duty Doctrine into the light of day for women? The attached article demonstrates her credentials: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/fashion/20ALLRED.html?pagewanted=1

Update (7-9-10): Received email from Allred's office. They're too busy to assist in this matter.

PDD.125: McDonald vs. City of Chicago

2nd Amendment case handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, concerning whether or not individuals have a right to purchase and possess guns. The Court ruled in favor of an individual's right to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Let's see. I haven't read the case yet, but I would probably bet on the fact that the Court made no mention, nor did any of the friends-of-the-court briefs, mention anything about the Public Duty Doctrine.

It's so simple. We have a right to bear arms because the police have no legal duty to protect and cannot be held liable for failing to do so. A moron could figure this out. However, the Court and the stooges that appear before it refuse to disclose this most basic of understandings.

PDD.124: Violence Revisited

Dwight Garner, of the New York Times, reviews the book "Denial," by Jessica Stern, about the aftermath of her rape. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/books/25book.html

Life is never really the same after...after -- well, you know. It's a struggle to even breathe, to want to breathe, to invite air, when the invitation is hollow, half-hearted, numbingly indifferent.

PDD.123: The Perils of Small Print

AP report, printed in the New York Times, Saturday, June 19, 2010, page A12, entitled "Texas: Alert Issued for Afghani Soldiers." According to the article, over a span of 18 months, 17 Afghani military members, while in training at Lackland Air Force Base, have gone awol. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/us/19brfs-ALERTISSUEDF_BRF.html

Yesterday, while at a Father's Day picnic, my in-laws mentioned that they had heard about it on CNN. It was news to me. And I'm a news junky.

PDD.122: Violence Against Women

One of the justifications for going into Iraq was Saddam's genocide of certain portions of the population. I thought we deposed this despot. However, even in his absence, atrocities continue. Consider the following, "Kurdistan Is Criticized Over Cutting Of Genitals," NY Times, 6-17-2010, by Namo Abdulla and Timothy Williams: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/middleeast/17kurd.html

All this under our watchful eye!

PDD.121: Innocent Foreigner, Torture & Obama

Consider the NY Times editorial "No Price to Pay for Torture," concerning the rendition of an innocent man by the previous administration and Obama's response to calls for justice: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/16wed2.html

PDD.120: Illegal Immigration

The Public Duty Doctrine claims that government and its agents have a duty to protect society as a whole, but not the individual.

There have been some efforts by states to protect themselves from illegal immigration, and apparently the U.S. Government (with our tax dollars) is going to file a lawsuit against Arizona for doing so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008171-503544.html

Something's wrong with this picture. Government and its agents, apparently, do not have a duty to protect citizens as a whole or individually.

In fact, are there any circumstances under which government and its agents have a duty to protect either the individual or society as a whole, other than witness protection, wherein a promise to protect has been negotiated?

PDD.119: "The Fearless Approach"

Victims of crime, particularly those who government agents have failed, consider the following words from this unlikely source: The 50th Law, by 50 Cent and Robert Greene, G-Unit Books, Inc., 2009 ....

"Events in life are not negative or positive. They are completely neutral. The universe does not care about your fate; it is indifferent to the violence that may hit you or to death itself. Things merely happen to you. It is your mind that chooses to interpret them as negative or positive. And because you have layers of fear that dwell deep within you, your natural tendency is to interpret temporary obstacles in your path as something larger -- setbacks and crises.

"In such a frame of mind, you exaggerate the dangers. If someone attacks and harms you in some way, you focus on the money or position you have lost in the battle, the negative publicity, or the harsh emotions that have been churned up. This causes you to grow cautious, to retreat, hoping to spare yourself more of these negative things. It is a time, you tell yourself, to lay low and wait for things to get better; you need calmness and security.

"What you do not realize is that you are inadvertently making the situation worse. Your rival only gets stronger as you sit back; the negative publicity becomes firmly associated with you. Being conservative turns into a habit that carries over into less difficult moments. It becomes harder and harder to move to the offensive. In essence you have chosen to cast life's inevitable twists of fortune as hardships, giving them a weight and endurance they do not deserve.

"What you need to do, as Fifty discovered, is take the opposite approach. Instead of becoming discouraged and depressed by any kind of downturn, you must see this as a wake-up call, a challenge that you will transform into an opportunity for power. Your energy levels rise. You move to the attack, surprising your enemies with boldness. You care less what people think about you and this paradoxically causes them to admire you -- the negative publicity is turned around. You do not wait for things to get better -- you seize this chance to prove yourself. Mentally framing a negative event as a blessing in disguise makes it easier for you to move forward." pgs 75-77

PDD.118: Gag Clauses

Most victims never get their day in court. Most lawsuits end in settlement.

If you're fortunate to find an attorney willing to fight for you, beware of the settlement; more than likely, it will include a gag clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order

http://www.ipacweb.org/acn/dec96/legal.html

Justice is not the rule, it is the exception.

Government and its agents (particularly police and district attorneys) have no legal duty to disclose that they have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failing to disclose that they have no legal duty to protect.

In fact, if you should find yourself involved in suing an abuser, whether it's an employer or government agent, be aware that the government can be used to restrict your speech in re-telling the world what happened to you at the hands of these individuals and how much they paid in settlement.

It boils down to re-victimization.

PDD.117: Ground Zero

Here is the crux of the problem with The Public Duty Doctrine: Law enforcement and District Attorneys have no legal duty to disclose that they have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to disclose that they have no legal duty to protect because there was no legal duty to disclose that they had no legal duty to protect in the first place.

Is your head spinning?

Miranda rights were ground zero for criminal suspects. It's now time for crime victims to be told the truth. Preferrably beforehand. Like in schools, before they hit the street.

PDD.116: Minnesota

Consider this case:

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0207/c4012123.htm

PDD.115: So. Dakota

Consider: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/sdlr43&div=28&id=&page=

PDD.114: Georgia

Consider this:

The State of Georgia

was, and apparently

still is, overwhelmed

with liability lawsuits

involving failure to

protect on the part of

state/local governments.

Question: When Plaintiffs

attempt to retain counsel

to file a lawsuit, don't the

lawyers make an attempt to explain the Public Duty

Doctrine to their clients? Answer: I think the lawyers

are afraid to disclose it.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/mercer51&div=11&id=&page=

PDD.113: Rape Victims

Rape victims (albeit not criminal) are still considered suspect.

Given the fact that the police and district attorneys do not represent the rape victim, but represents the State, rape victims might want to remain silent until they have gotten an attorney, at least for no other reason than to guarantee the rape kit is processed. Sad, but true.

So...... consider the case of Berghuis vs. Thompkins, No. 08-1470, in which the United States Supreme Court decided yesterday, regarding the right to remain silent. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02scotus.html

I know that rape victims will not be represented by private counsel in my lifetime. However, it is not a matter of if they will be represented but when. It's just a matter of time. The State and the American Bar Association better get ready, because it's coming.

PDD.112: Rape Kits

What we need: Mothers Against Drunk Government. Must we monitor every step local, state, and federal governments make?

Consider this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/20/eveningnews/main6504018.shtml

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Ir-DZoC_M

PDD.111: Virginia

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/psyc/Delk_v_Columbia-Healthcare_brief.htm

PDD.110: California

http://www.zimbio.com/Current+News+Events+by+Marc+Chamot+NEW/articles/566/Judge+Peter+Busch+says+state+no+duty+protect

PDD.109: The U.S. Army

A child is dead. http://www.kitv.com/news/22960722/detail.html

PDD.108: New York

Consider the case of Riss vs. New York City http://www.audiocasefiles.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

and.....http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/nyregion/citypeople-a-sort-of-love-story.html

PDD.107: Colorado

Consider the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

PDD.106: District of Columbia

Consider the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb3rAglRsqU

PDD.105: Wisconsin

Consider the case of DeShaney vs. Winnebago County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

PDD.104: Maryland

Consider the case of Yvonne Boughter et al. vs. Town of Ocean City Maryland Department of Emergency Services Fire/EMS et al.
http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/paramedics_MD.pdf

Family staying in motel. During the night, family extremely sick. The call to 9-1-1. No response. Husband and child dies.

PDD.103: Kansas

Consider the case of Lovitt vs. Board of Shawnee County Commissioners, wherein "Dispatcher Protected By Public Duty Doctrine," http://www.kscoplaw.com/other/lb10-01.htm

I bet that young child learned a bitter lesson by calling 9-1-1. The reflex to call 9-1-1 will be tempered with a Plan B from here on.

Also consider the following: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/15/1948671/social-worker-had-no-duty-to-protect.html

PDD.102: Louisianna

Consider the case of Winstead v. Ed's Live Catfish & Seafood, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1237 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989), which is linked here: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/food/winstead.htm.

It is a "failure to disclose case," involving the eating of raw oysters. That's right -- oysters.

This case goes to the very heart of what I have been writing about for almost a year now.

Scroll down to item [75], and read that one paragraph. For your convenience, I will write most of it here:

[75]"... The fact that the DHHR [Louisianna Department of Health and Human Resources] chose not to aggressively disseminate the information contained in the Monthly Morbidity Report to the general public does not constitute a breach of duty to warn. Since this bacteria only attacks a small percentage of the population...the DHHR was reasonable in its conclusion that the best way to warn these people was through the medical community. The Monthly Morbidity Report was sent to every physician in Louisianna, the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, and the health departments of several states, including Mississippi. We hold that this satisfied the duty to warn incumbent on the DHHR due to its specialized knowledge and position of public trust."

By highlighting this case, my point is that, based on this rationale rape victims, for example, which represent a "small percentage of the population," don't need to be warned of The Public Duty Doctrine, which is that government and its agents (law enforcement and district attorneys) 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.

Here, the state claims that they have "no legal duty to warn" because victims represent small numbers. If there was a warning, it was in fine print, a needle in a haystack.

PDD.101: Montana

This one makes you want to spit, cuss, and............ well, you read it: http://www.hollandharthealthcare.com/healthcare/2008/11/montana-medical-examiners-exculpated.html

PDD.100: Victim Advocates?

The following is an example of a victim-rights' website: http://aaa-selfdefense.com/the-victims-constitutional-right-to-reasonable-protection-from-revictimization-by-the-accused#respond

In the above, is there any reference to the victim hiring an attorney to protect his/her rights, due to the fact that the district attorney and investigating detective represent the state and not the victim?

Check out "Home" on the above site.

Type in "Public Duty Doctrine" on "Search this website."

The Public Duty Doctrine should be the foundation or cornerstone for advocating self-defense. However, there is only one paltry, vague, ambiguous reference to the doctrine in this website.

You should want to know why, on what grounds, self-defense should be in the forefront of everyone's mind.

PDD.99: North Carolina

http://nclawreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Punger.wptd_.pdf

"... the greater good...," Mr. Punger, would be to disclose this law to the public in a public way beforehand.

The public learns of the Public Duty Doctrine only after they have been harmed, and then the State whips out this doctrine to defend itself. Looks like an ambush to me.

Mr. Punger, give me the name of one high school in this state that discloses this doctrine to its students, either specifically or generally. One. Just one.

The Public Duty Doctrine.98: Iowa

I referred recently to The Public Duty Doctrine in Ohio and Washington State. Now, it's Iowa's turn.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=app%5C20060301%5C05-1103&invol=1

PDD.97: G. Braxton Price, Esq.

G. Braxton Price is a North Carolina Attorney http://www.hunterandprice.com/Attorney-Profile/G-B-Price.shtml.

In the Campbell Law Review, he wrote: "Inevitable Inequities:" The Public Duty Doctrine and Sovereign Immunity in North Carolina. http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/28-2-271.pdf

Scroll down to page 282, under the section and first paragraph of The Duty of Care, in which Mr. Price states:

"The concept of '[a] duty to all is a duty to none' is inherently illogical. If the government has a duty to the public, it also has a duty to the individual who makes up the public, because the mythical personality the law calls 'the public' cannot bring suit in order to be made whole or to hold government accountable. Only individuals can do this."

PDD.96: Test Tomorrow

Tomorrow, May 3, 2010, all across America, high school students will be taking the Advanced Placement United States Government and Politics test.

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/about.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Placement_United_States_Government_and_Politics

I can't wait to review the questions. Any bets on whether The Public Duty Doctrine will be mentioned either specifically or generally?

PDD.95: Roethlisberger

Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback, Pittsburgh Steelers, Super Bowl champion, alleged rapist of a Georgia girl, was slapped on the wrist.

The district attorney, who does not represent the alleged victim but represents the State of Georgia, reportedly stated there was not enough evidence to prosecute the jock.

What if...........instead of first showering or calling the police or calling Rape Crisis or making any statements at all, the alleged victim contacted an attorney with a backbone, and this attorney, representing her (his client), monitored the whole criminal-justice process involving his client's cooperation with law enforcement from beginning to end?

Question: Would the district attorney's decision have been different?

PDD.94: The Public Option

Consider the first two paragraphs in this article: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/10/06/americans-had-better-prepare-for-the-consequences-of-a-public-option.html

The Public Duty Doctrine.93: Ohio

Man drives drunk. Man arrested. Car impounded. Man released same day. Car returned to man. Man kills. Decedent's family sues. Family prevails. However, Defendants raised immunity defense (Public Duty Doctrine). And that's the issue.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/summaries/2010/0128/090014.asp

The Public Duty Doctrine.92: Washington State

A recent case of an elderly man calling 9-1-1 for help to find his wife: http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2010/04/13/local_news/doc4bc4b0f55b438989139074.txt

The Public Duty Doctrine.91: Worker Safety

In America, all too often when you go to work, you might lose your job, your morals, your integrity, and your life. It's a sad state of affairs.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is the oversight, regulatory agency over mine safety. Like OSHA (Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration), they only appear when someone is killed or three go to the hospital.

Consider the following recent article concerning the West Virginia cave-in: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/coal-mining-industry-ducks-punishment-safety-sins-clogging/story?id=10302187

The Public Duty Doctrine.90: Whistleblowing

C-Span, 4-1-2010, topic: "The Media & Whistleblowers," held by The National Whistleblowers Legal Defense and Education Fund in Washington, D.C.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/04/01/HP/A/31370/National+Whistleblower+Center+Panel+on+Whistleblowers+and+the+Media.aspx

The Public Duty Doctrine.89: New Website Coming

I bought a domain today: www.publicdutydoctrine.com

I will be setting up a website in the near future.

PDD.88: Case of Phoebe Prince

Yet, another case of failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine in a timely manner. A life may have been saved if the parents knew that school officials have no legal duty to protect.

What in the hell are we doing to our kids if we allow them to be subjected to this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36099680/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

The Public Duty Doctrine.87: Polemic

I am at war, a battle of words, against a specific doctrine of law. This type of writing is called Polemic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics

I have nothing against the idea of The Public Duty Doctrine, only that the public doesn't know about it. Ironic, isn't it?

Thank God it's only a part of who I am and what I do.

Most of my writing up to this point has been an exercise in putting my thoughts into some coherent form for some future forum. I've made it public because my struggle to get my head around this will be your struggle. It might help you and others.

The Public Duty Doctrine.86: Policing Ourselves

Given that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect the individual, only society as a whole (D+ for effort), and that they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect the individual because there was no legal duty to protect the individual in the first place (The Public Duty Doctrine), American individuals should police themselves (presently, an F for effort).

In other words, individuals, like Boy Scouts, must be vigilant, must be prepared to act, be resolved to protect themselves and not rely totally on law enforcement.

Law enforcement cannot be everywhere, not outside your home at night, not escorting your child to school, not walking to your car in a dark parking lot. And if you call 9-1-1 for help, 99 percent of the time they will arrive. But how long will it take? And if they did not arrive, or did not arrive in a timely manner, you have no recourse. They cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.

When they arrive, your expectation is that the "calvary has arrived." Not so with law enforcement. When police show up on the scene, they have no idea who the good guys or bad guys are. They are there to simply maintain law and order ("Just the facts, ma'am").

Your obligation, in a crime, is to defend yourself, first, and, secondly, to call 9-1-1 and report what you saw or experienced. Because, you see, all you are to the State is a witness, alive or dead. Don't forget that.

I give American law enforcement a "D+" because they fail to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine to the public. Talking about an oxymoron!!!

I give American individuals an "F" for effort. Because when you get right down to it, when you focus on the reality of the situation, they have failed to take the necessary responsibility in defending themselves. In a way, if they did, it would be called "Good Citizenship" to do so.

The Public Duty Doctrine.85: Due & Owing

"All Souls' Day" by D.H. Lawrence, extracted from The Oxford Book of Death, Chosen and Edited by D.J. Enright, Oxford University Press, 1983:

"Be careful, then, and be gentle about death,
For it is hard to die, it is difficult to go through
the door, even when it opens.

"And the poor dead, when they have left the walled
and silvery city of the now hopeless body
where are they to go, Oh where are they to go?

"They linger in the shadow of the earth.
The earth's long conical shadow is full of souls
that cannot find the way across the sea of change.

"Be kind, Oh be kind to your dead
and give them a little encouragement
and help them to build their little ship of death.

"For the soul has a long, long journey after death
to the sweet home of pure oblivion.
Each needs a little ship, a little ship
and the proper store of meal for the longest journey.

"Oh, from out of your heart
provide for your dead once more, equip them
like departing mariners, lovingly."

For those of you who linger, seeking truth and justice, you can go now. I promise to do what I can.

Due.

What I can. We owe you that much............One thing, though.

Yes?

Don't look back.

The Public Duty Doctrine.84: Due Process

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Due Process Rights are defined as such: "All rights which are of such fundamental importance as to require compliance with due process standards of fairness and justice."

The Public Duty Doctrine.83: Road To Hell...

That old expression, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" has been brought to my attention.

I would like everyone reading this to know that my intentions are good. Truth is good. I want to set things right. My world view is skewed without truth.

Some may say, "Well, your truth might not be someone else's truth."

I agree. But understand: throughout this blog (regarding The Public Duty Doctrine), I have done nothing but simply state the law of the land and back it up with citations.

The problem is: It's not disclosed, except in legal journals, unfit for human consumption. It is not proached in schools. Without a full understanding of your legal relationship with your government, you are literally playing russian roulette every day. The government is failing to disclose information vital to the public safety and interest. And that's not right to me. It is not humane. It is reckless behavior -- actually, criminal.

Until then, walk with me.

The Public Duty Doctrine.82: 42 USC 1983

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_USC_1983

The Public Duty Doctrine.81: Hamartia

Everyone lives their own story. In a sense, each one of us are protagonists in our own story. We are met with challenges in life and try, as we do or don't, to overcome and reach resolution.

For the most part, those who have encountered The Public Duty Doctrine are tragic characters. The morning they walked out of the house was like any other morning. They believed certain things. And by end of day they found their life, or what they believed in, was a lie. They slumbered their way through life, and now they are excruciatingly awake.

In my "Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, written by Chris Baldick, 1996, page 95, there is a word that embraces victim/witnesses, those who encounter the criminal justice system with certain expectations and find that those expectations were false. That word is hamartia.

Quoting, "Hamartia (pronounced ha mar te a), the greek word for error or failure, used by Aristotle in his Poetics (4th century BC) to designate the false step that leads the protagonist in a tragedy to his or her downfall. The term has often been translated as 'tragic flaw' but this misleadingly confines the cause of the reversal of fortunes to some personal defect of character, whereas Aristotle's emphasis was rather upon the protagonist's action, which could be brought about by misjudgment, ignorance or some other cause."

Examples of hamartia (just to name a few):

South v. Maryland (1855)
Buck vs. Bell (1927) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_vs._Bell
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)
Stone et al. v. N.C. Department of Labor (1997)
Akre v. Fox News (2003)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)
Victims of Madoff & SEC (2009)
Victims of other financial scandals: http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=657&title=Corp.%20Scandal

The Public Duty Doctrine.80: Plot Thickens

Follow this line of reasoning:

1. Republicans/conservatives want deregulation in the marketplace, the very same deregulation that has brought this country to its knees, the greatest recession since the Depression.

2. Republicans want to pass a Balance Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would tie the hands of President Obama in correcting the economy.

3. There is a theory, coming out of the University of Chicago, which states that regulators (ie, SEC) do not protect the public as much as they protect the ones they're regulating; it's called Capture of Regulation.

4. Then, of course, we have The Public Duty Doctrine, which states that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.

5. In 2003, in the case of Akre vs. Fox News, a Florida Appeals court ruled that the news media (a corporation) can lie to the public. The FCC does not offer any protection to the public from media lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre.

Jane wrote this piece on Public Truth.org: http://www.publictruth.org/content/view/122/26/ And Liane Costen's update of that piece included this: "Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting even at the expense of truth? Apparently so."

6. And, finally, January, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission No. 08-205, ruled that a corporation is an individual, and, therefore, should be entitled to contribute to political campaigns and advertise for particular candidates. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

Bottomline: The big picture for white collar, blue collar, and no collar is that we have to come together and protect our interests, as a whole, as one people, against those who are motivated solely by money and power. Money and power has no roots, does not pledge allegiance, does not send sons and daughters into harm's way, does not bury the dead.

PDD.79: The Capture of Regulation

Well, I'm watching C-Span this morning, The Washington Journal, topic: Fixing Financial Institutions. Robert Johnson, of the Roosevelt Institute: Project on Global Finance, Director, is being interviewed.

Approximately 22.4 minutes into the interview, Johnson is talking about regulations that protect the public. When all of a sudden he says, paraphrasing: There is a financial theory, out of the University of Chicago, that states that regulators don't work to protect the public as much as they protect the industry they regulate. And it's called The Capture of Regulation. See for yourself: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/11/WJE/A/30561/Robert+Johnson+Roosevelt+Institute.aspx

So, I say to myself, "Jesus, Mary & Joseph, that's what's wrong with the system. That explains the SEC, FTC, FDA, and every other ABC of government, not being asleep at the wheel, but being in cahoots with those they are supposed to regulate. The public has been flim-flammed." Does it sound familiar? Very similar to the Public Duty Doctrine.

So, I looked it up (Capture of Regulation). Wikipedia did not do a very good job. But consider this: http://wikisum.com/w/Stigler:_The_theory_of_economic_regulation

Now, this is not a doctrine, like The Public Duty Doctrine. But doesn't this theory explain so much of what is not going on -- consumer protection?

Consider this: The SEC, for example, connects two worlds: regulatory oversight and the economy. The SEC should bridge these two main elements that make America America. The problem with this bridge is that the opposing land masses are eroding away, leaving a bridge to nowhere.

The Public Duty Doctrine.78: Protect and Serve

So, if government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there is no legal duty to protect in the first place, Why in God's name would they put "Protect & Serve" on the sides of their patrol cars?

Consider the use of the Fairy Tale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Tales

Consider the use of Guided Imagery:
http://www.academyforguidedimagery.com/whatisguidedimagery/index.html

http://www.synthesiscenter.org/articles/0340.pdf

Answer: Because they could......and it worked.....until now.

The Public Duty Doctrine.77: Gov't as Fiduciary?

Just left the courthouse. Opened an estate for mom. Gotta pay off who we owe. Mom, a Republican, would have it no other way. Pay as you go, you know. I still can't believe she's gone. I was her son. I am now a fiduciary.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, a fiduciary is as follows:

The term is derived from the Roman law, and means (as a noun) a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. A person having duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. As an adjective it means of the nature of a trust; having the characteristics of a trust; analogous to a trust; relating to or founded upon a trust or confidence.

A person or institution who manages money or property for another and who must exercise a standard of care in such management activity imposed by law or contract; e.g. executor of estate, receiver in bankrupty; trustee. A trustee, for example, possesses a fiduciary responsibility to the beneficiaries of the trust to follow the terms of the trust and the requirements of applicable state law. A breach of fiduciary responsibility would make the trustee liable to the beneficiaries for any damage caused by such breach.

The status of being a fiduciary gives rise to certain legal incidents and obligations, including the prohibition against investing the money or property in investments which are speculative or otherwise imprudent.

As per Black's Law Dictionary, definition of Fiduciary bond:

Type of surety bond required by court to be filed by trustees, administrators, executors, guardians, and conservators to insure proper performance of their duties.

As per Black's, definition of Fiduciary capacity:

One is said to act in a 'fiduciary capacity' or to receive money or contract a debt in such capacity when the business which he transacts, or the money or property which he handles, is not his own or for his own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom he stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part. The term is not restricted to technical or express trusts, but includes also such offices or relations as those of an attorney at law, a guardian, executor, or broker, a director of a corporation, and a public officer.

Now............. as recent events have proved, it's apparently all about money and power. Our government bailed out the banks/perps, insurance companies, auto companies, initially turned a blind eye to huge bonuses, SEC asleep at the wheel, on and on and on.

So, (as they say in business: "business is business, nothing personal") why not look at local, state, and federal governments as fiduciaries?

The Public Duty Doctrine states that government and its agents (law enforcement) 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. There is a conspiracy of silence to keep this from public knowledge.

American law enforcement is huge, consume untold amounts of money to operate, and are fiduciaries, of a sort, in the budgeting and managing of our tax dollars.

Do you know how the fed finally got Al Capone? Tax fraud.

Do you know how local, state, and federal governments might eventually be forced to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine, this most vital of information, to the public? Through the Almighty Dollar. Tie mandatory disclosure of The Public Duty Doctrine to annual law enforcement budgets.

The Public Duty Doctrine.76: Dr. Phil

Dr. Phil's show today was entitled "What's Wrong With People?"

One of the segments involved airing the brutal beating of a girl, Aiesha Steward-Baker, at a Seattle bus terminal in front of security staff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vU81qkuvcU

Dr. Phil stated that Aiesha had actually approached Seattle police first and was told to move on.

Nancy Grace, a former Atlanta district attorney and guest on the show today, commented on the attack.

However, neither Dr. Phil nor Nancy Grace mentioned The Public Duty Doctrine, either specifically or generally.

The Public Duty Doctrine.75: Sleeping Beauty

The Arts & Leisure section of Sunday's New York Times (2-28-10) ran an article entitled "Violence That Art Didn't See Coming," by Sam Tanenhaus. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/arts/28bishop.html

His message: Novelists and Hollywood writers dropped the ball in predicting, through their art, the kind of violence demonstrated by Amy Bishop, "... the neuroscientist arrested for shooting six colleagues, killing three, at a department meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville."

Tanenhaus states, "Rampages of this sort have become familiar. But with rare exceptions they have been the preserve of men: lonely, alienated psycho killers with arsenals of high-powered weapons and feverishly composed manifestos." "... the culture is still relatively unprepared for a female killer of the kind suggested by the case of Amy Bishop..."

In a much broader sense, beyond the particulars of the Amy Bishop case, I believe that novelists and Hollywood writers, through a conspiracy of silence, have failed to portray the plight of women in our violent culture. The concept of The Public Duty Doctrine, specifically or generally, is, and has been, conspicuously absent in their writings. The above article should have been entitled, "Violence That Art Turned Its Back On."

John Grisham, Dick Wolf, Jerry Bruckheimer, are you listening?

When a woman calls 9-1-1 or gets a restraining order, does she know that government and its agents (police, district attorneys) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place?

Women have been betrayed by the criminal justice system and the Arts (writers and producers, like Grisham, Wolf, Bruckheimer).

If I were among those purveyors of lies, I would be afraid -- oh, so afraid -- when the slumbering feminine awakes.

PDD.74: Chicago Gun Law before Court

Here we go again. Will the Supreme Court have the courage to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine as the reason for law-abiding citizens to purchase and own handguns for their own safety?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35649914/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

PDD.73: Window Dressing From The Right

Proposal to create a National Urban Crime Awareness Week. http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hconres227

Postscript: It failed to pass because there was not a quorum, maybe a lack of interest. It will be put to a vote when a quorum is present -- maybe.

The Public Duty Doctrine.72: Cops Don't Co-Parent

C-Span 1 this morning interviewed a Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow." The crux of her position was that The Drug War is making people of color, who have been convicted of a felony, permanent second class citizens, a form of branding. She mentioned that America has more people incarcerated than any other country in the world, and that it boils down to racial politics.

I hope this critique clearly presented her basic position.

Question: Why does America have more people incarcerated than any other nation?

Could it be that Ms. Alexander failed to grasp the broad context in which criminal behavior is dealt with?

If the majority of American parents bought into the idea of law enforcement's Protect & Serve motto, could it be that Americans on average, regardless of color, view police paternalistically -- in other words, as co-parents? Co-parenting their unsupervised, out-late-at-night, gang-involved, unprotected-sex-involved, graffiti-involved, drug-involved children?

This view of law enforcement's legal duty (protect & serve) sounds like "It takes a village to raise a child" -- on steroids.

As we know, this is not Mayberry. There is no Sheriff Andy Taylor, who catches a truent student and asks, "Does your momma know where you are?" and then takes him home in the patrol car with a stern warning, released into the arms of an embarrassed mother who says, "Just wait until your father gets home."

No. We're a different kind of America. Law enforcement does not co-parent or enable parents. Their mission, legally speaking, is Law & Order -- period.

Now, here's a twist: Suppose your 14-year-old daughter is raped by a stranger while walking a few blocks from home. She cooperates with the police, goes to the hospital, participates with Rape Crisis counselling, and the case starts to fall apart.

Suppose the father suggests to the investigating officer on more than three occasions that his daughter undergo hypnosis in order to glean more information to help in the investigation.

Suppose the hypnosis is performed with the daughter's and the doctor's agreement. Suppose the father calls the investigating officer upon completion of the hypnosis and says that they'd like to meet at the police station and provide this additional information.

And suppose the next thing that happens is the father receives a letter in the mail from the district attorney's office stating that the father had irreparably harmed his daughter's case by having her memory refreshed; in other words, her memory contaminated by a psychiatrist. Her testimony deemed unreliable by having her memory refreshed.

And at no time did the investigating officer warn the father to refrain from the procedure or to consult an attorney before doing so.

As you can see, cops don't co-parent the parents either.

The Public Duty Doctrine.71: More Propaganda

It is 2010 and victim advocates are still spewing falsehoods and placing the public at risk. Consider the following:

http://themountaineer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:how-a-restraining-order-can-affect-a-violent-relationship&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=27

Now, pull up Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005) and read the truth of the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

PDD.70: The Sophisticated User Doctrine

I've mentioned in the past (12-9-2009) that I thought the criminal justice system might in the future claim, if sued for failure to protect, that the average citizen should have known that the state has no legal duty to protect; in other words, that average citizens should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine by way of their civic sophistication or common sense.

The Sophisticated User Doctrine generally involves product liability. However, you will probably see the government claim this in future defenses in conjunction with The Public Duty Doctrine.

Consider this: http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/fabricated-metal-product-manufacturing/1038734-1.html

Now, consider the case of Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

So, if a case like Warren v. Dist. of Columbia were to be heard in the future, the court's rationale might evolve into the following:

1. The District of Columbia police had no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, ie The Public Duty Doctrine.

2. And, furthermore, the Plaintiffs (victims) should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine because of The Sophisticated User Doctrine, and, therefore, taken the necessary steps to protect themselves absent police protection.

3. The State may go so far as claim "The Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine," meaning that when a victim risks calling 911, instead of immediately taking the necessary steps to protective themselves first, that this was an open and obvious danger and liability is, therefore, a non-issue. Now, this doctrine generally involves property/land issues (trip-and-fall/injury cases). But consider this, as well, as something that might evolve into the above defenses. http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/open-and-obvious-doctrine/

The problem with the State using this defense (SUD) is that there is no evidence that the public is knowledgeable of the Public Duty Doctrine, no curriculums in schools, no public service announcements, zip. In other words, the public is unsophisticated pertaining to such matters. However, they are very savy about dialing 911, if in trouble. The problem is: the public's expectations are at odds with law enforcement's legal duty, which is not to protect and serve but to maintain law and order; the victim, in the eyes of the law, is not a victim but a witness for the State -- period.

I have no doubt that at some point the State will use The Sophisticated User Doctrine, regardless of the public's lack of civic/legal sophistication. It will be much like "doublespeak" in the book "1984" or "Alice Through The Looking Glass" where everything, including rules of behavior, are upsidedown or backwards.

Welcome to Wanesville!!!!

The Public Duty Doctrine.69: Review To-Do List

On November 21, 2009 (Areas of Interest), I summarized what we should be focusing on which could make a significant difference in our relationship with law enforcement. Let's include one more to the list:

1. Cultivate better "refs" on the field, based on the public knowing of The Public Duty Doctrine; these would include local/state police, FBI, DEA, FTC, SEC, DSS, etc.

2. Create Citizen Review Boards, nationwide, to monitor law enforcement activity.

3. Create a new type of Citizen Review Board Grand Jury system, with subpoena power.

4. Create a new Miranda-type warning for victim-witnesses, disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine: Government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place).

Note that the criminal justice system is an adversarial system (State vs. Smith). This alteration will create a three-tiered system, a system that focuses on victim's rights, whereas now the victim is merely a witness under law, many times viewed as suspect by district attorneys. There should be no change to the civil side of suing the wrongdoer.

5. President declares national/state of emergency, nationwide, on the basis that the public is not aware of certain information vital to the public safety, that is: The Public Duty Doctrine; that the failure to disclosure The Public Duty Doctrine is systemic and average citizens have unrealistic expectations regarding law enforcement and unknowingly put their lives at risk by doing so.

Example:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/message-congress-annual-renewal-emergency-authorities

6. If the President fails to declare a national/state of emergency, class-action lawsuits should be brought up against the U.S. Government, State Governments, American Bar Association, State Bar Associations, State University/College Systems, and the 50 Departments of Public Instruction for failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine, which is information vital to the public safety and promotes responsible citizenship.

7. High school dropouts and graduates, including the home-schooled, shall spend at least one full day in class discussing The Public Duty Doctrine prior to leaving school. A police officer, a lawyer, a social worker, and a 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 an appropriate form.

8. Promote and create groups of 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. Depending on the response, able-bodied citizens may be called to duty as in being called to jury duty.

9. Keep an eye on U.S. Government Statistical Value placed on an American life (see June 18, 2009 posting to this blog).

The Public Duty Doctrine.68: State of Emergency 2

July 1 & 2 of 2009, I posted on this blog a 1991 letter that I had sent to then North Carolina Governor James Martin, along with the Governor's response. Actually, the State Attorney General's Office responded on behalf of the Governor.

The Governor's response then to my request amounted to obstruction of justice. It still does.

Generally, state governor's declare states of emergencies, and then petition the federal government for assistance. However, the President of the United States can also declare a national/state of emergency as well.

Consider this (and by the way, have fun trying to research this issue with any kind of clarity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency Did you catch the words "... alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors ..." in the first sentence? Did you read the part that the President can initiate a state of emergency on his own?

As stated in the title of this piece, I'm going to prepare and send a very similar letter, as I did in 1991, and direct it to President Obama. And I will get a letter back, I'm sure, from the U.S. Attorney's Office stating pretty much the same response as I got before. Obstruction of Justice II.

You see, I need to go on the record, make it official. And when I get Obama's response back, if any, I will post it here.... for you to see...with your own eyes.

Alive from Wanesville, David McMillan

The Public Duty Doctrine.67: The Red Pill

The movie Matrix appeared in American theaters in 1999. The protagonist, Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) seeks the truth. Neo is offered two pills: The red one leads to the truth. The blue one maintains the status quo. Neo chose red, as I did, long ago.

Which are you going to choose?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps

http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php

The Public Duty Doctrine.66: Rape in 1973

Interesting Time Magazine article. Again, no mention of The Public Duty Doctrine.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945273,00.html

And a 2000 report. No mention of The Public Duty Doctrine.

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/sa.shtml

PDD.65: Rape Crisis & Confidentiality

http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Legal-resources/2009-Confidentiality/NorthCarolina09.pdf

The Public Duty Doctrine.64: U.S. Rape Kits

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/14/united-states-senate-should-act-rape-investigations

The Public Duty Doctrine.63: Sovereign Immunity

Wikipedia does a pretty good job on this issue. Consider the international implications, as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

PDD.62: 9-11 & Sovereign Immunity

Survivors sued Saudi Arabia for their involvement with 9-11.

Consider the following: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/29/supreme-court-quashes-911-lawsuit-against-saudis/

The Public Duty Doctrine.61: Christmas Day Bomber

What if the Christmas Day Bomber, who was from Nigeria, was successful in setting off that bomb? What if it could be proven that government officials in Nigeria were aware of the plot and did nothing to stop it? How far do you think you'd get in finding justice?

Consider this: http://www.dawodu.com/ijalaiye1.htm

PDD.60: Canada's Sovereign Immunity

Consider the case of this Canadian lawyer and put yourself in his shoes.http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?sectionarticle&articleid=824

PDD.59: Women Of The 21st Century

The New York Times Magazine, dated August 23, 2009, was devoted primarily to women's issues, globally. I had six daughters. I have a vested interest in this subject.

One of its articles was entitled, "The Women's Crusade," co-authored by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. The article opens with, "In the 19th Century, the paramount moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was totalitarianism. In this century, it is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape."

All the articles are indepth, comprehensive, and heartwrenching.

I believe that American women will lead the way in changing the plight of women globally. And at the same time I'm going to level an accusation against those same American women, and that is: If American women fail to recognize (at least in the U.S.) that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect, they will export unrealistic expectations to impoverished and tortured women abroad. American women need to deal with this issue here and now, openly, consider their options under the circumstances, and proceed as role models for the rest of the world. Until then, their efforts will be fruitless.

I have not done extensive research on similar laws around the world. But you can bet that the rest of the world's governments will emulate the U.S. regarding failure to protect and sovereign immunity issues.

By the way, the above The New York Times Magazine issue did not mention, either specifically or generally, The Public Duty Doctrine in the U.S. or similar laws around the world.

The Public Duty Doctrine.58: Due Diligence

Why should we educate ourselves about The Public Duty Doctrine? Because when we cry foul to the criminal justice system's failure to protect, the system usually responds with: We had no legal duty to protect in the first place; and, if you gave the subject due diligence, you would have known the criminal justice system does not protect. Therefore, ignorance is no excuse.

Due diligence means you investigate first before you commit, you look before you leap.

Consider the attached: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence