WE the People or THEY the People?

Why Are Innocent People Forced To Pay Outrageous Phone Bills???

2007-06-29T22:06:00.000-05:00

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/callhome/

The Protect Friends & Families of Incarcerated Individuals From Monopolizing PrePaid Phone Companies (Evercom, Correctional Billing) Unfair Deceptive Business Practices Petition to FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Consumer

2007-04-11T10:42:00.000-05:00

HIV/AIDS and Domestic Violence

2007-03-09T10:54:00.000-05:00

HIV/AIDS and Violence

Women’s inability to negotiate safe sex and refuse unwanted sex is closely linked to the high prevalence HIV/AIDS. Unwanted sex — from being unable to say “no!” to a partner and be heard, to sexual assault such as rape — results in a higher risk of abrasion and bleeding, providing a ready avenue for transmission of the virus. Both realities obliterate women’s ability to protect themselves from infection.Violence is a cause as well as a consequence of HIV/AIDS: for many women, the fear of violence prevents them from declaring their HIV-positive status and seeking help and treatment. They have been driven from their homes, left destitute, been ostracized by their families and community, and subjected to extreme physical and emotional abuse. In 1998 Gugu Dhlamini was stoned to death by men in her community in South Africa, after she declared her positive status on radio and television on World AIDS Day.

Young women are particularly vulnerable to coerced sex and are increasingly being infected with HIV/AIDS. Over half of new HIV infections world-wide are occurring among young people between the ages of 15 to 24, and over 60 per cent of HIV-positive youth between the ages of 15 to 24 are women. A study conducted in Tanzania in 2001 found that HIV-positive women were over 2 and half times more likely than HIV-negative women to have experienced violence perpetrated by their current partner.A 2002 UNIFEM-sponsored report on the impact of armed conflict on women underscores how the chaotic and brutal circumstances of armed conflict aggravate all the factors that fuel the crisis. Tragically and most cruelly, in many conflicts, the planned and purposeful HIV infection of women has been a tool of war, often pitting one ethnic group against another, such as what occurred in Rwanda

Cultural Violence in Traditions of Other Societes

2007-03-09T10:52:00.000-05:00

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

FGM refers to several types of traditional cutting operations performed on women and girls. Often part of fertility or coming-of-age rituals, FGM is sometimes justified as a way to ensure chastity and genital “purity.” FGM occurs primarily in over 25 African countries, among some minorities in Asia and immigrant communities in Europe, Australia, Canada and the US. An estimated 130 million women today have undergone FGM, and an additional 2 million girls and women are being subjected to it each year. Since the late 1980s, opposition to FGM and efforts to combat the practice has increased.

Some countries have passed legislation to regulate or ban FGM.— UNIFEM supported a project in Kenya, which involved local communities developing alternative coming-of-age rituals, such as “circumcision with words” — celebrating a young girl’s entry into womanhood with words instead of genital cutting. A joint initiative by UNICEF, WHO, and UNFPA seeks to drastically decrease the incidence of FGM, including assisting governments to develop and implement national polices to abolish the practice.

Dowry Murder

Dowry murder is a brutal practice involving a woman being killed by her husband or in-laws because her family is unable to meet their demands for her dowry — a payment made to a woman’s in-laws upon her engagement or marriage as a gift to her new family. It is not uncommon for dowries to exceed a family’s annual income.While cultures throughout the world have dowries or analogous payments, dowry murder occurs predominantly in South Asia. In India, for example, there are close to 15,000 dowry deaths estimated per year and mostly in kitchen fires designed to look like accidents. In Bangladesh, there have been many incidents of acid attacks due to dowry disputes, leading often to blindness, disfigurement, and death. In 2002, 315 women and girls in Bangladesh were victims of acid attacks.— In India, women’s organizations have successfully advocated for changes to the 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act, including amendments in the 1980s to hire community members as “dowry prohibition officers.” In addition, the country’s murder law has been revised to define and punish dowry death.

Honour Killings

In many societies, rape victims, women suspected of engaging in premarital sex, and women accused of adultery have been murdered by their male relatives because the violation of a woman’s chastity is viewed as an affront to the family’s honour.According to a 2002 UN human rights report, more than 1,000 women are killed in Pakistan in the name of honour every year. In a study of female deaths in Alexandria, Egypt, 47 per cent of the women were killed by a relative after the woman had been raped. In Jordan and Lebanon, 70 to 75 per cent of the perpetrators of these so-called honour killings are the women’s brothers.

It is not only in Islamic countries that this act of violence is prevalent. Brazil is cited as a case in point, where killing is justified to defend the honour of the husband in the case of a wife’s adultery.

Early Marriage

The practice of early marriage is prevalent throughout the world, especially in Africa and South Asia. This is a form of sexual violence, since young girls are often forced into the marriage and into sexual relations, which jeopardizes their health, raises their risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS and limits their chance of attending school.Parents and families often justify child marriages to ensure a better future for their daughters. Parents and families marry off their younger daughters as a means to gain economic security and status for them as well as for their daughters. Insecurity, conflict and societal crisis also support early marriage.

In many African countries experiencing conflict, where there is a high possibility of young girls being kidnapped, marrying them off at an early age is viewed as a means to securing their protection. In some countries, a rapist can be exempt from punishment if he is prepared to marry the victim, and the law can allow judges to lower the age of marriage in cases where the rape victim is a minor.In the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, for example, young girls are “sold” by their parents into marriage for money. This is done without the consent of daughters; and often the husbands are wealthy older men. This is no longer permitted by law, but still practiced. Girls fleeing such marriages can be put in jail and are shunned by society. If they are released, they are either killed by their own family or their in-laws, or sold again.

Trafficking in Women and Girls

Trafficking involves recruiting or transporting another person in order to place them in a situation of abuse or exploitation such as forced prostitution, slavery-like practices, battering and extreme cruelty, sweatshop labour, or exploitative domestic servitude.While exact data is hard to come by, estimates on the number of trafficked women and girls range from 700,000 to two million per year. More than 200,000 Bangladeshi women have been trafficked from 1990 to1997; and 5000 to 7000 Nepali women and girls illegally trafficked to India. In Europe for example, 10 to 15 per cent of foreign prostitutes in Belgium were trafficked from other countries and sold into prostitution rings. These women and girls were mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, Colombia, Nigeria and Peru.

Illegal trafficking in persons frequently involves organized crime, and efforts to combat it can involve serious risks.

Crimes against Women in War and Armed Conflict

The victims in today’s armed conflicts are far more likely to be civilians than soldiers. Some 70 per cent of the casualties in recent conflicts were non-combatants — most of them women and children. Women’s bodies have become part of the battleground for those who use terror as a tactic of war — they are raped, abducted, humiliated and made to undergo forced pregnancy, sexual abuse and slavery. In Rwanda, up to half a million women were raped during the 1994 genocide. The numbers are as high as 60,000 in the war in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Equally, in Sierra Leone, the number of incidents of war-related sexual violence among internally displaced women from 1991-2001 is as high as 64,000.Protection and support for women survivors of violence in conflict and post-conflict areas is woefully inadequate.

Harmful Traditional Practices of Cultural Violence

2007-03-09T10:50:00.000-05:00

Harmful traditional practices refer to types of violence that have been committed against women in certain communities and societies for so long that these abuses are considered a part of accepted cultural practice. These violations include female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM), dowry murder, so-called honour killings, and early marriage. They lead to death, disabilities, and physical and psychological dysfunction for millions of women annually.

Domestic and Sexual Violence

2007-03-09T10:49:00.000-05:00

Domestic and Sexual Violence

Domestic and intimate partner violence involves physical and sexual attacks against women in the home, within the family or within an intimate relationship. Women are more at risk of experiencing violence in intimate relationships than anywhere else.In no country in the world are women safe from this type of violence. Out of ten counties surveyed in a 2005 study of the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 50 per cent of women in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Peru and Tanzania reported having been subjected to physical or sexual violence by intimate partners, with figures reaching staggering 71 per cent in rural Ethiopia. Only in one country (Japan) did less than 20 per cent of women report incidents of domestic violence.

An earlier WHO study puts the number of women physically abused by their partners or ex-partners at 30 per cent in the UK, and 22 per cent in the US.Based on several surveys from around the world, half of the women who die from homicides are killed by their current or former husbands or partners. Women are killed by people they know and die from guns violence, beatings and burns among numerous other forms of abuse. A study conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil reported that 13 per cent of deaths of women of reproductive age were homicides, of which 60 per cent were committed by the victims’ partners.In the USA, 700,000 women are raped or sexually assaulted each year, with 14.8 per cent of women reporting having been raped before the age of 17. In a randomly selected study of nearly 1,200 ninth-grade students in Geneva, Switzerland, 20 per cent of girls revealed they had experienced at least one incident of physical sexual abuse. This form of sexual violence also extends beyond the domestic domain.

Although many countries now have legislation that addresses domestic violence, high levels of violence still persist. There is clearly a need for greater focus on implementation and enforcement of legislation, and an end to laws that emphasize family reunification over the rights of women and girls.In many societies, the legal system and community attitudes add to the trauma rape survivors experience. Women are often held responsible for the violence against them, and in many places laws contain loopholes which allow the perpetrators to act with impunity. In a number of countries, a rapist can go free under the Penal Code if he proposes to marry the victim and she consents. In Pakistan and many other Islamic countries, ordinances require women reporting rape to provide a set number of credible male witnesses to verify the crime. Victims unable to provide these witnesses are often charged instead with adultery.

Another Damned Drug War Death

2007-03-07T03:51:00.001-05:00

Courtesy of Reason Magazine:

Another Damned Drug War Death

FBI Unravels Four Corrupt Florida Officers

2007-03-06T07:09:00.000-05:00

FBI Corruption Sting Unravels Four Corrupt Florida Officers

Four Hollywood police officers were linked to a corruption scandal, involving a criminal organization located outside New York. The discovery followed a two-year FBI sting operation into corruption in the Hollywood Police Department.

To read the full article, see:
FULL ARTICLE HERE Courtesy of: ALL HEADLINE NEWS

Okay, Now What?

2007-02-27T04:45:00.001-05:00

Everybody wants battered women to 'make better choices', or to 'get out' or 'leave their abuser' and 'dont go back...'

I did that... okay, now what?

I know women who did everything right, called the police, got the protective order, left, moved, ceased contact, got a job, never went back; and 10 years later their child got kidnapped because nobody believed that her abuser would really plot, wait and pounce that many years later... okay, now what?

I'm blogging from a hotel room; weekly rates; on a computer borrowed from a friend. I'm not sure where I'll be next week; what I'll eat tomorrow, or if I have the strength to keep on... yeah, I left my abuser ...
okay, now what?

See when the abuser isn't convicted the battered woman is left without crime victim services.

When the abuser isn't at the front door or on top of the victim, the shelter isn't available - and when it is, its only available for a brief 30 day stay...

When the abuser flees the state with your child, the victim falls through the cracks of the jurisdictional boundaries and the police that pass the buck instead of enforcing out of state protective orders - - now what?

When the abuser finally goes to prison for unrelated crimes, and the victim tries to prosecute, its impossible to get law enforcement to take the case seriously because they figure he's already in jail and it'd be a waste of time, so, now what?

When the abuser isn't expected to get out of prison until your children are over the age of 18, the state no longer seeks enforcement of the child support arrears he owes, so, now what?

When the abuser can't use his fists anymore and uses the system, it can revictimize the survivors and sometimes paralyze them emotionally when the children are used as pawns; already disabled from the beatings years before, now suffering eternal grief for the emotional beatings of the court system and flawed social services system; a victim is on an uphill battle to survive; and when she becomes homeless, penniless and hopeless ... she'll ask everyone who wanted her to get out... okay...now what?

Now what????

Prosecution of a Domestic Violence Crime: (Illinois)

2007-02-21T20:25:00.001-05:00

What is the Role of Prosecution in Criminal Domestic Violence Cases?
Because of the seriousness of Domestic Violence cases in the Criminal Justice system, it is very important that these cases be prosecuted vigorously, as well as sensitively. It is important that the Prosecutor in the State's Attorney's office remember that domestic violence is a criminal behavior and to respond to it as such. It is helpful for State's Attorney's offices to review any office policies that may drop domestic violence cases to a lower priority than offenses between strangers.

When the Criminal Justice system works effectively, the Abuser knows that his continued violence will elicit increasingly severe sanctions, so there will be a deterrent effect. The Illinois Domestic Violence Act directly addresses the intended aggressive response of the prosecutorial community. This is most likely to happen when the Criminal Justice System enacts a consistent, aggressive, and coordinated effort to respond to the crime in their community.

The Illinois Domestic Violence Act calls upon the Criminal Justice system to respond to the needs of Victims through the Purposes Section outlined at the beginning of the Act. That Section suggests that there should be vigorous enforcement and prosecution policies regarding the crime of domestic violence. Specifically, the Act states that the system should:

Recognize that Domestic Violence is a serious crime...(which) promotes a pattern of escalating violence...and creates an emotional atmosphere that is not conducive to healthy childhood development;
Recognize Domestic Violence against high-risk adults with disabilities;
Recognize that the legal system has ineffectively dealt with family violence in the past, allowing Abusers to escape effective prosecution or financial liability, and has not adequately acknowledged the criminal nature of Domestic Violence; that, although many laws have changed, in practice there is still widespread failure to appropriately protect and assist Victims;
Support the efforts of Victims of Domestic Violence to avoid further abuse and, when necessary, reduce the Abuser's access to the Victim and address any related issues of child custody and economic support, so that Victims are not trapped in abusive situations by fear of retaliation, loss of a child, financial dependence, or loss of accessible housing or services;
Clarify the responsibilities and support the efforts of Law Enforcement Officers; and
Expand the Civil and Criminal Remedies for Victims of Domestic Violence including, when necessary, the remedies which affect physical separation of the parties to prevent further abuse.

Should the State's Attorney Office have a written Domestic Violence Protocol detailing what the Office Policy is?
To assure consistency, it is suggested that a State's Attorney's Domestic Violence Protocol be in writing and specify the framework for deciding how to handle Domestic Violence cases in the office. Many Illinois counties have firm, written policies in place and are willing to share their expertise with other State's Attorneys. A general Domestic Violence Protocol for State's Attorney's Offices was suggested through an Illinois Criminal Justice System's committee in 1995. Check with your local Illinois State's Attorney's office or contact the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence to see a copy.

What are Some of the better DV Policies regarding Prosecution?
Since each county faces unique criminal occurrences, no one policy of handling Domestic Violence cases is in effect in Illinois. Many smaller counties have one State's Attorney and one part-time Assistant State's Attorney to handle all prosecutions. In these counties, it is likely that the Assistant will handle many of the Domestic Violence cases. Large counties may assign Domestic Violence cases to Prosecutors in a Domestic Violence Unit. Having a DV Unit or a particular Assistant State's Attorney assigned to all Domestic Violence cases is preferable because it allows the Prosecutor(s) to develop expertise in this area of the law, as well as follow a consistent county policy for prosecution.
Experience in Illinois, as well as other states, has shown that it is desirable for one Attorney to handle a case from its inception, if possible. This fosters a trust between the Victim and Prosecutor and helps to insure that the facts of the individual case are clear to the Prosecutor handling it. Whatever the arrangement, it is recommended that those Prosecutors dealing with Domestic Violence adopt a uniform policy of processing these crimes and that such a Policy take full advantage of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.

Can Domestic Abuse Advocates from DV Programs be helpful to Victims during Prosecution?
The State's Attorneys who become familiar with Domestic Violence Programs in their area will learn that the Programs' Domestic Abuse Advocates can provide invaluable assistance. The Domestic Abuse Advocates are advocates who assist Victims of Domestic Violence in their efforts to obtain legal remedies, including Orders of Protection or criminal prosecution. Working in cooperation with the Domestic Abuse Advocates from DV Programs can greatly enhance the State's Attorney's efforts.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Advocates are not substitutes for State's Attorneys. The Domestic Abuse Advocates are a tremendous support to the Victim, helping her recall details and gathering evidence; accompanying the Victim to court; and explaining the system to her. According to 750 ILCS 60/205, Domestic Abuse Advocates are now allowed to sit at the counsel table and confer with the Victim with the Court's approval. They can also assist the Victim with the preparation of the Order of Protection. In that capacity, it is not considered the unauthorized practice of law.
Domestic Violence Programs are an excellent source of counseling and support for the Domestic Violence Victim. However, a few Victims may be reluctant to avail themselves of such services. It is important that State's Attorneys not make such services a requirement of court intervention policies, though referral to those services can be a benefit to Victims unaware of their existence.

What is "Prosecution Without the Cooperation of the Victim Policy" or a "No Drop Policy"?
When a Victim turns to the police and others in the criminal justice system, it is usually because she is desperate. Because Victims are frequently intimidated or coerced by the Abusers in requesting that criminal charges be dropped, the State's Attorney's office should implement a Domestic Violence Protocol Policy that limits the victim's responsibility for bringing the charges.
Studies have substantiated that Prosecutorial attitudes about domestic violence crimes affect Victim cooperation with the process. Vigorous prosecution policies show the Victims that, indeed, the criminal justice system in the community will take measures to keep her safe, plus will put pressure on the Abuser to stop the abusive behavior.
The State's Attorney should always sign the Criminal Complaint; otherwise, the Victim will become a target for the Abuser who is attempting to get the charges dropped. The State's Attorney should explain to the Victim that the abuse is a crime, and it is the duty of the State's Attorney to prosecute, not the Victim. The Prosecution should consider sending a letter to the Victim which states that the State's Attorney's office has the power to drop the charges, not the Victim. This letter has the multiple purposes of protecting the Victim from further intimidation from the Abuser for her to drop charges, as well as relating a strong Pro-Prosecution Policy to the Victim, Abuser and community at large.
If a county does not have a Policy of State's Attorneys signing complaints, and Victims are allowed to drop charges, certain procedures should take place to insure Victim safety. For example, if a Victim requests that charges be dropped, the State's Attorney should talk to the Victim to determine the reason for the request, present available options, and encourage prosecution. (Victims may have been coerced by the Abuser; they may be unaware of sentencing guidelines fearing either too harsh or too lenient a sentence; or, they may be in the "honeymoon phase" of Domestic Violence and believe the abuse will cease.) Domestic Abuse Advocates at dv programs are a good support system for the State's Attorney faced with a reluctant witness at this stage.
If a Victim fails to appear in Court, the State's Attorney should request a continuance and make every effort to ascertain her whereabouts and safety.
With a strong prosecutorial stance, the State's Attorney's Office can be a deterrent against Domestic Violence.

How Does it Benefit a Victim to Cooperate with Criminal Prosecution of the Abuser?
Studies have shown that:
A Victim that calls the police is safer than one who does not.
A prompt and severe response to the crime of domestic violence is the most effective means in insuring that it does not occur again.
Settlement of the case without a trial is higher if the Abuser sees that the Victim will be testifying in Court.
Once the Abuser hears that a Victim is willing to tell the Court about the abuse at a hearing, many Abusers settle the case because they know the truth will come out. At that point, the Prosecutor may enter into plea negotiations with the Abuser, and the Victim will not have to go to Court.

Why Might a Victim Turn into a Reluctant Witness for the Prosecution when the Abuser is Charged with a Crime?
In cases of crimes where persons know one another, the likelihood that a Victim will request that charges be dropped is higher than in cases of offenses committed by a stranger.
The Goal of many Victims is to stop the violence against them while maintaining the positive aspects of their relationships with their partners. Because of these conflicting goals, Victims are often reluctant or fearful to have the Abuser arrested and prosecuted.
Equally important for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors to understand are the real threats the Victim has been and continues to be subjected. It is not unusual the Abusers have warned the Victims that any contact with the Police will result in additional harm to her, her children, her relatives, and the property.
Statistics bear out this threat. Victims of domestic violence are more at risk for harm when attempting to leave their partners, either by going to a shelter, going to friends or relatives, seeking a divorce, or calling the police.
Additional reasons Victims of domestic violence fail to cooperate with the prosecution are:
Some fear a violent reprisal from the Abuser if he thinks she is helping the Prosecution.
Some do not understand the criminal justice system and are afraid of it.
Most Victims experience delays in the prosecution process, transportation costs, and days off work for attending court dates in which the case is continued.
Many believe they will receive no satisfaction from following through with the Prosecution.
Some are overwhelmed by feelings of guilt and shame that the abusive incidents are public.
Some reconcile with the Abusers, and do not want to have the abusive incidents remembered.
Some think they have obtained their goal regarding the apparent stopping of the violence, before the case goes to trial.

How Can I Help to Get the Abuser Convicted of a Crime Committed Against Me?
Seek Medical Attention Immediately. Tell the emergency room personnel what happened to you. Ask that they take photographs of your injuries.
Make a Police Report because it will become evidence of the abuse, plus it can prove helpful to show past abuse, if the abuse continues.
Save Evidence. The police should gather the evidence of the abuse at the scene. You should keep it if the police will not take it with them. Evidence includes dated photographs of your injuries and/or damage to the home, torn clothing, any weapons used, copies of your medical records, and the names and statements from anyone who heard or saw the attack.
Ask the Prosecutor at the State's Attorney's office what you can do to help convict the Abuser of the crime being charged (for example, domestic battery or unlawful restraint). This will probably include your willingness to testify about the abuse in a Court hearing. However, once the Abuser hears that you are willing to tell the Court about the abuse at a hearing, many Abusers settle the case because they know the truth will come out. At that point, the Prosecutor may enter into plea negotiations with the Abuser, and you will not have to go to Court.

Civil Court Actions for Victims and Survivors

2007-02-21T18:57:00.000-05:00

The lives of crime victims and survivors of homicide victims are abruptly shattered by perpetrators. Any single crime may randomly result in physical injury, the loss of a loved one, psychological trauma and the loss of property. Regardless of the type of crime or its degree of impact, all victims experience a loss of all sense of personal control over their lives.
Many victims, as a result of crime, are also suddenly immersed in the complexities of a two-party criminal justice system that does not include them as a formal party. While service providers, State legislatures and prosecutor offices throughout the country have made great strides during the past decade in recognizing victim needs and in protecting victim rights, the crime committed is treated by the criminal justice system as one against the state. Thus, the system is designed to protect and enforce the rights of society as a whole, NOT the individual rights of victims. Traditionally, it has functioned to convict, punish and rehabilitate criminals, not to assist victims. The role of the victim, at best, is simply one of providing the prosecutor with evidence to convict the alleged perpetrator.

In the criminal case, the prosecutor makes all decisions. He or she decides whether to file charges against an alleged perpetrator (defendant) based on an assessment of the legal adequacy of available evidence. Even though in some states the victim has a right to be consulted on plea agreements, it is largely within prosecutor discretion to decide whether to forgo a trial by accepting a plea on lesser charges in exchange for an admission of guilt. The prosecutor is responsible for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an alleged perpetrator is guilty of the crimes charged (i.e., proving at least to a moral certainty). Failure to carry this burden of proof results in acquittal. A myriad of considerations, unrelated to the crime victim's victimization, may and often do affect the consequences faced by a perpetrator as a result of committing a crime.

But even with a successful conviction on behalf of society as a whole, victims of crime are still left with great physical, psychological and financial losses. The tangible costs of crime to victims, such as medical expenses, mental health counseling, and lost productivity, are estimated at $105 billion annually. The intangible costs-the price of the pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life victims must endure-are even greater: $345 billion annually (Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996). Although some victims are compensated through state victim compensation or through restitution ordered as part of a sentence, these sources frequently fall short of covering all of the losses suffered by a victim and/or a family. In particular, restitution and state-funded compensation rarely, if ever, compensate victims for the diminished quality of life resulting from continuing pain and suffering. A judgment in a civil suit can provide such compensation as well as secure important preventative measures that would not result from a criminal action alone.
It is primarily within the last decade that civil litigation has emerged as a meaningful option for crime victims and as a specialized area of attorney expertise. High-profile cases in recent years have highlighted the financial compensation and other benefits that are available to crime victims who pursue civil litigation. In one case, $33.5 million was awarded to the families of two murder victims, and in another, $5.2 million was awarded to a woman sexually assaulted at a Las Vegas convention. Other successful civil lawsuits were brought by the parents of a slain foreign exchange student, and by two adult sisters who were sexually abused as children. In just the last few years, issues of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church have dramatically raised the consciousness of not only the public and the legal community about civil legal remedies for victims, but the victim service field as well.

In addition to compensating victims financially for their losses, civil remedies empower victims to exercise their rights. In a civil lawsuit, the victim rather than the state is in control of essential decisionmaking. Victims decide whether or not to pursue a civil suit, and they choose their own attorneys. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases, requiring a less rigorous measure of the evidence to establish liability. A defendant can be required to testify at trial, if subpoenaed. Furthermore, victims have a voice in the outcome of a civil action by deciding whether or not to accept a settlement offer.

Larger Effects
Civil litigation can have preventative effects as well. Civil suits may be brought against other parties involved in victimization. For example, a hotel or office building may be sued by a rape victim for security violations that allowed the attack to occur. This kind of lawsuit may change the way the defendant and others conduct business, reducing the possibility of further crimes.
Victim law suits against third parties can be credited for society's widespread concern over crime prevention and the implementation of standard security measures such as the installation of door peepholes in hotel doors, the provision of adequate lighting in apartment common areas, and the employment of security guards on college campuses. Civil suits brought by victims serve both to exact damages from perpetrators and to encourage potential third parties to adopt adequate crime prevention measures. These effects combine to deter potential crime, thereby contributing greatly to a safer society.

The overriding goal of both first and third party civil suits is to make the victim "whole" again. Although this goal may never be fully accomplished, a successful civil suit can help to cover expenses incurred as a result of the crime, encourage the adoption of societal safety practices, and restore confidence in the victim's ability to control his or her own destiny. Civil remedies provide unique opportunities for victims to recover for both economic and non-economic losses. At a minimum, if a victim is dissatisfied with the results of a criminal prosecution, if the perpetrator fails to meet restitution obligations, or if state compensation does not cover all costs incurred as a result of the crime, then civil litigation is a course of action worthy of consideration.
Basically, the tie between criminal actions and civil actions occurs because most criminal acts are also torts (civil wrongs) which have resulted in personal injury and loss of property. Causes of action in tort; such as assault and battery, wrongful death, negligent or the intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, among other specific actions; provide the legal framework for civil actions brought by victims against perpetrators.

A tort may be the result of either an intentional act or inaction (failed to do something that they should have done), or the result of negligence. Both types of torts have several common legal elements.

First, the defendant must have had an intent to harm the plaintiff or the defendant must have negligently failed to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff (negligence). Second, the defendant must have committed the tortious act alleged in the civil complaint. And third, that act must have been the cause of the plaintiffs injury; the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the defendant's action or inaction.

The damages awarded for the injuries sustained may be compensatory (payment for expenses), punitive (punishment for a defendant's malicious actions) or pecuniary (coverage for lost wages or loss of potential income).

If you or a loved one is considering a lawsuit against someone who has victimized you, we strongly recommend that you check out a book by Kenneth Abraham, Professor of Law at the University of Virginia titled Forms and Functions of Tort Law: An Analytical Primer on Cases & Concepts. You can get an edition that's a few years old for less than $5.00 and learn a ton about how torts work, things people have sued for and won in the past, and get a good idea of how to approach a case.

Types of intentional torts:
An assault occurs when a perpetrator puts another in fear of being injured and has the capability of inflicting injury. Assault is the threat - which may be committed verbally (they tell you they will or want to hurt you) or may be understood by actions (like picking up a weapon, even if they don't actually use it or point it directly at you).
A battery occurs when a perpetrator has intentional, offensive physical contact with a victim--an offensive, unpermitted touching.

A wrongful death action can be filed if it is alleged that a perpetrator killed another without justification or excuse - self defense being one of the most commonly cited reasons.
False imprisonment occurs if a perpetrator confines a victim against his or her will, such as in a rape or hostage situation. A victim does not have to be bound or held for any length of time, just that they are not permitted to leave a situation at will. False imprisonment charges are commonly seen hand in hand with sexual assault charges, but are becoming more and more common in domestic violence cases, for example when one party blocks a door with their body or grabs a partner to keep them from leaving.

Intentional, reckless infliction of emotional distress occurs when a perpetrator, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes someone emotional distress. Again, due to their very nature, many cases of sexual assault will assume that distress occured. In domestic violence cases, examples might include threatening, hurting or killing a pet, threatening to hurt a friend, child or family member of the victim, or threatening to or actually disclosing the HIV status or sexual orientation of the victim.

Finally, the intentional torts resulting in property damage include conversion (an unpermitted taking of another's property) and trespass (a wrongful entry upon the lands of another). Trespass might also include leaving notes on or inside cars, post office boxes, etc.
Torts based on negligence, rather than intent, may be brought against first party perpetrators (the person who committed the act) or third parties whose negligence contributes to the commission of the crime or tort. Third parties may, for example, be held liable for the negligent infliction of emotional distress or wrongful death in instances where their conduct results in an unintentional death of another. The test for determining whether such a third party defendant is liable for such torts is whether he or she failed in his or her duty to act as a reasonable person would have acted under similar circumstances. If a reasonable person would not have foreseen injury to another person as a result of his or her actions, then the alleged third party will not be held liable for injuries that result from such actions or inaction.

When third parties are held liable for plaintiffs' injuries, they generally are not subject to punitive damages. This is because they do not intend for the victims to be injured. However, since third parties are often organizations or corporations, such actions can sometimes offer the victim alternative potential sources from which to collect other types of damages which might not be collectable against the perpetrator.

For example, where there is a chronic disregard of security complaints brought to the attention of an innkeeper, a hotel guest who becomes a rape victim may be able to allege a complaint against the innkeeper as well as the innkeeper's security company whose surveillance system failed to detect the perpetrator and prevent his gaining access to the victim. Such actions may be filed by a victim even if the rapist is never apprehended. They usually require, however, prior notice to the third party of an existing, persistent problem-- a problem which the negligent third party chose not to rectify. Apartment complexes and school campuses are other commonly cited third parties to crimes against victims.

Facts surrounding any victimization may also suggest causes of action against parents of a young or mentally incapacitated perpetrator, co- conspirators or those who aid and abet, or against negligent entrustors. Proof of alternate party liability may be pursued under any of the following doctrines and theories:

The doctrine of parental liability, available in many states, holds parents civilly liable for the torts and crimes of their children under certain circumstances.

Actions based on a co-conspiracy theory allege claims against those who agree to a given crime and assist the perpetrators who actually commit the acts constituting the crime (co-conspirators). For example, someone who drives the offender to the scene of the crime, knowing what the offender plans to do; someone who allows a stalker to use their phone, knowing that their assistance is needed because the victim has blocked the usual numbers the offender uses or because there is a restraining order in place, or someone who provides tools or weapons used in the crime.

The doctrine of negligent entrustment extends liability to those persons who give, lend, or allow someone to use, or should have anticipated that a given person would use a dangerous instrumentality to injure another. Negligent entrustment arises, for example, when an adult allows a child access to a firearm and the child, in turn, uses the weapon to injure another. These theories of party liability can provide victims with multiple, viable sources from which to collect judgment awards.

Common Defenses
Defendants may attempt to fight back by saying that they had a legally accepted reason for their actions. For example, a defendant might say that they were acting in self defense, or in the defense of someone else. For negligence, a defendant might say that the injured victim contributed to their own injury, or that the victim was more at fault for what happened (contributory or comparative negligence). Assumation of risk is another common defense, wherein, the perpetrator says that either they were provoked into acting the way they did, or that the victim consented to whatever was happening, thus accepting the risk. Failure of the victim to file their case within the applicable time frame (set out by each state as statutes of limitations) may also provide the perpetrator with a viable defense.

The civil protections available to defendants in civil tort cases are less stringent than criminal procedural protections because the civil defendant does not risk loss of liberty through incarceration. In civil courtrooms, a defendant cannot take the Fifth Amendment; they must testify if called upon to do so. Rules allowing for the discovery and admission of evidence are more flexible; prior similar acts are often admitted if relevant, and perpetrators cannot escape liability by reason of insanity.

Civil Suits vs. Criminal Prosecutions
It is likely that a victim wishing to vindicate his or her rights against a perpetrator or third party will find the civil court to be a much more agreeable forum than the criminal court. With respect to the weight of the evidence, a civil court plaintiff needs only to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence; that is to say, he or she needs only to prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable for the claims set forth in the complaint. This burden is less demanding than the one which must be carried by the criminal prosecutor--the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged.
While the victim has the option of proceeding with a civil action independent from the criminal prosecution, there are strategic considerations which affect both the criminal and the civil actions. For example, an early filing of a civil action may cause the criminal defense attorney to attempt to undermine the victim's credibility as a witness in the criminal case. Victim cooperation with the prosecution, as a witness, may be perceived by a judge or jury as cooperation based on an apparent monetary motivation. Since a criminal conviction may be used to support or even prove liability in a civil action, it may be in the victim's best interest to cooperate with the prosecutor on such matters as the timing of filing a civil action. Yet, too long a delay could very well jeopardize the victim's right to file a civil suit; i.e., the defendant may be able to say that you waited too long and that the statute of limitations has passed - meaning you have missed your window of opportunity for a law suit.

Generally, criminal charges translate into somewhat parallel civil causes of action. If a prosecutor obtains a conviction, a principle called collateral estoppel can often be used to establish tort liability in the civil case. Evidence proving criminal guilt ordinarily provides most of the evidence needed to prove that a tort occurred. If, however, the prosecution chooses not to prosecute or fails to convict a perpetrator, the victim should not be discouraged from considering a civil action. Since the civil burden of proof is less than the criminal burden, the victim may very well win his or her civil suit even though criminal charges are never filed; or even if the defendant is found innocent of the criminal charges. Plaintiffs in civil suits are assisted in their efforts to meet this lower burden of proof by flexible discovery rules allowing for a broad, pretrial inquiry into facts surrounding the event.

Disadvantages to Consider
To make an informed decision as to whether civil litigation is an appropriate course of action, victims need to be fully informed of both advantages and disadvantages of filing a civil suit.
The disadvantages are various, and depending on the factual scenario, they may be numerous, and perhaps overwhelming. Some of the disadvantages are as follows:
If the perpetrator has no assets, is not likely to come into any assets, and is not insured, then there may be limited prospects for a victim to collect on a judgment.

While some evidence, such as transcripts or depositions, may be transferable from the criminal court to the civil court, the victim may still have to offer testimony and confront the perpetrator during civil proceedings. He or she may have to repeat details pertaining to the victimization, and cope with the resulting psychological stress.

Because many jurisdictions have case backlogs, civil cases may be in litigation for years before a decision is rendered. Moreover, the civil justice system is full of the failings of any human-designed system and can be wrought with frustration and disappointment.
Victims may enter into contingency fee arrangements with civil attorneys to pay for services, but most often such arrangements do not relieve victims from having to pay for other litigation costs such as filing fees, deposition costs for obtaining expert testimony, etc.
If a judgment is obtained and collected, the victim will usually have to pay a percentage of the judgment to his or her attorney and may also have to reimburse the state for any crime victims compensation amounts received.

Victims can lose their civil suits, or receive minimal compensation.
It's important to be aware of these disadvantages so as not to allow yourself to become re-victimized. Hopefully this site has highlighted the advantages of civil litigation so that you will at least consider if this might be a good course of action for you. Civil litigation can offer victims monetary recovery essential to their physical and mental recovery; it can serve to further punish the perpetrator through the device of punitive damages; and it encourages potential third parties to take measures to prevent crime. Most importantly, though, civil litigation offers victims an opportunity to take control over legal matters pertaining to perpetrators and is an opportunity to make those perpetrators personally accountable to them.

Carefully weigh the advantages of civil litigation, such as empowerment and financial relief, as well as the above-cited disadvantages, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the costs of pursuing this type of remedial relief are worth the potential gains.

Hey Britney - Its Okay, Rehab Is For Quitters..Even Celebrities!

2007-02-21T14:33:00.001-05:00

THE YEAR IN REHAB

CBS looks at cool celebrities in treatment! Britney's not the lone ranger...

Bald Britney - Ur so twacked! Gurl - Hair tests are unconstitutional!!

2007-02-21T14:02:00.000-05:00

HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TESTING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND COURTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER ONE

DEBORAH M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; DARYL W., Real Party in Interest. D045854
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE 128 Cal. App. 4th 1181; 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 681; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3617; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 4927 April 29, 2005, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Proceedings in prohibition after superior court order compelling hair follicle drug test. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. ED24070, Alan Clements, Judge.

CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner mother sought a writ of prohibition, challenging an order of respondent, the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), that compelled her to submit to a hair follicle drug test. The mother had sought to have her child support amended. In response, real party in interest father had filed an order to show cause seeking a change in custody and visitation, as well as an order for drug testing.

OVERVIEW: At issue was whether Cal. Fam. Code § 3041.5(a) permitted courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the trial court had determined engaged in habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances. In granting a writ of prohibition, the court held that § 3041.5(a) required any court-ordered drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, and at present those federal standards only allowed for urine tests.

The language of § 3041.5(a) and its statutory history demonstrated that only urine tests were allowed because the language "least intrusive method of testing" in § 3041.5(a) did not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing had to be weighed, along with an individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of the clause was that if and when additional tests were permitted, the least intrusive method had to be used.

OUTCOME: The court issued a writ of prohibition, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling a hair follicle drug test.

Where an appellate court is charged with interpreting a statutory provision, on undisputed facts, its review is the independent, de novo standard. The court independently construes statutory law, as its interpretation is a question of law on which it is not bound by a trial court's analysis.

The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. In determining intent, a reviewing court looks first to the language of the statute, giving effect to its plain meaning. Although the court may properly rely on extrinsic aids, it should first turn to the words of the statute to determine the intent of the legislature. Where the words of the statute are clear, the court may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider various extrinsic aids, including the purpose of the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and the statutory scheme encompassing the statute. In the end, the court must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.

Cal. Fam. Code § 3011(d) provides that in determining the best interests of a child in custody proceedings in a marital dissolution action, a court shall consider various relevant factors including the habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent. Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services. Nothing in the words, purpose, or legislative history of § 3011(d) authorizes court-ordered drug testing unchecked by substantive and procedural guidelines.

Governmentally compelled drug testing implicates the federal and state right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the state right of privacy. U.S. Const. amend. IV, Cal. Const. art. I, § § 1, 13. To construe Cal. Fam. Code § 3011(d) as permitting court-ordered drug testing in child custody matters would create serious constitutional difficulties, given the provision's lack of any substantive or procedural guidelines.

Cal. Fam. Code § 3011(d) does not mandate confidentiality, nor any other procedures to achieve a proper balance between a parent's privacy interests, the degree of intrusion, and the state's interest in protecting child welfare.

See Cal. Fam. Code § 3041.5(a).
The Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) establish the scientific and technical guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs and standards for certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for federal agencies. The federal government only allows urine tests under the Mandatory Guidelines, and the Mandatory Guidelines have recently been amended to place stricter controls on laboratories conducting urine tests. The Mandatory Guidelines provide strict and comprehensive standards for urine testing. Given the comprehensive nature of the Mandatory Guidelines and their strict standards, the requirement that the drug testing under Cal. Fam. Code § 3014.5 must comply with those standards is one of the most important ways in which the legislature has addressed the constitutional problems of court-ordered drug testing. It must be presumed that the legislature was aware of the text of the Mandatory Guidelines when it enacted § 3014.5 and incorporated those provisions by reference. It therefore must also be assumed that the legislature was aware at the time it enacted § 3014.5 that only urine tests were allowed, and only under those strict guidelines. In enacting § 3014.5, the reason the legislature has not specified the types of tests that could be conducted is because the Mandatory Guidelines do.

Given the comprehensive nature of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) and their strict standards, the requirement that the drug testing under Cal. Fam. Code § 3014.5 must comply with those standards is one of the most important ways in which the Legislature has addressed the constitutional problems of court-ordered drug testing. The court of appeal must presume that the Legislature was aware of the text of the Mandatory Guidelines when it enacted § 3014.5 and incorporated those provisions by reference. The court therefore must also assume that the Legislature was aware at the time it enacted § 3014.5 that only urine tests were allowed, and only under those strict guidelines. The Legislature did not specify the types of tests that could be conducted because the Mandatory Guidelines did. The language the "least intrusive method of testing" in § 3014.5 does not show an intent by the Legislature to allow any type of available testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing must be weighed, along with an individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation is that if and when additional tests are permitted, the least intrusive method must be used.

The language the "least intrusive method of testing" in Cal. Fam. Code § 3041.5(a) does not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing must be weighed, along with the individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of that clause is that if and when additional tests are permitted, the least intrusive method must be used.

An appellate court must not construe a statute in a manner that creates doubts as to its constitutional validity.

Cal. Fam. Code § 3014.5 requires testing to be performed in conformance with the procedures and standards established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and its Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs at present only allow urine tests.

COUNSEL: Dennis O. Seymour, Jr., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Law Offices of Matthew M. Kremer, Matthew M. Kremer and Damon B. Forney for Real Party in Interest.
JUDGES: Nares, J. with Huffman, Acting P. J., and Aaron, J., concurring.

OPINIONBY: Nares [**758]
OPINION: [*1185] NARES, J.--In this petition we are asked to determine if Family Code n1 section 3041.5, subdivision (a) (section 3041.5(a)) permits courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the court has determined engaged in "habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances." We conclude the language of section 3041.5(a), relevant federal [**759] regulations, and section 3041.5(a)'s statutory history demonstrate that at present only urine tests are allowed. Accordingly, we grant the petition and order the court to vacate its order compelling the hair follicle drug test.
All further statutory references are to the Family Code.
[***2]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Deborah M. and real party in interest Daryl W. were divorced in 1995, and Deborah n2 was awarded primary custody of their two sons, C.W., who was 14 years old at the time of the instant proceedings, and W.W., who was 18 years old at the time.
References to the parties by their first names are for purposes of clarity only. We intend no disrespect.
In September 2004, Deborah sought to have her child support amended. In response, Daryl filed an order to show cause (OSC) seeking a change in custody and visitation, as well as an order for drug testing. In support of the OSC, Daryl submitted a declaration from their son W.W. indicating that he believed that his mother used drugs. Specifically, W.W. stated that his belief was based upon "several incidences [sic] that have occurred over the past year. [One] incident which I have first hand knowledge of, occurred about a week before Christmas 2002, in the evening. I arrived home at about 5:00 p.m. to find my [***3] brother, [C.W.], home alone. [C.W.] told me he had found Mom's 'stash.' I told him I did not believe him so he showed me a small piece of paper folded up to form a pouch. I looked inside the pouch and saw a quarter size amount of white, clumpy, powdery substance." When Deborah was confronted about the "stash," she claimed that "it wasn't hers, it was for a friend." W.W. in his declaration requests that the court order Deborah to "take a hair follicle drug test because I am concerned that she may be using drugs and exposing and allowing [C.W.] access to drugs."
In support of the OSC, Daryl also submitted a mediation report from Beverly J. Pruitt, a counselor for the superior court's family court services. In the report she related a mediation session which Deborah and Daryl attended. In the report, Pruitt wrote of Daryl's contention that he was seeking primary custody of C.W. because Deborah was using illegal drugs. This allegation [*1186] was based on the facts stated in W.W.'s declaration. Daryl claimed that Deborah had a history of using drugs and that C.W. "keeps finding drugs in the house."
In response, Deborah told Pruitt that she last used drugs in September 2002 and that she [***4] was opposed to any drug testing. Deborah also related that Daryl had not made consistent contact with C.W. and that Daryl had recently been arrested for being drunk in public. She admitted that C.W. found cocaine in her dresser drawer, but claimed that it belonged to a friend. Pruitt also interviewed C.W. before preparing her report.
Pruitt recommended that the parents retain joint legal custody, but that primary physical custody be awarded to Daryl. Pruitt also recommended that Deborah be subjected to drug testing.
In opposition to the OSC, Deborah submitted a declaration detailing the alleged lack of contact by Daryl with C.W. and Daryl's arrest for drunk and disorderly conduct on a night when C.W. was staying with him. With regard to the drug use allegations, Deborah stated that she was a flight attendant who was regularly tested for drugs and alcohol and had recently received a clear test result. [**760]
The hearing on Daryl's OSC was held in January 2005. At the hearing, Pruitt testified to the matters stated in her report and her recommendations. The court then heard argument from the parties on custody, support, and the request for drug testing. After hearing argument, the court [***5] denied Daryl's request for a change of custody. However, the court made that order conditioned upon Deborah submitting to hair follicle drug testing. The court ordered that a failure to submit to the drug testing would result in C.W. being placed in Daryl's physical custody. The court further ordered that if Deborah complied and the test came back positive, the parties were to appear for a further hearing to determine what action should be taken.
Deborah thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court's order exceeded its authority because, under section 3041.5(a), the court only had authority to order a urine, not a hair follicle, test. In support of that motion she lodged the results of a urine test she took on January 7, 2005, that was negative for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates and PCP.
A hearing was held on January 25, 2005. After hearing argument, the court denied Deborah's motion, finding that section 3041.5(a) allowed for a hair follicle test. However, the court ordered the matter stayed pending resolution by this court of Deborah's petition.
[*1187]
DISCUSSION
Deborah asserts that the court erred in ordering her to have a hair follicle drug [***6] test under section 3041.5(a), as that section only allows urine tests. We conclude that because section 3041.5(a) requires any court-ordered drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, and those federal standards at present only allow for urine tests, the court erred in ordering Deborah to submit to hair follicle testing. n3
n3 Deborah asserts for the first time in her reply brief that section 3041.5 is unconstitutional because it does not contain any substantive or procedural guidelines for drug testing, only incorporating them by reference to federal regulations. However, we will not address this contention as Deborah failed to raise this issue in her opening brief, thereby not giving the real party in interest a chance to respond to her arguments. ( Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 894 [93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364]; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794 [67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 350].)

I. Standard of Review
(1) Because on this petition we are charged with interpreting a statutory provision, on undisputed facts, our review is the independent, de novo standard. ( Murphy v. Padilla (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 707, 711 [49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 722]; see also Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1502 [82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 368] ["[w]e independently construe statutory law, as its interpretation is a question of law on which we are not bound by the trial court's analysis"].)

II. Principles of Statutory Interpretation
(2) "We begin with the fundamental premise that the objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. [Citations.] 'In determining intent, we look first to the language of the statute, giving effect to its "plain meaning." ' [Citations.] Although we may properly rely on extrinsic aids, we should first turn to the words of the statute to determine the intent of the Legislature. [Citation.] Where the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute [**761] or from its legislative history. [Citation.]" ( Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562 [7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 531, 828 P.2d 672]; see also Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [248 Cal. Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299] [***8] ["[i]f the [statutory] language is clear and unambiguous[,] there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature"].)

"[I]f the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider various extrinsic aids, including the purpose of the

[*1188] statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and the statutory scheme encompassing the statute. [Citation.] In the end, we ' "must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." ' " ( Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1003 [111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 564, 30 P.3d 57]; see also Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1165-1166 [278 Cal. Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873].) The legislative history of section 3041.5(a) is entitled to great weight. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 16-18 [26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, 865 P.2d 633].)

III. Analysis
(3) Section 3011, subdivision (d) (section 3011(d)) provides [***9] that in determining the best interests of a child in custody proceedings in a marital dissolution action, the court shall consider various relevant factors including the "habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent." The statute also provides in pertinent part: "Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services." (Ibid., italics added.)

In Wainwright v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 262 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 749] (Wainwright), the mother alleged that the father was an unfit parent, and claimed that the father had grown marijuana in early 1995 and had been convicted of possessing a large quantity of marijuana sometime before 1995. ( Id. at p. 264.) The mother also asserted that their minor son had returned from visits with father in 1997 smelling of marijuana and talking about [***10] watering plants on the father's farm. ( Ibid.) The father denied the mother's allegations. The mother requested drug testing of the father, and the father objected. ( Id. at p. 265.) The mother asserted that drug testing was authorized by section 3011(d)'s statement that the court shall consider a parent's " 'habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances' " in determining issues of child custody. ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 265.) The trial court ordered the father to submit to a hair follicle drug analysis. The court found that section 3011(d) authorized drug tests and "that the interests of a child outweigh the privacy interests of a parent suspected of drug use." ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 265.)

The Court of Appeal in Wainwright vacated the trial court's order, holding that a family court's power to require " 'independent corroboration' " before
[*1189] considering allegations of a parent's drug or alcohol abuse did not authorize the court to order [**762] drug testing. ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 269.) "Nothing in the words, purpose, or legislative history of section 3011, subdivision [***11] (d) authorizes court-ordered drug testing unchecked by substantive and procedural guidelines." ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 266, fn omitted.)

(4) The Wainwright court also noted that "[i]nterpreting section 3011, subdivision (d) to permit court-compelled drug testing in child custody disputes would present serious constitutional concerns. Governmentally compelled drug testing implicates the federal and state right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the state right of privacy. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § § 1, 13; Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846, 876, 896 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200].)" ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 267.) To construe section 3011(d) as permitting court-ordered drug testing in child custody matters "would create serious constitutional difficulties, given the provision's lack of any substantive or procedural guidelines." ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 268.) The Wainwright court also noted that if it were to interpret section 3011(d) as permitting court-ordered drug testing in custody disputes, testing could occur "upon a bare allegation [***12] of drug use and without any statutory limitations on the type of test (blood, urine or hair), the manner of administering the test, or the disclosure of test results." ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 268.) "[S]ection 3011, subdivision (d) does not mandate confidentiality, nor any other procedures to achieve a proper balance between a parent's privacy interests, the degree of intrusion, and the state's interest in protecting child welfare. We will not construe a statute in a manner that creates doubts as to its constitutional validity." ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 268, fn. omitted.) The court noted, however, that: "We leave for another day whether court-ordered testing pursuant to more stringent procedural safeguards might pass constitutional muster." ( Id. at p. 268, fn. 3.)
In response to the Wainwright decision, in 2004 the Legislature enacted section 3041.5. (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1108 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) May 6, 2003, p. 1.) Section 3041.5(a) provides: "[HN5] In any custody or visitation proceeding brought under this part, as described in Section 3021, the court may order any parent who is seeking custody of, or visitation with, a child who is the subject of the proceeding to undergo testing for the illegal use of controlled substances and the use of alcohol if there is a judicial determination based upon a preponderance of evidence that there is the habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by the parent or legal custodian. This evidence may include, but may not be limited to, a conviction within the last five years for the illegal use or possession of a controlled substance. The court shall order the least intrusive method of testing for the illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either or both parents or the legal custodian. If substance abuse testing is ordered by the court, the testing shall be performed in conformance with procedures and standards established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for drug testing of federal employees. The parent or legal custodian who has undergone drug testing shall have the right to a hearing, if requested, to challenge a positive test result.

A positive test result, even if challenged and upheld, shall not, by itself, constitute grounds for an adverse custody decision.

Determining the best interests of the child requires weighing all relevant factors. The results of this testing shall be confidential, shall be maintained as a sealed record in the court file, and may not be released to any person except the court, the parties, their attorneys, the Judicial Council (until completion of its authorized study of the testing process) and any person to whom the court expressly grants access by written order made with prior notice to all parties. Any person who has access to the test results may not disseminate copies or disclose information about the test results to any person other than a person who is authorized to receive the test results pursuant to this section. Any breach of the confidentiality of the test results shall be punishable by civil sanctions not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500). The results of the testing may not be used for any purpose, including any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, except to assist the court in determining, for purposes of the proceeding, the best interest of the child pursuant to Section 3011, and the content of the order or judgment determining custody or visitation. The court may order either party, or both parties, to pay the costs of the drug or alcohol testing ordered pursuant to this section. As used in this section, 'controlled substances' has the same meaning as defined in the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code." (Italics added.)

Prior to enacting section 3041.5, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary met to discuss an early draft of Assembly Bill No. 1108, which became section 3041.5, and the constitutional concerns regarding drug testing raised in the Wainwright decision. At that hearing, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed opposition, stating: [Assembly Bill No.] 1108 lacks substantive or procedural guidelines, other than providing that the drug and alcohol test be sealed" The Assembly Committee on Judiciary thereafter noted that: "[Assembly Bill No.] 1108 contains no provision as to the type of test to be administered, the manner of administering the test, or indeed, even the procedures by which a party may request drug testing to be ordered and the court consider the request. Moreover, it is unclear that the confidentiality provisions of the bill will be effective." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1108 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 28, 2003, p. 5, italics added.)

[*1191] At the June 2, 2003 session of the Assembly, the author of the bill introduced an amended version of Assembly Bill No. 1108 that addressed some of the concerns of the Wainwright court and the ACLU. Specifically, that amendment added the language "[t]he court shall order the least intrusive method of testing for the illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either or both parents or legal custodian." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1108 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) 19 Stats. 2004, Summary Dig., p. 96, italics omitted.) That amendment also addressed the concern that section 3041.5's confidentiality provisions would not be effective, adding the language "[a]ny breach of the confidentiality of the test results shall be punishable by civil sanctions not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500)." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1108, [***17] supra, at p. 96.)

Assembly Bill No. 1108 was further amended by the Senate to address the constitutional concerns of Wainwright, and [**764] those voiced by the ACLU, adding the text: "If substance abuse testing is ordered by the court, the testing shall be performed in conformance with procedures and standards established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for drug testing of federal employees." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Conc. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 1108 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) p. 95.)

Daryl argues that the fact that the Legislature elected not to specify the type of allowable test(s), despite the ACLU's criticism, only limiting it to the "least intrusive method of testing," evidences an intent that courts could use hair follicle tests, not just urine tests. Deborah responds that because section 3041.5 requires that testing be done "in conformance with procedures and standards" developed by the federal government for drug testing of federal employees, and because those procedures and standards at present only allow urine tests, hair follicle tests are prohibited. Deborah's position is well taken.

(5) "The Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug [***18] Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) establish the scientific and technical guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs and standards for certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for Federal agencies, under authority of section 503 of [Public Law] 100-71, 5 [United States Code] 7301 note, and [Executive Order] No. 12564. The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 Fed.Reg. 11979), and revised on June 9, 1994 (59 Fed.Reg. 29908), and on November 13, 1998 (63 Fed.Reg. 63483)." (69 Fed.Reg. 19644 (Apr. 13, 2003).)

As of this date, the federal government only allows urine tests under the Mandatory Guidelines, and, indeed, the Mandatory Guidelines were recently amended to place stricter controls on laboratories conducting urine tests.
(66 Fed.Reg. 43876-43882 (Aug. 21, 2001); 69 Fed.Reg. 19644-19645 (Apr. 13, 2004).) The Mandatory Guidelines provide strict and comprehensive standards for urine testing. (Ibid.)

It is also true that the federal government has been considering alternative testing methods for some years. However, although proposed, they have not yet become established standards, and, until that occurs, the present version of the Mandatory Guidelines allowing only urine testing governs: "The [United States] Department [of Health and Human Services (sometimes hereafter the Department)] is revising the Mandatory Guidelines here concerning the determination of the validity of urine specimens. In another document published along with this revision, the Department is proposing to revise the Mandatory Guidelines again to add alternative specimens, instrumented initial test facilities, and point of collection testing. [P] The alternative specimen proposal will be subject to a 90-day comment period after which the Department will consider the comments received and issue a final revision. Until the final revision on alternative specimens is issued, the Mandatory Guidelines as contained in this revision govern." (69 Fed.Reg. 19644 (Apr. 13, 2004), italics added.)

The most recent publication in the Federal Register on this issue is dated April 13, 2004, and is entitled "Proposed Revisions to Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs." In pertinent part its states: "The Department of Health and Human Services ... is proposing to establish scientific and technical guidelines for the testing of hair, sweat, and oral fluid specimens in addition to urine specimens." (69 Fed.Reg. 19673 (Apr. 13, 2004), italics added.) The text goes on in great detail to discuss the origins of these proposed changes, the efficacy of the various proposed additional methods, and the new proposed standards for those methods of testing. (Id. at pp. 19673-19677, 19679-19680, 19696, 19698, 19699, 19701-19702, 19705-19716.) Similar to the Mandatory Guidelines on urine tests, the proposed standards are comprehensive and include such standards as how much hair is to be collected, what tests are to be performed on hair samples to determine their integrity, what criteria are used to report a hair sample that is adulterated or is an invalid result, privacy requirements for collecting hair samples, the procedure for collecting hair samples, how a laboratory becomes certified to conduct hair sample tests, how the hair tests are to be conducted, and how they are reported. (Id. at pp. 19696, 19698, 19699, 19701-19702, 19705-19716.)
(6) Given the comprehensive nature of the Mandatory Guidelines and their strict standards, the requirement that the drug testing under section 3041.5 must comply with those standards is one of the most important ways in which the Legislature addressed the constitutional problems of court-ordered drug testing raised by the Wainwright court. We must presume that
the Legislature was aware of the text of the Mandatory Guidelines when it enacted section 3041.5 and incorporated those provisions by reference. ( People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 199 [96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 463, 999 P.2d 686] [courts must assume that when enacting a statute the Legislature was aware of existing related laws].) We therefore must also assume that the Legislature was aware at the time it enacted section 3041.5 that only urine tests were allowed, and only under those strict guidelines. It becomes clear that in enacting section 3041.5 the reason the Legislature did not specify the types of tests that could be conducted was because the Mandatory Guidelines did.
(7) The language the "least intrusive method of testing" does not show an intent by the Legislature to allow any type of available testing. Rather,it is apparent that it was designed to address another of Wainwright's concerns, that to pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing must be weighed, along with the individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 267-268.) Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of that clause is that if and when additional tests are permitted, the least intrusive method must be used.
(8) Indeed, if we were to interpret section 3041.5 as not limiting the types of allowable tests, it would lead to absurd and perhaps unconstitutional results. Persons could be subjected to any manner of test, without any guarantee of efficacy or standards for its administration, since the federal Mandatory Guidelines only provide procedures and standards for urine tests. Indeed, such an interpretation would lead to the anomalous result that urine tests under section 3041.5 would be subject to the stringent federal standards contained in the Mandatory Guidelines, but any other test--whether it be hair follicle, sweat, oral fluid, or other--would be subject to no standards at all. This lack of procedure and standards is precisely the constitutional infirmity pointed out by Wainwright that the Legislature sought to address in enacting section 3041.5. We must interpret section 3041.5 in a manner " ' "that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." ' " ( Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1003.) Additionally, [HN9] we must not "construe a statute in a manner that creates doubts as to its constitutional validity." ( Wainwright, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 268.)
(9) Because section 3041.5 requires testing to be performed in conformance with the procedures and standards established by the Department of Health and Human Services and its Mandatory Guidelines at present only
allow urine tests, we conclude that the court erred in requiring Deborah to take a hair follicle test pursuant to the terms of section 3041.5(a).
DISPOSITION
Let a writ of prohibition issue directing the superior [***24] court to vacate its order of January 25, 2005, compelling a hair follicle drug test. The stay issued by this court on February 17, 2005, is hereby vacated. This decision will become final as to this court 10 days after the filing date. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 24(b)(3).) Costs to petitioner.Huffman, Acting P. J., and Aaron, J., concurred.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

2007-02-21T12:36:00.000-05:00

Code of Conduct for United States Judges
CONTENTS
Introduction
Canon 1.
A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2.
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3.
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4.
A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice
Canon 5.
A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties
Canon 6.
A Judge Should Regularly File Reports of Compensation Received for Law-Related and Extra-Judicial Activities
Canon 7.
A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct
Applicable Date of Compliance
Checklists for Financial and Other Conflicts of Interest

A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety
in All Activities
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially
and Diligently
A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve
the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice
A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize
the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties
A Judge Should Regularly File Reports of Compensation Received
for Law-Related and Extra-Judicial Activities
A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct Applicable Date of Compliance

Right of Choice: Violence Against Women

2007-02-21T11:33:00.000-05:00

16.10.2006
Right of Choice : Violence Against Women
FACTS & FIGURES

At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her. Violence against women and girls is a universal problem of epidemic proportions. Perhaps the most pervasive human rights violation that we know today, it devastates lives, fractures communities, and stalls development.

In a World Bank report, it was estimated that violence against women was as serious a cause of death and incapacity among women of reproductive age as cancer, and a greater cause of ill-health than traffic accidents and malaria combined. The economic cost is also considerable — a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the costs of intimate partner violence in the USA alone exceed $5.8 billion per year: 4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion.

Access to social services, protection, legal remedies, medical resources, places of refuge is limited despite the valiant efforts of numerous local NGOs to provide assistance. A climate of impunity further exacerbates the situation, ensuring that perpetrators go unpunished and free to continue their acts of violence. It is glaringly evident that much further effort is needed from governments and the international community to strengthen procedures and mechanisms to investigate, report, prosecute and remedy violence against women.

Psychiatry? Is it really the answer??

2007-02-17T22:25:00.000-05:00

GREAT LINKS found at http://ablechild.org (A WONDERFUL SITE)

www.adhdfraud.com. Essays, articles and other information pertaining to the fraud of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) -- Compiled by Dr. Fred Baughman.
http://www.adhd-report.com. The Parental Intelligence Report on 'ADHD' by Bob Collier.
www.addvideo.org. New Web site features Dr. Fred Baughman on video exposing the national experts on the ADHD fraud. Another video shows the link between psychiatric drugs and school violence.
www.ablechild.org. 'Parents for Label and Drug Free Education' consists of a growing number of parents outraged over the pervaive and ever-growing drugging of our children. Begun by parent activists Sheila Matthews, Patty Weathers, Larry Smith and Vicky Dunkle, this website provides parents with the latest and more informative data surrounding "ADHD" and the drugs used to "treat" it.
www.fightforkids.com. The purpose of this Web site is to educate parents worldwide on the facts about today's widespread practice of labeling children mentally ill and drugging them with heavy, mind-altering, psychiatric drugs. æArmed in this way, loving parents will be able to prevail in the face of the enormous "drug children now" pressures so entrenched in society today. æProtected in this way, our children will be spared the totally unnecessary misery of a drug-hazed youth, succeeded by the risk of a drug-consumed adulthood.
www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen.html Ken Kramer's site documents the whole truth about Teen Screen, and connects the dots.
www.ritalindeath.com. Lawrence Smith developed this site as a response to the death of his fourteen-Year-old Son Matthew, who died on March 21, 2000. The cause was determined to be due to heart failure from the long- term ( age 7-14 ) use ofæRitalin. The purpose of this site is to prevent more deaths of our children from these dangerous drugs.
www.caer.com. Psychologist Lawrence Weathers gives his perspective on ADHD and profiles his method of helping called "computer assisted emotional recovery."
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archives.asp?sid=97.The truth about ADHD and psychiatric drugs for children: Radio series archived on Annie Armen Live; includes John Breeding, PhD, Fred Baughman, MD, Able Child founders Patty Weathers, Sheila Matthews, and activist parents like Sheila Dunkle and Lawrence Smith whose children have died from the effects of psychiatric drugs. Great information and powerful true stories.
http://www.aTLC.org/Affiliates. Wildest Colts is an Affiliate of the Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children.
http://www.byronchild.com. Kali Shapiro's new magazine is a winner. ByronChild supports the task of conscious parenting through considering the needs of children and parents within a world that is rapidly changing.
The Aware Parenting Institute
http://www.naomialdort.com. Supporting Authentic Parent-Child Relationships
http://www.naturalchild.org. Our vision is a world in which all children are treated with dignity, respect, understanding, and compassion. In such a world, every child can grow into adulthood with a generous capacity for love and trust. Our society has no more urgent task.
Parents Leadership Institute www.parentleaders.org The Parents Leadership Institute was founded by Patty Wipfler, international Re-evaluation Counseling reference person for parents, and features her work. The Institute assists parents who are eager to address the difficulties presented by parenting in today's world.æ They focus on listening as a cornerstone skill that develops parents' ability to connect with their children and solve problems within the family. Their goal is to empower parents and allies of children to care effectively for themselves and for young people of all ages, and to train leaders who will work for excellent community and national policy regarding parents and children. Very highly recommended.
www.rc.org. I recommend to all the theory and practices of the grassroots Re-Evaluation Counseling Community. Includes great resources for parents.
www.nhen.org. The National Home Education Network site provides encouraging information and support for the grassroots work of state and local homeschooling groups and individuals.
www.windhorseassociates.org. Windhorse Associates is a non-profit treatment and education organization with a whole person approach to recovery from extreme states of mind. Our services are individually tailored in close communication with each client and family.
www.transtherapy.org. Transtherapy is a reform movement in psychotherapy and in the mental helping professions. It is an association of practitioners who are critical of the trends of commercialism, medicalization, bureaucratization an idolization in this field.
Anti-Psychiatry Movement
Peter Breggin, M.D. and the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology
Citizen's Commission on Human Rights Dendron, David Oaks publisher, PO Box 11284, Eugene OR, 97440. (503) 341-0100. The best newspaper available on mental health system oppression. David is also the contact point for Support Coalition International, an umbrella group of organizations devoted to the work of mental health liberation. Check out their web site at www.efn.org/~dendron.
www.drugawareness.org. Dr. Ann Tracy leads the International Coalition for Drug Awareness. Their Web site is dedicated to educating people regarding the potential harmful and life threatening short- and long-term effects of psychiatric drugs. Her specility, as reflected in her book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, is the so-called SSRI's.
www.psychrights.org/Research/Digest/Researchbytopic.htm. Jim Gottstein's Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, Scientific Research by Topic.
Mental Health Field Articles

Free Govt? Public Liberty?

2007-02-17T22:23:00.000-05:00

"The only maxim of a free government ought to
be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public
liberty."
John Adams
"Notes for an Oration at Braintree", 1772

Past Domestic Violence Unreported - 3 Year Old Murdered!

2007-02-16T21:38:00.001-05:00

Ohio Mom on Trial in Foster Son's Death
By TERRY KINNEY AP
BATAVIA, Ohio (AP) - A woman suggested binding her developmentally disabled 3-year-old foster son inside a closet, making her responsible for his death even if she did not intend it, prosecutors said Thursday as her murder trial opened.

A defense attorney, however, argued that Liz Carroll was a wife intimidated into going along with a plan hatched by her husband and his live-in lover. Carroll, 29, is charged with murder because prosecutors say she caused Marcus Fiesel's death by restraining him as she did. She and her husband also are charged with involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, felonious assault and three counts of child endangerment.

In his opening statement, prosecutor Daniel "Woody" Breyer said Carroll suggested wrapping the boy in a blanket and leaving him alone while she and her husband, David Carroll Jr., and Amy Baker, who lived with the couple, went to a weekend family reunion in August. Breyer told jurors that the child was wrapped "much like a cocoon" with only his head and bare feet sticking out, and had been left that way before when the adults ran errands. "

He was confined as effectively as if he had been placed in a straitjacket," Breyer said. The child was dead when the Carrolls and Baker returned two days later. The Carrolls made up a story that he had wandered off or been taken from a park, prompting a massive search by authorities and volunteers. Defense attorney Gregory Cohen told the jury Liz Carroll was a caring person devoted to children and that David Carroll and Baker were responsible for the boy's death. "

I believe the evidence will show somebody else belongs there," Cohen told jurors of the prosecution's argument, pointing to an empty chair by his client at the defense table. In addition to murder, David Carroll, 30, is accused of burning the boy's body and dumping the remains in the Ohio River, and is charged with gross abuse of a corpse.

He is to be tried next month. Baker, 25, has not been charged and is expected to be the main witness against the Carrolls, who also face trial on lesser charges, including perjury and inducing panic, on their claim that the boy disappeared from the park.

The child was placed with the Carrolls three months before he died. The case prompted an independent review that found Butler County Children Services officials were not notified of David Carroll's domestic violence arrest. The detective who issued the report recommended the agency conduct better background checks and communicate more often with police.

Got Oil?

2007-02-16T21:32:00.000-05:00

2007-02-16T17:17:00.000-05:00

So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs.

Elbert Hubbard

06/19/1856 - 05/07/1915

US author and publisher

2007-02-16T17:15:00.000-05:00

Always forgive your enemies -

nothing annoys them so much.

Oscar Wilde
10/16/1854 - 11/30/1900
Erse dramatist and author

2007-02-16T16:55:00.000-05:00

A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

Winston Churchill
11/30/1874 - 01/24/1965
British politician and Nobel Prize Laureate

To Find The Law - Follow The Money

2007-02-16T07:26:00.001-05:00

A billion dollar payoff for Merck's investment bought Texas' children out from under the rights of their families... they don't care about the families - Lets say a vaccination would, for example, save kids' lives, but cause Merck to lose a billion dollars if mandated... they'd have fought it tooth and nail ... they aren't doing this for the sake of the kids ... thats just an extra perk for Merck... something to use as an excuse ... its all about the money...

Merck Lobbies For HPV Vaccine to Become Law
Tuesday , January 30, 2007
AUSTIN, Texas — Merck & Co. is helping bankroll efforts to pass state laws requiring girls as young as 11 or 12 to receive the drugmaker's new vaccine against the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer virus.

Some conservatives and parents'-rights groups say such a requirement would encourage premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children, and they say Merck's push for such laws is underhanded. But the company said its lobbying efforts have been above-board.
With at least 18 states debating whether to require Merck's Gardasil vaccine for schoolgirls, Merck has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

"Cervical cancer is of particular interest to our members because it represents the first opportunity that we have to actually eliminate a cancer," Women in Government President Susan Crosby said.

Gardasil, approved by the federal government in June, protects girls and women against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. A government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.

But no state has yet to add Gardasil to the list of vaccinations youngsters must have under law to be enrolled in school.

Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Crosby also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

But Skidmore said: "We disclosed the fact that we provide funding to this organization. We're not in any way trying to obscure that."

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.

Cathie Adams, president of the conservative watchdog group Texas Eagle Forum, said the relationship between Merck and Women in Government is too cozy.

"What it does is benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and I don't want pharmaceutical companies taking precedence over the authorities of parents," she said.

Adams said Merck's method of lobbying quietly through groups like Women in Government in addition to meeting directly with legislators are common in state government but still should raise eyebrows. "It's corrupt as far as I'm concerned," she said.

A mandatory vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease could be a tough sell in the Lone Star State and other conservative strongholds, where schools preach abstinence and parents' rights are sacrosanct.

But Merck has doubled its spending on lobbyists in Texas this year, to between $150,000 and $250,000, as lawmakers consider the vaccine bill for girls entering the sixth grade.

Also, the drugmaker has hired one of the state's most powerful lobbyists, Mike Toomey, who once served as Republican Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff and can influence conservatives who see him as one of their own.

"What we support are approaches that achieve high immunization rates," said Skidmore, the Merck spokeswoman. "We're talking about cervical cancer here, the second-leading cancer among women worldwide."

The legislation already has the enthusiastic support of the conservative governor.

"I look at this no different than vaccinating our children for polio," Perry said. "If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well being of these individuals to have those vaccines available."

Proposals for mandates have popped up from California to Connecticut since the first piece of legislation was introduced in September in Michigan. Michigan's bill was narrowly defeated last month. Lawmakers said the requirement would intrude on families' privacy, even though, as in most states' proposals, parents could opt out.

Even with such opt-out provisions, mandates take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children, said Linda Klepacki of the Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family. The group contends the vaccine should be available for parents who want it, but not forced on those who don't.

But Texas Rep. Jessica Farrar said her proposal is aimed at protecting children whose parents are less informed about or less interested in preventive care.

"Not everybody has equal sets of parents," said Farrar, a Houston Democrat who had precancerous cells removed from her cervix several years ago. "I think this is a public health issue and to not want to eradicate cervical cancer is irresponsible."

Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities has projected Gardasil sales of at least $1 billion per year — and billions more if states start requiring the vaccine. "I could not think of a bigger boost," he said.

We have no administration to listen

2007-02-16T05:01:00.000-05:00

Pathetic Pay Makes Domestic Violence Victims Stay

2007-02-15T16:10:00.000-05:00

Dear employers in the system and the members of working society beneath them:

Check this out...

I have X'ed out the specific name of the company, city, county and address, so I don't get blasted from anyone for this)
I found this on an online job hunting site; it caught my attention from the DV position, as my passion is advocating for victims; and then I saw the salary offered - $34,900 for an ATTORNEY... but ... the kicker is ... (continued at bottom of post)

XXXXXXX Legal Services seeks a full or part-time attorney for its XXXXXXXXXXX office in XXXX County, FL.
The attorney will help families escape domestic violence situations where violence, power and control are a threat to physical and emotional health and safety.
Much of the work will involve seeking injunctions for Protection Against Domestic Violence. The attorney will be expected to become an integral part of the local community involved in the effort to help those families facing domestic violence.
The full-time position offers a salary of $34,900+DOE and excellent benefits. Please send a letter expressing your interest and a resume to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX EOE/AA

On the same day, in the same area, I found an ad for employment for a couple to live and work at a youth foster care camp, and along with accomodation and food while on duty, they would receive salary compensation in the mid-$40,000.00!!!!

AN ATTORNEY WITH SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFERED $34,000.00
BUT A COUPLE WHO FOSTERS CHILDREN WITH NO EDUCATION OR SPECIALIZATION REQUIREMENTS ARE OFFERED $40,000 salary - - $10,000.00 MORE PLUS LIVING ARRANGEMENTS? This could get lawyers thinking "I'm in the wrong line of work..."

NO WONDER there is very limited assistance for DV Victims - and trust me - IT IS VERY LIMITED. I have gone through the State Attorneys' office/Victim's Witness Department in circles; Talking to Advocates who only TRULY can offer phone numbers and names of the people who referred me to them in the first place (its not their fault there's a lack of resources); shelters that are full and when they do have space, only offer 30 days to rebuild an entire life from nothing if you are running from an abuser who could kill you...(that offer does not come with much hope)... and then the police officers who resent victims of DV because of how much paperwork is involved if they do their job right, because of the victims who fear pressing charges so they retract their statements or are reluctant in prosecuting ... why? because of the lack of resources which drops the ball and forces them back to their abusers who will be more angry if they do try to prosecute or press charges, and, before they know it, their case is dropped because of these limited resources, in this particular Florida city, that happens approximately 50% of the time - DV cases are not cleared with an arrest...then you have the social workers who are so overworked and underpaid that they let abusers get away with their actions because the abuser appears to be cooperating unlike the basket case emotional victim who suffers from PTSD, when really the abuser is manipulating... abusing via the system... all the while, the children are NOT being protected..
NO WONDER
$34,000 after law school is over, and financial aid and student loans are due and a lawyer expects better; unless his/her compassion and passion is for assisting DV victims and they don't expect the $250/hr rates and high retainer fees to make the law actually work for their clients... (to find the law, follow the money so they say)
Not many attorneys would take this job... ... so, DV victims are again the ones who lose out, get the run around, and go back to their abusers because of a lack of assistance once they do get out.
The most dangerous time for victims when they leave their abusers, they NEED legal assistance and because abusers often use the SYSTEM when they can't reach their victims with their FISTS anymore; these lawyers are needed more than ever if ever we expect a change in the domestic violence problem. If the victims can't sustain safely when they leave, how can you expect them to go?
Instead, we take children from beaten down abused mothers put them in foster care, and pay some run of the mill couple MORE money to keep them alive long enough to destroy the family entirely, have them administer psychotropic drugs to test on the children making money from contracted facilities and charge it to Medicaid who already doesn't have the funds to thrive, and assist the system methods to a CYA policy (they'll deny) when children are abused by system workers by those $40,000.00 per year salaried foster parents who lose their patience, tolerance, and fitness to handle special needs traumatized by this government hypocrisy and ludacris way we run our countries' family law system.

PAY THE LEGAL AID DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTORNEYS ENOUGH TO HAVE ENOUGH OF THEM AROUND FOR HELP ENOUGH TO MAKE ENOUGH OF A DIFFERENCE!!!

Less foster children from a less corrupt system would require less foster parents which would make the necessity to hire just anyone for the job less because the job would be filled by those who really care and expect only a reasonable rate of salary, not MORE than the attorneys that should be there to help nip that problem in the bud in the first place.

Mooooo.... I feel like part of a cattle call when dealing with the system.... Moooo....

I could be wrong, but thats my opinion...

Signed,
Nameless Case No. 633270831
(formerly the Jones' family)

**EDUCATE DONT VACCINATE ??Why does Texas Medicate??

2007-02-15T15:52:00.000-05:00

Texas Governor Issues Executive Order Requiring Anti-Cancer Vaccine for Schoolgirls
Friday, February 02, 2007

AUSTIN, Texas — Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
By issuing an executive order, Perry apparently sidesteps opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way parents raise their children.
Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade will have to get Gardasail, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.

"The HPV vaccine provides with with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," Perry said in announcing the order.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

Parents can have their daughters opt out of the inoculations by filing an objection on religious or other philosophical grounds. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.

The vaccine is too new to know how long protection will last, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Studies have followed women for five years and found that they are still protected. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster vaccine is needed years later.

That uncertainty adds to conservatives' oppositon.

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

Related Stories :
Merck Lobbies For HPV Vaccine to Become Law
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My view:
The drug companies are out of control.. politicians are out of control. TEXAS is out of control - they have interfered with families too much, and now MANDATING a vaccine that's new, barely tested, OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT GUINEA PIGS!

Vaccinations that are required should ONLY be for those which are COMMUNICABLE diseases, spread through casual contact, airborn viruses, not sexually transmitted diseases!!

STD vaccinations given to our children???
Where's the morals? Values? Privacy? Rights? Parents can opt out on religeous and philisophical grounds - what about THESE ARE OUR CHILDREN NOT THE GOVERNMENTS TEST SUBJECTS TO MAKE DRUG COMPANIES RICH?

Put that money and resources towards teaching our children safe sex WHEN THEY BECOME SEXUALLY ACTIVE!!! If they do not GET the virus because they are SAFE using CONDOMS and/or ABSTINENCE and MONOGOMY, then they won't get cervical cancer from HPV!!!

EDUCATE Don't VACCINATE!
What's your opinion? Please share it.

**WE The People?? or THEY The People?

2007-02-15T15:27:00.000-05:00

"Lay Persons" doesn't mean "Lay Down" or "Lay Off" or "Lay Back"

It means we don't have those letters behind our names, or the passes to get inside the doors.
It means we are average people - NON-experts - but NO LESS IMPORTANT. We have opinions, rights, values, and ideas, and WE ARE THE PEOPLE who create this country; who SHOULD run this country; whose government is supposed to WORK FOR US NOT WORK US OVER.

This blog is not for haters or bashers; this blog is for the opinions, debatable ideas and topics of the peoople who are affected by what is going on right in front of us... be aware of the truth, and if its hard to find the truth, dig through the system's smokescreens and find out whats really at issue! Maybe we'll find that being a lay person isn't such a bad thing...

This is not an anti-government blog or an anti-system anarchist blog - this is a blog against liars; a blog against deception, corruption and abuse of power.

This is a blog for truth and justice... finding out if it really exists and where.