Social Work and the Law
NOTE: THE ARTICLE APPEARING BELOW WAS COPIED ON 22 JUNE 2009 BY http://www.cityadministrator.org/?p=397 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CITING THIS AUTHOR. The blog is hosted by GoDaddy and registrant
Registrant Name:Joseph R Smith
Registrant Organization:FloridaView Media LLC
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight,
488 U.S. 1301 (1988)
A three month old infant was admitted for treatment in a hospital. It became apparent that the mother, Jackie Bouknight may have maltreated the infant. Consequently, the Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the Court to declare the child as a “child in need of assistance” and grant it the power to put the child under foster care (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). The Court granted relief and it was agreed upon by the parties that Bouknight shall have the custody of the child subject to the conditions of supervised parenting and an undertaking of non-infliction of bodily harm and punishment on the child. At first, Bouknight complied with the conditions but later on she became uncooperative and refused to produce her son to the DSS.
The DSS in fear for the safety and well being of the child filed a case before the Court to compel Bouknight to produce her son. She failed to appear before the Court but was later on arrested. On her refusal to disclose the whereabouts of her son, she was found guilty of contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated until compliance with the order [In re Maurice, No. 50 (Dec. 19, 1988). 314 Md. 391, 550 A.2d 1135].
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the incarceration of Bouknight was an infringement of her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. According to the Court, the production of the son is testimonial in nature because by doing so, it only proves Bouknight’s “continuing control” over her son which may be utilized in a criminal proceeding. It ruled that there are acts of production deemed to have testimonial value citing the case of U.S. vs. Doe (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay of DSS pending the filing of the requisite petition for certiorari. The grant of stay was based on the fact that even assuming that the act of production of the child is testimonial in character, many line of decisions of the Court are clear that as between the public need vis-à-vis a single claim of an individual on constitutional privilege, the former is upheld. In this particular case, the safety and interests of the abused child must be upheld over Bouknight’s assertion considering that, in the hierarchy of values, the safety and welfare of the child takes precedence over other concerns (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). Moreover, the information sought which is the whereabouts of the child is for the contempt charge and therefore civil in nature (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The Fifth Amendment: Right against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment originated from England and derived from the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare” meaning “no man is bound to accuse himself” (Levy, 1968). It was used in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial legal systems of England (Levy, 1968).
In the U.S., after the revolution the states ratified the Constitution with the inclusion of the privilege in the bill of rights. The original version of Madison was amended by the House to include “in any criminal case” (Schwartz, 1971). Thus, as it now stands, the Fifth Amendment provides, “. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights). The primary purpose of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is “to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth” [Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)]. However, in subsequent line of decisions, the Court ruled that other privileges stated in the bill of Rights are more in the nature of adjuncts to the determination of truth such as the right to counsel or the safeguards afforded by the Fourth Amendment while the privilege against self-incrimination is primarily for “the preservation of the accusatorial system of criminal justice” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system and protects the privacy of the individuals from government intrusion [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. The privilege is a guarantee against compulsion for testimonial evidence which consequently will result in the imposition of criminal penalty on such person making testimony.
The Court laid down the requirements necessary before a party can successfully invoke the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the cases of U.S. v. Doe, (465 U.S. 605) and Doe v. U.S. [487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988)], the Court enumerated the three (3) requisites that should be present for the Fifth Amendment to apply, namely: a) “that the statement be testimonial; b) incriminating; and, c) compelled.” According to the court, ‘testimonial’ refers to all communications whether express or implied which “relate to a factual assertion or disclose information” (Ashby, J., 2006 citing Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201). The statements or communications made whether verbally or in writing fall within the privilege (Ashby, J., 2006) and is not limited by the forum where it was elicited, i.e. before the court, administrative proceedings or before the law enforcement office [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]. The second requirement, ‘incriminating’ refers to statements that can be used as a basis for a finding of criminal liability under a penal law or “provides a link to the chain of evidence for prosecution under a criminal statute” [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]. The third requisite is the compulsion to give a statement. The Court explained that this requisite refers to “circumstances that deny the individual a free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer” (Ashby, J., 2006). Additionally, the Court ruled in the case of Fisher v. United States that these three requisites should all concur and be present so that the privilege can be successfully invoked [425 U.S. 391(1976)].
Legal and Ethical Issues and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The main legal issue in the case of Baltimore is whether the circumstances surrounding it would fall within the ambit of the privilege against self incrimination and consequently, Bouknight may successfully invoke it and prevent her from being compelled to produce or furnish the whereabouts of her son lest be incarcerated for contempt.
The Supreme Court allowed the stay of the decision of the appellate court for overturning the ruling of the juvenile court and in finding that the compulsion for Bouknight to produce her son squarely fell within the privilege and therefore ordered her release (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). The appellate court found that the act of production is testimonial and therefore its compulsion, is a violation of the privilege. Furthermore, the interest of the government in the safety of the son cannot outweigh the observance and respect for the privilege against self incrimination as provided in the Bill of Rights (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). In other words, the three requisites concurred, i.e. the act of production or of furnishing information as to the whereabouts of her son are incriminating and testimonial in character; and, there was also compulsion because if she failed to disclose information sought she would be incarcerated for contempt as what had happened.
The Supreme Court through Chief Justice Rehnquist predicated his discussion on three major points, namely: a) The Court of Appeals passed upon a controversy concerning the federal Constitution which logically can be properly resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319); b) The act of production does not fall within the ambit of the privilege citing the cases of U.S. v. Doe, Fisher v. U.S. and Schmerber v. California. In these cases, the court ruled that the act of production of the documents is not ‘testimonial’ and therefore does not infringe upon the privilege considering that their existence and location are already known to the Government. In fact, responding to a subpoena have been considered legal and acceptable even if compulsion is present [Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)]. Moreover, when an accused is required to furnish his handwriting sample, this had been held not to violate the privilege because it is not ‘testimonial’ but merely evidentiary United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). The third point c) is by using the balancing of interests test or balancing the public need vis-à-vis ensuring the individual’s constitutional civil liberties, public need prevailed considering that the disclosure of information was non-criminal and not directed at a particular group as was held in the case of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) where the validity of a law requiring disclosure of the name and address at the scene of a vehicular accident. Similarly in the case of New York v. Quarles where the Fifth Amendment rights have to give way to a public safety exception and therefore in the case of Bouknight, “the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment was justified because its interest was in protecting children like Maurice, not in prosecuting” (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992).
In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. Albeit the civil liberties accorded under the Bill of Rights safeguards undue government intervention and restraint to its power, there are instances when these rights would have to give way to compelling interests of the society that would warrant Government intervention and intrusion such in the case of protecting and ensuring the safety of infants or children from physical abuse. Once it has been established that a child is abused, it becomes the duty of the State to take over and protect.
The judicial pronouncement in the case of Bouknight has a pervading and far reaching implication on social work practice. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Admittedly, there is an apparent lack of strict protocols in the present system of child welfare agencies (Parks, 2005). A set of guidelines must be crafted to govern exigencies of missing children from foster care like supervised visits and court orders in cases of abduction like what have occurred in Maryland with “Ariel” who had been abducted by his mother Teresa B (Parks, 2005). Guidelines should also be drawn to address the coordinated efforts both with the law enforcement and child welfare personnel.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,
17 Cal.3d 425
A graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar went to the University of California Berkeley to study naval architecture. It was there that he met Tatiana Tarasoff. A few kisses made him believe that they have a special relationship until Tarasoff bragged about her many relationships with other men. Poddar suffered depression until he sought professional help from Dr. Moore, a psychologist of the University Health Service. He confided to the doctor that he intended to secure a gun and to kill Tarasoff. On the strength of a letter request of Dr. Moore, Poddar was taken by the campus police, however upon assurance that Poddar was reasonable he was released. Upon the return of the University Health psychiatrist from his vacation, he ordered the destruction of Dr. Moore’s letter and did not recommend any further action on Poddar’s case.
When Tarasoff returned from her vacation, she was stabbed and killed by Poddar who at that time moved in with her brother already. The parents of Tarasoff sued the Regents of the University, its health personnel namely, Gold, Moore, Powelson, Yandell and the campus police namely, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel for “failing to warn their daughter of an impending danger” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425). At the lower court, the complaint was dismissed because there was no cause of action. According to the lower court, the defendants only had the duty to the patient and not to a third party.
The dismissal was appealed to the Appeals Court but which only sustained the dismissal. Thus, it was elevated to the Supreme Court of California. The appealed decision in so far as the university police officers, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel finding them not liable to the plaintiffs was affirmed. However, in so far as the therapists and the Regents of the university, the appealed decision was overturned for reception of evidence in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
In fine, the complainants averred four (4) causes of action, namely: a) “Failure to detain a dangerous patient; b) failure to warn on a dangerous patient; c) abandonment of a dangerous patient; and, d) breach of primary duty to patient and the public” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants cannot be held liable because of a specific provision of the Government Code or Section 856 thereof which grants immunity to public employees from any resultant damage or injury from deciding whether or not to confine a person with mental ailment. This provision is also applicable to the therapists because the law also refers to those who are capable of recommending confinement. As regards the third cause of action, the government immunity includes the “award of exemplary damages resulting from a wrongful death” and therefore, defendants cannot be held liable (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the second cause of action, the Supreme Court found defendants therapists and Regents of the University to have failed to comply with their duty to warn Tarasoff of the peril to her life. Albeit, the therapists had no direct relations with Tarasoff, they could have reasonably foreseen the danger and threat to her life as confided by their patient, Poddar. This is the point where the law establishes the duty of care on their part to warn Tarasoff. Their failure to warn her may reasonably concluded as a proximate cause of her death. The duty of confidentiality between patient and psychotherapist and the right to privacy of the patient cannot prevail over public interest or public safety. Moreover, there are clear provisions of laws, i.e. Section 1024 of the Evidence Code and Section 9 of the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association which allows the physician to divulge matters confided to him in confidence when it is necessary for public welfare (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Confidentiality
The effective therapeutic relationship between physician/psychiatrist and patient rests largely on trust that matters confided by the patient during the treatment are kept in strictest confidence by the physician/psychiatrist. It is the ethical duty of the physician to observe privacy and confidentiality of his patients (Corbin, 2007). While it is also of public interest to ensure that treatment of those who are mentally ill by maintaining an atmosphere whereby they can have an open dialogue with their therapist and of safeguarding its confidential character; the same public interest calls for an imperative recognition of instances whereby disclosure of the confidential communications be revealed and be made to safeguard public safety and avert the threatened peril. In the instances, where the public safety is at risk, the therapist must disclose confidential information discreetly with due regard to protecting the privacy of his patient (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
The parameters of confidentiality are defined by law and by the ethical code of conduct for practitioners in the territorial jurisdiction. In the case of Tarasoff, the Evidence Code and the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided specific and limited exceptions under which the confidentiality privilege can be breached, i.e. “if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger; unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
It would be wise for the practitioners to familiarize themselves of the limits of confidentiality as provided under the laws considering that it may differ from state to state. The Tarasoff case provided a basis to guide a practitioner in his professional dealings relative to the duty to warn others in cases of a specific threat of harm by his patient against others/another. Subsequent cases followed the consistent pattern of the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of David v. Lhim (1983), the plaintiff-administrator of the estate sued the psychiatrist who treated the son who killed his mother after he was released from the hospital. There was failure on the part of the psychiatrist who treated the son to warn the mother of the potential danger after her son confided his intentions of killing her (Corbin, 2007). In another case, Chrite v. U.S. (2003), the Veterans Administration was held liable for having failed to warn the intended victim of a patient of a threatened harm. Subsequent rulings of the court clarified and defined what constituted ‘threat’ as “imminent threat of serious danger to a readily identifiable victim” and “specific” (Corbin, 2007).
When there are no specific provisions of the law, Dickson (1998) proposes that the therapist/practitioner may be protected against lawsuits if he would consult and keenly document the case of the patient or comply with the “mandated reporting guidelines” required by some states. Reamer (2003) on the other hand, suggests that the therapist must have evidence that the patient is a threat to the safety of another; evidence of that the threat can be foreseen; threat is imminent and that the potential victim is identifiable.
Legal and Ethical Implications and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The duty of reasonable care to assist others in danger is a legal duty as well as a moral duty. However, American negligence law only recognizes it as a moral duty except when there exists a relationship between parties. In the case of Tarasoff, no special relationship existed between the therapist and Tarasoff; however the court has made an exception to this general rule (Bickel, 2001). It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. This also includes the duty to control the conduct of his patient, Poddar. In the same breath, a doctor has the duty to warn his patient if he has a contagious disease (Saltzman and Furman, 1999).
There is an affirmative duty for the therapist to advise and warn Tarasoff of the threat to her life although this meant breach of confidentiality with his patient Poddar. This finds basis both legally and ethically considering that the law and the code of ethics for doctors have recognized and provided specifically that doctors are bound to disclose relevant facts to others even if this violates confidentiality with their patients provided they are required by law or if it is required for public safety (Saltzman and Furman, 1999). This legal duty to warn applies when the threat is specific and imminent and where the victim is “readily identifiable” (Bickel, 2001). The courts also have recognized the difficulty in assessing and predicting circumstances that may lead to harm or violence and consequently, adhered to the ‘professional judgment rule’ whereby the therapist is not held liable for errors of judgments. Liability attaches only upon showing that the conduct of the therapist was not in accordance with the “accepted professional standards” (Bickel, 2001).
There is an ambivalence that was created by the Tarasoff protective disclosure ruling with the practitioners (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). Analogous cases and protective disclosure statutes in the different states were analyzed and it was discovered that there are no clear defined parameters of these duties. The therapist is required to a certain way betray his patient by disclosing matters which are protected by confidentiality. Considering the uncertainty brought about by the legal doctrine and court decisions, the undesirable consequence of which was deterrence for therapists to accept “treatment potentially violent patients” (Merton, 1982). Moreover, therapists are more inclined to have their patients committed in an institution so that threats to the safety of potential victims can be averted.
The Tarasoff protective disclosure was even extended recently to include even “communications made from a patient’s family member” as pronounced by the Court in the case of Ewing v. Goldstein (May and Ohlschlager, 2008). The dubious jurisprudential precedents by the courts in interpreting the protective disclosure statutes or its resort to common law instead of interpreting the statute left a vacuum in the definition of the duty to protect (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). As a result, “clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes” (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004).
References
Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (1992). In our defense: the bill of rights in action. First Avon
Books edition.
Ashby, J. (February 2006). Note declining to state a name in consideration of the fifth amendment’s self-incrimination clause and law enforcement databases after Hiibel. Michigan Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 104:779.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
Bickel, R. Revisiting Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California: the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to control dangerous students. Presented before the 22nd Annual Law and higher Education conference in Clearwater, Florida on 18-20 February 2001.
California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971).
Corbin, J. (Fall 2007). Confidentiality and the duty to warn: Ethical and legal implications for the therapeutic relationship. The New Social Worker, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. New York: The Free Press
Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988).
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
Kachigian, C. and Felthous, A. (September 2004). Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. Journal
of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, Vol. 23:263-273.
Levy, L. (1968). Origins of the fifth amendment: The right against self-incrimination.
May, S. and Ohlschlager, J. (2008). California alert! Tarasoff ruling expanded for clients who ‘go off.’ ECounseling. American Association of Christian Counselors.
Merton, V. (1982). Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 31:265.
New York v. Quarles, 476 U.S. 649 (1984).
Parks, A. (2008). Unless the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, MD children may not be. Daily Record The Baltimore.
Reamer, F. (2003). Social work malpractice and liability. New York: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed.
Saltzman, A. and Furman, D. (1999). Law in social work practice. Brooks Cole, 2nd edition.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Schwartz, B (December 1971). The bill of rights: A documentary history. Chelsea House Publishers with McGraw-Hill Education.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).
U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
E.Writers
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/social-work-and-the-law-756045.html
Corrupt Politican Spends $20,000 on Sushi
Read Ana’s Blog: http://tinyurl.com/24alcye
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks
TYT Network (new WTF?! channel): http://www.youtube.com/user/whattheflickshow
TYT on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4304483100
Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews
Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com
Duration : 0:4:58
Alex Jones: Epic Corruption and the Whistle-blower
Alex talks about the incredible story of Richard Fine, an attorney being held as a political prisoners in L.A. County Jail for over a year!!
[[ Epic Corruption and the Whistle-blower ]]
Cassandra Anderson
http://www.Infowars.com
April 14, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court will be holding a private conference hearing on Friday, April 23rd 2010, to determine whether to hold a full court hearing on corruption charges within the Los Angeles County government for illegally imprisoning attorney Richard Fine. A rally to acknowledge the U.S. Supreme Court hearing will be held at the L.A. Superior Court building at 8 am Tuesday April 20th, by supporters of Richard Fines release from illegal imprisonment. Mainstream media has avoided any mention of this epic corruption scandal, despite its significance, and now it is on its way to the the Supreme Court.
Richard Fine, who holds a PhD in international law and served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., has been in jail in the L.A. County Jail for over a year in solitary confinement. He never had a trial, there has been no conviction, nor any sentence to keep him there. Sheriff LeRoy Baca claims he does not know why Fine is in jail, yet he keeps him there and failed to answer Fines Writ of Habeas Corpus. Baca refused to allow a filmed interview with Fine until Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of Full Disclosure Network, and then, out of the blue, he changed his mind and granted a filmed interview with them!
Fine believes he is imprisoned because of political reasons:
1. Fine exposed L.A. Superior Court judges of taking illegal money from the County, in violation of the California State Constitution.
2. The County Supervisors were using public tax money to pay off the Superior Court judges.
3. The Superior Court Judges decided cases in favor of the County (Fine reports that since 2005 to present, only 3 people have won cases against the County as a result of the bribes).
4. The California State Legislature have given the judges and County Supervisors immunity from prosecution for their actions and misappropriation of taxpayer money.
5. The judges have tried to get Mr. Fine disbarred from the California State Bar as a result of the lawsuit he filed on behalf of the taxpayers who were denied due process.
6. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe (accused judge) failed to recuse himself and sent Fine to prison. He also failed to cite any precedent (denying Fine due process).
7. L.A. County Sheriff LeRoy Baca illegally imprisoned Fine, and Fine is in jail today.
8. Fine should have been released within 5 days, according to the law.
Sheriff LeRoy Baca was subject to term limits, but prior to his last election, he filed a lawsuit to get out from under term limits. The Superior Court judge ruled in his favor (surprise!). Term limits are a prevention against corruption. The lawsuit was approved by the County Supervisors who paid for it with the taxpayers money; the taxpayers had previously voted in term limits, but it was overturned for Sheriff Baca. Sheriff LeRoy Baca is up for re-election June 8, 2010. No one is running against him. He makes $268,000 a year in this position.
In this interview, Fine tells us that the special interests behind the County Supervisors are the real estate developers, who gave money to Supervisor Antonovich and Supervisor Knabe, who were then disallowed from voting on a related Environmental Impact Report that Fine submitted in a real estate development case. They voted illegally in favor of the developers.
This is how our government is usurped by criminals and corruption within the system.
http://www.infowars.com/epic-corruption-and-the-whistle-blower/
Duration : 0:9:41
Alex Jones Websites Under Massive And Sustained Attack!!
Alex Jones Websites Under Massive And Sustained Attack
http://www.infowars.com/
Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Alex Jones websites were assaulted by a massive, organized and sustained attack today which is still ongoing as zombie computers around the world were used to launch a denial of service attack which is undoubtedly related to our ongoing efforts to expose the governments Cybersecurity agenda as the gargantuan threat to Internet freedom it represents.
It appears to be a Distributed Denial of Service attack, utilizing zombied (or hacked) computers all over the world to overwhelm our servers, disabling them from serving normal traffic, states our Infowars systems administrator.
As Wikipedia explains, a DoS attack consists of Saturating the target (victim) machine with external communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer(s) to reset, or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.
This is precisely what happened to Prison Planet.tv and Infowars.net today, while flagship websites Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com have also come under attack but are still holding up at time of press.
The last such attack occurred around the time that we were exposing the swine flu scandal last year, but todays attack even dwarfs that in terms of scope and sustained assault.
The most likely source for the attack is obviously the inner sanctum of the military-industrial complex that we have been exposing for months as they rush through their Cybersecurity initiative which represents a massive threat to Internet freedom.
Over the last few years, the Pentagon has developed an offensive cyber capability against adversaries, including DoS attacks. In the Pentagons Information Operation Roadmap document, it is stated that the military must fight the Net. The Pentagon believes the internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy weapons system.
We are now witnessing intensified efforts to attack and remove from the world wide web sites like Cryptome.org and others which pose a fundamental threat to the anti-free speech agenda of the elite.
It is at times like these that we really need your support to bolster our servers in order to fend off these kind of attacks, either by getting the DVDs or becoming a Prison Planet.tv member.
As is our habitual response, every time we are attacked we only grow stronger by beefing our servers and launching another website which is exactly what will happen tomorrow with the birth of the Real Coffee Party initiative.
The enemies of freedom will be defeated in their continual attempt to silence free speech and their attacks will only make us close ranks and become stronger in the fight against the new world order.
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-websites-under-massive-and-sustained-attack/
Duration : 0:10:30
NYPD Officer Exposes Corruption – Cops Ordered to Make Arrests to Meet Quota
As if we didn’t know this already. At least this cop has the balls to admit it and feel ashamed.
Duration : 0:4:38
Is the new world order taken place, Is America the city Babylon?
In biblical prophecies it talk about the city of Babylon. Babylon is America, we are headed for a major down fall. Look around you and see how the government is taking control. Do you feel you have any rights now? Do you rely on our president so much? Wake up people this New World Order is in effect ! Please be free to tell me what you think or how you feel!
yes for example new york the statue of liberty a lady with a book with fire on a beast with ten horns and seven heads (or the other way) and she saw fire from the sky the towers of babylon fell and so on and so on and then babylon has fallen then end of u.s and rise the kingdom of Ashur aka Assyrians.
Law and Order Ringtones | Law and Order Theme Ringtone ~ Law and Order Ringtones
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Law and Order Ringtones
Law and Order is one of the hottest television shows in the world right now and Law and Order Ringtones are some of the most popular ringtones in America. Law and Order is number of related American television programs created by Dick Wolf and originally broadcast on NBC, all of which deal with some aspect of the New York City criminal justice system. The music, style and credits of the shows tend to be similar. The original Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and Law & Order: Criminal Intent arguably contain the most visual similarities within the franchise. Past episodes are in syndication with TNT, USA Network, and Bravo! showing episodes sometimes up to six times a day.
Click Here to Download the Law and Order Theme Ringtone
If you are looking for a new ringtone for your phone, the Law and Order Theme Ringtone is an awesome choice. Law and Order Ringtones have become some of the hottest ringtones in the world because of the popularity of the TV show. To download any ringtones from Law and Order, including the Law and Order Theme Ringtone, click on the link below and sign up. You will instantly be able to download Law and Order Ringtones directly to your phone. Don’t wait – click on the link below and sign up now to download Law and Order Ringtones:
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Law and Order Ringtones
Jim McEwan
http://www.articlesbase.com/music-articles/law-and-order-ringtones-law-and-order-theme-ringtone-law-and-order-ringtones-671077.html
9/11 Trials, Americanada, The death of printaganda – New World Next Week
Corbett Report & Media Monarchy are proud to present the latest episode of the New World Next Week – the weekly video series that uncovers the subtext & gives you the context on some of the most important developments in alternative news & open source intelligence. This week’s episode further explores the tortured patsies of 9/11 & their coming show trials + the deepening integration of the US/Canada militaries & some great news on the death of printaganda.
Story#1: Pentagon Drops Military Charges Against 9/11 Plotters
http://ur1.ca/obp9
Flashback: The Real Reason Only 5 Detainees Coming to NYC?
http://ur1.ca/obpb
Flashback: Newly Released DOJ Memos Support Account of Torture of KSMs Children using Insects
http://ur1.ca/obpc
Story#2: US & Canada to Extend Security Measures Past Olympics
http://ur1.ca/obpd
The War on Terrorism & the Countdown to the 2010 Olympics
http://ur1.ca/obpe
Flashback: US/Canada Border Security & Military Integration
http://ur1.ca/obpf
Story#3: Internet Overtakes Print in US News Consumption
http://ur1.ca/obpg
Pew Research: Understanding the Participatory News Consumer
http://ur1.ca/obpi
Flashback: Anarchy, a Threat on the Electronic Frontier?
http://ur1.ca/obrf
As mentioned at the end of this episode, Media Monarchy & Corbett Report are now accepting $10 donations for the new DVD from Divergent Films & PeaceRevolution.org: ’20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline’. http://ur1.ca/obpx Your donation gets you this new whistleblower documentary with numerous extras + you’ll help support the alternative media that brings you news the corporate-controlled media won’t touch. And as always, you’ll stay up-to-date if you subscribe to the feeds from Corbett Report here http://ur1.ca/kbj1 & Media Monarchy here http://ur1.ca/kuec Thank You.
Duration : 0:10:57
Law and Order Ringtones | Law and Order Theme Ringtone ~ Law and Order Ringtones
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Law and Order Ringtones
Law and Order is one of the hottest television shows in the world right now and Law and Order Ringtones are some of the most popular ringtones in America. Law and Order is number of related American television programs created by Dick Wolf and originally broadcast on NBC, all of which deal with some aspect of the New York City criminal justice system. The music, style and credits of the shows tend to be similar. The original Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and Law & Order: Criminal Intent arguably contain the most visual similarities within the franchise. Past episodes are in syndication with TNT, USA Network, and Bravo! showing episodes sometimes up to six times a day.
Click Here to Download the Law and Order Theme Ringtone
If you are looking for a new ringtone for your phone, the Law and Order Theme Ringtone is an awesome choice. Law and Order Ringtones have become some of the hottest ringtones in the world because of the popularity of the TV show. To download any ringtones from Law and Order, including the Law and Order Theme Ringtone, click on the link below and sign up. You will instantly be able to download Law and Order Ringtones directly to your phone. Don’t wait – click on the link below and sign up now to download Law and Order Ringtones:
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Law and Order Ringtones
Jim McEwan
http://www.articlesbase.com/music-articles/law-and-order-ringtones-law-and-order-theme-ringtone-law-and-order-ringtones-671077.html
The 10 Most Popular Movies of All Time – A Cheat Sheet
Are you a movie dunce? Do you not know your Corleone from your Kurosawa? Would you recognise a lightsaber if it hit you in the face? Well, don’t panic. To help you catch up on your movie knowledge here’s a crash course in the top 10 movies of all time, as voted by the readers of the Internet Movie Database. Careful, though… here be spoilers.
10. Star Wars IV: A New Hope
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away . . .
Luke Skywalker, farmhand and son of Darth Vader, is torn from his home when his aunt and uncle are murdered by Imperial Storm Troopers searching for the stolen plans to the Death Star, a space station with weaponry capable of destroying planets. Luke escapes with his two droids, Jedi Knight Obi Wan Kenobi, smuggler Han Solo and first mate Chewbacca.
After escaping Tatooine, the ragtag crew stumble upon the Death Star shortly after it has destroyed the planet Alderaan. Caught by its tractor beam, their ship is dragged in. While attempting to escape the Death Star the team rescue Princess Leia, held prisoner in the ships bowels. During the rescue Obi Wan sacrifices himself to allow the others to escape.
In a grand finale, Luke destroys the Death Star by firing a missile into a weak spot in the structure of the ship and Darth Vader, is cannoned off into the depths of space.
Quote: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Trivia: Al Pacino, Burt Reynolds and James Caan reportedly turned down the role of Han Solo.
9. Pulp Fiction
A movie whose various plotlines are far too intertwined to summarise in a paragraph or two, Pulp Fiction simply tells the story of a day in the life of a group of unusual people—two hitmen, the wife of a gangster, and a boxer who killed in the ring among others.
Edited to tie each story together, the movie often plays out of sequence—to the point where the final scene and the opening scene take place at the same time. Full of pop culture references and quotable lines, Pulp Fiction stays true to form as a Tarantino movie.
Quote: Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.
Trivia: Vincent Vega (John Travolta) is the brother of Vic Vega, also known as Mr Blonde, in Reservoir Dogs.
8. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Set during the US Civil War, the movie follows the three protagonists Blondie (The Good), Snake Eyes (The Bad) and Tuco (The Ugly) in their search for a hoard of gold stolen by bank robber Bill Carson. All three want 50% of the gold—resulting in a good old-fashioned standoff. Snake Eyes is shot dead, and the honorable Blondie allows Tuco his share of the booty.
Quote: You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.
Trivia: Clint Eastwood wore the same poncho for all three ‘Man With No Name’ movies—without washing it once.
7. Schindler’s List
Schindler’s List tells the true story of Oscar Schindler, a Nazi industrialist who becomes so moved by the plight of the Jewish people during World War II that he devotes himself to saving as many as he can. Even after rescuing over 1,100 Jews from the gas chamber, Schindler bemoans the fact that he could have saved more had he sacrificed everything he had.
Quote: I could have got more out. I could have got more. I don’t know. If I’d just… I could have got more.
Trivia: Steven Spielberg refused to take any pay for the film, claiming that it would feel like he was taking ‘blood money’.
6. The Seven Samurai
Regarded as Akira Kurosawa’s greatest film, the Seven Samurai tells the story of a terrorised village in war-torn 16th Century Japan. Constantly attacked by gangs of bandits, the residents enlist the services of seven ronin, or samurai without masters, to protect them.
Despite initial tensions between the villagers and the samurai, they together successfully defend the village against the bandits. However, their success comes at the cost of the lives of four samurai.
Quote: What’s the use of worrying about your beard when your head’s about to be taken?
Trivia: The three samurai whose characters survived the film were the first three to die in real life.
5. Casablanca
Hiding out in Casablanca, Morocco during World War II, exiled American and former freedom fighter Rick Blaine passes the time running a popular nightspot. Blaine’s tedium is interrupted when Czech Resistance leader Victor Laszlo arrives with his beautiful wife Ilsa—Blaine’s ex-lover.
Blaine holds the key to Laszlo’s safe passage out of the country, and Ilsa offers herself to him in exchange for her husband’s safety. Blaine faces the choice of sacrificing Laszlo to win back Ilsa, but in the end decides to do the honorable thing…
Quote: If that plane leaves the ground and you’re not with him, you’ll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.
Trivia: The line ‘Here’s lookin’ at you, kid’ was voted the 5th most well known movie line in history by the American Film Institute.
4. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
The third and final instalment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Return of the King offers an epic finale to Frodo’s quest (thousands of extras took part in the filming to add to the drama). Finally arriving at Mt. Doom, Frodo is overcome by exhaustion and the stress of bearing the Ring. Helped by Sam, Frodo manages to make his way into the volcano.
At the last moment he finds himself unable to throw the Ring into the magma, choosing instead to wear it. Gollum, surviving Frodo’s earlier attempt on his life, attacks Frodo and bites off his finger, removing the ring. Losing his grip, Gollum falls into the pit along with the Ring, breaking its hold over Frodo and killing Sauron.
With Sauron’s death his army is destroyed, just in time to save the army of Men, poised to fight to the death at the gates of Mordor.
Quote: Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can’t carry it for you… but I can carry you.
Trivia: The Return of the King used over seven times the number of special effects shots used in an average movie.
3. The Godfather: Part II
Split between two timelines, the second instalment of The Godfather trilogy follows Don Vito Corleone through his adolescence in Sicily and New York during the early 20th Century, and later his rise to power as a Mafia Don. It also returns to a point a few years after the conclusion of the first movie, with Michael Corleone running the family interests following his father’s death.
After learning that his brother Fredo has betrayed the family, Michael must order his execution.
Quote: I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!
Trivia: Robert de Niro won an Oscar for his portrayal of a young Vito Corleone. De Niro and Marlon Brando are the only actors to win Oscars for the portrayal of the same character.
2. The Shawshank Redemption
Based on a novella by Steven King, The Shawshank Redemption tells the story of Andy Dufresne, a successful banker wrongly convicted for the murder of his wife and her lover. Given two life sentences, Dufresne is sent to the maximum security Shawshank Prison where he befriends Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding, a lifer who helps him adjust to prison life.
Over the next twenty years their friendship grows while Andy has a positive effect on the inmates, helping to establish a prison library and education system. Unfortunately, the mean-spirited and criminal warden beats down Andy’s spirit until he finally escapes through a tunnel that took him two decades to dig.
In a final act of revenge Andy exposes the warden’s crimes, driving him to suicide to avoid being sent to prison. Red is later released on parole, and tracks down Andy to a beach in Mexico.
Quote: Get busy living, or get busy dying.
Trivia: The mugshots of Morgan Freeman as a young man are actually pictures of his real life son, Alfonso.
1. The Godfather
Adapted from Mario Puzo’s seminal Mafia novel, the first instalment of The Godfather trilogy sees Don Vito Corleone, head of the Corleone crime family, struggle with the realities of a changing world. When he refuses to work with drug dealer Virgil Sollozzo in a scheme to push heroin in New York, he falls foul of Sollozzo’s backers the Tattaglia family.
When Vito is wounded in an attempted assassination his son Michael—previously determined to have nothing to do with the family business—volunteers to kill Sollozzo. Following the execution Michael is sent to Sicily to hide out until it is safe to return. After Michael’s brother Sonny is executed by the rival Barzini family, Michael safely returns and takes his place as the head of the family in time to see Vito Corleone die of a heart attack. In revenge for the attacks on his family Michael arranges for the murder of the heads of the other families, to take place during the baptism ceremony of his nephew.
Following the baptism Michael orders the execution of the father of the baptised child—and his own brother in-law—Carlo Rizzi, in retribution for Carlo’s role in setting up Sonny’s death. The movie ends with the widow, Michael’s sister Connie, suspecting that Michael was involved in Carlo’s death.
Quote: I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse.
Trivia: Sofia Coppola, the director’s daughter, played the baby baptised at the end of the movie. She returned to play the role of Michael’s daughter Mary in The Godfather: Part III).
So there you have it. If you’ve been paying attention you should now have just enough knowledge of the top ten movies of all time to bluff your way through a conversation with a movie buff. These bare bones won’t take you far, though, so I suggest you set aside some time, get a big bucket of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the best of Hollywood. You won’t be disappointed.
James Shenton
http://www.articlesbase.com/art-and-entertainment-articles/the-10-most-popular-movies-of-all-time-a-cheat-sheet-55149.html