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.

Ethical Duty with Social Professions

This was a class assignment, focusing on ethics and the duty of attending to professional codes of conduct. This is supplement data regarding prior post: Person-Environment and Case Management Neglect.

Author: Paul Goree Posted Date: November 14, 2012 4:05 AM Status: Published

The questions I am responding to for this week’s post are: 1.) What guidelines does your profession give you around this idea of “duty to intervene”?

1.) When considering the duty of intervention within the profession of Social Worker, the NASW provides the guidelines by which accepted conduct is to be performed. In section 6.01 of the NASW provides the core of expected duty: “social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels and the development of people, their communities and their environments.” More importantly in regards to intervention, section 6.03 Public Emergencies, states: “Social workers should provide appropriate profession services in public emergencies to the greatest extent possible.” Other aspects of NASW provide the ethical duty of social workers to clients, Section 1: and to the profession itself, in Section 4. (2012, NASW) In general I think the duty of social workers are, positive duties, which are perfect duties, and have a general requirement to them, in that we attend to them on the mere fact that human beings are involved (I would include animals and the environment also).

Merriam-Webster, defines duty as:

something that is done as part of a job. : something that you must do because it is morally right or because the law requires it.

It could be consider that within some professions, a moral obligation is enacted to protect the interest of the profession and prospective clients. However that is hard for me to determine at a total TRUTH, considering unethical decisions of two social services professionals: portrayed in prior post, Person-Environment and Case Management Neglect. Considering a Justice Approach to an ethical circumstance let’s assume possible conditions, whereby a duty can be altered, not attended to or implemented but not enforced or detailed with procedural operational rules.

Off the top of my head, I would state, that there are no condition by which professional code of ethics can be unattended. I want to qualify this to the structure of public institutions, administering public services (mental, health, economical, employment, education, etc.). There may be instances (as history has proven), where by an individual within a society/social setting (macro) avoids, alters, neglects or protest against ethic civil duties or obligations (law). These instances are supported by our American ideology of Liberty, and thus can be subjective as to their occurrence. In these instances coalitions form and ethic civil codes are put to the people for legislations, which is the best thing about Democracy.

However within public institutions, the realm of liberty is limited by the regulations which serve to protect the public. Those regulations become ethical code of conduct by which all professional within that profession accept as part of their career intent. So what would be a fictitious circumstance by which a professional would risk their career by neglecting their professional ethical duty?

Much has been written and expose on corruption and it is a factor by which the minute affects the majority negatively. I honestly would like to believe that within the social service profession, the sincere intent of the endeavor limits the possibility of corruption through the means of neglect. That would be, intentional neglect! Why would a professional social service case manager, intentional neglect a client? Is it a continued instance based upon clients ethnic political factors? Is it sub-interest conflict? Is it politically motivated?

At one time in our history, thoughts and legislation was enacted by which the slaughtering of the American Buffalo resulted. Where those actions ethnically motivated? Some look to the Dawes Act as evidence; while some like, Richard McCormick looked towards civil resolutions (H.R. 157). I could consider professional neglect as being similar to latent motives of the Dawes Act. Or I could consider those professional neglected codes to be motivation, resulting in actions pursued by R.McCormick. So until a motive is established. I will continue to follow through with this blog: Person – Environment: Case Worker Neglect. When individuals protest and break legal civil codes, their intent and actions more likely than not, result in revised legislation ( 18th amendment/ 21st amendment). When professional social service persons violate ethical codes of conduct, their intended actions could result in negative social factors that propel rioting. Example social gentrification.

 

 

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.

1776 In Our Dependence: For The People, By The People (Draft) 1

1776 In Our Dependence: For The People, By The People (Draft) 1.

By: Paul DeWitt Goree 7/2011 Las Vegas,NV

We celebrate this Independence Day, in the shadow of an America, where power for the people, by the people has come to represent an universal means, for all of humanity: globally.

As we celebrate 235 years of independence as an united nation. There are some pivotal events and accomplishment, which have secured our identity and nationalism. We began as rebels against unfair governance. We began as social refugees of oppression. We found truth in theorist such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacque Rousseau and countless others who have established, defined and fought/die in honor of what we all have collectively agreed as, just.

The just nature of individualism, liberty, and freedom to be, create, express: what one places as its core beliefs. I love Thomas Hobbes’s, ‘Natural Rights’. It is American in its total essence. To have the slightest assumption, that I, regardless of my birth, race, sex, intellect and effort: still has an equal right to all that is in existences in the universe. These notions are the basis of huge dreams, which provide all an opportunity to – Dream. America is the dream come true!

Being that varied dreams will amount to the sum of some realities. We can never merely accept anything completed. We are always in a state of evolving, awakening and revising. We are always open to amendment and accepting our social errors. We learn from our mistakes. We learn that we, regardless of prior acts, are ONE nation. Individuals representing the whole. Each of our portions, have the ability to DEMAND rights due to them. This has been a stream of empowerment by which individual expression is afforded.

We are inventive, we exam political platforms that deny, what we have intentional staked as our claim, Liberty: we remove the failing elements, and construct just sovereignty that works to its best capability. Of which alteration can be made, where have made bad judgment. We know our government operates like a link chain. Faults do exist, but as they exist, it is in our nature to identify them and eradicate them, thus assuring equal opportunity to all. I love how we, come into our own making. This is our industry, our worth, our determinism.

As we celebrate our independence venture, I want to exam a time line of some of our President and their administrations, that have contributed, extended and enacted legislation, associated with what Lyndon B. Johnson term, “The Great Society”. Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, William Clinton and current President, Barack Obama, have strived to provide the Federal. Government with the power it needs, to enact legislation, which aids the needs of the people.

A great society would be a society evolved from social and political injustices, into social harmony. For Johnson, (who took idealist truths from John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy) a great society regardless of its past, had to acknowledge and attended to that portion of the collective whole, which is not represented. That portion which is unable, denied or unaware of their social rights. It is the duty of the sovereignty to assist all within the society, an equal opportunity to achieve tools required, to pursue the American Dream.

A government for the people, by the people, could not simply ignore, what is unjust. A government for the people by the people could not idle in action, while some of the people are routinely being subjected to second class citizenship. No citizen should be second class in a nation of the people. So I want to detail the accomplishments of some of these most compassionate Presidents, which have attended to their political platform, which values co-operative assistance and equal opportunity.

Theodor Roosevelt (26th President 1901-1909 Republican) and his administration, were the instrumental creators of Work-Man Compensation. In 1908, during the last year of his administration, Theodor Roosevelt introduced the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. Other legislative enactments of Roosevelt, that provide evidence, that government should regulate industry, can be seen in Roosevelt passage of the Meats Inspection Act of 1906…The Square Deal President.

Woodrow Wilson (28th President 1913- 1921 Democrat) and his administration accomplished some reform for the labor industry. He implemented the 8 hour work day for employees. Extended the US Anti- Trust Act, with The Clay Anti-Trust Act, which defined the specific policy of the United States and its relationship with organization and the control of industry. Wilson enacted Income tax, The Federal Trade Commission and restrictive labor laws that protected children from unlawful labor practices.

Franklin Roosevelt (32nd President of the United States 1933–1945 Democrat) New Deal

Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President of the United States 1963-1969 Democrat) the Great Society

William Clinton (42nd President of the United States 1993–2001 Democrat) Welfare Reform Act

Barack Obama (44th President of the United States 2009) Health Care Act