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