Re: [tips_and_tricks] I am considering a radical step and looking for the dow...
- I would like to claim parens patriae and receive the protection guaranteed to me by Congress.
It would be interesting to see where you derive and how you delineate each element of the "protection guarantee" you claim that Congress has a duty to provide you. If you claim an action under parens patriae, then you are by declaration taking the status of a ward.
A common understanding of "citizen" (www.dictionary.com) is:
cit·i·zen –noun 1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien ).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
3. an inhabitant, or denizen: The deer is a citizen of our woods.
4. a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc.
A ward is "entitled to protection" in some what of a lesser sense, (because the protections are not delinated in contract) however; the courts have ruled over and over again that there is no duty incumbent upon the state to protect the citizens (especially under the 14th Amendment). This is the basis of Marc Steven's argument that if there is not duty to protect, then perhaps there is no state. Maybe they are just a bunch of corporations impersonating the state. And, if there is no state, then how can you be a citizen? Perhaps you are just considered the property of the corporation. If that is so, then they can deal with you as they see fit.
In DeShaney v.s. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)the Supreme Court held that "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."
See also: Rivera v. City of Providence, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005). and Merriweather v. Marion County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (IndianaSouthern District).
Rivera v. State of Rhode Island, No. 04-1568 (1st Cir. 03/22/2005) (The state's failure to protect an individual rarely amounts to a constitutional violation, even if the state's conduct is grossly negligent.); http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/041568.html
70 Am. Jur.2d, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables § 94 (the rule throughout the United States is that there is no liability on the part of a law enforcement officer to individuals damaged as a result of an officer's failure to preserve the peace or arrest lawbreakers);
South v Maryland, 59 US 396 the court ruled, that there is no constitutional obligation or mandate for officers or agents of the government to protect anyone from crime.
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.);
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)