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.