Paranoia in the City of New Orleans

|
Perhaps the most interesting piece of news this week was the revelation made by the former Mayor of New Orleans - Mayor Nagin. In his book he wrote about the paranoid state he was in after the Katrina disaster that he thought the CIA was going to take him out. We assume that leaders are always subjects to threats, from the mundane “we won’t vote for you”, to a more graphic depiction of some altercation that ends in somebody’s demise. That's why when I hear something like this, it fascinates me.

Many years ago a friend of mine told me about an incident that happened in South Korea, told to him by another Army buddy of his. I can’t remember what the rank of the officer was but it was high enough that his foes gave him a proper welcome. Not long after the officer landed to assume his new post, he was transported to the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) and was soon within meters of the North Koreans. He was doing his inspection and all the formalities of military life peculiar to men of his position. They were standing in an outpost and looking out into the horizon towards the potential aggressors. Then, out of nowhere, he hears a loud speaker from across the field and the voice of a North Korean speaking in English with a heavy accent. He was calling the officer’s name, in fact welcoming him and telling him that he was already on a sniper’s scope and that they were going to kill him. That was just on his first day.

I imagine that leaders get that kind of treatment all the time - boisterous criticisms of policies that morph into mindless threats of every type including bodily harm. High level officials rarely hear about most of them because of the disruptive and sometimes paranoid reflexes that a person experiences when confronted by a death threat. They are protected by a sort of “cordon sanitaire” in the form of the US Secret Service that follow-up on many of these calls or letters everyday.

Apparently, Mayor Nagin was critical of many federal and state officials after the Katrina disaster. Soon after he developed feelings of paranoia triggered by an incident with black-clad military personnel on orders to keep him safe. That’s probably natural for someone in his stature. I’m just a lowly indigent litigator with an assortment of actual and would-be defendants but I get all sorts of “suggestions” from these people visiting me - from the more sensationalistic “we’re here to assassinate you” to a more subtle “that’s just a warning” spoken indirectly. There was a retort I heard many years ago that spawned many variants in movies including James Bond and Black Hawk Down. That’s the line that the Mayor should tell himself any time those voices rear its ugly heads. He should say, “You can’t kill me. I’m already dead.”  The only surprise to me is that he still reacts in that manner after going through the ringer as a political operator in a reputedly rough and corrupt city.

READ THE DAILY MAIL ARTICLE

Allegation: Evidence Fabrication by Cops

|
The rights to conceive and raise one's own children have been deemed "essential," "basic civil rights of man," and "far more precious ... than property rights. (Stanley v. Illinois)
Working out in a somewhat public place as I do (The Neighborhood Cup), people get a chance to see me in action - crafting documents or simply writing pieces for my blogs. Often, they get a chance to hear me discuss things in person. The Cup attracts people from all walks of life with often divergent beliefs and ideas. So, from time to time, we can be heard discussing some of the issues of the day. Sometimes we engage in very lively debates about one of my passions - the law.

I've been working out of cafes since April of 2008. It seems that I’ve developed a reputation as being an advocate of sorts, distinguished as a person who is not an attorney. And this weekend presented me with the opportunity to help someone in need.

Some weeks ago I was approached by a lady whom I will call “L”, the first letter of her first name. Her case cannot be discussed in detail as the matter is a dependency case involving children who are minors. She came to me around the middle of May seeking help to fill out a form called the “Extraordinary Writ”. She had appealed a previous decision from a trial court, which the Appeals Court sustained - meaning the lower court’s decision now stands.  

We filed the “Extraordinary Writ” seeking another review. In a few days we received word from the court allowing another review and scheduling oral arguments on June 22, 2011. The opposition, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, filed an answer immediately after which had to be objected to. She brought the answer to the Cup on Friday and we worked on the response the entire weekend.

We were seeking to re-try the case. The chief reason is that she did not get the level of advocacy from her previous attorneys that would give her the fair opportunity to prevail. After a lengthy pre-trial phase, a new attorney was substituted less than a month before the trial. The trial date was later moved but the amount of time did not allow for lengthy discovery period, leaving important pieces of information out and critical documents were not entered into evidence.

Among the many things that we found was the possibility of law enforcement officers actually fabricating a child’s statement. For instance, the child who was the victim was 3 years old at the time and was said to have made a statement to the authorities. Following is the purported words that came out of the child's mouth. We note that two of the sentences included 7 words:

  1. Mama holds me when Joe beats me.
  2. Mama was there where he hurt me.
  3. She whines.
The testimony was instrumental in the incarceration of the man named Joe. Her portion of the action sought to place her children in foster homes. To be clear, the prosecution did state that she did not hurt her children only that she failed to prevent the harm (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300).

We suspected the fabrication of testimony when we discovered expert knowledge that said a three year old has the capacity to speak sentences that have 3-5 words. The MAYO Clinic, on their resource site said that a 3-year old child will speak with sentences of 3-4 words. We asserted that linguistic experts should have been consulted to determine the child’s syntax. In the paper we offered what we felt the child meant:

  1. Mother was there to hold me after Joe hurt me.
  2. Mother was home when I got hurt (but did not see it)
  3. Mother whines. (Not ordinarily a part of a 3 year old’s vocabulary)
At stake: If she loses this round of battles, she will lose her children. At which time, they will be committed to foster homes. In the conclusion of the brief, we added this verbiage to give the courts something to consider:
Had all the evidence specified on this brief been acquired, we believe it would have been enough to acquit (“L”) of the charge of “failure to prevent injury”. As we have shown, (“L”) was the victim of less than rigorous defence by her attorneys that was wholly prejudicial to her case. The strength of MAYO CLINIC’s expert understanding of a 3 year old’s linguistic skills alone, which contradicts the police’s statement should be enough to grant this petition. For with that assertion we open the court’s eyes to a wider and sophisticated system of fabricating statements and evidence to create disunity in a family and perpetuate oppression against a mother.
VIEW COURT RECORD
VIEW MAYO CLINIC WEB RESOURCE