Case Manager Neglect: Importance of Civil Liberties

CASE MANAGER NEGLECT: THE IMPORTANCE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
We the people, of the nation for the people by the people: Value the guarantee of security, found in our civil liberties. These liberties are rooted in the Bill of Rights. They ensure that as a citizen of the United States of America no individual or organizations can violate our pursuit of happiness and life!!! Yet case managers like Margret Finn and Johnny Juan Garcia from South West Behavioral Services, have proven these liberties NO LONGER have any weight or security. Their neglective and violating actions are being done at a time when our nation is defending AMERICANS from terrorist. Yet their actions (terrorist in nature) slowly erode the core values by which we are subject to a desensitized understanding and acceptance of our rights. I can not and will not let this ordeal be sweep under the rug:because no matter what the out come is-my AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES WILL NOT BE VIOLATED AND GO UNATTENDED!

Margret Finn
South West Behavioral Services
Violated 5th Amendment of Paul Goree (May 2013)

May 2013- Mrs. Finn failed to acknowledge the private property rights of Mr. Goree. All Americans have the right to the TOTAL ownership of their private property and purchases. It is irrelevant if the private property is .10 cent lollipop or $80,000.00 car. If we allow these minute variances become non-acknowledge, then we contribute to our nations decline. My paid invoice from COX Communication gurantees ownership, by which I am the only person who can delegate usage, sale, or transfers: Not Mrs. Finn.

Johnny Juan Garcia
South West Behavioral Services
Violated 4th Amendment of Paul Goree and Guest (June 2013)

June 2013- Mr. Garcia failed to acknowledge that residency privacy is a matter of the property owner/management and the public enforcement (local police). The act of entering a private dwelling is not a decision sub contractual agents (such as case managers at South West Behavioral Services) can decided upon their own. The only people who can enter a property is the property owner/management and the local police (with a complaint or warrant). As Mr.Garcia entered my private dwelling, he violated not only my civil liberties, he also violated my guest civil liberties. My guest was a prior tenant, waiting for Mr. Garcia (property management had called Mr. Garcia’s office) to come and unlock the door to his prior apartment so that he could retrieve his personal items. Mr. Garcia to anxious to delegate the law, order him to leave the premises. After which Mr. Garcia called the police, who upon their arrival informed Mr.Garcia not to continue informing me of who and who can not be in this apartment: other wise he would be violating my civil liberties.

Case Managers Violating Civil Liberties

CASE MANAGERS VIOLATING CIVIL LIBERTIES.

How can Margret Finn and Johnny Juan Garcia validate their actions as reputable case managers, seeming they both have violated a client’s (a U.S. citizens) civil liberties. This question is important; we can not have case managers violating the Federal Civil Liberties granted to us through the Bill of Rights and Constitutions. These action cause more stress upon an individual and prevent an individual from pursuing life and happiness.

PERSON – ENVIRONMENT and CASE WORKER NEGLECT

Margret Finn’s Violation: May 2013
I established a Cox Communication account September 2012. This account was exclusively for Wi-Fi use, so that I could have internet access for my studies at ASU. Sometime in May 2013, Mrs. Finn’s and Mr. Garcia’s second client (my roommate) established an account at Cox Communication with, his account was for DSL telephone service, and television. He mistakenly did not get the required Wi-Fi service needed to run the DSL telephone. One day he demanded that I allow him to use my Wi-Fi service. I was using the service for my studies. The signal could not carry both of us, and thus each time he logged on to the DSL service it kicked me off.

Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia were called to resolve. They arrived and Mrs. Finn instructed me that I had to share my Wi-Fi with their second client. How can these case managers instruct me, as to how I needed to allocate my private property against my will? This is violating my 5th Amendment rights.
Within the 5th Amendment, it is stated…”to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation…” Considering this clause, it is important that the following is understood, with regards to private property:
1.) The owner’s exclusive authority to determine how private property is used.
2.) The owner’s peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private property.
3.) The owner’s ability to make contracts or decisions to use, sell, rent, or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private property.
(http://americanpolicy.org/2012/11/07/private-property-rights-defined/)

Johnny Juan Garcia’s Violation: June 2013
There was a visitor in my apartment. The visitor was waiting on Mr. Garcia to arrive so that he could retrieve his personal items. Mr. Garcia finally arrived, and provided me with eviction papers from the program. Then Mr. Garcia proceeded to yell at my guest and tell me that I could not have him in the apartment. Mr. Garcia then told us to hang on, as he went to call the police. Mr. Garcia returned with the Phoenix Police and began to continue his rhetoric , until he was interrupted by the police officer, who informed him,” not to continue…seeming he would be violating my civil liberties.” She then proceed to speak informing us all that only the property manger and the police can inform a tenant who has to be removed from the property. But by then it was after the fact, seeming Mr. Garcia had already done this.

Within the social services professional organizations exist to attend to the guidelines by which the profession and the employees and clients are helped. The code of conduct exist to prevent case managers such as Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia from violating a clients Civil Liberties and creating PTSD upon individuals and the society. The Case Manager Society of America is one of these professional organization which serves as such.

CMSA works to help people understand that a case manager’s involvement is instrumental in providing quality health care to patients nationwide. One of CMSA’s goals is to educate people so that everyone in the U.S. understands what a case manager is and where to go to enlist their services. It is important to realize that case managers can be nurses, social workers, mental health professionals, occupational therapists, and professionals from a variety of settings, including government agencies, long-term care facilities, insurance and health maintenance organizations, nonprofits, rehabilitation facilities and other settings.

Case managers devote hours of time, expertise, and dedication to supporting individuals, family members and caregivers who seek their help and intervention. In turn, CMSA helps support case managers with a variety of tools and resources, including its newly revised Standards of Practice for Case Management (http://www.cmsa.org/SOP), its Case Management Model Act (http://www.cmsa.org/PolicyMakers), as well as CMSA’s Annual Conference and Expo. As the health care industry continues to grow in complexity, CMSA is committed to advancing case managers’ profession, emphasizing professional standards, integrity and quality care.

Co-Operatives

If I were in prior criminology class. I would write a paper titled, ‘The Effect Of Cooperatives and Integrity of Enforcement’ to detail the actual decline and trust indirectly ascribed to enforcement when such events occur. This paper would stress that enforcement and district attorney NOT be able to bring in evidence any data obtained from sources not publically known as be the case with a co-operative assistant. All co-operatives assistants would have to be contracted (as co-operatives do) as quasi enforcement and required to id themselves as such. WHY would I write such a paper. I theorize that enforcement uses blindly, person obtained through the efforts of a co-operatives and their assistants. By which data is collected. The data is collected in quasi friendship developed purely for the purpose of gathering evidence. The evidence is used to obtain warrants after the fact of the evidence being collected. The co-operative): if paid with earnings from enforcement, public documentation of these fund transactions should be made public, seeming public funds are used!

The co-operative assists, falsely develop a friendship with an unknowing, uninvolved, unwilling person keeping their true intent and their enforcement associations hidden. Under some circumstance, such acts of blindly being lead to criminal actions, could be consider entrapment. But due to the nature of the co-operative assists, a blurry line is created as to who is entrapping who and what behaviors are natural or addictive (there seemed to be a focus on drug addicted persons-intimidated by their own mistakes. To far encompassed in something they can’t explain).

OBSERVATION-My Testimonial [ I was victim of the efforts of co-operatives and co-operatives assistants. While living in Las Vegas, NV 2001-2002. I had acquired friendship with some rather good people. From those good people, their extended friendship were with other various people. We were partying, and one of my good “friends” acquired a front from this extended group of friends for some e-pills. Unable to pay the front, he was give the quantity in more e-pills to sale. Thus he has no other options but to sell these pills to make up for his debit. I being of the nature I am, agree to assist this “good friend” and basically assure him, that I can get rid of those pills simply by attending a club event.
I proceed to attend the club event and get stopped by an officer. I verbalize to the officer, apologies for jay-walking. The officer informs me that he is not stopping me for jay-walking. He is stopping me because I fit a profile. I then request to see the profile, he shows me the profile and proceeds with procedure. I inform the officer that I couldn’t be the subject in the profile, seeming the location of that subject is on the other side of town (near North Las Vegas, whereas I am near the UNLV campus Tropicana). The officer continues his search of my wallet. The officer decides to release me. As he hands me my wallet, a small amount of marijuana falls out. The officer re-takes the wallets and comments on the marijuana.
The officer while commenting, continues his “NEW SEARCH” of my wallet and finds 3 packages of e-pills, 2 to each package. The officer then informs me that I need to sit down on the ground, hands cross and legs cross. The officer hand cuffs me and proceeds to inform me the e-pill carry attempted murder charges for each pill in the state of Nevada. The officers does another process, by which he is soon assisted by his captain and perhaps 4 other units.

I am taken downtown. Now seeming it all becomes so surreal, I am first think, “There goes law school!!!” Secondly I thinking, “Stay calm and make the most of this, without jumping to obvious conclusion. This is not the end of all ends.” When I arrive downtown, I am processed and placed in a cell. Something to the effect of the way I’m dressed or nature, makes some of the other detained person comment about me having a good lawyer or money to obtain one. I immediately think back to Professor Young’s classes in criminology (UNM 1994) and the social inequality that statement from that detainee meant to me.

No more than 1 half an hour passed, and the correctional officer came to the cell and called out my name. I in confusion looked towards the officer. I stood there as he called my name and told me I was “WALKING”. I stood there confused. Not once in any of my criminology course did the term “WALKING” come up for discussion. Thus I was blank to what the officer meant. The same detainees who made their comments about me earlier, shouted out “Walking, your free!”

Nothing in this life is for free. And to make matters worst. 1 year goes by, full of strange events and incidences. Nothing new to me, until someone, a hustler (old G type) approaches me one day out of the blue. He states, “I’m going to peep some game to you…some people just don’t know when they got it good, from the bad, to the good. Because they can’t win by losing or lose by winning, and it goes on and on and on in circles. What a shame. Thus word could be, what someone wanted one time, got messed up in a game, oh well good for that someone…they say evidence planted on someone, came from the evidence room…what–no wonder it wades back and forward, forward and back…What would you do?” I took it upon myself not to fully let that someone be me, so that I could fully understand what had occurred and who was who in some mix-up street game it seemed. Apparently that “good friend” of mines was fine in character, however whatever interactions he had and those who he associated with, is co-operative, or worst co-operative assist.

Co-operative assists are worst seeming they are not and do not come under the eyes of the law or legal system. Under normal circumstances, if person is arrested and charged with possession and intent to distribute, after the sentencing, that person can request an appeal and at the same time request the judge to release the names of the co-operatives and the judge will do so. Co-operative assists do not fall under this. So their effort and actions lead to serious civil liberties being violated. A co-operative assists is the person who approached my “good friend” and that co-operative assists had legal issues of his own.

Camera vs Gun 2nd Amendment

Watch this YOUTUBE video and imagine had this been a gun vs. Camera!

Youtube. Search: Sneaking Out Da Window. (By: Paul Goree)

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

The Privacy of Expression

The Privacy of Expression

By: Paul Dewitt Goree
Phoenix, AZ. 2/13/2013

Currently our nation is at a turning point, by which a new wave of political actions are manifested. These new thoughts and actions, have resulted in legislation, which from a distant perspective, seem to rattle the very existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Though out our history Americans have accepted surveillance as a means of national protection. That acceptance was usually based on global foreign affairs, by which government intelligent agencies, worked behind the scene to assure American values and freedoms.

This changed during the 70’s, when agencies were prohibited to surveillance American citizens without a court issued warrant (Fiorina et al, 2011). Yet with the emergence of terrorism within our nation, executive order from the Bush Administration provided justification to surveillance citizens and foreigners alike (Fiorina et al, 2011).

From a time line the events of surveillance has tethered within our nation. Beginning with October 2001 (after 9/11) President George Bush signed the Patriot Act. In 2005 efforts were taken to compile major telephone companies databases to be used to reveal terrorist communication patterns (2011). In 2007 the president signed, a Congress approved act-that permitted warrant less surveillance. By 2010 this act was dismissed, seeming that it unjustly intruded into American citizens lives. However in 2011, President Obama signed an extension of the Patriot Act, which is renewable 2015 (Washington Post, 2011).

Even with this precise time line, debate lingers over government surveillance and its possible consequences on civil liberties. It is believed that legal walls that once separated surveillance and criminal investigation, now have allowed for government intrusion into our private lives (Samaha, 2011). In Criminal Procedure In War Time, the term ‘sneak and peek warrants’ are detailed the new functioning of warrants for search and seizure. The ‘sneak and peek warrant’ allows officers entry into private dwellings without the owners consent. It allows for the seizure of intangible evidence. And upon leaving officers are not required to leave a copy of the warrant upon the door (2011).

Some other interesting factors of the Patriot Act and its Extension, is that it allows law enforcement to share grand jury’s without a court order. It allows for cross data references. Whereby an innocent citizen can be intrudes upon due to mere association of a criminal (Zagaroli, 2003).

To better understand these changes that alter the presumption of an innocent citizen. It is important to examine the Constitution and Bill of Rights in regards to ‘civil liberties’ and ‘civil rights’.

Civil liberties “promise freedom from government interference. Civil rights, guarantee equal treatment by the government” (Fiorina et al, 2011). Our civil liberties are the basis of our American heritage. Civil liberties do not apply to state.

Two civil liberties to examine as they have come to result in policy change: are the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law restricting speech or religious freedom”. Free expression grants speakers and writers the assurance that their will not be censored (Fishing St al, 2011). Free expression provides an individual the right to express desired conditions. To express frustration with officile and policies. It is with free expression that positive social norms are conditioned for survival, whereas negative ones are deemed bad and frown upon. John Stuart Mills is the defender of free speech and civil liberties.

Marvin Ammori provides a vivid example of how the First Amendment is being challenged with current legislation. Ammori affirms that the Copyright Bills: Project IP Act and S.O.P.A, violate the First Amendment. Ammori states “the bill does not attend to contribution infringement sites. Instead the bill extends and enables infringement.”. If enacted both bills would protect written and spoken speech on websites like Facebook and Twitter. These bills will restrict by maneuvering Judicial orders on written and spoken speech: thus establishing censorship in the land of the free.

From a boarder perspective, written and spoken speech is already restricted in many ways. Our government may not imply freedom of speech/expression. But that freedom is strictly regulated in regards to “time, place and manner ” (Fiorina et al, 2011). Another area regulated by the government is commercial, libel and obscenity. The regulations on these prevent distribution of false information and promotes helpful community informations.

Privacy is a legal concept, implying the desire to be left alone (Fiorina et al, 2011). With todays ever expanding social networks, the concept of privacy may seem antiquated. We allow ourselves to be profiled on websites like Facebook, detail all our personal history and then linking friends and associates. Even in our infrustructured society, we allow police officers to search our information nation wide, to gather a secure place of ourselves. Today we are consumed with data based entries, that statistically position us, depending on the motive.

These data bases have also elude to an increase in identity theft, fraud and terroristic activities. Prior to Eisensradt v. Baird (1972), it seemed impossible for the government to regulate privacy. But with that court decision Justice Brennan constructed the “right to be left alone” clause, which prevented the government from exposing personal information (Fiorina et al, 2011).

The Privacy Act of 1974 has been updated since 9/11 to include issues of terrorist and identity fraud. All computers have an IP address, which identifies that particle unit and thus allows it to function. The IP address has no personal information, but still is vulnerable. The ISP knows your IP address information and is active in online transactions. Many ISP’s do not disclose their data. However many do, leaving security up to firewalls and virus protection software (Privacy Act Clearing House, 2012).

As identity theft and fraudulent internet transactions increase. A demand from bankers, insurance companies and citizens will petition policy makers to enact harsher codes of privacy. However by doing this, society cages itself with policies that restrict expression as it protects privacy.

Protecting privacy becomes another issue, when enforcement maneuvers are utilized to apprehend suspects. Under these conditions, Due Process Rights are violated. It interesting to detail varying aspects of the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment which may come into conflict with legal enforcement.

With the advancement of “sneak and peek warrants”, enforcement would be able to effectively secure arrest. However these arrest would be based on evidence obtained, in what is now an illegal manner.

For example, would it be appropriate for a enforcement agent to utilize a 3rd party work for hire, to assist him in the resolution of a crime. With current Patriot Act Law, this would be possible. However the method by which the enforcement agent and 3rd party assistant used to apprehend, might violate other due process laws. For example, entrapment laws. Entrapment is when a person is induced ti commit an offense that they would have other wise not done. There exist two test for entrapment. Subjective Test, by which the suspect had no disposition. And Objective Test, where by enforcement induced a person to commit an offense.

Considering the Patriot Act, some gray areas might exist in regards to 3rd party surveillance or blind association and use of permission for information available and not available to public.
However such cases are won, for example State v. Russell (411 US. 423 (1973)) and Hampton v. United States (425 US. 484 (1976)) these cases resulted in monetary damages for the suspects.

Privacy of Expression is evolving within our legal and cultural society. It seems impossible that enforcement would befriend a suspect for numerous years, only to induce him into illegal activities, by which he would not have responded. They could attempt to state his mental intentions suggested so, but still the fact that they befriend a suspect for numerous years is foul.

REFERENCE:

Fiorina P. Morris, Peterson, Paul, Bertram Johnson and Mayer William. (2011). America New Democracy.Penguin Academics

F.B.I.(2011) Avoiding Entrapment. Criminal Justice. Retrieved from Cape.DCM.com

Patriot Act. (2001-2011). Public Law 107-56. Department of Justice.

SAMAHA.(2001). Constitution Crisis. Retrieved from http://www.soci.umn.edu

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.